User talk:JamieS93

User	Talk	Contributions	DYKs	Awards	Userboxes	To-do

Bulbasaur You forgot to move the talk page. Thanks! Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Sure, done. JamieS93 13:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Err. The talk page you deleted had a section on some sources found. Is there any way you can move that page to where Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur was so the section can be retrieved? Or is it hopeless now? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to undelete those edits. Now that the edits are restored, there's a full record in the rev history (and the "possible refs" section has been restored to the bottom of the talk page). Looks like everything is in place, since you re-added the {{ArticleHistory}} template. Lemme know if you all need anything else. Cheers, JamieS93 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Also, if you will, can you delete the two revisions I made to Meowth on 1 September 2009 and then the (redirect) revision on WP:POKE/Meowth. After that it can be history merged.(silly conflicting histories...) Thanks for your help! Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Reverted the "redirect" edit and merged the page histories. I can't individually delete revisions without deleting the whole page and restoring specific edits, so I'm just leaving alone the two edits on 1 September. JamieS93 16:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Oh, I was under the impression it couldn't be history merged because those edits were conflicting. Thanks a bunch!Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC) No problem! JamieS93 16:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I'm confused by all of this activity. What part of WP:MAD prohibits having the history of the source article associated with a page in project space? It was my understanding that the revisions from both pages were pertinent to the history/developement of the article. Thus it's best (or possibly required per GFDL, depending on the case) to merge the page history. JamieS93 16:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Nope. Bulbasaur was moved to project space, and the redirect to project space retargeted to the list. There was a little bit of edit warring, and Black Kite took care of the history at that time. The only thing this activity has done is make it easier for the group that refuses to respect consensus on the article to restore it to article space.—Kww(talk) 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Bulbasaur is currently a redirect to the list. If edit warring begins again, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. JamieS93 18:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC) "If?" Took all of five weeks, Anonymous IP restores using false edit summary, Leftorium put back to redirect, followed by Colonel Warden beginning again with his habit of using false edit summaries to disguise edit warring over redirected articles. Putting this thing back in project space did nothing but invite this, and, as I pointed out earlier, was in no sense required by WP:MAD.—Kww(talk) 00:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Kww seems to misrepresent the case. The nature of the dispute seems well-known to those who watch this page. I observed some activity there and chipped in by adding some fresh sourced content to the article in question. My edit summary highlighted the important part of my edit - the addition of the new content and source, while the other aspects which were obvious and familiar were summarised with &c., as is my common practise. As we see that Kww reacted within 8 minutes, it seems clear that he was not deceived in any way and so his personal attack seems to be a wikilawyering tactic contrary to WP:CIVIL. As for the substantive issue, this is a former featured article and there is clearly no consensus for it to be suppressed as numerous editors wish to work upon it, as we see in this incident. We have other free-standing articles about major Pokemon of this sort and there seems to be no clear or good reason for this one to be picked on in the way that it is. My guess is that it is a target because because it was a featured article but this is just speculation and I would be interested to hear Kww's own account of why this article vexes him so. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Okay. Could you link to the most recent discussions where the redirect was supported/opposed? I want to see if there's any new consensus here. If there's not, I'd recommend that you start a talk page thread and discuss the merits of inclusion vs. redirect. In the meanwhile, my protection stands until there's better agreement (either way) on the issue. Regards, JamieS93❤ 13:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC) User rights Hey JamieS93. Could you remove me from the autoreviewer and rollbacker groups, please? I don't create new articles and I don't vandalism patrolling. Thanks! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Done. Jamie doesn't need all those extra log actions. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 03:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Tsk tsk Jamie. How could you! :-p Killiondude (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC) K, fair enough. :-) And Julian, I need all the log actions I can get. JamieS93 18:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Please restore You have deleted Talk:Dag Frøland (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) giving the reason "‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)". I don't know why you conceded to this request without checking whether the user who requested the delete was the only contributor on the page. Please restore the page minus any possibly damaging contributions. __meco (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC) The user who requested deletion (a bot) was indeed the only contributor to the page, and there would be no point in restoring it. I have created a new page instead. decltype (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC) That is very strange. I'm (almost) sure there was a page with the banners earlier. Oh well :-) __meco (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Deletion of Template:Latest stable software release/mzirc Please restore {{Latest stable software release/mzirc}} and its talk page. It did not meet the speedy deletion criteria and is still in use. Thanks. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Restored. :-) My fault for not checking to see that it was linked at Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. JamieS93 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC) No worries, thanks. I could not remove the speedy deletion template myself because I created the template itself, [1] so a bot would have reverted me had I tried. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Switchfoot It's good to see somebody watching these talk pages... sadly generally nobody responds even with prompting :) You can read my concerns at Talk:Switchfoot/GA1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC) If you make significant strides I'll keep it open as long as needed (well, not forever, but...) The one-week limit is just to push through the stuff that depends on someone actually showing up or not (I've been getting snippy responses to the effect of "fail it then, you bastard", so I can't wait 'till this is all done :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Jamie, let me know if you can't get it done and I'll help/do it. But not this weekend... Royalbroil 21:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC) K, thanks! JamieS93 21:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC) David Baynton-Power Hello. I saw you edited David Baynton-Power. To satisfy my curiosity, did you you find it from User talk:WereSpielChequers or from somewhere else? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Yep, I saw it from there. Which prompted me to visit CAT:BLP, so thereafter I noticed it was in the Dec 2006 category. JamieS93 22:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Ok. I have noticed that when I have something restored, somebody else often adds sources before I get to add mine. Perhaps I should ask to have them restored to my user space, to avoid duplicating effort. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I didn't want to step on toes/edit conflict. The article just caught my attention as a musician (I work with music articles a lot), so I thought I'd hit up Allmusic and pop in a source. :-) JamieS93 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC) No problem in this case. I hadn't found the Allmusic source. I am happy to move on and leave this in your hands. I also found this source [2], but it is probably not reliable enough. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Semi-protect Thanks for the user-page armor. :) The vandal(s) in the last 24 hours created accounts, then went after my talk page, then haven't done anything since. I'm keeping lists of them, along with the original info, in case this flares up again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC) No problem. :-) I just indef'd the two as VOAs, btw. JamieS93 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC) The Admin's Barnstar For showing confidence in an editor and for digging deeper in an effort to resolve a problem, please allow me to grant you this token of my appreciation. McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Why, thank you...I didn't do anything special! ;-) I appreciate it, though. :) JamieS93 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Hello, JamieS93. You have new messages at MuffledThud's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. JamieS93 I am a resident in Assemblymember Espaillat's District. i am right now at his district office telling him of whats happening. I would like to update Assemblymember Adriano Espaillat's biography with truthful information. I respect the freedom of speech, but the information the person posted are 100% Inherently untruthful. Please check the Assemeblymember's website, http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=072 He is one of the most respected legislators in the nation. If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact me. Denny Pichardo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denny Pichardo (talk • contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Adriano Espaillat Dear JamieS93, The article Adriano Espaillat has been VANDALIZED and PAGE BLANKED several times over the past 24 hours. The version which you restored was PAGE BLANKED within a matter of minutes. Some protection for this page may be appropriate. Thank you, 69.203.119.66 (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Adriano Espaillat -- AGAIN Dear JamieS93, As you can see, the Adriano Espaillat article which you restored has just been PAGE BLANKED again. I believe this article needs some page protection. 69.203.119.66 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Re your message: Not a problem. I took out the one remaining referenced statement as I thought it put a little too much undue weight on the subject compared to the length of the rest of the article. The section title was rather loaded, too. So now the article is totally unreferenced. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Re your message: Excellent! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC) JamieS93, Please look into the history of the following IP address: 69.203.119.66 I believe this person represents a vandal who has a clear motive to defame Assemblyman Espaillat. Please look into 'attacks' on his web page and then follow the (history of 69.203.119.66) trail to discover who this person is. Also, the page has been corrected but misinformation can still be seen via a Google search of Adriano Espaillat because the info that comes up on said search is affiliated with what can be seen by clicking on the "Cached" link and not the corrected article. Please advise because the last thing we need is sick people with a deceptive agenda using wikipedia as a platform to lie about a good man. Thank you much!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.104.30 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC) You may want to read my comment to this IP on my talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC) User talk:Janusboye Thanks for fixing my bot's mistake here. I'll make sure that the bot doesn't mark user talk pages for CSD G7 in the future. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Oh good, thanks. Exactly what I was thinking. JamieS93 22:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Guillermo Linares Can you take a look at this article, too? The same IP that did the hatchet job on the Adriano Espaillat article did the same to this one. I removed almost everything, but the article is kind of an stubby mess. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Okay, I will soon. JamieS93 00:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Participation at my RfA Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 14:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I'm unconcerned, really. The editors who opposed have largely indicated that they would reconsider if their specific concerns were addressed, and I consider it really good advice. Whether I try again or not the feedback has been a huge help for me.