User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive8

Henry Hub
Well you erased The Henry Hub Web site from external links when it's the only source of meaning for the Henry Hub...the natural gas price....seems like suppression of information

Apostille

 * Hi, I wanted to hear a more complete explanation for why the apostille link and information was deleted. I read the information about adding external links, and believed that I was expanding an article stub. I went through and deleted the other articles that I'd added, because they weren't stubs, and I guess I could see you characterizing them as "spam." (hard, when it's only three articles, though). But they were all free of charge, with no ads on them, and particularly, the apostille article didn't violate any of the terms of Wikipedia, and in fact *expanded* the article because it was a stub, which is what your site was seeking, correct? So, for the apostille page, what exactly caused you to delete the link or the extra info?? JadeEJF

Your talkpage template
By the way, I hope you don't mind if I duplicated and made some modifications to your talkpage template for my own talkpage. (I removed the tables and created a div CSS based template instead) Dooga 22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, looks good; yours is a bit less eyeball-scorching than mine. ;) OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Spammer returns
- adding the same links again. Nposs 02:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bock user?
Please see this edit. I see you have warned this user before. --Bensin 22:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense
Now that's debatable concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philipek (talk • contribs).
 * It sure is. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Birds Page Editing
Ohnoitsjamie, the help page says a site cannot be relevant to wikipedia if is all propose is to be commercial or wrapped in ads. The link you are deleting is not the case and is very relevant to the birds page. That link was reviewed in this wikipedia page almost hundreds of times and almost 2 months. Why know you and Pigsonthewing are saying that is spam? I thought wikipedia was fair. JonixK 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It has ads on it. I see no evidence that it was "reviewed" (just because a link "survives" for two months doesn't make it legit). As far as I'm concerned, it's still spam. Period. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * if that link who was reviewd hundreds of times (just see the history of that page) is spam, then the external links are completly wrong. why? You didn't delete the other "spam" sites like >>Birdingonthe.net<< (It has google ads, google commercial search), also >>rldtwitch - Rare bird news around the world << (It's a commercial site that sell amazon books), >>Avibase - The World Bird Database << (it has commercial banners). This site you are deleting is not spam, if it is spam, so the other i mentioned are also spam, the problem is the same. Wikipedia say if the propose of a site is only to be commercial or wrapped in ads, none of this links is that case. JonixK 02:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you resolved delete everything, tou forgot avibase, it has also commercial banners. JonixK
 * Avibase has one banner, and is a much more extensive (and notable site) than yours. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought you were deleting the links because of commercial banners, in that case, avibase and the audubon that you add it now, are commercial. Maybe i'm wrong, but don't Addubon has in is online magazine many banners at the right, isn't that commercial? I'm tired of this discussion, you don't want one link (that is not spam) that's ok, the link will not be on there, but please don't call me a spammer, that is very offending, and i ever never offend you. JonixK

Welcome
to Wikinews. Doldrums 16:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * have blocked him. u can request for a username change and then create ur account for yourself. Doldrums 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Perfume Page Message
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:12.198.8.203&redirect=no

TO: Ohnoitsjamie. I'm having a hard time understanding why my link is being deleted. I have been attempting numerous times to discuss this with RJASE1 per editing rules but he has a script removing the links without discussion which is why I gave him a level 1 warning. If you notice his talk page this isn't the first time he has done this (removing links without even reading beyond wikipedia).

I wanted to post a couple of pages, which I found off of netscape, that had a couple of good links to an FAQ of perfume and a brief history. Instead of posting both links (which I read is not suggested) I just posted the link to the main site as there were links to both of the

I think it's a sad state of affairs when RJASE1 has to use a script in a 'fire and forget' fashion and not stick around to discuss the issue.

These links have great information and I would like to incorporate them. It's not spam if they include pertinent information is it not? Thanks in advance.

If I may quote:

More important than being able to write neutrally without thinking about it is being willing and knowing how to work with others toward that goal. Be bold in editing pages that are biased, be bold in asking for help, and do not be alarmed when others edit what you have written.

This is what I was hoping to do this with RJASE1 but he does not wish to work toward this goal.

I don't appreciate being accused of spamming in a guilty even if proved innocent manner.


 * Please see Let's review for summary. If that doesn't shame them, nothing will. At least they won't blame RJASE1's 'scripts'. :-) Shenme 08:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent response! OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC) -Note: This comment generated by Ohnoitsjamie automated comment script.

Sorry I don't understand that Shenme's response means. I'm a bit of a n00b here and haven't a clue what the link means. 18:03 (GMT) 4 April 2007. I'm just trying to follow the directions for editing as described on the site and no one seems to want to comply with said rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.198.8.203 (talk • contribs).


 * To comply with the rules WP:EL and WP:SPAM, stop adding links to commercial sites. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just blocked you on Wiktionary ;-)
Well, I blocked an impersonator of yours. Boy, you must be popular with the kids! bd2412 T 04:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have quite the fan club! OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Socks!
Wikibooks admin - just come online and confused (too early). We've had some socks of yours recently but I've just blocked an "User:En Ohnoitsjamie" and realised it may actually be you? If so let me know and I'll unblock it - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 06:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohnoitsjamie_en was me, but I only created it in order to place the sock notice on the imposter account. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

afPE
And of course i didnt add a link everywhere, I added only in about 5 relevant places, following up from school sport. Astounded that you felt it neccessary to complain! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidPhysed (talk • contribs).
 * Your astonishment is noted. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Perfume page
Sorry I don't understand that Shenme's response means. I'm a bit of a n00b here and haven't a clue what the link means. I'm just trying to follow the directions for editing as described on the site and no one seems to want to comply with said rules. This seems to be a case of lumping people under the same category. Am I understanding this correctly? 18:03 (GMT) 4 April 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.198.8.203 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

PIT BULL page
I cannot figure out how to reply to your pm so I will post here. My link is not inappropriate, spam nor advertising ( I was not even the first one to list my site here fyi, I saw it in my cpanel as a referrer). it is an informative, ADVOCACY site listing several points of interest to apbt fanciers including a "how-to" design page on making concrete bowls, listing kennel links and other news topics relating to the apbt and apbt/general dog advocacy sites and links. it is not inappropriate or commercial and is NOT spam any more than any other link in that list. I first listed down the list some but someone kept removing it and it's easier to just stick in at the top when that has occurred. I can proxy at will and your threats of ip blocking will not deter me. "4.245.53.80"

=
=======================================

I dont think this is correct, to have two pages titled as pitbull or pit bull i agree with ur point, thats why i changed the name to pit bull discussion.

