User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive5

Orlando, Florida
Maybe you can help me out here. I'm under the impression that The Orlando Area Guide is a spam link similar to the one you removed from the External links section of Orlando, Florida. A "team" of anonymous editors disagrees with me, saying this is an official website. Can you review the site in question, and tell me if this is a site with value to Wikipedia's audience? -- SwissCelt 18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My Non-Commercial, Useful Content
Jamie, I will see about adding my Java Lectures you deleted to WikiBooks.If I do, will you again delete the link to it from this article? 20 or so lectures were written in powerpoint because I can simulate the execution of code with the animations. That is why I hosted it externally. I will be happy to put those lectures in the public domain. Since you suggested it, can you tell me if Wikibooks can support *.pps content? Ultimately, they are just files that open on a link. Pardon me if I offended you in the email I sent. I was thoroughly offended by your instant deletion of my content. As I have said, my intent was to give away the content. I first attempted to see if I could just donate it to Wikipedia. Since, however, I only saw Wikipedia has the capability to host HTML content, I moved to the public googlepages and hosted it there. Please notice that I am not charging for it and--as of now--the site has no other purpose than to freely offer the content. Please advise what circumstances will cause you to delete the link again. If I put it in Wikibooks, will you delete that link too? Thank you kindly for your assistance in this matter. Regards,Tom
 * If you add the content to Wikibooks, I don't see why it's necessary to also have the link here. Wikibook material is just as accessible as Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure that you'd need to export all of your Powerpoint content to plain text in order to add it to Wikibooks. As I said earlier, you're welcome to propose addition of the link on the Java programming talk page; I just started a review discussion of current links in the article. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jamie, First, thank you for your reply. Second, the whole point of those Java Lectures is the dynamic content. If you had perhaps clicked on one of the links--especially the later ones--you would see that the whole point is the dynamic content that illustrates the execution path for the code being explained. If we are limited to just static text than I don't want to essentially rebuild from scratch content that took at least six years to develop.

Also--and I may regret alerting you to this--there IS an external link on the Wikibooks entry for 'Java programming'--and it is an external link to a site that has basically the kind of plain static text that you want me to convert my content to. Funny, nobody on the Wikibook site has molested that person's content. However, I have added my link to my external content right below that guy's content. So, if that irks you, you can go delete my content link as well as the other person's link. Instead, I bet the person who administrates that site is not as spam-shocked as you apparently are. I understand you're trying to keep the garbage out but you ought to give content providers more of a benefit of the doubt. I offered my content for an altruistic purpose. Unless you take it upon yourself to mount a crusade against my googlepages content, it will stand and will no doubt help somebody learn to program in Java. Please just leave it be. Thank you, Tom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curmudgeon99 (talk • contribs).

External link query
Jamie, would you mind emailing me for a discussion on external link guideline interpretation? Thanks. --Irwinstreet 17:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you want to communicate via email? I prefer to use talk pages. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

External link follow-up
OK, I'll take a stab at it. I work for an online publisher of free information for professionals. We have users who ask us if we can put links to our info in Wikipedia, the way our competition does. They say our stuff is more useful and lacks ads. They also are almost never knowledgeable enough to do this themselves, so they ask us, believing it to be possible given our competitor's links, and our job besides. Is there any way for us to try this, short of training a cadre of users to edit Wikipedia pages? Thanks.70.231.142.138 04:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:SPAM and WP:EL generally advise against adding links to your own site, ad-free or not. The focus at Wikipedia is clearly on article content, not on external links, so the most of the time editors err on the side of deleting anything that's questionable. It can be a case-by-case judgement for each article; you could try by posting a request to an article's talk page suggesting a link and seeing what others think.  Keep in mind that just because an article currently has competitor/commercial links doesn't mean that they are appropriate (in fact, I often end up deleting multiple commercial links while I'm cleaning up after a multi-page spammer).  Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 06:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought this would be a useful link
Hello Jamie, I am new to Wikipedia and am not familiar with all of the guidelines. I added a link to the following website (www.sembasics.com), which was subsequently removed. I have looked over the guidelines and realize that I personally cannot suggest this site as I am the owner of the site in question. I am wondering, though, if someone else could recommend it as I think that it would be a helpful resource for the search engine marketing, search engine optimization and/or other relevant articles on Wikipedia.

Here, are the relevant sections of the External LInks guidelines page which indicate why I think it would be worthwhile including:

What should be linked to

4. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article. 5. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks.

This site is a work in progress and eventually will include a list of tutorials on various subjects relating to search engine marketing (similar to an online textbook), such as search engine optimization, pay-per-click advertising, blogs, and more. It is true that there are ads on the site and that we may offer other services in the future, but the tutorials in and of themselves are a free resource for the search community and complement the information foudn on Wikipedia. Also, I have noticed that other sites which have links on Wikipedia contain ads. I have taken that to mean that a commercial site is not a site which has ads on them.

I would appreciate it if you could let me know the guidelines of what is considered a commercial site. Also, could you please let me know whether or not free, online tutorials comes under the category of "neutral and accurate material not already in the article" which contain "a level of detail that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". After all, they contain "other, meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article".

I assure you that these tutorials are extremely well researched and are constantly being revised to keep them accurate and up-to-date. Thank you for your time, Yours truly, Moshe Morris SEMBasics.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GDMSEO (talk • contribs).
 * Your site has Google ads. I don't see any content in it that couldn't be included (or isn't already include) in the article. Most editors, including myself, will remove links to similar sites, as Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting commercial or personal sites. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Three questions: 1) Are step-by-step insturctions of how to properly implement a search engine marketing campaign they type of info that would be part of a Wikipedia article?

2) If the answer to that question is no, then is this the type of information that would compliment a Wikipedia article? If not, may I ask why not?

3) I noticed that the other links in External Link section for Search Engine Marketing also contained ads. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GDMSEO (talk • contribs).


 * Answers
 * (1) I don't understand the question, though I will note that Wikipedia is not an instruction guide. Also, it's not appropriate to add content just for the sake of linking a commercial/personal site as a source of that content.
 * (2) Answered in #1.
 * (3) Then they should probably be removed unless there was a consensus on the talk page of that article for their inclusion. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

External link query
Jamie, I added an external link to the only website dealing with information about climbing in western colorado. This is an informational resource. Why would you delete it? Bigh 18:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's not highly relevant to Colorado. If we have a Colorado climbing resource link at Colorado, then why shouldn't we have links for Square dancing and Archery in Colorado? Wikipedia is not a link directory. Try Dmoz for that. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Sanke
Jamie and visitor's wikipedia, i'm so sorry about my url, i don't know. can i share a picture again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanke (talk • contribs) 15:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that I've taken a closer look at the links, I'm not sure if the ones you added were that bad. Clearly there is a problem on that page with commercial links, but a couple are probably appropriate. I've started a discussion on the talk page; I apologize if I acted in haste. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My talk page
Thanks a lot for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. Appreciate it. Clq 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem! OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sept 11
I added a link to the loose change video, which you removed. It was placed right below the link to the "The Path To 9/11" video. I would like you to tell me why you removed this. If a link can be placed for such a right-wing piece of propaganda, surely a left-oriented link can be placed in the same section. Please leave msg on my talk page Cavell 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Loose Change" has been discussed endlessly on the talk page (probably in the archives now). The other movies you mention in the edit summary are major theatrical or television releases, while Loose Change is amateur. There is a link for it on the conspiracy page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Grapefruit Seed Extract: Update
Hi Jamie,

I am the user that Devios was not thrilled about. I am a chemist who has insight into GSE. I have copies of the studies done on GSE. I actually read the studies unlike Devios. The info Devios put in the article is false and speculation. And worse it is copyrighted info that the copyright holder did not grant Devios permission to use. Just thought I set the record straight and clear up the air. Review the factual article and you will see that their are verifiable references that prove the facts. Devios is incredulous! Good Day, Nicole.

Ku klux klan
Hey, i have to ask you that if i revert again, will it be under 3RR. I only reverted clear vandalism. There was no content dispute. Thanks.nids(&#9794;) 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, 3RR does not apply to obvious vandalism. Revert away. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your encouragements and clearing my long standing doubts.nids(&#9794;) 20:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Palmer Trinity
Quit editing palmer trinity school, you no nothing of it and its interactions, look how flawed the website curently is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.108.236 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, I've spoken with an administrator there (a Mr. Hoke) regarding some of the vandalism to the page. He confirmed that most of the additions anon IPs have attempted to add were bogus; I will continue to remove similar crap from the entry. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

fool, why don't you quit being a idiot by reverting the page to an incorrect stance instead of fixing the true problems of the page, I inserted the real facts and figures so that the page contains true information. Nice bluff though about Mr. Hoke (you ass) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.220.122 (talk • contribs)
 * Why don't you ask Mr. Hoke if he spoke with an editor from Wikipedia? (ok?) OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Nguyen
Just thought I'd let you know about that Jonathan Nguyen page you just prodded – it's been deleted and recreated several times. Regards, &mdash; riana_dzast a  wreak havoc''' 05:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! &mdash; riana_dzast a  wreak havoc''' 13:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Palmer Trinity School
First, your not supposed to delete comments on user talk, specifically when you refuse to listen to reason, leave PTS to people of PTS since you know nothing about the school beyond whst s web page tells you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OneKorea (talk • contribs).
 * Removing personal attacks from talk pages is perfectly acceptable. You do not own the article (nor does anyone else for that matter). OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

AFD
You forgot to sign your last nomination. Yomangani talk 19:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Doh! Fixed it, thanks! OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you please do the honors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ohnoitsjamie&diff=76697279&oldid=76697256 -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Much obliged, and thanks for the user page revert. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My finger was on the block button waiting for that one. ;) I noticed months ago you'd surpassed my edit count (you must be over 20k by now). Do you have the highest number of non-admin/non-bot edits? OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

malcolm x
why did you revert my edits on malcolm x? thats extremely uncool!

