User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive13

Bogus edit to "Labor Day" by Goingairborn
I notice you have a vandalism warning on the user talk page for Goingairborn. I just reverted what appears to be a bogus edit to the article on Labor Day by that user; the bogus revision is that of 2008-09-01T14:07:50. I don't know whether this qualifies as vandalism or not; it seems probable in my opinion. Anyway, you might consider investigating. --Drake Wilson (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging Goal-Directed Therapy (GDT)
Any reason why this should be merged to intensive care medicine? Seems worthy of a page of its own... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Airchive.com deletions
Jamie, I have run this huge hobby site for years called Airchive.com. It is the definitive webseum of commercial aviation. It is non-profit and is a tremendous resource for people interested in the field, and in particular these articles. There are other sites just like mine on the pages you just deleted but you decided to take me out. Please tell me why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmsloan (talk • contribs) 20:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

LoseTheGame.com
Hi Jamie. I've been looking through Wikipedia policy again and I honestly cannot find any policy that means that LoseTheGame.com should not be mentioned on The Game (mind game) article in the same way that it is mentioned on the Jonty Haywood article. I see that others have tried to add it since I first brought it up but again it's been removed. I understand that the link is blacklisted and a hyperlink should not currently be added. However, the website is mentioned in all the Canadian Press sources as well as a Worthington Daily Globe article I have since discovered. It is clearly referred to as "the largest website on the topic" in the Canadian Press articles. As far as I'm concerned this means it should be an external link, but until the blacklisting is resolved it should at least be mentioned in the Internet Culture section. As you have told me "You can wikilawyer all you want, but if you add the link again you will be blocked" (which to me translates as "Wikipedia policy is irrelevant, add it again and you'll be banned") then the only option you have left me is to contact the ArbCom about this matter, unless, of course, you can refer me to policy supporting your opinion, which as yet you have not done. Thanks. Rabidfoxes (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I just noticed that you removed information about LoseTheGame.com from the article saying "Haywood's claims have not been substantiated". However, those figures were written in all the Canadian Press articles, which are reliable secondary sources. What more substantiation does policy require? Rabidfoxes (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That article simply reported what you said, which is hearsay. I thought you recently said you were done with Wikipedia, Jonty? OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I (my name is Mohammed if you must know) said that I wouldn't be contributing to any more articles. Which I am not going to. The only thing I wish to contribute is that information which I believe your are removing due to a personal involvement rather than following policy. I cannot contribute this though because you will block me. Let me make one thing clear. I am completely open to the possibility that there is some policy saying that this information should not be there, and that I just haven't come across it yet. However, you keep replying without referring me to any. As an administrator I am assuming you know if there is or isn't. Please, show me the policy. You can hardly be surprised that I think none exists given your repeated avoidance of referring me to any. Rabidfoxes (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I'm not going to play wiki-lawyer games. You aren't the first user to claim "but there isn't a specific policy for this!" It's not an argument that will get you far. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that there is no policy saying that I shouldn't add the information, but if I do add it then you will block me? Rabidfoxes (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jamie. Just in case you forgot, I am awaiting your reply here and on Talk:Jonty Haywood. Thanks. Rabidfoxes (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonty303's "blatant sockpuppetry"
Please could you explain to me once and for all why you are so adamant that I am a sockpuppet of Haywood and how, if you were in my position, you would go about disproving this false assertion. I created an article about somebody and was instantly accused of being that person. The only evidence that you gave for this accusation was that I knew Haywood's birthday, a fact that I have explained on my talk page. You then requested a checkuser which came back negative, and then proceeded to ignore the results because they didn't support your accusation. I have ensured that all my edits have been well sourced and any arguments I have made are backed up by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I have never engaged in vandalism, and when there have been disputes over article content, I have attempted to discuss them on talk pages rather than engaging in edit-warring. I am therefore still at a loss to understand why you have attacked me so heavily. By reiterating "I thought you were done with Wikipedia" you have made it clear that you don't want me around. I could understand how, if Haywood himself had a history of mass blatant sockpuppetry and had been trying to create articles about himself on a regular basis, I would come across as just another sockpuppet. So I googled for "sock puppet of Jonty303" and all that comes up is my own user page. This is why your comment that you blocked User:Jonty303 after getting "tired of all the blatant sockpuppetry" caught my interest. What am I missing here? Who are these "blatant sockpuppets" that I'm being accused of being just the next in a long line of? Rabidfoxes (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The checkuser didn't come back negative; the results indicated you were in the same area or on the same ISP, but on a different or dynamic IP. I still believe that you are either Haywood or a pal of Haywood's. I'm not obligated to discuss the details of previous blocks with you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your block of User:Ohweshould
Thanks for the laugh you provided with your header on this user's talk page. Also, thanks for blocking him. I edit a lot of fire service articles, and several of the pages he spammed were on my watchlist. You just happened to get there before me. Cheers, Daysleeper47 (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's hard to resist a little humor sometimes. He obviously knew exactly what he was doing despite his "I don't understand why I was blocked" pleas. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Beast (band) article deleted? Why? What's the deal?
I go out of my way to create an article (for the first time!) and you delete it as not having enough proven notoriety... despite the band being a) featured on a national and popular radio program (literally millions of listeners)--- and despite the main band member's mom being a 5-time grammey-nominated artist herself (something I learned from... Wikipedia!).