Pit bull is not a mix of breeds, thats a bad knowledge, if you check for "bandog" yes is a mix of breeds like you said. I think we should give good information to the people, not staying in the ignorance of the he said, or other said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cghiotto (talk • contribs).
 * As I noted on your talk page, the two articles are about different subjects; one is about a blanket term (whether or not that term is technically "correct" is a moot point, given that it is commonly used in legislation, ordinances, media, etc.). The Pit Bull article makes a distinction between the blanket term and the American Pit Bull Terrier breed.  There may be sections that could be merged/deleted,etc., but I strongly disagree with the move. Please don't do another move unless there is a significant consensus among other editors to do so. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove my external links as spam?
It's only article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.57.153.80 (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
 * And it's WP:SPAM. Please don't add it again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Danny
Jamie, your !vote isn't being counted as it's badly formatted. I'm going to reformat it as a support; I hope that is ok? --Guinnog 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tyrenius beat me to it! --Guinnog 02:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you! Those pesky colons.... OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fotos Licenses
It must be a joke what you are doing with the Pitbull Page, If i wasnt sure about the license of the images i wold never use it. And you insist to use a Red nose pitbull with no body that seems more like a pet bull as pic of the page. If i uploaded images and changed few things, i was just trying to improve the page to others users, not making the page like i think it should be like you are doing. It seems that you want more a page that lookslike cool for you than real information and good looking fotos for other users. Thats sad man, because i dont spend my time uploading information to the web and then someone comes and erases everything. I respect you as long as you respect the work from others, specially when it is good stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cghiotto (talk • contribs).
 * I am not joking about the photos licensing. It's obvious that the photos are identical to those at Tom Garner Kennels, a page which states Copyright 1996-2006 Tom Garner Kennels. All rights reserved.  You tagged them as GFDL, which means that you are releasing all copyright protection and allowing anyone  ...rights to copy, redistribute and modify (them). I plan on contacting Mr Garner and confirming that he consents to release the copyright on these photos.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmm. ok. Whats your email? so ill send the email where he allows the photos to be used here @ the wikipedia, and can be distributed but not modified. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cghiotto (talk • contribs)
 * There is an email link on my userpage, on the left side. The "modified" clause of the GFDL license is not optional. It is a complete release of copyright. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronnie Coleman
Hi, I've been wanting to add a short paragraph to the Ronnie Coleman article, detailing allegations of steroid abuse, and his implication in the BALCO scandal that also tainted Barry Bonds, among others. I believe that the page may have been semiprotected due to random vandalism, or perhaps supporters of Coleman are trying to keep the page free of Steroid allegations. I have 3 sources to site, two of which are major national newpapers. Please help, or unblock the article. Thanks.

Maxanova 09:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC) User talk:Maxanova 02:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest posting the section you're planning to add on the talk page for the article first. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Maxanova 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

did do. please see Ronnie Coleman talk page. Maxanova 00:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Zach burhop deletion
I was working on an entry when is was deleted. I got this message The article Zach burhop has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. I was working on it so it was not done. However it sited several sources. What am i doing wroung? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zburhop (talk • contribs).
 * Please see Wikipedia's policy on notability. The article was speedily deleted because it did not assert notability. Your own website is not considered to be a reliable source. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I did i am looking at the policy now. The website provided was one of many. I just dident get to add them yet. I went to see how it looked took a break came back and it was gone. The site was also very reputable reguarding the sponsors and other sources available for backing it up.

User:Voyage2mail
Hi. I note you have dealt with the above person in the past. Please be aware that the person has taken to posting to talk pages, dropping in his hyperlink to his "analysis", a.k.a. list of linkspam, during the request for permission (?) from the "author" (?) to post a link (eh?). Could you take a fresh look and see what needs doing to curb this? I've been to all the talk pages he has posted to, and removed the links. Also left two comments/warnings on his talk page. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the user persists, they will be blocked indefinitely. If they create new accounts to post the same links, those links can be sent to the wiki-wide |blacklist. Feel free to let me know if the user starts adding them again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do Jamie - thank you. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 02:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

America and Deepstratagem
Obviously vandalism to the article America is nothing new and easily handled by the various editors with that article on their watch lists. But I feel the activities of user Deepstratagem over the last three days are a different kind of distruption. Is there anything you, as an administrator, can do? -Acjelen 17:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Commercial post?
I just received my first User Talk regarding a recent edit. I'm confused about which edit is concerning. Can you clarify so I don't make the same mistake again? (1) I added a company to a list of vendors for digital asset management, but others on the page are also vendor links. I noticed one that was missing. (2) I added a blog community to the DAM resources. It seems to be just blog articles contributed by some experts in the field, I don't see any articles on the site that promote a company. Thanks for your help. I'm a novice. Sworthy246 20:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Digital Asset Management systems
Hi. I'm astounded by this article. It reads like a linkfarmer's dream. Only two of the links lead to Wikipedia articles - the rest are blatant external link advertising. There is also no reference to the notability of any of the companies linked to. It remains uncategorised still. It does not appear to have been proposed at AfD - yet it is against the spirit of what Wikipedia is not: repository of links. If I may compare this list with the List of social networking websites for instance, you will see that, without exception, all those outside agencies referred to in the latter list must lead to an internal article - any redlinks are removed forthwith.

What I am really trying to say is: Would I have a chance if I proposed this at AfD? Or am I missing the point with this list?

Your guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 00:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd say that would have a good chance of getting shot down in an AFD. Comparison articles are usually acceptible (i.e., Comparison_of_Linux_distributions, but the aforementioned article is, as you note, not much more than a collection of spam links. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks yet again. I have posted to the article talk page with my thoughts, and placed a linkfarm tag on the article. I will give it a chance, but if the regular editors try to 'lie low' on it and not try to clean it up, I'll go for AfD. Cheers. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Further thanks for the prod. Let's see how it goes. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I lost patience. It's gone here. Best wishes. Ref (chew) (do) 23:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing podcasts from The Office's fan sites section?
I don't see podcasts specifically mentioned in the two spam related links you provided. Can you please elaborate on why those were removed (I posted a note in the discussion section but heard no complaints). If you're going to have a section on fan sites I don't understand why the podcasts would be irrelevant (unless you'd rather there be a podcasts section). They talk about the show - seems quite germane to people interested in learning more about the show.

Note: I do not produce either linked podcast.Kevin Crossman 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Forums, podcasts, and blogs rarely satisfy WP:EL and WP:SPAM guidelines, unless they are official. I see on the talk page there is a consensus to allow a few fansites (though now one said anything about the podcasts). Personally, I don't feel fansites belong, but I won't argue with the consensus in this case. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the Search Marketing Section
Hey Ohnoitsjamie,

I just received a note telling me that my contribution was overly promotional and would be deleted as spam. I appreciate your efforts, but wanted to explain why I added it. Earlier today I added an external link to btobonline.com and it was deleted. I can see the wisdom in that. That contribution added nothing to the article and was therefore fair game for deletion, that item easily fell under Wikipedia's definition of spam. I humbly accepted its deletion.

So when I went to add something to the search marketing section, I tried to add something valid that could enhance the article, statistics from a study about search marketing trends. I didn't do anything more than write up a short bit about the study, and site the article as a reference. It seemed like valid information that would be useful to a reader of the article. I didn't make explicit reference to btobonline.com, only cited it to back up the quoted numbers.

In full disclosure, I work for btobonline.com, so I have a tendency to refer to the source because I know it well. Granted there is an element of self-promotion, but I also thought my contribution would enhance Wikipedia' content. Is there anyway for me to add enhancements to marketing articles and cite BtoB as a source of information. I won't add crappy stuff, but try to keep it relevant and helpful. Thanks for helping me understand.

