User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive24

Pull-ups
I don't understand what is wrong with the links in Pull-up_(exercise)? All you tell me is "no and no"? I looked through the guidelines and it says that sites "that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". The article didn't contain the information I linked. what is wrong with that?

I also explained on the talk page and you didn't answer there. Why do you do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.119.51 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the blurb at the top of the page. It's there so I don't have to explain WP:EL ten times a day. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean?
Uh, I'm not understanding what you said to me, what was the problem with the 1996 arrest on Charlie Sheen's page? I found and/or searched to find these sources, so just write me back to make things clear. Thanks.RoadHouse (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lawyer blogs clearly do not meet WP:Reliable sources policies. Read the policy link, please. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Request Unblock
Hello please could you unblock the user purpler0ckofficialas i really want the account back, i have understood what i did wrong and it was right to block me but please could yo unblock it. i have read all the pages Thanks The rightfull owner of purpler0ckofficial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.40.101 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to request an unblock at User_talk:Purpler0ckofficial; see here for info on requesting to be unblocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You beat me to the punch on the block. Glad to see you weren't really blocked, I was surprised to see your name at Category:Requests for unblock! Beeblebrox (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Act neutrally
I removed the sentence calling Nairs as dogs because it is taken from a well known anti-Nair source. There is not a single other source supporting that view. Why the hell you are acting in such a biased manner? Robbie.Smit (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You received a final warning for making a personal attack in an edit summary. Anything remotely resembling an attack in the future will result in your account being blocked. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed contribution
Just curious as to why you removed my addition to the 'sexual positions' article? I know it was unsourced, but i have been looking for acceptable sources to add. also why did you say "thanks for experimenting with wikipedia"? although i rarely edit, i have been with wikipedia for 5 years, and was certainly not experimenting. Moss Ryder (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moss Ryder (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I simply used the standard warning template, Template:uw-test1. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand, why did i get a warning? 15:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the addition was unsourced, and not even really a position. The article is not an arbitrary list of every conceivable sex act. I'm not discussing it here further. Find a source or move on. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Scouts of China article
Hi Jamie, since I remember that you have experience dealing with ROC articles, so I need your help with something. There is an User:Kintetsubuffalo that insists on putting a tag about the Japanese rule of Taiwan on a organization that started in Mainland China. I've started a discussion of this matter at Talk:Republic of China, and I invited the User to discuss about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKintetsubuffalo&action=historysubmit&diff=433070521&oldid=433063277 So What should I do in this matter? If you can maybe give your opinion on the subject or show me how to use third opinion (never used it before), it would be great. Thanks T-1000 (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:THIRD is pretty simple to use, and comes in handy for things like this. You're doing the right thing by taking it to the talk page, although I get the impression that KB doesn't wish to discuss it further.  As far as my opinion goes, I can't say that I feel strongly either way; I'd lean a little toward saying it doesn't need the tag, but then again, the tag isn't that big of a deal.  Maybe the real question is whether or not any useful verifiable information exists regarding Scouting in Taiwan during a relatively small span of years. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please remove talk page access.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indef'd, protected. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But wait, this user is autoconfirmed, or will be eventually. Suggest either unchecking "allow user to edit talk page while blocked" in the blocked settings or fully protecting it.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, thought of the same thing shortly after the block. It's fixed now. Thanks again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I've just found yet another sock, .Jasper Deng (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Online dating site comparison chart
Hello I just wondered why you classified my changes to the online dating site comparison chart as advertising? The copy entered was simply listing features as the other sites do. If it's based on the size of the site then there are other sites currently on the chart of a similar or smaller size. If you could give me feedback I could resubmit with the necessary modifications. All the best, Jimmy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmysparkle (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The page already has disclaimers that it's intended for notable dating websites. Also see our policies on conflict of interest and single purpose accounts. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jamie, how does Wikipedia define notable? I'd just like to know when it's eligible to be listed. -Jimmysparkle
 * WP:WEB would apply. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Platinumshore
The content you have restored is based on discussion forums and OR. Every attempt to request better sources from Platinumshore has been ignored. Every time tags were added to the section Platinum removed them with no comment other than personal attacks. I request that you look closely at the content and respect BRD. Platinum was bold, I (after six months of requesting discussion on the subject) reverted. Please help keep this a GA article. 24.143.90.21 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything wrong with the sources in this diff. Which of those are you claiming is a forum? OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Platinum has removed the sources that were discussion forums backing his claim (actually, I never read the forums themselves, just the articles associated with them to see if there was any validity to the statements inserted in the WP page). That said, there is nothing right with the sources in that dif.   is copied from wikipedia.  Also, there is nothing in the export land model that supports what Platinum has written (higher prices leading to higher local consumption?!).   has nothing to do with the statement it is used to reference... it is a graph showing where USA's oil comes from, not anything even suggesting that "positive feedback mechanism of re-localisation of manufacturing production would therefore be positive for OECD oil demand."   is a half hour long interview which validates the statement right before it, but not the two statements before that.   is another graph that backs up some raw data, but is presented as useless jargon. 24.143.90.21 (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would greatly appreciate a response to the above. Otherwise I will assume that you agree that the section needs to be removed.  206.188.32.1 (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Human chorionic gonadotropin
Hi. Please take a closer look at this diff that you have reverted. I took a long hard look at this myself and it appears to be a constructive edit. In addition, the sources were not deleted, but just move around. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just looked at it again. Two paragraphs were removed. (Note in the page history a difference of over 1,000 characters between the two edits). OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, after looking at it again, I agree to your reversion. The edit in question was a somewhat subtle effort to water down the well sourced criticism of the use of hCG in weight loss. Sorry about that. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the articles we both watch
There have been repeated WP:COI-violating edits to many music articles by User:Jcooper1, listing his own compositions and recordings in articles. I'm staying out of it from here on, but you might want to see the discussion and his and my talk pages and see if it's something you want to keep an eye on. Thanks. - Special-T (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the articles we both watch (Kenton page dispute)
I am protesting your edit. Do your homework on this one...

Did either you or Special T (alerted you about me) actully do a google search for Doug Purviance? Purviance has a large amount of credits for the past 40+ years and has performed around the world. He is well known as the long time bass trombonist with the Thad Jones/Mel Lewis Band-Vanguard Jazz Orchestra(s). He is on the Kenton list of sidemen in the article itself (you probably did not even scroll down, did you?). Your edit makes no sense at all, I am not sure you know the genre too well to be honest. Purviance adds a specific point to the article about the relationship Kenton had with African-American players. For your information, Donald Byrd (in article above where I added) served far more a soloist with his own groups or those of players like John Coltrane (look him up) than as a VERY brief sideman with Kenton, in the Kenton clinics (I would have NEVER used Donald Byrd in this article, it leaves a person in the know scratching thier head to be honest). The addition of Byrd there does not make the MOST SALIENT point about Black sidemen, what Kenton actually did for those day in/day out players on his touring groups. Purviance was a true touring sideman in the sense of the word and is one of the very few of his generation of Black sidemen (quite notable) that got this sort of start with Kenton or even Woody Herman.

Thank you for your time Jcooper1 (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If he doesn't meet Wikipedia notability standards, there's no point in mentioning him in the article. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how these names...

