User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive29

Permissions
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, thank you for pointing this out. I had forgotten that I had declined a prior permissions request from Theworldgymnast1, although the name did seem familiar. Thanks again. Acalamari 11:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for keeping up with the volume of requests on the permissions page. Not sure what "vandalism wars" Theworldgymnast1 is talking about...I didn't see any in a cursory inspection of their diffs. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup in San Diego?
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I am Sebastian Wallroth from Berlin, Germany, board member of Wikimedia Deutschland. I am visiting San Diego from February 3rd to February 8th, happily invited to a wedding. I would like to meet Wikipedians. Is there a chance for a Wiki Meetup in San Diego during the first week in February? --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Sebastian, I'd be up for that. Where in San Diego will you be staying? OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Slate magazine article mentioned you
With regard to this, just in case you missed the fact that Slate mentioned you, see here. Flyer22 (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out...that's awesome! (I love Slate). OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=590201512 your edit] to Michael Fagan incident may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * one of those Liberty prints, down to her knees'|publisher=The Independent|accessdate=2014-11-1 }}

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=591369645 your edit] to Paul Allender may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Allender was involved with the formation of a new project named "White Empress." Mary Zimmer  formerly of Luna Mortis  is a vocalist with the new project. According to Zimmer: {{quotation|Paul and I actually have a

Salt time
Hi Jamie. This guy remains unconvinced of his lack of notability. He actually re-created the article via C&P with the CSD tag still on it. INeverCry 03:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Kanpur massacre
I am working on inserting references. Please give me some time. I am new and learning. However edits I made are with sound basis of historical knowledge and reading. Please stop undoing changes unless you really know this historical event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshal1981 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources first, please. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion requested
Could use another opinion at Criticism_of_Islam. Can look at discussion, if you think that would be helpful. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Chennai
Hi, thanks for keeping watch on Chennai article. You have recently removed the statement "Chennai is the cultural capital of India" (rightly so). Originally it was written as "cultural capital of South India" (with source). Seems somebody has removed during the source. I will try to find the source again. The discussion related to this can be found here. Happy editing :).--Challengethelimits (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch, thanks for fixing it! OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Ballmer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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. Read the FAQ* Join us 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) 09:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Plato's Allegory of the Cave
Hi Jamie; the message you sent me for removing an edit to this page indicated that you thought my edit was a "test"? It was not intended to be a "test" edit -- I cited evidence from a TED talk to show a connection between the allegory of the cave, education, and game-based learning. Also, from my research on the standards for notability, I'm wondering why "non-noteable" was a reason for deleting the citation since notability guidelines do not apply to article content according to the official guidelines. I'd think a TED talk constitutes some merit for inclusion, no? Kballestrini (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Having been on a TED talk does not automatically confer notability. We're not going to list everyone who's ever alluded to the Allegory of the Cave for obvious reasons. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realize it's not an allusion, but a core analysis of Plato's view on education and how it applies to current research in game-based learning, right? Did you watch the talk? Kballestrini (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care what the talk is about. The individual is not notable, period. I'm not discussing it further. Make a blog about it if you think it's so important. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing deck
Hi Jamie - just wanted to see why the link to the deck on funnel optimization was removed. The deck was relevant to that section of the article (the article discusses how growth hacking involves each step of the customer funnel for a product, which is the whole purpose of the deck). The deck has been extremely well received by the community - it has over 26k views on slideshare, and Sean Ellis (who coined the term 'growth hacking' and is referenced in the article) called it "one of the best decks in growth that I've ever seen." The deck is a shortened version of a class I teach at Northwestern's MBA program. If I formatted it incorrectly I'd be happy to modify it. let me know your thoughts! --Intentionally (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When a user signs up for Wikipedia for the sole purpose of adding an external link with no content, it smells very spammy, hence the revert. Given your username and the link, you'll probably also want to read WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood - I signed up with Wikipedia on 10/22/12 (can send the relevant email if that helps.) I get COI - this deck has been up for almost a year. Didn't think it warranted inclusion until Sean Ellis tweeted about it (as did growthhacker.tv who's also referenced here. If you don't think it warrants inclusion I understand, but I do think it's in the spirit of the topic and that line specifically, and the community itself was very receptive to it. --Intentionally (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not receptive to it at this time. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for the replies. Appreciate the consideration. --Intentionally (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Mark Hoppus
Looking at the edits from the time it was first semi-protected on January 7 to the time you fully protected it on January 11, I can't see why you saw the need to raise the protection level.

The protection will expire on Saturday, so there's no need to un-protect it. But if the vandals come back and if they are not auto-confirmed or abusing edit summaries, consider using just semi-protection. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  19:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I upped it to full because after several autoconfirmed meatpuppets got through (Hoppus had invited his Twitter followers to modify his Wiki article with various crap). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay I guess I'm not seeing anything. The only non-IP editor besides you between the time you applied the 3-day semi at 19:01 7 January and the time you re-impposed it as full protection at 10:08 11 January was Aqlpswkodejifrhugty, which was a good anti-vandal edit. Was this just a preventative measure to prevent vandalism by known auto-confirmed accounts that hadn't edited since 19:01 7 January?  If so, then thanks. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The same group of meatpuppets were targeting articles of all individual Blink-182 members as well as Hanson (band). These were the edits that prompted me to elevate to full to put an immediate stop to it.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. Good call, even if the reasons weren't clear in the logs.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  20:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

SMX mixer calculator
Hello. Could you please send me the text of my deleted article SMX mixer calculator? I would like to improve it and remove any part admins determine as promotional. I gave several points in the talk page to explain that the article provides scientific and engineering knowledge of both SMX mixer and the calculator. I would like to hear some feedback from admins. Or can I put the article in my user space and improve it with the help of admins? Thank you! --Chenyiaero (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Promotional isn't the only issue. There's no evidence the product is notable; see WP:GNG. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I think I did not do sufficient work to prove that SMX mixer (and the calculator) is notable. I will provide more independent evidence to prove that SMX mixer is an important type of static mixer, and the fluid dynamic problem is largely interested. Could you please send me the original text so that I can improve it? I just hope the door is not closed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chenyiaero (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved the original text to your userspace. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Maryland and Delaware
Hi, I know that these states are sometimes classified as Northeastern States. But which are classified as Southern States by United States Census Bureau and Northeastern United States category already within Mid-Atlantic category so I was deleted it. If my edit made a problem, I apologise for it. --Allytoon (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikipedia's categorization is constrained by US Censur bureau's categorization. It makes more sense to categorize states as belonging to a region if there is a reasonable number of sources which categorize it as part of that region, as is the case here. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Dealply
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Several deletions
Hey there, I notice you deleted several pages I'd created within a few minutes of each other. From my understanding, deletion is intended to be a process. Is it possible for me to see the discussion of those pages and why they were deleted? I can see why a few of them weren't considered encyclopedic (they were new), but a few of them could have curated and merged with existing articles as variations of existing necktie knots. Now that the content is gone, I don't even have the chance to archive it for future improvement, which I'm sure you understand is disappointing. :)

Thanks for your time in reading this. I look forward to your helpful response. ire Irelocus (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not free webhosting. The articles you created about knots clearly fall under WP:CSD. The article about yourself should've been speedied, but I sent it to AfD to be sure. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Could you please respond to the other elements of the question I posed? If I were to include the variations on the Half-Windsor, Full-windsor and Onassis knots, would that qualify as encyclopedic? I have some other knots which I was working on, existing knots with longer histories, and I'd like to have some measure of confidence they'll not be summarily deleted so quickly.

Also, can you help me with finding the old text for those deleted articles? Or am I just up a creek, as they say? :) Thanks!Irelocus (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOR. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay... So is this the wrong forum to address my other questions? I apologize if I'm addressing these in the wrong place, but I'm obviously a new user and I'd love a little more helpful guidance. Since you're the person who did the deleting/recommending, I'd love it if you could be a little more helpful instead of blowing me off like this. If not, please direct me to a person who can be more helpful. Directing to a page that makes sense to you isn't necessarily helpful to me. I'm here to learn. Thanks! Irelocus (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Pages like WP:NOR exist so new users can learn how Wikipedia works. If you read that policy, along with WP:RS, you should be able to understand why articles about necktie knots you made up do not belong in Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I was trying to have a conversation, as I learn better through interaction than reading alone. I can see I'm barking up the wrong tree here. Again, sorry to bother you. Irelocus (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for semi protection of Maharashtra I'm in process to take it to GA level. Once again thanks-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 14:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, keep up the good work. I've been trying to clean up Solapur myself, though it's a long way from GA. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Replace Bangalore with Bengaluru
Hi Jamie,

We need to talk about renaming of the Bangalore page to Bengaluru. Bengaluru is the official name of Bangalore. I edited this page to change the words in the page content from Bangalore to Bengaluru several times but it has been reverted. Hence I want to discuss about this and come to a conclusion regarding the title of the page. I am contesting that it should be named Bengaluru, just like other city pages have been renamed like Mumbai from Bombay, Kolkatta from Calcutta, Chennai from Madras.

