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.
Contacting 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. 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 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!
PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.
Guinea Pig Links
Jamie,
Thanks for your note. I did not thinking adding a link to informational sites was a bad thing. I had run across a series of articles I thought would be useful at the site. Also I noticed the guineapigsclub.com link which is far more commercial and less informative about the GP than the ones I linked too at http://www.bestpetarticles.com/guinea-pigs/ You'll see they are unique and offer a lot of good information for those looking to care for a GP. I would think the gpclub site would be more in the lines to your stated policy than those of the site I recommended. Again thanks for the note, I'd like to see it change, but understand a site preference/resource conflict.
I don't much care for being accused of "blanking" or other vandalism, especially when non-notable content is removed from Wikipedia on an hourly basis. I had no idea that some people take so seriously content related to their little hobby, but harassing a disagreeing editor with "warnings" does not seem to be what Wikipedia is about. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pilates page, External Links section
Hi - there's been a not-quite-open-and-fair dispute going on at the Pilates page regarding the External Links section, which you may want to take a look at, since part of it took up your time, unfortunately. You probably noticed that a link to a webpage at thinkpilates.com suddenly showed up earlier today on many unrelated Wikipedia pages, prompting your attention to remove them as spam, as indeed they were. But someone (or a group), it seems, is determined to keep that particular link off the Pilates page, without discussing, and also, by resorting to malicious impersonation, probably to ensure that that link and possibly the domain is blacklisted at WP. Please see Talk:Pilates#External_Links for the discussion. BTW, the domain is not mine, I simply found it as a useful source of information. Nonlinear149 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must ask why you filed a Wikiquette alert about an editor that you were in a dispute with, and then blocked them. It would seem to me that this may constitute a breach of your responsibility as an administrator. At the very least, you should have involved an impartial administrator. Is there something I am missing here? I am especially concerned because this appears to be the second such block involving questionable circumstances on this editor. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't file any such alert. I commented on the alert. Paul repeatedly removed content from multiple pages. There were several editors objecting to the removal, and Paul failed to cite any policy for removing it. (One editor filed a mediation request, which Paul refused to particupate in). I stepped in and supported inclusion of the content. You should examine Paul's recent edits and discussion on the Wachovia Spectrum talk page before jumping to conclusions. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drat! I was just coming back over to redact this ..... you are right, I went back and was rechecking the alert, and you sure as heck did not. I was 100% wrong on that.
But now that you mention it .... what I was seeing him doing was removing unrefenced material. From my reading policy, if it is unreferenced, doesn't that make it fair game for deletion (even if there are a lot of editors claiming it should be there)? Admittadly, he was myabe being a little aggressive, but I never saw the harm in being aggressive with editing. If he was removing referenced material, then it certainly should have been brought to the Talk Page regarding how legit the source was. Am I misinterpreting this? LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the material that he's removed was referenced. If his interest was really removing unreferenced material, there was plenty more material that could've been removed. Rather, it's obvious that he's on a campaign to remove any references to pro wrestling from articles, apparently because he doesn't like wrestling. I don't care for wrestling myself, but I acknowledge that it's a notable form of entertainment. I would object to wrestling (or any other entertainment/sport) having a lot of excess cruft on any given page, but that's certainly not the case at the Spectrum article. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And in conclusion, I think that pretty much answers all of the questions that I had ..... thank you for putting up with me and my doubts. Happy editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering if you would be willing to resolve a dispute on Lotus Esprit. The argument/disagreement arose over a series of external links that a user added, I removed, he added back in, I removed them again and started a discussion on the talk page of the article. The primary people involved are myself and Greglocock on the side of removing the links and DanBasterfield for keeping them. Dan does not appear to have any COI. The discussion has gone on for quite a while and has gotten too out of hand for any of us to decide; that is why we need a third party (and an administrator) to come in and resolve this dispute. If you would be willing to help us out, we would all appreciate it because, as I said, none of us have been able to come to a consensus.
Hi. You blocked 72.241.252.97 about an hour ago for vandalism. This IP doesn't seem to have edited lately and the last few days and the most recent edits seem to be in good faith. You don't appear to be editing right now so I've gone ahead and been bold and removed the block under the assumption that it was an accidental block and that you meant to hit a different IP. If I guessed wrong, please feel free to slap me with a wet WP:TROUT and reinstate the block. Thanks. --B (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the people who created this category intended it to include celebs who had been previously incarcerated and no longer are.
But that's not what it says. The label put on the Hilton article and a lot of others is "Incarcerated Celebrity", the normal meaning of which is a celebrity currently in jail.
Since this is not true of Ms Hilton (as of a few minutes ago; I checked the news) and possibly not of anyone else in the category either, it is a false label. IMO, it should not be there as it violates the BLP policy.
I agree that the category name is a little ambiguous...it might make more sense to split it into two categories; one for folks who have spent some time in jail (which would probably cover most of those in the category, as far as I can tell) and one for current. I'll look into that. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk16:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they mean that the word "Celebrity" is sort of redundant, since any subject with an article here should already be notable. I'm not sure if everyone considers "celebrity" to be synonymous with "notable person," though. Maybe "celebrity" could be replaced with "people" or "persons" to satisfy that quibble. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK
Fine then. ALright, now it's timme to kick some admin ass!!!
Please took article in the "puppy" this very sad picture. I can not, article "Puppy" partially protected from editing. File:Puppy at musorke.jpg, this photo. Poor dvornyazhka is needed in the article. Thank you. More interesting to me - how many times thy personal page has been corrupted Vandals paint? 92.113.135.214 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting me!My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺17:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
message
i'm sorry for vandalizing your page, i was just trying to do something cute for my gf and i's anniversary. didn't mean to disturb. won't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy3985 (talk • contribs) 22:36, February 10, 2008
Well, there's novel idea. Next time I need to celebrate someone's anniversary or birthday, maybe I'll vandalize Jimbo's page. :) Enigma (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help me Help Wiki re:Smarthome page
Ohnoitsjaimie,
I am trying to update my newest hobby of home automation, and I put a page up, with content that I researched and am working on, but you took it down. I applaud your swiftness to keep the wiki clean, but on this one can you let me know what I did wrong, and I will address it. Thanks in advance for your time
Scrltspdr (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjaimie,
Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pawlenty, you pulled my edit for citing blogs. Blogs are frequently the medium of choice for independent journalists. Douglas Hester is a local independent journalist, with a history of covering the "uncomfortable" cases, including Tim Pawlenty's broken campaign promises. Where do you draw the line to decide on reliability?
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
Joel Rosenberg is an established expert in the field whose work in the field has been published by reliable third-party publications. I don't know Douglas Hester's work as well, but the existence of two independent sources should tend to confirm the reliability of both.