--- all my additions are from an excelent bbc documentary http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2485457538368783680&q=malcolm+x+bbc such data as oxford union debate, meeting castro and some other details that, after watching documentary, i found missing in the article, i have added. it is extremely rude to delete hours of other people's work, and indeed i do not understand what have you against my edits that added a lot of interesting information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.132.170 (talk • contribs)
 * Here's a direct quote from your lengthy addition: Malcolm X had great energy, he was able to work day after day with just four hours of sleep or less, he read a lot and once he believed in a cause devoted himself to it completely. I reverted it mostly because it was unsourced. OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * that quote is from the documentary (look at 42 minutes 30s to 43 minutes sample of it), as almost everything i added. i did not know much about malcolm x and have no particular reason to have any bias in this matter (i am neither black nor muslim or anything like that); much of the article is poorly sourced. when i watched the documentary on google video i checked the web, and find out that some interesting details were missing in wiki article, and added them.

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What was vandalism??
Can you stop going around and giving others warnings? you have no authority. Leave me alone and never leave comments on my page, you, you dog lover. --Rizzwan 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the vandalism in question. Furthermore, your assertion about my authority is incorrect, as you will discover if you continue to vandalize pages. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to get laid. --Rizzwan 22:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And you need to stop making personal attacks. The next one will get you blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I own the copyrights...
Firstly, I own the copty rights, and seccondly there is a copy right clearance on the text see: http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/hinduism/hindu_women.html

Look at the bottom of the page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rizzwan (talk • contribs).
 * Even without the copyright issue, it's not a good idea to make such sweeping changes to such an article without proposing them first on the talk page. Furthermore, much of the text you added was not well-organized and not formatted properly and is not written from a neutral point of view. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well duhh I am also working on it, and formatting it, I will change the tone and all my sources are cited. So if you, revert it then you will be vandalizing the page. Are you a misogynist or a supporter of women abuse? if no then let me do what I am doing, as I am a former Hindu converted to Islam so I know what I am talking about. --Rizzwan 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you leave me the hell alone are you some sort of a commie? or something. --Rizzwan 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You'd already created a staging area for the article. Please fix the formatting and references there before attempting to add it to the article space. Also, I'm warning you once again to not make personal attacks on other users. You won't be warned again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with you...
You're reverting my work back with no-good reasons, I am new to wiki so obviously, I am not going to know how to format the sources properly, hence why I have added them all unformatted that someone can do them (i.e) format the. SO why revert my work back to some apologetic misogynistic supporting article?

How do you expect any articles to work on here if you go an revert everything back just because someone hasn't formated it correctly. The point of wiki is to do collaborations to expand the articles. So please I am asking you nicely don't revert my work or help me to format it and to remove the text whcih is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Why are you trying so hard to piss me off? --Rizzwan 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've given you the reasons for the reverts. Formatting is less of an issue than sourcing. Any time you make a submission, the statement, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable appears below the textarea. Please read that link as well as Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and neutral point of view. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop being Hitler
You told me once not to post my link. Fine. But when I remove your links "WHICH WERE BROKEN" you still revert my work back. Now that page has your 2 broken links again. What are you insane? Did you even check your own links? Your really power-stricken and a "know-it-all". Maybe you need to find something better to do with your day than harass every one else who use and enjoy this website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gouimet (talk • contribs).
 * I checked both links and both were working, so I restored them. Your links violated WP:SPAM, which is why they were removed. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * seconded. just checked both links. Syrthiss 23:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * you guys were correct. I was wrong.  I had 2 sources check for me, it's my computer. I appoligise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gouimet (talk • contribs)


 * No worries. If you can see some sites and not others, it could be that your ISP is having a problem with one of their routers.

OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Something interesting I just found. Once of my sources re-checked fitness.gov and it does not work for him in Internet Explorer (I use IE6).  When he originally checked, he was using firefox.  I just checked on firefox and it works.  Have you guys checked those links in IE6? User:Gouimet
 * Both worked in my IE6; maybe a security setting or some kind of spyare/antivirus/proxy plugin? OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jamie, I created a useful reference for the antique industry. A glossary, newel.com/glossary.aspx. I added a link under the antique furniture section and it was removed. Can you explain why this was removed and not allowed and the other links are allowed. I notice links to sites all the time. I'm still not clear on why some sites are allowed and others like the one I just added are removed. I'm starting to feel that Wikipedia is useless as a site. I'm trying to add value and contribute and only get frustrated and see other sites of less value and links to sites that display google ads allowed. What's the point?
 * We've been over this before on the talk page for that article. Folks are constantly trying to spam Wikipedia with commercial/promotional links, and as such it's not difficult to find inappropriate ones. If you do, feel free to remove them. OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dachshund
Hello...I'm sort of new at this, so I'm sorry if I make any mistakes. I happened to look up Dachshund, and read the Wiki article. Toward the bottom I saw a heading for "Clubs, Associations, and Societies," so as assistant organizer of the Boston Dachshund Meetup, I added a link to our group. I noticed that within minutes, the link was removed. After going over some Wikipedia rules, I realize that this link may be regard as spam, partly because you have to register for the group, and partly because it is a very localized group. I decided to just add a link for the national dachshund meetup where people can search for a group near their area. Some groups (like ours) require approval while some others don't. (We require it so to afford the group a modicum of privacy and protection, but there is no fee involved.)  I hope the new link is ok. Please share your thoughts if you decide to delete it. Thanks, Vinnie
 * I'm OK with it, but if another editor feels that it's spam, you'll have to take it to the talk page for that article (i.e., ask for input regarding the inclusion of that link). P.S. Don't forget to sign your talk page comments with four tildes: ~ . Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * *points at the talk page* :) I'd say it violates multiple points of WP:EL - Trysha (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Trysha is correct. My focus is mostly on ridding Wikipedia of promotional/advertising links, but according to the letter of the WP:EL and WP:SPAM policies, there are probably only a small fraction of links that are appropriate. Personally, I tend to lean toward deletion of links rather than keep; it's easier to avoid the gray areas that way. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

???NEIGBOURS???
The information i placed on Neigbours is correct, as i watch it practically every monday-friday on channel 10 at 6:30 pm on Australian television. Sorry to seem rude, but i know the actors/actresses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truelife (talk • contribs).
 * Solution to problem; source your additions. Declaring that you know the actors/actresses isn't good enough. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that~
Sorry about editing ur comment. I was just confused and i forgot how to add a comment on the page so i accidently pressed somthing, and i think i deleted ur comment by mistake. and then when i realsed i did so, i found out that it actually works so i edited it more. Anyways, i apoligise deeply for that mistake.

sorry again

Truelife 03:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Sneaky Spam??"
Umm... I don't think so. You don't like blogs? Fine. I have no connection to the satire site in question - take it up on the article's discussion page, and don't make assumptions on my talk page, please. For Toledoans, the site is a go-to humor site - I live in between Detroit and Toledo, and have a lot of relatives there. Do you? Gauging from your contributions, you seem to spend most of your time just making snap decisions about a user's intent and issuing blocks, warnings, and the like. But heck, just my opinion. Johnbrownsbody 22:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Like you said, we're all entitled to our opinions. I still call it sneaky spam. I distinctly recall other users sneaking that site in among "minor grammar" edits (e.g. ; might be interesting to run a CheckUser on that one). Blogs are rarely appropriate links for articles unless the blog has (1) verifiable notability or is is written by the article's subject. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about in your most recent entry on my talk page. I am sitting at a public library in Toledo making some edits, and you are accusing me of all sorts of strange edits.  If prior users of the IP you listed are quacks or spammers, that's too bad, but I am not the person you should be complaining about.  Please find more productive uses of both your and my time.  Thank you.Johnbrownsbody 22:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit patterns speak for themselves. (By the way, I've rooted out most of the other nationalnitwit blog links). Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
How come you delete a Microsoft recommend expert zone website ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/related/default.mspx ) - SoftwareTipsandTricks with over 35,000+ members.

And you allow your friends websites with hardly any members - who just copy and paste content from other large sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keke (talk • contribs)
 * In my 15k or so edits, I've probably added less than ten external links total (if that), and certainly not to a friend's site. (I don't have any friends who make money from websites as far as I know). Feel free to peruse my contribution history. If you feel that some of the other remaining links are non-notable, feel free to delete them. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM for link guidelines. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Apostille
On the word "apostille", why are you deleting a link to a site that has had useful info about apostilles since 1998?

Doesn't make sense!

You are just a little Hitler, where do you get off? Almost any page on the net could be considered commecial nowadays. You have issues! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.44.61 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't think you've read WP:SPAM or WP:EL. The site in question sells Apostille's. It's advertising. Period. Furthermore, I recommend that you not make personal attacks, as doing so is grounds for blocking. OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Hi Jamie. Could you please have a look at Articles for deletion/Islamic violence afd closure? Thanks in advance. -- Szvest 14:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hasn't been moved to the "old" list yet, but it looks like a consensus for deletion to me. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. Szvest 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I prod'ed William W. Quinn, Jr (FYI)
William W. Quinn, Jr an article created by, has been proposed for deletion. I noticed on Sheldunn's talk page that you had some issues with Sheldunn's contributions, which as of 20:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC) are limited just to Quinn and Quinn's dissertation. I'm letting you know about the PROD in case your previous interactions gave you insight into a reason to keep the article around after all. 66.167.139.50.
 * Yeah, that editor was pretty unclear on the ropes. I'd have to agree with you that the book/author doesn't appear to meet notability tests. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Guest:I have been accused of vandelizum (and bad spelling) in my messages for an IP address that isn't mine and for pages that I have never gone to. It says itself that AOL uses the same IP address for multiple users. And it has now blocked me from editing pages. (which i don't do much) I would like this corrected.