What do you say?

Regards Shashi Smshashi (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss it is on the talk page for Bangalore, where it's already been discussed. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Strozzi-Heckler page
Hi Jaimie - I'm the author of the Richard Strozzi-Heckler article and I'm confused by the afd tag you placed on it. 9 of the 10 references I created the article with fall into the category of 3rd party reliable sources as I understand it. Would you help me understand your reasoning? SympatheticResonance (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I can tell. If the prod is disputed the article will be sent to WP:AFD; you can make your notability arguments there. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that you are the one disputing it. All of sources except for number 8, which refers to his methodology itself, are published by 3rd party sources, almost all in print, and many from major publishers. You specifically cite a lack of reliable 3rd party sources. SympatheticResonance (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO requires non-trivial coverage from notable 3rd party sources. Refs to a bunch of books that aren't accessible online aren't helpful. It doesn't matter if I'm the only one who's disputed it as of yet. If I send it to AfD, it will be up to the community to judge if he is notable. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of these books' entries on Strozzi-Heckler are available - free online via Google Books previews. The WSJ journal article is linked at it's reference, the only picture in the article is of him and is specifically about doing the work he is notable for with the US Marine Corp.SympatheticResonance (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, you can make your arguments at AfD now that I've sent it there. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Always happy to provide a laugh! OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ohnoitsyourbirthday!
;) -- &oelig; &trade; 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Turkey in the Straw
It is wrong to use blogspot as source. 2nd, it is a dead link. OccultZone (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my intention to remove the "dead link," as I didn't see that in the diff; my intention was to remove inappropriate wikilinking of Google added by the previous user. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * True, sometimes there is too much dumb wikilinking by random users. Anyways, have fun. OccultZone (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyways, how I can get some signing style like yours? OccultZone (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Go to your "preferences" link (probably in the upper right corner), and add the markup in the "Signature" box; be sure to check the box titled "Treat as Wiki markup." The markup I use, as an example, is:

OhNoitsJamie Talk Excessively large signatures (in terms of the markup itself, not the result) are discouraged per SIGNATURE. That link always has additional info and examples for customizing your sig. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 05:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like you figured it out! Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor you recently blocked
Please compare that editor's edits with this editor's edits and listen for the sounds of a quacking sock. Thanks. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  00:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, tagged and bagged. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, why did you delete my link?
I've seen that you've recently deleted a link to http://www.golfboo.com/ in Wikipedia's Golf page. I've added this link because I think it's an excellent resource to all those golf lovers. I don't have any comercial relation with Golfboo, indeed, I only discovered it two months ago, and since then, I've been looking into its internal pages in order to find valuable info about golf courses around world. Moreover, as fas as I know, Golfboo is the first search engine especialized on golf, and it bases its search results on users reviews. Of course, you can do what you want, but I think this link can help golf lovers a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio redondo (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The links I posted on the your talk page explain our policies. Please promote your website elsewhere. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much anyway. --Sergio redondo (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Eva Haller
Hi there! Thanks for your comments on Eva Haller... I've added a bit more to the discussion page and the article that might help it. Also - it has been a week since the discussion was extended... which is when I thought a decision would be made? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks, United191 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AfD's normally last for a week; if there hasn't been enough !votes, the AfD will be relisted for another week to get more input. Please see Deletion_process for a detailed explanation. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was already relisted for one week (8 days since last relist) and there have been three more substantive votes since then (including yours)... when should I expect to hear the result or relist? Many thanks!  United191 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know; there's not a definitely answer to that. Most likely it will get closed within the week I'd imagine. I'm not going to close it because I participated in it. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Where do you want to talk about wind energy?
Thanks. On talk of wind energy article or here on your page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.250.207 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I already posted a comment on the talk page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A recent block
has shown over a long period of time that he is constitutionally unsuited to Wikipedia. He does not understand that his self-promotion is self-promotion, nor does he understand fundamental policies on verifiability and sourcing. I really think we need to ban him. Since he's been anonymous until now, I think we should use "drinkreader" as the identifying label (his real name is trivially inferred, and I know it from OTRS tickets, but BLP is very important). Guy (Help!) 10:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the next block should be indefinite; I didn't delve too deeply into his history, I just saw obvious block evasion. If you'd rather the block be extended to indefinite now, I'm OK with that. Regarding the other matter; you just want to change the heading and tags so that the "drinksreader" account is labeled as sockmaster? OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Need protection
Check Talk:Superpower, check out the recent edit history. Other admin is not online, but you are online.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 16:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Also check Cullen (surname), it is as worse. Because the IP inserts unbalanced and non-reliable material on main page. About 3 other editors reverted him, but I can't do anything for another 10 hours. I had my 2 reverts.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 16:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that the warring IP at Talk:Superpower is the same IP who was warring there yesterday. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The IP has now moved to People's Liberation Army Navy Submarine Force. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the swift response, much appreciated. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetery at Cullen (surname).  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 16:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar case can be seen here on Sati (practice), since, editor focuses on a particular information and changes to apologetic version. After that, makes a new account for removing the similar information, and starts edit warring, , logs out and place back with ip, then again logs in with account, after that he makes a new account, for promoting apologetic version, while removing sourced content. After that, this page underwent 100s of edits, became 2 times larger, so this user got back with new WP:SPA this time,, he inserted whole mess and misuse of source back to its place, and then expands it from new WP:SPA. After I discussed about it with other active editor who is editing this page for more than a month, we figured that it is misuse of source, because he won't present the whole conclusion, he doesn't add whole supposed argument either. But he inserted his whole information back, while removing the information he don't like, his explanation for removal is "Not for lead, ungrammatical", although he has no sources for his information. Here he is supporting the edits of the above SPA, while thrashing the accessible and multiple reliable sources provided by me and others. He hasn't collaborated, only opposed what he don't like through edit warring, and making WP:SPA, if you see his conversation, it is clear that he cannot be 1 - 2 months old editor, but it is obvious that he create these accounts only for thrashing these pages. He has probably carried out same edits on other pages too, for example Women in Hinduism, you have edited this page before, you may have countered. And this account also seems to be sock of this user. He will probably edit war or make new accounts for inserting same information. Checking the contribution history of these accounts, they are limited with one page. Noting WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY, it seems suspicious to me.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 05:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks for spearheading this - I was unable to find an appropriate policy to classify as, since WP:ELNO doesn't really cover this situation. --Slazenger  (Contact Me) 16:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Lifelong resident... yet, deleted?
please justify your deletion of "E. Jack Kirby" from wikipedia's page on rancho santa fe, ca.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDSAlleghany (talk • contribs) 10:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked, being a "lifelong resident" is not one of our WP:BIO notability criteria. I suppose we should list all life-long residents in every community article? Good thing hard drive storage is cheap. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Unblock Garr1984
You don't know me, but I am Garr1984's mother. He understands what he did wrong, vandalizing pages with death hoaxes. I have read your requirements for successful unblock requests, and they stipulate the person should understand what they did wrong, and why it was wrong, and resolve not to do it again. He has done all these things and yet you administrators won't hold to your end of the requirement in his case. This sure sounds like a punitive block to me, which, as I understand it, Punitive blocks are forbidden according to the rules.68.118.214.20 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining Wikipedia's rules to me. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

RV Advert
What is an RV advert? You reverted my edit on Lithium-ion batteries.--Wyn.junior (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The link you posted was an advertisement. See [WP:ADVERT]] and WP:EL. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?
Hello, why did you revert my edit on the Rechargeable battery article? You didn't make a note of why. Thanks--Wyn.junior (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted on another edit summary, this a press rerelase, which usually don't qualify as reliable sources per WP:RS. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Lake Howell High School Reverted
Hi, Jamie!

I'm new to the Wikipedia community and guessing I missed something when I updated the Lake Howell High School page. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but will you please let me know what I overlooked and how I can correct it? Thank you for your help.

