User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive7

Sundiiiaaa
Thanks for commenting and noticing that she has been making some constructive edits. I really suffer for the details, no matter how hard I try, and greatly appreciate the efforts made by folks who go in and copyedit a word here and there. KP Botany 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And for her first return, we proudly present anti-US rhetoric posted on another user's talk page: "Did you read those websites closely yet? Did it change your mind so you could see that it IS child slavery?" KP Botany 00:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be advised that not all other users consider Sundiiaaa's comments "ANTI-US" rhetoric (unless Kp Botany means "against us" instead of "contre les etats unis") and as far as i can tell, much of the discussion which is accused of being soapbox-y usually gets ignored in smaller amounts elsewhere. opinion, regardless of the topic, always seeps through into discussion pages and gets ignored unless is appears to be egregious (in the same way that laws on crimes are never enforced perfectly everywhere, lest everyone be in jail). While not questioning your actions on the 48-hour blocks (i'm not a moderator, nor do i crave that power over others), i do wonder if, had Sundiiiaaa's comments been formatted more formally the same sort of decision would have been made?

Respectfully, --Chalyres 10:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The formatting of the comments wasn't the issue; but rather, the approach. The first block was in response to spamming the same content to multiple pages and talk pages despite warnings to not use Wikipedia as a soapbox (which Sundiaaa has more or less admitted was a goal). The second block was in response to an off-topic post to another user's talk page (who'd simply made a comment about adding more information about a certain type of insurance).  While I don't doubt that there are others who share Sundiaaa's opinions, I have yet to see any reliable sources that support the views that Sundiaaa is trying to push. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Budget
Hi there, just wanted to check on something on the two external links that you took off. I'm not an expert on this, so I know I'm probably wrong :-) Anyway, I thought the two sites were okay because they did offer "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article", considering that excel spreasheets themselves cannot be included in the article. Especially since the article itself mentions the use of excel for budgeting purposes. Anyhoo, just wanted to explain myself and see what you thought. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JimmyCor (talk • contribs).
 * While the "meaningful relevant" clause is part of WP:EL, I think most editors (including myself) feel that it's superceded by other elements of WP:EL. In general, I think if there's any doubt about the inclusion of a link, we should err on the side of exclusion to keep Wikipedia as "advertising-free" as possible. In this case, one link is from a commercial company, and the other has Google ads. A Google search will turn up hundreds of similar "tools" and whatnot; I don't think there's a compelling reason for Wikipedia to drive traffic to two of them.  If they were .edu, non-profit .org, or government domains, I would not object to their inclusion. A great place to read debates regarding link appropriateness is at the Wikiproject Spam talk pages and archives. Thanks for you help, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ht.wikipedia project
I stopped a recent slew of vandalism at the Haitian Kreyol wikipedia and noticed this in the process:. I'm guessing this isn't you, but please confirm. Bastiq ▼ e demandez 22:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not me. It wouldn't be the first time that someone impersonated me; thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cool dog, by the way (I own a similar mix)! OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you ever need to register at the Haitian project, let a steward know...otherwise we'll just leave that one blocked. Bastiq ▼ e demandez 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly, like many Americans, I only speak one language fluently. :( Once again, thanks for the heads up. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You can request cross-wiki checkuser information at Requests for CheckUser information. As it was evident these accounts were for vandalism purpose only--there's no need, they're all indefblocked on ht.wiki. Bastiq ▼ e demandez 22:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded to your query that you placed on my talk page. My response can be found here. If the message isn't on my talk page, please see the archives for the time period of your original message. Feel free to post any further comments on my talk page, and I'll respond to you as soon as possible. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
It is a bit early, but why not start partying? Happy Birthday on behalf of WP:BDC. --Extranet (Talk 22:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Funny you should mention early partying....I found out that a pub a few blocks away has Avery Reverend and Pizza Port Santa's Little Helper on tap...so by quitting time today, it will be Feb 2 according to Wikipedia time! OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)



Aww, normally I send these wishes early, but Extranet beat me. Oh well. Enjoy your birthday! Cheers -  •The RSJ•    Talk  |  Sign Here  23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)



