User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive19

Raised Relief Map Reference
I added a reference link (ref 9) to a company that is a technological leader in this area, and who's "how we do it" page is better than another company reference listed now (ref 8). The new reference (9) was removed. If the other reference (8) is allowed, why isn't this new and better reference allowed? --- 3Dmapmaker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dmapmaker (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See the blurb on spam on the top of this talk page, as well as our conflict of interest policy. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I did read the blurb at the top of the page. I dont' understand how you can allow a reference link to one commercial site and not another which provides as much or more information. This doesn't seem right or fair. You should enforce the policy equally with regard to all of us professionals who advance this technology -- either delete all the commercial reference links, or allow them, but do it with a consistent policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dmapmaker (talk • contribs) 12:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Changeman
Would you mind giving a second third opinion here?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He is still at it, but further down the page from your comment.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Moscow
The bit I posted about Moscow being attacked by Doctor Octagonapus was, as specifically labeled, a myth. It is actually a popular myth here at our school. This would be beneficial to keep on the website simply because the people of Moscow should know their mythological history, rather than live in ignorance. Being clearly labeled as a myth, it is not "false information." I would appreciate it if you would put it back on. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew J Yach (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, but why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew J Yach (talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't know the answer to that question, you shouldn't be editing. If you add it again, you will be blocked indefinitely. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Credit Counseling
The Credit Counseling article contribution I submitted is accurate information and needs to be shared. Instead of reverting my edits and declaring them as spam, rewrite them in a way that you feel is objective enough. And stop leaving spam badges on my talk page. Searchmaven (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you continue to add commercial links as references, you will be blocked for editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * IT'S A LEGITIMATE REFERENCE. Why don't you do some referencing work yourself instead of following my edits around.  Get off your high horse.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchmaven (talk • contribs) 21:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's not, and you should also familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest policy. I'm not warning you again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And you feel that the Principality of Sealand article is Notable??? Have you checked the references!?  They are all links to his content.  The article is a joke. I AM familiar with the conflict of interest policy and I don't work for Debtmerica so thanks but no thanks.  Searchmaven (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And you can say truthfully that they're not a client of yours either? Regardless, it's not a reliable source, period.  Sealand has plenty of legit news references. Take it to AfD if you don't think it's notable.  It'll most likely be speedily kept. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Areapal
Hi @ohnoitsjamie I would like to know why the page Areapal was marked for deletion ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoiltsport (talk • contribs) 17:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines, as explained on the nomination. Further discussion belongs on the article's AFD page, not here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia. I hope this is the way you want to be contacted. Please let me know if I got it right.

fhbrain Fhbrain (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Debt Settlement Citations
Those debt settlement references from debtmerica.com and credit.com are the best references I can find. Given the nature of the industry it's not easy to find a more reliable source. Especially the credit.com article... it's just a general industry news article on their site and not related to their offer. That article needs a lot of citations in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.15.62 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that the topic is one that is tricky to find non-commercial references for, but that still doesn't make it OK. Try this site-specific Google search instead. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Massimo
claims to be "H.E. the Prince Massimo, Prince Don Fabrizio Massimo Brancaccio" and is adding that claim to Massimo He started by removing sources to insert his unsourced claim. A couple IPs repeated Massimo's removal of sources to make the claim, while adding a source that gets vastly less GScholar hits than the one he removed.   Fabritius then repeated the same                      eventually adding a sources before his birth and the websites of some private clubs (that don't seem to mention his claims) to "prove" he is the rightful head of the Massimo family. The page was locked and good deal of time spent on the talk page trying to explain Conflict of Interest and Reliable Sources to Fabritius, which he ignored. Edward321 (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for attempting to reason with Fabritius. As you saw, his sources consist of a few web pages (which don't meet his own unique definition of an authoritative sources) and sources from before he was born, which obviously can't prove he exists, let alone his claims about being a prince. I have showed him sources, including the English translation of the Italian Constitution, which show that Italian titles of nobility were abolished in 1948, yet he still insists he is a prince. I have shown him that the Almanac de Gotha is cited on Google Scholar over 80 times more often than "elenco ufficiale" and "libro d'oro" combined, yet he refuses to accept Gotha as a source. Now that you have warned him and reverted his edits (the 28th time he has been reverted bu my count), maybe this will get his attention. Regardless, thanks for trying. Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Engagement ring
Hi, you deleted some information on the Engagement ring page because you considered it advertising. Could you please explain exactly what was wrong with it? All I did was make two very vague statements more accurate. The first one was about the first engagement ring. The original line states that it was given by "an" archduke in Vienna in the 1470's. I provided the names of the people involved an the exact year. I also added that the diamond in the engagement ring symbolizes eternal love. I think this is important because this explains why engagement rings have a diamond in it. This is not mentioned anywhere else on the page and I think it is important to explain how the tradition started. The second piece of information I added was about what factors determine the cost of an engagement ring. Once again, I think this is valuable information that needs to be present on this page. I think I only added objective and factual information. It was in no way advertising or even mend to be advertising. I agree that we need to be very careful when using commercial websites as references. But I never stated the name of the website or provided a link to a page were products were offered. The only references I used were good and solid information pages. I also don't think it's out of line to use a jeweler's website as a reference for which factors influence the price of an engagement ring. I am very interested in hearing your thoughts about this. Kind regards Stevenvdveken (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You explanation can be found in the following (1) the blurb at the top of my page (2) WP:EL (3) WP:Reliable sources (4) WP:COI, WP:SPA. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Algeria pre-history theory
any reason for deleting once/twice the addition i made to the pre-history section on the Algeria page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123xyzabc (talk • contribs) 13:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Although I reported User:Rape me, my friend. 1 to UAA the only problem was the user's username their edits appeared to be anti-vandalism efforts in good faith, I've reverted your rollback of the user's edits to the Grey goo page, please check this diff. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that! I misread the diffs every once in awhile. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Substing Welcome Templates
Just a quick note, can you make sure you subst welcome templates when you add them to a users talk page? Thanks =]  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Massimo article - Fabritius has ignored your advice + a request for help
Dear Jamie. I write as a follow up to Edward321's post above on the Massimo article, and your subsequent post on Fabritius's talk page on 15/05/10, asking him to 'Please continue use the talk pages before making controversial and/or major changes to articles. You have yet to achieve any sort of consensus on this page for the edits you are proposing'.

