obviously you & this other person who also reverted my edit are in the SAME ROOM working hand-in-hand & you two probably think this is real funny. you both have a mental problem and should realize that OTHER PEOPLE besides YOU TWO have something to contribute.
obviously you & this other person who also reverted my edit are in the SAME ROOM working hand-in-hand & you two probably think this is real funny. you both have a mental problem and should realize that OTHER PEOPLE besides YOU TWO have something to contribute.
P.S. also, i don't need YOUR "holy opinion" as to what the public needs education on. that's NOT for you to decide so STOP EDITING MY EDITING.
now watch, you two will probably edit & delete THIS TOO because now i'm calling you two POWER HUNGRY and this violates a rule you two have on talking back to you.
i can't wait.... <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Concerned person|Concerned person]] ([[User talk:Concerned person|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Concerned person|contribs]]) 16:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
i can't wait.... <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Concerned person|Concerned person]] ([[User talk:Concerned person|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Concerned person|contribs]]) 16:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
Revision as of 16:16, 14 April 2007
Talk page
Welcome to Jamie's talk page!
Please add new messages to the bottom of the page. If a conversation is started here, I'll respond here; if it starts on your talk page, I'll respond there.
Emailing me
I prefer to communicate via talk pages. Please only email me if there is a good reason not to conduct a conversation on a talk page. When emailing me about a block, it's not helpful to write, "help! I've been blocked!" Please include your username (if you have one) and/or the IP address that's been affected.
Why did you remove my external links?
If you've come here because you want to know why I removed some external links you've added, please read Wikipedia's policies on spam and Wikipedia external link guidelines first. Because of Wikipedia's popularity, it has become a target for folks looking to promote their sites, which is against Wikipedia policies. If you read WP:SPAM and still feel that your link(s) does not violate those policies, let me know.
One common argument I hear is But so-and-so link is on that article, and it's commercial!WP:EL doesn't explicitly forbid In links to commercial sites; it depends on the notability of the link, its content, and if it's a reference or a notable pro/con argument on a controversial subject, etc. On the other hand, I think that many Wikipedians would agree that there are way too many commercial links at present time, so feel free to "prune away" if the link doesn't meet guidelines in WP:EL. Incidentally, if you've come here to complain that I've deleted links to your blog (especially a blog with advertising), don't bother. You'll have to find free advertising somewhere else. A good Google search will reveal plenty of places for that sort of thing.
Vandalism and insults left here will be recycled in the bit bucket. Remember: be nice!
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 Botany00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for her first return, we proudly present anti-US rhetoric posted on another user's talk page[1]: "Did you read those websites closely yet? Did it change your mind so you could see that it IS child slavery?" KP Botany00:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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, OhNoitsJamieTalk21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)! OhNoitsJamieTalk22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.Bryant05:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Montanabw19:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
The article Algeria, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.
If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page
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.
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk06:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your insights. I will read your suggested links and will seek to improve my contributions accordingly.
Sean
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. (→Netscott)18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. (→Netscott)18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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).
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).
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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!
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)[reply]
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, OhNoitsJamieTalk16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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-T14:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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, OhNoitsJamieTalk18:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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).
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 Wikipedia:Libel.
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."
Moocat16:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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!--Tdxiang09:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! OhNoitsJamieTalk17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, Daysleeper4714:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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?
This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.
Thank you, [signature]
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).[reply]
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
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.
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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.
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk04:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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?
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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, OhNoitsJamieTalk19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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, OhNoitsJamieTalk18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Ronz22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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) Dooga22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. JonixK01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk00:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. JonixK02:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you resolved delete everything, tou forgot avibase, it has also commercial banners. JonixK
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
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.
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).
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 --Herbytalk thyme06:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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).
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).[reply]
PIT BULL page
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Guinnog02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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).
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.
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)[reply]
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 [5]. Feel free to let me know if the user starts adding them again. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? -Acjelen17:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Sworthy24620:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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.
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ABOUT REVERTING MY EDITS (TWICE)
i looked at wiki rules on adding links. i never violated anything as you said by "posting links that were promoting a site or selling something."
1-fact: any site that i link to makes NO MONEY.
2-fact: it was there as a link because it provided EDUCATION for people on that subject, NOT "promoting a website". for you to KNOW i was "promoting a website" you'd have to have READ MY MIND & KNEW MY INTENT WAS TO PROMOTE THAT WEBSITE. but alas, if you HAD "read my mind & knew my intent" you would've discovered i was trying to EDUCATE PEOPLE & NOT "promote".
so, your editing was WRONG and i undid it.
and NO, i'm not going to be like some of these other people here who passively reply when this happens, "gee....i didn't mean to boo boo, i'm a newbie here." SORRY, but i'm outspoken when i see an injustice being done and i refuse to act "passively & cower away in the corner".
frankly, the net is FULL of people like you with admin capabilites who let that fact "GO TO THEIR HEADS" so they ABUSE the power they have to EDIT & CENSOR people needlessly because they too get a "RUSH" from the power they feel. i think you're attitude is SICK.
obviously you & this other person who also reverted my edit are in the SAME ROOM working hand-in-hand & you two probably think this is real funny. you both have a mental problem and should realize that OTHER PEOPLE besides YOU TWO have something to contribute.
P.S. also, i don't need YOUR "holy opinion" as to what the public needs education on. that's NOT for you to decide so STOP EDITING MY EDITING.
now watch, you two will probably edit & delete THIS TOO because now i'm calling you two POWER HUNGRY and this violates a rule you two have on talking back to you.