(The Baron Jon Von Ohlen, Chuck Carter, and Richard Torres)

...are more important in the article than a person like Purviance (they are in the section above 'criticism' on the Kenton page...please be very specific). I could substitute any one of those names with a long list to even include Purviance (again, he is included on the page below). Jcooper1 (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

San Diegan
I see that on your user page you state you live in San Diego. Perhaps you maybe interested in joining the San Diego WikiProject, or the Balboa Park GLAM? If so we'd enjoy having you. Until then 'Stay Classy'. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links, I mostly likely will join both. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen
Okay, there has been some tension between us and I want to settle this gently and threating to block is not helping your case at all. When you do things like that makes me think that you have a lot of issues and you feel that you always have to be right, but I don't think that you are not that kind of person but saying things like that makes feel that way about you. Charlie Sheen, what is the problem with my sources? I looked hard for those sources and to find that information and to have you just trash my work like a piece of garbage doesn't make me feel good and that hurts. So explain to me what your problem is and we can do to settle it in a calm and gentle manner and please do not make threats like that until you have fully explained yourself. Write back as soon as you can so we can settle our differences. Thank you. RoadHouse (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I already explained on your talk page that some attorney's blog does not meet our WP:Reliable sources guidelines. I'm not explaining it again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Aelita Andre article is autobiography I think
hi ohno. i think you might be perfect to help squelch apparent article-subject-advocate-undos in Aelita Andre. The article is about a kid whose parents seem to have bought her a show at a vanity gallery. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aelita_Andre&action=history cheers Cramyourspam (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While your suspicions may or may not be correct (I don't profess to understand abstract art), the reality is I think the article would easily survive an WP:AFD per the extent of the media coverage. I'm not sure it would be a snowball keep, but if I were a gambling man I'd be it was kept.  I've seen subjects with less coverage survive afd.  Sorry to disappoint, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of The Milner Schools for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Milner Schools is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Milner Schools until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JRPG (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry.
I did not realize that I was being disruptive, and I sincerely apologize for any damage my ignorance may have caused to the integrity of Wikipedia. I will do my utmost to avoid such mishaps in the future, and I hope we can all work together to make Wikipedia a much better place. 69.62.229.144 (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Links to Maternal & Child Health Library resources
I am a reference librarian at the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Library at Georgetown University (funded by the Maternal & Child Health Bureau at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) whose primary work scope is to locate authoritative resources on topics related to children and mothers. I am NOT a spammer; in fact, my attempt to add "External Links" to Wikipedia pages that address the topics we focus on -- Bullying and Cultural Competence, for example -- is simply an attempt to provide neutral, unbiased, and up-to-date information. Our resources are updated regularly (those I recently attempted to provide links to were updated within the past year); the links are very stable (the MCH Library has existed for more than 25 years and houses HRSA's Maternal & Child Health Bureau's collections); and the MCH Library Website meets ALL of the accessibility requirements outlined in Section 508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We are NOT a for-profit (dot com) entity; rather, we are a government-funded nonprofit organization housed within a highly-respected academic institution. We are not "advertising" or "promoting" ourselves; we are simply trying to enhance the quality of the information provided on Wikipedia. I must admit I was offended by the accusatory language in Wikipedia's administrative response asking that I "stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia" and threatening that I will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if I continue "spamming." I believe the language of this Auto response should be revised to show more respect to volunteer contributors such as myself who are simply trying to enhance the quality of Wikipedia.
 * Regardless of the nature of the link, we do not permit single purpose accounts to canvass Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Faye Farstad
Committed to a step by step improval of the Angola related articles, I consider Faye Farstad's introducing additional references as clearly helpful. They are perfectly relevant, and I can't image how on earth anybody should think they are spam or vandalism. This is why I just reverted a revert of yours, and would like to ask you to respect what are (for anybody familiar with the subject matter) pertinent and welcome contributions. Aflis (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with the link per se, but we don't permit single purpose accounts to link canvas. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I can only repeat: for my (and other users') work on the Angola related texts, where one of the shortcoming is that adequate references are often lacking, contributions like those by Fay Farstad are useful and welcome. They are not "canvas", but call the intention to sources of uncontested quality which had not been used because they were unknown. Your application of the rule you invoke is thus inappropriate, and harmful for efforts to improve the articles in question. Aflis (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SPA and WP:EL. I'm not responding further. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

...uhm?
Shameful promotion? What on earth are you talking about? A published song with a registered IMEI number from an album with an official unique UPC code is worth of publication on Wikipedia. The point of Wikipedia is NOT for advertising, but for informational purposes. And last warning? I've never had a first warning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgwti (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:BAND; your project doesn't come close to meeting that criteria. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

GiftRocket page deletion
Hi there- you deleted the page based on promotion. There were a fair amount of articles at the bottom of the page that would define the company as reasonably important, and all subjective language was removed. I'd like to create the page and I obviously want to follow Wikipedia's rules. What would you suggest I do to make the page more verifiable? Would specific links to facts supporting each statement help? Thanks! Absalom23 (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See the WP:CORP notability policy. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Spam? Seriously?
On June 20 you left a note on my user page that you deleted "spam" I added to a page. Note that I've been updating Wikipedia with legit and true information, verified facts and celebrity-requested updates to their pages for years now. Whether on the PR side, updating biographical facts; or on the journalist side as a writer, updating reference notes per the artist's own words about their life, everything I add is a reference that actually adds to the history or facts for that celebrity. It is in no way spamming, and while I understand you're excited about being on top of your job, you could have at least been specific about what, where and why you deleted a link rather than just labeling me a spammer. It looks like you have several similar complaints on this talk page, so perhaps a little better communication on your part will help alleviate the misunderstandings you're having. Thank you. Dovelyone (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the blurb at the talk of the page. Most of the other complainers here have not. If you continue to ref spam urblife.com, you will be blocked. I haven't gone back and removed all of your urblife refs, but if you continue to pester me about this, I'll be happy to post on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam, where the link additions will receive a greater degree of scrutiny. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jamie, I apologize if you've taken what I've said personally. I am in no way trying to "pester" you. I am a reputable journalist and publicist, and only post information that is factual. If in any way I posted something that was not said specifically by the artist, actor or personality, or given in a news-based press release, please do point it out. Any time I've made a reference note, it's regarding current projects that have been specifically mentioned by my subject, absolutely no different than anyone from MTV News or other reputable news/journalistic outlets have done for Wikipedia pages. I did read the links you provided, with specific attention to these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

I feel that I have consistently complied with these guidelines. It's clear in my history that I'm not doing anything malicious or anything for simple promotion, it would be a waste of my time to do so. In response to your accusation of spamming, I simply asked if you could specifically tell me which item you removed and why, that would help us to better communicate. I welcome you and/or your supervisors to scrutinize any posts I've made with reference to facts, assuming it would be done in a fair and professional manner, and welcome your feedback. I will be happy to give you my email for direct contact if you would like to discuss further. I really look to Wikipedia as a journalist as a source of good information, and feel that I understand what other journalists and even fans like to see when they are referencing biographical information on a celebrity. I thank you in advance for your time and fair response. Dovelyone (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your pattern of edits which mostly involves adding urblife links falls under WP:SPA, WP:REFSPAM, and most likely WP:COI, regardless of the quality of links. We've blocked editors who've added nothing but links to Smithsonian or Discovery links as well. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Quack
Hi Jamie, could you have a look at this discussion, and the users Kandathil and Kannadiga123, which look like socks. Pretty clear case of WP:DUCK I feel.  Lynch 7  13:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Socks of each other or another user? I'm not familiar enough with the discussion/editors to see the DUCK part. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Socks of each other. An SPI was opened here, but I guess they take a lot of time to act upon it. I guess the nature of their comments are quite similar, as are their contribs. Another editor also expressed similar concerns, so I came to you :P But then, the accounts were created in 2007 and 2009, so I guess that rules out any Ducking.  Lynch 7  16:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just happened to see this. has been indeffed and  has been blocked for 1 week by MuZemike. &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk to me 02:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well :)  Lynch 7  03:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't around much today; glad it worked out. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

False accusations of disruptive edits
please refrain from falsely calming my edits as disruptive by trying to inaccurately use wiki policy to stop me from editing, and getting into an edit war. Furthermore, you did not provide any evidence of your accusation. Street Scholar (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You will be blocked if you continue to add unsourced, controversial material to a page. Maybe you didn't intend for it to sound silly, but referring to a mythological horse that travels to the "heavens" as a "space shuttle" is absurd. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not spamming
I'm trying to edit the planking page because the radio show I produce made planking history by planking while on live radio. I have linked the pictures which prove this. Why do you keep deleting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetwofour (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because as I explained in the edit summary, we don't need the page to be cluttered with every incident in which a fad occurs. See WP:TRIVIA (and in your case, see WP:COI). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the page is already being cluttered with instances, but I see your point. I'm glad you took down the TV post as well. If it would help, I don't need to plug the radio station, I did that simply for verification purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetwofour (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point; I've cleaned up it a bit more. Thanks for being understanding. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Résumé article
On the article Résumé you deleted an internal link between articles as spam. As you request, I read Wikipedia's policies on spam. I see them addressing external links not internal ones. Can you explain this? Senator2029 (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that the addition was in good faith, but I don't see how linking a single job search company (out of many) is appropriate on that particular page. As far as trying to de-orphan the article, I'd look at "What links here" on Monster.com and other sites for better examples. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you input. I'll check into that. — Senator2029 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources for web publications
Hi Jamie, can you help me understand what online sources are viable? The nature of this topic -- Digital_marketing_engineer -- is web-centric and fast changing, which means there is much more content (volume and quality) online than in printed form. Would, for example, sourcing nytimes.com be appropriate over an industry expert's blog? How about trade publications and their blogs? User_talk:64.127.72.52
 * Notable trade publications are usually fine, as would be the sorts of sources you'd find in Google news. Blogs are rarely appropriate, unless you are quoting a notable individual. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. One of the sources was a blog post that was republished in an industry online publication (link - also search the title); I linked to the original work, not the republished version. Perhaps I should link to both? Also, this blog is a top rated blog by AdAge, a highly regarded industry publication. It seems the Creative Professionals (1) notable people clause (1 - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors) would apply given the web-centric nature of the topic. The other blog post was of a person I met last year and has a ton of knowledge of this topic, but is not publicly ranked as high. That post seemed to be more explanatory though, which helps the topic understanding/definition process.

