User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive15

Ohnoitsjamie: (Again, hoping I'm doing this right...) Just wanted to thank you for unblocking me, I really do appreciate it. I'm still reading and mostly lost, however, and I was wondering if there are consultants that I could offer to pay for an hour of their time on the phone related to the whole Wikipedia movement. I really like and respect what you and everyone else involved is doing; it's really quite amazing. I come from academia, and probably have a lot to contribute, but I'm not sure and would certainly benefit from being able to speak with someone the old fashioned way. Any thoughts? Mandelman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandelman (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Valid External Link Deleted
Hello Jamie, I was just going to add more data to Forex page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market and noticed that an external link that I had added was removed (ForexCalendar.Com). I also studied the WP: article about external link and I believe that this is not spam. Would it be possible to restore this or let me know why it cannot be added?

thanks, Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billw2 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do believe the it's spam. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm...okay, but when i add External link in the future, just wondering, why similar link(s) would flag as spam? thanks Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billw2 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:Reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it worthwhile...
...also to block User:Mattini, Matt72ni's "dad"'s account?

reliable sources
i disagree with your suggestion that lawyer blogs are not reliable sources. not that i am a fan of them, but lawyers are very highly paid for their opinions, and i think that in general, they probably have very good information (hence the high pay). however, more than that, i don't believe that such a broad generalization is useful to anyone. if mcdonalds blogs about their happy meal, should we not cite their blog? each source should be evaluated on its own merit and not swept into a generalization as you are trying to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:Reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Richard Relucio
Good call blocking on this one. If you get any heat for it, and need backup, let me know.  AK Radecki Speaketh  01:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He made it easy to find all his socks. They all just kept popping up like whack-a-moles. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a new sock puppet, "Rbvrelucio" editing the same pages. How do we handle this? Rmcsamson (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to add to that, I think "PLM Collegian" is another sock puppet. Rmcsamson (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking care of Rbvrelucio. Just in case you're interested, there are new editors, all of whom registered within the last 2 days, who are doing essentially the same thing. Their handles are "Sobresaliente" and "TestStrip09". I'd hate to be paranoid about it but I think that this is still Richard Relucio at work. Rmcsamson (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. There is now a third new user, registered just today. Name is "FlamingTorch." How do we handle this? Rmcsamson (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like we'll need to file a request for check user. I probably won't have time to do that today; in the meantime, I'll take care of the latest.  Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for cleaning up my talk page after that little spat with Cryptographicsigns. And wow, just saw how much stuff was removed from the University of the City of Manila article. Seems a little harsh, but if that's policy, I guess it stands. Thanks again! Rmcsamson (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is unfortunate that it had to be deleted, but that is policy for banned users. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Bean Boy
It was not me who commited the vandalism, but another user of my server. However I have taken the neccessary precautions to make sure it does not happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanboy911 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jcarax68
This user has been caught in your autoblock on Glin12 and is requesting unblock. They seem OK, if a little agenda-driven. Could you take a look? Daniel Case (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looked reasonable to me. Unblocked; thanks for the heads up. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse Square
Thank you for indef-ing the latest User:Pioneercourthouse sock, who created that user in October and then patiently waited for a chance to use it. This megillah has been going on since October of 2006. The persistence of these characters is amazing. I wonder how many more sleeper socks he's got, but I reckon we'll soon find out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. On the bright side, it's much less effort for me to indef block a sleeper than it is for a sleeper to evade semi-protection. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 06:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. However, never underestimate the industriousness of the obsessed. It's like a game of some kind. User:Ron liebman and his endless sock drawer is the prime example in my experience. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

