User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive16

Google's hoaxes

Hi, I noticed you reverted a change to Google's hoaxes about the fact that entering 'silly goose' into Google Translate from English to Spanish returns 'Daniel', stating it was 'more crap'. This is actually completely correct - see here Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh, so it does. That didn't even seem plausible enough to check out...it brings to mind that "I cannot buy this tobacconist, it is scratched" skit from Monty Python. Thanks for the clarificaiton.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries ;) Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 17:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR Report

Hi, sorry to bother you but I was hoping you could block an editor who is edit warring on the article British Isles. I requested page protection, however the editor is trying to game the system by reverting my reverts of his changes which are made without consensus. The editor has a history of being disruptive on this particular page. I tried to start discussion but he does not wish so. The editor in question is User:TharkunColl. Thanks for your help.MITH 23:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this dispute goes back a ways and involves multiple editors, and it's not clear to me what the "pre-edit war" version is. Perhaps a poll about this particular wording could establish a bit of consensus? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the case but the current edit war is regarding only one bit of text input about an hour ago here where the editor proclaimed "Rv. Your next attempt to remove my edit will be in breach of 3RR"; so the editor is trying to use WP:GAME to their advantage. The editor understands the WP:BRD process but chooses to edit war. The consensus for the current wording can be seen on the talk page here. Can you please reconsider reverting to the stable version which is here. Thanks.MITH 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Still not seeing a clear consensus either way, but I did revert due to the "some Irish nationalists have misinterpreted," which is clearly POV from this outsider's perspective. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the POV. The current wording is the consensus text. I would ask that some sort of warning is given to the editor you reverted - his three reverts is disruptive editing. However if you do not wish to do so that is fine; hopefully the page will be protected soon so the above editor will be forced to discuss rather than edit warring so his POV can remain in the text. Thanks for stepping in.MITH 00:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Conversation

Could you join the conversation now ongoing at the bottom of User talk:Carcharoth? Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New Post

Hi I posted a link to a site called structuredsettlementforums.com this site is for people that would like to talk about their structured settlement experiences like my self. I tried to start the site a few months ago but spammers took it down. I am now trying to get it going again. There is NO place on the web to talk about anything structured settlement related. I received a structured settlement from a lawsuit several years ago and recently sold some of it last year. That is when I came up with the idea to have a place on the web that people could talk about their experiences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Settlementforum (talk • contribs) 20:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the section at the top of my page about external links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry, Im confused, the site is not commercial and is usefull to people with structured settlements. Is there another section that I should be putting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.34.211 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a forum directory. It's rarely (if ever) appropriate to post forum links, per WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ohnoitsjamie, if you read the article they made, it is clear that they are not here in good faith, and I felt that it warrants a block. Sincerely, Myownusername (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt any other admins share your opinion on the matter. Please don't use the ANI board until you are more familiar with policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh???

You left some sort of message accusing me of "adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles" when the only edit I've ever made to Wikipedia was reverting something that was removed by an IP address vandal. Please try to be more careful before making false accusations in the future. 173.100.134.166 (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "the two year anniversary of the release of his shirtless hamburger eating exploits" is commentary. The current version is fine. The warning was not a mistake. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The above IP address was me. You are aware that "rv" means "revert," right? I was simply undoing the deletion of the paragraph since it was sourced information, but I didn't write any of that. How the hell is me restoring a paragraph that someone else wrote "inserting my own personal commentary???" Nevermind that the hamburger video is mentioned in the previous two paragraphs, so even if I had written that, it isn't "personal commentary" since it's already included in the article and is a well verified statement of fact! I will be reporting you to the Wikipedia admins for your personal attacks and false accusations. 173.103.179.188 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am an admin. No attacks or false accusations have been made. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: This User

Hi Jamie, I notice, you are trying to deal with this user, who seems to be self publicisg and adding blog like references. Any suggestions on how to deal with this? Thanks--Sikh-History 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

removed links

Hi Jamie, New to this today so sorry about over-linking. Can you tell me what is acceptable vs what is not. There seems to be a fine line and admittedly I sought to put pressure on it (sorry). I want to comply and my site has a lot of info to give (and a lot of it has been given I see, mostly uncredited). I can't seem to find which posts were removed. Thanks in advance. Ammie508 (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Commercial sites (such as yours) do not qualify as reliable sources under our guidelines. Please stop adding the links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. I'm a little bummed that I spent 4 hours today on work that has been erased. In my defense, I could not find any information regarding commercial sites in the "Reliable Sources" section. The only thing I could see is example 1 under "Self Promotion". Still, it did not describe my situation very well as TT is very relevant to the pages edited and the TT page I linked to is all information and no "product". I did find that it appears I am considered to be a reliable source when it comes to breweriana. I have been published (by people other than myself) and referenced and I can say confidently that I am thought of as an expert by my peers (If I do say so myself). I feel my work should be recognized (especially if it is already on Wikipedia almost word-for-word!). As it is, TT is moving ever more towards an informational site. At this moment I am working out the permissions for dozens of articles from trade magazines and Collectors newsletters to be published on the Tavern Trove website. Will Wikipedia refuse to cite these articles because TT is considered commercial? Will the authors have no recourse if their work is entered into the public domain via Wikipedia? Not arguing, but I'm asking you to take a second look at a fuzzy policy - or at least explain it better to me. I would appreciate any suggestions. Ammie508 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There are already plenty of links explaining the policy. See WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:COI, as well as the blurb at the top of my page. There's not much else to say; we generally don't accept commercial sites as reliable sources. Nothing personal against your site; I'm not surprised that it's popular. It's just not an appropriate source here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

AFLAAAAAAAAACK

Re: Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square. a) can you fix the typo b) is it too soon to block the sock? (hint: the use of the word "egregious" is a dead giveaway) Katr67 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed link on ASCII and Code Page articles

Hello! I've been reading the External links guidelines as suggested and can't really figure out what's wrong. The site I added is directly linked to these topics and contains no advertising of any kind, just pure content. While its nice to have the unicode symbols in wikipedia tables, having original symbols dumped from BIOS fonts is showing the characters the way they were displayed under MS-DOS. That's why I think this site has a reason to be linked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.216.27 (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

how is adding a legitimate website with a legitimate issue spam?