Famous Women in History
I voted for non-deletion. The general view, however, was that the subject was too "broad". I now find that a search for "famous women" results in a list of articles considerable less useful to a searcher with only a broad idea of what he or she is looking for. (I'm thinking of perhaps a middle-school history student with a deadline approaching.) Does it make sense to redirect students to lists of "short women", and "tall women" for instance? Do you think it would be feasable to improve the usefulness of the Wikipedia to students by giving a more organized redirection page in response to a request for "women" or "famous women" or "women in history", or should we create a new "famous women in history" page which refers the reader to a clear set of subcategories, sugh as "women in science", literature, art, etc.?--Davidrei 20:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the elimination of that list leaves a real void. I would suggest to a student wishing to do a report on a famous woman to start in a narrower category first; e.g., famous women in Colonial American history? Modern Turkish history? There's always the Category link for women and all of the sub-categories. OhNo itsJamie Talk 07:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I searched for "Famous Women in Colonial American history", "Famous Women in Modern Turkish history", "Famous Women", and "Category:Women". I also looked up "women" and "women in history". I noticed a void, not in the underlying articles, but in the response to the searches. This is what I mean:

The first two searches, of course, returned nothing. Although one might argue that no one should conduct such a search, I can imagine a good faith desire to fill a void in, for instance, a History textbook. The search "famous women", results in a red (dead) link to "famous women in History", followed by links to the abovementioned "famous short women" and "famous tall women". At this point, the student might wonder why women between 5 feet and 5 foot 10 inches have been deleted. No answer is presented.

The search for "Category:Women" does present links leading, eventually, to lists of scientists, writers, actors, etc. which would bbe acceptable to a teacher.

However, few searchers will find this page without site-specific knowlege, which we can't assume. Also, aesthetically, I find the list odd in two ways: First, the breadth of the subcategories is bewilderingly variable. My eyes are drawn to a whole series of British nobility categories, then to tantalising info about "Pregnancy" and "Page three girls". It's true that "Women by occupation", etc, are available, but the subcategories seem to belong to different and unrelated lists. If you compare to the system of organization of "List of Chinese People", for instance, the difference in utility is clear. Subdividing the list into subcategories "Kinds of women", "Groups of Women", "Links to pictures of pretty girls", "female subsets of lists of people", and "aspects of womankind" would make the page much more readable. Although the concerns of middle-aged men are certainly valid, I think we should not rebuff the more intellectual needs of students with girl-free History books in hand. They deserve a clear path to the subjects of interest.

I then tried "women in history". Although no such page exists, the list of near-miss pages was extensive and more-or-less on-point.

Would the inadequacy of the response to a "famous women in history" search be best improved by creating a short article by that name with links to proper narrower searches? Can the searches "Famous women" and "famous women in History" be redirected to "women in history" to take advantage of the excellent set of near-miss links?

I think either would be better than presenting an error message in response to a simple, clear, and popular* request. Better, because even the conversation about the propriety of looking for a list of famous women would be advanced by giving the information, along with a note explaining the controversy. What do you think?

/*The "famous women in history" page was #849 in that (disputed) visit count of June, 2005. That would put it in the top 0.5% of articles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee%5CList_of_Wikipedia_articles_with_at_least_1000_hits)

It was #48 in Google to Wikipedia links on March 7th, 2003. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_articles_frequently_visited_through_Google)--Davidrei 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think internal search optimization is a good solution (nor do I think it's considered acceptible). If you have suggestions about organization of categories, there are ongoing discussions regarding that issue. Wikipedia's Categories page serves as a good starting point, with info about category guidelines in general as well as links to active projects. Categories is one area that I haven't delved into much, so I can't help you much beyond pointing you to that resource. I think you have some good ideas; I'm sure your input will be welcome there, as there is a lot of work to be done. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, and I'll look up Categories. And Illinois. --Davidrei 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Bong
Hey, as you're probably aware, we're still having a problem with IP users vandalising bong. I know that you banned one IP, but it seems that either he/she has access to multiple IPs or there are a lot of other retards who insist that it is neccesary to ignore consensus, not to mention Wikipedia policy. I don't know if it's severe enough to warrant semi-protection, but yeah, we need some kind of admin help I think. --Anaraug 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like he may be using an open proxy. I'll have a few of the IPs checked; if it persists, I'll semi-protect. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hah. I was just thinking, "Hmmm, I haven't seen the crazy person mangling Bong lately." Thanks for the semi-protection; it's a nice relief. William Pietri 07:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User 218.188.16.66
The IP 218.188.16.66 has again vandalised not one, but two pages again (specifically Shusuke Fuji and Kunimitsu Tezuka), thankfully Yamaguchi先生 reverted their edits, but can you do something about the user, like temporarily blocking them or something? To be honest, the Prince of Tennis pages have been getting a lot of vandalism by IP logs, is there some way of only letting register users edit the pages?

Thank you! Sincerely, Vera26 06:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * is blocked for 48 hours (length extended for second block). It is possible to restrict anons from editing pages via semi-protection, but that should only be used if individual IP blocks doesn't solve the problem. Looking at the history of Prince of Tennis, it's hard to tell what's vandalism since folks aren't using edit summaries. (It's always a good idea to put something in the edit summary box; for vandalism reverts, "rvv" is fine). Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole Turkey-Genocide thing
I've noticed that this avoidance of delicate issues isn't restricted to the Turkey page. A whole load of pages relating to Turkey conveniently fail to make any mention of it. Even Human rights in Turkey fails to mention that you can be jailed for calling it a genocide. There's not much that can be done, as I think that an overwhelming majority of editors are Turkish, and feel offended by criticism of Turkey. I'm not Armenian or anything, but this seems to be quite a serious problem. Any ideas? Is there a way we can make a public announcement for help from neutral editors? Yandman 07:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's sanitizing/censorship as far as I'm concerned. If I have time today, I may try to put together another section that outlines major issues in EU membership as reported by reliable sources; if that isn't acceptible, I'll take it to Request for comment. I don't have issues with any country in the world (though I'm not a big fan of all governments). I do have a generally favorable opinion of Turkey's government, but I am firmly against censorship and sanitizing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I put in an RfC: Talk:Turkey#Request_for_Comment:_Sanitization_of_Turkish_history. I hope we can bring in some neutral editors to debate this. Yandman 07:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

BCPS
Hi,I was just wondering a few things about an ip adress being blocked. I use the computers at school sometimes to surf wikipedia, and this IP adress is banned, 151.196.98.43. I sometimes make edits too, and under my account. I dont have a history of vandalism, yet im blocked, and I am a fairly established user. Is it possible for my username to be unblocked? or is the ip adress as a whole completely blocked?

Thanks for your time.

Bearingbreaker92 21:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

UntraveledRoad
I hope you don't mind if I move this conversation here. I see you are very bitter about me. I am sorry for that. Can we talk this over and come to a truce of some kind? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KelvinSmith (talk • contribs).
 * I'm not bitter about anything. I do, however, object to people using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. You've already attempted to add numerous links to your own site until you were called on it; now you're trying to get other people to do it for you. I'm simply following policies and guidelines established in WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted bio
Do you deny my obvious manness. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony Arena (talk • contribs).
 * I deny your notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 08:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

External Link Removal
Hi, on 16:20, 21 June 2006, you removed an external link from the Shopping Mall page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_mall). The reason given for the removel was "rv commercial links." The link was "* BIGMallrat Guide to Shopping Malls." I can assure you, however, that the site removed is not a commerical link. Nothing is being sold, nor is the site run by a commercial entity. It's a personal Web page dedicated to shopping malls. Of course, I've reviewed the guidelines for links and the site is not in violation. It seems to me the removal of the link was in error and I would like it restored. Thank you. sparsonsusa


 * The removal of the link was not an error. It is a personal site with advertisements; please refer to the policies at WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Furthermore, adding the site to 16 other articles (as of 10/4/06) would be considered to be spamming by most editors. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But you said it was removed because it was a commercial site, as it is not. No where in the rules does it say personal sites may not have ads. In addition, some of the external links from that page link to sites that have ads. Malls of America, Labelscar, and so forth. They all are ad-supported. Are you saying those sites are appropriate, but the BIGMallrat site is not? Under what specific grounds? Don't direct me to "the rules" when I've read them and apparently my interpretation is different from yours. Cite the exact rule. In addition, the links to the other pages in the site are not a violation. All the links do not point to a single URL, which is spamming according to the rules. Instead, the links point to different URLs, which is not spamming. The rules do not expressly prohibit that. Not to mention, the information contained therein is appropriate to each and every subject; of which I've made contributions. I don't understand how this has been fine to everyone else all this time then you come around with your interpretation of the rules and say what was previously okay is suddenly not okay. Precedent has already been set. Please respond! —Preceding unsigned comment added by sparsonsusa (talk • contribs)
 * The presense of other links with ads does not justify your link. If other links with ads are not highly relevant to the subject (i.e., they are not official sites or reliable news sources, they should be removed as well. If you like, I'd be happy to present this link search to Wikiproject Spam for second opinions. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, sorry for butting in here - but that is clearly linkspam.  I've cleaned up the list of links in the main shopping mall article, as well as removed all the bigmallrat stuff.   Looks like there is a bunch of cleanup work to be done on all these mall articles for other sites as well - I've done some of this already.   - Trysha (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that's rude to anyone who has an appropriate link that was acceptable until Trysha showed up. I would have prefered if Trysha just minded her own business and BUT out. Clearly the rules are being reinterpreted as the minutes tick by. That's unfair and unethical. You would be just as angry if I did that to you. Precedent has already been set, but apparently that means nothing here. Wikipedia will never be a credible source as long as each editor does his or her own thing, without regard to the greater community. I can't believe the efforts I've put in to a number of articles and this is the thanks I get. I'm sure everyone who had their links removed by Trisha thanks her, too. Don't bother presenting any of the links. I have better things to do that deal with a bunch of control freaks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by sparsonsusa (talk • contribs).
 * Trysha didn't change any rules; she's simply helping to develop a new template to make the existing rules and guidelines more clear. Personally, I prefer my Wikipedia to be free of advertisements. I'm sure that the many others who feel the same way will continue to value and use it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for editing my picture formatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikeltic (talk • contribs)
 * No problem...it's fairly easy once you get the hang of it (though it can be tricky to get text to flow nicely around images in some larger articles). OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

new spam warning
Heya, I dunno if you have been watching it, but there is a new spam warning template in the works WikiProject_Spam/Spam1 here, i'm tempted to go ahead and stick my version (the version that most folks have liked) in the spam template. I think that the bigmall guy would have been diffused a bit more by this one, as it doesn't get hung up on that whole 'commerical' point. What do you think? - Trysha (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I hadn't see that (though I just added my $.02). I like it. I get tired of the Wiki-lawyering over the fine points of the policies. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  I didn't even notice that grammatical bit.   I went ahead and did the replacement on spam/spam-n.    I totally understand what you mean about the wikilawyering :)  _ Trysha (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of user pages
How do I delete my account on here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkness88 (talk • contribs).