Note that a nytimes.com article is likely to speak to a broader general audience and less likely to hit the deeper points of this topic; in other words, people who know a lot about this topic are more likely to read the referenced blogs than nytimes.com for information about this topic. Thanks in advance for any feedback as this will shape how I source. I find sourcing online topics more difficult given the perceived lesser significance of the online medium by editors, yet this is often where the most insightful, advanced, current information is first found for web-related topics (parallels Wikipedia v Britannica). Thanks. User_talk:64.127.72.52 —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
 * WebPro news looks to be OK. The blog of a "person you met last year" not so much. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will put the republished article on WebProNews back in as a source. All done, thanks. User_talk:64.127.72.52 —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

RevDel
Isn't that criteria supposed to be used with Oversight? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh...it's one of the "select reason" options with RevDel, so I assume RevDel is fine for that purpose. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oversighters get the suppression option when using RevDel though&mdash;that's why it's in MediaWiki:Revdelete-reason-dropdown. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have oversight options. If you do, feel free to oversight the edits. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm just another admin. =) I have used that criteria, though. By the way, User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js is really useful for quickly checking user access levels. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for the handy link! OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please take the time to explain exactly how I added commentary and personal analysis into articles. I don't understand. I was trying to report objectively about the cull and the resulting boycott, from a neutral point of view. (The fact that not many people know about the cull and the boycott does not make it 'propaganda' does it? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to educate people about what is happening?) I may be biased (see my user page) but that does not mean all the content should be removed, especially by an editor who happens to live in the country under discussion.

Re: Soapbox
Please take the time to explain exactly how I added commentary and personal analysis into articles. I don't understand. I was trying to report objectively about the cull and the resulting boycott, from a neutral point of view. (The fact that not many people know about the cull and the boycott does not make it 'propaganda' does it? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to educate people about what is happening?) I may be biased (see my user page) but that does not mean all the content should be removed, especially by an editor who happens to live in the country under discussion. —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Please read WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE, both of which you've already been notified about. I'm not discussing it further. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've read those, but hey, how kind of you to explain so thoroughly to a newbie like myself. I really appreciate the patient and helpful attitude.
 * Noodlenicky (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro forma ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have raised matters concerning User:RoadHouse, mentioning your blocking of him in June. You may wish to comment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Google plus unofficial wiki
Hi, I went through the WP:Reliable sources and WP:ELNO as suggested. Regarding reliability: The wiki is mainly constructed based on google plus posts directly from Google plus project members or Google employees. What the site adds though, these posts on google plus itself are rather scattered and mixed together with other personal and off-topic posts, so here you can find the collection of them. Regarding verifiability: The original posts are linked in  format Regarding ELNO notes: The site contains information beyond the wikipedia article, but it is directly related with it. The site is free, open and anyone welcome to join the collaboration. I understand point 12 rules against inclusion as the site does not have much history, however google plus itself does not have much history yet either. Could you please look at the site again and I would appreciate if you would value the merits accepting it. Also you can compare http://wikigpl.us with http://www.localseoguide.com/category/google-plus/ and you can see that it has not got the same self-advertising aim behind it. Cheers Sub (Feczo) talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC).
 * No. See the blurb at the top of the page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, could you be more specific what you are referencing. Cheers Sub (Feczo) talk
 * The "why did you remove my link" blurb. So I don't have to explain it three times a day. Also see WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Normalization of Tahitian words
Hi James, I'm the owner of Huri Translations. I'm trying to redress the bad habits of people writing Polynesian words without glottal stops and macrons. There are very few people who feel concerned about the written form of the Tahitian language as this language is mostly oral, not written, so please understand my efforts to have the words spelt correctly. The official writing is the one used by the Fare Vāna'a, which is the Academy of Tahitian language. This writing is the widest used among Polynesian languages. So, can you please put my correction instead? I also updated figures for the Université de Polynésie Française and corrected other grammatical errors like at line 85. Thankfully, Tamatoa — Preceding unsigned comment added by HURIMOZ (talk • contribs) 07:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problems with your recent edits; you obviously read WP:PIPE and remedied the issues with your earlier edits. We need more editors like you. Cheers! OhNo itsJamie  Talk 07:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are you taking down my links
Why are my external links being taken down. All of the pages I link to have appropriate information that would be beneficial to someone looking for more sources on the subject of the page. I am not spaming I created facts pages that have a wealth of information on related topics. I don't understand why these pages are removed from the links, they are topical and appropriate created with the user in mind.

Please explain to me why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben123holland (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The blurb at the top of this talk page explains it, as does the spam warnings on your user page. Also see WP:COI and WP:SPA. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

HHO
wikipedia pages are so confusing. that legal speak is too irritating. please give me a plain english explanation of why my Oxyhydrogen edit was deleted. i only meant to let everyone know what the other web pages that i have seen are saying about the subject. i've been investigating this subject for a few years now and would like to share. why can't i share what the state of the argument is? 71.30.59.130 (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)wessonjoe
 * If you are unable to comprehend the policy links posted on your talk page, you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ooh, slap me one more time will ya! i don't try to comment on legal definitions and jibberish. i leave that to the lawyers. i just comment on the science because that's what engineers do. if you don't want the input of an engineer on a science page why don't you just say so? please explain the legal-speak for me. why does the page(s) you cited have to be so obtuse in their language? and why is a non-scientist editing a science page? and why is it that wikipedia is saying that the user weesonjoe doesn't exist? Wessonjoe (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)wessonjoe
 * Wikipedia is not a repository of pseudoscience and fringe theories. There are other websites for that. WP:Reliable sources lays it out pretty clear; I'm not regurgitating it for you, nor discussing it further for that matter. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * wow. that's a very draconian position. i'm not sure i want to have anything to do with you either since you seem to be hinting that i am not a real scientist. i'm sure Dr. Nagy and Dr. Yea would disagree. since we are now to the point of being on the fringe with science where all new advances are made, i rejoice that you believe i have made it there. it is the height of arrogance that cannot accept discussion or change. so, for the sake of science i must continue to press for an explanation of why my well-founded observation of the current state of the fraud theories concerning oxyhydrogen was summarily dismissed by you. it would be interminably difficult to list all the sources for my statements there just to satisfy your opinion. please believe me when i say that the edit i made is a valid statement on the continuing debate. you would be wrong to assume that the state of science in this matter has nowhere to go. 71.30.59.130 (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)wessonjoe

Rajendrashahyoga
The paragraph I added in Yoga page is based on reliable numbers based on Yoga Journal article. It is important information as yoga is touted as "popular". Please undo your deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajendrashahyoga (talk • contribs) 00:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:EL, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:COI. If you continue adding the links you will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel that I should link directly to the Yoga Journal article? Will that take care of the issue? The blog posts takes the Yoga Journal article and does some math on it to show how the numbers have been arrrived at. I did not want to clutter the main yoga page with these details and instead chose to provide reference to the post that in turn refers to the Yoga journal article. I am new to Wiki editing. I have no intention to spam. Apologize if this is how it is percieved. My idea is to either edit the content or provide supporting links where appropriate. I have done both before with no problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajendrashahyoga (talk • contribs) 16:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Citing Yoga Journal as a source is fine. Spamming links to your website all over Wikipedia is not (they've all been removed). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance and your patience. I will make the changes where applicable 67.164.224.35 (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Planking Page Spam
The planking (fad) page has been a hot target for spammers and people trying to link their personal websites for more traffic the last few days. There is consistent vandalism as well. I was wondering if you could protect the page, please. Thank you. User Econroy56 is consistently spamming personal webpages. NS39340 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Virginia
Virginia is not a commonwealth, it is a state.