Adding my site (http://chucknorris2012.com) is a legitimate discussion point for the content that was edited (Chuck Norris), there is valid discussion points and room for any opionin either for or against to be discussed (his political viewpoints and potential as a presidential candidate)

As far as "Final Warning" i didnt realize that 1 warning was equal to final, the initial removal did not come with a message to me, publically or privately that there was a first warning.

Nazi removal of viewpoints that do not agree with yours are not a way to keep user relations up (like removing the bad press about Nobama during the election), put my section back on the page, kthxbai

This is a TALK PAGE that it was added to, for the purpose of TALKING about the issue

Chucknorris2012 (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:ELNO and WP:EL#ADV.--Yankees76 (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. Links that are clearly inappropriate usually do not require discussion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

While this may be viewed as advertizational (not sure if thats a word) it is intended to promote discussion of the question posted not as a method to direct users to the site, I will rephrase the requestChucknorris2012 (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've already said, Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle, period. This is your final warning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Tobacco - Economic - How can I contribute

I have just seen a Fox News interview with Joseph Califano, Jr. [1], author of the book titled High Society [2] that is worth mentioning at [3], whereas Califafano, Jr. said that for the 35 Million Dollar tax levied in the U.S.A. on "Alcohol and Tobacco" it resulted that both substances caused a health cost of 300 Million U.S. Dollars just to the U.S.A.

Tobacco - Economic page at Wikipedia [4] is protected and I cannot edit it.

Can you?

Said page does not have a "Talk" section, thus I am posting this issue here.

I ask what, in your opinion, would be fit and proper for me (or any other person) to contribute accordingly, as I

1. do not have the appropriate authorization level herein,

2. nor can I cite an authority, i.e. I cannot point to a verifiable, reliable URL, for instance, were one could verify the transcripts of said Fox News interview with Joseph Califano, Jr. - It was aired this May 15, 2009 circa 2 A.M. UTC. I have no problem with anyone contacting me via email.

Ricardodefaria (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Technique - How can I contribute without having stuff removed

Finally I figured out how to use wikipedia and it took me like 2 hours to set up my first little contribution which was a link to a nice alexander technique page (without commercials or anything that could be against wikipedia guidelines) just to see it removed hours later. Why did u remove it? I read the guidelines and there is totally nothing wrong with it. I really don't feel like contributing and spending a lot of time if my contributions will be deleted right after... Please explain.

Michael_Tall —Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

Mediation for the article Koi

Hell, my name is Drew. I saw a request for mediation at WP:MEDCABAL in which you were one of the named as one of the involved parties.
This message is not an attempt at mediation, but rather to established that the involved parties are willing to submit to mediation, and that I am the person for the job.
I am a member of WP:FISH and WP:AQF, and have submitted eight fish related articles. I believe this give me some insight into the nature of the article in question.
My question for you:Are you willing to submit to mediation, and are you willing to let me be the mediator?Drew Smith What I've done 11:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in that topic. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Newcomer requesting help

Hi Jamie - Please see my discussion on my talk page. Thanks. 4Xanadu (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw it. Please see WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jamie - Please see my response on my talk page. 4Xanadu (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I know humor is not the object, but...

I thought this was funny, then I read this. Good stuff. Tiderolls 05:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I try to lighten it up now and then. Keeps the sanity. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems you had a comment on my edits

Seems like you didn't like my edit. Yes, I am promoting our site WinkedAt, but it's a new type of site and if many competitors are on Wikipedia, why shouldn't we. They are also advertised here. If you want to prevent spamming, please remove all links to dating sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.229.246 (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WinkedAt is not notable. Some dating sites are; that's why they have articles here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jamie

There are many drugs and other substances that are very dangerous to those of us with G6PD Deficiency. For example, my cousin died from exposure to naphthalene in sealed containers. The link to g6pddeficiency.org was not spam nor in my opinion irrelevant, but, if you feel it is, then that's your business. Thank you and have a nice day.

Drbaker48 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a self-published website with Google ads, and thus does not meet our critiera. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It's very difficult for me to answer this without being insanely sarcastic, so perhaps I should say nothing. Do have a good day.

Drbaker48 (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. better dont say nothing. This ohno is funny :-)--Kim FOR sure (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Move Survey: Your Opinion is Requested

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Opinion

Thank you for voting, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, I noticed you've made edits to University of the Philippines (UP) and UP–related articles and thought you might want to support our recent proposal to create the WikiProject University of the Philippines. We've recently revamped the proposal and started a drive to push the approval of this project. We have a lot of articles that may be under this project and we would like assistance and support for its approval. Hope we'll have a very positive response. Go Fighting Maroons!

P.S. You can look at the preliminary drafts of the project in here. Thanks! --The Wandering Traveler^{WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!} 06:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it that's a <ahem> subliminal message in the talk page link. I suppose blatant advertising for Wiki contributions at Wiki is kinda OK. LoL. Good for you. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

O'Bartleby

The edits on Jena Six were blatant copyvio from [5]. What we have here is probably a sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rapture

In re yours:

Thanks for asking. It is slightly unusual. No big deal.