Quinnskylark 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)QuinnskylarkQuinnskylark 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to follow policy, but I think the biggest issue at this point would be Conflict-of-interest given your involvement with the company. You could try proposing your addition to the talk page of that article, where other editors could judge whether or not the new material added a lot to the article or it seemed more like an excuse to add a link to the website. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments. I added a proposed couple of paragraphs to the Search Marketing page. I think it should be considered valid content. Best, Quinnskylark 17:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Anus Image
Considering that you are the one who has reverted my edits to the Anus article three times, I would suggest that you also review the three revert rule. I'm trying to improve this article. What is it about this users butthole self-portrait that contributes so much to the article? PMHauge 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read WP:3RR more closely. You are in violation, not I. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." While I would love to argue about this all night, I think I'll let the history page prove my point for me and end it now. I removed an image. That is my edit. You have undone my actions on three occasions in a 24hr period. Thank you, Pot! I can see that the kettle is indeed black. PMHauge 04:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...more than three... You removed the image four times. I reverted it three. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I bow to your superior abilities in mathematics, logic, and argumentation. So does that mean that if I were to have removed it again, you would have ceased from replacing it for the fourth time? Of course you would have! You have too many other people dying to keep it up. In any event, I've decided to leave the anus image alone. If you and everyone else feels that the quality of the article will just go to crap (no pun intended) if the image is removed, then so be it. I'm done trying to argue quality over quantity. Enjoy staring deep into that users hole for the sake of... well, for the sake of whatever lame reason you and others like you think it should be there for. Was it the principal? I think it was. Au revoir. PMHauge 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insights. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jamie, from Steven (zFacts)
Hope I'm adding this right. As you can see I pretty new to wiki.

I did read the spam and external links guideline before adding material. It seems to me I fit the external guideline exactly. I reproduce it below so I can refer to it easily. zFact is a non-commercial research site. The info link was "further research, accurate, on-topic." I did not feel I should add it all in directly because of the "amount of detail," but I could if you wanted.

Basically, I added results of calculations based on data from only top-quality sources (only USDA, DOE, Science, PNAC, and Argonne). The calculations are ordinary, but no one seems to have done them because it's hard to collect all the data and think of what needs to be done. The results are, I think, very surprising and make a very interesting contribution to the discussion. I'm a Ph.D. economist and work in the energy field. I spent several weeks researching just the little I added to make sure it was right and I could prove things from sources that almost everyone would accept (not Patzek etc). Then I spent a lot of time packaging the references into little PDFs with the values highlighted in the original source and instructions on what number to subtract or divide when that it necessary.

Perhaps you didn't answer because I didn't ask a question or make a request. Here is a suggestion. To take is slow, I will restore one of the entries, but without any links. I think we can then agree that documentation is needed and discuss how to do that. The point is not links, but documentation, so we can focus on that. How does this sound?

Best regards, Steven Stoft 17:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki on external links: Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as amount of detail.


 * There is the issue of Conflict of interest (i.e., adding links to your own sites), and the issue of whether or not your site meets WP:Reliable sources criteria. You're encouraged to add content to Wikipedia entries, and it sounds like you already are aware of sources that definitely would qualify as "reliable" (e.g., NASA, DOE, Argonne).  That said, there usually isn't a strong argument for adding a link to one's own site versus adding additional content. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Jamie, Thanks. That's progress. I agree that linking my own site is a red flag for conflict of interest, and one you must take very serious. However, there remains the question, am I conflicted, or not? I hope you will look into this. Wiki's definition and concern is the usual one "A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors." My claim (which must be checked) is that there is no conflict between my aim (the individual editor) and the "purpose of producing a neutral encyclopedia". Perhaps you have one more legit concern not quite covered by this. I may be neutral (no tie to ethanol pro or con) but I might degrade my article by putting in links which are good for me, but not for the wiki reader. This is an important concern and I hope you will check on this as well.

I should have done this before, but I'm new to this. Now I have. I have explained who I am and what I'm trying to do in my userpage. I would be grateful if you could take a look at that.

Best regards, Steven Stoft 01:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I don't doubt your credentials, the description of your methodology makes me wonder if it's not a violation of original research. I'd suggest posting your suggestions on the talk page for the articles in question (and be sure to link to your userpage). While I don't think your posting links to your own page for any nefarious purposes, it is debatable whether or not your work meets WP:Reliable sources and WP:OR guidelines. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jamie, Sorry to be slow to acknowledge your latest answer. I apprecate it. I think you are right that I will have some trouble with "original research," In particular, this bullet: It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; I like putting two or three published numbers together to show what they imply. For example, the chief economist at USDA tells us 2006 corn subsidy = $4.5 billion and 20% of corn was used for ethanol. I would like to multiply these and note that the corn subsidy for ethanol was $0.9 billion in 2006 (after citing his numbers). So that "introduces a synthesis of established facts." But I'm not sure if it "builds a particular case favored by the editor." Do you have a view on this? Also, would the following be considered a "reliable source"? Subsidy Report What do you think? I will discuss my next addtion on the talk page. Best regards, Steven Stoft 16:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Snohomish, Washington
I see that you just reverted an edit by Bannaou812. Please, if you've not already done so, take a look at his recent edits [], and you will see that he is on a libel spree. I have reverted several of his edits, and left him warnings, but I do not think that he will stop. He may need a talking to. Thanks. ---Charles 04:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkey
- For the record, this account, like all the others, was banned user. Just letting you know so you have a better name than "Turkey sock" if you deal with him again. ;) Picaroon 20:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not spam to add a resource
It's fine if you don't like a external link that provides a directory of video travel guides for Europe. It's not spam if its a valid resource. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trade4me (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I see you are on some kind of rampage
Removing external links that have been on wikipedia for months? Its like a rampage. Why are these links allowed to stay on all airline pages?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_airlines United Airlines Seating Charts on SeatGuru.com

Talk about spam - SeatGuru.com is owned by Expedia (purchased a couple months ago)

Why don't these links have to go? They are on most of the airline pages? Why single me out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trade4me (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I've removed all of the travel video and seat guru links, regardless of who added them. Please do not add them again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Delta airlines, american airlines, continental airlines?? these are not my links. You should look into them. all have seatguru.com links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trade4me (talk • contribs).
 * Seatguru is notable. Your travel videos site is not. On the other hand, I wouldn't object to anyone removing the Seatguru links from those articles. As far as I'm concerned, the only links airline articles really need are official links to the carriers. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fun Pictures
I see you removed the link to http://puppydogweb.com/gallery/dachshunds/e.htm and left me a note. I thought it was a fun place to see sooooo many cute looking weiner dogs in so many colors, sizes and shapes. Thought other would like to see them too. Whyiluvdogs 05:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with Lexus article vandalism
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, this is the issue I have been dealing with since yesterday:

Someone, likely, has reverted the page 4 times to include 'advertising' and 'overly long' tags, demanding a rewrite of the whole article. (I asked for specific instances of areas of concern, but there aren't any responses--just blanket attacks).


 * On the first 3 edits, this user vandalized the article. erasing references and then claiming that the article is missing references, adding false tags, etc. shown here:, then , then , and now


 * He used sock puppets: User "Firefox001" aka "Pgdn001" aka 221.148.48.216 as listed here:


 * Based on the record of this user, and history at the IP talk page:, there appears to be a troubling record of disruptions, racism, and unwanted editing behavior. All the edits by this user focus on Korean nationalism. It is also possible that this user is responsible for the earlier vandalism to the Lexus article, which also was focused on nationalistic grounds.

I would like to request that the Lexus page be put under special protection (will that block this registered user?), and possibly that further actions be taken to restrict this user's behavior. His commentary specifically indicates a hatred for Japanese ethnicity and culture, despite my attempts to keep the Lexus article free of nationalistic and overall bias. The Lexus article has also been through numerous neutrality discussions and recently passed the NPOV criteria and was named a GA.