I've started a discussion over the inclusion of this issue on the Talk:Tim Pawlenty page.
--jdege (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sending me the info. I think it's premature to revert it back, though, pending input from other users. It's always wise to be cautious when dealing with potential WP:BLP issues. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk00:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've indef blocked obvious socks within seconds of their first edit. Other users manage to get a "bv" (blatant") and final warning within a few minutes. Hopefully, such swiftness illustrates the futility of the endeavor. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk02:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an obvious sock that was blocked 3 minutes after creation. That's probably the fastest in recent history that I can think of. In non-sock cases, I usually give at least two or three warnings (when it's blatant), unless the user starts making malicious moves or appears to be running a script (like the Squidward vandal, who at one time was able to use a script on open proxies to hit lots of pages quickly). In those cases, a quick block saves you from having to clean up a lot of crap. OhNoitsJamieTalk05:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Valentine's Day!
User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!
OK so since the copyright is not a problem please restore the article, since it doesn't meet the criteria for copyvio speedy deletion. Then I'll be able to add some extra references, although there were at least three reliable sources (plus at least one wikilink from another page) which would tend to meet the notability requirements. Fnagaton15:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Sector 13 article has the wikilink meaning someone thought it notable enough to add the link, the ReplicaNet article was created sometime after that edit to add content for the link. Then there are these extra references such as this review which comes from GameDev which is a reliable source since it has editorial control of reviews. This PDF which lists ReplicaNet as one of the products used by Universal Combat A World Apart. Then in December 2004 ReplicaNet was a "frontline award finalist" in Game Developer (magazine) (subscription need) for which I can supply a photograph if you need it. From the same company that publishes the magazine is this reference and there are many more references from the same website in their news section. Then from Bungie's news section, the creators of Marathon and Halo 1/2/3, include ReplicaNet in this news article. All of these references could be internally wikilined back to their respective pages. These combined with the other references already in the article mean it passes WP:Notability. Fnagaton16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restoring it. As you suggest on my talk page I find time to flesh out the article a bit more and add some background about the subject. Fnagaton18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. You can check out Category:Game_engines for a list of other articles that might give you some ideas (though a brief survey I did suggest that some of these articles need works as well). M.U.G.E.N. appears to be reasonably developed (though possibly too long). OhNoitsJamieTalk18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pulling at a thread often makes other threads unravel. Checking articles in the same category and finding others that need work is a lot like this. :) Fnagaton18:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how should I learn the editing language on wikipedia?
Ohnoitsjamie how do I learn this editing language. I am only familiar so far by editing pages how to make a hyperlink to another article, and to do this
(see below where i did the underline thing on my username spider341)
spider341
but i dont know any more. Do you have any ideas on how I could learn. is it ok if I copy and paste stuff from people like i did with the heart from somebody's editing page?
Yes, but the band has a profile there. I have linked to said profile. Or, more correctly, a list with it at the top, as the profile doesn't have the genre right on it. Many bands have a MySpace profile linked, and they don't operate MySpace. Zazaban (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be blocked? What have I done? This is an edit dispute, not vandalism, I have not broken the 3RR. What could I be blocked for? Zazaban (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted over a AFD for two years prior to the deletion. The article that the original AFD was about was about a non-notable court case involving the site. Frankly, I found the deletion to be absurd. Zazaban (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the band's official profile, so I fail to see how it is irrelevant. If we take it that directly, all links to MySpace on various band articles have to be deleted as well. Zazaban (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that it's MySpace page was created by it either for that matter. Also, I disagree that the site is non-notable. The article for the site was determined to be okay to re-create if it's neutral and sourced. Zazaban (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is created that survives AfD (which it would certainly be sent to), the link would be acceptable. As for now, there is no evidence that it is a notable site. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I didn't realize there were two vandals doing the same thing. I blocked one indef, and I see you've given the other a final warning (I also deleted the vandalism image). Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk19:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref Rabbit link you reverted - previous edit added a link, which was discussed on the discussion page the same as mine was. Happy for link to be removed, so long as this policy is applied consistently.
Hello Jamie. Once again I contact you for advice. I am writing a new page on my grandfather, a pioneer of the Mexican military aviation; The article is not yet life in Wiki as am in the late research phase. And I have a few images I want to load to Wiki Commons but the first one I did got tagged for deletion says I am not providing the correct licence info; I released it to public domain which I think is fair. I read a lot of links related to it and am more confused than in the begining. The image in question is Image:C-3B Stearman.jpg and I have about 5 more to come of my grandfather. Some more Images of my grandfather I obtained throught the Mexican public archives, and Mexico's Department of Public information - National Defense. After hours trying to understand the licence policies, I am at loss of what need to be done, how to edit the file, and what to do with the next images I have to share. I will appreciate any help you may be kind to share.
Thanks,
BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you reverted [2] this section.I think too its not relevant but what are your thoughts about this argument, please help us with your knowledge.[3].Thank you.--Thispoems (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Molosser
Hello, Molossia was never in Albania nor is it now.The part of Epirus that is now in
Albania is part of Chaonia which is irrelevant to that article.See appropriate article and sources to that effect.It was not a good faith effort since the sources were there that pointed this out eloquently and to the point.Megistias (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kobe Bryant
Please, Don't Vandalize The Kobe Bryant page! The "Sexual Assault" case has nothing to do with Kobe's "Basketball career". Dwilso (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Assualt has nothing to do with basketball, and besides I don't want my kids to see that Crap stuff!