The Rapture is a slightly unusual theology itself, but the current article deals with it soberly.

I'm getting the impression we have some youthful enthusiasts from a bouncy, boyant kind of upbeat US Christian background, editing with more optimism than wisdom.

Everything's moving too fast, but there's nothing nasty or sneaky.

Thanks very much for asking.

It's good if someone sensible steps in and stops good faith editors from hurting one another. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Balwyn High School

Why has this article has been protected? Bah12345 (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism. It's semi-protected, so established users with accounts can edit. Other users can request changes on the talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

David Allen

Why did you remove the comments I had about David Allen's Getting Thigns Done system. The previous draft of David Allen had basically zero discussion of Allen's GTD system, and I wrote a consise summary of the major points.

Some other examples of your removing links. The rollup article is essentially a stub, it has little information. I include a link to a detailed list of the steps necessary to consummate a rollup. And you removed the link. -- Mary Spencer User:MarySpencer10

See WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. Continuing to make promotional edits will result in a block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read those and I do not think those apply in these cases. All of the external links I submitted were to quality articles that covered material not covered in the main article, and these were not "promotional." The Wikipedia guideless says I should discuss this with you first, but it seems like you are not really going to have a discussion, but really just point to the guidelines, which I obviously have already read. You do that with the other people listed above.

You don't have to agree with my interpretation. Besides, there is already a separate article about Getting Things Done. My block warning still stands. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse Square again

I see the protection is set to expire in a month. I'm afraid you're going to have to extend it. The now-banned User:Pioneercourthouse has been busy in the last week or so, expanding his activities to creating harrassment sockpuppets (which led to the formal ban at ANI) as well as attacking additional articles as noted in WP:ANI just tonight. That guy is not going to stop. It's some sort of game he's playing now. He's been at it since October of 2006, and maybe with final exams over at his junior high school, he's got more time on his hands. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem extending the protection. He'll have to go back to counting toothpicks or whatever it is he does to keep busy. I won't be online as much for the next 10 days or so, but you're always free to drop an alert here if there's a sock begging for a ban.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

bat rev because of OR/POV

I see you have stepped in to undo a passage I posted on bat, giving a summary of the animal's role in islamic lore, for which I made an additional subheader under: 'Cultural Aspects'. Material on the bat is both rare and widely dispersed through many publications on islam and muslim lore, none of it is available in a comprehensive form, with the exception of the recent publication given in the footnote (the edition itself being the commentary on a Medieval Ottoman "encyclopaedia"). Please let me have your arguments for the OR/POV, given the above, and if you still don't agree, what do you suggest would be an article and or form better suited to make the info available to all interested in diverse aspects of the bat? Thanks. Radbod (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If the material is "rare," it may suggest that adding the topic would constitute undue weight. Sourcing issues aside, phrases like "...this wondrous creature..." [6] are decidedly POV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The material is rare only in the sense that you will find it everywhere, but never in any 'summary form' like the one I provided in the passage. For the rest, it is not rare at all, and has as its highlight one of the most famous stories about one of Islam's most famous prophets, namely Isa. (Deleting it, as you did, amounts to scrapping the mule topos from the Jesus-entering-Jerusalem story from a Wiki article on mules/donkeys in culture and religion...) The statement "wondrous creature" was not meant to be POV, it is of course a quote (albeit missing quotation marks; looking back at it, bearing your comment in mind, I should have added those!) mirroring the great amazement with which medieval muslim commentators observed the animal. How on earth was it possible that it could find it's way the way it did? Why did it combine so many features of species wide apart? Surely, it had to be a wondrous creature, God meant for it to be an example to us that He could even step up His creative powers; He's not 'simply' creating straightforward living beings, but can 'do' surreal ones as well! As a result, discussions and remarks on the animal are to be found in very diverse material related to islamic culture. A small overview of all that is relevant, just as relevant as the Spanish passages on the bat in the same article, and it therefor certainly is not >undue weight< to represent islamic lore on the bat as a subheader within the BAT main article. So, can I now please have my text restored by you, give and take with the odd quotation mark added? And could you please substantiate your know-how and experience to be in a position to weight for all other users the due or undue weight on topics in islamic and lore studies? And if I had to be removed that badly, why did you not shorten or comment on the very undue lenght indeed of the entire Nigerian tale, just above my passage (on which more than one comment has been made in the Bat talk page) ?! Quod licet Jovi not licet bovi perhaps? Radbod (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do with disputed/contested material is to post your proposed changes on the talk page so as to get feedback from multiple editors. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done.Radbod (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Jamie for his efforts. James Chenery (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, James, I appreciate it! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Labrador Retriever at Peer review

Labrador Retriever is up at peer review, please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Labrador Retriever/archive1. Cirt (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

peer-to-peer

Hey, would you mind undoing your recent revert to peer-to-peer? I reinserted the content in question. The rest was cleanup. If you have an issue with that, then let's discuss it on that talk page.    M   20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New Draft

Hi Jamie - Please see my notes in my talk space and the draft in my workspace that you created. Thanks! 4Xanadu (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Meir Banai

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Meir Banai, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I think this singer who has produced 10 CDs and is referred to as one of the perennial big guns of Israeli music is clearly notable, as evidenced by the article. Frankly, I'm surprised that he was tagged in the first place.--Ethelh (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for sourcing the article properly. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Erdos

While you're at it, could you also do Erdős number? Mintrick (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