Commonwealth: 1. An independent country or community, esp. a democratic republic. 2. An aggregate or grouping of countries or other bodies.

E.g. Puerto Rico is a commonwealth.

If a state wants to call itself a "commonwealth" as a nickname, that's fine, and should be noted as such. To continually refer to a state as a commonwealth is misinformation and a growing problem in Wikipedia.

As far as citing references, there is nowhere in the original Virginia article that validates the presence of a dozen or so "commonwealth" references; why should calling Virginia a "state" be held to a different standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.94.24.26 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a nickname; it's an official designation. Please read the Commonwealth_(U.S._state) article. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"The name "Commonwealth of Virginia" dates back to its independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain. Virginia's first constitution (adopted on June 29, 1776) directed that "Commissions and Grants shall run, In the Name of the commonwealth of Virginia, and bear test by the Governor with the Seal of the Commonwealth annexed.""

Unfortunately, something written in Virginia's first constitution does override the United States constitution or present-day facts. Neither the U.S. government, nor the rest of the world, recognizes Virginia as a commonwealth. The people of Virginia are understandably proud of their heritage, but that does not validate the proliferation of opinion and the disregarding of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.94.24.26 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an official designation, period. I'm not discussing it further. You're going to get blocked if you keep making unsourced changes, period. You have yet to produce a reliable source that says Virginia does not define itself as a Commonwealth. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Article IV, Section 3, The United States Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec3): New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

Virginia was annexed in 1788, and as such became subject to the laws of the federal government. Their own constitution, adopted two years earlier, does not hold precedence over the U.S. Constitution.

From the Virginia.gov website (http://www.kidscommonwealth.virginia.gov/factpack.pdf):

"Date Joined the Union June 25, 1788 (10th state to ratify the Constitution)"

Fortunately, Virginia is teaching their own children the proper nomenclature.

Also in the fact pack:

"You will often hear our state called the Commonwealth of Virginia. This does not mean Virginia has a different form of government than any other state. “Commonwealth” is defined by Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary as a political unit or government (1) “founded on law and united by compact or tacit agreement of the people for the common good,” or (2) “one in which supreme authority is vested in the people.” Using these definitions, it could be said that all 50 states, as well as our national government, are commonwealths."

Here, they are saying "commonwealth" is more of a nickname, and that all 50 states meet the 'requirements.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.94.24.26 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that Virginia is not a state (same as Kentucky, Pennsylvania, etc). The fact is that it's officially known as "The Commonwealth of Virginia."  Period. Commonwealth has different meanings; that's why we have a separate article for "Commonwealth" in the context of US states, which makes it clear that there is very little if any functional difference between a US State and a US Commonwealth.  Further posts on my talk page on this topic will be removed. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Social network poisong
Given your edits, would you look at Talk:Social network poisoning? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Fussycar
Hi I saw you gave on of the first notes to this user User talk:Fussycar - they have continued creating pages that were all deleted, a new one is a copy of another with a silly title - they either have no clue or are just having a larf - picture copyright vios and so on - would you have a look and have a word with them please. I am not seeing a single beneficial or not reverted edit. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Linfield FC
Could you please refrain from posting untrue content on the Linfield Football Club please Ifcp1 (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As you've been told by numerous others, you're on the road to blocksville if you keep it up. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Itsjajajajimmie Talk 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)someone on the wikipedia is on the road to bogusville, my skylight got broken into ....ha ha......some live in a world of make believe!!! Ifcp1 (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC) is correct!!! should not be blocked!!!

Portadown FC
I think its about time that you dealt with the individual who is continually posting lies about the football club, the section entitled problems contains the following line "Portadown FC whose supporters voiced vocal support for the Loyalist Volunteer Force which was based in the area" as a Portadown FC supporter i have never voiced any support for any paramilitary organisation and nor has our clubs supporters at any point in time, so that rubbish needs to be removed, another line states "In 1999 the club's bar was the scene of a violent incident" it was not in the clubs bar it was in a bar outside the ground which has nothing to do with the football club, so again get this removed from the clubs page. Its quite obvious from two of the individuals who keep reinstating these lies about the club that there is politics involved. Wikipedia is doing itself no favours by allowing people with an agenda to continually put lies on the clubs page, the clubs historian has plenty of information that can be put on the clubs page both good and bad, our club has no problem with the truth being on show, just not these disgusting lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.104 (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Take it to the article's talk page, not here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! Deleted link
Here's another one! You must be very tired of this. You deleted the link to my site. I'm not overly upset about it, but it doesn't seem to violate the COI or SPAM policies. Others have deleted it before, and restored it once I point out that there is no self-promotion on it, it contains real news about the subject that is updated often, and has a wealth of information on the subject. All the content is free. Information and news from the site has been quoted in newspapers, magazines, scholarly papers, etc. And you kept a link (to my content, no less) that is far more commercial than mine, not that I'm looking for them to be deleted. As for the other links, you did delete, I can't speak for those. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I take that back. Those are all pretty good links, and provide information or multi-media experience that isn't available on Wikipedia. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reasoned assessment of the removal; it speaks of your integrity. Keep up the good work. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am, if anything reasonable, and thank you for the compliment on my integrity. But does that mean you're going to restore my link? I can't, in good conscience, put it back myself. And to further complicate our relationship, I restored the other links, because, as I said, they are pretty good pages. My usual practice, not that I am presuming you to be me, is when deleting information on pages, I cite the specific part of the Wikipedia guidelines, rather than a page. The links you deleted do not appear to qualify under the three planks of Wiki spam: advertisements masquerading as articles, external link spamming and references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. But maybe there is a subtlety I am missing and therefore I request you be a little more specific about your decision.
 * Of all the Web sites you deleted, my own link is the least spammish, although because Web site is so good, it no doubt promotes me -- guilt by association, if you will.
 * So, if you've managed to wade through this, does this mean you will restore my link? Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see ELNO, which specifically advises against adding links to your own sites. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see the relevancy as I wasn't planning on posting it, but asking you to put it back. I would, of course, only expect you to do so after you looked at the site, verified what I said and determined its merit and relative value to Wikipedia users. But that's not what you do, is it? I apologize for not recognizing that and for having wasted your time. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Cheers! OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not everything is spam!
You deleted my link from the Comic Sans page because of spam. Why? The link goes to a website which is only dedicated to Comic Sans. It turns the font of a website into Comic Sans. It is not spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna flieder (talk • contribs) 07:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see ELNO, which specifically advises against adding links to your own sites. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not my own site. Please stop removing the link, I have read the guidelines and there is no problem with the link I added!
 * If you continue to add it you will be blocked, end of story. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you do that? Please tell me what you think is against the wikipedia guidelines?
 * Are you kidding? It's useless to Wikipedia, and is not much more than a bunch of pharma spam crap. I'm not responding further, as it's patently absurd to insist that it "meets guidelines." OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. Even Vincent Connare, the maker of the font type Comic Sans, respects the site as you can see on Microsoft Typography: http://www.microsoft.com/typography/links/news.aspx?NID=4844 Does this change your mind? PS Why did you delete this comment before?
 * Stop posting here. Further posts regarding this topic will be removed, and if you persist in harassing me, you'll be blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing redirection.
Somebody redirected Belgaum page to Belgaum Village, since I can't undo the changes requested you to do the needful. - Meghanand 09:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Windsor Archive
The discussions are recent but not ongoing. No one has contributed to any of the discussions in 5 days (discussions which were previously very active with multiple posts per day.) If I wanted to "hide" them as you suggest, I would've simply blanked the page. There is a big "Archive" box at the top of the page. Further, WP:ARCHIVE suggest archiving "when the talk page exceeds 50 KB or has more than 10 main topics." The page is now at 69KB. SGMD1 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So then archive part of it, not the whole thing. Five days isn't exactly a long time. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Which discussions do you think are still ongoing? SGMD1 (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. My point is that it makes more sense to archive part of it, not the whole thing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It does matter. WP:ARCHIVE suggests that any discussions can be archived as long as they are not ongoing. SGMD1 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to stalk, but, I think 5 days is too short. A participant might be out of town for a week or more. There's good reason to leave it and no good reason to archive it. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll undo it and give it another week or so. SGMD1 (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, a week (i.e., 12 days total), is ridiculously short. Even the most active, crazy talk pages rarely have archive times shorter than 20-30 days. This page is short, and should not be archives so fast.  For example, that RfC in fact cannot be archived until it's complete (i.e., 30 days after it opened).  Another thing that WP:ARCHIVE says is, "The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 50 KB or has more than 10 main topics. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact."  If a consensus of other editors are saying that this is too fast, then you can't unilaterally decide to archive.  I say, turn Miszabot on (auto-archiving), and set it at 30-45 days, and just let it run automatically.  And make sure, of course, that the RfC doesn't leave the page until the time is done.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)0
 * I 100% agree that using Miszabot makes the most sense. There's just no reason to archive the whole thing because the discussion is a few days or a few weeks old. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Mbhiii/User:Welhaven/User:Calliostoma/User:Ritterhude/User:Siparuna etc is back as User Talk:Trift
A user you've blocked a couple of times now, Mbhiii, Welhaven, etc appears to be back as User Talk:Trift and also, possibly User:Somedifferentstuff. Trift has a similar edit pattern, habit of wikihounding and is edit warring on a set of paragraphs that Welhaven/Mbhiii also warred over. 108.115.7.166 (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ksk2875 Talk 20:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Bonsairolex Talk 11:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)  I am an avid watch collector and are tryng to modify a few things on wikipedia, one i just started (or brought back because it was deleted was one on the waltham model 57 pocket watch ....   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltham_Model_1857 i am asking if you can help because you seen to have edited a lot on wikipedia!  have a nice day!