More socks ?
Hi ....Jamie, you recently blocked presumably as a sock of (well about 20 accounts I think) - as you're up to speed on the behaviour, could you look at  and. Obviously someone's new accounts but are they the same (I haven't really looked as yet)- Peripitus (Talk) 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to add, there's a new user, . Someone's already flagged him as a suspected sock puppet. Rmcsamson (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Teststrip appears to be in disbelief. Could you have a butchers?  Ta.  GARDEN  11:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Derbylimo
You left a final spam warning for User:Derbylimo a while back. Just thought I'd let you know he's back and apparently spamming again. --Movingday29 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What is that 31 hours warning? why is that not a 24 or 48 hrs?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownyCat (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Condor Travel
Hello, ok sorry. saludos--Kusamanic (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)--Kusamanic (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mall-Central.com
Hi. You deleted Mall-Central.com for blatant advertising. How come. I was not trying to be blatant. Perhaps you can help me as to how to improve it. If you cant help me can I get a copy of what I wrote? You seemed to be willing to do that for someone else (see above).Maclouie (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an advertising venue for a non-notable website. There's no point in rewriting it, because it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. If you still want your text, I can put it in your userspace. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I was clear that I would like the text. I will not post it on Wikipedia unless it is appropriate. Thanks. BTW, someone posted on my talk page that this note I posted here on your talk page was consider vandelism. Do you know why he thought so and did I do something wrong? Maclouie (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the vandalism note you received was a mistake, so you can ignore it/remove it. I'll add your content to User:Maclouie/Mall-Central OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see it. I'll try to "lift" it before it gets deleted again (i'm not in the office right now and would like to keep it in my scrapbook. besides there was a lot of research that went into it today that I did not want to lose, so a BIG THANKS!!). I have seen articles in Wikipedia about various businesses (ie brick and mortar) and what they do and how they got started, etc. What did I do wrong or how did the "blatant" descrip apply? Maclouie (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The bigger issue is notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
I am providing links (and extracts from) nearly 50 academically published journal articles - peer reviewed in the best journals on political science, religion, and ethics. My external link was not a commercial/promotional link but a serious piece of work to challenge communal forces in India that are responsible for either directly or indirectly instigating many killings of innocents in India. Your deletion is like deleting someone's compilation of problematic issues with Hitler's ideology and actions. It is strange that free speech and discussion is being curtailed. I urge you to examine the link carefully and then - and only then - delete it. I'd appreciate information being sent to me at: sabhlok@yahoo.com about this. Regards, Sanjeev Sabhlok
 * We don't need your blog link. If you continue to add it, you'll be blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is strange that you insist your action (of deletion of the link to academic research on this subject) is correct without offering ANY explanation or justification. It is astounding that on top of not apologising for your action you are threatening me, in the vein of a two penny Hitler or Mugabe to block me! I sadly note that Wikipaedia is no longer interested in links to the truth. As such I will stop further contributions on wiki and allow you and your gang of petty dictators to carry on their silly acts of ignorant dictatorship. Indeed, I'd much appreciate it if you can please block me NOW, immediately. A badge of honor that I would cherish. Goodbye, silly people on Wiki. Sanjeev —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabhlok (talk • contribs)
 * It's even sillier to compare me to Hitler and Mugabe because I told you to stop posting links to your own non-notable blog. Goodbye. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed comment out of place
With all due respect, I decided to remove your commentary from MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist as it was really out of place and made any further discussion of the point raised near to impossible.

Let me explain.
 * 1) Whatever went on in MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist should be discussed there. I'd have no problem with it, if you'd put your commentary over there. Even more so, this was a personal attack and intended as such. And I really did mean it, too. If admins suck my blood I see no reason to remain impassive or even civil. If Wikipedia policy does not allow for this, it would indeed be correct to give me a warning to that extend. That's what talk pages are for.
 * 2) Accusing me of "forum-shopping" was a violation of Assume good faith. I think it is completely natural for a frustrated user to raise a question about whatever frustrated him. Calling exercising my democratic rights "forum-shopping" was not really nice of you. Furthermore, it would seriously diminish the possibility of any further serious discussion, which is why I saw no choice but to remove it.

I hope you understand me and if you feel it necessary to return you comment, please do so inside the relevant section or on my talk page. For your convenience I'll quote it here.