I'm just saying, it was flagged, I contested it, more than proved my side, added some more references just to be sure, and I check back an hour later and it's gone. What's the deal? Johnfromtheprarie (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You did not "more than prove your side." Getting mentioned on (local) public radio is not a WP:MUSIC criteria, nor is being the son of a notable person. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And I quote from the WP:MUSIC criteria, Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network. The NPR program in question is syndicated countrywide, from Chicago to Nebraska to Minnesota and I presume beyond (I know this because I've listened to it in all those places).

Also A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7, requiring a full proposed deletion or Article for Deletion process to determine if the article should be included in Wikipedia.

Not being notable (to you) is not enough for speedy deletion. I'm no wikipedia expert or admin or anything, but I know that much. Johnfromtheprarie (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to recreate it. I'll immediately send it to WP:AFD, where it will likely be deleted. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

whats up doc?
come on Jamie just let it be :)
 * i read the WP:EL and its obvious the affirmative reason why the link should be included that is consistent with the policy.
 * also this source is one that people know and trust. it is a good glossary and i give you permission to edit it as well. how bout it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dargente (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to support your advert-laden glossary. Add it again and you'll be blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well Jamie. When you wonder 'WHY?' just remember this is the reason. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dargente (talk • contribs) 01:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AWESOME. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Imposters
Hi, I noticed that you've got a disclaimer on your talk page about possible impostors - also noticed through the SUL util that several people have actually impersonated you. I'd just like to recommend that you unify your accounts to prevent further impostors from using your name (doing so prevents users from registering your name in other Wikimedia projects). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sophia Jansson-Zambra
Hi. I saw you declined my 'non-notable' speedy on Sophia Jansson-Zambra, saying it was not speedyable. Fine with me, but I don't understand why. As I wrote on the Talkpage, she's just another office manager. What am I missing? Thanks,   SIS   21:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a little skeptical as to whether she meets WP:BIO criteria, but there were enough claims of notability with sources that I thought a prod or afd would be more appropriate. Admittedly, a borderline case. I wouldn't object if you reposted the speedy tag, which would enable you to get a second opinion as to whether it's speedyable. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. From what I can tell the sources refer to her father's work, not hers. I've restored the tag, as you suggested. Happy editing,   SIS   21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Justin T. Wayne
I'm not sure why you felt the speedy deletion of Justin T. Wayne was necessary, This page should remain on Wikipedia because of the important positions held by Wayne and his current political affairs. He is no different from other Omaha Politicians who have Wikipedia pages such as Brenda Council or anyone else. I've equipped this page with the necessary references and have provided much information on the various positions on which he holds throughout the North Omaha Community that plays a huge impact on the everyday lives of many people throughout our city. He is running for position of the Learning Community, the first time this type of election has ever been held in the state of Nebraska considering its a new Council created in 2006, which is history.IceTreay (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As others have already explained to you, he clearly does not meet our notability standards per BIO. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks, much appreciated! OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Xidan source
hardly a neutral reliable source; that's a tourism puff piece. Glad to see someone trying, but it's not sufficient. ThuranX (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's probably as about as "reliable" as we're going to get when where talking about a business district. From reading a number of travel guides (which I realize aren't considered "reliable sources," I get the impression that Xidan is one of four major commercial districts in Beijing. I'm usually more of a delete !voter myself, but I felt this one deserved a chance. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As reliable as we're going to get and there in lies your problem. If you can't find sources to satisfy the notability requirements we don't give it a pass because we just can't find anything better. Maybe that won't change your !vote but I just thought you should consider that.--Crossmr (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Source