I have given this user several warnings about vandalism, improper tagging, racism, and the 3-revert rule. 

Please note that the recent page of edits by me are mostly minor: I did however add upgraded references in line with featured article standards.

Sorry to bring this to your attention, but I would appreciate your help as this is getting out of hand. Enigma3542002 02:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One last piece to mention, I checked this user's history and ironically enough "he" and his sockpuppets are involved in a multi-revert edit war in the Samsung Electronics article, only it's the reverse--he and the sockpuppets are trying to remove tags of fansite creation. Maybe that is where he got the idea to attack and improperly tag the Lexus article. Considering the multiple warnings this user has received (having been blocked from editing several times already), and the numerous other violations, perhaps some stronger action can be taken? Enigma3542002 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reported the evidence of sockpuppetry here: . The improper and unsupported tags have been placed on the Lexus article yet again however. Enigma3542002 07:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took me awhile to respond (busy week). I gave the socks attack warnings and restored a few of the other deleted warnings.  If the socks persist, they'll be blocked indefinitely, and if that doesn't stop the vandalism we can look at protection. Thanks for your dilligence, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your actions. The originating IP has just been blocked for 1 week due to vandalism. This is not the first time the IP has been blocked. I hope that the sock puppets will not continue their vandalism/abuse. However based on the existing record of numerous final warnings, etcetra, further action may have to be taken. In any case, thank you for your assistance. Enigma3542002 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to disturb you again, but as you can see the IP is back again, this time using sockpuppets Firefox001 and Pgdn001. He has violated the 3-RR here for the Lexus article:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * and also at the Samsung article:


 * All these edits have occurred on May 8, in violation of the 3-RR. The user has also again vandalized the Talk page.


 * Based on the sockpuppetry report, if action could be taken, both sockpuppets could be banned. You may also note that the IP has added a post to this talk page, basically a cut-and-paste of a warning originally intended for that IP.


 * Sorry to bother you again, if you are available to handle this, otherwise moving to WP:AIV and 3-RR notices, etc. Possibly a community ban? Enigma3542002 00:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * May I request some form of page protection for the Lexus article? False tagging is being applied again.  Thanks. Enigma3542002 02:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Page protection may be premature at this point; there are two blocks in effect at the moment. If the problems continue after the expiration of those blocks, the blocks can be extended. Page protection is usually only warranted when blocks are ineffective (i.e, attacks from multiple IPs or throw-away accounts, etc). Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ohnoitsjamie, thanks for helping take care of the problems with the vandal last month. Your assistance was much appreciated!

Regards, Enigma3542002 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Recurrance of inappropriate tagging
Greetings Ohnoitsjamie, sorry to bother you again. The same inappropriate tagging, probably by the same individual, has recurred today. I have removed the unfounded tag. The phraseology used in the edit summary and talk comment  is in the same style as the previous user what added the tags. The original case report is here: and same-word phrasings are here:  (the latter two--"page is dirty"; "don't talk to dirty," "dirty scum" etc.)

If it recurs again, I suppose it can be reported as another sockpuppetry case, or reopening the old one (although the rest of the accounts have been banned, the IP has not)? If the same pattern of disruptive editing occurs, that might be the way to go. Or perhaps vandalism?

Anyhow, just a heads up on what may be coming down the pike from this user, first with the Lexus article (probably not the Samsung Electronics article, as it since has been cleaned up heavily from the earlier, truly in-need of maintenance tagging situation). Thanks for your understanding. Enigma3542002 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Towon house galleria is most luxury hotel in europe.
this hotel recieved 7-star grade. also, 7-star grade hotel is only one in europe. so, 'most luxury hotel in europe' is right. can you understand, japanese? Firefox001 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I do not understand the Japanese language. That's not an issue since this is the English-language Wikipedia. "Most luxurious" is point-of-view you are quoting someone as making that statement. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * then, you must prove yourself. why 7star grade hotel is not luxury hotel. also, THG is 7-star grade hotel is only one in europe.  YOU MUST PROVE YOURSELF. IT'S YOUR TURN. IF NOT, I REPORT YOU, AS A VANDLAISM EDITING. Firefox001 02:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * also, if you edit repetedely without publicity source, THAT IS VANDALISM, CLEARLYFirefox001 02:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * During your 24-block period, please read Wikipedia's policy on WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As a side comment, he didn't type "can you understand japanese," he typed "can you understand, japanese," calling you Japanese and implying that they (and you) are inferior. Essentially it's a racial slur from a Korean. (And one of his main arguments in content disputes.) Phony Saint 05:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with SEO article
I've nominated search engine optimization for featured article status, and you've helped edit this article. Could you possibly look at the references on the article and then leave your comments at Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization as to whether you think the blogs and forums cited as references qualify as reliable sources. In order to achieve featured article status we need community consensus that the references are reliable. If you know any other Wikipedians who have expertise in this area, we welcome their comments. Thank you! Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 17:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Windansea article link
The link added the Windansea article doesn't constitute a commercial link in my view but you're the admin here and I assume you know what you're doing. Shawn in Montreal 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needed to be removed. --Creationlaw 23:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The account that added it was a spam-only account; it is a recently-created advertising-supported site. Wikipedia is not the place to promote a new website. I could easily create a site with lots of "useful information" about Windansea, or any other topic (and load it with Google ads or what not); subjective "usefulness" does not automatically make a site acceptible. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

45drive45
I see you dealt with this user before. I deleted some of the spam links he/she put up. Should the cruddy spam articles about herbs that he/she made be deleted too?

Creationlaw 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, user has been given final spam warning. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Question - Good Practice
Dear Jamie, thanks for your comment. I assure you, I have no affiliation to the site and just read an interesting stat that they collected. I am in the UK and the site is in Greece. How should I reference the site that has posted the stat? Just as their name and no link. (Was also practicing adding links so sorry for that). Your advice on good practice and whether you think what I wrote was a good stat/trend will be appreciated. Thanks

Adeelquyoum 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If survey results are to be added to the page, it would be preferable that the came from either an independent media source, or a more notable online dating website (i.e., one notable enough to have it's own article). OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about Link removal
Hi Jamie,

The link you removed from the Prostate Massage page is a great resource, its an illustrated guide that i have yet to see one like. I would like to understand why it was removed? I would like a discussion on the topic.

-Wikifan0028 Wiki Forever 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL. I'm not discussing it further, because it's obviously in violation of that policy. You're welcome to post about it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam, but they're going to tell you the same thing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Latrellsprewell
I would appear to have mis-read the time-stamp on your warning to User:Latrellsprewell and blocked him for an edit previous to the BV notice. I'd usually unblock, but in this case I think it's clear where he was headed, and it's still an intentional user name violation (Latrell Sprewell). Please feel free to unblock or review as you see fit. Kuru talk  22:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The vandalism spree coupled with deceptive edit summaries is reason enough for me for indef. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies
Hey Ohnoitsjamie,

I wanted to apologize for all the links earlier. I didn’t realize that it was spamming/inappropriate. Now I do! It won’t happen again and I apologize for the large volume of edits in a small time period. I here by vow from this day forth to use my Wiki account for good and not evil. Sorry man. Ncw0617 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

VERY POOR EDITING CALL
Hey Jamie,

I can't understand why you deleted my News web site www.thehenryhub.com for the US natural gas business...there's no way it's spam. It's the most accessible free data base source of US natural gas prices and news on the Web. That's why the InterContinental Exchange based in Atlanta, Georgia, lets me use their prices and charts free of charge. It passed their quality test....and they handle tens of millions of dollars in trades of the stuff every day -- but failed your test!! To make matters worse the third link you have there under Henry Hub hasn't been updated since February....though it does carry google ads!! John. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnmckay777 (talk • contribs).
 * Refer to Wikipedia's policy on conflict-of-interest. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

RV Spam?
Hello Jamie or James if you prefer,

I had an article removed from Bed Bugs, and I thought it was because I put it in references the first instance, instead of External Links (which I understand refs now), so I resubmitted it.