Apshai32 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * An IMDB link is not a reliable source regarding notability. See WP:BIO. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't want all of that on my talk page. If you are so convinced that this individual is notable, create an article about them first. Be advised that if WP:BIO notability criteria is not clear (i.e. multiple third-party reliable sources with 'non-trivial' coverage i.e., passing mention). If other editors including myself don't feel that notability is established, the article may then be sent to WP:AFD. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the newbie mistakes. Really appreciate your advice and thanks for your patience! Apshai32 (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, it takes time to learn the ropes. If you decide to create the article, WP:BIO has a subsection for entertainers.  Do keep in mind that not everyone who is involved with the production of a notable television show or movie is automatically notable themselves. There are many folks who would be considered to be well-accomplished in their field, but still may not meet our WP:BIO notability criteria. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay! I'll give it my best shot! Thanks again for all your help. Apshai32 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You detected my links as spam though I didn't really mean to SPAM with them
I'm just wondering what link seemed to be SPAM. Links to Quandl remains in External links parts, though links to Knoema were removed. Though we provide users with free statistical information, open and public data which could be useful to your users. I'm sorry if I violated any rules but seems like my links were detected as SPAM by mistake. Hopefully we can discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olga sdn (talk • contribs)
 * As has already been stated in the warnings on your talk page, we don't permit mass canvassing of any site, regardless of perceived merit. There's nothing further to discuss. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the answer. Could I add just a couple of links to the most useful content then? Not the whole bunch of them. Or my account will be blocked then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olga sdn (talk • contribs) 14:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Please see WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You gave a warning to a spam only account
You posted a warning at User_talk:Dotarray. Every single edit this account has ever done over the years is to spam links to gamepron and now playerattack. Since they have no purpose other than spamming, and their history over the years shows they aren't going to change despite repeated warnings from people, why not just block them?  D r e a m Focus  10:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of habit I try to give at least one warning before blocking (unless an SPA is on a serious vandalism spree). At this point, the user will either disappear, or respam (in which case I'll block on site). I'll also be watching for a resurgence of both links, and am prepared to blacklist as well. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, just...wow.
That is all. Indrian (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Really. That unblock request needs to be put out of its misery. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that's that then. I fully expect another sock to appear in the next couple of days though once the unblock request is officially denied. Indrian (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, and history will repeat itself. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Remember next time ...
... you actually have to make the block before you leave a notice. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that! Not the first time I've made that mistake. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Outsider music
I readded Lil B to the list on Outsider music because I feel he fits the description provided by the article (niche market, cult following, etc). Feel free to revert if you want to, just giving you a heads up. felt _   friend  18:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

How was a Lucerne, or even a Park Avenue not a replacement for the Roadmaster?
Ford Taurus (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How is an eBay blurb that mentions that they both had V8s (and draws no other connections between them) an appropriate source to indicate that it was? The burden of proof is on you, not me. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverting Back
You keep reverting the edits back. Dcelano, March 6, 2014, 03:49, (UTC)
 * Because you keep violating your topic ban. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's why I won't edit on Wikipedia anymore because of topic bans. One more thing, how do I not violate my topic ban? Dcelano, March 6, 2014, 22:44, (UTC)
 * I quote from the topic ban which can be found here:


 * I hope that answers your question. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * He's back for more. and he also posted stuff on my talk page that I had to revert for WP:BEAN .  -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

DNPric.es as the source of top domain name sales are not spam edits
You have reverted my updates on .mobi and List of most expensive domain names making them outdated as the provided data no longer represents the reality. What was the reasoning behind it? Also, you did not respond to the discussion on my Talk page, but reverted the changes again fueling the revert war. Please first read the Talk page. Should you additional arguments not addressed on the Talk page yet, please present those. To make it fair, please revert the unnecessary reverts on the articles mentioned above. To keep the subject consistent, please continue discussion on my Talk page where you have initiated it. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 03:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

You said that 'you are edit warring against three editors; please stop adding spammy aggregation links'. Please check my Talk page. User Ronz who was the only one to engage in the discussion is no longer contesting it. Please join the discussion if you care, or revert the last change as the ground provided is no longer valid. Thank you. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 04:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
 * I'm definitely contesting them. I'm just wondering if they might be considered reliable, and if so, if they might also be appropriate in some as yet unidentified circumstances. --Ronz (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Ronz, please be consistent. On what grounds are you still contesting them? Your all other stances were contrargumented already. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 04:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
 * You will be blocked if you continue to add links against community consensus. As you've already been told, the links are spammy; that is they are just plain old data aggragators with some ads attached to them. If you'd like to continue editing I suggest you stick with sources that clearly meat WP:RS guidelines, and that you avoid the appearance of a single purpose account. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What makes you think DNPric.es is 'plain old data aggragator'. Please provide some example. As I understood, the database is yearly old and is propitiatory. Try to find something of this order and with this statistical details to prove me wrong. Using your logic I can now derive that BBC, Financial Times, even Wikipedia are all plain old data aggragators. Are they? Thank you for coming back on this subject. DNPric.es is all but spam. Ask any domain name specialist and they will tell you about the data value. To summarise, currently we have few outdated pages on Wiki. I tried to update them and provided the links to the ultimate sources in the industry, you reverted the changes back. So do you really prefer to have outdated pages and not allow other people to update them? Looking forward to hear about your reasoning. Thank you. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 04:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia is not a compendium of trivia, i.e. there is no compelling reason to maintain records of DNS sales. We can easily find reliable sources for remarkable such sales (e.g. tv.com, sex.com).  You're obviously not listening to what Ronz, myself, and others have tried to explain to you, and as such I'm not discussing it further.  Future attempts to add links to spammy sites will result in a block. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am surely listening. Please see the discussion on my Talk page. If you do not mind, I shall update the outdated lists without referring to DNPric.es and other external links, just to confirm I am not a spammer. But please do not delete it this time. It took me a while to gather the delta information. I want to make sure that data on Wikipedia is up-to-date. As to the top sales, why would they differ from other stats? E.g., on population, elections, contests, weather, climate ... those numbers are plenty on Wikipedia. I don't see any fundamental difference between those and other industry related and core findings. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 11:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC).

Getting back to you
Hi Jamie

Thank you for helping me comply with guidelines. I made a mistake and linked to the site. It was not promotional by any means. The massage page does lack language around reciprocity, renewal and other fine details. What if I were to re add these notes without the link to the site? I think this is acceptable. I am in the massage field as a practitioner and I feel this level detail will only help solidify the article/page some more. Please let me know your thoughts before I do this. Thank you (Ssajnani001)
 * You'll need a non-promotional WP:Reliable source for new content. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Haneef Shareef
Hi Jamie. You may like to look at this old version of Haneef Shareef. And also Articles for deletion/Dr Haneef Shareef. -- S M S   Talk 17:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Though Dawn is a reasonable source, the focus on the article is on his arrest, not on his work as a writer or author. The previous nominator has a week to find better sources (I did a few searches under both spellings and just found a bunch of Twitter/LinkedIn/Youtube results). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Meat/socks
Hi, I'm off to bed but have just noticed you close a RM discussion at Iqbal Azeem and then comment at Articles for deletion/Phaphra. It may be pure coincidence but it looks as if you may be checking through some contribution history (legitimately, of course, as several other people have done in this instance). Any chance you could take a look at recent comments on Talk:Noor Pur Baghan? - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the warnings
Sorry; I'm testing out a new tool and unfortunately it's being quite laggy at the moment and reverting late. Cloudchased (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries; looks like Vada has a few kinks to work out. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Another Bides Time sock
Since you seem to be handling the puppetry of Bides Time, let me point out another account that would appear to qualify. User:ANIMOCITY is an editor whose sole edits have been a reduction of, and AFDing of, the article about me. I did not link this to Bides Time (I do get targeted a lot, as a deletion-friendly editor with a Wikipedia page) until I saw that his remarks were adjusted by an IP editor whose sole prior contributes were to the Sharon Bohle AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On it, thanks! OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks... but hey, look, another one! Special:Contributions/Ali-sama - he's bringing them all out today. --Nat Gertler (talk)
 * Given the creation date, I'd say that account is meatpuppet recruited by the sour-grapes party. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're probably right... but given the Turnbull AFD edits, I'd say a recurring meatpuppet. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Saint Johns Michigan
I have sources that Saint Johns is the mint capital of the world. Can you reinsert that somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabe290 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE for information on our source policy and how to properly source content. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with edits?
Hi, a question re Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Wikipedia "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). AFAIK, I've had virtually no interaction with you, but assume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I respectfully decline to participate in your survey. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You maligned my editing; of course I deserve an explanation! See WP:IUC (policy), and also WP:INDCRIT.  If you can't justify your criticism, if you got it wrong, no big deal, stuff happens -- I'm not going to be a dick about it.  I'd just appreciate you revising your support at the RfC.  It's not hard; just copy jps's view and omit what you don't agree with.  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 16:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I will not be revising that, and I will reiterate that I have no interest in participating in your survey. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, people have their reasons, didn't mean to bug you. regards --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 00:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing / removal of material from the Cost of living section at Talk:Hawaii
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hawaii. Peaceray (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for Winterberg on black hole firewalls
Semi-protection referred to at appears to have expired and tendentious edits are resuming. Can you renew semi-protection at Firewall (physics) and, while you're at it, consider semi-protecting Black hole information paradox? If you're busy, I'm happy to ask the page protection request board instead. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me know if the sock/meats pop up anywhere else. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