New Draft 2

Hi Jamie - Please see my request above. Thanks. 4Xanadu (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'll take a look at it tomorrow. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Climate Section

I'm a little confused by your comment referring the Pittsburgh climate section. If you take a look at Pittsburgh's climate for the whole year and then take a look at what is an Oceanic climate, Pittsburgh is barely outside an Oceanic Climate because its warmest month average (July) is only about 1 degree (Celsius) above what would be considered an Oceanic Climate. If we're going strictly by Koppen definitions, as the Pitt article does, Pitt has a humid subtropical that borders both on Humid Continental and Oceanic Climate. This isn't OR. I'll run this through the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Capo (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, now this makes more sense.G. Capo (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Inzolo Page

I don't get it... I'd read all the introductory material and anti-spam, COI, etc. I did my best to write a neutral article and even followed the pattern of existing pages such as You Need a Budget (YNAB) to try to add value etc. At what point would a page on Wikipedia be allowed for a software title? If someone else wrote the article, would it stick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhenxhe (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you read WP:COI and WP:Notability? If someone else wrote it, it's still not notable. Wikipedia is not a free advertising vehicle. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to undelete the page and put it back under my user page? Xhenxhe (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not free web hosting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for free hosting. I have several hosting accounts. I would like to do as Wiki suggests and get feedback from other wiki users on the page. Xhenxhe (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Info about your non-notable software belongs on your own sites, not here. Period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Revised Draft

Hi Jamie - Please see my message on my talk page. Thanks! 4Xanadu (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

email

Please check your email - hoping you can help. And, sorry. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, no problem. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Jamie, you're willy-nilly removing stuff that is just not spam (everything is in your opinion). Would you please stop already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssybesma (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Add it again and you'll be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Commandery

I'm working on a cleanup of some Worcester articles. I'm curious to know why the The Commandery talk page was deleted, rather than archived. --Kudpung (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The version of the article I deleted wasn't much more than a test page with no salvageable content. The talk page for that version consisted of a single sentence: "This article is written badly to attract someone to write a better article. Its worked before!!" OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pornography

Hi Jamie, sometimes it is just nice or polite to state when you are rolling back someone's edits. If it was WP:SYNTH as you claimed at least state why. In any case I have reworded with a few more references. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing impolite the edit summary I used. You made pov statements without a supporting reference. What else is there to say? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So could you at least have told me on my talk page or explained why it was POV? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors regularly post policy links (such as WP:SYNTH) in edit summaries and warnings so that they don't have to come up with unique explanations for every revert. WP:SYNTH was quite clear in the case of your original edit, as evidenced by the fact that you figured out the issue quickly and addressed it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really, I just couldn't be asked to debate with you and point you to the exact reading in the reference.Thanks

Your communication skills

I agree with the sentiment of the person above and some others here.

Your need to communicate would be less if you did a better job of being careful how you characterize innocent trespasses of the 'rules'. I've seen some other cases of people here complaining about your 'style', so it's not just me.

Also, your refusal to communicate in the normal way (or in some cases at all) and in detail causes you to appear to be living in an ivory tower. Come down off the ivory tower and be among the people. I would like to learn how you think and how you make decisions on stuff, but if you're just going to accuse and warn and not teach, that does no justice to anyone. Very, very few of your postings here have any detail, just "that's the law" type of stuff.

I don't like being forced to use your talk page (but you leave me no alternative except to just take what you dole out and not say anything), because some of the criticism against you probably shouldn't be viewable by everyone and I wouldn't want to encourage your supporters to feel the need to defend you, which could only heat things up more, and that's unnecessary.

Last, stop with the warnings...I asked questions of you in your email that you still refused to answer, either here or on my talk page. If you want me to cooperate with you, you have to meet me halfway. So far, I've experienced nothing but you throwing your weight around. Ssybesma (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinions. That said, I'm not sure what you want from me. I have every right to insist on communicating through talk pages. That is the "normal way" that things are done around here. And I will continue to leave warnings for you or any user who violates policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Revised Draft 2nd Request

Hi Jamie - Please see my message on my talk page and advise how to initiate peer review of my article. Thanks! 4Xanadu (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks pretty good except for the citations. Here is a list of citation-generating tools. Try using one of the web-based template fillers to generate the markup for your citations, then cut and paste them into your article. When done properly, you won't have to write out the cites at the bottom; the <references/> tag automatically handles that. Before posting to the article, you may want to post a quick note to the article's talk page noting that you're posting a draft, and input is welcome (just because I say it looks good doesn't mean someone else won't have additional suggestions). Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I've fixed the citation problem. I will put a note to the article's talk page as you suggest, but do I "post the draft" into the article itself? or on the article's talk page? Thanks. 4Xanadu (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You can post it directly to the article. The additional talk page note is optional; I'm only suggesting it because you're introducing some significantly new material. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Coming Soon" blacklist entry

I think you typoed the blacklist entry. There shouldn't be a right square bracket in it.

Thanks for the blacklisting, incidentally. SPAs (as well as a few drawers-full of sockpuppets) promoting the film/site/group have been an ongoing issue for quite a while. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I'm surprised we didn't think to blacklist it before (though I wouldn't be surprised if further socks popped up despite the blacklisting). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm practically certain they're just going to start typing the link out now. Even so, if it makes them feel just a bit more unwelcome, it's welcomed - as it were. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Block on Maelefique (moot point, but just for clarity...)