 * User page deletion guidlines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

email message
Heya, I got an email message from and Ohnoitsjamie account about my deletion of external links, and I wanted to be sure that it was from you. It seemed somewhat out of character, as you have always said you prefer to use talk pages for these sorts of discussions :) - Trysha (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was me. It was one of those rare things I preferred to keep off-line for various reasons. I'm not too worried about the outcome either way; just wondering what you thought about it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

compare or just delete
I keep running into deletions when there are similar ones already there to the one I added on the page???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_room Chat Acronyms — Meanings of acronyms used in online chat

The link I added was even better site than this one.

DO you compare or just delete?

Thanks - 01:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Geomguy


 * I delete when I see a pattern of contributions that suggest that someone is trying to promote a site. There are plenty of other external links on Wikipedia that probably should be deleted as well, so their presense isn't an argument for the inclusion of yours. Feel free to delete any links you find that violate WP:SPAM and WP:EL guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Jihad
Because of your input on previous music AfDs, I was hoping you would take a look at this article and provide your thoughts on whether or not it meets WP:MUSIC its latest AfD. PT ( s-s-s-s ) 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at it; I'm having trouble seeing how it meets WP:BAND. The closest criteria would be Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city ; though the article seems to make that claim, none of the cited sources support that (i.e., they don't state that AJJ is the most promiment rep of a scene, only that they are part of a local scene). If you could find supporting sources (or if they meet another criteria I'm missing) I'd be happy to weigh in. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking to a contibutor page when reverting vandalism
Is there a faster way than special:contributions/ ?HalfShadow 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My automated edit summaries are a function of my administrator account. Here is some good information on vandal-fighting tools that anyone can use, though I haven't used either of the tools mentioned. I'm pretty sure that they have some facillities for edit summary automation. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done!
Well done for blocking Wiki-liki-bo-biki Much appreciated I'm sure did you see what he/she put on the N Korea page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcDouglas (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah, I suspect that North Korea will be a popular vandalism target for the next few days. Indef blocking accounts like that can slow it down a bit. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WHY?WHY?WHY?
Hi,

I'm sorry if we keep bumping into each other like this but i really would prefer it if you would give me a proper and detailed xplanantion as to why you keep on deleting parts of my article as well as others.

No offence, but lately you've been on quite alot of our nerves and i apoligise if i seem offensive.

PLease tell me why you deleted the Student Repressetnative Coucil section on my article "Trinity Catholic College". It is an essentail aspect of school life and provides readers with extra background as well as current and contemporary information.

I do not see at all how it is irrelavent.

Truelife 06:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at other school articles, you'll see that we don't maintain info like current student council representatives and other transient information like that. It's too difficult to maintain and beyond the scope of what's appropriate for the article. See WikiProject_Schools for more info. Note in that guideline the following remark:
 * Names of noteworthy (e.g. award-winning, published) faculty of the past can be mentioned. Generally timeless information (such as published teachers) is preferred over transitory information (like the exact number of math teachers at a point in time).
 * It's safe to assume that if lists of current teachers are discouraged, the same would apply to current student representatives. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You reverted my edit for no reason.....
It was an external link which I found useful. I thought that others could find it useful, too. It isn't my web site or anything like that by no means and I know the address if I need it....so I couldn't care less that you deleted it.... I just feel discouraged to try to edit something to Wikipedia again.......

I'll reverse back my edit once.....if you delete it again, peace be with you, man - you must feel very powerful in your shoes......

Obeisant


 * I'm not wearing shoes. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Obeisant, see the WP:SHOES policy : "Editors should only ever edit Wikipedia whilst wearing tartan carpet slippers, or failing that, plastic sandals worn over knee-length white socks". To say an editor has been wearing shoes on duty is a very serious accusation. yandman  11:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

With shoes or not, here is the deal: I took your advice and I read 2 times very careful the guidelines for adding links. I think that my edit does not violate any of those guidelines and is justified, so I will put the link back. If you delete it again, I’ll put it back again. If you give me a valid reason why it shouldn’t be there I’ll stop – I promise. If not, I’ll put it back every time I have the time to play the game of nerves, until the end of days.

Regards, Obeisant
 * Here's a reason. A Google search for "mortgage calculator" yields over 18 million hits. Wikipedia is not a link directory. If a mortgage calculator link were to be included on the page, an ad-free one would be more appropriate. Please do not add the link again. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In the context of spam violations, it's also worth noting that Wikipedia has a policy on sockpuppetry and that a Check user tool is at our disposal. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha, I see what you mean with the sockpuppetry, but you're wrong. Probably somebody else read these comments and acted. LOL. You can check the IP for the edits if you don't believe - the other person certainly didn't edit from my place, so don't rush to conclusions. Regarding what you said about the other calculators with no ads, I will consider it. I'll look for a nice one without ads (if you say there are so many) and I'll link to that. I'll see then if you're cool or not.....

Regards, Obeisant
 * If you're looking for an ad-free one, you can have Google limit the search to certain domains like so. (In theory, .org sites are supposed to be non-profit, but some do have ads). While assuming good faith is a Wikipedia cornerstone, it does look suspicious when someone's first edit from a registered account it to add a link with ads, especially when that link has been the subject of previous spam campaigns. If that wasn't your intent, I apologize. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's one that's similar to the everycalc one (it's from a credit union's site; no ads). Looks like credit union sites frequently have them. You might be able to find a better one. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Jamie. I appreciate your zeal to keep the world free of the profiteering greed. (And I REALLY appreciate what Wikipedia is doing). But the particular example you give is not even close to the one I proposed. When you have some time, try to crunch some numbers in both of them using your own mortgage refinance scenario, and see which one will give you information to make a decision. But I will give it to you and I will eventually look for another good calculator which is non commercial and with no ads (I wonder if I’ll find such an animal….).

I’m usually rational, un-stubborn and certainly not fanatic, but your action to reverse my first edit made me feel pissed-off and determined to fight back, for a philosophical reason…..I mean, by trying to protect the idea of non-profit, you are willing to sacrifice the quality of Wikipedia’s output. The use of the calculator I proposed was free for me, nobody profited from me taking advantage of it. If somebody clicks on their ads, why should I care or why should you care for that matter? You are using Google search many times every day right? And they are providing you a huge service for free, right? Why would you care if they have ads and if anybody at all clicks on their ads or not? (And I bet that you secretly wish that enough people click on their ads so that they make enough money to be happy and continue to give you their valuable service for free). I understand that there is a lot of vandalism and spam and garbage you need to take care of – and I really pride your voluntary effort, but to compromise Wikipedia’s quality by using poorer quality free material instead of better quality free material just because of the benign (in my opinion) Google ads, that’s something I don’t understand.

Best Regards, Obeisant
 * I understand where you're coming from. Sadly, your sentiments/intentions account for what seems to be a very small percentage of new users who add links. I'll concede that in the 15 minutes that I looked for an ad-free refinancing calculator, I was unable to find one that had as many input fields as the first one you posted (though I don't know enough about the topic to evaulate it for accuracy). It would be a quixotic quest to attempt to remove all links with ads from Wikipedia.  What I (and people on the spam project) look for is patterns. Reverting and warning within the first few edits often solves the problem.  Unfortunately, sometimes I erroneously apply that "profiling" to innocent folks.
 * Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to find an equivalent ad-free site; you certainly don't have to spend hours doing so. If you post a message to the Mortgage talk page asking for input on the link (be sure to mention that you and other editors attempted to find a non-commercial alternative first), I'll respect any consensus that arises from that discussion (i.e., I'll leave the link be if others agree that it's a worthwhile resources for that article). Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we eventually could be friends, even :-). When I’ll have time, I’ll do exactly what you suggest. In the end it was a pleasure talking to you.

Best Regards, Obeisant


 * Thanks for being understanding and taking time to discuss the issue. You'll find that the majority of folks who are active in the project are quite reasonable and friendly. I'm glad that you appreciate Wikipedia as much as I do; if you have any other questions or thoughts, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 05:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism by Wellsey123
I have reported User:Wellsey123 for vandalizing your Userpage, given the fact you're an administrator. Disciplinary action should be taken against him. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the revert; blocked him indef as vandalism-only. Cheers! OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Spam
Please excuse any mis-posting of this comment.

I read the guidelines and my opinion differs from yours. However, because you have the power and I do not, I lose.

While you may have removed the link, you are obviously clueless about what spam (in this context)is and isn't. The link provided was not spam nor was it self promotion of a given product. It was not generated to incure "hits". I provided a link for an Oxen forum. Use a search engine and do a search and find how many there aren't. Ox(en) being a highly used means of agriculture is very important. Given the fact that there is NO Oxen specific entry (but rather a shared one under cattle) I see no issue with directing others to another educational source. I sell no product(s), make no money on the given link. The link was for a forum purely to provide an information exchange and to support 4H and Teamsters (Ox owners). Maybe next time you should take the time to educate yourself about a given link. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.80.45.100 (talk • contribs).