The government is not an independent source from its land. Notability requires that sources be independent of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's better than a travel site I suppose. I'm of the opinion that for a city as notable as Beijing, it's largest commercial districts should be notable enough for inclusion. However, given the fact that Beijing isn't a huge English-speaking tourist destination, I'm not surprised that it's difficult to find sources. Thanks for considering it, though. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not better than anything. Unacceptable to establish notability is unacceptable. A travel site is GOOD if the coverage is significant and from a reliable travel site. A simple tiny entry on this place exists and you can do a few things there is nothing. A full article written on the place or coverage on a travel show would be plenty fine.--Crossmr (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While I fully understand the necessity of reliable sources, I still ultimately believe that article should be kept for this reason; Beijing is one of the largest cities in the world, and Xidan is one of four large business districts in Beijing. If we can all agree that Xidan exists and that it is indeed one of the four largest (and the one with the largest outdoor plaza for cultural events), it seems kind of silly to delete it. (Yes, basically a case of WP:IAR).  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kernow
This user says she was blocked as a sockpuppet of a disused former account... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind; I see those aren't her only two accounts now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanked advert
Just letting you know that I reverted your page blank of User:Cashback City and requested speedy deletion instead. Wronkiew (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice!
Ohhhh... now I understand. But that's my page. So they write there. But thanks, anyway!

--Blacky98 (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SOOO much!
Thanks a MILLION! I shall always keep that advice you wrote and I shall NOT and NEVER delete it. Thanks SOOO much!!!! THX THX THX!

Blacky98 (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!
Thanks SOOO much! But I want to put some pics on my page. How do I do that? Like you put that dog and the cat stating, 'Mmmmmm, dog breath' Please write back STEP BY STEP so I can understand. Thanks a million for your help!

♥♥Blacky98 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2008 (

Deleted External Link
Why was my addition of the link to The-Clitoris.com removed from the article about the clitoris? How can this website not be considered relivant, it has more accurate information about the anatomy of the clitoris than the vulvavelvet.org website, which by the way uses an image taken from The-Clitoris.com. If you go to the front page of the vulvavelvet.org website you will see it exists only to sell product, not educate people; click on their links if you don't believe me. They only uses material stolen from other websites. The-Clitoris.com website is ranked only second to Wikipedia in Google, for the keyword clitoris. If doctors ask me for advice how can I not be considered credible? The ed-sim.com information about the anatomy of clitoris mislables the "vulva" as the "vagina", along with other gross errors, but you consider if credible?

--75.166.138.98 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a commercial site. Please don't add it again. Feel free to remove the other aforementioned sites if you wish. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you expect websites that receive over 20,000 visitors a day to exist without generating some form of income? What percentage of people who visit your website actually donate? Doesn't the linked to BBC website sell advertising to generate income? Isn't the graphic website trying to generate business? Isn't the New Scientist website paid for through advertising? Don't medical websites create business for their doctors? My website is free to the public, and the "commercial" aspect is kept to a low profile. Does everyone who works for Wikipedia do so for free or are they making a generous income? I sure they all make much more money than I do, even with a "commercial website". It looks like Wikipedia has become too business oriented and hypocritical, and I will have to remove all my links to it, as I wont continue to support it. The internet was created based on mutual support, if Wikipedia feels they are above this, then they will, as a friend correctly predicted, go the way of the dinosaurs. You'll probably delete this, but I've had my say.