StrategicBlue
FYI - I've unblocked to allow for rename. He has committed to avoiding COI and adding links to his concerns. Will watch, of course. Kuru  (talk)  14:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with that. Hopefully we'll get some good non-COI edits from them. Thanks for the heads-up. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

user actually doesn't suck
hello. here's a (?rare?) wiki-mea culpa. i think we were in some manner of editing dispute years ago and i concluded at that time that you suck. i hereby admit that i've since run across your edits a few times and have concluded that you don't suck. in fact, you're a good protector, especially for keeping garage bands, self-important professors, and one-exhibit artists from spamming-up the wikiverse. i'm humbled and impressed by the growing new understanding. (respectful nod). Cramyourspam (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't recall our dispute, and obviously one needs to have a fairly thick skin to last around here. I make my share of mistakes (judgement and otherwise) and sometimes unnecessarily ruffle the feathers of good-faith, valuable editors. I've familiar with your edits (our watchlists apparently cross), and it's clear that you and I are on the same side with similar good intentions.  So thanks; it's always nice to get some positive feedback on a talkpage that is largely dominated by folks angry that I've removed their external links.  Cheers, and keep up the good fight! OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Return of permanently banned Long-term abuser Techwriter2B
Hello Jamie ... Our favorite Long Term Abuser Techwriter2B appears to be active again as yet another sockpuppet, this time under the user name "VirtualInitiative" (see "contributions" record here), and is once again back to his old practice of Wikistalking me -- this time by surreptitiously trying to get my user page deleted as being "self promotional". (As usual he/she did so by pretending to be a WP newbie seeking the "help" of experienced editors or admins.) In addition he/she is also again apparently trying to "bait" me into another personal confrontation with him/her by only altering articles that I have contributed to. (He/she briefly attempted this under this user name in January as well but then quickly disappeared before I could prove that VirtualInitiative was a Techwriter2B sockpuppet.) If you would be so very kind, I think he/she needs yet another prompt zapping under WP:DUCK. Many thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a loud enough quack for me. Will do. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jamie, Just a heads-up that I sent an e-mail to your Yahoo account. Best Eurytemora (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Jamie. Centpacrr (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi- I want to alert you people that I have been working on articles on unincorporated communities in Wisconsin including Dane County. There was problems with this anon editor before he/she became Sift and Winnow involving the Ashton/Ashton Corners communities in Dane County. There is a Wisconsin/Dane County connection with this editor. One may want to monitor any changes with articles involving communities in Dane County in case something happens-ThanksRFD (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mbhiii / Trift / Somedifferentstuff (sorry, I posted before at my earlier entry above)
User:Trift and User:Somedifferentstuff are tag teaming at the article The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better which is now at RfM. Especially from their early edit history, I'm fairly sure its Mbhiii/Siparuna/Welhaven/Callistoma/12.7.202.2, User:Rotwechsel/User:Itsnemo/User:Popsucketry again. 173.110.65.138 (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone. Quit making this baseless claim. Also, your account shows that you've made a total of 5 edits on Wikipedia. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed Mbhiii/etc. enough to make a good WP:DUCK call myself. Are there other users more familiar with this that could back up your suspicions? I think you have enough of a case to make for an WP:SPI though. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This unidentified IP should take this to WP:SPI. I reverted one of his earlier edits partly because of this unfounded sock assertion. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Over the last couple of days, a set of Mbhiii IP's have been removing the sock tags from dozens of talk pages. 184.216.143.233 (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ashton Corners, Wisconsin
Hi-Ashton Corners, Wisconsin-you need to look at the history of the article-this editor mentioned of driving through Ashton Corners. This always a possibility this editor could edit articles involving Dane County because of this editor's connections with Wisconsin-Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How do I tag spammers?
Hello, I came across your warning on User talk:98.148.248.240 when I visited their talk page after finding his excessive spamming. They've done so even after your warning, but I can't figure out how to add the tag? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Add the following to their talk page:

~, replacing the "1" with 2, 3, or 4 (final) depending on how many times they've been warned. You don't have to give them 4 warnings if they are really going to town with the spam; I frequently escalate the warnings in those cases. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Horsemanning - Can you read?
If you would read before you act you would realize the entire article on wikipedia was taken word for word from horsemanning.com, how is linking to that website and adding more content from it spamming? It is not my site, but I love the movement. If you explain to me how copying from a website and posting it on wikipedia and not linking to that website or allowing more content about the movement is spam, then I will accept your revisions. Otherwise, do your research first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markfifton (talk • contribs) 04:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Add it again, and you will be blocked. Period. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

'''So you are admitting you are wrong and abusing your power. Got it. Enforcing direct copyright theft to wikipedia from a website without citing the source. '''
 * Nope, I'm just enforcing policy. There's no evidence that the site didn't take the content from Wikipedia. Regardless, I rewrote it so it's a non-issue.  The current citations are what we call around here reliable sources and are sufficient for the current content. I'm not discussing it with you further. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Pointing stick
Kindly stop engaging in an edit war. Wikipedia's guidelines state that the proper venue for resolving a dispute is the article's talk page, not edit summaries. I therefore await your input on the talk page and shall thank you to leave the article in its status quo until the dispute has been resolved. Indrek (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the only one arguing for inclusion of said content. How is it that you are not equally culpable here? The onus is on you to provide a reliable source, which you have not done. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

the history channel shows, four for the business and four for the persons..
.....talk:Bonsairolex.........

Please carefully read, Ohnoitsjamie,.....the history channel show , pawn starts is the highest rated show on the history channel watched by millions, and million and i dont think you like these people or the fact they are famous people ....so you delete my pages...eight pages of simple text, that is referenced, four for the business and four for the persons...all referenced and you just delete them....the history channel is not a dog and pony show, the show pawn stars is the highest rated show on t.v.... it is watched by millions and millions, just got re signed for 80 new shows ........ but you just delete them...... appear on the highest rated t.v. show you are not allowed on wikipedia!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonsairolex (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you follow the advice I posted on your talk page. I can't make much sense out of the above message. I deleted the deletion logs here; I know I deleted them, it's just cluttering up my talk page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Broken template in a message you put on a user's talkpage
Hi- please see. Currently, your most recent message just says " You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges.  Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: . ". I originally changed it to level 4, which is final warning, but then saw that your edit summary had been the word "blocked", so I reverted back to the broken template, unsure of what you meant to place. Cheers. &mdash;Bill Price (nyb) 23:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Tortuga Trading Inc.
I am contacting you on behave of the person who crated this page, I would like to know your reasoning for deleting this page, this did not fall under A7 it is from a know TV show. It seems you are targeting all of User:Bonsairolex new pages he created and deleting them under A7 which non of them fall under, please explain your actions. DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been watching Bonsairolex because while his edits seem to be in good faith, they demonstrate a lack of policy comprehension. Last time I checked, being mentioned on a reality show a few times isn't one of the WP:BIO criteria. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Why was my reference deleted?
I'd added to the Popular Culture/Fiction section of "grey goo" the following: "Possibly the first literary example is "Mutant 69 The Plastic Eater", by Pedler, Kit and Gerry Davis, in 1971."