Therfore, I will be taking this matter up with WIKIPEDIA Managers.. Thank you!!! Dwilso (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Burgz33 continues to Wikistalk via IP socks and the odd user account - the latest being User:D o Gizzle . I've recently reverted a bunch of edits stalking User:Yankees76) and vandalism (the latest being a senseless redirect of Couronne to a page that does not even mention the term, and subsequent posturing on Yankees76's talk page). I feel my next move will be to file an abuse report. What is your experience with this process in the past (if any). Or would you suggest moving towards an outright ban of the user? Right now there are well over 80 socks and IP's that have used by this vandal. Let me know what you think. --Quartet22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I have posted the proposed picture of a champion chihuahua on the talk page of the article. I was wanting your opinion of the picture before I go ahead replacing any existing images as it seems the issue of which image to use has been a very contetious issue. Was just hoping when you have a minute or to that you would take a look and give me your opinion. Thanks and if there's any way I can help with improving the article on chihuahuas in any way do let me know as I have many great resources available. Crazy-dancing (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WongDarlar
Hello. You just recently deleted an external link of mine, which is fine because it appears to have violated Wikipedia guidelines. I use this resource extensively, and I don't want to abuse the system. I have added another external link for a different article The Science of Getting Rich on its dicussion page, which I think is the proper protocol? Could you perhaps take a look at it, under the heading "Possible External Link," and let me know if it would be approved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WongDarlar (talk • contribs) 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
You removed important links on the Iranian Oil Bourse page... The articles are listed in google news, and I felt they were important to the events... They were not "spam articles" and if you felt, just because I added two from the same source, that they were spam... you should have just removed one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decoyjames (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a conflict of interest to add links to your own site, especially a blog, which in most cases in not considered to be a reliable source. Please don't do it again. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie... It is not a blog, It is a news site... Yes it uses a blog code... but so does many news sites. We are listed on google news... and are considered a reliable source.... What I add is extremely relevant to the article... I do not just go add my links on every page I can.... Please revert all back, except for the John McCain one... I understand that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decoyjames (talk • contribs) 03:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, I noticed that you recently reverted edits to the Youngstown, Ohio, article that established a link to the Metro Monthly Web site. I am aware that Wikipedia has a strict policy against creating links to blogs. Although I am not very familiar with the Web site in question, I can tell you that The Metro Monthly is regarded as a reputable news and feature publication. Respectfully, -- twelsht (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty to lengthen you 24 our block of user:Chlipala to 1 month because of the totally incivil communication coming from this editor, and his spamming. Guess I should let you know, and that it is fine with you. --Dirk BeetstraTC09:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You gave this user a permanent block for two edit, one to a talk page. I think people might consider that harsh, unless you have reason to think they are a returning vandal. Any comments? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring BloomTheres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
That Is What I Have Intended From the Start
Ms. Knott, I think, is acting one-sided, and making judgements based on personal, and not professional, opinions. To me, she's acting like a childish human being, and I have not called Thegingerone any names, but I have been appaulled by the libeling she has given me. Thegingerone, however, has labelled me as acting insane, and I think Ms. Knott is showing bias support towards her. Also, when a person denies you certain rights because of race, do you just let the person get away with it? Kevin j (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hello. as only 'decoration', there's really no rationale for them being there, and there's no provision for it's inclusion any of the infobox guidelines whatsoever. --emerson717:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there's no reason to exclude them either. We "decorate" userboxes with flags, so why not Nobel awards (which is arguably one of most notable awards in the world).
I'd suggest starting a discussion and getting some consensus as to whether or not their appropriate for userboxes versus widescale deletion (if you click on the image itself, you'll see it's used on a large number of bios). Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk17:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of that policy is that flags aren't to be used to indicate birth and death locations or to be used throughout the article. I don't see where it says that they can't be used to indicate nationality/citizenship. On the other hand, I can understand your concern that we could go down a slippery slope to where infoboxes are cluttered with all sorts of images. As I noted on your talk page, I started a new topic at the Infobox project discussion page. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk17:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please read the message which I put on the talk page of splash and the Hexer - both wiki.en sysop - and perhaps include (or restore) what I wrote about the origin of the easter bunny ! Christophe Neff (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as a sysop you have the power to do want you want, - but I think you abuse - I have checked all the sources and citations in the article - and really the have not very much to do with the content of the article - but the source I cited has do with it. I will not gone on - I give up ! yours Christophe Neff (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with your block of Pawatch, but both versions were horrible from a NPOV standpoint, and Pawatch at least had BLP on his side, even if he didn't realize that as a new editor. --Onorem♠Dil23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Norman is a pretty well-known and long-standing writer for the P-G (I didn't even realize it was Norman's piece until your comment here. Funny thing is that I've met Tony Norman before; very cool guy, we shared the same favorite watering hole). The impact of Wheatley's criminal record to the campaign is pretty well-known, so I don't see any BLP issues there. I'm still don't see obvious POV problems with the older version; it looked to be pretty much the same info that was in the Trib article. OhNoitsJamieTalk00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This has often been interpreted by courts to mean felonies." - Not in any way supported by the ref that I can see.
"Despite the revelations" - Wording that suggests that people should have reacted differently to the revelations.
"While Wheatley's past conviction could have yet prevented him from taking office, no challenges were filed and he ultimately obtained an expungement of his conviction in 2003, clearing his record." - Wording suggesting that a challenge would have prevented the expungement, and the source is nothing but speculation on whether or not Wheatley's case would also be affected by an unrelated decison about theft being an "infamous crime" for purposes of disqualification from holding office.
If others agree that the provided sources are adequate, I won't edit war over it. I don't agree with Pawatch's forceful method of whitewashing, and I strongly disagree with Montco calling the edits vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil00:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose the wording about the felonies is a stretch. I don't object to the "despite the revaluations" part; the news story said essentially that the past convictions issue hurt the campaign, but that he won anyway, which to my reading fits with the word "despite." The last sentence you mention is bordering on OR, and as such could be safely discarded. OhNoitsJamieTalk00:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that good sources could be found to support most of the commentary. I just don't agree that what was there was adequate, and I think that if the opening was presented from a more NPOV, the "despite" part would be more acceptable in context. (although that line was only referenced to the results) Anyway, I'm not too worried about it, and I'll defer to your better judgement and familiarity to the issue. --Onorem♠Dil00:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did a partial restore, attempting to eliminate aspects of the wording that were questionable. Let me know what you think. OhNoitsJamieTalk00:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and added a Supreme Court decision which pretty explicitly cites the Commonwealth v Shaver decision (the original decision which considered felonies to be an 'infamous crime' under the State Constitution, although it would have been nice for Onorem to discuss concerns with me. This is extremely frustrating. I am very nearly the only person who even watches these articles and I have people attacking democrats and republicans on a semi regular basis. You should see the crap I put up with on Bruce CastorJim Matthews and Tom Corbett. And I know the idiots that are behind that. Then one day I find this [5] which includes a near verbatim inclusion of the Representative's personal bio [6]. After taking a couple of hours to re-write it the best I can, I get User:Change2579 and User:Pawatch who decide that they are going to cut and paste the guys bio back into the page. After finally dispatching one of them, I now have another editor who doesn't like how I wrote it so he accuses me of my own POV and deletes the material without even a word of commentary to me. If you don't think repeatedly replacing sourced information with pure copyvio off the subject's own website does not constitute vandalism, then I would certainly like to know what is. At some point I should just give up and nominate the article for a CSD G12 which would take care of it once and for all. In any case, Jamie, thanks for the help you have given. Montco (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Political bio's are particularly tricky as far as nailing down an NPOV version that everyone is happy with, and we always have to be wary of WP:BLP. That said, Montco's recent revisions look fine to me. From what I understand (I haven't lived in Pgh for a long time, so I'm not up-to-date on current politics), the conviction did factor notably into the campaign, though his victory made it clear that he retained enough popularity in his district (or everyone really didn't like the other guy, I guess that's speculation). I'm not sure that I'd characterize Pawatch's contributions as simple vandalism (though they certainly violated policy, and merited warnings and the subsequent block). I would've warned using the {{uw-npov1}}, {{uw-npov2}}, etc. templates personally. If Pawatch (or anyone else) comes back in an attempt to completely "sanitize" the article, feel free to post a note here. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add some relevant, pertinent information about the de-listing of Greater Yellowstone and Northern Rockies wolves to the gray wolf entry, but it was deleted. The de-listing is verifiable and important to know when reading about issues surrounding gray wolves in the U.S., especially after the reintroduction of the species. In addition, external links to fact sheets were deleted for multiple animals -- this was not meant as spam, but as a way to provide people with more scientific and educational information about a particular animal or species. These fact sheets are incredibly useful for students and for educating the general public, which is a trait shared by wikipedia. Thanks for your time. Defendersofwildlife (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same link. Each link was a different URL to a separate animal page. Each animal page contains focused, scientific data about that particular animal. e.g. the bald eagle page and URL is completely different than the alligator page and URL. Defendersofwildlife (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A vandal you blocked added what sounds to me like threats of violence [7], which I reverted. Should this go to checkuser to see if he has other accounts? Edison (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "gold" article, it was littered with spelling inconsistencies in both forms of English. It has been reverted to it's incorrect form in violation of Wiki policy by a "new" user.