--75.166.138.98 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing all of your links. We appreciate it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User page
Hello Jamie, I noticed that a new editor had mistakenly placed a comment on your userpage, rather than talk page, and I removed it, but it was rather large, and not formatted, so I won't paste it here. Here is the diff that you can check to see if it is something you'd like to respond to. Cheers, Ariel  ♥  Gold  19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Footbo
Hi Jamie, I am writing you in response to the blacklisting of Footbo. This whole issue has left me very much confused. In my attempts to upload an article, I have come across users who have been helpful (and willing to engage) and I have also come across those who have their own agendas and just don't seem to be receptive to newcomers. I have to say, on each occasion that someone raised an issue with the article i wrote, i tried to address it, to fit in line with the standards of wikipedia (i will admit, i am not familiar with all of them). But what is really upsetting, is that after having been given the "all-clear" by an experienced wikipedia user, the profile i wrote was deleted by another one, and then proposed for blacklisting by someone who for some reason views Footbo as a competing site to his/her own. It wouldnt be so tragic if you paid attention to this. And i would appreciate some feedback. At the end of the day, i am trying to contribute something and would prefer a helping hand rather than a closed door. One further point, i didnt understand why Footbo being a social network counts against it having a profile, when wikipedia itself has a page listing social networks, and where in order to be on that list, a social network needs to have its own profile page. Thanks for your time. Inspiredminds (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm more inclined to help newcomers that don't have a single-purpse agenda. My opinion regarding footbo's lack of notability (and spam attempts from multiple single-purpose accounts) is unchanged. Take it to deletion review if you like. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The DFenders deletion
Hi, wondering why this page was deleted... As far as I can see, this topic satisfies several of the criteria under WP:MUSIC notability:


 * 1)  WP:MUSIC guideline - "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.  This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries."  The DFenders have been reported in several national New Zealand newspapers and magazines:  The New Zealand Herald, Otago Daily Times, D Scene, Girlfriend Magazine, Real Groove Magazine, Queenstown's Mountain Scene, Rip It Up Magazine.  Not press releases, not advertising, not written by the band - independent articles.
 * 2)  WP:MUSIC guideline - "Has won or been nominated for a major music award."  The DFenders have been nominated in the Vodafone New Zealand Music Awards in the People's Choice category.  Granted this isn't the Grammys, possibly you personally don't consider the VNZMAs a 'major' awards ceremony, but it is the biggest in New Zealand...  The national equivalent of the Grammys...  so unless you don't rate NZ important enough to warrant their own music awards ceremony, this should count.
 * 3)  WP:MUSIC guideline - "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network."  The DFenders are currently on rotation on KIWIFM, a national (note:  national, not local) New Zealand radio station, and (although this one isn't in the criteria, still seems fairly significant to me) also have a music video on current rotation on C4, the New Zealand equivalent of MTV (again, a nationally broadcast station).

Now, again, if NZ standards don't stack up in your opinion, you should make that clear. It seems to me that this article satisfies at least 3 of the criteria of notability... however, if NZ is not important enough for you in a global context to warrant fair consideration, then by all means, delete away... Dfenders (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Green and black?!
My page is all green and black! ALIEN! Oh yeah, I want to upload some pics. Can U help me? Thank you!

Blacky98 (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard Marsh (bishop)
Thanks for restoring this article. It was indeed a mistake, I accidentally moved the article twice (with deleting the destination twice), instead of once. I have no idea how this happened, but I should have checked it better. Fram (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV on Mortgage brokers
Are you a Mortgage broker? Are any of you family members mortgage brokers? Are you trying to be funny saying brokers weren't responsible for the crisis? It's DOCUMENTED.