Anyhow, maybe the title raises flags but this is a serious article, written in light fashion, on the Myths of Bed bugs and includes facts and sources from various entomology resources. As a former health writer for About.com (and elsewhere), who I see is included, I do not see how this denotes spam. Please advise. Thank you.


 * Associated Content:"Did I Get Bed Bugs from eBay" (myths about bedbugs and potential sources of infestation)
 * Someone was spamming links to associatedcontent to multiple articles. It's a commercial site that pays contributors. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting external sites. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

AmPmInsure
Hi Ohnoitsjamie,

I wanted to apologize for the links. But one thing I would like to say what ever the link I set there is not for advertisement purpose. AmPmInsure.org is the one the online insurance community building website. We are not selling insurance. If you get time please review the site once. - Subikar

This is not good without giving any proper reasons here you have deleted my post from here. Please don't remove this one. At first review the site and then try to remove the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subikar (talk • contribs)
 * Your site is commercial, and violates WP:EL and WP:COI. Please do not add it again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Tempeh
There is a Wiki Page titled "Tempeh." I have been interested in tempeh for many years and have written a history of tempeh which is available free of charge on my website. I do not sell this material or any other material on my website. Yesterday I created an external link to this history of tempeh on my website. You deleted it. Why? What makes a site commercial vs ours which is a source of FREE information on soyfoods? Bill Shurtleff —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillShurts (talk • contribs)
 * You added the link to numerous articles; though you say your site is non-commercial, it features three books prominently that are for sale at the site; sounds commercial to me. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Suspicions
I had a sneaky suspicion it might be him. He went to far lengths to do the same thing with the yakiniku page as this user. In any event, the guy has an unchanging M.O. and will not listen to simple reason. I can't argue with him anymore, but I can try to monitor his changes. Thanks so much for all of your help, I really appreciate it. --MerkurIX(이야기하세요!)(투고) 04:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Work Hard
Dude u really work hard but wats the point neway —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.163.170.182 (talk • contribs).
 * The point is, your site is on its way to being blacklisted, and tinyurl won't help you either. Honestly, the one aspect of Wikipedia I enjoy the most is preventing people like yourself from using it as a means to promote a website. Good luck finding some other way to promote your blog. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User 81.211.150.6 and the improper use of admin power
2 warning followed by banning, all of which were posted AFTER the users last edit are unwarranted and an improper use of admin power. Note: not all of the warnings were posted by you. But banning a user should be considered a serious function and not taken lightly. see my post on the users talk page User_talk:81.211.150.6 that includes a log of the warnings and the last post by that user. I feel that you should remove your ban as being inappropriate. Dbiel (Talk) 15:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocking policy states that while the user should be warned and appraised of policies, it does not mandate a minimum number of warnings. There was apparently some confusion over the time stamps (I didn't see the last edit until after I'd given a final warning), but I still stand by a 24-hour block for a vandalism and blanking spree. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the number of bad edits, the block itself made sense. What did not make any sense was to Warn a user after the last edit, then Warn the user again even though he had not make any additional edits after the 2nd warning, and then to ban the user. 3 separate warning functions all taking place after the last post by the user.  Thats is the part that makes Wikipedia look stupid. This is even more of an issue in that it is not actually a user that is banned but an IP address.Dbiel (Talk) 19:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate External Link Removed
Dear Jamie, today you removed an external link from Khirbet Sharta. Please note that this particular instance of this link is not spam because the owner of the page posted the only known photos of the site that have ever been published (as far as I know), & also did some firsthand research on the site, including visiting the local government authority. That's why I, the originator of the page, included this external link. Apparently you did not notice that on 27 May 2007, User:El_C did the same thing you did, & then was kind enough to revert his/her change after being informed of this by me on the following day. I hope you'll do likewise. Thanks for your concern & cooperation.--Funhistory 03:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem...I hadn't checked the revision history; after warning a repeat spammer, used the link tool to track down any other links they might have added earlier, but since you added this particular one, I see no conflict of interest. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

regarding your edits to M6 scout
Hey hows it going. Just curious as to why specifically under the guidelines for spam you have remove the two external links i used as references for the content in this article. Im curious because im new to wikipedia and I want my contribution to be a good one. I understand they may be classified as spam because one of them was linking to a reviewers webpage? and the other was linking to www.gunshopfinder.com which advertises gun shop businesses, can you please clarify, i just read through the WP:SPAM page and i couldn't really find a clear cut guideline that would classify those two links as spam. I appreciate that you are working to improve this article! thanks, please reply on my talk page =) Slowbro 12:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I re-added one. The other is a commercial gunshop site. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User 212.137.45.109
User made an edit to Jim Gamble which I reverted. Ban?
 * Warned again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Jamie, thanks for taking care of Political Guru's spam link vandalism I have been dealing with them for about a month and even warned him but to no avail, it seems you took care of all of them thanks again. - 凶 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem; blocked as a spam-only account. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

==Brice Hey Jamie, you sent me a message a spam message. Sorry but I'm just getting my feet wet and sort of running through my interest area by bookmarks and subjects. Not ideal, I guess. Let me get to through Science and start Food and Literature. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brice one (talk • contribs) 14:31, June 20, 2007 (UTC) Well just saw everything taken down. Thanks for wasting both of our time. This feels like high school and i've just been picked on because I'm not part of the "cool" crowd. Guess what I've heard about WikiWorld is true. Brilliant. Thanks for making my tentative foray into Wikipedia a thoroughly off-putting experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brice one (talk • contribs).
 * Hundreds of folks contribute content to Wikipedia every day. When your contributions consist of nothing but links to the same site, those contributions will quickly be reverted. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Read above regarding intent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brice one (talk • contribs).
 * All your bookmarks are to the same site? OK, makes sense. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Yes it is. Thank you!!