--otherlleft 19:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Rover's Morning Glory: please see ongoing discussion here Please follow this link. ReplyToMegaS (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC) I'm no longer involved with the article as an admin, so I don't really care to follow the discussion. Regards, Jamie♥S93 01:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Article deletion Dear JamieS93: I am the user who initially created the entry on R oger P incus and then requested that it be deleted. I appreciate that the deletion request was granted. Can you also cause the person's name not to appear at all on Wikipedia? Right now, the record of the deleted entry is one of the first hits one gets when you Google him. Thanks.Pearsonbill (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Hi Pearson. Well, once the article is deleted, there's not a lot we can do about search engines retaining the entry - Google usually picks up Wikipedia articles and lists them within a couple of hours. And once an article is deleted, the original content or log entry will be temporarily cached on mirror websites or a Google search. There is a mechanism on WP called "Oversight" that allows for certain edits to be permanently "suppressed" - however, this action is only performed in extreme cases (when somebody's privacy is compromised, etc). My best advice would be to simply wait a couple of days, and it'll disappear from search queries. Is there any particular reason why this page needs to be wiped from the logs? Regards, JamieS93❤ 17:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks, JamieS93, for the info. The reason why I'd like to delete the page from the logs is that the person who is the subject of the aborted entry is a real person who is an emerging fiction writer. I was trying to do him a good deed by giving him a Wikipedia entry, but the entry was deemed not sufficiently notable. Now, I fear I have inadvertently done him a bad deed, because when he is Googled, one of the hits is on WP, and when that hit is clicked on, the person's name comes up with the deletion notice -- basically inducatubg that the person was not considered WP-worthy. I understand WP's decision to deem him not sufficiently notable, but now he is the unwitting subject of a stigmatizing WP statement. Can you remove the statement and thereby undo my unintended bad deed? :)Pearsonbill (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Hey Pearsonbill. Google caches separately, and we unfortunately have no control over when they refresh (but they do it fairly regularly). You may expedite the process by requesting directly if you have a Google account. I'm sorry we cannot offer a faster response, but I'm sure the information will not remain for long. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Andrew Murray Pretoria Hi Jamie, Plse be more specific on why you deleted (A church with very old history and Andrew Murray is an author with huge volume books in circulation for more than 100 years) First check who Andrew Murray was before you delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micmicl (talk • contribs) The article was deleted because it was written like an advertisement or promotional piece about the church. Murray might be notable, but any article must be written from a neutral point-of-view and include reliable sources that prove notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - we have content standards, and all information must be unbiased and reasonably professional. You may wish to read the page WP:NOT. Best, JamieS93❤ 20:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Vancouver Hi Jaime, first off thank you for responding to my request. I did have another request if possible that I forgot to mention. Other Olympic articles have been protected until the end of the 2010 Winter Games: March 28th, 2010. See Olympic Games protection request for an alternative example. Hope this is possible. Mkdwtalk 23:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Hmm. I considered protecting it longer - but I'm thinking that, while major articles such as "Winter Olympic Games" will be be highly viewed/vandalized over the coming weeks, the Olympic city itself might not receive much attention after the first several days. You might be right that it'll need longer, though. I'll watch the article when the protection expires and reapply the semi if needed. Fair enough? :) Best, JamieS93❤ 13:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Christian music chart Now that R&R magazine doesn't exist anymore, I've had a dilemma. Billboard magazine does a horrible job with ranking Christian music songs. It ranks "Beautiful Ending" as peaking at #29. That's in left field! I heard it ranked in the Top 2 or 3 on other charts like the Weekend 22 & I bet it hit #1. So Never Alone (song) never charted? Yea, right! It was the most played song of the year. What reliable chart can we use that's accurate? What have you been using? Please respond here on your talk page - it's on my watchlist. Royalbroil 14:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I loved R&R. :-( I've simply been using Billboard's Christian songs chart, which I agree, does a bad job representing what tracks are most popular. With singles that were released in the R&R era ("We Need Each Other", "Give Me Your Eyes"), I'm just leaving the R&R stuff in there. No need to remove it. For newer singles, Billboard is kind of our only choice. It's usually discouraged to use an individual music provider as a "chart", but it also wouldn't hurt to mention how a song/album charted on iTunes' sales - most press/media coverage mentions iTunes like it's a music industry standard. Did we ever figure out who W22 gets their charts from? IIRC, they were either using R&R's Christian CHR data, or obtaining their own. JamieS93❤ 14:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I was wondering where how they compile their chart. About helps a bit. I'm going to email them and find out more details! Can I include your email address in the request and ask for them to respond to both of us? I was contemplating Christian Radio Weekly as a potential source. Royalbroil 14:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Good idea! Jamie.wiki at gmail.com is mine. JamieS93❤ 14:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I discovered something strange. R&R is clearly still generating weekly chart information [3]. Even if there's no separate weekly "R&R" publication, they're