Since then, Fabritius has ignored your warning/request (although he has clearly read your comments) and simply continued to edit war the article, resuming a practice he followed before the first protection of the article on the 20/04/10 (see Massimo article edit history).

Fabritus's changes replace the simple three line last paragraph on the heirs to the family honours (in which he is respectfully referenced as one of the main title holders - indeed he is mentioned first) with a series of vanity paragraphs about himself, the deletion of all other heirs and other information, and the deletion of the correct sources (for which there is a consensus).

He has done this without any sort of consensus for his changes, which are significant and clearly controversial. Indeed, there is a clear consensus on the talk page against his proposed changes to the last paragraph, a paragraph which has remained essentially unchanged in format since 2006 (see the edit by 'CARAVAGGISTI' on 28/09/06 in this version, para at bottom) until Dec 2009 (see the edit by LeilaniLad on 2/12/09 in this version, para at bottom). Between Sept 2006 and Jan 2010 many editors altered content in the article itself, but the paragraph in dispute remained essentially the same until Fabtitius began changing it in Jan 2010.

The issue here is that despite a huge amount of patience and extensive reference work by myself and by Edward321 on the Massimo talk page, and despite repeated warnings/urgings by other editors (Fabritius has been warned about the need to seek consensus by yourself, and by other editors and admins, for example see this post by TheDJ), he is simply ignoring the rules and just making the changes anyway, without a single person agreeing with him on the talk page.

He has a clear COI (see this warning by Dave1185). His behaviour is often very aggressive despite no one else ever responding in kind - indeed he has repeatedly insulted any editor who does not simply roll over and agree with him, branding them 'biased' (see this post), a 'liar' (see this post), and 'ridiculous' (see this post). His tactic seems to be to simply try and wear people down until he gets his way without abiding by the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. He has been warned against this sort of behaviour (see this warning) by other editors, but simply ignores all this advice and/or these warnings.

All I and Edward321 are trying to do is keep the last paragraph in its original format and defend it against serial, non-consensus based vanity editing, and we have backed up the original with extensive sources and references, yet all this work is being ignored by this editor. After his first resumption of edit warring on the 14/05/10 I posted a message politely asking him not to do this again, yet he has done this twice since I posted and indeed twice since your warning (with Edward321 reverting the article back each time). I have tried so hard to keep things calm and based on facts, and invested an enormous amount of time to do the exhaustive research (as you can see from the article talk page), yet I just don't believe Fabritius is interested in a discussion, he just wants to steamroll others to get his way and I think this is deeply unfair.

As you can see there is a clear consensus for the original version (as restored at 23.53 on the 18/05/10 by Edward321 in this edit).

Is there anything you can do to help us with this editor? I was just about to revert Fabritius's last edit myself and restore the original/consensus version when I thought I would ask you if you would be prepared to do it instead, having noticed that you are currently online. I think if the revert came from an administrator - particularly one whose warning/advice he had already ignored once - it would be much less likely to be undone. I (or Edward321 I would imagine) will do it if you don't feel you can, but I wanted to ask you first as I think a revert from you with a warning not to change it back without first getting a consensus would be much more effective in putting an end to this rather exhausting example of serial abuse.

Your help on this and indeed anything else you could do to prevent this from happening again would be much appreciated.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Massimo article
Dear Jamie, Edward321 and Historybuff1930 are trying to evade the issue. Please see my comments on my talkpage. You reverted the article which I amended referencing many wikipedia's ialian articles and original autohoritative sources. This way all the references to the wikipedia's articles have been deleted. You also reinserted angelfire -that source is widely used by hiostorybuff1930 to alter wikipedia's articles on the main princely roman families. As he admitted he's not an expert in italian heraldry nor speaks italian: he doesn't know what he's talking about. He only inserts the words 'Princely family represented by ....., whose heir is .......' plus he deletes correct text from other articles, like he did in the Colonna article (another roman princely family). Please see my post on my talk page.

After months of vain and silly disputes I think you should be concerned on the correctness of the article which you can easily check by inspoecting the other wp's articles (in italian), my edit of the article with explanations of how italian titles were granted and the responses to the other 2 biased editors. Fabritius (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read your comments. Unlike yourself, Edward321 and Historybuff1930 are long-term editors with excellent contribution histories in a variety of topics.  You are not addressing points made on the article's talk pages, and your sources do not meet WP:Reliable sources standards. If you continue to edit war against a consensus, you will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not true. Which are the points I didn't address?

Regarding the excellent contributions did you check the Colonna article? The Carbognano branch (still exixting nowadays) was deleted by Historybuff.

Didi you check the italian wikipedia articles which you deleted by reverting the article? Should even those be deleted?