I hope that you enjoy your birthday party, and get every single thing that you wanted!!-- γι α τί   Sign Here  |  ESP.  00:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy b-day! Greeves (talk • contribs) 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy birthday!! Daniel5127 &lt;Talk&gt; 07:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy B-day
Have a nice day!!!--Gravity Talk 10:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Fyi, and thanks for the support. --HailFire 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award
 For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Awardoriginated by Pedia-I (Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) (Sign) 21:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on the horse pages
Hi Jamie, I also added a vandalism warning to Kimberley123, looks like you have had to fix some of her vandalism too. She's all over the place and about due to be blocked...do you have admin privileges? Anyway, just FYI that we may need to keep an eye on this individual. Montanabw 19:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * She hasn't done anything since the last warning I gave her, but I'll keep an eye out (yes, I do have block privs). OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Real estate trends
Jamie, I am new to wikipedia and not as up to speed with what is right and what is wrong. I therefore kindly request your guidance to help me make my contribution better. I have read the requirements but am still a bit uncertain as to exactly what you would like to see added to the real estate trends wiki that would in your opinion validate referencing the Swanepoel Trends Report. The Report is 159-pages of extensive research, carries no advertising and is the only report of its nature covering the business trends of the industry. It analyses Multiple Listing Systems, Changing Consumer Habits in Home Buying, the Impact of the Internet of Brokerage, Gen X, Gen Y and Baby Boomers, the Housing Bubble, big companies such as Realogy, REMAX and many more, etc. It is the second time the Report is published as it is widely regarded as the leading Report within the Industry on the topic on real estate trends, probably because it is the only annual report on real estate business trends. By the way the author Stefan Swanepoel has shared the stage with David Lereah, written a dozen other publications, so although he is no Donald Trump he is also not an unknown in the industry. Your guidance in improving my contribution will be much appreciated.

Sean —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seanusa (talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm not going to debate the value or merits of the report; however, topics in Wikipedia must meet notability and reliable sources criteria to avoid deletion. Also refer to policies on WP:SPAM and WP:External links. Regardless of the value of the aforementioned report, your edit patterns suggests that you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote a commercial product. Your contribution history strongly suggests trying to create a "link farm"; you may be interested to read our article on nofollow. OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights. I will read your suggested links and will seek to improve my contributions accordingly. Sean

User:Mactabbed socking with IP addresses
Greetings Ohnoitsjamie, your temp. blocking of that IP address is appreciated. Both Pschemp and I have been doing our best to make that user's ban effective but still he persists... if you are interested and have the time you might read over this user's M.O.. Take it easy. 18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One last note: this talk covers the last "flame up". 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I had read the M.O. before I blocked; reminds me a bit of Long_term_abuse/MascotGuy (though MascotGuy doesn't harass other users as far as I know). Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that this individual managed to squeeze out creating an account before creation was disabled. As typical for him he's complained to another individual as the sock to try to back himself up. If you'd indef. this latest sock that'd be helpful... if not I'm sure Pschemp (who's much more familiar with his patterns) will do so later on. See you. 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Pow! OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

External Link Question
Hi, you removed a link I put on the webmaster page to webmaster learnstuffonline com/ I think this is a good resource for people to learn about being a webmaster, from start to finish. There are articles on how to get a website up from start to finish, and articles about Web Design. Pls let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance either way! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BushMackel (talk • contribs).
 * Link guidelines are described in the WP:EL and WP:SPAM articles. Additionally, [[WP:NOT|

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide]]. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and I agree with you that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and neither is a good part of webmaster.learnstuffonline.com. The first article there further discusses the role of the modern day webmaster vs a "historic" webmaster, the tools webmasters use (languages and technologies) and their usual things they're responsible for. Which is not covered in great detail on the Wikipedia article. Furthermore, the article on the site titled "Choosing a Web Host" is not a how-to-guide either, but an article of information about what webmasters should look for in their web host, which is a topic webmasters need to be painfully familiar with and not covered on the wikipedia article.