The original form of the article was in one form of English; and amendments added in American English.
Wikipedia policy is that articles are kept in the original form of English used (rather than separating them into two forms as is the case with Norwegian).
I'm well aware of the policies. If you go back to the earliest history of the Gold article, you'll see American spellings. Your pov on British/American spellings is well documented in your limited contributions. Cheers Mate! OhNoitsJamieTalk03:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to "Advertising"
I am not trying to advertise. The company's page is already up, and I thought links to their official site(s) would be appreciated, useful, and couldn't get more relevant than that. I don't know what the big deal is. It's actually just a school project, that's all. It looked like Wikipedia was getting more pages and info lately on companies, but maybe not. I certainly won't be looking on here if I want to know more about a certain company.
Career Genie (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
A few months ago you reverted a few of my edits. You explained your reasons and I accepted that I needed to learn as much as I can about Wikipedia policy and procedures and rules and everything Wikipedia. I have read most, if not all of it, and you sir, I believe now with all conviction, revert edits just because you can instead of actually contributing to an article. I'm sure you have written an article here and there, clean a few up through hours of work, but you tend to just land your heavy hand on the table and make everything on it fall instead of gently moving the pieces in their correct place. It's a very annoying thing that you do, but if you feel you must, then go right ahead and revert till you feel all warm inside. I am no Wikipedian but I tend to edit here and there, punctuation, spelling, grammar, but I do not dare to edit seriously anymore because some editor is just going to revert all my work and give me a lame explanation. So I will just admire Wikipedia and I don't care to be an editor anymore because it's obvious that anyone can be an editor as long as they have plenty of time to do as they will. There is no wonder why you get vandalized as much as you do, and I bet you like it. Take care and be good.
P.S. I won't be at all surprise if this gets edited out as well ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.48.167 (talk • contribs)
hi, i just wanted to agree with the comment above this one and say, i think you're ridiculous. i've added a considerable amount of content to the provo, ut page because i love provo and the page has little to no actual content, especially about provo's renowned art and music scene. but apparently, you are more than okay with listing some jackass byu "track stars", lds musicians, and some dancer no one has ever heard of as "notable residents". but you go out of your way every time to remove josc castor, someone who consistently plays shows to crowds of 300 to 1000 in and out of provo (like this summer when provo city shut down 100 north and he played to 1200). the difference between him and these "track stars" is the people that pay money to come to his shows come because they have a deep emotional connection with his music. not because they are bored college kids that go would go to any school-sponsored events. so thanks for being so "objective". if josc were homosexual like steven merrit and tegan and sara, then would he be notable? just wondering. i hope you remove this, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwonderedthenbutnowimfine (talk • contribs) 08:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
all i'm saying is be consistent. i link josc castor to an article written by a prevalent newspaper about him, not myspace. which is far more citation than the byu "track stars" have.
If you don't think the track stars are notable, feel free to remove them since their notability is unsourced. I note that the "Arts, Music, and Culture" section is entirely unsourced (other than a reference to a festival), and thus doesn't meet WP:Verifiability guidelines, and only two of the named groups appear to meet notability guidelines. That section will be truncated unless references are provided indicating notability of the named groups. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i beg to differ. in the arts, music, and culture provopodcast.com was sourced, as was hotel palindrome records up until a couple days ago when someone removed the link.
Hello Ohnoitsjamie, who was not happy that I added to the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#History_of_Monsanto about Monsanto the latest out-of-court development as of the 19th March 2008. I have now put in as well the reference, a press release in German language. I hope that a press release is an acceptable reference - if not, I would like to know what is? This development is indeed the most decisive I have read about GMO, because if a company claims property rights on a plant which carries modified genes, then the company is legally responsible to removing it, wherever it grows in the world. I am looking forward to your response.
Hey, douchebag, before you undo my edit you might want to realize that Google's "custom time" is referenced elsewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.183.108 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of all the members, I'd like to officially welcome you to the Douchebag Club. [8] You'll get your membership card in the mail, that'll make you eligible for a 10% discount at Wal-Mart. Redrocket (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to inform you that you were wrong for saying I vandalized the page. Google owns youtube. You need to get off your high horse, and admit you were wrong. I'm sorry, but you are NOT the god of wikipedia. So do not correct me when you are clearly in the wrong. ^_^
Google owns a lot of things. Google owning YouTube does not mean that YouTube is Google or vice versa. If you continue to post irrelevant material on that page, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamieTalk05:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Falconry
I stumbled upon that article because Young Man was linked from it; that page was actually about a Jack Ingram album. (I have since moved it to a dab page, since Billy Dean also had an album with that name.) When I tried to remove the link to Young Man, it told me there were some spam links, so I snipped those out (all four of 'em); and then I noticed that one section that read like one big copyvio. The falconry page is still a wreck, but I think it looks better now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity
Hello,
I am the user who recently added a section to the article on Christianity, which apparently you deleted. I am sincerely interested in the reasons for the deletion, though I can probably guess some of them. I just want to see where you're coming from so I can improve my future contributions.