Where is the discussion after I referenced the original authoritative sources (see link in the talk page)?- Fabritius (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned with the content of the Italian Wikipedia; that's up to editors and admins on that wiki. Other wiki's cannot be used as sources, for the same reason that Wikipedia can't use it's own articles as sources. You have yet to provide convincing proof of your claims, which is what Edward and Historybuff are trying to tell you.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jamie - Fabritius started edit warring again between posts on this page. He reverted the main article to his version at 14.02 today, per this edit.  This was 9 minutes after presumably reading your 13.51 post above where you warned him that 'If you continue to edit war against a consensus, you will be blocked', and before he wrote back to you at 14.16.  Quite extraordinary.  I posted on the Massimo talk page yesterday inviting Fabritius back to a discussion, yet the talk page is the one place he has not bothered to respond on today.  He is clearly just not interested in a discussion, merely in trying to force everyone to agree with him, including you now.  Given he has reverted your edit this time, would you mind once again changing the article back to the consensus version and perhaps suggesting to him that doing this again might not be a great idea?  Many thanks in advance, Historybuff1930 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Hopefully this will work. Am hoping we won't see sock puppets or an IP edit instead. Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DoceboLMS
Hi, I saw you deleted the DoceboLMS page, we paid strong attention to not go in COI and we respected rules. In detail we: Linked only open source community and not commercial site Described only software features and not "emphatize" software plus Nothing more. Please note, all the other Open Source LMS (e-learning) are listed and not marked as spam, for example Dokeos, DimDim, talk heavily about his commercail company and we didn't. Please note that we are the only one OOS LMS not in wikipedia. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudioerba (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to nominate the other ones for deletion. WP:COI policy states that you should not make an article about your own organization. Furthermore, you provided no third-party sources to indicate how the LMS is notable. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fabritius
Thanks for the heads up. I don't have anything to add to his talk page at the moment; he clearly hasn't been listening to me for a long while now. Thank you for trying to reason with him. I don't think he realizes how counterproductive his unblock "request" and his edit summaries are. Edward321 (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Massimo
In the BLP page there's written "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." You guys don't seem to be much concerned. When you intervene in a dispute try to solve the issue and not just threaten to block without discussing, as you did. The same goes for edward321 and historybuff1930 who only ridiculously complained but didn't take time to respond. - Fabritius (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that Edward and Historybuff have attempted to resolve this matter with you. Edit warring immediately after a block for edit warring has resulted in a longer block. If you continue this disruptive behavior, it may lead to an indefinite block. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinions
Hey, Jamie, not a big deal, but when you give a Third Opinion, would you mind removing the request from the list at the project page with an edit summary showing that you've taken it and the number of requests that remain? Thank you for helping at the project. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad
Hi Jamie, I always smile when your name turns up in the edit history of an article I watch; we don't cross paths too often, but when we do it's always a pleasure to work with you! Regarding your placement of the Criticism of Muhammad link within the article, it's actually something I had been considering for a while. The "Other Views" section certainly seems most appropriate for it, but I had been planning to write a (very!) brief paragraph using Summary Style and provide the link as a "Main Article: X" rather than a "See Also". Would you be ok with that approach? The gist of the paragraph would be to simply acknowledge that various criticisms exist historically, without going into any specific detail about them at all in the main Muhammad article. Either way, it's good to see you again : ) Doc   Tropics  17:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to see you again too! Sure, I agree that the section could use a good reorg; I was just trying to find a compromise to provide a link to the article in a more appropriate section than the lead. I think approach you describe adequately addresses the topic (and the existence of other articles) without giving it undue weight. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I took a crack at it. The prose is shorter and blunter than I wanted it to be, but I suspect that including any more details would be counter-productive since it's a contentious issue. Happy editing, Doc  Tropics  18:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling...
something wasn't right after the user kept going, even after getting blocked. Will do. Soxwon (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, just spent the last half hour deleting that user's ridiculous crap from talk pages per WP:DENY. I can't believe her new account was tolerated for so long, and I'm sorry I wasn't paying closer attention to some of her favorite targets. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeffree Star edit
I noticed you took out the famous for being famous in the "See also" section on that page. Can we talk about this? Are you suggesting that it does not describe Star's early career? Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The other people mentioned in that Famous for being famous are all famous due to who their parents were or via an association with someone famous. Starr achieved fame via MySpace popularity (as documented in this article. I don't see how that article applies to him. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk page
Please don't play around with my talk page.

Fair enough post those warnings of yours but if i remove somebody's message, there's a reason for it, don't just go and put it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.62.45 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's standard policy to warn user's via their talk page when their actions are moving them closer to being blocked. Blanking your talk page will not prevent you from being blocked for disruptive editing, which is what's going to happen if you continue posting contentious and poorly sourced material. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Government in Exile
Hi Jamie, Can you please take a look at the Government in Exile Page? There is a revert War going on on that page, and both parties have violated 3RR, I think a lock on the page is needed until the issue is resolved. Thanks much. T-1000 (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello there! Someone tried to troll me by involving you to my talk page by leaving a notification on my talk page by checking out this revision. --Fail (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hosur Regarding
I am Akilash who is interested to develop the article Hosur. I am studying XI standard and I live in Hosur. I saw you keeping the article from Vandals. I am now a registered member of wiki but I am not able to edit the same. Help me and guide me in developing the article related to Hosur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akilash (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but not able to follow you. Should I place the entire article on Hosur at this page for your reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akilash (talk • contribs) 13:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please propose new changes at the following link: Talk:Hosur. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Done my first editing in the article Hosur and reasoned the same in the discussion page. Akilash (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The user:Arjun024 is talking about my IP which may be related to his Edit War users. Does user:Arjun024 has rights to reveal my privacy (IP address) in a discussion forum (page)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akilash (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know Ohnoitsjamie, that i have serious doubts about the intentions of User:Akilash - have a look at his contribs. Moreover, in Talk:Hosur i didnot say that the IP was himself. I doubt that the following users could be the same person as well:
 * 59.92.48.185
 * 58.68.93.163
 * 59.92.8.135
 * Thamizh_Azhakan
 * This may well just be my doubt. Thank You . Arjun  codename024 10:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * User Arjun024 should understand that all BSNL DataOne ISP users at Tamil Nadu are provided with a IPs ranging from 59.xx.xx.xx to 59.255.255.255 and for BSNL BB ISP users IP starts as 117.xx.xx.xx Once again user Arjun024 is so childish to reveal that Thamizh_Azhakan is using a IP which is similar to that of mine!  While editing without login Wiki's warning message reads 'You are not currently logged in. Editing this way will cause your IP address to be recorded publicly in this page's edit history. If you create an account, you can conceal your IP address'  Does User Arjun024's action breaches the promise of 'Conceal IP address' by wiki? Akilash (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Noting that a named user's editing patterns are similar to an IP user's behavior does not constitute a violation. Behavioral evidence is commonly cited in sockpuppetry cases. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel User:Arjun024 and activities from IP address with series 117.194.232.71 are much similar and why should not Thamizh_Azhakan be the sockpuppet of Arjun024, as the user was created on 6th June 2010 and its activities are something supportive to aim of user Arjun024. Make a note that the user account was created on 6th June and Arjun024 respond here on June 07 claiming that the activities of Thamizh_Azhakan are so similar to that of mine.... If that user Thamizh Ashakan might have indulged in Vandal... why Arjun024 who has semi-admin rights does not warn that user?Akilash (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there anything wrong to request http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#hosur.hosuronline.com ? I am contacting you as the log shows that its you who have black listed that website for some spam reasons. Akilash (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the owner of the site spammed Wikipedia repeatedly and spent months afterwards engaging in sockpuppetry and harassment. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

liggettron.com
I see you too have encountered the wonder that is User talk:207.166.197.123. FYI I have requested that the website in question - the one being spammed by that user (whose IP incidentally is registered to that same domain) - be added to the spam blacklist (MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist). Any support you can give to stop this spamming would be very welcome. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