In conclusion the site offers, (in my opinion), not only how-to-guides but great informational articles that go way beyond the depth offered on the Wikipedia article. More to the point, the website "contain[s] further research which is accurate and on-topic", and I don't see how it's different than the other sites that are linked except this one immediately provides on topic and useful information vs links like http://www.webroundtable.org/ which will probably not even be of use to most viewers of the wikipage. Thx again for your thoughts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BushMackel (talk • contribs).
 * If you think any Wikipedia article is lacking, feel free to add to the content (so long as the information is verifiable from a reliable source. Wikipedia needs content more than it needs links. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This talk feature is pretty cool. Ha ha. Anyway, may I ask why you marked the link as spam in the first place? It seems that you didn't really check out the link as much as you glanced at it. (Not trying to get uppity, it just seems to me that you're defeating the point of putting external links on wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BushMackel (talk • contribs)
 * Please refer to WP:EL and WP:SPAM for the releveant policies. I did look at the link; it's an advertising-supported site, one that had previously been spammed by an anon IP to numerous articles. As I said earlier, Wikipedia is in no great need of links; it's in need of content. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well even though I think in the end, you're doing a disservice to users of Wikipedia by excluding a site that has quality content, I appreciate the dialogue. Take care!

vandalism
this IP vandalises? i didn't realise that. it may be why i was blocked. i am ONX, from ottawa. 209.217.66.150 20:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

statement about impostors on your user page and nl:User:Ohnoitsjamie
Hi. You state: "My English and Meta Wikipedia accounts are my only accounts. All others are imposters." Therefore, should the Dutch language account nl:User:Ohnoitsjamie be blocked for impersonating you, or did you create this account yourself? Cheers, Niels |en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (I'd prefer a response at one of the talks linked in my sig, doesn't matter which one)
 * Yes, please block that account (by the way, I'll be visiting your country for the first time in a few weeks...looking forward to it! OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Blocked. Have fun visiting the Netherlands! Where are you going to in the Netherlands if I may ask? The autotranslation was funny by the way! Cheers, Niels |en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 03:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct translation would've been something like, literally translated: "overigens, in de komende weken zal ik jouw land voor het eerst bezoeken ".... not fluent spoken Dutch, but grammatically correct. Niels |en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 05:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha! Yeah, the auto-translations usually yield something that you can make sense out of, yet is hopelessly awkward. I think we arrive in Amsterdam on Feb 27 and leave for Brussels on March 2. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:68.219.109.170
This IP's edits all insert links to a commercial tutoring service - you've reverted the one at SAT and I just reverted some at Phil Bradley. I'm not sure about his edits to Atlanta, Georgia, though, and thought you might take a look - legitimate info about Atlanta or thinly veiled spam? Thanks. - Special-T 14:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No link red names
Can we remove the red links that have no links? D4niel11 18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The basic rule of thumb is to only remove red links that are unlikely to ever have an article (e.g., the linked subject is not notable and unlikely to become notable). See WP:RED for a longer explanation. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, can you add welcome message in my Talk im new. :) Thanks. D4niel11 18:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you put welcome message? Also how do I make the "this user strives to solve contraversial issues" user box? D4niel11 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Emancipation of Jonny
Hi!

You recently placed a prod. on 'The Emancipation of Jonny' article, and your reason in doing so is incorrect. You state that there is no record of the name 'Jonathan Nguyen' on imdb; but that in fact is also incorrect. If you check again you'll see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Featurefilm (talk • contribs).
 * I didn't say there was no record of Nguyen. I said there was no record of a movie by that title on imdb or anywhere else for that matter. If you challenge the prod, I'll send it to afd on the basis of no WP:Verifiability and WP:CRYSTAL. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Blog" artice: External Link to "E-log"
Jamie: I have read the guidance on external links, and can find no way in which this citation violates any guideline. I don't think there is anything inappropriate about that link. Moocat.net is not and has never been a "blog." As I stated before, it is an online literary magazine that hosts the work of numerous authors (some famous, some not). There is a section called "Travelogs," which to date has been reserved for publishing old "e-logs" that I wrote and sent out via email while traveling abroad in 1995-96. The entries from that trip are almost complete, and so soon I will open up that section to travel narratives from other writers. If you can find an EARLIER reference to the use of the term "e-log" for journal entries that exist in email form only and that are sent out to an email list, please feel free to replace mine with that earlier reference.