"Forum-shopping won't get you anywhere. If you continue to make disparaging remarks (e.g. 'dullheads') you will be blocked for personal attacks. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)"
 * I don't really care one way or another. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Answers.com
Let's be fair, you were quick to remove Mall-Central.com (even as I was editing to improve it) but Answers.com is even worse in terms of blatant advertising (it's either answer.com or answers.com) and it has been on Wikipedia for a long time. What gives? And it's been flagged as blatant and hasn't been removed. What's that all about? Maclouie (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete sites that don't meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Smelling the same old smell...
of dirty socks...User:Unique as my fingerprint, and one that's trying to subtly communicate through the user name that xhe is someone unique...but wanted to get a second opinion before swinging the hammer. Thoughts?  AK Radecki Speaketh  20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hammers be swingin'. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about University of the City of Manila
You've mentioned a banned user and a sock editing University of the City of Manila, but I don't see the massive amount of text added to simple:User:Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila in the history. Was this copied from an oversighted version, or can you offer insight into the issue? Toliar (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't oversighted, just deleted to prevent the user's socks from reverting his old versions. He must have copied and pasted it before I deleted it. Feel free to ban him; as you can see here User:Richard Relucio, he's quite the prolific puppeteer. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I've brought up the issue at Simple's WP:AN, with a link to this discussion. Toliar (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm an admin at simple and we are working on it. I've so far tagged User:Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila's userpage as a suspectedsock and have asked for a checkuser on it and Richard Relucio. When/if that comes back positive I'll ban the sock and we'll implement a one-strike and you're out rule on the user. Thanks to you both for helping on this!  fr33k man   -s-  22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The community at seWP believes in allowing a single chance to banned users from elsewhere coming to seWP. As such I have not impletemented a ban there, at this time. Can you give me some information on the deleted versions refered to above and the reasons for them being unacceptable? As you already know three copies of this material have made there way onto seWP and I am concerned about the insertion of it into the currently existing page if it is controvertial. Thanks!  fr33k man   -s-  03:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue wasn't that the content was unacceptable (aside from lots of image copyright violations, which is what got Richard his first block). The material was deleted after Richard was permanently banned, since he was still circumventing his blocks by creating a sock and getting a few edits in before the sock was detected.  I suspect he decided to move to seWP upon becoming aware that this tactic was no longer effective. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I have given him a one-strike rule chance at seWP (reluctantly), have told him what is required and will be monitoring him closely. I'll be monitoring the situation here also and will block at seWP if any more socks are created here on enWP or if any issues arise such as vandalism. Please feel free to let me know if you do have more issues with him that I don't see. We are very seriously trying to improve our reputation regarding enWP blocked users who migrate to seWP! Cheers!  fr33k man   -s-  20:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Again?
Is this your buddy again? University of the City of Manila - Philippines. That link was just added as an interwiki at Simple, and it looks like a newly created article by the banned user. Thought you should see/act on it, either way (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Two more shot down, like fish in a barrel. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * was the one to add the interwiki link at Simple, and the account has been automatically created here, maybe you can whack it now before it does anything here on en.? either way (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've implemented a perma-ban at simpleWP of this user per violation of copyright and GFDL that have occured after being warned. Thanks for your assistance in this matter. It is obvious that this person can not work within the requirements of WMF. Cheers :)  fr33k man   -s-  02:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also thinking of requesting a global block, what do you think of this?  fr33k man   -s-  04:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd fully support that. He was given plenty of warnings and second chances, but still doesn't get it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence (Israel)
Your edit of 17:39, 4 March 2009 to Declaration of Independence (Israel) removed what appears to me to be a notable news source providing a valuable historical reference with images of original news reports contemporaneous with the subject of the article. I realize that timesonline is a commercial site with advertisements, but that seems trivial compared to the value of the articles. That site seems to be the official source of those articles, so it's unlikely that a non-commercial site will have them. To its credit, that site even permits us to download each article as a jpg w/o any ads or other editorial content. I've read WP:SPAM and WP:EL, and still don't see that link as spam. Please explain what I'm missing here, or let me know if you've changed your mind about that link. Thanks, --Rich Janis (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the timesonline per se. I do have a problem when someone from the Times canvasses Wikipedia with timeonline links. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for deleting P1 Selling. The author had just removed the db tag for the second time and I was about to put it at AfD when you deleted it.