CampbellSinnett
You sent me a message about vandilizing the George Foreman page. I would like to apoligize, it was an accident. I meant to change the Gary Coleman page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CampbellSinnett (talk • contribs) 20:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing Template:National Intelligence Agencies
Please explain your last revert to this template? Thanks --Manwhatsup (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake I made while reverting spam links you were adding. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, given that it's obvious that you're engaged in some pretty heavy sockpuppeteering, no reason to keep your edits. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mensa BE
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mensa BE, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Happy Editing! &mdash;  21:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

monsanto edit
why did you revert the edit of "Category: corporate crime" from the monsanto article? The article documents several crimes the company committed. --T1980 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Barrett Technology Inc.
Hi Jamie, long time since I bothered you. Please can you take a look at this article. It is linked from the little article I attempt to look after, Industrial Robot in the list of manufacturers. I could write a similar page for ST Robotics except that it would be an obvious advert and a conflict of interests. This article was written by someone whom I suspect is a member of the company. Is this a valid article? ALL SORTED, sorry to bother you again! Robotics1 (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Coral Reef Fishes Page
Jamie

Please check the talk page for the referred article for my comments2ocean7 (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coral_reef_fish
 * Replied. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

re: maps
Thanks for letting me know! I don't know how I missed the improper filling. Thanks for letting me know before I got to far along! :) VoodooIsland (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to help out. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of death
It appears a bunch of IPs were playing games of vandalise Wikipedia on this page. Wonder if they should all be block temporarily? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Protected. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

ZO6 Video
Hi Jamie, I see you own a classic car, I have also owned several including old Mustangs, GTO’s and a (cheap) 20 year old Ferrari. I have posted a few informative editorial videos of cars that people may never have a chance to see.

In my own case as a classic car lover I would have scoffed at the thought of a Bugatti as being to flashy, too new a car, till I saw the video. After seeing the video I would die just to have a chance to see one in real life, though I may never (I will never be able to own one unless that lotto comes through) I think the videos offer a service to the readers giving a look at the car inside and out the people who may want to see it have a choice to click and watch the video if they chose to. I have read the guide lines and do not see any rule that prohibits this. As I said, it's just freedom of choice for the reader.

Thanks Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.2 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own links. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A new sock of Mbhiii / 12.7.202.2
There is a new user, User:Calliostoma who is making the same edits as a user you blocked named Mbhiii. Should I take this to someother page? 65.41.106.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the note; blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed external links from articles about ORM frameworks / 213.168.161.140
Hello Jamie, Before few days you removed links to our product ORM Designer from Doctrine,Propel,CakePHP and ORM site here on wikipedia. I know that these links are to our external site orm-designer.com, and our product is commercial. But I think that the tool that I mentioned on these pages is highly relevant. Most of people coming from wikipedia to our page are interested in. ORM Designer is directly specialized on these frameworks and in these days it is the only one existing tool for this purpose. By considering these facts, can be our tool mentioned here on wikipedia on these pages?

Thanks for reply Ludek Vodicka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.161.140 (talk)
 * No, per WP:EL and WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitalism
I provided reliable sources for my statements. --76.77.139.243 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You will be blocked if you continue to make edits that you are fully aware are disruptive. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Got another possible sock of User:Sundiiiaaa
Might be me just overreacting but this seems rather suspicious.... Soxwon (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, have my eye on that one (currently on final warning). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

External Link removal on the hawking web page User:hummy2
Thanks for your welcome. Sorry if my external link didn't suite the wikipedia criteria. I read the pages about this and though I am not violating anything. Since on the hawking page discussion page was written that information about the hunting itself was missing I thought that the hunting photos would help to support this. I work together with the German falconry origanisation (DFO) to be able to make those photos. Any other way I can support this in an wikipedia accepted way to improve this article? No advertisments are on the website and I receive no payments when people visit my website, if this info helps. Thanks in advance, (Hummy2 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC))
 * See #11 on Links to be avoided. Also see WP:COI and WP:Reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I understand, since I link my website. Conflict of interest etc. But since I don't earn my living with photos and these are not manipulated. These photos do extend the purpose of wikipedia article to visualise hunting with bird of prey, which I am missing. Or is it better to load these in the wikipedia commons and add these to the article? Or is it because of the lack of expertice? I represented on the last trade show in Munich the German Falconery organisation with my hunting photos. Thanks in advance, (Hummy2 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Uploading them to Commons is a great idea, as long as you don't mind the licensing terms (i.e., you agree to release rights to them). I prefer to use the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0" license myself.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer I will check the license version you mention. (Hummy2 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

Comment
Hey Ohnoitsjamie - could you take a minute or two to comment on the discussion of Closing Time (Semisonic song)‎ as it pertains to the type of song it is and the source used? See the edit history of the article and the discussion of User talk:Y2kcrazyjoker4, I'm pretty sure I have a reliable source, but need a third party to comment. Thanks. --Yankees76 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Saffron Terror
Give me a hand in maintaining the article Saffron Terror as few users like Arjun are busy deleting and vandalising the contents Akilash (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir Francis Drake - not really!
Has reappeared as User:NRSFD and is accusing you of deleting some articles on English rugby union league seasons. (see User_talk:Noq).

If you have actually deleted them and it is not just a rant, can you userfy them to sub articles of User:Noq please. I want to see if there is anything that can be saved. noq (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They were deleted per G5. Creations by a banned or blocked user(s) (i.e. they were created after SFDNR created a new account to evade his block). OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This user approached me too, since I was tagging per G8 the various talk pages of the deleted articles, where he was criticising your action; however, since I don't know if he's a sock of a banned user (and who's the banned user), I've tried to be as neutral as possible. Could you please tell me who this user is a sock of or, if you prefer, could you please point me to where I can find out (such as an SPI thread)? Thanks. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 10:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The master seems to be and his talk page tells the story, at least the beginning of the story. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rather idiotic of me not to understand that from the section header... ^____^;;; Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 10:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell; he was warned several times to stop recreating an article that was deleted via AFD, then began attacking any one who disagreed with him. He was blocked, had all unblocks declined, and has been on a sockpuppetry run since. The articles he is weeping about were created by his first sock; per G5, we don't allow block-evading users to contribute. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I told him that if he was a sock of a blocked user, then you were doing the right thing... Sorry for bothering you with this. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's probably a good idea to have a small thread here; I'm sure he'll take his grievances elsewhere, and now there's a handy reference for those not-in-the-know. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The captain sails again
Hi Jamie. Have a look at. Look familiar? I have shipped him off to AIV. Favonian (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see he's already walked the plank. Thanks! OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