Why did you feel the need to delete this?

Masterius2011 (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I felt the need to delete it because it was unsourced. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Why was my reference deleted?
I created the segment "concessions" under Garden Centre, but it was deleted.

Can you please tell me why?

Thanks Davidsmith1986 (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was unsourced/original research. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Trift is back to edit warring at Money trail and is probably Mbhiii
User:Mbhiii/User:Welhaven used to edit war and attack other users via IPs such as 74.162.*.* and is back doing it again, for instance from Special:Contributions/74.162.157.201. I'm certain he's using User:Trift based on the shared edits between the edit patterns of the IP's and Trift. Trift and 74.162 IP's are also editing other user's comments on talk pages to remove what he disagrees with, like Mbhiii used to do. User:Somedifferentstuff is likely to also a sock of Mbhiii like User:Siparuna and User:Calliostoma were. 184.227.126.178 (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent message
Hi Jamie, thanks for the advice, but WP does not require a RS for all contributions. I have been referencing primary (which is allowed) and secondary sources, to make the points they make. God bless you. WalkerThrough (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When multiple veteran editors tell you that your edits are problematic, you may want to consider the possibility that your edits are indeed problematic. The edits I reverted clearly violated WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Vasco rossi
Hi, i think that is quite noticeable: if you look vasco's facebook page, you'll look a lot of people very angry with him (and, look ok nonciclopedia's discussion page, it's archive, siamogeek Paolo Attivissimo's blog, Tom's HW.

They are some of the links (in italian), but if you use an translator you'll look that Streisand effect is on strike. --Marcopete87 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Look also at "Salviamo nonciclopedia" on facebook. --Marcopete87 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Facebook/blogs do not qualify as WP:Reliable sources. Please read that policy. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A interesting external link
I've received today a Warning related to an external article that i've suggest. I've added an external link in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino as A different window for the universe where it says "a new point of vision" for the Neutrino compared to properties discovered one week ago at CERN. It comes from a qualificated AIDIC (Italian Chemical Association) fellow (ing. Gianni Donati). I read all the policies about External Links in wiki but I can't understand why this link had not passed the verify. Let me say... Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acalloni (talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need a link to every conceivable paper about the neutrino. We'll stick to ones published by notable researchers/institutions. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert
Wondering why you did not return the article to this version? It you read the Cochrane review you will notice that they state that their are concerns of sponsorship bias. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

COI, SPA, and spam
Removing this is important work, but I'm not sure I see a problem here; what I saw was information not included in the article, and a glance through the users contribs shows many similar and useful inclusions that other can use to expand articles. New users have to start somewhere, and are often reluctant to make major edits. Being accused of being a SPA, and of COI, is not very encouraging, especially as you didn't see fit to remove these external links. Sincerely, OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The user admitted to a COI, and a review of the edits showed a consistent pattern of adding links to a single site. Regardless of the merit of the site, we typically don't permit systematic canvassing of site links. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a conflict of interest, or admission of that. The page I visited is a .org, it does not contain advertising, the scope seem similar to this site, at least, as it used to be. BTW, I added this message by clicking new section, yet it does not appear in the TOC or anywhere else on the page. Is this deliberate? OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The user is affiliated with the organization. I suggested the user take it to the EL noticeboard; I'd respect any consensus there regarding a waiver of our canvassing policies. I fixed the TOC issue; malformed message from a spammer. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I will leave it to you to resolve what appears to be an internal conflict over external not-for-profit organisations. 17:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Jamie, could you WP:DUCK block this user? This user's editing pattern (with the intention of POV pushing Telugu Cinema and other related articles) clearly indicates that they might be. Also see Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. Thanks, &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk  17:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Cease and desist notice
Dear User, Please refrain from undoing changes to Wikipedia articles which have been correctly cited. If you continue to do so, you may need to have your administrator capabilities revoked. Many thanks, Correctus 2kX — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctus2kX (talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. If you continue to insert information that is not backed up by the supplied sources, I will invoke my administrator capabilities. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Datingsites
Hello. One short questions please: Do you think that www.loverty.com is good enough for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_dating_websites ? Would be great if you could help us with your opinion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.7.179 (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no, per WP:EL. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 12:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI and NLT
Hey Jamie, I'm just dropping you a note on the ANI thread I opened in a matter you were involved in. As soon as I opened the thread, I got a phone call to go pick up one of my kids from school, so was unable to give you a notice too. In any case, sorry for not notifying you also. Cheers! Dave Dial (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries; I came across the ANI thread after the block. I wasn't 100% sure if the comment wording constituted a threat, but I wasn't concerned, knowing that the user wasn't going to last long anyway before one of us liberal moonbats blocked him. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
This kitten is reading all your contributions and is starting to get amazed. Thanks for everything you've done on Wikipedia!

Pinkstrawberry02 ™ talk  18:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)  Please reply on Pinkstrawberry02's talk page. And don't forget to sign her guestbook!

Low Dose Naltrexone
I have noticed you are resisting any changes to Mr Novella's entry on this. Dr Berkson has been offering changes but even these are being removed. He is a prominent doctor. However, an earlier version I notice was full of good information and a large number of good, and some poor, references. The current entry is very poor, and has references to journalitic evangelisation against LDN only. I propose to get the scientists who are actually doing the real research to help me write a correct entry for wikipedia with good quality references. It should not evangelise for or against LDN (as the current entry does), but we have had around 15 new papers published this year that explain a lot more about what is going on here and we hope you can work with us to get this entry corrected and informative, instead of being propaganda as it is now. Bwmbagus (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Take it to the talk page of the article, and be sure to read our WP:Reliable sources policy. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Endorsed deletion of page Curt Mega
I don't understand. This project is supported by

Mozartchic01 (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Mozartchic01
 * That means nothing to me. My endorsement stands. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dwight Morrow High School
The article in and of itself was biased. As a person who attended the school, I think the Wikipedia article should be accurate and at the very least grammatically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandraska (talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "I went to the school myself" does not qualify as a reliable source. Feel free to correct grammar or remove unsourced statements, but keep your opinion out of it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

cloud computing
Jamie - I understand your removal of the link; however, you also removed the content from the page - can you help me understand how to contribute and improve an article without having everything deleted? What did I do wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmillerfamily (talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Reliable sources, and don't use links to your own websites as references. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I was under the impression that "original source" material could not be inserted into an article so was trying to reference the original source content elsewhere.  If I'm an expert on the topic of cloud computing, and want to add or contribute accurate content, what conditions must I meet from your point of view so that my content would not be deleted so quickly?  Said another way, how do I prove to you and other moderators that I'm an expert such that my contributions would be allowed at least long enough to be challenged by other experts who may come along and read it?  My content was deleted so fast that there way no time for another expert to even see the content so that it could be challenged...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.132.141 (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Thanks for reverting so much nonsense. Your WP:edit summaries say what action is done, but not the reason. Please consider adding an explanatory word or letter like "nonsense" or "nons", "vand" or "v" to the boilerplate "Reverted edit by ..." - this, plus knowing it's you, lets us know what's going on without checking the edit. Will a tiny exploding cookie sway you? --Lexein (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The rollback tool's purpose is to allow the removal of obvious vandalism with a single click; taking the time to write an edit summary defeats the purpose. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo
A great user page! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Both have crossed "the rainbow bridge," but I like to think their memory can live on in my heart and in cyberspace. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert on Chuck Norris Fact
Sorry about that, I was on my Iphone and must of hit Rollback, I completely agree that it's not a reliable source.-- SKATER  Is Back 20:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Halloween
Who are you templating?.. Template the other guys if you must, I'm no newbie. I'll fight systemic bias as long as I see it on WP. You should too. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're edit warring against the established version, supported by several other editors. Since you're not a newbie, you should know to take it to the talk page. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Established version" my ass. It's all written from a US POV when folks in the EU, Japan etc. could care less about Halloween customs. As an admin, I guess you should take note of systemic bias cases. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  22:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Others, including myself, are not in agreement with you. In fact, one of the users you are edit warring with is from the UK.  Take it to the talk page. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why am I not surprised?  ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  22:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was surprised by this . OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, the grey squirrel and grandma are the only 2 persons in Europe who care about Halloween. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  22:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Lucid Dream Induction Device
Hi Jamie,

Just looking for some clarification as to why you took down my post today? I don't see how that post could be viewed as advertising. If I had to guess I'd say it’s because I put down the name of the companies that are currently or have previously built a lucid dream induction device? If that is the case couldn't you just delete that section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldnightly (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because, as already explained on your talk page, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. If you continue to try to use Wikipedia as such, you're account will be blocked indefinitely as an advertising only account. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not clarification Jamie; this is what you posted on my talk:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don’t know who I am advertising for in my post, if you could specify that for me it would be greatly appreciated.