I've nominated P1Selling, which redirects to P1 Selling, for speedy deletion as a redirect to a deleted page. Could you please delete that page as well if you or another admin hasn't already done so?

Thanks again. KuyaBriBri Talk 22:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Can you add my User page and my User talk page (semi-protected) until May 2009. So that only established users can edit it. I been having problems with anonymous users (IP addresses). Thank you --JEFF (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Jamie. Just a thought for the day post: I recently reverted some vandalism while patrolling filtered changes, and as is my habit - I checked to see what exactly it was that I was reverting. I noticed that you too recently reverted some vandalism on the very same article. As I looked through the article, I found myself shaking my head in disbelief. I wondered if you also shared a sense of amazement when you responded to the vandalism. I find myself wondering, how on earth does one go about actually vandalizing an article titled Human feces. — Ched ~ (yes?) 21:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not spamming
Hi, I added a few external links (maps), all from the same site, that I thought were really useful, but you thought it looked like spam. I'm not a spammer, I just added some all at once because I have always thought they belonged but just now became and editor. I checked out the spam info and it says putting links up here is useless anyway because it doesn't help search engines, but I guess some people do it anyway. I've done some other contributions to other entries that weren't links. Like the links I added, they were just things I had seen on Wikipedia that I thought were needed but never got around to adding until now.

Before I put one on the "United States" entry, I posted it in talk like it said to, and someone said go ahead and add it. I didn't just add it on my own.

I think this site has some valuable info, and I've used it for research alot. I've used it along with Wikipedia to do research on some subjects, and always thought that Wikipedia ought to include them. I just want to know if I add any links again now, will someone just keep deleting them? I can't figure out how they violate the guidelines as long as you know I'm not spamming. Thanks.Wikitigger (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you continue to add them, they will be deleted and you will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So that's it? Is there some other reason they violate the guidelines, or do you think I'm just lying? It's not the links I care about, it's the fact that if I'm going to contribute valuable information I'd like to have a presumption that I'm acting in good faith. I even posted some of the links only after asking for permission in the subject's talk page, and an editor gave that permission, and then you apparently still deleted them. Is there another reason they don't follow the guidelines?Wikitigger (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When a links is exclusively added by one of two new single purpose accounts, there's not much good faith to assume (though there is a good case for the blacklist). There's nothing further to argue about here. I block single-purpose spam accounts all the time, and I won't think twice about blocking yours if you continue. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You had sent me a message saying "If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it." Now you say don't add any links or you'll delete them or delete my account. So I don't understand why you think differently about that advice now. I'm sorry I looked like a spammer to you, but if you are not open to changing your suspicions of people, there's nothing I can do about it I guess.Wikitigger (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Family Gay
Do you really want to be making WP:OTHERCRAP argument?