You have asked me to discuss the citation on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. However, you yourself have twice removed the citation without first discussing it on Talk (with the stated justification that it is a link to a "personal website"). As I explained above, Moocat.net is not a "personal website."

You are right about one thing: My posting of this citation would violate the principle of not posting "links to web sites with which you are affiliated." Except that, I have carefully read the guidelines, and there is no such principle stated. There is, however, in the "Links normally to be avoided" section, a mention of "Links mainly intended to promote a website." And I can understand how you might have assumed that the purpose of my posting this link was to promote my own website. However, without having any way to prove this, I can tell you that that was and is not my intent. Again, I cannot prove my "intent" and nor can anyone else. My web traffic has always been (and will probably always be) quite minimal, and that's fine with me. The site is not for profit and has no advertising.

The fact remains that the article cited includes the earliest reference on the Internet to the term "e-log" as described in the citation. (I have done an exhaustive search and would welcome anyone else to do further research.) Again, if you can find any earlier reference, please use it. If you cannot, why don't you restore that citation yourself? That would remove any conceivable appearance of "self-promotion" but would still provide Wikipedia readers with access to this (small, but) significant historical fact.

On my Talk page you, in a section that you entitled "Links to your blog," you asked "Please do not add inappropriate external links" and then went on to imply (emphasis, mine) why the link was inappropriate: "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 with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product." Calling my literary magazine a "blog" is insulting and defamatory. Implying that I linked to the Blog article with the intent of "advertising or promotion" or that it is a "personal web site" is libellous. I have therefore removed your libellous comments. For further information, see Libel.

Respectfully, Moocat 05:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read up on what constitutes libel. Be aware that Wikipedia also has a policy on legal threats.  I stand by my assertion that a link to your personal site is not appropriate, mostly on the grounds that it does not meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine. You are entitled to that opinion. But do not imply, as you did, that I posted the link to steer users to the (nonexistent) advertising on my site, nor that my magazine, which hosts work (with permission) by many published authors, some very highly regarded in the writing community, is a "personal website" or worse, a "blog."

I've removed the original references from the Blog article anyway, because on further review of the remaining two cited sites, they BOTH ultimately were examples of web-based--as opposed to e-mail-based--communication. With that in mind, I don't think that my usage of the term "e-log" in March 1996 is relevant enough or of enough interest to include, even in a citation.

I don't need to read an article on Wikipedia to know what is libellous. I stand by my assertion that your comments were. Regarding your reference to having made "legal threats," I have made no threats of any kind. I think you need to read up on what constitutes "nice." Moocat 16:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I don't think the "e-log" bit was particularly vital to Blog in the first place. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple English Adminship
Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. Just want to add on something since I'm an admin on that wiki: Our sysophood is not for life. Sadly, if you are inactive for... say... 2 years or more, desysopping will occur. I hope I have answered your question. If you need sysop help there, do ask our friendly admins there. Thank you!--Tdxiang 09:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tdxiang; I don't have an account on :simple. As noted on my user page, there appear to be some bored teenagers creating imposter accounts on other Wikipedias. Feel free to block that account on :simple indefinitely. Thanks! OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Plorio
Huh, not sure what to make of this -- saw you added an indefblock notice, but the block log shows no entries. Gave it a few minutes to "catch up," but nothing's showing, in either your block log or theirs. I get the "user already blocked, unblock to change duration" error if I try. I guess it's probably nothing to worry about, but seemed like it might be worth a mention. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was a bug and has been taken care of. Cheers! OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A Certain Someone's Unblock Requests...
And he thinks people will honestly take this seriously :P? I'll keep you watchlisted in case a little someone stops by again sometime soon.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Fire Department
Your revert to Chicago Fire Department actually reverted back to incorrect facts. The changes created by User:Ein101 were in fact correct (while his first two edits were perhaps worthy of mere test templates, not blatant vandal templates). Chicago Fire no longer uses three-quarter boots as of December 2006. I have reverted your changes back to those last made by Ein101. Regards, Daysleeper47 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Postcard from Amsterdam
Hello from a Internet cafe in Amsterdam! 80.60.17.191 11:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Brussels! 195.207.156.213 12:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Prague! 83.208.127.235 08:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello from London! 212.158.244.124 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)♦