Nelson supports plagiarism in the text of "black hole information paradox" where it states that the resolution of the paradox requires the replacemant of Einstein's theory of relativity with Lorentzian relativity, as explained in my paper entitled "Gamma Ray Bursters and Lorentzian Relativity", published in 2001 in Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung 56a 889. In this paper I was the first who introduce Lorentzian relativity from the pre-Einstein theory of relativity by Lorentz and Poincare to solve this paradox. My paper was cited by Marolf and Polchinski, two leading theoretical physicists, in their paper "Apologia for Firewalls", making my paper a secondary source in accordance with the Wikipedia policy. Nelson is only a computer man without knowledge of this highly esoteric topic in theoretical physics. I never heard that he ever had made an important contribution to the general theory of relativity like myself, having laid the physical foundation of the GPS, acknowledged by the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen. Dear Wikipedia administration block Nelson with his anonymous likewise uninformed friends like "blueberry" or "gaijin42" from editing wikipedia articles about theoretical physics. F. Winterberg Professor of Physics
 * No. Your relentless self-promotion is tiresome, and the community has already established a consensus on the matter per Wikipedia policies. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Undeserved email notification
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.


 * I think you have the wrong user, I do not edit on wiki, let alone destroying valuable information 162.213.158.45 (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)31jetjet
 * That's great to hear, thanks. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Please read WP:RS and WP:EL. Sites like "bestfleamedicinefordogs" clearly violate such guidelines, and give your account the appearance of a single purpose SEO/advertising account. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Weigh in at discussion?
Hi. Would you care to weigh in at this discussion? It concerns whether a reviewer's paraphrased criticism should be included/kept at a music article. I don't know whether this is an area of interest for you. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

unblock request Gordonreg
Hi OhNo itsJamie, do you mean after User:Upperhouse01 unblocked, then User:Gordonreg will unblock too? Please advise. Thanks
 * No, I mean we don't allow WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Please read the policy. If a user is using multiple accounts, only the original account may be unblocked. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Middleamericajames
Are there conditions under which this user could be unblocked? If so, I think they should be posted to this user account talk page. It seems like if they educate themselves on Wikipedia policy, they should be able to appeal this block. This is a much better result than having them just create a new account and continue on with the same behavior. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, I have my doubts that it's a different person than the IP. I didn't block their talk page access, they could request an unblock, but I don't have much faith that they would be able to get much support for that. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in this ANI [] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please undo the recent changes
There is nothing inappropriate about the recent contributions I've made to Wikipedia. No spam is involved here. These are sources that are directly related to the entries. If this is a problem, you can delete the links to the scholarly journal given in the sources I've added to the further reading list, but otherwise please undo the changes you have made to my contributions. Thank you. Akin kay (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Every single one of your contributions has been to add links to your own papers. See WP:COI. We don't permit reference spamming, and I will not be undoing my contributions. If you continue to engage in COI reference spam, you will be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Level 3 Communications
Hi- I've never edited anything on Wikipedia before. Please let me know why my changes are not being accepted. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad.roudebush (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2014
 * Try reading our policies on WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of a comment I made to another editor's talk page
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Torlib&curid=26658934&diff=601707748&oldid=601697296 This edit] removed a comment I made on a user's talk page. Was the removal of my comment done in your capacity as an administrator? If not, or if it was removed by mistake, please restore it. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  23:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a block here?
I don't know what the connection is, but User:74.62.92.20 posted on User:216.189.170.139‎'s talk page a comment with the edit summary: "jake is a white trash nigger faggot and a terrible "editor" who disrupts/reverts since it gets him off". I reverted it, but I think a block of 74.62... might be a good idea. BMK (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a good look at User:74.62.92.20's history. Not here to build an encyclopedia, for sure.  A long blovk is in order, I think. BMK (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
-- Mdann 52   talk to me!  12:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Jamie, I just wanted to discuss your recent declination of my appeal to remove my 3-day block. I know you are doing your job and all, but I wish you had discussed with me, individually, the reasons why I was blocked and not made that information public. To be honest, I was a bit humiliated and saddened when I realized that you revealed all of that information on my talkpage. Millions of people could have potentially seen and exploited that information, which could have resulted in grievous consequences. And no offense, but you were kind of a bitch about it. Maybe you could help clarify with me why these kinds of issues aren't resolved in a more respectful, private manner? Thanks so much. 24.0.179.41 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The information was already public. Anyone can easily click on your edit history and view the diffs. That's the nature of Wikipedia. You certainly were not acting in a respectful manner (to wit, pretty much every comment you made to another user after your edit was reverted), and I have no regrets about declining your unblock. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Questions
Jamie -

I've repeated added images to "drug test" "fecal occult blood test" and other diagnostic tests - as I own a diagnostics company and am also a professional photographer - however they keep getting deleted. I've been accused of 'advertising' - however it's my opinion that under "drug test" there should be a picture of a ...drug test. Why would this be deleted, as it's simply unhelpful to everyone? Every product, even soap - has a brand name on it? Rather unavoidable. The same goes with "fecal occult blood test".

Please let me know.

Additionally - we have the worlds only at home colorectal cancer screening test by immunochemical methodology - and you deleted PART OF (?) the name of it. This is rather helpful information for anyone taking the time to find an at home colorectal cancer test....(meaning, to know the name of it, since it's the only one) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbalentine (talk • contribs) 00:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've already noted on your talk page, Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. See WP:COI, WP:EL, and WP:RS. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

State reorganisation section
Based on your request i've tried to edit the section in Andhra Pradesh page. Vin09 (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions
Jamie -

I've created an account to leave this comment. I am not sure if this is what you mean by editing the talk page, so please feel free to respond on my talk page.

I'm David Lancashire from Popup Chinese. Last week I made a number of edits to Wikipedia. The process took two days and involved expanding China-related articles based on interviews conducted by the Sinica Podcast, an authoritative show that has been featured on NPR and syndicated by the Asia Society.

Between 14:37 and 14:46 on April 1st, these edits (along with several I had not provided) were apparently marked as spam by your account, and the domain popupchinese.com added to the Wikipedia spam list. Given the speed of the reversions (several per minute), I am concerned this action was taken without understanding exactly why these edits were added to Wikipedia. Examples of revisions that are clearly not spam include:

(1) MAKING STATISTICAL CORRECTIONS:

Chinese Labour Corps:
 * the edit corrected overly-vague numbers in the original article, and added details on Chinese government involvement in the program. The cited source was Mark O'Neill, the foremost global expert on this subject and author of the only English language book on the Chinese Labour Corps. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Labour_Corps&oldid=601622504)

(2) ADDING CRITICAL MISSING INFORMATION:

Food Safety Incidents in China:
 * I created a list of food safety scandals from 2011, exactly as requested by the Wikipedia page. The reverted page is again missing this information. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Food_safety_incidents_in_China&oldid=602271415)

Huang Guangyu (Chairman of GOME)
 * the lack of details on Huang Guangyu's family background was a glaring omission for a bibliographic entry, particularly given the way his rags-to-riches story plays into his subsequent targeting in one of the first major corporate corruption scandals in China. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huang_Guangyu&diff=prev&oldid=602271215)

Google China:
 * the chronology in the original Wikipedia article was incorrect, to the point that there was no mention of the RFA blockage issues. This was a significant enough omission it seems to have been since added back to the page (although in unsourced form) by a subsequent editor. The source was first hand accounts from journalists (recorded at the time) who were reporting on the events that week from Beijing. This is fresh, primary source material. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_China&diff=prev&oldid=602271916)

(3) CITING GLOBAL EXPERTS IN ARTICLES WHICH BENEFIT FROM THE INCLUSION:

Chinese Science Fiction:
 * Chen Qiufan and Joel Martinsen were already recognized in the Wikipedia essay as two of the most influential figures in contemporary Chinese science fiction. This is exactly the sort of source Wikipedia should highlight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_science_fiction)

Midnight in Peking
 * The reference added is author Paul French discussing his own book, along with what he went through researching and writing it. Again, this should be exactly the sort of resource someone visiting this page is going to want. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midnight_in_Peking&diff=prev&oldid=602271396)

Kaiser Kuo
 * As with Paul French, the audio recording cited consists of the author reading passages from his own book, already referenced in the article. This is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia should be referencing for those interested in the pages.