Your point of view is biased. Everything thats wrong with wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's documented, then document it. See our policy on WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

& Then Boom
Hi ONIJ. I declined a speedy on this article, but then noticed that you had deleted an earlier version. Would you be willing to undelete one of those more detailed earlier versions? CSD A7 does not apply to albums, and this one has been reviewed in major media such as The Observer; see this link. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 12:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I believe I deleted it because I was under the impression that the artist was non-notable. Thanks for catching that. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for undeleting. You can't delete albums under CSD A7—they must go via prod or AfD—whether the artist is a red link or not. Unless you are wanting to speedy-delete under WP:IAR... :) Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:84.203.142.242
I'm a registered user on Wikipedia, User:Matoro3311, so please stop sending messages to the given talk page.

Matoro3311 | Talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.142.242 (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Link removed
Dear Ohnoitsjamie:

The guides for adding links reads I can add a link when:

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews

The link I add about www.gradiente.org is not commercial, it talks about history and competition about Hang Gliders, it has Weather information related for pilots, specially those who would like to read the SkewT charts, and it is free, notice the .org mark, according to the guide, the link is relevant, try reading what is in the gradiente.org and you will notice, specially if you are a Hang Glider pilot or any flying engine-free artifact.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepeleyva (talk • contribs)
 * The site is in Spanish; this is English wikipedia. If anywhere, it belongs on es.wikipedia.org, not here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Blog earning
Please note that this page, which you have deleted at least once, is back again. --otherlleft (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of MLM addition
Jamie,

You deleted a contribution about MLM marketing, and added on my talk page that I shouldn't add promotional material. I was convinced that the bit I chose was very objective. Presenting the pros and cons and warnings of starting an mlm business. What can I change on that? Thanks for the feedback.

Jacob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobwh (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need any links to your site, which is trying to sell something. Do not add the link again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you want to keep the sites clean from promotion. Are you saying that if we have advertisements on our site then our contribution is unacceptable? Don't worry.. I won't add the link again. I just want to make sure I understand the policy. I am not an MLMer, and am not recruiting anyone for a business op. I am trying to create a site that reviews all aspects of MLM and warns people of getting involved without knowing what it's all about. Anyways.. Sorry about the post.. although to keep my dignity I must say that I still feel that it was adding an objective value to the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobwh (talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Other relevant issue heres are conflict of interest and reliable sources. While some sites with ads are acceptable (i.e., major/notable news outlets, etc), adding links to self-published sites, especially your own site, is frowned upon. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I feel like I am getting the unfortunate side of a judgment call (FYI: I am writing back on principle not with intention to get my site, I can accept your judgment). In my personal opinion a good post should be judged by the value of it's content not by a judgment call on the intention of the site. The majority of sites that have greate information and unbiased comment are still posting ads on their site. Seriously though, did you read my post? I think I'd be much less likely to take offense to this type of infraction if my actual content was being criticized instead of thinking that I was being judged on and external site or the "credibility" of my site or some other such subjective judgment call about something other than the real question - Is the content a benefit to the readers of Wikipedia? Sorry to whine, but thanks for entertaining the exchange. I respect the fact that you likely deal with blatant spammer daily and you find their persisting efforts a detriment to what you are trying to accomplish here. Cheers...

Accused of Spamming
Jamie,

I have been adding links to certain wikipedia articles yet they are removed and I am accused of spamming and people have been muttering some sort of mumbo jumbo about search engines that I do not understand. The first time a link of mine was removed (hyena, which I still do not agree with because the other links are kinda ridiculous (somethin about feedin a hyena by doing mouth-to-mouth) and not very informative) I reviewed the external linking policy...and being that I cannot copy text from external sites directly, I have chosen to supplement the articles with links, also I am careful not to post ahead of links that are more relevant - also, in my last edit (under cats) I complied with the author's wishes and posted links in alphabetical order, I'm not sure what I am doing wrong here. Also, I am not affiliated with these websites (as people continue to assume) I am just passionate about animals. I am a stay-at-home mom with three cats and 4 dogs and am a foster pet care mom. Frankly, I'm offended at such accusations and threats - please explain a way I can continue to contribute and not get yelled at. Grace suriel (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you stop canvassing links to the same site (as you've been asked to several times), no one will "yell" at you. Also, please don't lie about your affiliation to Discovery. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine.
I understand. OK, I'll only talk on MY disscusion page. Tell me is THAT is a problem. Thanks.