Quote from you "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.80.45.100 (talk • contribs).
 * I wasn't the only one who reverted that link, so your opinion appears to be a minority at this point. Notice #9 in the Links to avoid section of WP:EL. Furthermore, I notice that the site in question has five registered members and five posts. That doesn't come close to addressing WP:Notability guidelines (which are informally applied to forums for some topics). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so people know #9 says "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself." The Notability issue isn't relevent, #9 is. The link was to a free forum. Consider me vaporware. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.80.45.100 (talk • contribs).
 * To clarify what I meant by informally applying notability to links; though WP:EL discourages forum links (unless the forum itself is the topic), most editors don't argue against the inclusion of high-popularity/high traffic forums on a topic. Posting a link to a fledling forum suggests promotion. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for keeping watch on the Moon Area High School page. Students at the school keep adding useless content to it. - BobbyCherry2
 * Nice work on that page (and other Moon-related pages) yourself! I recall Mr. Cherry as a principal at the high school (or was it the middle school?) at some point....a relation? OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

haha! No relation. Mr. Cherry was, during my time, a math (or history) teacher in the middle school. We always joked about being related, but to our knowledge are not. - BobbyCherry2

Award

 * Thanks for the barnstar! Seems like awhile since I've been awarded one. Cheers! OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie About the Spam(team) article: I thought it might be notable because the team's name reflects the cultural influence of SPAM, especially that a team of elementary school kids would choose that for their team name. Hormel in fact sent hats as a gift to each player. Thank you, Hpgeek

Please don't delete articles on a whim
—Preceding unsigned comment added by subst:Boob the type of bird (talk • contribs)

Daboia
Regarding the Naturemagics link at the end of the Daboia article, I've tried to create a new link to the snake image alone, but the Naturemagics server apparently performs a so-called "referer check" to prevent this. I can't stop you from deleting this link from the article, and I'm not going to deny that this webpage exists mainly for advertising purposes, but I'd like to ask you to leave the link there anyway. As advertisements go, this one is hardly the worst, and to me the image is an excellent example of how slender D. russelii can be compared to the average terrestrial viperid. --Jwinius 12:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was unaware that the photo in question was significantly different than those already in the article. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hobos
Hi i am read a story with hobos in it and when i add the hobos in the book to the notable hobo's page Eyrian keeps erasing it and yelling at me. Can you tell her to stop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendermage (talk • contribs)
 * I would've done the same thing as Eyrian. You've already been warned several times about adding spurious and unverified info to that page. Don't do it again unless you can provide a source. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, No!
From now on, this is POPopedia, not Wikipedia, so you have no power to warn me about anything. SO FUCK OFF.ThePOP 20:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have the power to block you indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, which you are probably noticing by now. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Douche
My addition to the term douche bag, with the possible exception of adding my name, was appropriate, relevant, and accurate. This is completely a POV issue. But I'm sure I know your response, "I have the right to hold discretion over what is appropriate and inappropriate.” If that is the case, then Wikipedia is not allowing the free growth of our vernacular that is stated on the main page.  It saddens me when power-hungry megalomaniacs impose their interpretations on OUR morality.  This is censorship reminiscent of that which our government, most organized religions, and the Nazi SS have perpetrated on general populous for years.  It is my hope that you are not one of those types of people, and that you will either allow me to take my name out and re-post or that you will edit and post the excerpt yourself.  I won’t hold my breath though.  -Thank you, Travis P.S.   I do not appreciate the threat or the accusation of vandalism and would appreciate the decency of a reply. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivartbook (talk • contribs)
 * Your contribution history (under this account) shows no edits to Douche. If you're referring to this edit that I recently reverted, there isn't much to debate. The article already mentions that the term can be used as an insult. OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies
I am very sorry. please forgive me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.112.145 (talk • contribs)

Wiki’s guidlines State:
"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks.

''Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette."''

Can you please follow these guidelines? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaoshan (talk • contribs).
 * Those guidelines have nothing to do with reverting spam (see user's edit history). OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Magicpoo
Sometime earlier this year you left a vandalism warning on this user's talk page. I have just been through his contribs, and there is no vandalism to be found. Could you please justify your use of this template? Thanks. Heweyeweyeweyeweyeweyewey... The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! You can't control me! I'm a P. I.! 16:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, he incorrectly inserted some data that was changed later down the track in some article (he added Shakira to an infobox), but this could have been an innocent mistake. Also, you used the heading Creating nonsense articles. All articles that this user has created have gone on to be expanded from a stub to at least starting-article class. Finally, whatever happened to not biting the newbies? Heweyeweyeweyeweyeweyewey... The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! You can't control me! I'm a P. I.! 16:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Heweyeweyeweyeweyeweyewey... The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! You can't control me! I'm a P. I.! 16:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Logtenberg 00:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jamie. Why did you remove the global warming newswire link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logtenberg (talk • contribs)
 * Less than an hour before you added it, an anon IP was spamming it all over the place. Furthermore, it doesn't appear to be anything more than an aggregator of other articles with Google ads. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM for more info. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jamie, This site fills the gap of what is missing on the internet, a extensive collection of published studies focused on an extremely important topic in today's world. There's no other site that points to all the studies on this topic. I'm sorry for offending you. Please don't kill the momentum of what this site is striving to be because of how it was added to wikipedia by an unaware wikipedia user - me. We need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logtenberg (talk • contribs)
 * You're not offending me. I just don't think we need it on Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 04:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting Discounts and allowances. You beat me to it. Danny 23:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on your latest merge
Hi. I updated the talk page at Talk:Fethullah Gülen with some comments and proposals about your latest merge. Could you please check it and leave your comments on the matter at that page.

Thank you.

--Harput 09:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

LaoShan Photo Gallery
I think that the Qingdao Travel & Living Guide's Laoshan Photo Gallery http://www thatsqingdao com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=158&Itemid=82  External Link is not SPAM according to Wiki's guidelines. Those photos add so much to that article. "A picture is worth a thousand words!" Do you honestly think that these gallery's do not add anything to the Wiki Laoshan Article? How can we resolve this issue?--219.146.94.4 06:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read the guidelines more closely. Simply stating that it's not a violation doesn't make it so. The WP:SPAM and WP:EL policies clearly discourage users from adding links to their own sites. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion or advertising. If you feel those articles are lacking, you are encouraged to add content to them. If you have some photos you'd like to contribute, you can freely license them as WP:GDFL and upload them to the article. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * --I have read the SPAM guidelines! It seems that your decision on this matter is purely subjective. I think you need to realize that there are 100 plus quality photo's in those galleries and that the one picture that is on the Laoshan Article is crap! If you showed that photo to anyone here in Qingdao they would not recognize it as being from Laoshan. One, two, or even three pictures can't truly show the beauty of Laoshan, that is why that article needs a comprehensive photo gallery! OhNo itsJamie, have you ever visited Laoshan or even Qingdao for that matter? Will you please stop vandalizing my posts to the talk pages? These pages are for open discussion of relevant matters, right?--Gaoshan 05:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Any reverts I did on talk pages were because you were replicating a discussion on multiple pages, which is not necessary (and confusing). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 05:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

--Jessica93 21:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you help me find an administrator of this English version of this website that also speaks Dutch. --Jessica93 21:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Offhand, I know, though he hasn't been on since yesterday. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Help needed for the biography of Fethullah Gulen
Hi, your help would be appreciated to resolve the controversies for the article about Fethullah Gulen. Basically some people are reverting back previous text without any explanation. You can follow the discussions at the talk page. Thank you, --Harput 08:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Help needed for the biography of Maryse Casol
Hi Jamie,

My name is Henri, I'm doing my Phd thesis on artist Maryse Casol. To help the community, I am putting the results of my research as I make progress. I understand that all sources are still not there for I'm working on it right now. Could you please give me a bit of time before deleting the content. Or could you please indicate what exactly that does not match the rules? I did indicate that the biography came from the book "Maitres et Epigones" from Sam Aberg.

Thank you for your help.

Henri
 * Hi Henri; the afd debate will be open for a week. Notability guidelines for biographies are outlined in WP:BIO. Essentially, to establish notability you need to provide a reliable source.  Additionally, Wikipedia has a policy on original research that may be relevant. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 06:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

____________

Hello, Jaime, I'm relatively new to this, and never posted in a "Talk" area before, so please excuse me if this comment isn't in the appropriate place. Anyway: Now that you've deleted a few links I put in (Kobe beef, Madagascar, etc), I reread the spam policies and I see you were absolutely correct to have done so. I'm sorry; I hate spam as much as anyone, and hate to think those links were "polluting" Wikipedia. The other you removed, however, leaves what I consider to be a hole in the St. John (US Virgin Islands) entry. It's about the awesome amount of volunteer work that goes into maintaining St. John's ecosystem, from ecotravelers. It adds to the financial health of the island, as well as that of the natural habitat's sustainability. I'd hate to think that people reading that entry would think that the only economic force on St. John is through the building of more and more hotels and resorts. What do you think?
 * You're welcome to add new content to the article regarding St. John's ecosystem. I still don't think the link is appropriate (and I doubt other spam patrollers will either). OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hey, I dont know what you can do about this, but 172.203.244.72 is vandalising Cannibal Corpse and George Fisher. Take a look at the articles they changed, blatant vandalism.

Thanks Bearingbreaker92 23:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

YOU are the TRUE VANDAL
STOP! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.146.82.130 (talk • contribs).

Need help restoring an article
Hiya, Jamey

Wondering if you can tell me the next step on this. I'm an old-time Wikepedian, newly returned, and I'm not well- informed re: how things are done now.

An article went up earlier this year about a newish yoga teaching, posted by the guy who created the system. It was distressingly self-promotional, and so it drew Wiki ire (properly so). The guy edited down the hype, but then it was knocked off for reasons of verification/notability and moved to my user page for repair (because I'd chimed in to defend it...I happen to practice this system, plus I'm a Wikipedian with a track record).

After a few months of stalling (sorry, been busy), I went over the article (it's true and it's non-promotional) and I responded on issue of verification/notability. I don't want to just move this back to public if it's just going to piss people off. Can you advise? A quick read of these two pages will bring you up to date:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:O._Pen_Sauce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:O._Pen_Sauce/Advanced_Yoga_Practices_%28AYP%29

Sorry to dump work on you, but I hope you can take a sec to advise.