Are you an admin ? If you say that there isn't problems for these categories i stop now. But i want to notice to you (see here) vandalisms of Bill Thayer: Personal attacks on my talk page, spam of its personal site (now removed), some lies, and so on. I come formatting the categories, if you say they are useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.194.103 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am an admin. No one is attacking you. I see no instances of vandalism in Bill Thayers edits. The single link he posted is hardly commercial or promotional. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got your very kind note, thanks. That said, although the overwhelming bulk of the 2900+ links to my site were not inserted by me — I really do have better things to do! — and there are plenty of pages where I haven't inserted links to information on my site because I don't think my site is good enough (although in those cases I haven't removed the links to other sites, although they're even less good!): we try to make the world better. If it so happens that I have the best information online, as I do for certain places in Umbria, a region I know very, very well: then I'd put links to my own site, yes. Recently, even, I've been forgoing even that; the latest example where I neither edited nor linked to myself for example, is the stupidity, exploded as a fraud in 1887, in Wikipedia's article Justinian about his name having originally been "Uprauda", I just didn't bother with, be just this kind of thing, revert wars, pretenses at scholarship, etc.: see Bryce's article.
That said, to avoid any further problems of any kind — returns to me far outweighed by incivility like this, my hands shook for half an hour after I saw that item — I asked my server master, James Eason, to blank all links on Wikipedia to my site. He not only acceded to my request, but included his own site on Sir Thomas Browne, for which he is an authority, and Jim Grout's Encyclopaedia Romana: it was easier to do it across the whole server: we rather agree on Wikipedia. In sum, in order to reach the link I just gave you, anyone reading it above will have to copy it and paste it; although there are still some kinks to be worked out — the Bryce link I gave you seems to go thru for now, but most of the others are blocked (see for example the link under "External links" at the end of Pliny the Elder, the Latin text).
I know fellow siteowners out there who'd sooner shoot themselves in the ear than do that, but in my case (1) Wikipedia accounts for a very small percentage of my site traffic; (2) I'm completely uninterested in site stats (at least in terms of bulk numbers, which merely represent expense and server drain), my aim being to provide good information online to those who need it; (3) and most importantly, what matters to me is the quality use of my site, (even now about 80% of my traffic is for very silly reasons or from poor use of the search engines — the people who land on me, by and large, themselves don't want what I have to offer), and, according to Google Analytics, the ratio is particularly bad with people clicking from Wikipedia. (I'm also well aware that all links on Wikipedia are "nofollow", so that anyone who tries to spam Wikipedia in order to pump up their search engine rankings is not only dishonest, but a fool!)
The solution to the garbage on Wikipedia is very, very simple, but has only been partly implemented and then, only under the duress of the Seigenthaler incident: in order to edit, just like almost every bulletin board on the planet, registration and a valid e-mail should be required. Watching my watchlist, for months now, the overwhelming bulk of "edits" I've seen has been vandalism and reversions, followed a distant second by footnotes, references, templates, categories, etc., an equal distant third to that by spellings, rephrasings — and only last, to the actual substance of articles. In sum, Straining at Gnats and Swallowing Camels: in that Justinian article for example, the paragraph in which the idiotic Uprauda appears is decorated with 12 references to 9 footnotes, some of them documenting the most obvious facts — yet Mr. Uprauda is in full unfootnoted glory!
By temperament and philosophy I'm a utilitarian; my basic idea online, whether on Wikipedia or on my own site, is to produce the best result for the most people with the least work. Needless to say, having to fight for everything, even often the most obvious things, doing them over several times, etc. is diminishing returns. It's bad enough when I goof up on my own site, as I often do, unfortunately, and have to go back and fix it! let alone the endless cosmic struggle on Wikipedia. There are many sensible and civil people on Wikipedia, and many good editors — but you guys are being swamped, and it's got worse over the last coupla years.
The "self-promotion" bit is incomprehensible to me. Obviously it doesn't enter into Wikipedia's internal category system, so I'll lv that aside. As noted, I include a link to my own site only when it's good; and I mention the source (as for example in the article Durastante Natalucci when the article would be taken by some conscientious person as being a copyvio had I not explicitly marked it. I derive neither income nor academic fame nor, alas, any other advantage from my website; unlike Wikipedia, I do not ask for money — and the last person who wrote me, unsolicited, to give me some, I turned down. So I just assume people are chasing their own demons, but there's no reason I have to be dragged into them. . . .
Again, you've been kind and sensible, and I sincerely appreciate your kindness, which undid most of the damage to my nerves (I'm not well, and react very unhappily to bullying and abuse): so I really owed you this rather full note (see what you've opened yourself up to!); but it's a farewell: I'm logging off, and will not be back, either under my user name or anonymously. I can, of course, always be reached thru the e-mail pages of my own site. Kind regards, Bill (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving, Bill. As I mentioned, you've been a great contributor. I only mentioned the thing about the links as a heads up, as I didn't have a personal objection to them. Though I delete lots of spam links, I didn't feel that your links were a problem. (For that matter, I very rarely touch .edu links unless I see mass-canvassing going on, as very few .edu domains tolerate commercial activity). It doesn't surprise me at all that others would have added links to your site, especially given that your site probably comes up frequently on Google searches given limited info on topics you cover. I do hope that you reconsider you decision to leave the project, but either way I wish you well and am sorry that your experience was soured by an anonymous individual with some bizarre vendetta against you. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'd call it trolling, but I would call it useless. A soon-to-be-blocked funny guy trying to impress his friends with fake crap in Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Random silliness. Had me chasing down fake historian names the first few times, at least. Hope they got some satisfaction from that. Kurutalk19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a history expert, but the whole thing smelled like BS to me (and there were a few obviously false statements). Changing the name of your author several times isn't exactly slick either. The last name he used (and book) were real, but that was about it. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
freedom
I guess its up to you sir,from your lofty liberal perch,to define and/or defile our Freedoms-now that your all grown up and have a little "control"...........Jay T
I guess its up to you sir,from your lofty liberal perch,to define and/or defile our Freedoms-now that your all grown up and have a little "control"...........Jay T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.120.4 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See kids, this is why IP editors should get a user ID. Without a history of your actions, no one has any idea what you're talking about. Redrocket (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confused
I am a little confused by your removal of a MEDICAL DOCUMENT from a category. I am at a loss to how you could consider what I wrote spam. I added a MEDICALLY approved document to wikipedia, validating a piece of information - and you removed it. Why would I want to SEO Blackwell-Synergy? Why would I want to spam that? Medical traction for the penis is now proven to work, and I added that information to Wikipedia. Here's an idea, I just want that information there. So why don't you do whatever it is your have to do to add that, without the links, spam, advertising or whatever it is that you think is there. Just make it known that traction works and has been proven to work. How's that sound? No hard feelings, I am sure Wikipedia gets hammered with BS - but some on... don't remove real legit information. This is a MEDICAL JOURNAL. Not spam. :)
Scientific study or not, it's pretty obvious (given your past contributions) that you're here to promote a penis enlargement company. Furthermore, the study was specifically about treating Peyronie's disease, not about increasing size in healthy men. I won't object if you re-add it to the Peyronie's disease article, but that's it. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I reverted this edit of yours. The IP editor was correct; AT&T has supplanted T-Mobile. I improved on his or her citation with this article when I did the reversion. Thanks for keeping an eye on that article, though. It certainly attracts its share of crap and cruft. --Dynaflowbabble01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's not what I'd intended to revert. I only saw the second edit, which added "In Bristol,UK there is a coffe shop named Starbooks." I intended to revert that as too trivial/inconsequential. OhNoitsJamieTalk05:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
vandal
Hi, there is a vandal whom you have warned operating on the article self injury. They are persistently changing the spelling of one word in the article against the spelling convention. The users actions constitute vandalism since they are extremely repetitive in nature and they have now included swear words into the main article text. Can you help them stop? The user is Radical18241 (talk). Sorry I didn't know how best to deal with this vandal Jdrewitt (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability
Hi OhNoitsJamie -- I've been looking at the Hogging article and I added a notability tag. I was wondering if, in your opinion, this topic is notable, or a candidate for possible deletion (again.) I read through the past discussions to delete or keep, so I know the history of this article. But I want a more experienced opinion on this.