obviously still reporting charts, so programs like Weekend 22 have been picking up the data and continuing on like normal. As I recall the two charts (CHR & W22) always matched up identically. So it looks like R&R must still be reporting, tho that's not the impression I got back in July - they basically said, "all operations shut down, see Billboard now". JamieS93❤ 22:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Wow, that's surprising for the reasons that you outlined! I know that W22 used to use R&R, they said it on the program (or was it on the website?). Obviously I haven't done the email yet - I've been too busy on other things. I still need to do it and this should make the email more interesting. Thanks for letting me know! Royalbroil 01:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Thank You Thank You for deleting page User:Nascar1996/Jimmie Johnson.I was hoping that someone would delete it just in case someone wanted to use it.Thanks again. From:Nascar1996 ( talk • my edits ) Re:Kingoomieiii Hello, JamieS93. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Image deletes Hi JamieS93. When you deleted File:TSSA head office sign, Euston.jpg and File:Interior of Merseyrail 508 after Angel Trains refurbishment.jpg, did you miss the {{nocommons}} templates on both images? Please reverse your deletions. Thanks. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 07:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Restored. Sorry about that. Best, JamieS93❤ 14:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered: Proposal to Close This RfC Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Warning There is no consensus. Debresser and Avraham claim there is one, but every time I challenge them to come up with specifics, they refuse. Essentially they are performing WP:OWN and forum shopping - they refuse to use article talk pages, for example. I keep coming up on ANI because Debresser keeps raising it. Its an extremely misleading tactic of his - he's been warned against it by the Arbitration Committee, but he continues to do it See log of Avraham's failures to comply with basic NPOV, CIVILITY, and OWN policies log of Debresser's failures to comply with basic NPOV, CIVILITY, and OWN policies Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement (especially "Debresser! You have yourself been guilty of dragging many cases to ANI any time you do not get your way.") Page Protection Thanks for the protection applied to the Robbie Savage page. Would you also consider doing the same to the Kris Commons page? There have been 9 separate entries of vandalism in the last 24 hours. Thanks, Animaly2k2 (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)  Done, semi-protected for a week. JamieS93❤ 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Protection Could you take a look at James Buchanan? The vandalism level this page has received in the past weeks are to very high levels, and I think it may warrant a protection. Please give me your thoughts. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC) I've semi-protected it for a month, cause I agree that the vandalism level is high (basically every IP edit lately has been unproductive). JamieS93❤ 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Sacco and Vanzetti Thanks for protecting Woodrow Wilson. Might you consider some protection for Sacco and Vanzetti? Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Semi-protected for a week. It's never been protected before, and it looks like the vandalism has risen only recently, so 1 week seems good at this point. JamieS93❤ 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Smile! Hello JamieS93, Hamtechperson has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. For granting me rollback! Hamtechperson 22:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Rollback Privileges Just wanted to drop you a line and say thanks for approving me for rollback! I'm looking forward to getting down to work with it. :-) --Warbirdadmiral (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC) MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown Hi there. Some of use just noticed that you changed MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown with these edits. The change has been reverted since your changes conflict with both the wording of A7 and {{db-a7}}. Please see WT:CSD#A7: No indication that the article may meet notability guidelines? if you want to comment on this edit. I'd like to ask you not to make similar edits without prior discussion first again, since such changes have a huge impact on all admins' actions. Regards SoWhy 13:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Okay, sure. I'll reply there when possible. JamieS93❤ 13:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC) SPI for Keepcalmandcarryon I see that you were the Admin that deleted SPI for keepcalmandcarryon/Archive. I am unfamiliar with these processes. You seem to have carried out a speedy deletion of the content citing G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. I assume that this was the subject (Keepcalmandcarryon) of the investigation. Normally I wouldn't have bothered one way or the other as I had minimal involvement in it. However having waited until its deletion, Keepcalmandcarryon is now making allegations against me concerning my involvement.[4] Without access to its content (or at least the fore-knowledge of intending deletion to take an Export copy for private reference), I have no means of making an evidence based response. If she wanted to rule a line under the investigation then fair enough, but this is just a case of "having your cake and eating it". I know from my own Wikimedia instances that administrators can a undelete articles. However, is there any WP process by which I can have access to this content so that I can frame a defence against these claims. Siggghhhh. -- TerryE (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I was actually just deleting the lowercase "k" version of the page, apparently a minor mistake made by the page author. The archive was moved to a capital "K" at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Keepcalmandcarryon/Archive. JamieS93❤ 02:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Feewwww. Thanks. I'll take an export and dump it into one of my Wikis just in case. I can now go back to her with an informed response. Like the ❤, BTW :-) -- TerryE (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC) The Tobymac Page Hello, JamieS93 my name is The K.O. KIng. I really need your help in editing the Tobymac page. It needs a major rewrite. I have helped the article out a little bit but it still needs