This system's growing fast...if consensus is not to add it now, there'll likely be a groundswell later. Time frame doesn't matter to me...the article's ready to go up whenever it's appropriate, that's the main thing. O. Pen Sauce 17:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Though the article is well-written, it's still lacking reliable sources, which would make it vulnerable to an AFD nomination. Some my question the external links as well unless they are somehow (1) official or (2) widely considered to be the most notable links on the topic. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:12.111.77.131
I'm thinking User:12.111.77.131 needs to be blocked. Despite being a school IP, there has been relentless attacks on a user page (and incidentally the user whose page is being attacked goes to the same schoool) so these are most likely repeated personal attacks on the user. -WarthogDemon 19:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have any qualms with blocking school IPs. If it causes inconvenience for other students, the school administration should do something about it. (I see someone has beat me to it and blocked them for a month). OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User: Mnbvcxzlkjhg
You jumped fast on that guy! I was still trying to find the best warning message when you dropped the hammer on him. ;-) -- llywrch 01:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks...I like to think that nipping things in the bud early sends a message that vandalism is pointless. OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OldRide links
Jamie,

Sorry to add to this post, Im a new user and cannot find were to start a new post on your talk link. Anyway I submitted some links to some pontiac and some other automotive resources. Im wondering why you deleted them when they were relevent links with useful resources. I see several other commercial links in these catagories also (such as muscle car club) and yet the link that I submitted allows enthusuests to post pictures, specs and info on these makes/models pages. So Im wondering why now these links are being removed? One of my postings was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.13.18.159

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.18.159 (talk • contribs)
 * The site in question is relatively low in content and have Google ads (example: ); external links that exist for that subject do so because there is a community consensus that they are either official or have a high degree of content to merit inclusion. However, when in doubt, I personally tend to exclude rather than include links if they are questionable. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 06:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jamie,

Thanks taking the time to respond, I know you must be busy w/all the editing - And I do appreciate your time! Im wondering though why a certain commercial link is allowed to be linked in most all of the classic and muscle car pages. One page that I posted a link for was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Catalina

The only link there is the one to muscle car club - were they are linked all over wikipedia and use google adwords also. The link that I submitted was to a catalina resource page also here: http://www.oldride.com/library/pontiac_catalina.html

If you have a chance please visit that page - and also go into 1962 Pontiac Catalina. You will then see even more info that has been added for that year Catalina. I guess Im wonderin why that other link is allowed and not the one that I submitted.

Thanks Again!


 * The musclecar club site is notable, and has a lot more content than your site. The presense of ads isn't a deciding factor in itself in this case; it's more a question of limited content. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to related content
Jamie,

Sorry about adding inappropiate links... I thought I was adding them in ralated content. I atopped.

Palmer Trinity Gay Scandal
Hey, made a submission about the newest Palmer Trinity scandal. I'm sure you can find some flaw with it, but please do your best to put the news up to the best Wikipedia standards.

User:Mrballer11
Has struck again. I put him on WP:AIAV. Good job on his recreate--you're fast!! :) Urania3 05:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your reverting of sourced material
Are you saying daily express UK is unreliable source? :)--213.113.243.140 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That story was printed in 1999; the Daily Express has a reputation is a conspriacy-oriented newspaper, so yes, I would question it's status as a reliable source. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets say thats a bogus newspaper, whats more important to you, the truth about RF and the use of it in mobiles which causes brain damage, prooved by swedish studies on rats for example, or the reliablity of a newspaper? You can test the fact, or as the mobile sellers and the people they bought calls it "conspiracy theory", for yourself. Just take a mobile phone, with headset or not makes no difference, and call someone and speak for about 15 minutes, the whole side of your head which you were holding the phone will ache for days. Unless you already use them often, or have other conditions, then you will not feel any difference. --213.113.243.140 17:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been using mobile phones since 1996 and have not experienced any of the symptoms you described. I'd estimate there are millions of other folks who have been using them for similar periods. There is already information in the article about health risk studies (and an entire separate article dedicated to that). A 1999 article about tests conducted in the seventies is of questionable relevance to modern phones, which are all rated in terms of how much radiation they produce (see Specific_absorption_rate). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Christmas
Thanks for your actions in removing POV material from this article. IP 66 (the Anon editor involved) has inserted the same material a number of times recently, always to be reverted by other editors. I created a new section on the Talkpage here to discuss the issue. Unfortunately, my patience is exhausted and I'm not certain I can respond reasonably right now. If you have the time and inclination, your participation would be most welcome. Thanks, and happy editing. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. My wikistress has reached explosive levels due to the antics of this disruptive editor. I feel that I'm legitimately reverting nonsense that borders on vandalism and POINT, but I don't want to cross the line into 3RR if this could be interpreted as a "content dispute". How do you view this issue? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts Jamie (too informal?), you have far more patience than I. In fact, I'll try to learn from the example you set in this situation. We haven't worked on articles together, but I've "seen you around" and you seem to be doing a darn good job as admin (I was on wikibreak during your RfA, but glad to see you made it). Thanks again. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! I used to get stressed sometimes, but over time I've realized that most things like this are resolved (eventually) by the community.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable websites
How about you dont delete my pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjbrock (talk • contribs).
 * Please refer to WP:WEB for guidelines regarding the notability of websites. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you read
Please dont be stupid, it was deleted before I had the chance to update it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjbrock (talk • contribs)
 * I didn't need to see the update. It was already pretty clear that it was going to be deletable. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Pharmacies
Jamie, I added the pharmacies merely to give readers more choices and options from which to choose. Isn't it fair that if you are going to mention several U.S. pharmacies, that pharmacies in Canada and other countries that want to be added get their names there too -- without any external links.

Or, are you simply opposed to online pharmacies. What's the deal?

In my view, if you are going to take off some pharmacies, then there should not be any list of pharmacies at all. Why give preference to some over others? Or, are you getting paid off by the pharmacies that are listed here?

I will take this up with Wikipedia management. Peace out.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpirages (talk • contribs)
 * I deleted a number of listings where the subject did not have an article (though more should probably deleted). List pages like that should generally only list notable companies (also refer to WP:CORP). BTW, Wikipedia doesn't really have  a "management" that you can complain to about these sorts of matters; decisions are made by community consensus. I doubt you will find much support for turning that page into a directory of online pharmacies. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to you stripping all of the other pharmacies that don't have articles attached. Fair is fair, isn't it?

I guess I have to get busy writing articles for the pharmacies you deleted don't I? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mpirages (talk • contribs).
 * If the pharmacy in question does not meet WP:CORP notability standards, it will be deleted. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you a crazy link-deleting machine?
Could you please at least read conent under links before deleting it? Also, If you are going to delete one link that you deem as unworthy, why not delete the others (that are far worse) in the same article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.213.80.48 (talk • contribs).
 * It's a travelogue link; those are rarely appropriate for articles. If you see other links that you feel violate WP:EL or WP:SPAM, feel free to delete them. Wikipedia is not a link directory. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

New To Wikipedia Editing
I'm Against All SPAM In Its Purest Form, But Sometimes Its Definition is Debatable; (and I obviously don't know how to start a new post here, so forgive me again) Hi Jamie, I honestly respect your good intentions, and I'm looking forward to a good and informative discussion on this. First, I want you to know that my External Link on "FiOS Does Inconspicuous "No Turning Back To DSL" Disclosure" was not put back in without an attempt (bad one) by me to try to get an Administrator's input. My ignorance of how the editorializing of Wikipedia works is proven by my posting of my request for Administrative input at "Wikipedia talk:Spam". Since no one responded to my request, I guess I put it in the wrong place. Anyway, here it is as a "Comment and Question in response" to "T-rex's great comment:

"External link spam, wihout bots= This is a topic that really isn't covered by this policy, but should be. Rather then spam all pages just looking for google ranks, many spamers look for somewhat related articles and then just add their site to the list of external links at the bottom. Granted, about 5% of the time these links are probably appropriate, but the vast majority of the time they are not. Obvouslly the defacto policy is against this, but it would be easier to deal with spammers if we had a section of this page that delt more directly with this situation. any thoughts? --T-rex 15:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment and Question in response:

Forgive me for not knowing how to start a new topic, but I'm leaving my comments here as they are potentially appropriate for where they are being placed. I feel that my blog post come under the 5% category of "appropriate" external links. I do not have any advertising on my blog, and I'm not selling anything except the free "education" of consumers.

The "Self Published Sources" section of Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Self-published_sources ) under the definition of "Reliable Sources" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_sources ) says: "However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so;..".

I recently had a blog post of mine (FiOS Does Inconspicuous "No Turning Back To DSL" Disclosure Brokerblogger blog post (7/19/06 Updated)" under the "External Links" section of "Verizon FiOS" deleted by someone (would like to know if it can be anyone or has to be an administrator) who evidently did not think it appropriate for some reason. Before I post it again, I want to make sure my thinking on this is not totally biased, because that deleted post was "really worth reporting", since someone else DID so. The someone else is the well know OM Malik (Om was a senior writer for Business 2.0 magazine covering telecom and broadband stories) on his blog "GigaOM". His article is entitled "GigaOM " Verizon FIOS insures future monopoly".

Besides OM Malik, right on the Wikipedia "External Links" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Fios#External_links ) part of "Verizon Fios" are 3 links to "Broadband Reports FiOS" which is a very well known forum for discussion, and someone posted a topic for discussion with a link to my blog post on FiOS ( http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/76326 ) which has two long pages of opinions attached to it.

I have done extensive research on the FTC's mandates on "Disclosure", and I am fair and balanced with Verizon in that post of mine that was deleted. As a consumer advocate, I feel it important that other people know that once they agree to FiOS installation, they can't go back to their Verizon DSL service even if they get their money back within the 30 Day Money-Back Guarantee.

Before I repost it, I wanted someone to give me their opinion of my point of view. Thanks."