I think information on lucid dream induction devices should be included on the lucid dream page. Should I remove the last line of my post with the name of the products?--Ldnightly (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because the links to the website you added repeatedly do not meet our WP:Reliable sources guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The source that you are saying isn't credible is already being sourced under the Scientific History section of the Lucid Dream Page.

Did you take the time to look at the source?

Furthermore the information published comes from Dr. Stephen LaBerge who is the most recognizable name is lucid dream research in North America and most likely around the world. The man founded the Lucidity Institute (out of Stanford) and you can find his name all over the Lucid Dream page. The source event describes the Method used to build the study and once again come directly from The Lucidity Institute.

Once more, I am very confused as to why you removed my post. This post should be a part of the Lucid Dream page.--Ldnightly (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I'm not discussing it further. Please see WP:SPA, WP:COI, and the blurb at the top of my page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Why?
I see that this is not the first time you get questions starting with this word. I also see that you don't bother giving appropriate answers to those questions, so I don't ask.

I can clearly see that you removed all links pointingto my site (and only those) from all the pages where I have added appropriate references. I can also see that you have left all the links pointing to similar sites. I understand that this is a revenge after I undoed one of your link removal changes. As you have probably seen, I have started to clarify some of those pages adding relevant information, and was about to restructure some of the messy pages to provide a clear overview of the topics in robotics (instead the false information some of them list now). But I will think again if wikipedia editors like you act on their emotions instead of consideration. Please revise all those pages where you have removed my links, and remove all other similar references pointing to reviews, product pages and forums, since all of those violate one or more of the wikipedia the rules (they point to pages where products or services are promoted: eg. iRobot, Costco, Philips, Robot Reviews, Botjunkie, etc.). As I have tried a large number of the commercially available domestic robots I have experience, knowledge and good quality photos in this subject. I guess I won't be sharing those with the world through wikipedia...

(And before you say: I am aware of the fact that the links have a nofollow attribute.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibor antaloczy (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, read the blurb at the top of the page; that's why it's there. Secondly, the links clearly violate WP:COI, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:EL policies. If you continue to add them, you will be blocked as a spam-only account. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What is a reliable source?
Could you please tell me what is a "Reliable source"? If Natural News is not a reliable source then what about the other sources? Why did you delete everything? You don't want to believe that shampoos contain risky ingredients? Yottamaster (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:Reliable sources. Also refer to WP:FRINGE. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

And, I have already referred to Reliable_sources. What does one exactly mean by scholarly? I can show you that many scholars are not "scholarly" at all. Don't get bewildered. There is a lot of knowledge filtering in this world, even by so-called reputed scholars. Yottamaster (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great to hear. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to WP:FRINGE. But is it wrong to keep a reader alert? I hope you are not paid by P&G or L'oreal or someone else to wipe out unwanted information ;-) Yottamaster (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm on the payroll of every major multinational. The more evil, the better. Oops, gotta go, getting a collect call from North Korea. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Block request
All of User_talk:Backdoorsss's contributions have been deliberate vandalism. Cross country running was vandalized after your warning. &mdash; John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard <font color="#ff0000">Wannabe , Talk to me! 21:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of edit to fireworks article
Hi Jamie, my edit was because I found the original formulation didn't read easily, with the list of colours appearing to be a list of sparks - not a huge point, I admit - but I think that I upset you because I used colour rather than color. If that's true, would you mind if I re-edited using the US spelling? I do think that my version is slightly easier to read. Cheers, f — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.190.231 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. WP:ENGVAR explains how it's determined which spelling to use. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Kim bed rest.jpg
Back in June you removed this image from the Bed rest article, saying it added nothing. An anon. then readded the picture several days later. I have just seen a conversation on Facebook, however, indicating that the photo (which shows an acquaintance of mine) was added to WP as a joke in the first place. As it has no useful purpose, is there any reason it cannot simply be deleted? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 18:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done? Already? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  18:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have we had a miscommunication? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 21:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * About what? OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I assumed "Done" meant you had deleted the image. The miscommunication, apparently, was on my end. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  16:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Islam
Regarding your edit on Islam page, where do you see 1.3 billion? Pew Research Center (2009) states "1.57 billion" and the World Factbook states "22.43%"  of world population, which is now now 7 billion according to many reports. What is 22.43% of 7 billion?--NorthernPashtun (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My only issue was that you changed a figure without updating the sources. The 22% provided by the CIA factbook was at the time that page was published, when the population was smaller.  If you have a newer source, feel free to update it. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Rosa Parks
nominated Rosa Parks for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You have received this notice because you have been identified as one of the top five editors of the article by edit count. Brad (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Message
Someone (perhaps you?) left a message for someone (perhaps me), saying "Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages ... Your edits do not appear to be constructive". What are you talking about? Please explain yourself. Cheers, 138.253.48.190 (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was in reference to adding silly content to "Burial at Sea." OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Jamie, I added no "silly" content to "Burial at Sea". I added constructive, referenced remarks on "Burial at Sea" by Admiral The Rt Hon. The Lord West of Spithead GCB DSC. This man was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the British Home Office, first Chancellor for Southampton Solent University and a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (GCB). He is also a former First Sea Lord, Chief of the Naval Staff, a member of the Defence Council and Admiralty Board as well as First and Principal Naval Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty The Queen. He fought in the Falklands War (Captain of a sunk vessel, HMS Ardent). He has even performed burials at sea, and described them in detail, including shooting at bodies to make them sink, and how ash once got sucked up by the diesel intake of a submarine, and got sprinkled over the canapes (in his words) that the cook was preparing for the funeral party.


 * I can fully understand how you may be shocked at that (I certainly was), and how you may think that it is "silly", but it is far from silly - it was explained by West himself, to a radio audience of millions. If you had checked the reference, you would realise this. Comment is free, but facts are sacred, Jamie - unless you have better “burials at sea” qualifications than him (have you ever seen one?) then please explain yourself properly - editors should interact with each other in a respectful manner. Many thanks 138.253.48.190 (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles do not need a whimsical tone. I'm not explaining myself further.OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Lord West was being whimsical, but that was his tone, not wikipedia's. The section reflected his tone - there's no other way to do it. Have you checked the reference? Remember to be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others 138.253.48.190 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exciting. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

NM lang
I see you removed Spanish and Navajo form the infobox @ New Mexico. Fair enough. What do you think of this? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Years ago, I seem to recall that the article stated that French had more of an official status; rereading the article now, that doesn't seem to be the case. Unless a language has an official status, I don't feel that it belongs in the infobox.  In the case of Louisiana, I'm going to bring it up on the talk page first as the French translation has been there for a long time. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to close two overdue, ill conceived Possible Un-Free Nominations
Hello Jamie. I would much appreciate it if you would take a look at and close these two overdue ill-conceived and seemingly petty "Possible Un-Free" image nominations located and of two of my own original and completely self created image files (one a photograph, one an digitally created "watercolor" illustration). These two PUF nominations have been supported only by the proposer who gives his own extremely narrow interpretations of policy which do not seem to remotely comport with the historical consensus of the community well documented in many other similar situations. Many thanks! Centpacrr (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm the best one to make that sort of judgement. RE: The Flying Yankee; while I can personally see that you simply didn't apply Photoshop filters to an image, I do recall a similar situation at Audrey Tatou, where someone had made a digital drawing of a photograph. I seem to recall that the image was deleted, though I don't recall the precise rationale. Regarding the Jumbotron shot: that is even less clear to me.  Sorry. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