more information on Tobymac himself. Any help you can offer will be greatly appreciated. I would like the Tobymac page to be like the Newsboys page, very organized and well written. I cannot do this alone (grammer is not my strongpoint). Please help me redo the Tobymac page and please reply to me ASAP about what we can do to fix that page. The K.O. King (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Man, I'd love to help. The article isn't as bad as it used to be, but I agree there's still much to be improved (sourcing, lead summary, research for career sect), especially since Toby's one of the highest-viewed CCM articles. Lately I've found myself with varying amounts of available time. Sometimes I've got plenty, but other times studying is a necessity. I'll try to help with the page, if possible. JamieS93❤ 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks. If there is anything I can do to help as well, please let me know. I would not have bothered you, but as I said before grammer is NOT my strong point. Tobymac knowledge, however is a different story. I know that you are probably good at grammer, but if I can provide any help just let me know. The K.O. King (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Protection inquiry Could you take a look at Meriwether Lewis? Although the vandalism here is not all in one days, it is rather spread out, and there seems to be little to none productive IP edits. I'd appreciate an opinion. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC) That article would do good with a long-term protection, eventually. I went ahead and gave it a 1-month semi just now, since it's been protected twice before. Even though this isn't the ordinary case of "excessive" or intense vandalism within a smaller period of time, none of the recent edits have been constructive. It warrants semi-protection, cause I'd say that's the root of WP:PROT: is there excessive disruption, and/or will we lose any decent edits upon protection? Doesn't pass the test, so it ought to be protected. Regards, JamieS93❤ 20:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC) The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea. Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls. Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome! Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Russian Wikipedia Could you please reprotect the article as content dispute is still unresolved? SkyBonTalk/Contributions 04:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Protected for another week. Do let me know if/when you guys come to a conclusion or decide to quit edit warring, please. It's best for articles to be as editable as possible by non-admins who may want to make legitimate fixes. JamieS93❤ 01:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC) I doubt that those sysop folks will be ever satisfied even if I find sources and mark the notability. Lighting Mafia activity is dangerous for it. In the mean time I was indefblocked in RuWiki. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 18:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Re: Rollback Thank you lots :) –ბრუტ (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC) User page deletion Dear Jamie, thanks for the help. Could you by chance look up what was the last date that I modified that page? - Schrandit (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Last time you edited the page was May 11, 2009. Another user reverted some vandalism on June 29, 2009. Those were the latest revs. JamieS93❤ 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks again, best wishes. - Schrandit (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC) User page restoration Can a deleted user page be restored? -- Rico 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Sure, do you want that done? :-) JamieS93❤ 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Reinstate Family Matrix Yesterday you deleted my submittal to Wikipedia, I request that you review your decision and reinstate the page. When you first marked the page for deletion, I made some changes to the page. I am not sure if you saw these revisions. These revisions added a "Philanthropic" and "Innovation" section. I can send you copies of these sections if you have not seen them. I believe that Family Matrix deserves posting in Wikipedia because is represents a new, Patent Pending, innovation that previously has not been done on the Internet. I believe that may users would be interested in this innovation. If you still have concerns, can you provided additional details on how I might change the submittal to meed the requirement of Wikipedia. Thanks and best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham the Hammer (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The article was deleted because it was written in a promotional tone; the page sounded like it was an advertisement for the brand/company. Additionally, I'm afraid it's not notable in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. I tried Google searching for reliable sources to prove notability, and I couldn't find very many. Regards, JamieS93❤ 22:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Ernest Backes Why have you deleted the entry on Ernest Backes? Please replace it, he was involved in VERY important allegations of international money laundering! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.70.122 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Hello. The article was deleted because nobody contested its deletion in a seven-day period. The only claim to notability for this person was one event, which does not necessarily mean this person is notable. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Ah I see - he wasn't only notable for one event, he was connected to a criminal case. He claimed to have been involved in movign funds from a bank that supported anti-communist activity in Europe, supported by the US (CIA specifically). As he was the No. 3 in one of 'the bank's bank' Clearstream, this was siginicant. Th ebank was found to have been involved in this activity by the Italian Courts (see "Operation Gladio") and a former Italian Prime Minister was found guilty of complicity. Backes is an important part of the story. Please replace the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.70.122 (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Without proper sourcing, we will not be prepared to restore this article. After a look, I was unable to find any that substantiated his notability enough to warrant an article. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Restoration Could you please restore Category:Cemeteries in Nigeria? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Done. JamieS93❤ 12:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Template:Comedy Hi-Thx for the help!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC) No problem. :-) JamieS93❤ 15:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Page protection I've said the same to the last person who removed that edit, but the IP involved is a user who is banned across one of his/her other IPs for incivility, stalking, harassment and sockpuppetry. Removing edits by banned users is a perfectly valid action, as far as I'm aware. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, if the person is confirmed...just after my revert, I noticed the link to your talk page thread. He doesn't seem to be a confirmed banned user (not even blocked), but tbh I don't really care. Best, JamieS93❤ 18:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Well the admin NJA recognises that the IP is a trouble maker. I've asked for help with filing a report at sockpuppetry, but the admin is often away for long periods. The IP has been editing in bad faith for a long time now and I'm so sick of it. Can we please lock the page down now? Paralympiakos (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Thanks for unblocking my account! LadySydney (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC) User:112.201.78.149 Hey Jamie, this anonymous IP has been causing allot of disturbance recently and has been warned various times regarding their vandalism. Can you give him/her a temporary block? Thanks Jamie, I appreciate it.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Is that the right person? (contribs) They've only made 2 edits in the past week – report it to WP:AIV if problem edits continue after warnings. Best, JamieS93❤ 22:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Speedy deletion declines - questions Hello JamieS93! I see you have declined my speedy deletions request on Avruga caviar and Kalles kaviar saying that their are "not a spam or promotional page". But... then, what are they? I mean, they are just articles on specific brand names for certain types of product. Regarding Kalles I may even agree with you, since the type of product is quite known by that brand name. But Avruga?!? That is just one of a multitude of brand-names for a caviar substitute/imitation? And not even a particulary known one at that! Why is this not a promotional page? The Ogre (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) You might be right that, at the core, those are probably "promotional" entries. However, speedy deletion is only meant to deal with articles whose verbage is spammy ("this delectable restaurant...for more info, check out the website", or worse, first-person narrative). As it is, I'm a fairly tough admin when it comes to spam-related stuff, but I can guarantee you that most every admin would not speedy those. Their nature of focusing on one semi-NN product might not be entirely encyclopedic, but it's not what a single admin should make a call on, especially when the article itself isn't particularly written in a style that sounds like a puff piece or plain advertisement. I haven't tried a Google search to look for sources/notability proof, but feel free to take it to AfD if you think one or both might not be notable. Hope that helps, cheers, JamieS93❤ 19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, my thanks and cheers! The Ogre (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Stubs United States We Are One Tonight China East Siberian Sea Halewood Obiter dictum Canada France Prosencephalon Trust-busting Torremaggiore United Kingdom India Complex Condé Nast Traveler Rajavin Parvaiyile Cat Vision Vancouver Portuguese Wikipedia Cleanup New South Wales Rural Fire Service Enterprise service bus Jesus Merge Brain implant Iraq Bones Brigade Add Sources Racism Unity Church Chemical physics Wikify Powell Peralta Government Loomis Chaffee Expand Handshake Dog Plymouth Reliant SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Background on Aesthetic Realism article Given that you protected the Aesthetic Realism article, I wanted to give you some background on the edit war. For years, the Aesthetic Realists have been trying to remove any mention of their group's less than flattering bits from the article, especially from the intro (e.g. their "cure" for homosexuality, their being labeled as a mind-control cult by former members and the mainstream press, and the suicide of their founder/leader). A while back another admin (WillBeback) made the curious suggestion that the article be rewritten from scratch, and that the intro be stubbed until the rest of the article was rewritten. An independent editor briefly helped with the rewrite then went MIA, and then work on the rewrite effectively stopped. The AR people haven't made any meaningful attempts at rewriting in two weeks now. They want to drag out this process as long as they can, so they can have the stubbed/censored intro in place as long as possible. WillBeback gave them the cover to do so, and now you've helped them by locking the article down to its censored state. They're learned just enough of the WP lingo to try to appear to be reasonable (e.g., "Do not edit without consensus"), but the reality is that they don't respect WP as an encyclopedia; they don't seek consensus, they don't edit in good faith, and they never edit anything else except the AR article. (They might start now if they see this note, but look at their history over the last year before now and you'll see what I mean.) The AR people are gaming the system. I'm just saddened that admins here are playing into their hands. MichaelBluejay (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not trying to aid in "censorship" of the article – I'm just putting a cap on an edit war that was not about to stop. You all need to discuss those changes, and not fight over the article via reverting. Regards, JamieS93❤ 23:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC) For the record, I happen to be a fan of the First Amendment and I am not interested in censoring. It would be good to assume that other editors are acting in good faith, even if we don’t agree with them. Let’s all keep our composure and not use ad hominem arguments or be abusive. A careful reading of the activity on the article about Aesthetic Realism over the past several months will show that the comment above by MichaelBluejay is just not accurate. WillBeback’s suggestion has generated a great deal of industry, primarily in the collection of sources. (Look at the source sections and notice the dates on which these were gathered). In fact, for years