I've read the sources cited on the article, and even though one of them is in a peer-reviewed journal (based on the original 2003 article in Cleve Scene + a few more interviews -- it was qualitative research, not quantitative), I don't believe they constitute notability. Please let me know what you think, if I am in error to cite the notability guideline, and if you think there might be a case for deletion. I believe this is one of those topics for which Wikipedia has become a primary source of information -- I was contacted by a member of the media who wanted to do a television piece on this issue, and from what I can tell, all of his information came from Wikipedia, and he was unable to find anyone to independently verify the phenomenon. Okay, I will stop bugging you now. Thanks Peggynature (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the Parkchester listing,
THE PARKCHESTER INFORMATION NETWORK [9]
has been listed on Wikipedia a very long time ago and was, as a matter of fact, the first external link to be listed.
Why was the link deleted. THE PARKCHESTER INFORMATION NETWORK is not a commercial website but rather a great resource to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.224.162 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your the explanation in your note. I did read through the External Links Guideline, and I'm not sure I agree with the premise of your link deletion. The page is not commercial in nature, nor an advertisement. It is a directory of churches in a particular city, and a helpful resource for a city page. If there is a way we can change the page that we're linking to better adhere to the guidelines, could you give us some suggestions on it? Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mychurch (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indexing sites for RapidHShare
I have added the following to RapidShare.
<<quote>>
How ever, independent sites providing content listings are available that allows anybody to obtain a specific URL based on a keyword search.
ref = http://rapidshare-search-engine.com
<</quote>>
This was to avoid readers getting the misconception that it was not possible to "search" RapidShare files, as mentioned in the wiki. Many such indexing sites exist, and allows any non-memeber to search and download files.
My view is that, on being impartial and neurtal, this fact has to be shown.
How ever each time i added this, it was reverted. Lastly i got a warning for vadalism from you. I beleve that my addition is clarification of an existing fact, along with a reference, and that it should be added to the RapidShare wiki page.
I strongly disgree with ur interpretation of this addition as "vandalism"
I clearly support your statement regarding the suckitude of American Idol. It's the epitome of the realitrash TV, and the idea of it being (or having been) rated number one is both scary and sad. Cheers! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, forgot about that! The sentiment remains the same, though I did hear a rumor that it was nearing the end of it's run (yay!) Let's hope that whatever replaces it isn't worse. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted Nashville homeless power project as CSD-A7. The article's creator wrote (to the person who tagged the article): "It wasn't complete, but it did have plenty of references." Could you please take another look at the article and consider whether the references might be enough to establish notability? If you restore the article to my userspace, I could try to improve it. --Eastmain (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(No particular interest in the subject, but I sense slim notability after a search for references) Please consider the following as possible references for different aspects of the article (unfortunately, I never saw the article itself, so I am working blind) - none of these is a blog or forum: [10] (obviously, its own website), [11], [12], [13], [14] (local government), [15], [16], [17]. I will understand if you do not agree with these, however, I seem to detect a slight element of notability which should really give the article a chance to be developed, if restored. Thanks. Ref(chew)(do)21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you for being reasonable. I have moved it to the more correct capitalized title; otherwise, I will now leave it to interested parties to develop it, thus ensuring it doesn't get wiped in the future. Thanks again. Ref(chew)(do)21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete my additions to the definition of cattle
I added a sentence to the definition of cattle to say that cattle are sentient animals with awareness and the capacity to feel and to suffer, and I included a reference. This is an important aspect to mention since it is commonly overlooked and not mentioned anywhere under the entry for cattle. I would like to point out that on the wikipedia page about dogs there are several paragraphs on dogs' personalities and intelligence. I've included a few examples below. Why do you allow those statements but no comments that cattle even have the most basic capacity to feel pain? It looks like you are biased and not remaining neutral.
"Dogs are very social animals, but their personality and behavior vary with breed as well as how they are treated by their owners and others who come in contact with them. It is not uncommon for dogs to attack humans and other animals; however, this is usually because of lack of care or improper upbringing by its owner."
Evaluation of a dog's intelligence
"The meaning of "intelligence" in general, not only in reference to dogs, is hard to define. Some tests measure problem-solving abilities and others test the ability to learn in comparison to others of the same age. Defining it for dogs is just as difficult. It is likely that dogs do not have the ability to premeditate an action to solve a problem.
For example, the ability to learn quickly could be a sign of intelligence. Conversely it could be interpreted as a sign of a desire to please. In contrast, some dogs who do not learn very quickly may have other talents. An example is breeds that are not particularly interested in pleasing their owners, such as Siberian Huskies. Huskies are often fascinated with the myriad of possibilities for escaping from yards, catching small animals, and often figuring out on their own numerous inventive ways of doing both.