About Cameroon
I think all the ethnic and tribal vocabulary shall be removed. It is discriminating. All the different folks are Cameroonian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamite (talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

About the Mahabharata page
Please note that it is *my* edits that have been repeatedly reverted -- not the other way around. I can't understand this insistence on including references to a character that is not connected to the Mahabharata at all. I still do NOT agree with the current contents of the page. Fgpilot (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * *Your* edits have been repeatedly reverted because there is a consensus against them. Continue to discuss the material on the article's talk page, not here. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is this so-called consensus that you mention? None of the consenting editors have even attempted to answer my questions as to why Dio's quotes about Homer's works are in any way relevant to Mahabharata? They have also not explained why the more precisely written paragraph by me that brought the focus back to the Mahabharata was inappropriate. If anything, it is this cartel of folks that needs to be banned. Fgpilot (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus is on the article's talk page, which is where you should be discussing this, not here. You do not own the article. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't own the article, and neither do those who're reverting my edits. I've discussed my concerns amply on the discussion page. For instance, there is this specific question which has still not been answered: The first and third paragraphs are stylistically very different from the second paragraph in the "Historical reference" section. They directly talk about Mahabharata and my edits on the second paragraph was primarily to bring stylistic coherence. I still don't see why it is getting reverted. Fgpilot (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the last time, the discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. There is a clear consensus against your changes (i.e., numerous editors versus you). Read CONSENSUS if you're still having problems with that concept. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

About your comment

 * Support blacklisting Whether it's sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry; clear spamming. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe it is spamming, please could you, and anyone else, then direct your allegations towards the IPs and not me - I have had nothing to do with this and none of the comments provide any evidence that I have. Is this how wikipedia works - if you don't agree with a POV throw mud until genuine contributors give up - it's worse than a playground!Tomtolkien (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Also, a piece of advice - please read all the threads before making spurious comment - if you had you would have seen than in fact the other user is the one who should be 3RRd. DOD. Tomtolkien (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion belongs on the spam project page. I made no direct allegations against you; I simply noted that the link has been spammed by multiple parties with no signs of stopping, making it a good candidate for our blacklist. That opinion still stands. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making the distinction. Tomtolkien (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: FinanceQ
He is back:



I recommend his account be close and his website be added to the list of blocked websites.

Thanks. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked account for now. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Vice Admiral Drake"
Thanks for the heads-up. I didn't do anything about his request, since I suspected something was fishy. — Dale Arnett (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Cool, just wanted to give you a heads up so you didn't have to do a lot of research to figure out what was going on. Cheers! OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:71.68.249.98
Hello Jamie, not sure if you remember that user that keeps adding stuff that violates NPOV to that Taiwan articles, but this guy is back again with a new ip address. He has been blocked before for doing this. he's making same edits as this:. If you could look into it, it would be great. Thanks. T-1000 (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jamie, don't listen to the nonsense pov coming from user T-1000, he's continually deletes references to the German Special Forces and writes that the Taiwanese jet fighter was built and designed by the USA. When in fact the USA has never built the IDF jet fighter and as a matter of indisputable fact had refused to sell the F-16 jet fighter to Taiwan back in the 80's. That was the primary reason the government of Taiwan needed to develop their own indigenous defense fighter, hence the Taiwanese appreviation IDF. This guy T-1000 is deleting and pov editing various pages ignorantly without first understanding the knowledge within the pages, a clear example being the German special forces. Please take a look at this guy, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing you added have any citations, thus it is all original research. T-1000 (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Jamie, given that ip isn't willing to give citations, and has been engaging in edit wars with another editor here: and, maybe you should consider taking further option? T-1000 (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jamie, don't listen to T-1000, he's just causing more trouble unnecessarily. All of our edits have been in accordance with official Wikipedia policy on naming conventions as well as maintaining neutral point of view while also promoting accuracy of the information in the articles. If you would look at T-1000 pov edits, he specifically states in his edits that the IDF jet fighter was designed and built by the USA and even puts a link to the United States, which is just ridiculously false information. Do any research on the Taiwan built IDF jet fighter and you would realize that it was designed and built in Taiwan, because the USA refused to sell Taiwan F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jets in 1980's due to political pressure from the People's Republic of China and the USA's desire to have better relations with them. Just take a look a his POV edits, they speak for themselves.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you telling Jamie to do the research? You added the stuff, you present the citations. Otherwise, it's original research. T-1000 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just showing him your past pov edits, they are quite obvious and self-explanatory to anyone. Please stop POV editing, it doesn't benefit anyone in the long run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, all I did was revert your edits, because you didn't provide citation, so as of right now, it's original research. T-1000 (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And now you are attempting to spin the debate. If you go back and look at your own pov edits, you would realize that you continually stated that the "IDF jet fighter was design in the USA" and even added a link to United States on the "National origin" area of the page. That is just laughable false and incorrect information regarding the Taiwan designed and built IDF jet fighter. It is quite obvious to anyone who examines your edits to conclude that they are pov edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't add anything, I merely reverted the page, as seen here: . T-1000 (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Semantics again?? What you refer to as a "reversion" is still an edit by definition, otherwise why would you revert to a previous pov ridden version of the article.
 * I told you already, I reverted because you didn't provide citation. Read Verifiability.


 * "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.


 * This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately."


 * Now, why don't you provide citations and show us your sources and settle this once and for all. T-1000 (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to spin and distract people from the real focus of what you did, which is put false information (aka. IDF jet designed in USA) when it not designed in the USA but rather in Taiwan. You're clever spin tactics and debate tricks won't work against me, so just stop it. And try to contribute in a constructive way to the articles rather than posting your pov or reverting someone elses pov onto the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PROVE that it is designed in Taiwan by showing a citation then.