):*( = guilty face with a tear

--Blacky98 (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to hurt your feelings; it's just that you've been asked numerous times (by numerous users) to stop using article talk pages inappropriately. You're welcome to do whatever you like with your user page providing that it's within WP:USERPAGE guidelines. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you just modify my last green tea link and threaten me with that obnoxious spam warning? I've been adding content to the wikipedia green tea page for years. The citation I moved is *ALREADY* on the green tea page and has also been for years (although many other commercial entities have now added theirs as well). The first reference to the history of tea in China on the page is where this citation should actually be and thats where I moved it to. I know Jimmy Wales from my foundation days and franklly the way this has been handled, eg. calling an already ok'd citation spam because its been applied appropriately and threatening me with banning is the type of bullying he has tried assiduously to avoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.34.178 (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not there anymore; I've removed it as well as other commercial links. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding(?) content to a page
Hi.

Thanks for the welcome to the site. However I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by "adding content" as I merely corrected a broken link on the Jane Fonda page as it wasn't formatted with the correct html-coding, and - based on the link working correctly - I removed the "dead link" text as it was obviously irrelevant by this point. I realise I probably took a few too many edits to adjust this, but hopefully this is cool as all is working correctly now. Let me know if there's anything else outstanding about this update, or if I've misunderstood anything else at all.

Thanks,

Isense82 (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, that was a mistake on my part. The user who edited immediately after you was the one who'd posted unsourced info. My apologies. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Baltabia.
I am curious about your warning to this user. The Centre Georges Pompidou is certainly a notable and important museum, and the links provided contain valuable information. I often bristle when I see a user adding the same link to multiple articles, the clear impression being that they are spamming. In this case, though, the addition is helpful and the actions of the user seem innocent. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I treat all single-purpose link canvassing accounts the same way, regardless of the quality of the link. If individual users add links to that museum, that's fine, but we don't tolerate link campaigns, regardless of quality. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The DFenders
Hi. You really ought not to modify the nomination text in the middle of the AFD discussion. It's better form to provide additional rationale as commentary in the subsequent discussion. Regads. -- Whpq (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sam Aleksanyan
May I ask why my page was deleted?

This article was a description of the guitarist and singer

I felt he should have had a page and made one.

I didnt finish it, yeah, but i was going to.

is there a specific reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenewmrbob44 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason was stated on your talk page; the subject is non-notable. Create the page again and you'll be blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but he is a member of a band that is very popular around here.

they have yet to be signed, but they will be, because there is two record companies that have offered them record deals.

put it back up, there is no reason it isnt notable.

it isnt finished, yes, but it is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenewmrbob44 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You apparently haven't read any of our policies on notability or reliable sources. I suggest you do before creating any more articles. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote Lifeboon article
Hi, I wrote an article about lifeboon.com. It is an arabic website that provides social networking service. You can see the website www.lifeboon.com and decide if my information is true.

Thank you in advance.

Wael Salloum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaelSalloum (talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that the information is true; I doubt that the website meets WP:WEB notability standards. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhinostampede
Rhinostampede on youtube is #4 subscribed all time in France for comedians. I think he should be notified.(Planecrash111 (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
 * That's not sufficient to establish notability. You need at least two non-trivial instances of media coverage from a reliable source. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Peak reserves
When you do the calculations from the Excel spreadsheet provided by BP, be sure to take into account that when it says the "proved reserves" at the end of year X are Y barrels greater than they were at the end of year X-1, and that Z barrels were produced in year X, that the actual new discoveries in year X were Y + Z, NOT JUST Y! I think most people take a look at the increase in the "reserves" number at the end of the year and compare that to production for that year, and when they see that production is more, they think that reserves have gone down, when in fact it means completely the opposite. If the increase in reserves is close to the volume of production, it means new discoveries was TWICE production! 165.123.122.69 (talk)