Stuck in Newark! 67.151.5.195 10:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted my page - Why??
(I'm a noob and can't get the formatting correct - apologies)

I just got back from vacation and received this from you:

I have added a template to the article Travel 2.0, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand where to find why you deleted this article. Will it have to be re-written?

Picture
Your dog+cat picture and caption is great! Have a good day! Bufflo 05:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

PoolGuy's various alter egos
If you file that CheckUser request, add. I indef blocked him based on the name and when the account was created, but he never made any edits. Natalie 04:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And, and . I'm actually kind of surprised that last one was still available. Natalie 05:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am an alter ego of me. If you think I am someone else, maybe you should ask before being a dick.Mistreatedhere 04:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

mediate
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/ohnoitsjaimedick, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
 * Sorry, this request doesn't exist. It appears that it was deleted by an admin on the grounds that it was an attack. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephen colbert Information
I wanted to Disscuss the reason my addition was removed. Promotion of the group was not nessicary. I would like to emphasize Stephen Colbert's effect on the people of America. He seems to be very good at coining words and ideas that are both unique and very catchy. Its very rarely that we see somone so influential that his ideas become part of the english language itself. Perhaps you can reccomend a phrasing but the idea of what i wrote i feel really should be included in the text. Perhaps without an example but honestly I feel that group efforts should be included to emphasize the extent to which colbert has effected popular luanguage and culture. Thanks, Zach Burhop —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zburhop (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Any content in Wikipedia must be verifiable; that is, able to support with a reliable source. A facebook group does not meet the qualifications of a reliable source. Regards, OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Then as I stated before can you give some recomendations on phrasing so that I may post my addition. To me facebook is a good source. I am not quoting a fact from a book. I am mentioning Colbert's effect on the public. Therefore the group is a prime example of this effect. I am in the process of searching other such groups to add as well when you lifted my addition. Again I am eager to get this information posted so if you may help me out I would be extremely appreciative. Thanks, Zach
 * Please carefully read WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Those two policies should answer your questions. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Unfortunately I dont think you understand. Facebook although in many respects can be titled a dubious source in this case it is not. My topic being Stephen Colberts large effect on the public words and interpretations. The groups simply existing verifys this effect. Facebook allows you to look at all groups and allows you to read there mission statement. Therefore under these circumstances they provide enough verifcation to be labled a reliable source.
 * I don't think you'll find many editors who believe that a group page on Facebook would be considered to be a reliable source. I fail to see how your reasoning connects to the WP:Reliable sources policy. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for going over this with me hopefully a solution can be found. I am labeling facebook a reliable source because the facts that I am using to backup my statements are that such groups exist. These therfore support my claim on colbert's effect on language and culture. No effect would mean no groups. Some effect would mean plenty of groups. Thats what i am trying to show. There are plenty of groups on the internet pertaining to colbert's words and ideas. Therfore there is indeed an effect. Facebook allows you to see that these groups exist and they let you see what the group intends to do. It doesent matter whats in the groups what matters is that they are there. Facebook provides the means to search and find such groups. Therefore is a user on wikipedia reads about the effect and is curious if there really is one he can go to facebook or whatever and search for groups through facebooks internal search tool. He will see the many groups and verify the effects. The rules say that the site must provide some verification tools to verify a fact is indeed true. The internal group search feature on facebook is one such tool for verifying the information. Once on facebook the names of the groups are secure and permanent so the search tool is not at risk from other users or outside sabotagers.
 * I'm familiar with Facebook and realize it's a popular site. However, using links to "examples" of fan clubs or groups is discouraged via WP:EL and WP:SPAM (in addition to groups themselves generally not being reliable sources). Colbert's influence on culture is already well-documented in the article. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Will you forgive me? --Yo yo yo my name is Joe 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. By the way, you're blocked indefinitely. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you please delete User:Big Boss 0/Ockenbock for obvious reasons? -- The Hyb rid  00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted about three rubbish pages, and I believe that was one of them. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