I am happy to explain the justification for my decision to edit any particular article if you would find it useful. Since the chronology of your edits makes it unlikely you had the chance to listen to the shows cited, I would hope that you would look more closely at them. Even if you don't listen to the shows, just looking up the backgrounds of the people who are cited should make it clear that the source are not off-topic, and typically involve experts who should be referenced. The materials cited contain statements and opinions from top international journalists (examples include Ed Wong from the New York Times, Adrianne Mong from MSNBC, and Gady Epstein from The Economist) as well as leading industry figures in China such as Dr. David Rutstein, the former acting deputy surgeon general of the United States and now executive vice president at the largest "western" hospital chain in China. These materials do not exist in text form because there is no other type of news or journalistic organization producing these materials.

I will leave it to your judgment whether to make these reversions. I would ask for the removal of Popup Chinese from the spam list. I am concerned about the consequences of the inclusion on this list for my ability to keep publishing things like the Sinica show and send emails to our community of users and guests.

Best Regards,

--david — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlancashire (talk • contribs) 20:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple accounts abusively spammed Wikipedia, which leads to blacklisting. The "quality" of the link is irrelevant when obvious conflict-of-interest single purpose accounts engage in spamming. I will not be removing it from the blacklist. If a regular contributor (not affiliated with the site) wants to use a specific link, they can also make a request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeat sock
If you get a chance, could you take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Sportsgamaniacre. It involves the same IP/user combo that you previously denied a block appeal for socking in an earlier report in March. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Follow-Up
Jamie,

Respectfully, attempting to improve Wikipedia is not spamming. Nor does the conflict-of-interest claim hold: the audio materials are distributed entirely free of charge and there is zero advertising on the site. The edits were overwhelmingly in niche articles that will be read by people in Sinology, with the greatest number of citations being links to hour-long interviews with the subjects of the Wikipedia pages themselves.

Wikipedia logs show you reverting an edit every 15-20 seconds on average. I appreciate the role you play in keeping Wikipedia clean, but given this I find it difficult to believe you listened to any of the cited materials except possibly the first. And I do not know how you can conclude that this edit was made in bad faith -- it was the addition of new material to a discussion on the history of pasta in China based on an interview with Jen Lin-Liu (author of a book on the history of pasta in China). The material was new, relevant, and sourced to an expert.

Looking at the speed of the edits, my best guess is that you came to the decision that all links to popupchinese.com were spam on the basis of a single edit (which one?) and then reverted them all and then blacklisted the site without looking at the substance of the actual edits. The fact that changes were removed even when explicitly requested by Wikipedia (i.e. the 2011 food scandals) or almost immediately reinstated by other editors (i.e. Google China) makes me feel you worked from the assumption of a bad faith. And that the blacklisting was consequently punitive.

If you want to put us in a warning category or something that is fine. And I won't edit Wikipedia again because it isn't worth it to risk getting blacklisted for trying to make these changes. But blacklisting is an inappropriate response for my behavior last week. I would respectfully request you reconsider, or at least suggest another editor I could write documenting what changes were made and why in order to request removal.

Thank You,

--david — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlancashire (talk • contribs) 17:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make a request for removal at the WP:BLACKLIST talk page. Note that if you do, I'll provide links to all of the different IPs and accounts that engaged in spamming. Nathanche,173.230.141.191, 69.164.212.159 77.169.235.216, 176.58.90.67, Trevelyan22. Good luck explaining how that's not spamming.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

How?
How do I add something on the pages so they're not a topic ban? Dcelano, 23:27, April 10, 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:BE00:A3F:226:BBFF:FE01:5AC5 (talk)
 * First of all, you are blocked, so you are at the moment evading your block by editing here from another IP. You were banned from editing pages related to The Wiggles because you failed to respond to feedback and warnings regarding some of your edits.  The first step would be for you to appeal for an unblock on your original account.  To lift the topic ban, you'd need to convince editors that you are willing and capable of following Wikipedia policies and communicating with other editors regarding your edits. You original talk page has this link which clearly explains why you were topic banned. This is at least the second time I've answered this question. I'm not answering it again. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

44robby talk page
No problem with the indef block, which seemed entirely deserved after two timewasting unblock requests. I just found User:RHaworth's use of the retired template to be an odd and actively unhelpful step of the process. 44robby puts up a diva-ish considering retirement template, which RHaworth then upgrades to "retired" with no explanation, and when I call him out on it he shooes me away and gives the unclear assurance that 44robby "insists" on the new template (in retrospect possibly just meaning "I changed it, and he didn't change it back, therefore he fully understands the situation and agrees with me"). He ignores my request to undo it, and the next day Robby says he doesn't understand why he's been retired.

I won't lose any sleep if we've confused and deterred a self-promotional liar, here, but RHaworth's apparent understanding of blocks and retirement (that an indefinite block means "permanent", and that he considers this interchangeable with the concept of a retirement template) seems shaky for an admin, and could hit innocent users and confuse other block-reviewing admins. Slap me with a trout if it's perfectly normal for admins to "retire" problem users, I've just never seen it, and can't see that WP:RETIRE even implies it. --McGeddon (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think RHaworth was just questioning the "considering" part. It probably wasn't that helpful in that it prolonged the drama of the whole thing, but he's a seasoned admin and I'm sure it was done in good faith. WP:DISAPPEAR may have factored in to other editor's actions. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry
Hi, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing
About your message on my talk page, the information added to the wikipedia articles are completely true and you can verify it from various sources. If you're not satisfied with the reference link provided, you can always remove it or suggest a better one.

04:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkaushish (talk • contribs)
 * You are obviously promoting a company given your WP:SPA pattern. Also see WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

inappropriate external links
Was wondering how a link to free state maps and atlases is inappropriate. Thanks
 * Link canvassing sites with Google ads is a great way to get that site blacklisted, which I will immediately do if I see you add them again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

So its because of google adsense. So if google adsense was not on there it would be ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Num1scot (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. We don't permit link canvassing, period, per WP:EL and WP:COI, which is pretty obvious in this case. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page
Hi,

Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. I have one concern with a page that I have created: Screenpresso that has been deleted whereas it is similar to the software Snagit or Greenshot. I have update references to external website and be more neutral. However the page was not read and directly deleted. Could you tell what I have to do to recover the page and better complies to the wikipedia rules. Many thanks Techwritter31 (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the page was read, and was not substantially different from the version deleted via WP:AFD. Don't bother trying to WP:Wikilawyer me about how the page had one additional reference. Go to WP:DRV if you want. Please also read WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Current referencing on external link is out of product
Hello Jamie, On 19:46, 29 April 2014, you removed a couple sections: (Historical timeline, Carballo Military Veteran Burials) to this page: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carballo_(name).

The original asin number B000W14A0I (referencing link to amazon.com for the publisher of ancestry.com), will fault not because this is a bogus link, but rather that the site for purchase is currently out of inventory. I understand why you removed the sections; a faulty link does not give good reference. I have included the original link as well as another site that currently too is out of stock. I ask to please revert back the section removal as they are very informative and provide that much more history about the article. Both military veteran burials and history timeline are crucial to this article. Both sections should remain. I understand that we can’t have asin numbers that lead to a blank page, would you consider replacing the asin numbers, with the URL address for reference instead?, it will show the reference to the book, however it will also show that it’s temporarily out of stock. I don’t know when they will restock again.

Links: http://www.amazon.in/The-Carballo-Name-History-Ancestry-com/dp/B000W14A0I http://www.bookrenter.com/the-carballo-name-in-history-ancestry-com-B000W14A01-978B000W14A09

Thanks a bunch Jamie, Jaimecarballo 22:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimecarballo (talk • contribs)


 * No, I'm not restoring it per WP:RS. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok Jamie, so what recommendation/suggestion would you advise? Any help would be highly appreciated, thank you...Jaimecarballo 20:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimecarballo (talk • contribs)

Hello Jamie, the link for the reference material is restocked. Link: http://www.amazon.com/Carballo-Websters-Timeline-History-1754/dp/B001CV7O2I/ref=sr_1_145?ie=UTF8&qid=1403211740&sr=8-145&keywords=Carballo ASIN: B001CV7O2I

Is there anything else you need to revert the sections you removed? If not then I kindly ask for you to revert them back as they have been cited since their posting, with identifying pages to the references and the link above is correct and cited per WP:RS. Unless you have no objection, then I will return the sections to original state.