I put that "Comment and Question in respsonse" in after reading a previous comment: external links "if I want to put in an external link that has good information on the subject, am I right in thinking that I should put it at the bottom of the list and contribute to the page by adding some information that's relevant

Yes. Also, please consider whether your link is a reliable source (e.g. not someone random guy's blog). >Radiant< 08:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)"

As a consumer advocate, I hope you agree with the widely read and very reputable "Technology Evangelist" who did an article on my first three blog posts on 12/21/05 = http://www.technologyevangelist.com/2005/12/fios_growing_pains_at_verizon.html That article came after the GigaOM article on 10/14/05 = http://gigaom.com/2005/10/14/verizon-fios-insures-future-monoply/

As it turned out, my town was the 2nd town in the entire US to have FiOS installed! So, I am an expert ("reliable source") on "No Turning Back to Verizon DSL", and this topic has withstood the "test of time" as FiOS finally buried a disclosure in their TOS, but made it very inconspicuous. I even filed a complaint with the FTC about "non-disclosure" at first, and now "lack of clear and conspicuous disclosure" which break FTC rules.

I really believe T-rex is on to something with his suggestion, as, right now, the Wikipedia (External) "Links normally to be avoided" needs to be clarified more, IMO. It says: "Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself." I feel that to eliminate blogs of all kinds from external links on Wikipedia is partially defeating what Wikipedia stands for. For example, that policy would eliminate External Links to Wonkette ( http://www.wonkette.com/ ) which is widely read, respected and very reputable in political circles.

My blog post that you deleted twice (my fault for the second time) is "fair and balanced" as I put in it: "I wish Verizon well, as they are one of only a few companies who could afford the big initial investment it takes to install Fiber-To-The-Premises (FTTP)." followed by a link to an article proving Verizon's hugh investment. I have previously given a good argument why that blog post is a "reliable source" due to other reputable authors writing about the same subject. I believe that it is "useful, appropriately tasteful", and has "substantive longevity" even though Verizon may (small chance, IMO) eventually put a "clear and conspicuous" disclosure in the same place that that they promote their "30 Day Money-Back Guarantee". If they do, I will do an update to my blog post, as I've already done at = http://www.brokerblogger.com/brokerblogger/2006/04/fios_does_incon.html

Finally, I believe that my blog post does "provide relevant and non-trivial information that isn't present in the page", and therefore brings substantive value to Wikipedia. My blog is not "commercial in nature", and the content of the deleted post is definitely "relevant", as many prospective buyers of FiOS probably look at Wikipedia in doing research before they make their buying decision. I'm just trying to help them make a totally "informed decision" with all the facts made "clear and conspicuous". I, therefore, believe that I am acting in the spirit of Wikipedia's written policies. I hope you agree, not for my benefit, but for the benefit of many broadband consumers.

I look forward to your more experienced input, and if you convince me that my deleted post is hurting the spirit of Wikipedia's written guidelines, as well as Wikipedia itself, I will gladly "cease and desist" in further promotion of my POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by brokerblogger (talk • contribs).
 * I don't believe that 100% of blog links are inappropriate for the reasons you mention. However, Wikipedia does strongly discourage editors from adding links to their own site. At this point, I'm taking a neutral stance on it; I won't remove it, but I won't support it's inclusion if others object to it.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. In the future, long discussions like this probably belong on the talk page of the article in question; rather than copy the whole or parts of the discussion here, I would've suggested simply posting a link to the discussion on my talk page with a note asking me to have a look at it. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Jamie, thanks for the "neutral stance", and after I posted here first, I did post the shorter version over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Verizon_FiOS. I will also do as you requested in the future, if the situation arises. But, since I'm still learning about Wikipedia's rules, how to navigate around, and post properly, I need to ask you what you meant by "if others (anybody or other administrators?) object to it". When I created an account, one of the benefits was "Semi-protection" - should be considered if it is the only reasonable option left to deal with vandalism on a page or to stop a banned or blocked user from editing it."  I ask, since I thought the original deletion of my external link was done by an employee of Verizon.  I have gotten some very negative comments from some of them due to my exposure of this Verizon tricky marketing tactic.  Can "Semi-protection" or any other kind of "deletion protection" be applied here to protect from deletion my external link, if "anybody or other administrators" object to it?

Also, is there a Wikipedia web page you can point me to that expalains in more detail why (besides the very obvious "commercial and egotistical motives") Wikipedia "does strongly discourage editors from adding links to their own site.", and better yet, when it IS appropriate? The only page I found was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources. I ask, because, in the future, there may not always be others' blog posts, or reliable source content of any kind, I can use in Wikipedia (where appropriate) that deal with the same consumer advocate issues that I do from my "personal experience" perspective. I am very self-aware of my own bias. I first research extensively, and then try to be "fair" all the time, and "balanced" when it is at all possible. I want to help Wikipedia, as I have linked to it many times, and not be someone who takes up a lot of many Administrator's time. THANK YOU. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brokerblogger (talk • contribs).


 * Answers: 


 * 1) if others (anybody or other administrators?) By that I mean anyone. Most content/link decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus of all editors, not just admins.  If there is any weight given, that weight tends to be more associated with contribution history and involvement, not admin status.
 * 2) Semi-protection would not be appropriate to protect the link.  It's only to be used in the case of a continuing pattern of vandalism (that cannot be dealt easily with via blocks) or as a temporary measure to work out "edit wars."  It's unlikely that a dispute over the inclusion of a blog link would merit the need for that.
 * 3) does strongly discourage editors from adding links to their own site  See WP:EL, item #3. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Followup I just noticed that you seem to have added multiple links to your site throughout Wikipedia. That sort of thing is definitely discouraged. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Jamie, thanks for the three good answers. As to the "Followup", I would be glad to do the same kind of lengthy justification for each one of my other links as I did for the one we just discussed. From your #3 answer it says in "Links normally to be avoided: "A page that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important and difficult objective at Wikipedia. If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." It would take me some time to do properly, as my above "Comment and Question in response" on FiOS did, but if I have to, I will do it in each "Talk Page".  As I said previously, I do my best to be "fair and balanced" in the presentation of my POV in order to be a good advocate for consumers.  This addresses the valid "neutrality" issue Wikipedia is justifiably concerned with.  However, I vaigly remember reading something in Wikipedia about how almost all content (reliable sources included) have a POV.  It is unavoidable for all human beings.  The key is the effort put into the neutrality, validity, credibility and fairness/balance of the presentation of POV, in my opinion.

By the way, the "Links normally to be avoided" page says: "Except where noted, this list does not override the list of what should be linked." Could you point me to the page that has that information. Thanks. (Whoops, I guess it means this page = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#What_to_link, or is there another page?)

11/13/06 - Jamie, I just wanted you to know I posted my response above (with a little more added) on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brokerblogger. I would provide an e-mail on Wikipedia, except I am not comfortable giving out my own e-mail address unless I absolutely have to (nothing personal).

Palmer Trinity School gay scandal
Hey, I'm not sure if the gay scandal entry is neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.225.37.41 (talk • contribs). OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not something I would have added to the article, but it is properly sourced. I made the wording a bit more encyclopedic and cleaned up the formatting. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Florist Spam Patrol
Quick catch on the Flower spam. Warned, cleaned up, and blocked before amateur-me could figure out the right pages. KP Botany 02:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just trying to keep the pages clean. Keep up the good work with your botany contributions; it's nice to have folks around who are experts on topics other than video games, television shows, and comics (we have plenty of those already!) OhNo itsJamie Talk

Tainted Blood Scandal
Have you looked at the rest of User:SwampStomp's contributions? It looks like him and User:Rdysan have pretty much created everything we have on this stuff, and they're starting to spread it throughout related articles. It looks like a smear campaign to me. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Could be a smear campaign or a campaign to promote the film. In any case, it's easy enough to remove anything that's not properly sourced. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of it is a matter of phrasing/implication rather than sources. I looked at the other articles involved (Health Management Associates Scandal and Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal) and tried to work towards something more like NPoV, but you might want to have a look as well. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

New Here
Sorry about adding inappropriate external links. I saw several that were similiar to what I can provide and felt my free materials would be helpful to teachers. I get plenty of traffic, so that really was not my motive. First time I tried and I found out fast what not to do. I am wondering how the similiar links (to other sites of the same genre) were added? Anyway, message received. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandkems (talk • contribs).
 * The policies are outlines at WP:EL and WP:SPAM. If you feel that your links are acceptible under those policies and guidelines, you're welcome to post them to the talk page of the articles in question to see if others think they are as well. However, given that the links you posted are to a pay site with Google ads, I doubt you'll get much support for them. If you see other links that you don't feel meet the guidelines and policies, you're welcome to remove them. Regard, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

bloody spammers
heh - I was wondering why I couldn't find that crap on the real estate page when I hit edit, you beat me to it. Shame there is not a quicker way to blacklist spammers. --Charlesknight 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

information about my article
Hi

turkcebilgi.net is a free turkish article directory which contains 12.000 pages now and it's being updated daily by its volunteers. Turkcebilgi.net is one of the most popular reference sites on the web in Turkish language.

i choose turkcebilgi.net as subject because there is turkcebilgi subject. it's a different site. my site is turkcebilgi.net. because of this i choose turkcebilgi.net as title. i want add my article to wiki again?

and external links that i submit to wiki shows the articles that turkcebilgi.net volunteers have submitted to our site. and i saw there, there are some other links to other turkish article sites. my aim is not spam or advertising my site. let me explain it with examples

Ankara : i have submitted one link to this article. Ankara is capital of my country and i have submitted http://www.turkcebilgi.net/tatil-yoreleri/turkiye/ankara-6124.html. this is an article related to ankara. this article contains

general information about ankara , regional meal, regional shopping center

and i can explain the other external links like this.

please inform me about my article and my external links. i want to submit it again to biggest internet encyclopaedia.