I'll save ya some time, and paste my reply here, if you have any comment to add, please leave it on my page. Since my ban was minor, short, and already over, I completely understand if you have better things to do, no reply will not be taken as an insult :)

We spend the better part of 2 weeks crafting a sentence, days on just the last half of it, we get a general consensus, and then some anon IP drives by and reverts without discussion (Even though he seems very familiar with the topic!), but that's not vandalism?! You should supply your definition of "vandalism" with a statement like that.

Either way, thanks for at least looking at my situation. --Maelefique ^(talk) 03:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Whizbase deleted

Hi Jamie, I am sorry for contacting you, I see you have deleted the page I have created. Please consider getting it back with the rules Wikipedia decide. Maybe just a page to describe WhizBase without any promotions. Thanks again, NurAzije (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to being written like an advertisement, the subject does not meet Wikipedia WP:Notability standards. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hijab

The IP you reverted has posted to Wikipedia:Help desk#lost in wiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Awards section

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie!

You have reverted my contributions to Wikipedia, thinking that they are a spam. But they are not. Please, allow me to explain myself. I was in no way attempting to 'spam' or clutter those articles, but was only trying to provide every program's description with a list of rightful awards, as neatly as possible, without marring the overall design of the articles. Should you have a different view on how such a list is to be implemented (objectionable links, grouping, whatnot), please describe it for me to follow it thereafter. If I may, software.informer.com keeps every program's awards all in one place - would it be proper to use its pages as substitutes for complete lists of awards? I myself am of the opinion that these awards (at least, most of them) can actually assist users in adequate comparison of similar programs - providing them with compact qualitative descriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan sus77 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Software informer is not notable. You are clearly link canvassing. Please stop it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

SOP

Is it your MO to delete pages without notifying people? I was out of town, with very limited internet so only checking email, and I come back to find that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Ukrainian_folk_dance_companies was deleted. This is a page that has been referenced over and over in lectures and workshops I've attended.

As far as the AfD, a grand total of 3 people who've never edited the page participated.

What is the deal with deletion-happy editors?

Mr. Ohnoitsjamie,

I am serious about rectifying the deletion of List of Ukrainian folk dance companies. Can you clarify what judgements were used in deleting this article? No official policies were cited.--tufkaa (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm warning you once to be civil in any comments posted here. Further incivility will result in a block. As far as your question goes, I could've speedily deleted the article per A3 (no content other than a link farm). I simply nominated it for deletion, and the deletion was carried out by another editor. If you want to contest it, that's what deletion review is for. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't warn me to be civil when my language and my actions don't warrant it. Now, you recommended that an important article be deleted, without, as far as I can tell, reaching out to editors who may have worked on it. A3, which I had to look up, lists any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections as worthy of speedy deletions. We made sure that there were wiki-links within the article. It would have been great if editors could have added more detail, but alas, no effort was made in this instance.

I have reached out to Cirt with regards to saving the article through deletion review or any other method. My question to you is "why delete the article?"--tufkaa (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already answered your question, and I'm not answering it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Anon edits at North Korea

Hi. I noticed you reverted our anonymous friend's attempts to add "murdered by border guards" into the NK article, he/she has now toned it down slightly to "Trips to the region have been temporarily suspended when a South Korean woman was shot dead by border guards in late 2008". Do you have any thoughts on the matter? Are you happy with the new wording or do you think that it should be removed entirely and back to the established version? I only ask because I don't want to be seen to be continuing such a hard line against the anon now that he/she has toned down their edits. AreaControl (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My New Section

Hi Jamie -

I put a message on the talk page of the Romance (Love) article today, July 12, per your suggestion. I have completed edits of my proposal, including incorporating the prior material, but have not yet posted it to the article. You are welcome to review my material in my workspace and/or the message on the article's talk page. Thanks again for your help, and it will be interesting to see what happens next!

4Xanadu (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Good lookin out

Thanks for your vandalism fighting effort. Garycompugeek (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

LA Demographic Stats

Hi. I've read the 'you removed my external link' section in this talk page already, and the external links guidelines. I wanted to know if you took down my link for a specific reason, or if it was just an external link in the body. --Jesssicar (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free medium to promote townme. There are plenty of other notable or government sources for population statistics. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, to the El Camino Hospital page. --Jesssicar (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the disruptive edits notice, I was trying to include information that I thought was reliable and genuinely useful to people reading specific articles. So, I know that there are gov. websites that have statistics, but I linked to townme specifically (i.e. hospital profiles) because it has a side by side comparison of the hospital ranks, state averages, and national averages. I actually thought the info on townme was easier to understand than on gov websites. Can you recommend a more authoritative source that has this kind of quick snapshot? I'd be more than happy to link to those. Honestly I just started editing wikipedia, so i'd like if you helped me understand what would constitute an acceptable external link instead of ban me from contributing.--Jesssicar (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Townme is not appropriate, period, per WP:Reliable sources. Let's just leave it at that. Do we really need to delve into SPA obviousness here? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. I'm asking you about the school and hospital profiles, in which townme was added as an external link, not as a source. --Jesssicar (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not discussing it further. WP:EL, WP:Reliable sources, WP:COI cover it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I received this message on my talk page regarding the above. I think it may be more helpful to explain to Jesssicar why the source they are adding may not be a good one to add, rather than just link to policy pages and say that the link is not appropriate, especially since Jesssicar has actually acknowledged you and appears to want to talk to you about it, rather than just ignore any of your warnings; in my experience in dealing with spammers (and I've dealt with numerous spammers in my time here), a user who intends just to spam Wikipedia doesn't respond to warnings at all (except just to blank them). Kind regards. Acalamari 18:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to repeat what's already on those policy links, but specifically; the townme site was promoted by two separate editors, both of whom also added some gov links and not much else (a suspicious coincidence). The site itself is commercial and non-notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I posted my new section