Assistance dogs are also required to be obedient at all times. This means they must learn a tremendous number of commands, understand how to act in a large variety of situations, and recognize threats to their human companion, some of which they might never before have encountered." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry845 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing more than soapboxing to mention that cows are sentient in the lead. All animals are sentient and feel pain. If your interested in the ethics of eating meat, there's already an article for that. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Tell Your Friends
What's the problem? I was still in the process of writing the page! I'm getting really aggravated because people ask me about the site all the time and I wanted to put it out there so people can get information about why it was created and all. WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawbreaker77 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added valuable information, and you just deleted it. It was in no way vandalism, it was info on one of my teachers. It was not biased or anything. I know you have so much power on Wikipedia, but don't be a jerk and do whatever you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelectricity (talk • contribs)
I hope I'm doing the right thing here... I thank you for your feedback, yet I'm noting at least according to myself that the band entry falls correctly into several notability conditions plus that I'm an independent person from the band yet as I happen to know the same band I was granted permission to generate this page yet I don't see how this could constitute a conflict of interest. When I created the page I only followed on what was done in other local bands pages (maltese bands stub) some of which were much less notable then the band in question. I'm really striving in following all the neccsary criteria yet I cannot see where my entry is failing. yes i really do need help apparently & I don't think I'm asking for much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yendor79 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that GuptaWang is self-promoting as soon as his block expired. He has placed a link to his book "The Quest for Global Dominance" in the globalization article, among other things. That I'll revert but his other edits and whether he should be blocked again I'll leave to you, since I'm pretty new around here.Academic38 (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you deleted my page about Third Time's the Charm because it lacked notability. First of all, I wasn't finished, second of all, I know I'm new to this, but who are you to decide which bands are notable? I know that 3xC is a punk band and therefore isn't nearly as artistic or groundbreaking as most of your godlike indie bands, but you could have let me finish the article.Gfschind (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad to hear about your love for Hannah Lanoue but could you keep it out of the articles. I suspect that you and Doctormanhattan were both trying to remove the crap added by Meganloveshannah and the Dr. beat you. Gave me a good laugh when I saw what you had done. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeatherHave a gorilla02:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bananas - external links removed
Hi, on 18 January 2008 you removed this external link "Banana and Plantain Section of Biodiversity International" from Banana[18] and apparently in connection with this removal left these warnings and threat[19] on User talk:Kamayav. To me this external link appears to fit within the guidelines for external links easily. I am concerned that a new user was threatened with blocking for doing something which appears totally OK. Please explain what you find objectionable about the linked site. SmithBlue (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are a hard-working admin. And don't want to add unnecessarily to your burden. But the new user is a ag scientist from a tropical country and I'd like a lot more editors like this on WP. SmithBlue (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you examine the editors brief history, you'll see that they started out by canvassing numerous articles with links to the same site, a violation of WP:EL and probably WP:COI. I have no objections to the editor applying their knowledge and adding content to articles, but it's not appropriate to canvas links (especially if the editor is affiliated with the site). OhNoitsJamieTalk15:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a new editor, with a view point that helps WP become more globally relevant, being typified as a canvasser violating WP:EL, and as probably violating WP:COI too. And then being threatened with being blocked.
And the material that was added? - notable, relevant, on-target for the articles.
Global Approaches to Cocoa Germplasm Utilization and Conservation by Eskes, A.B. and Efron,Y. (editors), 2006. CFC, ICCO, IPGRI. ISBN-13: 978-92-9043-734-5
Cacao, by Frison, A., Diekman, M. and Nowell, D. 2000. FAO / IPGRI Technical Guidelines for the Safe Movement of Germplasm No. 20 ISBN-13: 978-92-9043-399-6
etc, etc.
Can you understand my concerns? If so please address them. If not then we will need to work towards a consensus and understanding of WP policies. It may be best that time be spent with us discussing how you arrived at your view of this new user and whether following that process again would be in WPs best interest. SmithBlue (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained my position. The editor was warned for canvassing links to a site he/she is probably affiliated with. If you think one of more of the links is useful in the article, you're welcome to re-add them. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picture
I was asked to post an image of my penis, because if you check talk a few people agreed the existing photo is unaesthetically pleasing. JoshS18 (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalsim
Sorry, you might have entered the wrong address or something, but i never edited that page. If someone used my computer to do so I apologize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.121.131 (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not enter the wrong IP address. You're probably on a shared IP. If you're concerned about future warnings due to vandalism from other folks on your IP, create an account for yourself. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. The discussion page and article page look the same. Is this complete (aside from notifying others)? I'm having a difficult time following the steps for some reason. DeeKenn (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mumbo Token
I do not understand why the Mumbo Token article was deleted under the "patent nonsense" criterion. It clearly is not patent nonsense, as it has helped many people find all the Mumbo Tokens in Banjo-Kazooie. Articles should only be labelled as "patent nonsense" if they are NONSENSE.
However, I do agree that it wasn't in a suitable format for Wikipedia - but that can be improved via copy-editing, which I was leaving to other people to do.
Thirdly, the copyright of the article is owned by ME. I wrote the original document, and have all previous versions on my computer. If proof is required, I'm sure it can be provided, but if you email the address on the document (no matter where it is found online), you will reach me.
I hope this can be resolved quickly, because quite frankly, the article being deleted because it is "patent nonsense" is insulting. Avengah (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of that, but one of the points on the AFD page says that an article should be improved rather than deleted, if at all possible - which is what I meant when I said people could copy-edit it. It's not original research, because things learnt by playing a video game don't have to be cited as per Wikipedia policy, and the article is on GameFAQs, IGN, Supercheats and several other places. Finally, we had a discussion on Rare Witch Project whether this should be on Wikipedia or not, and people voted YES by a margin of 5 to 2. Avengah (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OhnoitsJamie, wow you definitely act fast ;-) Anyways, you recently removed a link I added to the social network page as spam. If you really feel it is spam I completely understand, and I wont argue the point. The link was for collaborationboard.com and yes, I will admit it is a bit of a plug for my project. However, I do think it would be useful for people interested in different types of social networks and the ambitions of my project don't resemble any other social networks I have seen yet.
If your interested, please at least take a look at the site. I have no intentions, at least not at any time in the near future, to turn any kind of profit from the project. However, if you still feel that adding the link to wikipedia would be considered spamming I respect your decision and that was not my intention.
