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.
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. I usually do not respond to emails unless there's a valid reason why the question could not have been posted on a talk page.
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, Wikipedia external link guidelines and conflict-of-interest 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!
Talk archives
PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.
Did you mean to add this to the blacklist, rather than the whitelist? Stifle (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not positive that I did it right (I haven't used the whitelist that much), but my intention was to keep the subject and his minions from spamming other articles with links to his site and blog, but allow the article on the subject to retain the links. I also added both links to the blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, seems to be in order. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the User talk:65.240.149.74 keeps trying to put phrases that violate NPOV on the Taiwan article, and keep reverting to his version. As you have already left messages on his talk, maybe you can keep an eye on this? Thanks. T-1000 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, User talk:74.243.221.59 seems to be one of his alternate accounts. You might want to keep an eye on it as well. T-1000 (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7teven (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is something about you on ANI....[[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads up. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great movie! (as per your user page) Tdinatale (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am wondering if you would be so kind as to block 85.139.225.163. He/she keeps blanking an image added/kept based upon consensus. He/she also saw fit to engage in a personal attack on my talk page. Your help would be great. Thank you. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for wrangling the IP. BTW, we have another one - 94.173.0.101 - doing the same thing. In fact, the rationale is the same, so might be same. Just a heads up and thanks again. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note of thanks for your help. :) Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. They've been given a final warning and will be blocked if they do it again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was browsing Wikipedia and received a link telling me that my test had been reverted or something. Thing is, there's nothing telling me exactly what happened, and I don't recall doing any tests. I sometimes correct typos and ask questions on the discussion pages, but I'm not sure exactly what I did that needed reversion. Either there's some obscure editing rule that I broke (that I'd like to know to avoid the issue in the future), or something happened that mixed up my IP with someone else's. Below is the message transcript, which directed me to your talk page.
User talk:71.178.152.14
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between revisions)
Ohnoitsjamie (talk | contribs)
(test 1)
Current revision as of 16:50, 19 June 2007
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
So could you clear this up for me? Thanks. TVTMaster (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Several years ago, someone made a silly edit from your IP, that's all. IP addresses are sometimes shared or transferred. Nothing for you to worry about, as long as you log into your named account (TVTMaster), you won't be blamed for the misdeeds of others that might use that IP. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i feel like something should be done administratively at this point. this person has made enough attempts to promote/spam, with edit warring included. on another note, when there is a lot of spam for something, there is often the lack of notability. i am not sure if this is the case here, exactly. do you think any of the articles involved in Tao Lin could be afd'd? e.g. Eeeee_Eee_Eeee Theserialcomma (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a strong argument could be made that his books don't need separate articles; they could easily be covered in the Tao Lin article and aren't particular notable by themselves. As for the promotional campaign, I'll just keep blocking them as I see them. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- they are back, evading the block.[[2]] also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive-Behavioral_Therapy_%28book%29 was supposed to be merged a year ago, but it never happened. i am not sure how to do it. is that an administrative function? can we be bold and just merge all the obvious candidates from this point forward? Theserialcomma (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have asked me not to leave external links to dictionary definitions, even though Wiki has 1000's. I am well aware of all Wiki policies. A dictionary definition obviously adds to'enhances any article, especially for non-native speakers of English that may have an idea of what the subject is about but would undoubtably appreciate a link to the definition. Obviously there would be no point in linking to a untrustworthy definition agregator, so the best thing is a completely free dictionary of note. It is just the two particular subjects you mentioned that you have the problem with? Shane rae (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The links are unnecessary. They don't add anything to the articles in question. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jamie. I think I have clarity here. You are saying to stay away from Google and MTV with dictionary definitions. Message received. Shane rae (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't finished editing the Attack Attack! page, yet you removed my edit 10 seconds after I posted it. The information entered was accurate. 205.133.193.182 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Add it again (or anything else about "crabcore") and you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The lead singer says that he is pioneering the genre...
It is completely relavent and 100% in accordance with wikipedia's policies.
Give a legitament reason to remove the content, or I will contest your removal of the information as biased on your part. 205.133.193.182 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He didn't say he was pioneering a genre. It's clear that they are simply embracing the joke. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "clear" that it's a joke as you say. It is a distinctive style that the band has adopted from an original joke. The singer even says they are making shirts. How more clear can you get? Here is another interview for your reading pleasure, where all of the band was interviewed: http://www.drivenfaroff.com/2009/07/09/attack-attack-interview/ 205.133.193.182 (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That interview makes it even more clear that it's a joke. It's not a musical genre. It's simply a mockery of their stage antics which they've chosen to embrace rather than get defensive about. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're interpreting it to fit your opinion. If you walked up to this band and asked if they were crabcore, they would undoubtedly say they are, and that is all that matters. The public decides what genre a band fits into in the end, but in this case both the public and the band support their label as crabcore. If you really wanted to do constructive editing you would tell whoever is putting they are a Christian band in the genre section to stop, because they clearly are not Christian. 205.133.193.182 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Christian" revert was a mistake on my part. I read the diff wrong (I thought I was removing the label). As far as "crabcore" goes, there is no such genre as crabcore. It's a joke. The page is on my watchlist because I watched the funny mock videos of it like everyone else. Popular Internet memes invariably result in people trying to add crap about the meme/joke to Wikipedia. If you or others continue to do this on the article, you'll be blocked. Period. Nothing further to say. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, maybe in a year or two things will change. Thanks anyways. 205.133.193.182 (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, I am resurrecting this deleted page Wizfolio. Previously you suggested that the page be deleted. I have updated the page to provide a neutral point of view with additional references from external sources and would like to invite your second opinion. Thank you Kendric Apple (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re this prod, I pretty much agree the article doesn't belong but alas, there is precedent for it to remain. For example List of Catholic authors, List of Protestant authors, List of Jewish authors, List of Jewish actors, List of Muslim Actors, List of Buddhist writers, List of Christian mystics, List of Jains ...the list of lists goes on... Frank | talk 00:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point....so I'd probably have to nominate all of them for afd. Well, you could argue a difference between authors and actors, in that faith is more likely to impact a writer's craft than an actor's craft. I'll have to mull that one over. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh goodness, there are too many of them to nominate. Frank | talk 01:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job removing the trivia from Chula Vista, California. These smallish city articles frequently have (well meaning) amateurs adding trivia. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my links. I'm not spamming/promoting only providing links to articles/interviews in which the selected people are featured. Please stop deleting them they are very relevant and helpful.