Hi Jamie - I just now posted my new section in "Romance (Love) - Psychology of Love." I had not received any comments in the four days since I put a notice on the talk page, so this is it! Hopefully I will now receive constructive comments from others, and not just a wholesale "undo." Thanks again for your assistance, I may need it again depending on the results now! 4Xanadu (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:HowesR1

This user has withdrawn his legal threat at OTRS:3344796 and on his talk page. I propose to return his block to the original 24 hours unless there is a reason I should not. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, been off-wiki a couple of days and I see it's been interesting. My position is simple: Everything I had to say to HowesR1 should still be in the talk page of the article in question or the Cowboy Action Shooting (Not Cowboy Mounted Shooting, which is a new spinoff) page, or our talk pages. I have no bots. All the bot edits are bot edits and I have nothing to do with them, I am not part of a conspiracy. I only edit under this user name, anyone else editing is a different person. Basically, when this new article came to my attention via a link from Cowboy Action Shooting, which is a recognized sport across the west and the article has been around for awhile, started by a different set of editors, I tagged it with a WPEQ assessment and tried to make some constructive comments about the article, and yes, questioned if we need it, as was shown on the article talk page. In response, well, you can read it all for yourself. I have at no time bullied, threatened, harassed or otherwise have done anything other than to try to make a few constructive edits and explain wikipedia guidelines to HowesR1, who has consistently responded with the same tone you have seen over these last few days. When I suggested that his article be merged with the Cowboy Action Shooting page, that seemed to really cause upset. But do note that this "SAMS" article has been created and primarily edited by one person whose user name suggests he is the same as the founder and lead promoter of this sport, which is mostly centered within about 100 miles of Las Vegas. I'm not going to argue notability, I'm mostly concerned with the self-promotion and the bad attitude. But I also am really tired of dealing with it solo, so whatever you guys want to do, I'll be glad to answer further questions, but otherwise, if you'll pardon the pun, I'm outgunned. And if I may mix my metaphors, I have other fish to fry. Montanabw^(talk) 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You've made some great contributions, glad to see you're not letting one editor burn you out. Yeah, the I knew that 'bot accusations were silly. I failed to see any bad-faith or attacks on your part. Now that the user is on multiple radars, I wouldn't worry about be bullied anymore. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just made a couple comments. Will be interesting to see what happens. Montanabw^(talk) 23:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess we saw what happens. Thanks for stepping in. Montanabw^(talk) 18:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, glad that the issue seems to be settled finally. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation) at DR

Just letting you know that the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination) has been listed for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 15. You may be interested in commenting. Tatterfly (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Barbaro hoaxer appears to be back

It looks like they are back, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain. I suspect there are additional hidden socks considering they have used 2 different variable IPs before. Edward321 (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

fyi

User_talk:114.77.78.40 Green Cardamom (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've given the IP a generous vacation from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not 'blacks'; 'black people'

Hi - the article was offensive to many people as it stood; could you review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=17072530#Identity before reverting changes? There's also plenty of other material out there that indicates the preferred terms - here's one: http://www.med.umich.edu/diversity/pdffiles/Referr.%20Diff.pdf Best, Little grape (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware that there is any universal consensus of those terms being offensive to everyone. Revert it again and you'll be violating 3RR. Take it to the talk page and seek a consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 'universal' consensus is, but I'm sure you're not suggesting that the existing consensus at MoS, which states: "Avoid the use of certain adjectives as nouns to refer to groups of people within society: use black people rather than blacks", should be ignored in the specific article for 'black people'?! Little grape (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As already stated in my edit summaries, my comments here, and by several editors at ANI, this discussion belongs on the article's talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's as maybe. But you reverted Grape's edits which complied with Manual of Style back to the one which uses the arguably offensive term. Now... if I reinstate Grape's wording, are you saying you will block me immediately? I have yet to do any edits on the article. But I thought I must ask you this question as your statement seems pretty unequivocal. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You know full well that there is no consensus to restore grape's wording. Edit warring against consensus will result in a quick block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As previously stated, I have zero edits on the article, so edit warring (from me at least) is not a concern. I will last the article as an RFC. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rorshach test vandalism

Just FYI: You warned User:Zz6549 instead of User:Rosecharacter test. I reverted your warning to include a welcome message and a thanks for fighting vandalism. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for catching that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Are You Interested