 * You are the one who claims that it is design and built in the USA, the burden of proof lies with you. Anyone can do a search on Google and see for themselves that the IDF, aka "Indigenous Defense Fighter" was designed and built in Taiwan by the AIDC aerospace corporation in Taiwan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as the information was there before I edited the page. And if "anyone" can do a search, why don't you do it? T-1000 (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I looked up citations, and I've found this:. It seems that the issue is that the IP user removed American involvement in designing these planes, as seen here:, but the global security websites states that:

"Taiwan produced the Ching-kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter with extensive assistance by American corporations, led by General Dynamics. The project consisted of four sub-projects. They were the Ying-yang project (in cooperation with General Dynamics Corporation) which made the air-frame; the Yun-han project (in cooperation with Hughes Corporation), which designed the engine; the Tian-lei project (in cooperation with Westinghouse Company), which took care of the avionics system; and the Tian-chien project, which developed the weapons system. "

So Jamie, this is a classic case of POV pushing by the IP user to try to push a POV that the Americans were not involved. At best, the issue is disputed. T-1000 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:3RR
Ok, i understand and i will take care of it. But why this warning was given to me only, i mean other two users were also reverting my edits, so why are they not warned. Secondly this matter is under discussion on talk page. --TalhaDiscuss  &#169; 17:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the one who's in danger of breeching 3RR, not the others. You don't get a free pass for 3RR by engaging in discussion. 3RR is only acceptable in cases of clear vandalism. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But that was not vandalism, i gave logical reasoning of my edits on talk page here: Talk:Pakistan, those people provided only one reason, that is: it a international human right to call yourself what you would like to be called. But Mr.arsalan... answered well to this here: Talk:Pakistan, which is also valid answer. --TalhaDiscuss  &#169; 18:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was vandalism. I said the 3RR is only permissible when reverting vandalism. Other's have given logical reasons against your change.  Work out a solution on the talk page; breeching 3RR will get you blocked. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverse Engineering, protocols section
Hi, I was wondering what was the rationale behind removing the new section on Protocol Reverse-Engineering in Reverse Engineering? There was some other stuff on Japanese boats, or something like that, which didn't seem that relevant. Perhaps you accidentally reverted to an earlier version than you wanted?

I'd really like to understand what was wrong with the section and why it was reverted. Perhaps you had a good reason, in which case, I'd like to understand it. If it was an accidental revert, that's important to know as well. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.129.34 (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Jamie, could you please respond to my questions? I'd hate to go through the whole request for investigation process... Perhaps you are right about the revert, I don't know, at this point I just want to understand the rationale and then discuss it if I disagree.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.129.34 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

user:Sir Francis
Another Sir Francis sock (already blocked) has come to me, and I offered him advice on what he ought to do. I hope the advice I gave him is something he will read and actually follow. But the thing that has bothered me ever since I came across this user while Recent Changes Patrolling is the fact that I can't find the XfD for the articles he keeps creating... if you could provide me a link to it, that may be useful. Regards (no talkback templates, please),  Bramble  claw  x   22:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Hill, Back, Dallaglio is the one that he got really temperamental about. Favonian (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like I should mention civility to them as well then.  Bramble  claw  x   22:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's definitely an issue. Favonian (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Ohyesitssirfrancis looks like the latest one of his socks. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain your definition of wigger to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HighcoMan (talk • contribs) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read our policies on neutral point of view and sourcing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fibonacci Retracements
I would love to hear the resons why exactly a link to a Fibonacci calculator which allows the quick working out of ratios is considered spam (considering the no follow links) and yet a link to a Forbes digital company (blatent commercial site - which incidently doesn't really provide any real info over and above what is already on the page or provide a means of calculating a ratio stands).Other financial techniques on the site such as Pivot Points provide references to calculators. Do I take it it is not worth adding any additional material here as it will just be deleted by people with no appreciation for the topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forextc (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:EL and WP:SPAM, as well as the blurb on the top of my page, explain our policy on adding links, especially by WP:COI single purpose accounts. If you add the link again, you will be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So here are the links on the Pivot point page: * Automated Pivot Point Calculator * ManualPivot Point Calculator Here are the links for calculating moving averages: * EWMA in determining network traffic and ethernet * Fast software for computing the simple moving median of a time series. (if you check out the moving average links they are not even related to the subject matter)

... and the list goes on... so plenty of editing to do so rather than blocking useful content (maybe you can give me the Fibonacci ratios from a low of 1.4211 to a high of 1.5013 without the use of a Fib calc?). I daren't post any further info up here as it appears that it will just get deleted by people with no understanding of the topic matter. So on my first real evening to sit down and provide some content for site I wonder if its actually worth the effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forextc (talk • contribs) 19:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Existing editors should act fairly, civily, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing SPAs on their edits."
 * If you want to remove links, feel free. I fail to see where I've been anything but civil with you. There's nothing else for me to say on the matter. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

HALLOWEEN AND SAM PAGES
I AM NOT VANDALIZING THE PAGES! SAM IS THE MASCOT OF HALLOWEEN WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT! I AM CONTRIBUTING TO YOUR LIMITED KNOWLEDGE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHallow1 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * YOU WILL BE BLOCKED IF YOU KEEP IT UP. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have proof to justify my actions. Look at the newly added reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.4.75 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your block has been extended to 72 hours for block evasion. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not evade your block. I waited it out just like I did this one. Stop making crap up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHallow1 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Links to Fragrantica from Perfume page
Dear Ohnoitsjamie you have removed link that was there for over 2 years and nobody ever removed it before because everybody who knows something about perfumes knows also about the largest and most comprehensive encyclopedia of fragrances Fragrantica.com with 9,810 in depth described perfumes with olfactory pyramid, perfumer, years and other relevant data, 82,459 unbiased user reviews and 30,278 members (today 08/14/2010). I hope this is just understanding I brought link back and I hope it can stay. I personally do not care much Fragrantica has 800,000 visits by 450,000 people per month (you can check public tracker at quantcast) and it is not 2nd tear resource, I think that deserves its place on the wikipedia perfume article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.186.110 (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to ClausNet
Can you explain why the link to clausnet.com is removed from the Santa Claus entry?

I have reviewed the external link policy and do not see a conflict. I am not trying to spam in anyway. The site is not a commercial site. It's significance is that it is the only site dedicated to educating the history and continuing the traditions of the LEgend of Santa Claus which is discussed in the Santa Claus Wiki entry. I cross referenced to the Charles W. Howard entry because the site is dedicated to Charles W. Howard and his Santa Claus teaching philosophy at the Charles W. Howard Santa Claus School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjrielly (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for your website. See blurb at the top of this talk page as well as WP:EL. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to promote. I was trying to contribute the entry. There is nothing to promote.--Michael (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then contribute content, not links. The article has plenty of links. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

wlsas.com
RE:, It probably needs wilsas.com as well as wlsas.com.

- MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't sure about thought, thought maybe wlsas was a typo. On it! OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It may well be, but the spammer did it in a few places. You'd think they could at least spell the URL they are spamming properly. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Quit Crying

 * ,( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.33.52 (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocking you for 3 months has helped me to overcome my immense grief. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Feehan Grad?
It is disappointing to me that you would see fit to remove two links for successful graduates who are authors because "writing a book does not confer notability." Yet playing minor league baseball or some other sport does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klamontagne (talk • contribs) 07:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're correct. I've removed the minor league player. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That was not my intention either. I think anyone looking up a high school's page would find authors and professional athletes "notable" alumni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klamontagne (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We operate on Wikipedia policy here. I remove entries from pages that don't meet our notability criteria. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

talkback
mabdul 20:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The site clearly doesn't meet our reliable sources guidelines, as I've already said. There's nothing more for me to say about it. You wanted an answer, you got one. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me
I just got a message from you about a current reversion from 12th August 2009 or something about vandalism. What is that about. How dare you accuse me of such a thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.78.220 (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because whoever was assigned to your IP address in August of 2009 (92.1.78.220) did indeed vandalize a page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Paris Review Interview links
Hi Jamie,

I've just got a message that you've been removing external links to Paris Review Interview links on author pages.

I've looked at the Wikipedia external links guidelines, and as far as I can see our links fit within the guidelines. There is no advertising, and although the interviews are extracts, the pages contain accessible pdfs of the full interviews. Also, when our new website launches in September we will have the full interviews uploaded straight onto these pages. The interviews would also count as "further research that is accurate and on-topic", I think. Although I understand Wikipedia is not a linking site, Paris Review interviews are often regarded as among the definitive author interviews, so I think it is pertinent to include them on author pages for those looking for further reading.

Finally, I think the Paris Review Interviews fit perfectly within category 3 of 'What Should Be Linked' on the guidelines page: -Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

I would appreciate a response from you on this, as it does take us a not inconsiderable amount of time to add these links, which we at the Paris Review view as part of a free, non-commercial, and accessible public resource, well-suited to the ethics on which Wikipedia is founded.

Thank you for your time,

Regards,

Patrick Loughran The Paris Review 216.254.104.131 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't allow single purpose, conflict of interest accounts to spam links to their own site, period. If an established editor added a link to a single article here and there, it would not have raised a flag. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please Help
What am I doing wrong? Typing the title of my book? Typing my name? Both?

Thank you Fhbrain (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself on whatever topics you happen to write about. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Spam related to
Are you able to block this site from being linked, I see you are warning users, However there are multiple users adding the link to multiple pages. I have started adding them to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam I'm not sure if this is proper protocol. Any guidance?
 * I'll blacklist it. Thanks for the heads-up. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hon3ybee (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like salt with that
Can you WP:SALT the recently-deleted Dominik Bjegovic? Multiple recreations. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
I'm sorry. I really don't understand your response. We ARE an organization - a church to be exact. And the notice that Centpacrr keeps putting on our page says that we're not. How can putting such a blatant lie on our page NOT be vandalism? 64.252.0.159 (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Public records (i.e. WHOIS, etc) indicate the IP is dynamic, and not static. You've offered no proof to the contrary. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what that means. All I know is that one of our computer users reported the attack by Centpacrr to me. I went to the vandalism help page and it said to put this: { {SharedIP|Name of owner} } on your page. I did it and now I'm being accused of doing something wrong. As I said, we're a church. We'll take responsibility for any of our computer users doing something wrong. But to insist that Centpacrr's lie about us not being an organization must stay on our page seems pretty strange to me. 64.252.0.159 (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you have proof that the IP is used solely by your organization, there's nothing further to discuss. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice guy! You won't even explain to me what's going on. Thanks! 64.252.0.159 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This "user" (who claims that he/she is a confused, good faith innocent) is a well known disruptive editor, sockpuppet, and wikistalker who has been indefinitely blocked under three sockpupet accounts in the last few weeks (See and ). The last complaint about him/her was closed just a few days ago in AN/I, and this new one will be reported to AN in order to seek a permanent community ban as opposed to just another blocking. As you can tell from the record his user in the two links above, he/she has a long and pervasive record of engaging in this type of misconduct on WP going back almost three years using dozens of anonymous IPs and sockpuppet accounts. The many other editors and I who have been hounded by this user over the years would appreciate your support in this matter. Centpacrr (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I'm ready to block if it continues. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This account was supposed to already be blocked and I would appreciate it if you would do so immediately. This user is an unrepentant sockpuppet, wikistalker, and disruptive user. Everything he/she posted above is an absolute falsehood. A brief review of his/her record in the previous two AN/I cses will show this to be a hallmark of his/her activities. Centpacrr (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To the best of my understanding, he is a banned user (community ban). See and also list of banned users.Eurytemora (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked for two weeks. If they start up again on that IP after the two weeks, I'll block for longer. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt action. I (and many others) can tell you from long experience, however, that this is not the last time WP will hear from this abusive user. I fully expect him/her to create more sockpuppet accounts and/or edit under more anonymous IPs in the future. While a community ban (see Eurytemora's note above) is being designed for this user I doubt that it will end his/her attempts to evade it. I will let you know if he/she surfaces again as his/her disruptive practices are now pretty well known by many editors and thus he/she is not able to hide for long. Centpacrr (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for implementing the block. I should note that IP 64.252.0.159 was specifically listed in the discussion leading to the community ban . Also, this user is very determined (and pretty clever). So the text “You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired”, included in the block notice, is likely to lead to further attempts at posting in a couple weeks (though the specific IP number might shift, since this is a dynamic IP – and in that context, a limited-duration block on the specific IP number makes sense). Better long-term solutions need to be devised in this case – Kww was going to look into edit filters on the articles he’s likely to target, but that apparently still wouldn’t stop his postings to various noticeboards (i.e. which he seems to do frequently), etc. Eurytemora (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is listed as a dynamic IP, so we don't know for sure who will be using it in two weeks. I'm happy to block on sight if you can provide WP:DUCK evidence that the user is at it again, regardless of what account/IP they are using. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Makes sense. Eurytemora (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering if there is actually a potential technical solution here to blocking a specific user from editing within an IP range without blocking anybody else. Every computer sends a good deal of information beyond just its IP when it requests a page from any server on the internet. (To see what is revealed click here.) If a filter can be designed to include a number of these pieces of information, or preferably the MAC address of either the specific computer and/or modem it is connected to if that be determined using software like "Find MAC Address", within any of the IP ranges he/she uses that should go a long way to targeting only the user to be blocked. Another option is also to set a cookie on the user's browser that blocks that computer from accessing Wikipedia's ftp or upload functions. I'm not sure how to do that, but perhaps some tech person with access to the WP server logs can come up with a filter based on this. What this would do, in effect, is block a specific computer no matter what IP it is using, but allow other users within the range to access all of Wikipedia's functions. Just a thought. Centpacrr (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see new posting here in which you and I are both mentioned. Centpacrr (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Has already been block 1 month, talk page protected. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Previously Deleted
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and would like to make an entry for "The Gaslamp Killer." I am unsure as to why the previous page was deleted so I am contacting you regarding this matter. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edisoncarter462 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that "The Gaslamp Killer" is a notable group, per WP:MUSIC. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Under the criteria for "musicians and ensembles" under WP:MUSIC #1 states that a notable musician "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." Considering the following links: http://www.dazeddigital.com/Music/article/7122/1/On_the_road_with_Gonjasufi__The_Gaslamp_Killer and http://thebigupmagazine.com/blog/current-issue/music/gaslamp-killer/ will these sources not suffice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edisoncarter462 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-notable music blogs generally don't count. Feel free to create a sourced article on the band, meeting WP:MUSIC and WP:Reliable sources. If I don't feel it meets those guidelines, I'll send it to WP:AFD where the community will decide. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Note about Advertising
I did not add GiftZip.com to the gift card page as you suggested I did. It was previously there, I simply changed mobile to electronic because whoever had written the mobile gift card part was incorrect. Therefore, I do not know what you are alluding to about the advertising. Hope that clears things up. Onyxh0tel88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I note that you have also created an article in your userspace. If you're planning on submitting it to article space, you must have 3rd party reliable sources indicating how the company meets WP:CORP guidelines. Otherwise, it will be deleted. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned user (IP reverts)
Why you kep reverting that IP? His edits seem legit.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Banned user with a dynamic IP from a large range (making rangeblocking problematic). OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic blah blah blah. Toddst1 (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, banned user in topic above. Furthermore, he mis-characterized my "get out" edit summary as "shouting." It was in all lowercase, which connotes "ominous whispering." OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