WQA
Hi Jamie, I believe someone forgot to notify you of this thread about you. <font face="High Tower Text" size="1px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> 22:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it's an old thread, and is of no interest to me. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The section is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Sitush (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ketchup defenestration
I don't know whether you are watching Defenestration, but I reverted an edit that seemed to me inappropriate. It got put back. Now, I don't feel strongly about it, but perhaps you would like to have a look and see whether you think the material should stand? FWIW I am bowing out of that one. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kids these days, geez. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam
Having a bit of a problem with wholesale deletions by an experienced newbie (shouldn't that be an oxymoron?). Anyway, would appreciate it if you could look on. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User Ewolwerdna
Ewolwerdna vandalized the article List of unsolved problems in physics. A while back, you gave the user a last warning about vandalism. I just noticed that and wanted to let you know, thanks.  -Jord gette  [talk]  00:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

ELN
I'd like to hear why you thought the link described at External links/Noticeboard was spam. (NB that a connection between the poster and the website is not what makes something spam.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Morally Objectionable
Please stop encouraging the use of material from blacklisted sites and suggesting ways to get around citing the source properly as you have done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#greatestbattles.iblogger.org.

Graeme374 (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding that conversation, the essence of which was that the blacklisting of the site and the licensing of the images are two completely different things. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision deletion
Hi Jamie, its been quite some time since I wrote here :) . I wanted to ask if its possible to delete these revisions. They have been reverted, but I don't know if WP:LIBEL applies to older revisions as well?  Lynch 7  07:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder
Hi Jamie, You have deleted a couple of the links I have put on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder I don't think that either of the links promote a product or could be deemed spam. The first one http://www.firstpersonplural.org.uk/ is (in their words) "First Person Plural is a small UK-wide membership charity led by volunteers who have lived-experience of dissociative identity disorder (previously known as ‘multiple personality disorder’) or other childhood-trauma-related complex dissociative condition with a similar presentation (e.g. type 1 dissociative disorder not otherwise specified)." - Basically a support group that provides an insight into D.I.D. The other one http://www.dissociation.org.uk/ is an education site aimed at all those affected by DID; which admittedly does promote their own publications and training courses. However this is no different than some of the links to Cancer Research UK on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer page.

Thank you for highlighting Wikipedia policy to me. I will not put the links back up without checking with you. Please have a look at them yourself and let me know if you think they are suitable.

Kind regards Petitvie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petitvie (talk • contribs) 04:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Take it to the article's talk page, please. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor removing images; undoing your restoring edits
I think you were dealing with an editor before that was removing images from a "blacklisted" site. He's been undoing all of your replacements it would seem under the account User:Graeme374 and IP User talk:218.185.53.226. From what I can gather he's claiming that because this site is blacklisted all images from it should be removed to (these images don't seem to have anything to do with the site itself either, they were just hosted there). This logic makes no sense to me and it looks like he's edit warring about it.

Unless there's some resolution I haven't seen, someone needs to take a look at the dozens of pages he's altered and restore them as need be. Shadowjams (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Digging into it more there's a discussion at the MediaWiki whitepage where they raised the issue, and nobody else in my estimation agreed. I've undone their latest batch of edits and have warned them. If I'm in error here though let me know, but I think they're running wild with a convoluted theory about removing images that originated from a blacklisted site (but who are otherwise unobjectionable). Shadowjams (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Doh, ok I guess you were discussing it with them there. In any event... the above seems accurate (aside from me not noticing it was you). Shadowjams (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Allegheny Mountain (Pennsylvania), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Allegheny Mountain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback left by new user
Hello. You made this revert yesterday, of a new user who was trying to add information to an article. Those edits you reverted were User:Another Skeptic's first edits to Wikipedia. The reason I noticed this, was because of this unhappy message left on the new Feedback dashboard. To me it appears this user was trying to be helpful, but was bitten; anyway I just thought you might be interested in that feedback. Mlm42 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see anything wrong here - the user posted borderline copyvio information that is for all intents and purposes cut and pasted from fdazilla.com, and then went and tagged the info 11 times with the same citation that did not provide a source for the info posted. To me it looks like linkspam for Drugs.com. The new editor's feedback was "edit changed and not sourced"; when it was actually, "unsourced edit removed". --Yankees 76 Talk 23:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the user may have been referring to their first edit, which was an attempt at adding a citation needed tag.. this "tag" was then removed, and not sourced (hence their comment). But I agree the other addition looks like a copyvio, and the link provided (later removed) didn't back up what was written, but that doesn't mean the user intended to do harm. I think it's possible this user was trying to be helpful, so maybe we should consider their feedback. Mlm42 (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Another round at ELN
We have another complaint about your removal of some external links at External links/Noticeboard. I would really appreciate it if you would show up and answer the questions there. If you don't choose to join the conversation, I'm willing to take your non-participation as proof that you no longer think your removal of these links was appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Just a quick note to inform you that a user you have had recent contact with is currently under discussion at ANI here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies
Hi. We have been having a dispute over the inclusion of the Criticism section of the article FedEx. I realize that I have included and you have excluded my edit in good faith. I apologize for any misunderstandings. I have decided to keep this section out of the article. Whenaxis (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

unsourced material on Tvind entry
Hello Jamie,

Saskehavis here. As you may recall, last summer you and I discussed the Wikipedia entry for Tvind. Specifically, you questioned the reliability of some of the sources I had included as references, the watch-dog website Tvind Alert in particular. Even though the journalists running Tvind Alert have extensively researched Tvind, and, in my opinion, are reliable sources, I reworked the material and sources in question, which then met with your approval.

I have continued to develop the Tvind entry, specifically in the "Allegations ..." section.

But recently, another editor named "Wawelength" has added much material to the first half of the entry, nearly all of it unsourced. Some of his/her external links went to long articles on Tvind — in Danish. I asked him/her to provide a link to at least a few sources in English, to which s/he has complied only in a few instances.

As for the rest of it, I have added "citation needed" notices in the unsourced material, but Wawelength seems unconcerned about supporting his/her new material.

What should be done? I've already left a note on the talk page about the need for proper references, preferably in English. I've even tried to improve Wawelength's and other contributors' content, which has tended to be, in my opinion, very poorly written in a manner consistent with many non-native English speakers. However, I’ve made sure that I don’t change what’s essentially being said by other contributors; I just make it read a lot better.

In addition, Wawelength doesn't seem to know how to properly format an inline citation, as s/he has simply added a couple of "raw links" that don't show up in the Notes section.

I have to admit to being curious as to why you have in the past held my contributions to the article to such high standards, yet you've seemingly overlooked the nearly complete lack of inline citations in the first section — not contributed by me. And now this new editor is loading up the Tvind entry with what comes across in many places as high-flown rhetoric, with large tracts of his/her contributions being unsourced.

I just don't get it. For over a year I've worked incredibly hard in my spare time to first learn the Wiki markup and then to make the "Allegations ... " section as well-written and as rock-solid reference wise as I can muster. This is not my job, and I'm no professional. Rather, I'm only a concerned citizen who feels that the public should be more aware of the serious controversies surrounding Tvind.

You seem to have extensive experience as a Wikipedia editor, so I'd like to ask you if there is anything you can do to resolve this situation, which has been ongoing for years now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saskehavis (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been really busy lately and have only had time to do spam/vandalism work. When my schedule loosens up in the next week or so I'll have time to examine your concerns in the article. In the meantime, you are free to revert/challenge any new content in the article and invite the other editor to discuss disputed material on the talk page.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Jamie. Thank you for getting back to me so promptly. And thank you for getting started on addressing this longstanding problem. I understand that you've been very busy and I'm sorry if I appear to be impatient. I realize that there are a lot worse matters demanding your attention on Wikipedia. In the meantime, as for me doing the actual challenging and reverting, I don't quite feel comfortable with doing so yet, although I've tried to let other editors know of my concerns, and I've even endeavored to render others' contributions at least more readable and organized. But I've got a lot to learn here. By the way, although I'm an American, I've been adhering to British — not American — English spelling conventions in the Tvind entry, because that's what most English speakers worldwide are accustomed to.