User_talk:208.125.115.197
ROFLMAO! You've made my day. Thanks -- Rodhull andemu  22:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Coolidge30
What did do to deserve this? I've looked at all of this user's edits and none of them seem to be in bad faith. I also saw Joseph Wurzelbacher before it was deleted. The content was neutral and verifiable. Why did you delete Joseph Wurzelbacher after I redirected it to United States presidential election debates, 2008 per Articles for deletion/Joe the Plumber? Please undelete it and redirect it to the debate article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't undelete it until a reliabe source for WP:BIO notability is produced. Being mentioned as a person who posed a question to a candidate is trivial coverage.  ("One-event" notability doesn't cut it either)OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing my second question. Now could you tell me what did to deserve this? Am I missing something? If not, then please strike out that bitey final warning and self-revert this edit that reverted a good-faith edit here. This user is has very few contributions to Wikipedia so I consider them to be like a new user and  all of their contributions are in good faith. They've even created an article for Wikipedia: American Civil Rights Union. Thanks for taking another look at this. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Kernow
Second unblock request is up, and I'm reviewing it. You've listed the user as a sockpuppeteer - can you point me at the evidence for it so that I can review it? Cheers, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Kernow admitted to being Jonty, who was blocked for for using multiple accounts to promote his (now blacklisted on meta) losethegame website. |See contribution history of these accounts; all losethegame promotion only accounts. (Rabidfoxes hasn't been blocked because checkuser results suggested possible, but not conclusive, evidence). Let me know if you need more info. Jonty has been at this for years, and it may take awhile to dig up everything. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's cool - the CU request should help confirm your conclusions. We'll hang tight and see if it's accepted Fritzpoll (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised if it came back inconclusive. IP addresses in the UK are often shared by lots of folks, and Jonty has been around long enough to be aware of checkuser's capabilities. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User:71.203.151.80
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.203.151.80 You might want to check out this guy's "contributions" and block him. 81.159.184.189 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Columbus Day
The edit you refer to was made by your fellow adminstrator User:Cuchullain, all the material I have sumitted to the article has been referenced. I am leaving the article alone for a couple of days as I think Cuchullain is behaving unreasonably and I would rather introduce some cooling off time Taam (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taam (talk • contribs)

Joe
I see where you are proposing deletion of Joe the Plumber. How about Lenny Skutnik? Is he a one event person. AFD that? I am asking you a valid question, not trying to debate you. :) Should you submit an AFD for that???? Chergles (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to submit an AFD for that. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you do it for consistency? Chergles (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Please go make your points elsewhere. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

BeerReviewsOnline Links
On the page for Yuengling, rateBeer is allowed to post a link but you deleted mine. We are both beer review websites. What is the difference? BROEditor (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:WEB notability guidelines; i.e., your site is not notable. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Greentealovers Links
Jaime, before this latest brewhahah I had a legitimate reference link to the history of green tea in China that had been there for *YEARS*. greentealovers com/greenteahistorychina.htm. Your concern was that I moved it up to the first citation of Chinese history (where it should be by all rules of citation) rather than where it was. Your reaction was to delete my greentealovers link entirely form the page - whch exacts an unfair and unbalanced penalty and is not acceptable. If you agree to return the original link to the Chinese tea history -OR- to readd the legitimate reference to Kissa Yojoki - the Book of Tea with the first line of what the book of tea actually says with a citation to an image of the actual book its history and the line then I will agree not to add new links to the page from greentealovers despite having legitimate history and resources on my site to cite. Otherwise its going to be a continuous back and forth of with me placing information links and corresponding claims to Wikipedia staff on a continuous basis regarding your approach. I have a legitimate claim to being treated differently and with a bias when its clear other vendors with relevant citation resources exist on the page. Again my problem at this point is that you have removed a citation thats been there for YEARS. I was providing good primary information to the green tea page when Wikipedia was still primarily techie based and the need for information to extend it and make it more useful was welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 15:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Links to get tenure, and that one does not meet reliable sources guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was the Chinese reference reliable for years and then all of a sudden not???? Why is Stash Tea references or the various other tea company citations any more reliable??? Why is my historical referencing any different than Citations [3], [4], [5], [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete those if you don't feel that they meet reliable sources guidelines. Any further addition of links to your own commercial website will result in it's blacklisting. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You've just gotten to the crux of this entire conversation and my frustration with the bias you've displayed. I don't have an interest in deleting/questioning other people's references. Those links are just as justifiable as mine yet you displayed a bias and *ONLY* deleted my link -- and I didn't even add a new link. I simply moved a link that had been on the page for years to the first instance of Chinese Tea history on the page where citation grammer would legitimately say it goes. If you had an issue/disagreement you should have simply undid the change and left it where it was. That would have been the end of the discussion. Unfortunately, you decided instead to punish me for disagreeing with you while leaving the rest of the links that clearly met the same criteria as mine. So you are forcing me to question your judgement because your actions are clearly not fair and balanced. I question the appropriateness of playing policeman only with my links and than telling me I should be doing the dirty work of deleting the links of others...Jpeizer (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And I notice that you are continuing to cherrypick while we are discussing this deleting only my links while leaving others of the same disposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 16:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing more to discuss here. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote your tea selling site. See also WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, but it is a vehicle for others to promote their tea selling sites and you are more than happy to allow that while deleting ONLY my link which has been there for years previously? And you will stick to that assertion using all the tools in your power to censor only me because I have been presumptuous enough to question your judgement. comment added by Jpeizer (talk •