Thanks
Defrain77 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are spamming. See also our policy on WP:COI. If new accounts continue to canvas this link, I'm afraid I'll have to blacklist the link. I don't think your producers would appreciate that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view but how else would some body legitimately find out about interviews conducted. I'm just trying to provide information. and we are a non profit anyways we really don't have any interest except for providing information to the public.
Defrain77 (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't allow link canvassing, regardless of the content. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if i were to have someone not associated with the show who has no vested interest in the show post the links would that be allowed.
Defrain77 (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and they were not a single purpose account who's primary purpose was to canvass the links. I.e., such links are fine if they are added by established editors for a source. It's not OK to mass-canvass links as part of a promotional campaign. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How could i get in contact with an established editor to do this for me.
Defrain77 (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to get it; that's not how it works. I mean established editors adding one more link in the course of regular editing, not going on some kind of campaign to add as many links as possible. We don't allow link canvassing, period. I don't know how many others ways there are to explain that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you have to explain this i don't have quite the knowledge you do. sorry for taking up your time. if you do ever have some time maybe you should look into adding some of these links because they are quite informative.
Hello Ohnoitsjamie, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to List of Catholic Actors/Actresses has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(Deprodded: Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to take part in the article's current AfD. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]
As an admin on another wiki I'll say that there was no grounds for speedy deletion of that article it had one third party source from a publication. And an award from a site listed. That made it ineligible for the grounds upon which it was deleted. And from my understanding it could only have been deleted from a normal deletion process. Yes I know where I come from and I warned them of this. But I looked up the reasons specified in the deletion log and they are not even valid in that case. I long have viewed speed deleting without really looking at the page as bad.Matt (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see any notable third-party sites, including the site giving the award. Take it to deletion review if you'd like. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - just a suggestion, (and without trying to second guess you). If it does come to blocking girlofsummer, can I suggest a fairly short block? I get the feeling she genuinely doesn't understand how things work, and a temporary block might actually make her start looking at the messages she's getting. The material she's putting in, although unsourced and POVish, is hardly inflammatory, which makes me think she simply doesn't know how things work here. Her other edits are similar - no ill intent seems to be there.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Twenty-four hours would seem appropriate to me. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to spend a goodly amount of time keeping various Halloween articles free of, erm, spurious content. Ever think about WP:BOO?--otherlleft 04:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look into it! OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, I was wondering what the difference is between using "bv" and "uw-vandalism#"? When certain reverting and reporting tools such as Huggle see a "bv", how do they treat it in the subsequent warnings? A "bv" template seems to be more strongly worded and better suited for blaitant vandalism, and I think I may start using it myself. Just curious if it would be beneficial or detrimental to those that warned the same user with a tool/add-on. Thanks Gpia7r (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Off the top of my head, I'm not sure about how Huggle and bots handle it; I'd have to look into it. It's not listed in warning templates page, so it may not be understood by bots or Huggle. (I believe uw-vand4im could be used in a similar fashion, and that one is listed on the aforementioned guide). Though the wording of the template has changed over time, it's usually pretty similar to uw-vand3. I use it to nip obvious vandals in the bud faster....no need to go through 4 warning levels when someone is clearly "on a roll." I also use it for sneaky vandalism (misleading edit summaries and whatnot). OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it seems that you have added an AfD for the aforementioned article; I do agree that it is a PoV fork; but where is the poll? I can't find any in AfD for Sept 30 or 29. Did you miss something in the AfD procedure?
Thanks, Greenleaf (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't use AFD; I simply added a WP:PROD tag. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had just indef blocked as vandal only, and they had already got an V4 so I removed your additional notice
Thanks --BozMo talk 13:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the User:74.243.218.94 is trying again to insert stuff that violates NPOV into the Taiwan article. It is the exact the same thing as before, probably one person using different IPs. If you could take care of this it would be great. T-1000 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vitamin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Suggest me one valid reason why areapal should not be listed as article in wikipedia.Many other social networking sites are having an article and areapal is a platform for knowledge sharing among people from various universities across India.
Vatsan34 (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Vatsan34[reply]
- Sure. WP:WEB. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am just looking for some more information as to why the article, steve chappell, has been deleted. I feel like the issues raised with the article had been addressed in large part. 1. This is a different steve chappell than previous deleted articles. 2. He is notable in his field, maybe in the top 3, highly respected, and 3. the copywrighted material was cited purely as a link to a book he had written, Also it was removed upon concern being raised. An elaboration of your reasoning would be nice. What can be done to reverse this decision?
Mortyten (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