Thanks,Jaimecarballo 21:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimecarballo (talk • contribs)

removal of an edit
Hi Jaime,

You removed an entry from the Development section in the Online Community page on 14:33, 30 April 2014. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_community)

I was wondering what your reasoning was for the deletion and how I could revise the entry. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and I'd like to know how to improve. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjorda123 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my edit summary, your edit was unsourced; that is, it did not contain references to WP:Reliable sources. This is necessary per Wikipedia's policy of WP:Verifiability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop changing the modern currency page
I am telling the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicotheawsome (talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also telling the truth when I say that if you keep adding crap to articles, I will block you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

SRRY SRRY
Im so so so sorry i just wanted to have fun. :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicotheawsome (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nineteen Minutes controversy, would you look over it?
I noticed you removed the controversy section of Nineteen Minutes while I was editing it. I felt it was presented in a biased way and tried to 'neutralize' it while providing more information. Since you're a much more experienced Wikipedian than I am, would you look over it? 50.160.108.242 (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." - That's what I needed to see. I did not consider that because I'm in a highly conservative area, the prevalence among the general public in this area is likely higher than it is in other places. The policy and the reason for the policy make sense, thank you. 50.160.108.242 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for actually reading the policy! (You'd be surprised how many people can't be bothered to read our policies). In the case of The Catcher In The Rye, a "controversy" section is more arguably appropriate, given the widespread attention it's received in the context of school censorship.  Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because I genuinely wanted to improve the article. I feel that so many are trying to push their own agenda. I've used Wikipedia extensively over the years, and I've never donated. I started feeling like this was a way I could help contribute, so I started looking for the un-cited 'sexually explicit passage'. May be an official Wikipedian soon, 50.160.108.242 (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Trouted

 * Honestly, I'd totally look the other way if you were to indef him. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, an acute case of WP:NOTHERE. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Inquiry
Hello, I believe the link I added was a good addition to the French language page as the references listed in the "Courses and Tutorials" section were lacking in references that actually include strong audio components as well as printable materials which I feel are two very beneficial course tools for language learning. I suppose it might be slightly better suited for Quebec French but the reference is clean, ad-free, and has unique components that aren't a dime a dozen. I know commercial sites aren't forbidden by any means, but we all know people appreciate clean, ad-free pages if they are doing further research or study.

I did not add the other link you pruned from the article but I certainly agree with its removal and was considering pruning that one myself. Also, the two University of Texas-Austin links should be just one link, as that first link already includes the "Tex's French Grammar" sections on it. The "French lessons at Wikiotics" page is inappropriate as well as it's an open wiki. It has some very glaring typo errors as well.

In my opinion my addition should be added back, but the UT-Austin links combined, the "French lessons at Wikiotics" external link should be pruned, and the link you already pruned should remain pruned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76quebecker (talk • contribs) 20:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that when single purpose accounts attempt to add links to article, there is nearly always a conflict of interest, and that repeated attempts to add said links will result in a block and/or blacklisting of said links. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Canvassing that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Josh Woodward deleted. My opinion
Bad that the article had to go. Less creative commons music showcasing itself on Wikipedia. Thus also less music playing on Wikipedia if we don't count the fair use parts which managed somehow to fly through the grey zone of copyright. If you are three administrators of Wikipedia who decide upon such a thing I guess it means? Logictheo (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Other than your first sentence, I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but I'll do my best to at least address what I can understand: doing something noble is not one of the criteria for WP:BIO notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Noob2the3rdpower retired
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I have a new account. If I do anything wrong, plz let me know. Spyro2760 (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, vandalizing F Sharp (programming language) twice and getting a final warning is not a good way to start. You'll be blocked quickly if you do anything else like that. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI: There's an SPI discussion started at Sockpuppet investigations/Theminecraftgriefer related to this discussuion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Garr1984
If you have not seen the page recently, can I draw your attention to the talk page of this user, who is making obviously baseless accusations against you which you should be aware of. Best wishes. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess, this user should be given a bit more chance and warned about the chances of revoking talk page access.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 12:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of article on Merchant Marine Act 1920
Hi Jamie! :) I would like to bring to your attention the recent edits by bob rayner that completely deleted the criticism section of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, Url: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920) with little or no discussion. I did not write the article however it appeared to be a neutral and objective article. bob rayner deleted and edited whole sections which cited legitimate GAO studies and replaced them with his POV about the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. I would like to see a fair and objective view of this subject available on Wikipedia. Please help guide me to  address this in a way that presents the facts in a objective and fair manner. The deleted material was cited by verifiable sources: (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-260) Thanks for your time. CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jamie, I saw your message regarding an external link that I added to the page of some persons on wikipedia. The Tulane Music Rising website is an academic project sponsored by the Tulane University. It is not an attempt to canvass for support, rather, it is an effort to link those persons (musical artists with New Orleans background) to the Music Rising website, where there are historical materials and documentaries about those artists. I have discussed your concern with my boss and he will be most honored to speak with you on the Music Rising Project and how it fits into the Wikipedia. Please advise me on how Professor Dinerstein can contact you.

Pmoraks (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See response in next section; same thing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing plant profile links
Hello Ohnoitsjamie - I have been adding some links to highly targeted and relevant plant pages between the species page on Wikipedia and those on Kew. You have reverted all these links, possibly because I added a bunch. Could you please look at them or at least a sample and determine whether a link to a detailed species page from the world's foremost centre of expertise on botany contravenes any guidelines let alone counts as spam. I have carefully read the guidelines and believe that these links are beneficial, very targeted, authoritative and non-commercial in nature or intention. Damianrafferty (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't permit single purpose account link canvassing per WP:EL, regardless of the link quality. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I must admit the single purpose account rule is new to me and appears to apply in letter if not in spirit in this case. I am not knowingly trying to propagate a particular viewpoint (beyond that of botanical science I suppose) or build my academic reputation etc. As I think what i have done has helped build an encyclopaedia and has added value, it would be great if you were to revert those changes but of course you are entitled to refuse. In any case, i will stop now as life is too short to do wasted work. Damianrafferty (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Links added by Damianrafferty
I entirely understand your concern about the links added by Damianrafferty, but please see User talk:Damianrafferty. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the links per se, and no one would have expressed concern had they been added here and there by a variety of editors who do more than add links. Allowing SPA link canvassing sets a bad precedence. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you also have to look at the quality of the links added. By all means warn such editors, but in this case perhaps a request at WT:PLANTS might have been better than mass reversion. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but but I will continue to mass revert link canvassing, regardless of the link, per policy. Otherwise it can then become a game of "let's see how many of these I get can in before I get a warning." OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
Peak oil, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Beagel (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Leggings image
You have been mentioned, but not pinged, at Talk:Leggings/Archive 1 BMK (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The other editor filed a DR request. I don't plan to participate, but you may want to  BMK (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Goustaff
I remember a little bit about the incident, but I don't remember anything more, so I'm going to have to investigate as if I were uninvolved. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to try to work with the guy, so I accepted the request. I suppose it might be a WP:INVOLVED issue if I were to decline a request (at least on anything aside from procedural grounds), but I don't imagine anyone will complain that I've abused my tools by essentially self-reverting the action of blocking.  Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done the same thing (i.e., personally unblocked someone that I blocked). I can't imagine anyone raising an objection to such an unblock in such a situation where the editor has addressed the reasons for the block. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Seventhegeneral
With all due respect, it's generally expected that before you unblock a user, you check with the blocking administrator (me). In this case, because there were multiple reasons for blocking the user, and even more post-block, I would have preferred at least a consensus of administrators before unblocking the account. For example, after my block, posted a sock notice on the account's user page. Perhaps it comes from being an SPI clerk, but I tend to mistrust users who sock, admit it, and then promise not to do it again. I don't see James or any other administrator besides you involved in the discussion to unblock the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I usually do consult with the blocking administrator.  I don't really have a good reason for not checking with you other than that the unblock request seemed pretty reasonable.  I'd certainly support a reblock if the user reneged on the unblock terms. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apology. What's done is done, but as penance, please watch over the user to make sure he edits constructively. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for calling me out on that. I can be kind of clueless sometimes, I appreciate the feedback...and I will keep an eye on the user. So far they seem to be taking advice to heart, but we'll see. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Rape in the Bosnian War
Hi Jamie, I could recall from the edit history that you assisted on the Rape in the Bosnian War article some while ago when it was under the attack of an unestablished user. I fear a new, slightly more ominious, issue is potentially about to arise. Another unestablished user emerged a few days ago pushing highly unreliable POV content which was explained to him on the talk page by me, after which the user has not returned. However, today the same content was enforced by an established user here which is by far more disturbing. Seeing how we don't have any prior connections I consider it fair to ask for assistance early on. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 02:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If he is using relevant sources and presenting the information that doesn't violate major concerns like BLP, Copyrights, you can let him add and you are currently having discussion on the talk page.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean by "relevant". They are blatantly POV coming from a Marxist-Leninist partisan organisation in favour of Slobodan Milošević, so I would hardly call them "relevant" by any standard. I've already offered a lengthy explanation on the talk page but was largely ignored since apparently "everyone knows war estimates are inflated". Hence, I wouldn't consider this a "valid" content issue as much as user POV conduct. I will await the user's reply and see where to take it from there. Might be a good idea to stay alert. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 03:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:RSN is another good place.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet a revert by the user in question. Please see the discussion on the talk page where it has been explained, seemingly time and time again, that the sources a) merely represent point-of-views without citing any actual research or scholarly analysis. Obviously, we don't cite an opinion just because someone has it, b) yet worse, these sources emanate from a Marxist-Leninist partisan organization supportive of Slobodan Milosevic and who considers the US responsible for the "destruction of Yugoslavia", and c) the few useful hard facts they actually present (as opposed to loose POV statements and such) cannot be taken at face value because they are not presented in what can be regarded WP:RS. The user is obviously appealed by the POV offered by these "sources" (which are only recovered on various blogs, Srebrenica genocide-denial and "Counter Jihad" sites). IMO this is entirely unacceptable coming from an "established" user (who though seems to mostly edit sports-related articles). Thank you for the RSN advice, Occult.  <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron  ϡ ( TALK ) 05:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue has been raised here <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 07:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, have been away from the computer for a few days, will take a look later. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yasmin Bevan
Hi, you PRODed this one, I deleted it. Now restored as a contested PROD. AfD is now the only answer.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 19:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Email?
Hey, if you could see this could you email ben.blatt AT slate DOT com. I am working on a piece and would like to ask you a few questions.