While I was typing! Sweet, -- The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeffree Star
Jamie, I'm not sure what you meant by your comments about "non-trivial media attention". If you could explain that would be much appreciated :) Nateabel

The Emancipation of Jonny
Hi,

You recently (a few weeks ago) were responsible for the prod that eventually led to the deletion of the article ‘The Emancipation of Jonny’. You’re reason in doing so, was that there were no sites which assisted in authenticating the feature film. I’ve found some sites which in fact do help and I was wandering if you possible reinstate the article.

http://www.forums.hilaryfan.com/showthread.php?t=98298 www.movievine.com/movies/article00554.shtml http://celeb-action.com/2007/03/20/exclusive-hilary-duff-emancipates-jonny www.moviehole.net/news/20070322_hilary_duff_set_for_new_austra.html

Thanks Featurefilm 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * None of those links appears to qualify as a reliable source, and it appears that the source of the rumor in some (if not all) is from "Revolution Studios," an article which you or one of your socks also created. So no, I won't reinstate it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And this page proves that you wrote it yourself.......... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.130.130.38 (talk • contribs).
 * Yeah, I figured that J.N., aka, aka , is the source of that "rumor." OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Content disputes
Please use the talk pages for content disputes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doin' it for the shorties (talk • contribs)
 * Reverting censorship is not a content dispute. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Marina District
I readded content last night on the Marina page that you deleted subsequently; were you looking for a supporting source - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/04/18/MN154295.DTL&hw=marina+chick&sn=002&sc=712; there are several articles on this Sociological phenomenon in the local papers; would this suffice?
 * No, one casual mention is not sufficient, especially given that the content you re-added is inherently POV. Please do not re-add the content. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Bedbug
FYI: Talk:Bedbug, to avoid future edit warring. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Domaining
Yah. I sort of feel relieved now. It's really obvious at this point your just a game with me. Listen, I am not trying to give you a hard time. I created the list for a reason. The point is for people to get an idea about what domaining is, so listing domainers helps. The reality is, only one of these people is actually famous at all: Bob Parsons. Rick schwartz and Yun Ye are worth a combined quarter billion dollars alone. But still not famous, however, in the domain world, we are. That's why the list is called "famous domainers" and not "famous people". Any domainer knows about me, and they certainly know about Yum Domains or Hines Domains. Simply do a who-is search look up:

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp

and you can see I am the registrant of both of those names. And shaun pilfold is a given too. As is every one I have mentioned. I am not sure why being quoted on the front page of the USA Today about domain investing isn't enough for you. Clearly the largest english speaking paper in the country thought I was noteworthy enough to comment on it, I don't see why you don't trust my comments here. Again, to be blunt, that's why I said I suspect it's personal now to you. Come on. Be fair here.

Kindly,

Brad

PS.

By the way, it isn't just a single quote in the paper. I proposed the entire article. I am the reason for the follow up article as well. Call up jon scwartz at the USA Today and ask him if you like.


 * The burden of proof is not upon me. Please don't add the subjects again unless you can provide a reliable source indicating notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added the nessisary ones per your request. As far as Brian Benko's simply visit his site, and then do a who is look up. He is also extensively mentioned on DN Journal.

Oh, and I don't know who adam strong is, I added a credit for him i researched online, he seems legit. I understand if hes not noteworthy enough.


 * It's pretty obvious that you're not reading the links to policies that I've been posting. One more time: being quoted by a new outlet does not make you notable. Do not add the link again without a source that proves notability as defined by WP:BIO. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jamie: I have read every single thing you have wrote. You clearly are ignoring me. I have told you over and over again how it makes sense. The very fact you have left the rick schwartz one up this whole time prooves what your saying doesn't hold water. Please call me if you like to discuss this, frankly I dont wish to. 617 519 7687. Please do not alter my work again.