There is also the conflict-of-interest issue. If your project becomes popular and achieves more notability, I imagine someone else will create an article for it. Regardless of whether the project is for-profit or not, you can imagine who saturated the page would become with links if everyone could add links to their own projects. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk04:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problem. I hope you understand I wasn't intentionally trying to spam wikipedia, but I am curious how on earth did you catch my edit so fast? I have always heard it is a major issue that anyone can wreak havoc on wikipedia entries - but you caught my edit literally less than two minutes after I made it. Just curious. Well at any rate I guess I will see if I can contribute to various articles on social networking. I noticed the article for business networking isnt currently linked to any other entry - maybe I'll have to fix that ;) Do you know how I can best introduce myself to writing and editing articles on wikipedia. On the left navigation pane I dont see anything that might resemble a user guide for new wikipedia editors/authors. Thanks. Justin534 (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being cool about it. I added a welcome template to your talk page that has lot of handy links; hopefully that'll help. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk07:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice, I am really a new user. To me, however, the page as it is is a disguised attack page. There must be a huge amount of neutral info on what this guy's past, what he has done, what he has said on TV, etc, besides these comments to critique his hair or desire for money, otherwise he would not be in my living room every night. That is why I put the attack tag in there as it says on wiki attack page advice. The says little about him in a biographic way and I think should be a stub until someone can write it properly (not me). Your advice please.Dberger (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per our WP:BLP policy, I removed two unsourced statements. The rest seemed reasonably objective or sourced (though you or others may disagree). If you have further concerns, try posting them on the talk page of the article or adding other improvement tags. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk05:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping out - appreciated. However can you please make sure you log any additions as is says on the page along with some rationale. Finding anything about it in a months time will be hard & in six months will be effectively impossible. Many thanks --Herbytalk thyme07:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, "Seraj" is one of the few famous traditional Persian singers. He has millions of fans. But you simply delete the entry! Why do you do this!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marashie (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello i'm a new user posting in wikipedia so it's kinda hard for me to make a new article. Still you deleted my debut article (a biography on Antonio Güell Ortega) twice. I'd like to ask you for advice to improve my article in order to make it good enough for wikipedia, please. By the way i'm sorry bout the previous postings that didn't go to the bottom of the page, it's just that i wasnt sure of how to post there. Im so sorry if I caused you any trouble.
Just read your answer on my talk page and I wanted to say thanks. So basicly what i have to do is to demontrate the importance of the projects this guy made and find some web evidence about him working in those projects right?
I think it fits in that paragraph as it shows that humans find dogs amusing and loving. But the main purpose of my adding it is that it will add more interest in reading the article in the minds of the dog lovers (or the person who is reading the article). If an article has something interesting which is related to it then its good. Its not necessary to add only serious information to an article. After all humor is also important if its encyclopedia or a blog etc. Everything is information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryroger (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OhNoItsJamie, I am a completely new user (run the Check user tool), and decided to make my first contribution to Wikipedia in an article on the Qingdao International Beer Festival because I had so much difficulty finding information elsewhere and wanted to gather my findings for others to look at if they were interested in information on this event. The link you referenced in your message provided the only English website with information on the event, so I tried to cite the information. All other information came from Chinese language (which I am a student in) websites. I am new to Wikipedia, and I hope my contribution is considered helpful. I may have tried to add an undesirable link (of which I have absolutely no affiliation to), but I'm not feeling the love of the Wikipedia community on my first attempt to help out. Thanks for your time. -Jeff007s
Hi Jeff. I appreciate your kindness. I wish you well in your endeavers to explore China, a country that I would certainly like to visit someday. That said, you've apparently had no trouble gleaning information relative to your trip without the aid of Wikipedia. I'm sure you can enjoy your trip regardless of whether thatsqingdao.com and related sites are permantly blacklisted from all wiki sites. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk03:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I saw your !vote agreeing with my stance on Bimini Bay. However, I now realise my position was flawed, and have changed my !vote accordingly. As it could look like you are agreeing with my new vote, I thought I had best let you know and give you the opportunity to modify your stance. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hershey sign.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hershey sign.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hershey statue.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hershey statue.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kobe Bryant Sexual Assault Case / Name Redaction
Hi, I've been a wiki lurker for quite some time before I began editing. One thing I've noticed is that often, names are redacted to protect the privacy of little-known people. One example is the star wars kid page (please forgive my lack of wiki-fu). After seeing the use of name redaction on that page, I decided to apply that to the above-mentioned page. However, you reverted my work explaining that redaction was not appropriate.
I am confused about how BPL applies in what I thought were two similar situations, and to be a better editor, I would like you to explain how name redaction is appropriate in the star wars kid page but not in this page. Thank you! BigScaryGary (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that it'd been redacted from the Star Wars Kid page. I agree with the other posters that her name has become an integral part of the case, and is verifiable via online sources. OhNoitsJamieTalk06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So then what you're saying is that in neither case, it would be appropriate? If so, it makes a lot more sense. Thanks for your help! p.s. what would be an example of appropriate name redacting, if any?BigScaryGary (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any appropriate cases for "redacting." On the other hand, if Farber's name were only known via blogs or hearsay, it would be omitted on the basis of lacking a reliable source. I'm not sure why the Star Wars kid's name was redacted; could have been the result of an WP:RfC on the matter. Having just looked at the talk page for The Star Wars Kid, I see that someone mentions the following from BLP: Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. It is argue that policy could apply to Bryant's accuser. However it looks dumb to replace her name with [REDACTED]. Replacing her name with "accuser" or something similar is more elegant. OhNoitsJamieTalk06:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think it makes sense, however, I won't edit the page for a while to not appear to be in bad faith. If this could be put on the talk page for the article, it might spur multiple editors to discuss whether removing the name is appropriate. Most importantly, I appreciate your assistance.BigScaryGary (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
priory-of-sion.com website
Hello, in what way does the website priory-of-sion.com fall short of reliable source??? It contains material used by authors and documentaries and was used on WP for years. It only got blacklisted through politicial reasons, not content. Thanks, Wfgh66 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disturb you again with this but i havent found much evidence on web about Antonio Güell (i'm writting a biography about him). All i've found is a page that gives information about a conference the guy will give about his participation at his most important project and it's in spanish. Thats not accepted as enough evidence right? i'll leave the page to you so you can send it to someone that speaks spanish and tell me ok? http://www.universia.edu.ve/home/prog/display_noticia.php?cod=195&img=si
also i've found blog pages where he's named but thats not good enough either right?
No, blogs usually are not considered to be reliable sources. There are plenty of engineers (from all fields) who speak at conferences; most of them are not notable. To pass our notability criteria, you should be able to find non-trivial references to him in major media publications. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lexus Override controversy
Jamie-
I looked and cannot find a definite reason why the link to LexusOverride.com was removed. If it was the Lexus postcard, perhaps a direct link to the Lexus Owners' comments might be acceptable? The purpose of the site is to educate car shoppers about the limitations in the Lexus Nav system before they buy their car, so that they do not share the frustrating experience of the owners who leave comments on the site.
I'm not sure why you deleted my external links -- I think having information about a person's official bio is significant and useful. Someone could click on the links I have added if they are looking for information about how to contact someone for a lecture at their school or organization. Please stop deleting. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcochs (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disagree, but Mcochs arguably improved the article on Hanne Blank, fixing a non-working bio link that was already there (apparently the old link moved) with the currently working link. I'll leave it to you whether you want to unrevert your revert of that edit because it's not my purpose to get into a revert war with anyone, but it might serve Wikipedia's purpose best to unrevert at least that edit. --216.152.101.66 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}