Talk page format
I saw and liked the format of this page, so I have pinched it for my talk page. I know you would not object, but I tell you in case you go to my page and think you're seeing double! --<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 11:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This "format" or "dress" looks better on you.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To give credit where it's due, User:Master_of_Puppets kindly volunteered to design it for me way back; I just tweaked the colors. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I/P arena
Since you make admin decisions in the I/P arena,(I´m referring to this)  please at least  take a look at this and comment here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests, Thanks, Huldra (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Need some page protections
I'm sure you haven't forgotten our dear friend Matthew Berdyck...well he's back and has repeatedly tried to remove information from the archives. can we page protect and throw blocks? Here's a few diffs with relevant IP info...[] and []. I think it's not bad faith to assume NOTHING good will come out of trying to reason with this individual. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User: 64.4.93.100
Hello Jamie, Please be aware that the above user has ignored your instruction not to delete my contribution on their Talk page and again deleted my comment. I find this IP's actions to be pure vandalism. Be grateful for your comments/action. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi David. Technically, WP:DRC only forbids removal of declined unblock notices during an active block. It's probably not worth fighting over. Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say the IPs removal of quote sections constitutes "pure vandalism."  Per WP:QUOTE: "Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations....Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section." Important quotes should generally be integrated with the text, not have their own section; that's what "Wikiquote" is for.  Nonetheless, I don't disagree with the block, as the two IPs were edit-warring. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and advice. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

get a life loser.
get a life loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by St. John of God Health care (talk • contribs) 03:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Page protection is a wonderful thing. :) OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tim Howard Wikipedia Incident
Hi, Ohnoitsjamie, I saw that you removed my addition to the article on Tim Howard with regards to the incident involving the Secretary of Defense/Wikipedia situation. I had added this in response to some previous discussions I've had with Wikipedia users suggesting that such a section be added. That having been said, I agree with many of your points as well. I propose that we create a discussion section on the Talk:Tim Howard page and try to reach a consensus. If the community agrees with your view, I will totally respect the removal. You seem like a really great editor, I just happen to disagree with you on this issue. AtlasBurden (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, as mentioned on the talk page, if no one feels strongly one way or the other about the issue, I propose leaving the section out as you are the more experienced editor and I'm still getting the hang of all this. AtlasBurden (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reason this got any coverage was because Howard's (and the US Mens Team's) performance in the world cup is still a fresh news item. It his highly unlikely to have any lasting significance, hence the point of WP:NOTNEWS. Sure, it's funny, but it's also trivial in the grand scheme of things and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 12:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

IP talk page
Thanks for the reversion at User talk:50.53.127.40. From what I can gather, the person is claiming to be representing a church related to Treva Throneberry. They keep posting things on the article's talk page about how she hoaxed a church. I've removed it a few times, but I'm a little worried about them trying it again under a different IP. I've blocked that IP for a few days, but extended it to a month after the unblock request. They've edited under a different IP so I doubt that the block will do overly much for long. I'd mostly just like you to help me keep an eye on the Treva Throneberry talk page, since they're restricting their activity to the talk page for the most part. They clearly don't seem to be here for any purpose other than to harass Throneberry and/or the church. I can't tell if it's just run of the mill trolling or if it's someone with a vendetta. Either way, if they keep claiming that they're representing the church then I may have to contact the church and let them know that someone is disrupting Wikipedia. Hopefully they can find out who it is and smack their hands from the keyboard. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help if further assistance is needed. OhNo itsJamie Talk 12:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Xochi Birch
For your original argument on Articles for deletion/Xochi Birch. P.S. You're on here! https://medium.com/message/stop-erasing-women-from-tech-history-5d99b77ad71b Transcendence (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I have no regrets regarding that particular argument. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

really? YOU are the one engaged in edit warring me, and YOU leave me menacing messages about 'edit warring', with language like 'Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert' when it's MY work being undone? what a joke

Problem
I tried to edit pages but everyone else reverted them back due to topic bans. Dcelano, 20:15, (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.230.172 (talk)
 * Yes. "Topic ban" means you are not allowed to edit pages within a certain topic. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Abuse of "cannot edit own talk page". Thank you. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Adn1990 is back as an IP
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adn1990&action=history

Brangifer (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

natures harmony farm editing warning
Jamie, I write a blog that specializes in discussion about farming issues, and regularly discusses small farms and their business aspects. Natures harmony is a very-publicized small farm that has spent quite a bit of time and effort to get attention, and has gone to great lengths to remove historical material or backup material. So what I've added to natures harmony are two things; either reviews of their published materials as a counterpoint to the discussion, or to provide anyone interested with a more-complete story that includes the items that the farm owners would rather see not remembered.

A link to my blog is appropriate because it's often the only place remaining that you can find the information that's been removed, both from the original posting locations, and also from every available cache - the wayback machine, google, bing, etc.

I do not quote the material directly, instead saying "the reviews are controversial" and provide a link to the controversy for background.

I'm open to discussion on how to better include this information or resolving whatever concerns you have.

Bruceki (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not open to discussing adding your blog, per WP:COI and WP:EL. The final warning still stands. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Web-based PHR Solutions
Hi, Ohnoitsjamie, I would like to clarify that my edits on the pages Personal Health Record, Microsoft HealthVault, Google Health are valid and in sync with the existing information on those pages.

Let us consider the first edit Personal Health Record The statement "Solutions including RxVault.in, HealthVault, PatientsLikeMe, getHealtZ, onpatient, Healthspek, and Careplan allow for data to be shared with other applications or specific people." provides information about solution providers for Web-based Personal Health Records. This is exactly what MphRx (My Personal Health Record Express inc) does. Please see http://mphrx.com/ for details. They also count some of the top hospitals and Clinical Labs in the US as their clients. Please see http://mphrx.com/?page_id=9 I hope this clarifies. If not could you please state why it is appropriate for providers such as "RxVault.in, HealthVault, PatientsLikeMe, getHealtZ, onpatient etc" to be mentioned and not this company. Thank You.