While the intent will be eventually to bring the non-notable Family Guy episodes into compliance with our notability guidelines, if I did make the mass nomination of non-notable articles that would be considered WP:POINTY. Begining with the application of our policies with the start of a new article that does not meet our guidelines appears to be the non-POINTY thing to do. Notnotkenny (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (aka User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom)
 * You can wikilawyer it all you want. Family Guy episodes easily pass notability guidelines. Try to have one deleted if you feel otherwise. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
I notice you are engaging in edit warring. This is not welcome in wikipedia and telling others not to edit war while yourself edit warring is paticularly unwelcome. Please think about stopping. Thanks.--ZincBelief (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Restoring the article to it's previous state is not edit warring. You've already been blocked once for edits to this article. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverting an article during a content dispute is edit warring by every definition. Editors actually engaging in discussion so far number 3 for the image 0 against.--ZincBelief (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mike and I have already expressed our opinion. Thats 3 to 2. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you never take the trouble to read what I actually write. Neither of you contribute to the discussion despite the edit summaries and the comments we make. You just say No once and then revert, which is not contributing to the discussion. So my comment stands at 3-0. Also note that Mike's WP:BLP claim is totally wrong. Your claim about playing the game is pure paranoia.--ZincBelief (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've expressed your opinion; I've expressed mine. I've made comments to the talk page; that I haven't devoted as much time to the issue as you have does not negate my opinion. As far as your various other statements go, other editors are welcome to read the talk page for themselves and draw their own conclusions. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You ignore discussion but engage in edit warring? Is that really the best defence of your actions you can muster? Well the tally is 4-0 now.--ZincBelief (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Mike and I have already expressed our opinion. Thats 3 to 2". I'm surprised to read this in the light of WP:PNSD. Reasoned debate should prevail, and as ZincBelief has noted, the two concerns about WP:BLP and 'subversion' are not valid. What valid objections are there other than WP:JDLI? Fences and windows (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I still hold the opinion that adding a "I lost" pic is a subversive attempt to "play" the game. You can't wikilawyer around that. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It cannot be considered as a subversive attempt to play the game by anyone in their right mind. In that case we can just argue that you are removing the image in a subversive attempt to play the game. What fun would we have with that, arguing in circles all day. Can you not just think rationally about this for a minute? How can adding an illustrative image to an article that is called The Game and contains many references already to losing the game in any shape or form be called a subversive attempt to play the game? Anyone visiting that page sad enough to play the game will have to be blind or illiterate not to notice these numerous references, and if they are blind or illiterate then the picture will not make one jot of difference to them. If you do not wish to rationally debate the issue please do not engage in edit warring on it.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "I still hold the opinion that adding a "I lost" pic is a subversive attempt to "play" the game". Hang on. If this isn't vandalism and it is relevant, why does it actually matter if it also involves playing The Game? What actual harm does inclusion of the image do to Wikipedia? Fences and windows (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that it's easily one of the most useless articles on Wikipedia, it's not worth my time to argue about it any further; i.e., I don't care one way or the other if there's a photo. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You removed a link, citing it as spam.
Hello, you removed a link I added to Rogue Software. I have spent a lot of time editing that article, not just adding links. That link was intended to provide an example of rogue software that hijacks the desktop (the rogue I chose as a sample being Brave Sentry). I added it as the first in an eventual set of links to reference each of the different aspects of rogue software. If you still feel that it is spam would you mind explaining why? The link was http://www.malwarehelp.org/news/article-2944.html Desktop Hijack

PedroDaGr8 (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The link does not meet our WP:Reliable sources criteria. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * THen would you consider BleepingComputer a reliable resource as they are one of the top malware removal and investigation related sites?PedroDaGr8 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * BleepingComputer is notable, so yes. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate link removal
I was not spamming or promoting anything. I have to ask you: did you read here or did you take time to take a look at the webpages you removed? These were pretty reliable secondary sources on webpages that not primarily exist to sell products or services or with objectionable amounts of advertising. I really hate commercial promotion on Wikipedia like you, but we cannot ban a useful, informative and properly referenced webpage because on a different page on that domain there is something for sale. So please restore them or allow the restoring. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, given that there are plenty of academic sources that meet reliable sources guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you know that guideline does not encourage the use of primary sources (Reliable_sources) and... are we talking of the same page? I mean: where do you see objectionable amounts of advertising in ? Moreover in this field secondary sources are often easier to find and to understand than primary sources. For example primary sources may be not in english, hard to find or expensive to read or pretty difficult to understand . In my opinion both kind of sources can -an should- coexist because references are meant to be useful. Guidelines do permits them. Please consider to restore at least the most useful links: they are useful for the project. I wish to start a discussion in order to check the consensus. --  Basilicofresco  (msg) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The sites primary purpose is to sell stuff. Period. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your period. It sounds appropriate to your way to discuss. As you probably know website and webpage are not the same thing and on External_links you can read: Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. . I'm not sure there is enough consensus about your interpretation, please check it. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You should check WP:Reliable sources. Until there is consensus that a meteor-selling site qualifies as one, please don't add it. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So is in your opinion an informative and well written page on any website that sells something on a different page always an unreliable source? -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I could make an informative and well-written writeup on my blog about any paticular topic. Well-written/informative != reliable source. Please read the policy. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Basilicofresco PLEASE STOP SPAMMING MY TALK PAGE WITH YOUR LINKS TO YOUR COMMERCIAL WEBSITES. YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN WARNED TWICE ABOUT SPAMMING. IF YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO GET AROUND THE SPAMMING RULES BY ADDING YOUR LINKS TO MY TALK PAGE YOU ARE MISTAKEN! PLEASE DO NOT ADD THEM AGAIN!