So...
So no Picnic Monsters artice huh?JJAshfiel 16:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I like your idea. Picnic monsters, the scourge of Grenada. Wikipedia certainly would benefit from having an article devorted to them. I support you 100 percent you beautiful, beautiful man. FMackaye 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware.
I have heard rumors that there are individuals on Wikipedia that engage in certain illicit practices with members of other species. Is this true? Please get back to me.FMackaye 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Deletion
A page that was recently put up, Sinister Jake and the Fatties, was immidiately taken down.... i am just looking for a reason why. It was submitted with complete facts, and sources, and was still taken down the second it was put up... and i never recieved a good reason. Please write back to me!! Musicloverr42 or email popopforprez@gmail.com

Help me.
While I support Wikipedia and the free exchange of ideas it encourages there is something fiercly tyrannical in the system of hierarchy that goes on here. Many administrators have become drunk on there own power (I do not include you in this characterization) and have disrupted the free exchange of ideas. How can we stop this? There is so little I can do alone as I am only a recent user and do not have the knowledge or the power to stop what is wrong. Therefore I am enlisting your aid. You seem like you do good work here and perhaps we can become comrades in this fight. Please get back to me and let me know.CaptainDude 17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're going to need to be more specific. I don't know what you're talking about. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hub Weekly and NuWire Investor

 * Hi, I wanted to hear a more complete explanation for why the apostille link and information was deleted. I read the information about adding external links, and believed that I was expanding an article stub. I went through and deleted the other articles that I'd added, because they weren't stubs, and I guess I could see you characterizing them as "spam." (hard, when it's only three articles, though). But they were all free of charge, with no ads on them, and particularly, the apostille article didn't violate any of the terms of Wikipedia, and in fact *expanded* the article because it was a stub, which is what your site was seeking, correct? So, for the apostille page, what exactly caused you to delete the link or the extra info?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JadeEJF (talk • contribs).
 * It's a magazine that solicits subscriptions ("Free thirty day trial!"). That in itself isn't forbidden, but given that your primary mission is to add links to that magazine, I have to assume you are affiliated with it, thus violating conflict of interest policies. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes my adding articles on that site different from linking to an article on, say, The New York Times? And, that article doesn't require subscriptions, right? I'm just curious. I'd be happy to not add any more information to Wikipedia in the future- it's not a big deal to me. I just was curious about how adding information to an article stub is somehow wrong, when it's solicited by Wikipedia? JadeEJFJadeEJF
 * I don't think you've read WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have. I don't see any COI, but if you think it is, whatever- it's not like I can prove or disprove COI. It's really not a big deal. I was just trying to add relevant information on apostilles. Anyway, good luck with maintaining the site- I'm sure it's a tough job.JadeEJF
 * Not to barge in here, but I don't think you (Ohnoitsjamie) have really read WP:COI either. If you did, you would note that it is a guideline that users should follow and not a policy that users must follow.  That said, I don't really see much of a COI here.  There would potentially be a COI with JadeEJF having volunteered for the paper if it was still in existance, but as it is now defunct and therefore she no longer works/volunteeres there, the COI is virtually non-existant.  Now, it isn't kosher for her to list herself amongst the editors, as that's self-promotion, but other than that, I think you're on shaky ground at best with your defense.  Also, I'm noting while reading this thread that both parties are trying to prove a point, which is another guideline that all users (including admins) should follow.
 * I'm not commenting on the notability, except to say that there articles that are significantly less encyclopedic on Wikipedia than this one that deserve a lot more admin attention than this. Justinm1978 03:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are lots of articles that should be deleted on Wikipedia. If you'd examined JadeEJF's editing history, you would have noticed that Jade attracted my attention because of the user's attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a different publication. While examining edit history for other instances of spamming, I became aware of the notability issue with The Hub, so I prod tagged it. If you look at my ~30k edits, you'll see that I prod tag (or delete) lots of articles according to policies and guidelines. So where exactly is the WP:POINT here? OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jamie, I understand that you think I had a COI with the apostille article, but I just noticed that you reverted my edits to a page about The Hub Weekly that I made a long, long time ago. The information that you deleted was useful and unique, as The Hub Weekly ceased production in September of 2006, and no longer has a web site. Some of the staff and contributors have no other way of verifying that they worked at The Hub, and much of the information is no longer available (unless you use the waybackmachine!). I have no idea what your motive was in reverting those changes, and can only assume it was a personal vendetta towards me, which is extremely unfortunate. I may indeed have had a COI with The Hub, as I once worked as an editor there, but my changes were made long after the paper went under, and therefore, I don't think it's valid to claim COI on me for those changes. The information you deleted certainly had no other Wikipedia TOS issues. JadeEJF 18:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the revert to The Hub was a mistake. However, I do note that The Hub Weekly probably does not meet notability criteria and would most likely be deleted if sent to WP:AFD. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh... well, I would of course argue that the paper was notable, as it was the only alternative weekly in Champaign-Urbana for many years, through a series of iterations, beginning with The Octopus back in the (70s?). Would it be helpful to make more edits to it- would that make it more notable? Or should I just leave it be?JadeEJF 18:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:Notability for criteria and WP:Reliable sources for what sorts of sources to establish notability are appropriate. Even if you can establish that it is notable, you'll see that no other articles include a staff roster in their entries. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm, almost every newspaper entry in here has a list of staff, including editors, etc. New York Times Management and Employees, Slate Contributors and DepartmentsJadeEJF 18:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of those publications are quite a bit more notable than a defunct weekly, and many of those employees are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Two of the contributors to that paper now have their own books, including Heather Zydek, who probably should have her own page. Just Google her. And Chuck Koplinski has written for a number of different publications.JadeEJF 18:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taught at universities and worked for notable companies; that doesn't make me notable. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think being a published author of multiple books qualifies you for notability, assuming that the books are still in print, popular and available on Amazon.com?JadeEJF 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Under WP:BIO, having published a few books is not necessarily enough to satisfy notability requirements (see the section under "creative professionals"). If a defunct weekly was deemed to be notable, it would only be appropriate to list former employees of the article if they satisfy WP:BIO requirements. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Can I still write about the history of the paper to expand it or is it just pointless now? JadeEJF 18:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, you're free to add to it if you feel that it's WP:Notability can be verified with WP:Reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Newspapers don't often write about other newspapers, I guess. Here's a quick question- if the sources I can find (quickly) are either under a paid subscription (the local daily newspaper's archives) or opinion columns from another weekly- would either of those be considered WP: Reliable sources ? Wikipedia's TOS seems to dislike anything that comes from a subscription-based service (per your comments about NuWire above), and I don't know that an opinion column would be considered reliable, even if it was published in newspaper.JadeEJF 19:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, if you're deleting newspapers that aren't notable, or staff that aren't notable, you may want to take a look at [The Booze News] and perhaps Buzz Entertainment Weekly's staff roster. Also, Ludacris is not from Champaign... JadeEJF 19:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Advertising
Hi Jamie,

I don't understand why you thought my page was spam. It was called Online Store Coupon. The information was based on third party resources and was not advertising anything.

Please reconsider or tell me how to improve on it.

Thanks. Vicki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vml119 (talk • contribs).
 * Refer to WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So if I change the external links, would I be able to publish the same page?

Beasty34
Kolon3442 made similar edits, just before Beasty made his, and was banned as a sock. You might want to compare the two and add Beasty as yet another sock? ThuranX 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Beasty34 has been indef blocked and sock tagged. Thanks! OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Dogs, Donkeys and Women in Islam
Sir,

regarding your reversion of the "dog" article on 21:57, 27 June 2007, dogs, donkeys AND women do nullify an Islamic prayer if they pass in front of men in prayer.

This is mentioned in numerous hadiths, I mention a few from Sahih Muslim

Book 4, Number 1032:

Abu Dharr reported: The Messenger of 'Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black Dog.I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah(may peace be upon him) as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil

Book 4, Number 1034:

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A woman, an ass and a dog disrupt the prayer, but something like the back of a saddle guards against that.

Book 4, Number 1038:

Masruq reported: It was mentioned before'A'isha that prayer is invalidated (in case of passing) of a dog, an ass and a woman (before the worshipper, when he is not screened). Upon this 'A'isha said: You likened us to the asses and the dogs. By Allah I saw the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) saying prayer while I lay on the bedstead interposing between him and the Qibla. When I felt the need, I did not like to wit to front (of the Holy Prophet) and perturb the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and quietly moved out from under its (i.e. of the bedstead) legs.