WillBeback had been asking the editors to put in sources and that there had been very few –-until now. The Philosophy and Poetry sections have been entirely rewritten after undergoing many backs and forths, inter-editing, and merging of ideas. It’s important to really look at what has been happening with an open mind! It’s true there’s been some delay in the past several weeks but as I understand it that’s because the mediator disappeared. I know that LoreMariano, a lead editor, tried to find another mediator and asked Ludwigs2, but so far not everyone agrees to him. If more of the drafts had been put up on the article page itself, wouldn’t that be seen as unacceptable too because there was no consensus, no scrutiny of them with a mediator absent? So damned if you don’t and damned if you do. Hopefully we can all catch our breath and get towards what everyone really wants, which is an accurate, well-sourced article. We are still in need of a mediator in order to proceed. Nathan43 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC) JamieS, I *am* discussing the Intro section. In fact, I'm the *only* one that's doing so. Nathan43 talks a good talk, but the fact is that he's not participating in the alleged rewrite at all. He's made *no* contributions to the rewrite in well over a month, and his last edit before that was to fix a typo on a *single word*! However, he's found time to eagerly censor the intro from the article itself on March 11, March 12, March 13, and March 14. Do you see the kind of people you're inadvertently aiding here? The AR people don't want to discuss, they just want to censor and delay. I know that your *intention* wasn't to aid in their ensuring that the AR article stays lame and sanitized, but that's the effect it's had. I hope the admins wake up and realize how the AR people are gaming the system. MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Greetings, JamieS, I am the editor who worked closely with IP71 on the Poetry section of the entry on Aesthetic Realism. Our work went very well and I believe his/her comments and suggestions improved the draft I submitted. He/she is the only person, by the way, who ever commented on the drafts I posted. I have not been idle while hoping for IP71's return, but am prepared to move more swifly with this article as you find convenient. IP71 wanted to combine the two drafts of the Poetry section, and I have done that and would like to post it to the Drafts page. Then we can move on to the next section, History. I have no wish to delay revision of this article, and an appropriate intro, but am proceeding according to the instructions of Will Beback and IP71. Thanks for your assistance.Trouver (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Hi folks. :-) Look, I only intended to serve as the protecting admin and not an outside mediator. Protecting the article still seems necessary at this point, because I don't really see evidence that the dispute wouldn't just continue on, via edit warring. I would recommend possibly seeking outside input such as WP:3O, which might be helpful. Best wishes, JamieS93❤ 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC) OK, I'll make one more attempt (tomorrow I think) to move editing along, which seems to be what everyone involved wishes. If this fails, will seek outside assistance, like WP:30. Thanks. Trouver (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC) No problem, and good luck with everything. JamieS93❤ 23:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Request for review of RFPP decline Can you review this request for temporary semiprotection here which was declined? See my followup rationale. Thanks. Respond here or my talk page. --Lexein (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC) The vandalism-per-week rate, if you may, is pretty low, so declining the request is understandable and a pretty reasonable action. However, it looks like more than not, anonymous edits have been uncontructive and/or introducing unsourced material. I'm a supporter of proactive semi-protection for BLPs, so if it were me, I'd probably protect it for a couple of weeks. With respect to SoV's decline, I would not overturn his decision, though I've left a comment there as a second opinion. Best, JamieS93❤ 15:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks! --Lexein (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Request PROD be overturned. I noticed you deleted Magic: The Gathering rules recently. I don't know who PRODed it or why but the PROD was in violation of guidelines - that article had previously been AfD'd and kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules and no consensus'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules (2nd nomination), which means it was ineligible for PROD. Even if it was then I'm requesting it be overturned, which can be done to PRODs even after the deletion. Even if it's decided the article can't be kept a merger might well be appropriate which would require the history to be around. SnowFire (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Done; though I can't say I disagree with the reasoning. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Delete Mistakenly Created Page Hi Jamie. Happy Spring! I am one of the people working on the Aesthetic Realism entry. In order to preserve the first draft of the Poetry section (which I think will be moved to the Eli Siegel entry, per Will Beback), I was trying to create a new drafts page for the History section, which is coming up next for discussion. I mistakenly created a page with the wrong url. How do I delete the Mistaken page?Here is the Mistake Here is the Good Page Thank you for your assistance. LoreMariano (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Deleted. In the future, you can tag such pages with {{db-g7}}. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you. LoreMariano (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC) DYK Hi Jamie. Thanks for protecting my user page. However, I'm curious to know how DYK works.. I've tried it with food yesterday and I was told the article isn't ready yet. Do I have to expand the article more? Do I need to create an article for DYK? Thanks --Tommy (message) 00:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC) DYK is meant for featuring interesting facts from new content. There are two ways to get an article featured at DYK; 1) you can create a new article, or 2) you can take a relatively small article and expand the prose fivefold its current size. There are a few requirements: a) the "hook" fact must be mentioned in the article and properly cited, b) the article itself should be in decent shape, c) the hook cannot be longer than 200 characters, and d) new articles must have at least 1,500 characters of text/readable prose. And if the hook is about a living person, it should not be negative or otherwise problematic. WP:DYK#DYK Rules gives a few more details, but the ones I mentioned are the basic/primary guidelines. 