Joe the Plumber arbitration
Hello Ohnoitsjamie,

According to Wikipedia's arbitration guide, requests for arbitration should not be structured like talk pages. Responses to other user's statements should be appended to your initial statement. Could you please change your reply to my response so that it's in your statement in order to help maintain the suggested style? --Amwestover (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Game

 * I suggest you not add the link again. If you do, you'll be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Halloween
Do you think it's worth considering Halloween for short-term protection?--otherlleft (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Also about your edit on Halloween (READ)
I erased your edit on it because the picture disappeared from it. I know you made another edit also. If you could, please go back to the article and just redo the spam that the other person did. Thanks man! DubaiTerminator

waste of time
new wikepedia user 27moultrey added some notable residents to georgetown ontario page, ohnoitsjamie decided to mark it as vandalism when it was clearly not. 27moultrey then tried to add an event but it was taken off. even though this event does actully exist.
 * old wikipedia user ohnotisjamie will block 27moultrey if he continues to add garbage to wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments
Thanks you for your comments here: It is getting quite interesting. Inclusionist (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Talk:Joe_the_Plumber.

Romeo notices
Just to keep you up to date, the Romeo notices have continued to evolve over the last couple of days. The latest version is templated, since I was doing the exact same thing on over a dozen pages. Now, any further changes can be done once at Romeo notice, and it'll effect them all. That template is protected admin only, since it is used on MediaWiki pages, which are admin only. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

TV templates
Please stop restoring these template until we can check the status of the DMCA Takedown Notice from Nielsen Media Research (OTRS ticket #2008091610055854). Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue was one that was addressed a month ago. The templates which were deleted contained info like "Glendive, Montana is the 210th biggest most fantabulous metropolis in America, based on Nielsen DMA". The new templates omit any reference to Nielsen or these stats. No idea why you want to re-open this question now. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link showing the discussion where the issue was resolved? I've also left a message for the owner of the bot. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of archived WP:TVS discussion as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_8 through Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_8. See also if you're really, really bored. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's good enough for me. Thanks for taking the time to dig that up. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP privacy policy for limited public figures
I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG &#x260E; 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Sounds like a good idea. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not want listed at RfD
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Do not want. Since you had some involvement with the Do not want redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mjf3719 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

why did your delete my comment
All what I did is make a comment saying that the 911 atacks was a cover up.Bs91rp (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions on improving the article. Wikipedia is not a conspiracy theory chatroom. There are plenty of those out there. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

haifa wehbe page
i want you to understand that haifawehbe.com only redirects to haifafans.com which is no longer in use other sites are all unofficial but anahaifa.com which is an official fan-based site. I hope you take loook at that please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.63.131 (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I want you to understand that you shouldn't ignore warnings. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)