From the translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 4: The book of prayers http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/hadith/muslim/004_smt.html

Gidday and a question
Hey Jamie. I Noticed a new editor in Cambodian articles (my chosen corner of the 'pedia) User:Chat2bfree as he edited a couple of articles on my watchlist. When I checked his page I saw a speedy notice and followed the link to the deleted article Chath pierSath. I think this was probably a self-bio attempt and a good call for a speedy deletion. However, the article subject is a notable young Khmer artist (even if he does like to advertise himself) and I'm crazy about expanding Cambodian articles generally.

If you wouldn't mind, could you retrieve the article text and stick it here User:Paxse/Sandbox4. That will add it to my growing piles of things to do :) I'll check it out, wait a bit so the author doesn't get too cheeky when his article reappears, add some refs and if it looks Ok I'll repost it as a decent article. Cheers, Paxse 17:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, though make sure you cite evidence that the individual meets WP:BIO notability guidelines. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ta for that. I don't think WP:BIO will be a problem, so far Chath has exhibited in three countries, Cheers, Paxse 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Greg Packer external link removed
Hello. Your message saying that "commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia" is really bull. I added a link to Gizmodo which anyone knows to have 1.2-1.3 million readers a day and is if not the biggest the second biggest tech blogs in the world. How can this be spam? It was something informative. Not spam! 86.106.2.147 07:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

San Diego, California
The article seems to repeat information. Could you help in integrating the article? --70.131.210.31 13:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be largely the work of . See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Diego%2C_California&diff=141745741&oldid=141721416 . I would delete the entire section, but there has been some minor edits since. --70.131.210.31 13:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI
I am not saying its censored. I wish people could read. THE pictures DONT CONTRIBUTE TO THE ARTICLE when there are nicely done charts at the top of the article. The pic with a bit of the vulva (Or some other part of the vagina) and anus isnt needed and really is tasteless. I am sick of people jumping me over this. I am stating a fact. Dont threaten me anymore its not proper -_- (And call it what you will, but threatening to block me is childish. Work with me not against me. Thnx)
 * All of Wikipedia's anatomy articles include photographs. There's no reason why one should not. Giving block warnings to editors who continue to violate Wikipedia policy is normal practice. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh great vandalism tracking one!
You do good work, so this is a thanks!

In the process, would you be so kind as to add cowboy to your watchlist if it isn't there already? That article attracts a fair share of vandals with opinions about cowboys, but it runs in spurts and I have a hard time convincing the wikigods to protect it. Seeing as how you are a skilled and resourceful vandal tracker, you are my best line of defense! Thanks! Montanabw 19:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and while you are at it, what is the use of User:Anchor Link Bot? It puts these random and useless hidden comments next to headers that say nothing more than what anyone can learn from clicking "What links here." If it really is needed, well, I guess, but it's annoying Montanabw 19:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thanks! Actually, I've had Cowboy on my watchlist for awhile, I guess someone else beat me to the cleanup. Regarding the Anchor bot; the comments are placed so that if someone decides to change a section title, they are aware that their are direct links to that section, in the hopes that they will update those links that would otherwise be broken. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 04:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice
WP goes down for an entire hour, and you're the first person to make an edit after it goes back up :3 (check Recent Changes for your edit to mobile phone) -_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool...I'm going to take that as a sing that I should play the lottery today.... OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Criss Angel's height
The IMDB Bio says 6' (rather than 5'10"). ~ Enviroboy TalkContribs - 00:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it does. It said 5'10" up until very recently; I guess he grew two inches in the last few days. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It could be a side-effect of whatever drug he uses to help him fly. ~ Enviroboy TalkContribs - 00:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of my external link
I respectfully disagree with your deletion of the external link I added to this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireworks

I believe that my web site extends and enhances the information on that page and that the external link to my site is appropriate. Most of my site is free content, is updated on a regular basis, and allows vistors to interact as well. The content of my web site is completely within the topic of this page. Deleting the external link to my site seems to me like closing off an entire room of a library to the public. There are some items advertised for sale on my site, but there is also an abundance of free information which is more in depth and more up-to-date than what is shown on the Wikipedia page for this subject. Spending a few minutes at my site would make this obvious. I respectfully ask that my external link be allowed to remain on this page.
 * I don't think you've read WP:EL,WP:SPAM, or WP:COI. Please do not add the link again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read those, and I believe my site offers a preponderance of free information appropriate to the topic of the page, which is far more detailed and current than the information on the Wikipedia page. These include copyrighted yet free articles I have written, a free buyer's guide and a free discussion forum - all on-topic and appropriate. How would you suggest that Wikipedia users be given access to this information, if an external link is not allowed?
 * Add content to the article. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You're certain about that? Adding the free content from my site that I am referring to would add an additional 2.1 megabytes of ASCII text to that article.
 * I'm not encouraging you to cut-and-paste text from your site or any site unless that content is free licensed under GFDL. If you think there are areas of the topic that are lacking, feel free to expand on those particular areas. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonstop vandalism
Hello, User:Vivace737 is continuously vandalizing my userpage claiming complete nonsense. Having conversations with him outside wikipedia, he states that he plans to continue. The only page hes ever contributed to a is a mocking documentary of me which was deleted moments later. I would appreciate it if someone would do something quick about this Vandalism only account. Note that he has been warned 3 times. I have contacted several admins, none of which seam to be online. HThanks. User:Cameron Ghazzagh 737
 * Thanks for blocking him. I appreciate the help. Great having helpful admins around. User:Cameron Ghazzagh 737

Removal of my contribution
hello... why did you delete my contribution to wiki? those articles are very helpful to your web visitors. I dont have any affiliation to that site. I just read their articles cause they are very great and informative. I use those to my studies and it helped me a lot. I just thought sharing those to your web visitors. thanks

Please vote for whether Gun Nut deserves deletion or not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_Nut --BillyTFried 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Onion Article
Wouldn't have been appropriate for the AfD page but... AHAHAHAAH :D For making my day, I award you the Barnstar of Good Humor!
 * Thanks! Always nice to meet other folks who appreciate The Onion. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

content deleted
I think that my contribution with the useful resources on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-cadmium_battery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_charger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

cannot be considered spam as long as I read your guidelines. Accordingly, I kindly ask you to reconsiderate the resources I sent to the pages above and analyze them for a possible reinclussion. Yes, I know Wikipedia has nofollow on links and getting pagerank advantages was out of my interests. I only wanted to offer people some good resources having useful information.

Googleboy.live
 * I already analyzed them. They violate WP:EL/WP:SPAM, and probably WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bong-cruft
I see you share the thankless job of having the Bong article on your watch. I was wondering if you had some suggestions for pruning the mess in the pop culture section. I'd strike most of it as non-notable, but even much of that is arguably sourced.

I need a second opinion. Am I or anyone supposed to give a fuck if some musical (and I use the term loosely) group I've never heard of has a bong bubbling in the background of one of their "songs"? Or that so-and-so passed a bong around in the scene of some movie? I really want to thin that section out, but I suspect each one of those items will have a defender. I don't want to make major changes without consensus, but I have a bad feeling that consensus will be allowed to trump content policies. Any suggestions?

Maybe I'm too old and too "Californian" to get just what is so notable or "cool" about bongs being used as props or for sound effects. I guess if I was a 15 year-old in some uptight Midwest suburb, I might run to my computer to be the first to tell the WikiWorld that I saw a bong in a movie, but that's a piss-poor way to edit an encyclopedia.