MOS
Hi there! I was reviewing your edit and I wasn't aware of any convention on this nature. Can you please clarify what you are referring to? --  S undefined ulmues (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The convention is clear; nearly every "notable natives" list I've seen uses one column; it's more readable that way, especially when each name has a one or two sentence explanation. Using columns is more useful when you're listing short items; otherwise, using columns doesn't buy you any extra page real-estate. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the long run it does. Compare these two: your version to my version. What do you think? --  S undefined ulmues (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Also the only thing that I have seen in MOS is the avoidance of scrolling ref lists. --  S undefined  ulmues (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends on your screen width whether it does or not. Either way, the reason you don't see other notable names lists in columns is because a single column is easier to read. Regardless of whether it's in the MOS, it is against precedent and convention (if you look at other similar lists for cities, I doubt you'll find many, if any, that use columns). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends
Hi James, You recently intervened over at the Fellowship of Friends article and undid a reference to, "Allegations of Sexual abuse", citing the need for much stronger references. I have added three more separate references from major newspapers to the original reference from Robert Snow’s book, making four total. If you have the time would you please take a look and make any comments you see fit to make. The edit will almost certainly be immediately reverted, so I am making this plea in hopes of avoiding any edit warring. Many Thanks, wantthetruth? P.s. I’m not an HTML wizard so hopefully the style of reference will suffice. p.s. Am leaving a similar note with Prodego another admin who intervened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wantthetruth? (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Our WP:BLP policy makes it very clear that controversial information on biographies must meet high standards of verifiability via reliable sources. If he had been charged or convicted with a crime, that would be one thing.  Several sources you've added are at a pay-to-download site, which makes it hard to evaluate the extent they support the text. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:NutrisaurusRex and 67.180.252.18
Hi Jamie, I noticed that you warned User:NutrisaurusRex about adding links to fishoilblog.com to fish oil. 67.180.252.18 has restored links to that blog and then minutes later NutrisaurusRex removes your warning on his talk page and starts editing fish oil too. Can you please take a look again? Thanks. 96.227.210.71 (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the link. If it's added again, I will blacklist it happily. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

linking Articles
Hi Jamie, I noticed a lot of the links I posted have been reverted and I did leave discussions on a few of those pages but I thought maybe this would be easier since it seems like they were all reverted by you. All of the links that I posted were for articles that were written by those specific people for chinadialogue, and not spam at all. I realize some articles were from a few years back and maybe were not put in the appropriate section, but I think most of them were fine because they are related to what the person does, which for the most part is about environment. I did not mean for it to seem like spam or self-promotion, I just wanted to put important articles on the pages that I thought would interest people who are concerned about the environment. Is it not acceptable to add external links of individual articles to wikipedia pages? Inadr3am (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC) (oops forgot to put a title!)
 * We don't allow link canvassing from single purpose accounts, per WP:EL. If established editors added a link to the site in the course of adding sources, the addition would not have raised flags. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok...sorry, I'm new at this and I'm not sure that I understand what that means, but for some of the pages I was just updating the list of articles they wrote (some of which were not removed). And also for the [Environment of China] page I added [chinadialogue] to the list of organizations, which was removed and I am wondering why since this is a well-established NGO that should have been added to that list ages ago. You can take a look at the website and see for yourself, but I just wanted to make sure that if I add it back onto the wiki page it won't be removed again. thanks Inadr3am (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to stop adding links to a site you are affiliated with, period. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement
Ok I will stop trying to post that in the "iOS Jailbreaking" page but doesn't that also mean that Comex's "Spirit 2" is also advertisement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaDark (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on whether or not it's notable (i.e., has been reported in the media). If it hasn't, feel free to remove it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)