I retrieved an article that I wrote two weeks ago and noticed that it had been tagged as an "orphan". I was surprised to see that especially since Zoosk, OK Cupid, Plenty of Fish, Yelp and other social networking/dating sites were already on Wikipedia. As instructed, I added a reference to online dating service and now I just received a notice that the article was construed as an advertisement. Can you explain the difference between my article and the ones from Zoosk, OK Cupid, Plenty of Fish and Yelp so that I can revise my article? Thanks in advance Jamie. Jsupplesnap (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COI. Are you in any way affiliated with AreYouInterested or SNAP? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am an accountant for SNAP as well as an avid user of Are You Interested. I noticed that the other companies in the social media/dating arena such as Zoosk, OK Cupid, Plenty of Fish, Yelp all have articles on Wikipedia. Prior to writing the article on Wikipedia I reviewed those articles and modeled the Are You Interested article in the same fashon as theirs. I also edited about a dozen other articles on unrelated subjects to get experience in how Wikipedia articles are written. None of the other articles I contributed to were commented on. It was only after that I decided to write the article on Are You Interested. I tried to write the articel with no original research, using a neutral point of view and verifiability thru several citations. We are a very transparent company in that we file quarterly reports with the SEC. It has cost us millions of dollars and several years to build our business. We are not aggressive in stock promotion, nor will we ever be. In fact, we never mentioned in the article anything about our stock. I tried to use as many citations within the article to show that the article was backed by as many independent people as possible. What I am trying to show in the article is that this new type of dating is gaining traction. If you would like me to revise the article or remove any citations I will be happy to comply. Please let me know your thoughts. ThanksJsupplesnap (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See our policy on conflict of interest. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I read thru the COI rules and have made substantial changes to make the article more neutral. I removed several citations as well as the information about the company being public. Pleas let me know if I need to make any other revisions. ThanksJsupplesnap (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the article for are you interested was deleted. Can you explain to me why it was deleted when it was modeled after Zoosk, Plenty of Fish, OK Cupid and Match.com, all of who still have articles on Wikipedia? Jsupplesnap (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Those articles are all about notable sites. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Hello Jamie. You have removed the explanation, that food scares which affect meat eaters can be avoided by not eating meat. This commentary, which is common sense, self understanding and does not need a reference, was added because the context of the section of the article tried to artificially create an opposing stance, where there is not one. If you read that section, it comes forward as if though eating meat is equally dangerous in compare to not eating meat. However, If you eat more different foods you increase the scares associated with your diet by those scares associated with each specific food. So, if you have some suggestion, how to fix the wording of the section to avoid this, please help. Thanks! Atmapuri (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting vegetarianism or anything else. What you are calling common sense is what I would call original research and synthesis (e.g., "When looking at the humanity as a whole throughout the history a number of pandemics would not have happened, if people would have been vegetarians" [7] and [8]). Stick to the data presented by the sources and don't add your own interpretations or conclusions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Places impacted by urban decay is back

Was about to congratulate the user on a particularly erudite knowledge of Wiki categorization, and saw your warnings on their talk page. It still looks highly subjective, which is what I assume was the reason the category was removed originally. Syrthiss (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, blocked. Thanks for the heads up! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I independently added this to WP:AN at 17:51 unaware that action was underway. I didn't know it had been previously deleted and was asking there about the obvious subjective nature of the template. Can you please provide a brief answer at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Category:Places_impacted_by_urban_decay and mark as resolved? Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming

User:More the Merrier is a Scibaby sock. Can you do the necessary? Thanks - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Quck Access Toolbar

Hi Ohnoitsjamie

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. You request that I stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, however I'm not sure why you consider my article to be inappropriate. I thought (and think) that my article is informative and accurate. Could you let me know why you think this article inappropriate? Thanks, very much --Paulpark (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see the blurb at the top of my page. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The blurb at the top of your page is a lengthy contents section. Is that what you meant? Sorry I'm new to this and you're already responding on my talk page so it's a bit confusing.--Paulpark (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The "why did you remove my link" blurb. I get asked the same question quite frequently, so I made a blurb at the top of the page so I don't have to keep answering it over and over again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading the blurb, I'm still unsure about why my article is unsuitable. Does linking to the article represent a conflict of interest?

From the COI article: "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." My article is notable as there are no others on the same subject matter (QAT in Word 2010). --Paulpark (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, no. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If linking to the article doesn't represent a conflict of interest, then what is the problem? It would be helpful for me to know, because if I don't understand what the problem is, there's the risk of me making the same mistake again. Thanks. --Paulpark (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There won't be any problems as long as you stop adding links to your own sites or sites you are affiliated with. Period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So it is a COI? Right, I wasn't sure what the precise problem was, so it's very helpful that you tell me. Thank you. As quoted a few lines up from the COI article you referred to: "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." As previously explained, the article is notable, and as far as I know it conforms to the content policies. If I am mistaken, could you explain how? Thanks very much. --Paulpark (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, your website(s) are not notable in any way shape or form. You'll have to find another vehicle to promote them. Wikipedia is not the link farm your looking for. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, given that there are no other resources devoted Word 2010 tutorials anywhere on the internet at the current time, I would say that that site is pretty notable! The article is unique, high quality, very informative and relates to the material presented in the Wikipedia article - it even offers the information in video format.

Never mind, I'll just find somewhere else to spam my low quality wares! "not notable in any way shape or form" - excellent! --Paulpark (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Certain locations impacted by urban decay

Would you please look at this category that has just been created. You had some dealing previously with the creator (cf. User talk:Chocolatechipcookie91) and might want to intervene. Kbrose (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I get my website unmarked as spam?

Thanks for your kind remarks. I really didn't intend to do anything wrong by posting links to my site. I'm a retired chemistry professor at a major university so I understand the need for well referenced and verifiable information. As promised, I won't link my site in the future, but I'm wondering if it is now carrying a spam label in case someone else tries to link to it someday. My site is one of the premier websites for medallic art, along with a couple others, and it has an enormous amount of information (photos of more than 5000 medals by more than 900 medallic artists) that I was trying to share through Wikipedia. It is likely that others will want to reference or link to it. What will happen now if they do? Jwbirks (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the spam header from your talk page. If an established editor adds it, I don't think it will be a problem. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jamie! I read your talk page, so now I have a much better understanding of how things work here. Having newbies directed to read a page like yours would be very helpful I think. Jwbirks (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You're fast