5x expansions are commonly done, too, but most people pick small articles so the expansion isn't too difficult to make. Food, for example, is a well-established and large article, so you wouldn't be able to expand it. When creating an article or making an expansion, try to get it done within 5 days, so you can successfully add the submission to the proper article-creation-date section at T:TDYK. Regards, JamieS93❤ 13:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Ohh, okay! Thanks Jamie! Tommy (message) 16:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Just wondering, but Why does it have to be new or recently 5x expanded? Tommy (message) 22:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Well, it's just the intrinsic nature of DYK. On the main page, it says "From Wikipedia's newest articles". JamieS93❤ 15:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC) File copyright problem with File:Martinpainting.jpg I need to figure out how to change a copyright for a photo I uploaded and later added to an article. There is no copyright on the image. It is in the public domain. What do I need to do? Woofiz (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC) I added a {{PD-art}} license template to the description page, and removed the deletion tag. Your image page didn't have the public-domain template, though you already had the info proving PD licensing (year 1856 = PD), which was good. Every image is required to have a basic description + a license template. So you were almost there – the image page just needed a template that classified its licensing. In this case, {{PD-art}} was good to use. Image license templates can be a bit confusing; it might help to see this list for guidance. Best, JamieS93❤ 18:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Reinstate Family Matrix Yesterday you deleted my submittal to Wikipedia, I request that you review your decision and reinstate the page. When you first marked the page for deletion, I made some changes to the page. I am not sure if you saw these revisions. These revisions added a "Philanthropic" and "Innovation" section. I can send you copies of these sections if you have not seen them. I believe that Family Matrix deserves posting in Wikipedia because is represents a new, Patent Pending, innovation that previously has not been done on the Internet. I believe that may users would be interested in this innovation. If you still have concerns, can you provided additional details on how I might change the submittal to meed the requirement of Wikipedia. Thanks and best regards Thanks for your detailed response. Everything mentioned in the article can be verified from independent sources other than the author. The operation of the client /server interface can be verified by anyone on the web site. The patent pending application can be verified by application number 61/264,002 at the US Patent and Trademark Office wwwuspto.gov. Business Information Network, Inc can be verified at the Missouri Secretary of State office. Please note that this is new technology and until this it is widely disseminated to the public it will be difficult to provide information from sources that are not closely connected with the subject. Because it is new and innovative technology, I believe it has a place in wikipedia. Abraham the Hammer 16:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC) In order for an article on a business to remain in Wikipedia, it must provide citations to credible sources that do two things: establish notability and verify all claims. In this case, the article lacked proper references, and did not explicitly indicate significance. If you feel you can bring the article up to standard, I'd suggest working on it in your own time at a sub-page of your userspace, such as User:Abraham the Hammer/Family Matrix. You'll be able to gradually improve the article's content without having to contest deletion nominations. Once you're done, file a request at WP:DRV, where other editors chime in and ultimately determine whether or not the entry is suitable for inclusion. Hope this helps. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 18:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Join the WP:USRDCUP 2010! We're going to go ahead and try this again! The contest will begin April 1. It is a contest to encourage editors to improve teh quality of WP:USRD articles and participate in USRD. Precautions will be taken to make sure that people do not "game the system" and bring article quality down. Please sign up ASAP! Announcements regarding the contest will be made at WP:USRDCUP, Twitter, and/or IRC. --Rschen7754 06:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Rob Adam In September 2009 you tagged the above article with concerns re the policy on biographies of living persons. I only noticed the tag now. Can you indicate specifically what text in the article your have concerns about? As you can see from the article, I have done relatively detailed research and referenced entries in full. If you do not have specific concerns, I recommend that the tag be removed. Zingi (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I don't recall ever giving the article a BLP-related tag; I simply added the "Living people" cat to the article for the sake of categorization. The article is referenced well and I didn't have any concerns about it. JamieS93❤ 16:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you Just wanted to thank you for deleting the Christopher K. Stone, M.D. article so quickly. I really appreciate it. --Mah (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC) No problem! Glad to be of assistance. Take care, JamieS93❤ 15:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Watching you Oh, I'll never forget this. Shame on you. <_< 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Hmm? Norm or correct format? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Norm - good luck changing pass precedent. Besides, "present" should not be capitalized. I hope you're following this discussion here? JamieS93❤ 15:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for the rollback rights. It's really kind of funny how I've been using Twinkle and I'm on the whitelist, but nobody every told me to get rollback rights. Anyways, thanks again. Spartan-James 20:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)