Mannheim 34 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Hello Ohnoitsjamie. It appears that you are one of the few people on wikipedia that actually take the spam guidelines seriously. I wasted my time arguing with spamophles yesterday about the incredible amount of spam being used as "references" in numerous articles. Thank you for removing the spam reverted by Basilicofresco. You missed a number of his reversions on this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enstatite_chondrite. I performed quite a few searches for links from commercial sites and found a couple hundred. Would you be interested in handling these links? If so how can I get the list of links and referring pages to you without posting it here? I don't want to further reward these sites by posting their links yet again.

Mannheim 34 (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC) 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannheim 34 (talk • contribs)

I was using my user profile as a sandbox
You removed an article in my User Profile that I was working on the the main Wikipedia. I was not spamming. I was simply using my UserProfile to construct the article, since using the sandbox, quite frankly, suck, as it is changed so often that it's useless. If you will tell me where an editing sandbox is I can use that isn't deleted every 2 seconds, I will gladly use that instead.

If you would have looked at the "Edit Summary" you would have seen that I put a note there explaining this. Petrosianii
 * You've already been warned that Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. It was clear that you were creating a promotional article. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * : Then kindly tell me how to write such an article, from a non-promotional stance?? I thought i did a good job in this. Despite the fact that the arfile is about a product, the product has scientific and medical backing, FDA backing, USPTO patents... I mean, come on! With your level of rigidity, no one would ever be able to write an article about any product at all!


 * Medical backing, patents, etc. are beside the point. There is no indication that the product or company is notable.

Petrosianii

Never Mind
Oh I see that I can create a user subpage for a sandox. Sorry about that. I just now found it.

Petrosianii —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

Mortgage Modification
I see you speedy deleted Mortgage Modification on 19:26, March 17, 2009. I saw the article earlier and I thought it was terrible and wanted to replace it. I just wanted to confirm that the subject is significant enough and discussed enough in reliable sources to merit an article. My intention is to sandbox a complete article and rename into main space, rather than starting with a stub. patsw (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure there is enough content to merit its own article (i.e., rather than a few sentences in Mortgage)?

I saw an already existing article, Loan modification, and I have edited it. It was almost an orphan. I added it to the infobox and to the relevant Wikiproject. As expected, it had an advertising EL already added to it. patsw (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