Good catch here. I was submitting the same one and I swear when I started typing the SPI there were no flags on the userpages... I can't believe it took me 17 min to type it. In any case, nice job.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem; glad to see we were on the same page with our suspicions. I think I wrote the SPI then tagged; probably should've tagged first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what is your idea of an appropriate external link, but to my best knowledge the links that i have added are appropriate, as per wiki gudlines, and they provide unique and helpful information related to that topic.User:patrik101 ^Talk and what on earth makes you think that they are spam

Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM (and probably WP:COI). Add them again and you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jamie can you tell me what makes u think they are spam, they provide useful information relevant to topics anyways i have removed them and i am ready to discuss them before posting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrik101 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They are heavily commercial and no different from hundreds of other similar sites. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle to promote sites you are affiliated with (unsurprisingly, both domains are registered via the same anonymous DNS service). If I see you other other users continue to add them, I'll add them to the blacklist as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Illow choo pillow

I noticed that you recently rightfully blocked this user for vandalism, he was on my radar too as I had reverted some of his vandalism earlier. I just want to make you aware that he has at least one sock puppet User:Meet Me Outside, who has performed exactly the same vandalism edits on handshake (User:Illow choo pillow) and feces (just to name a few). --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

Deekie-whatever is an obvious sock of the banned User:Pioneercourthouse, and I have reported it to AIV for proper handling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I kinda figured that. I was just playin' with him. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I failed to notice that he's already on AIV, reported by the bot. Feel free to do the honors. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. Oh well, back to counting cards, or matchsticks, or whatever else he does. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Even that innocent mental picture is too much information. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Awwwwwshhhhhhhhh...... OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! Ooh! You've got a second chance to do something. He just filed an unblock request. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And it was denied and he was locked out of editing his page. That should do it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Pet First Aid

I removed the prod; if you want to propose a merge, which was the rationale for the prod, then go ahead. Fences&Windows 23:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

try2cms page deletion

I wish to have more details as to why the page for this software was deleted. I created this page when i added this software to the list of SaaS content management system list (List of content management systems). It was not about a company or a persone so I fail to understand why the articel was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paquettg (talk • contribs) 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason is spelled out on your talk page. There is no evidence that the software is notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

SOAPBOX

Don't you think you should have given Dab33r (talk · contribs) a level 1 warning instead of a level 3 warning? That was the users first edit, and wouldn't that bite the newcomers? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not with such a blatantly spamming post. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree it was blatant, but you still should have started out with a softer warning, but escalating the warnings. I have no need for further discussion here, as I have another matter to worry about, which I do mean "matter". Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my judgement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop warning me

As a wikimedia user, I have right to make edits for which i have reasons. Please don't think its your authority to take other people's rights. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmiles2470 (talk •--Richardmiles2470 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC) contribs) 21:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is my authority to block you if you continue to make disruptive edits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re- Stop warning me

I know you are an administrator, and if you'd want, you can delete my account at once. But consider that you are doing this because you can't face criticism. The wikipedia's page on administrator gives me right to criticize an administrator. Other then that, about my edits.....I am doing them in accordence to the wiki style guide.

--Richardmiles2470 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You think wrong. This is a lame old discussion; you are in the wrong; please stop wasting the time of all of us. And learn to sign your posts; Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. . --Orange Mike | Talk 22:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Self selection bias still present when both populations are self-selected

Hello Ohnoitsjamie,

You reverted a clarification I added to the Homeschooling page. That section is misleading as it is because it implies a statistical fallacy that comparing two self selected populations is comparable or as good as comparing two random selected populations. I believe removing the part that makes it seem that it's weak to compare self selected with random, but self-selected compared to self-selected is strong statistically would fix it.

Alternatively, swapping the following two sentences may fix the problem. What do you think?

"Some states that require testing allow homeschooling parents to choose which test to use.[79] When testing is not required, homeschoolees taking the tests are self-selected, which biases any statistical results.[80] An exception are the SAT and ACT tests, where homeschooled and formally-schooled students alike are self-selecting; homeschoolers averaged higher scores on college entrance tests in South Carolina."

thanks, Mk2337 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, the solution you propose is much less awkward that "annotating" the sentence as you did the first time. You could try posting on the article's talk page regarding your concerns; you might get some wording ideas from other editors. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For info

I think you must have just edit conflicted with me here as I had just dealt with the unblock request and posted my notice including an extension of the block. I have rolled back your edit at this time. Hope you understand. Best wishes.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 05:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably too late to open an SPI anyway, since that was from awhile back. WP:DENY might be the best approach here (even though I violated it myself on his talk page). My public - how they love me! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Send Money Home

Hi Ohnoitsjamie

I removed the {{prod}} template you added to the above-captioned article. The topic doesn't strike me as notable, but as it is sponsored by the UK government, it's reasonable to expect that there was some degree of coverage of it along the way. I'm not saying its notable, just that an AfD is a way to get more people to do a little work trying to find sources.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 16:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

Hmmm.....I see your point. I think it set off my spam radar because of they way it was written, but given that it's not really a commercial venture, probably not worth sending it to afd. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from AVANT

Hello Ohnoitsjamie, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to AVANT has been removed. It was removed by Twp with the following edit summary '(rm prod - the article does assert notability ("over 40 exhibitions", etc))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Twp before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Mr. Snoidy Toy's Edits

Just curios why you reverted the edits by this unregistered user on Concrete-Central Elevator and Wollenberg Grain and Seed Elevator. Both comments reverted were well written and properly referenced. Is it because Mr. Snoidy Toy is not registered? If so, can I revert to include his comments (or add them myself)? Just curious and seeking guidance.--Pubdog (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the account's contribution history, you'll see a pattern of reference spamming to promote a book, most likely a WP:COI. We don't allow link canvassing, especially to a non-notable book. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)