Zatopek 06:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohan9605 (talk • contribs)
 * I removed the "example spam" in the last paragraph. A few notable examples is all that's necessary. Please also see WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not testing. U can verify the names. They ate not non notable names.
 * They do not meet Wikipedia's WP:BIO notability criteria. If you continue to add them you will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Surfer
Sorry I am legally blind and cannot figure out where to write this about removing my edit on the famous surfer page..

User talk:68.186.107.32 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Adding non-notable names[edit] Do not add names to lists unless (1) they have an article or (2) they have one a significant surfing event, with an included reference to the event. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Bob Wallace is in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Weber Bob Mellinkoff in the move Surf Safari the opening scene mentioned by name and shown at the manahattan pier going over the falls

Please reconsider these are historic surfers who were there before most that are listed... thanks
 * Being mentioned in the opening scene of a movie is not a WP:BIO notability criterion. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

How to Edit
I don't know how to edit on Wikipedia. You see, I tried to but then ANGUSWoof and Figureskatingfan kept reverting them back. Dcelano 16:36, July 20, 2014, (UTC)
 * You don't. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Best known for IP
Just a quick head's up to say I undid the revert on User talk:190.162.219.249. As you had previously declined an unblock request, then blanking a third request and turning off talk page access without leaving a notice that you have is likely to lead to this user swapping to another IP and starting another thread on ANI about you. I'm sure another admin can handle the latest unblock request. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine. We'll just keep playing whack-a-mole. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Rope applied and duly pulled. Can you handle the block evasion? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  07:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Handled. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But much of this edit was valid, and there certainly was no vandalism. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The question is do we let a serial block evader continue to edit, positive contributions or not? OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the question, and I don't have an answer for it. But another question is how this guy keeps getting blocked in the first place, and I think the answer is escalating irritation, some of which righteous (on both sides, I suppose). I've never seen the point of blanket reverts of a blocked editor; when a positive edit is not reverted there is no further disruption. The situation on Ian Gow was resolved as well. Baby, bathwater... Drmies (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The user was blocked in the first place for edit warring and personal attacks at Wind wave. I acknowledge that the situation could have been handled a little better by AlanS (i.e., calling edits vandalism that weren't vandalism via an edit tool). Unfortunately, the IP immediately began evading that block, thus digging the hole deeper. Their most recent edits wouldn't have even been noticed had they been able to resist the temptation to stir the pot on the talk page of one of their blocked IPs. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

He'll be back soon on another IP - that much is obvious. But now we have Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, we have a better handle on things. and can spot his editing style. Any IP whose first quad fits one in the "confirmed" list and whose first edit has a non-blank summary is a good heuristic.

Anyway, if we have reasonable suspicion there's block evasion, I would suggest per WP:EVADE we look at the edits and leave them alone if they improve the article, or revert if they don't. Also, I would suggest that BKFIP (as he can now be called) is put under 0RR - he can evade a block and make good faith edits, but one revert or any hint of incivility from talk or edit summaries, block for a month.

For what it's worth, I checked the latest IP's article edits and decided none of them should be reverted, so left them. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable course of action to me. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, just looked at Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP, didn't realize how long this has been going on for! OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much why I started the LTA report - it has been going on for years. Without that, as Wee Curry Monster notes, the block gets reset back to 24 hours again and again as people miss the correlation. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but (and Ohnoitsjamie, thanks for your 16:12 remark) that also indicates a long history of, well, not-so-valid reverts. I've been more or less involved with this for quite some time and have some sympathy for both sides. I don't have a solution, as I have indicated many a time, for the "overall" situation. Blocking the IP when the insults get out of hand (in terms of cusswords) is acceptable I suppose, but one should realize that those cusswords don't come out of nowhere: unwarranted blanket reverts and claims of vandalism have been made, and they would drive me to rage as well, I guess. I think the best way to handle it is on a case by case basis: let reverts stand if they're decent, warn the IP if (or before...) they go too far, warn "regular" uses when they are reverting what shouldn't be reverted or when they are placing incorrect warnings. I've done that, and I'm pretty sure I blocked one or two IP addresses in the past, but I like to accompany those blocks with words. They're not going to change their MO (which is to edit as an IP); if they did we'd have a very different situation, no doubt. In fact, I even object to the term "long-term abuse"--at best it's "long-term incivility" but, again, their incivility and hostility is frequently prompted. As long as both sides are on trigger alert we will make no progress. As a side note, I've been accused here and there of "enabling" such behavior, with this IP and others, because I refuse to mass-rollback the "abuser's" edits, but if an edit improves an article we should simply let it stand, if only because, as I said, then it's over, at least on that article. Ah well. I wish they'd change their tune a bit, and I wish we could be, well, better about it. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I've not accused you of enabling such behaviour, I pointed out that it is encouraged by giving him a fig leaf to hide behind. I consider your comments to him to be well-meaning but counter-productive.  If you refer to the original talk page where we interacted for the first time over this, you noted at the time I'd made the effort to explain myself to him and I treated him no different to a named account. He behaves the same no matter what and he was still whinging that I mistreated him for being an IP editors years later.  Whether a named accounts or an IP, I treat people the same.  FWIW I think this is the user formerly known as  banned in 2006 when I was editing as an IP myself.  If its the same Cantus from Usenet he was an obnoxious trolling git there as well. WCM email 18:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WCM, also for clarity, it would be easy for me to think of you since you're very involved and (I think) you started that LTA thing, but I wasn't. Though I don't agree with you on every point, you're more fair than some others have been. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * LTA? WCM email 20:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Long-term abuse. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not the Lawn Tennis Association then. As it happens, I didn't start the LTA thing.  If you check the ANI thread from 2011, it was already old then.  WCM email 06:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll generally give people one reasonable chance, which in this instance was this. That was a good faith attempt to try and get a compromise that allows improvements but doesn't lead him to run foul of the banhammer. They aren't interested, so as far as I'm concerned, cheerio and have a nice block. Not happy he missed this warning, because I'm probably more annoyed at Alan S for "It's a banned editor. Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Don't care about his edits! Ban him!" on ANI, which kind of misses the point that everything on Wikipedia plays second fiddle to improving articles. If somebody make article improvements, then act like a div, well we've still got the improvements. Seriously, if BKFIP never reverts or never calls people assholes in edit summaries again, problem solved. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Nature's Harmony Farm
Two things:
 * Your edit summary indicates that you intended to restore the mention of the farm being for sale, but you did not actually do so.
 * user:Ane wiki who made the changes you undid is being paid to edit the article by the owner, who is currently indeff'ed as user:Skynyrdman. I think the indeff block (rather than simply extending the existing short block) was rather harsh for a newbie good faith sock error, particularly considering some of the material he was trying to remove, but now we have a paid editor too. A COI  trying to deal with a rather negative SPA has gotten in trouble and is digging a deeper hole. Any suggestions? Meters (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that, I restored it. I think Skynrdman was blocked for sockpuppetry. Not sure that I personally would have made the block indefinite, and I wouldn't object to the author being unblocked. However, one has to wonder if Ane wiki is the same paid editor evading the block, which complicates matters a bit. Regardless, I don't have a horse in this race; I'll continue to watch it and make sure that the article remains straightforward, neutral, and properly sourced. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

109.157.151.98
Is likely a sock of Aldota according to Darkness Shines. Usually edits from the 109 range. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Query
Is an editor allowed to remove an old request while the editor is still blocked? <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 06:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I share these concerns, and in fact he has been deleting content, and rearranging it so some of it isn't in chronological order anymore. All this makes it confusing. We shouldn't have to constantly refer to the edit history because the content keeps changing, yet this is a tactic used by some editors to make it difficult for others to deal with them or to understand what's going on. This is especially hard for new editors to deal with. We need to see all the evidence and not have any of it buried while this is going on. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I asked him a legitimate question on his user page then he officially banned me. Now User:BullRangifer is banned. Technophant claims "I've been civil and willing to work with everybody who's came here." The community has concerns with Technophant's behaviour. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 07:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed! His battlefield behavior, which got him in trouble in the first place, continues on his talk page. Normally editors have some rights to delete some types of content from their talk page, but a discredited editor under community sanctions has less rights, not more rights. They have no right to remove proper comments in a discussion. We can't allow them to exercise destructive power to control other editors who have done no wrong. It's time to keep that indefinite ban in place and remove talk page access for lack of collaborative spirit and battlefield behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @QuackGuru: my understanding is that you can't remove old "denied" requests while you are still under the block connected to the denied request. As it stands, it looks like the matter is resolved, unless said user decides to end their "retirement." OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)