blocked user
Hi. You blocked a user (see User talk:74.242.254.23), and there was a suspicion that it was a sockpuppet. One of that user's edits was this one, and I just reverted another, very similar edit. Coincidence? Drmies (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspected they were a sockpuppet based on this block and their placement of an "unblock reviewed" template on that IPs page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:65.246.126.130
Hello. A couple of hours ago you protected that talk page. I believe it should be unprotected; his block is over and I don't believe his actions on the talk page required protection in the first place. I believe, per WP:BLANKING, that removing block notices is permitted (while removing denied unblock requests is not). If you have a rationale of which I am not yet aware (but I'd love to hear it), then by all means keep the talk page protected, but based on what I know of the situation, this should be unprotected. Useight (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unblocked. For some reason, I thought the user was still blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Why was Bearded Dragon in captivity deleted? What was it a duplicate of? Trying to figure out where to point Bearded Dragon to since it redirected there. Q T C 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake. At first glance, the wonky title made me think that someone had forked Bearded dragon. I hit "delete," then realized that Bearded dragon was a disambig page. I went back to restore the "captivity" article, but it was still there, so I assumed that my delete didn't go through. Must've been a db lag or cache issue. It's restored. (I still wish there was a better title, but I don't know enough about the topic to say what it should be). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry of user
As seen here in your protect, there is no sock template. Could you pleas re-add it?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll leave you to decide what to do with Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a ban of a user you were involved with. Thank you. --—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  10:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Rabbit
For some reason Rabbit has once again become the target of a large number of vandal edits. Would you consider adding a short term (week or two) semi-protection? -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Matthias Kuhle
An article that you have been involved in editing, Matthias Kuhle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Matthias Kuhle. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CyberGhostface (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Reckless reverts
Hello. I am writing in concern about your reverts to the Cancer article. In my humble opinion, you may wish to be more careful what exactly ou are reverting. I know that as an administrator you may be pressed for time (as evidenced by the many edits you've recently made), but most importantly as an administrator surely it is important not to accidentally delete major sections of articles? Please look at what you revert; I saw no mention in the edit log about why you reverted numerous edits and a couple of hours of revisions, nor in the talk page. My only clue was that it was assisted by a "reference robot", so I checked the references; apparently I made them in an inappropriate template format, and am in the process of fixing them now. However, I've noticed that some users on this talk page have similarly complained, and thus thought I'd voice my concern. Also I figured you'd appreciate knowing why I unreverted and knowing that I am in the process of correcting said links. Ninjagecko (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the proper course of action would have been to make a note on my talkpage, and also a link to how to properly cite websites (in the likely case I'm a new user). Since the issue only required a few characters to fix, you could have fixed it yourself, or if for some reason the invocation of nonexistent templates harms Wikipedia somehow by alerting admins, you could have just changed it to { { cite website|url=... } } and left the grungework to me via the above-mentioned note. The problem has been fixed, but this does not change my concerns that rash reverts can easily destroy much hard work on important issues such as articles about Cancer. If I had not caught this (you left no note anywhere!) you would have accidentally destroyed significant effort and no one would have known. Please be careful, especially as an admin. Ninjagecko (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

72.39.35.178 unblock declined
Awww.... I was wondering what would happen when he reported me to "the mods" &#9786;. WP:AN/I needs a bit of humour!

I suspect 72.39.35.178's not some complete newbie, though - it smells a bit like some blocked sockpuppeteer trolling. I especially like
 * the trolls broke my wikipedia and now everyone disappeared!!

which I'll put on my userpage somewhere when I redesign it Real Soon. Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 00:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you could make a custom block template to use that just says "YOU FAIL!" OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