Kindly,

Brad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loopafiasco (talk • contribs).
 * Your sockpuppet account has been blocked as well. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jamie,

Why are you looking for exactly? The listings I am putting up are no different than the ones youhave up. Perhaps you want a photo of them all? what do you need?

-Brad
 * I've already explained it, and you're blocked as a sockpuppet as well. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jamie. For the third time. Check the who-is data. I didn't want to sound insulting before, you do know what a who-is search is right?

Kindly,

Brad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cheetahcool (talk • contribs).


 * For the last time, read WP:BIO and WP:Reliable sources. Until then, I'll just keep blocked your sockpuppets. It's easy. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Emancipitation of Jonny
Hi,

i dont mean to sound rude, but clearly i have the right since you do it without any hesitation. I checked the Liam Aiken article, and found ou ha someone had aleady edited 'the emancipation o fjonny' detail, and you clearly deleted it....your excuse being reasonable.

But now that you know of the films existence and the link you so forcfully demanded, why dont you, being an editor, go ahead and help resolve the problem yourself rATHER THAN MANIPULATING THE TRUTH. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Featurefilm (talk • contribs).
 * If a Malaysian news paper isn't automatically a reliable source when it acknowledges that it's own sources was Moviehole, who notes that it's source was "Revolution."

One of the versions of the deleted and salted "The Emancipation of Jonny" article was posted by you; I've temporarily restored that version to my userspace here. Oddly enough, the article about Revolution Studios mentions that the studio is closing it's doors in October of 2007. Revolution's website makes no mention of this fake movie, either. It's clever to send rumors to numerous movie-oriented websites, especially when a Malaysian newspaper reports on that rumor, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an unsubstantiated rumor. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell this kid to get a life. Why is it so important to him to have this "fake" movie listed. Is it a ego thing! I wouldn't even temporarily list the page. If this movie is "true" then prove it from a reliable source not ones that eventually lead back to "Revolution". Show us where it is listed on a Sony, Columbia Pictures, or indeed the closing down Revolution Studio site. Can't he have legal action taken against him for starting false rumours and using other peoples names? I guess 16 year olds get bored.

Greetings
Hi im Karry !! user:123tenten
 * Hi! I'm Jamie! OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Extraneous shared IP templates
Your concerned is covered by SharedIP which covers for everything. -- Avi 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to #25
I never got a response as to why this article was deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalypso77 (talk • contribs).
 * The notice I posted on your talk page explains the reasons for deletion. Specifically, it does not meet WP:Notability guidelines (i.e., no WP:Reliable sources were provided indicating it's notability. Wikipedia is not a place to coin new neologisms. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So can't I just add a few sources? There are 215,000 instances of "Travel 2.0" on Google and the term is in the header of this article on MSNBC from last week, and in the title of this USAToday article. Isn't this sufficient to prove that's it's not a neologism? A term like "Travel 2.0" probably will never be in a dictionary but I doubt "Web 2.0" is either.
 * Though Google results aren't enough to satisfy notability requirements, the two other sources you mention should be sufficient. Go ahead and recreate the article. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jamie - Can you direct me to where the original article is located so that I won't have to re-write the whole thing?

Thanks for all your help!

reverting
how do you revert to a previous edit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Auszug (talk • contribs).
 * There are a few ways to to it. Manual way is to look at an article's history, compare between to revisisions, edit the revision you wish to revert to, and save (with an edit summary of why you reverted; e.g., "rvv" for vandalism). Second way to do it would be via a tool. There are a number out there, including popups (which is handy for other things as well) and Vandalproof (which is specifically geared toward vandal fighthing). The rollback revisions you may have seen me making are a special admin function that are only available to admins. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dang you're fast
You reverted another edit that I was in the process of reverting. Thought I'd take the opportunity to thank you for the good work. --Ronz 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the positive feedback (for a change)! OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

New Westminster secondary school revert
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on New Westminster Secondary School. Dooga 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinister Jake and the Fatties Deletion
i was looking for a specific reason why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeeKay42 (talk • contribs).
 * For the same reasons it was deleted three other times when you created it; because it's about a non-notable band. OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)