.s

X ile 00:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk
 * That article certainly has the tendency to degenerate into a how-to and slang guide. The trivia section is pretty dumb as well (actually, Wikipedia guidelines discourage triva sections anyway). I've been a bit busy lately to do much beyond vandalism reverts, but I support any efforts to cull out a lot of the crap. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bungeoppang (again)
Hi, I might need your help again in dealing with our JPOV friend over at the page (and a few others) who is using a new sock. Thanks. --MerkurIX(이야기하세요!)(투고) 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's that DAM thing!
Hi Jamie. You reversed my additions of Resourcebase in Digital Asset Management for anti-spam. I'm new to this but I guess it's an old, old argument that pages with lots of external commercial links should either be cleaned of all of them or balanced with a wider selection of serious players (rather than list a motely crew of whoever got there first) - hey, I even listed my two key competitors in a new para about the use of DAM in marketing resource management so that visitors can make real comparisons. Surely links (without claims) in this context are valid unless and until articles are edited of all commercial links.

I'll leave this to your judgement of course but it's started raining again and those of us inhabiting UK Summer 2007 need cheering up!

Orchcorp 17:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bad there isn't a way for you to send some of that rain to San Diego. We've only had 4 inches or so this year (our average is around 9 or 10). In fairness, I re-added your content minus the links and did additional link cleanup such that no vendors have direct links. Also refer to WP:CORP for notability guidelines regarding standalone entries for companies.  Hope that seems fair; cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Very fair Jamie. Thanks. London has flooded today - unheard of in UK summer. Send us some of your sunshine and I'll see what I can do about the wet stuff! Cheers. Orchcorp 12:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So sorry, didn't realize
hi, i added a bunch of external links not realizing that you didn't allow blogs and didn't read the warning notes sent to me. so, so sorry i didn't realize it and when i finally read the notes i stopped immediately. can i link videos? thanks!

Julietn 19:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)julietn

Muhammad
Please do me the courtesy of using the talk page to respond to my points. There is a very extensive discussion on the talk page and a variety of arguments and sources presented, and your response is "it makes more sense" in an edit summary. Arrow740 05:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at the talk page. I stand by my view (that it's sufficient to cite references from both sides and link to Satanic references, but not state it as a fact). You don't seem to have established a consensus on the talk page. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Help To Stop Vandalizing of Article
Hello Jamie, I contact you because you are the only administrator I know (you left a complimentary message on my article Powered hang glider). I transferred its 'Hang glider history' section to a more apropriate page called History of flexible wing hang gliding. For some time now there has been an unregistered user (real name is Graeme Henderson, he inserted his own name as "researcher" in the main article body) who has been messing the article by:

1) deleting the role of Germany in glider & hang glider development.

2) Writes insults in the main body of the article to other editors and to all other hang glider designers but John Dickenson. (He sort of stoped insults after I did several reverts).

3) Persistently erases landmark achievements of early hang glider designers such as Barry Palmer, Richard Miller and Tony Prentice.

4) Surprisingly, he persistently erases the text and references to the actual inventor of the flexible wing (a.k.a: Rogallo wing) by Francis Rogallo while at work at NASA. The flexible wing was patented in the early 50's, and widely referred to by reputable institutions like the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, and NASA, who developed it in the early 60's in its various forms for different purposes.

I have attempted to comunicate with this person through the discussion tab, through 'invisible' comments within the edit, and through comments on the 'edit page'. His atrocious edits leave an aeronautical development time gap of about 110 years (from Otto Liliethal's hang glider to the present) and falsely claims Rogallo's flexible wing was invented by John Dikenson, when Dickenson only modified it decades later to the form we know it today on many hang gliders.

He obviously has a strong admiration and bias to designer John Dickenson, which may be fine on a biography, but not on a historical narrative which requires of context. I have tried to assume his edits are in good faith, but insulting pioneer hang glider designers (other than John Dickenson) brings no value to the article, as repeatedly erasing 120 years of gliding (aeronautical) history, and falsely atributing -without references- the invention of Rogallo's flexible wing to someone else is not acceptable nor responsible editing behavior. Please, I ask for your intervention as an administrator to put an end to his vandalism and I ask you to consider blocking his ISP address. Please let me know of the steps to take and how I may help.

He first started "editing" on July 5th. He operates under -at least- these numbers: 61.69.155.132, 61.69.153.49, 59.100.58.182, 61.69.151.203, 154.20.233.41, 59.100.57.181, 61.69.150.193, 61.69.154.52, 59.100.55.85, 61.69.145.171, 59.100.50.193, 61.69.147.166, 61.69.146.142, 61.69.149.219

Thank you, Gerry Farell BatteryIncluded 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Gerry. Before I intervene, I'll give you some steps to take that might fix the problem. If not, you'll be able to say that you made numerous attempts to handle this situation, which will make it easier to justify stronger measures. First of all, it doesn't look like it's appropriate to call the user's edits "vandalism"; looks more like a content dispute. Secondly, you're doing the right thing by suggesting/proposing changes on the talk page, whereas it doesn't appear that the 61.69.* editor is doing so. Your use of edit summaries is commendable as well.  One of the best ways to cement your positions is via the use of WP:Reliable sources, which from my quick glance at the article, it appears that you have done. It's hard to make out exactly what 61.69.* is changing from the diffs, as the changes are fairly broad, but I can do notice that a yahoo.group seems to be used for some sourcing, which would not qualify under WP:Reliable sources. Given that, you would be on solid ground to challenge assertions that do not have reliable sources backing them up.  You should also:

If these steps do not work, a request for comment can be helpful to bring in additional editors to weigh in. Given that it appears that you're doing the right things in terms of using the talk page and properly sourcing your material, chances are outside editors would support you. For additional information on these sorts of matters, see Dispute_resolution. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Be sure to avoid WP:3RR; even good-faith edits can result in a block (as you can see on my block log!). If the other user is approaching 3 reverts, warn them first, and if they exceed 3 reverts, report them.
 * 2) In your edit summaries, request that the user use the talk page to resolve disputes.

Sorry...
Hello, this is manuelhp42. I apologize about the addition of more than one link to TuDiabetes.com in diabetes-related pages. I did so ONLY in pages where I found other comparable sites being linked to, but I now realize it could have been considered as spamming. Nothing further from my intention. Thanks for correcting this situation and for the good work you guys do!

manuelhp42 08:13, 23 July 2007

Kelly Killoren Bensimon
I put up Kelly Killoren Bensimon for an AFD and just now realized it to be a copyvio that has been repeatedly posted User:Mercando after he/received their final warning. -WarthogDemon 22:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Links

 * Hello - you just deleted a link that I added in to an article I'd done some work on. i.e. 'please stop blah blah blah you'll be banned from editing'.  Hmm, and you ask people to be polite on your talkpage!  Anyway, some questions for you. I thought it was wikipedia policy to source anything that is stated.  How are things verifiable otherwise?  If someone is notorius enough to have a Wikipedia page, why can we not link to the business they are associated with?   See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Megastores.  Also, how can you source things if you don't link to external websites?  I've got no interest in promoting someone else's business and as you said, Wikipedia has a nofollow link policy, so there's no sense in adding a link in other than as a source. I'd appreciate a (polite) explanation.
 * The explanation can be found in WP:EL and WP:SPAM. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)