Best Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trichnosis (talk • contribs).
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of links. See WP:SPAM and WP:EL for more info. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

????
i did not understand anythink from your answer.

i need an answer why my article is deleted from wiki.

i have asked 2 question above. 1. why my article is deleted 2. why my external link is deleted

please look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankara#External_links. is this link http://ansiklopedi.turkcebilgi.com/Ankara appropriate to this article ? why dont you delete that link? i have added http://www.turkcebilgi.net/tatil-yoreleri/turkiye/ankara-6124.html to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankara#External_links.

do you protect some sites or somebodies?

please answer my 2 question !

why my article is deleted?

why my external link is deleted?

best regards --Trichnosis 13:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your questions have already been answered on your talk page. The relevant policies and guidelines include WP:EL (regarding appropriateness of links) and WP:WEB (regarding notability of web sites). Regards, OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

LoseTheGame.com
This link has been in the article throughout the AfDs. That means that it should remain in the article unless something has changed making it no longer valid. Please discuss on the discussion page before removing it, and provide evidence of the previous discussions you mention. Thanks. Kernow 06:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We've already discussed you spamming your own site via your old account, . I don't wish to have the same discussion again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Loigh Speedy Deletion Appeal
Unfortunately I was not finished with the entire article and was unable to yet cite my sources on the subject. It seems that the empty ToC wasn't enough evidence and I'm sure anyone interested would find a Role Playing world created by a 13 year old and evolved in such detail that it becomes fully immersive a grand feat. It would also be an amazing spot to pool information on the subject, as the topic isn't widely known and has no real book written on the subject or place where you can find a large lump on information on the topic. I, personally, have probably the biggest chunk of information on this and would love to share it, though if you'd like to put it off as "insignificant" I guess I should understand. It *is* only a role playing world after all... but a magnificent one with a history almost as in-depth as that of the U.S. In the end, it's up to you, but I know of a large number of people who would support the creation of this topic. Would this maybe be better to start as a stub and allow it to grow a bit before being considered for deletion again? -- 16:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The deletion of the article has nothing to do with the quality or scope of the project. Indeed, I'm sure there are many talented bands, artists, etc. whose articles are deleted; not because their talent is disputed by Wikipedia, but because they don't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.  If Wired magazine or a similar notable and reliable source writes an article about Loigh, then by all means recreate the article and add the appropriate references. However, Wikipedia is not free web-hosting for up-and-coming (but not yet notable) bands/projects/games, etc.  Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jamie
Ever noticed how sometimes you contradict wikipedia rules, when you so easily critisise others for apparently doing so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.132.80 (talk • contribs).
 * I don't know what you're talking about. I'm also trying to figure out if these three accounts are the same individual: ,, . The edit patterns are similar. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jamie, sorry about this, it is not me who has recently vandalised pages, I left my account logged in and a so called 'friend' at university used it to vandalise some pages, Ive been trying to find out which ones and revert them. So no I am not the same person as that IP address and bennelliott, sorry to have bothered you, I'll make sure i log off shared computers in future. That Ip address may be the same 'friend', just not on my account. Ill ask, but sorry anyways. Rossenglish 22:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jamie, I have found that that IP is the same IP adress as the computer my friend used to vandalise pages on my account, so some of those edits were the same person. Im still not sure where this benelliott comes into it though. I'll ask to see if my friend has that account, dunno why because he's not called Ben or Eliott. If he keeps vandalising pages, I would get him blocked from editing. Rossenglish 12:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for YOU!

 * Thanks so much! Most messages I get here are from people upset that I've deleted their external links or articles. It's nice to get some positive feedback now and then. I've noticed that you've been a pretty active vandalism patroller yourself; keep up the good work, and you'll make a great candidate for an admin! OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Peekvid.com
I am really starting to get tired of even bothering to be an editor on Wikipedia. When an article can be deleted without even any DISCUSSION about it; basically at someone's whim, then there are serious problems. Mike Richardson 03:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An article can be deleted without discussion if it makes no claims of notability. See WP:SPEEDY and WP:WEB for info on the speedy deletion policy and notability guidelines for websites. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a crap policy. Mike Richardson 07:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

jukcoder
Thank you Jamie for catching me red-handed. I thought I added the URL skillipediaas a relevant resource to refer to. My web site is as useful as wikipidia and if you think I was spammig, It's up to you at the end

Keep up the good job

Cedar City Online
I live in Chicago, I love history. I actually found the site in Cedar City discussions, I looked at the site and it is a reference site as well as a commercial site. I do not live in Cedar City, I dont own that site. The guy did the only research for history of those small communities and actually showed up in google for the keywords in those communities' histories. Who in the world gives you the right to accuse people (myself) who spent the time to create valid historical content about small communities as a spam. How dare you sir just simply delete content references. ALL HISTORICAL CONTENT IN WIKI (unless it is general public knowledge) REQUIRES REFERENCES. 18:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a commercial site that does not qualify as a reliable source. Google hits to his real estate site are irrelevant.  You added the links quickly after they'd been removed (with reasons given for their removal). Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree I think this is the best source because it is from a local person who accually knows what is and has happened in the area. I also disagree with you as to www cedarcityonline com being a real estate site. It is more of a portal then a real estate site. This area is very small and this is an authority site for that area. Call it what you want you are the admin so even if you are completely wrong I guess we can just agree to disagree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raspy1980 (talk • contribs).
 * As already mentioned, a commercial real estate site does not qualify as a reliable source, whether you call it a portal or anything else. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

3 different people have now confirmed that the information on that webpage is true and accurate. One of the main factors in determining a reliable source is that multiple people have verified it. Maybe before you rush to judgement and delete something you know nothing about you should do some research and accually find out if it is reliable or not rather then rush to judgement and imediately delete then ask questions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.174.170.18 (talk • contribs).
 * You need to go back and read WP:Reliable sources. "Testimonials" from various editors (most of whom in this case are new or anonymous users) does not confer reliability status upon a link. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think god himself could come down and say the source was reliable and because of your personal interests you would deny the link. This is obviously a personal opinion but one that multiple sources have validated therefor passing your reliablity standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.170.18 (talk • contribs)
 * They're not my standards. They are Wikipedia's standards. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you need to back off on this one Jamie. My barber assures me that this is all true, so does the janitor in my office. Why do you refuse to accept these obviously reliable sources?!?! Doc  Tropics  00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm....I might be swayed if your chiropractor and Roger Rabbit also stood behind the link. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I know you're not taking this seriously! NO ONE would regard a chiropractor as a reliable source, and Roger Rabbit is clearly too busy for this kind of petty nonsense. DON"T YOU KNOW wikipedia is all about consensus...you are outnumbered by three real estate agents, a barber, and a janitor...that means you have to give me what I want. So there. Doc  Tropics  01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Accually your hero Jaime has stated that if multiple people tell you you are wrong you probally are. Well multiple people tell Jaime he is wrong daily but guess what. He is an all mighty editor and can do no wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.170.18 (talk • contribs)

Thank you
for your kind comment. Just trying to keep the vandalism down! :) Cpl Syx 19:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

More thanks
Many thanks for the Barnstar! I'm not sure what brought me so favorably to your attention, but I really appreciate it. It's nice being noticed by someone besides vandals confused newcomers and raving lunatics overwrought editors : ) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :)
Thanks for the barnstar :).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamic terror
'''Please, read all this quotes and follow the sources, particularly the quran sources.You will find that all the quotes are actually true and that nothing is wrong. Please do not revert my edits in the future.''' 84.146.202.69 20:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The prestigious Spamstar of Glory

 * Thanks! I've never seen this barnstar. I appreciate the support (it's always nice to get the occasional positive feedback). OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was custom-designed by one of civilization's greatest Photoshoppers and has only been awarded to a very select few. --A. B. 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yoriyos
Hey, the yoriyos page is back up, i proposed for it to be deleted. would you mind nominating it for deletion or deleting it. it links to a page called Muhammad Islam. who hasnt done anything noteworthy of being included on wiki. thanks.
 * Well, this is a weird situation. Though the old article for Yoriyos didn't make any successful arguments for notability, now it does; NME certainly qualifies as non-trivial press coverage., . I can understand why you would want to keep your connection with your father on the down-low (to be able to succeed on your own), but unfortunately it seems that the "cat is out of the bag," and it's nearly impossible to put a cat back in the bag.
 * I see that you've already nominated it for deletion....well, you started the nomination (there are still two more steps). I'll take care of the next two. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jefree Star
I was wondering what the reasoning behind permanently deleting the Jeffree Star page was? If the content was inappropriate, I can understand deletion, but preventing re-creation seems a bit much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.178.58.84 (talk • contribs).
 * Protecting the page from re-creation is justified when numerous attempts are made to recreate an article that meets criteria for speedy deletion. In this case, the versions of the deleted article that I saw were borderline nonsensical and made no claims of notability. If you (or anyone) can provide some evidence of notability based on WP:BIO, let me know and I can unprotect the page. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Link
Hi Jamie-- I just noticed that you removed an external link that was previously added. I believe that the link is extremely relevant and provides a wealth of useful information that is relevant to the topic. The topic is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce and the link is to a comprehensive website about obtaining divorce in Washington State (http://www washingtondivorceonline com). I would greatly appreciate if you could review the link that was added. Best, Brian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjones10 (talk • contribs)
 * It's a commercial, state-specific service. As such, it's not appropriate. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Divorce is in general a state-specific issue in the United States. The website provides a wealth of information about divorce issues, articles about divorce as well as information about divorce laws. Please also see the website for other useful information such as directory of all local courts in Washington State. All of this information is not readily available anywhere else. This is an appropriate website as an external link. This complies with guidelines of Wikipedia. I would appreciate if you could review the website again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianjones10 (talk • contribs).
 * Once again, it's commercial. Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have changed the link to point to http://www washingtondivorceonline com/articles/divorce-issues.html, which is a compilation of articles about important divorce issues such as child custody, child support, alimony and division of property. Best, Brian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianjones10 (talk • contribs).
 * It's still not appropriate. It's state-specific info from a commercial site. We obviously can't have locale specific info links from every state (and province, territory, etc.). Please don't addd it again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jamie-- I see your argument for perhaps not including this link on the divorce page. However, it is very appropriate for family law page, which contains similar articles about divorce in Souther n California and Pennsylvania. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianjones10 (talk • contribs).
 * It is a commercial site. Please do not add it again. I'm not discussing it further. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I removed a link promoting a lawyer matching service in Southern California since it is both commercial and locale-specific. Best, Brian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianjones10 (talk • contribs).
 * That's fine. There are plenty of inappropriate links that should be removed throughout Wikipedia. Thanks for helping out. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)