PLM College of Medicine
I see that PLM College of Medicine was deleted because it was created by a banned user. I'd like to take a look at the content to see if it is worth saving. (Mostly because deleting it gave a red link at a page that I watch. But I think that's a good enough reason :) )Naraht (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. You can find it at User:Naraht/PLM College of Medicine. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks salvagable. Some of the exterior links look to be a little fishy and the links to the epaper are not friendly. But given that the overall campus is a stub, look pretty good in comparison. Doesn't feel quite right to me for a merge. I'll drop you a note before for your review before moving it back into the mainspace, OK?Naraht (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any policies offhand regarding how notable a "sub" school of a university has to be to merit it's own article. For instance, Harvard School of Law would certainly be, but I don't think it would make sense to break out individual schools for all universities. Maybe you could get some insight from some of the folks at WikiProject_Universities. Thanks for the heads up, OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I'd tend to vote no on notability on undergraduate colleges within a University (like the Mellon College of Science inside Carnegie Mellon University), but the Graduate schools are much more likely, especially Law, Medical and to some extent Business (like Wharton School of Business).Naraht (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edward Fortyhands
I watch the Fortyhands article and really enjoyed the (admittedly, not perfectly "flowing") dude-in-a-cage picture. I apparently enjoyed it enough to leave it. Why'd you delete it? Al1encas1no (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a comedy site. The photo is unencylopedic and useless. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll leave it off.  But you can't deny the picture would've been educational for would-be Fortyhands players! Al1encas1no (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks you, highly appreciated! OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stephen Colbert
NoFactZone.org is not unofficial, Stephen actually plugged it an episode of The Colbert Report.
 * He plugs a lot of things. That doesn't make them all notable. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Edward Fortyhands photo
I am a bit confused at how that photo is unencyclopedic? The caption underneath the picture stated, "The aftermath of an Edward Fortyhands game with a participant suffering from Blackout (alcohol-related amnesia). The reference to blackout should be enough to warrant the picture's entry into this article to add a bit of relevant information as opposed to random rules for a drinking game.  I will bring this up in the article's discussion and see if there is a consensus amongst the community members.  As far as the warning about my being blocked, this can be avoided if you provide adequate rational for why you are removing data from articles as opposed to "hahahahah no
 * Chingadiculous (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a comedy site, period. The photo is patently unencylopedia. The warning stands. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Koi Question
I'm curious why recent edits that have the appropriate sources identified are being undone. The user was even given the threat that he or she would be blocked. The original text seemed to have information that was not relevant to the Origins of Koi, but instead was unrelated information about the origins of goldfish. The sources on the new edits were not commercial and did verify the information supplied in the updates. Jediknight95758 Jediknight95758 —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC).
 * I've already explained to you that major changes should be suggested at the talk page first. Though some of the citations are OK, some were commercial and were removed. (P.S. Why are you talking about yourself in the third person?)OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason to remove the origins of goldfish from the origins of koi. Its confusing and misleading. Additionally, there is already a section describing the differences between koi and goldfish. That particular section is specifically related to the Origins of Koi and that specific species of carp. Do some reading on taxonomy and you'll see the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediknight95758 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus (and no good reason) to not include a sentence or two about a closely related offshoot of a species. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why there is already a section for Differences between Koi and Goldfish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediknight95758 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jamie
I just realized we are neighbors, after looking at the last edit to San Diego. I was thinking about giving Logan Heights, San Diego, California a good clean scrub. Let me know if you are interested in some collaboration. East Village, San Diego could be expanded as well. Cheers. Lawshoot! 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Both areas have changed quite a bit in the last decade. I have to confess I'm not as familiar with Logan Heights....I've never been sure where the dividing line between Barrio Logan and the Heights was (though I'm pretty sure I've been to both).  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Hello, I was reading your description on your user page and I noticed you own a 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado and I was wondering if its hard to find parts and if it still runs

Just some weird questions I felt like asking Please reply if you get some time

ImDone1 (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal block
Hi, I warned an IP vandal, and then noticed you'd already seemed to block them for being a sock account. But your decline of their block on 9 April occurred before their recent vandalism... I think the block didn't work. See User_talk:193.120.116.145. Fences and windows (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a direct block; it was an autoblock (because I'd just blocked a named account that was using that IP). Regardless, they are now directly blocked. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaissance Resort at World Golf Village
Please restore Renaissance Resort at World Golf Village, deleted stating WP:CSD. As the golf courses were designed by, or in consultation with, four of the 20th century's leading golfers, I would contest that it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. It possibly should be merged with World Golf Village, but in the meantime, I believe it should be recovered. Kind regards. wjemather bigissue 17:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Done. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. wjemather bigissue 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Charles Thorne
This guy might pass WP:PROF, so I'd recommend you put it up for an AfD discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability
I disagree with you in that I have found in researching and writing histories, it is always valuable to know who lived where and when, and who contributed to that local history. Listing such person or persons brings color, and expands the interest to that area. Rodeohistorian (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia's policies on WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam
Please check User talk:207.144.4.62 and what you promised there. A small check with his contibutions will lead to the conclusion that it is time to make that promise hard. :) Debresser (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Addressed. Thanks! OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "Unreferenced", "Fact" and etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards,
 * Thanks. I get used to typing "subst" so often that I forget about the few that shouldn't be subst'd. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Aquafanatic aka Jediknight95758
Hi, I believe that User:Aquafanatic is the user you banned, Jediknight95758. He has started an (inappropriate in my opinion) Request for arbitration about the edit war over the inclusion of goldfish in the Koi article. You may want to drop by and comment on the proceedings. Thanks, LK (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. A checkuser is in order. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI ANI
WP:ANI, in case you weren't aware of it. Looie496 (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)