User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive2

January 2006-

My user page

Thanks for reverting. Chick Bowen 02:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template substitution

Wikipedia encourages substituting warning templates on user talk pages, which I see you haven't been doing. See Wikipedia:Template substitution. Royboycrashfan 02:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for catching the vandal who hit my userpage. I've been away for the last week so I never saw it. Gee, I wonder if someone doesn't like me? ;-) 23skidoo 14:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you fancy...

Applying for adminship? I'm happy to nominate you if you still want to go for it. -- Francs 2000 02:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I counted 2,100 edits. This is still a little low so it's up to you: we can wait a couple of weeks if you wish.

And yes, the vandalism has decreased in the last month: it tends to go in waves like that. -- Francs 2000

03:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- Francs 2000

03:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message

What did I do? I saw things posted on GNAA Staos talkpage. --Bumpusmills1 07:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine

Thanks for the heads-up. I think that the anon editor had good intentions, but for some reason the secondary source that he cited was being misleading. The web page's "science page" cites "Biochemist, Apr/May 1993, p 15. copyright of Royal Society of Chemistry website 2000", but no such journal as "Biochemist" exists. I found a few journals with similar names, though: Biochemistry, Bioconjugate Chemistry, and Biomacromolecules. Searching the entire year of 1993 turns up two articles that mentioned caffeine, and none that mentioned both caffeine and chocolate. A quick PubMed search however, find quite a number of articles that mention finding caffeine in both cocao and chocolate in the small quantities mentioned in the caffeine article. Thanks again! – Clockwork Soul 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's what I do. :) I have even more detail listed in the talk page, should anybody want to try to insert that thing again. – Clockwork Soul 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the star! It's an apt one, too: the one that won't stop moving. – Clockwork Soul 23:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

This is not vandalism, but rather a serious question. Do you have a real job? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands to edit my talk page.

Cool.

Threats

I don't apprticaite threats like "In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact Rogers Cable Inc. Rchrd to report abuse."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.172.130 (talk • contribs)

Why put it up then? I don't see it on every other IP User page. "In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact Rogers Cable Inc. Rchrd to report abuse", that sounds like threat a to me. I have taken pre-law classes, even though I am in Pure Sciences in University currently, and can assure you that given the circumstances, that comment alone can easily be deemed as a "threat", just a heads up.

I find it somewhat amusing however that the 4 of you are attacking me, and your logic is somewhat hypocritical. Obviously the real vandals are the ones who are destroying wikipedia articles purposefully. You guys should really get your priorities straight by getting real vandals, just a friendly piece of advice.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.172.130 (talk • contribs)

I sure hope that I don't get sued for posting a sharedip template to the talk page of an anonymous user! The Internet is serious business! Ohnoitsjamie 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jtm97

Hi Jamie,

Just wanted to let you know to be a bit more careful when editing talkpages of newcomers (redlink users) in future - it appears you have accidentally written a message on the above person's user page instead of his/her talkpage. No further action is needed though, I've fixed that problem so no worries. :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 08:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Moran

I think you just speedied this article whilst I was in the process of listing it on AfD. How do you put the "this article has been speedily deleted" template on the AfD page? Oldelpaso 19:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His first Kiki Musampa edit was genuine, if a little POV, but he followed it with vandalism a couple of hours later. I've now cleaned it up. I already have most of the Manchester City squad on my watchlist, I'll be keeping an eye out for him or any sockpuppets. Oldelpaso 10:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fethullah Gulen's article

Hi Jamie, It is surprising to me that you revert back the Gulen's article to an earlier version. We worked on it in order to improve to this form an discussed everything in the discussion page. Now I think you should consider what the user {Baruqqque} did a vandalism. He revert the whole article to an earlier form.

Could you please send me a message about it and see the discussion page for the improvement so far?

Thanks.. Resid Gulerdem 17:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jamie, will work on the remaining part to put it into a better form. So far I and some other friends could correct just the first paragraph. I will work on the rest of it more later. I am sure some people out there will help too.

The point is: We want the article be objective. There will be a place for his ideas and a place for the critics as well.

Please let me know if you have other questions anytime. I wrote another message to you comment on the discussion page.

Unfortunately Mr. Barouqqque is reverting the article back without any regular discussion. Sometimes he says just a few words, which are irrelevant, but still revert it. I do not know if you could do anything for it?

You can also look at the link for further information about Mr. Gulen [1]. Best, Resid Gulerdem 20:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jamie, Mr. Barouqqque did vandalized the article again... I was wondering if you could do enything else for it... Would protect it for a while be a temporary solution? Respectfully...Resid Gulerdem 21:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jamie, Will you be able to do anything for the article? Please see my last points I made in the discussion page. He is not proving anything, not answering even a simple question: If Mr. Gulen said 'concrete Mustafa' or not. That should be easy to prove. It is his claim, as all the others... His atempt to give a negative image about him. I will revert it back this time, I hope it is not against the three-revert rule. Best, Resid Gulerdem

By the way, I do not know how to put a note like ('see the discussion page') etc at the history page. Can you help me with that?

I have to leave now, I wish there could be a way to protect the article untill we discuss each and every point one by one. I would prefer if there is an objective version on, till a concensus...

Best regards, Resid Gulerdem 21:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, I cannot save anything here in Gulen's page, because of the edit conflicts. My modem looks to be slow. We somehow should discuss it one by one...Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 01:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that, I missed quite a few paragraphs.

Jamie, I would like you please note that his intension is to give a negative image of him. He is not after the truth. As you said, we can discuss everything in the article at a corresponding section. Why at the first sentences? It is against any witing style I aware of... I am going back to the Gulens article see if I can save some comments, Thanks...Resid Gulerdem 01:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi Jamie, COuld you please divide the discussion into smaller sections. Each question a section, maybe... I cannot get in and save. I do not want to open a new section, thanks for the editing suggestions. Resid Gulerdem

---

Dear Jamie,

Thanks for your comments. I actually do not have any problems regarding mentioning critical views in the article. My only concern is it shouldn't be at the first paragraph. It is how almost all other examples I am looking at are written. When we are writing critical ideas, of course it should be done a verifiable, objective manner.

I appreciate for your time with us here... I am pretty new to Wiki and your comments and help are valuable for me.

Resid Gulerdem 07:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi Jamie,

I can totally see that you are busy. I am also in the same position. I can hardly find some time to edit it. I want to put it into a neutral form.

The intro is really so bad. THere are insults in it which goes far beyond the critiques. The term 'Fethullahci', for example is an insult. If you look at my version, there is no comments (positive or negative) at all.

I thank you for your contributions so far. It is important for me because I believe that you are neutral.

Best,

Resid Gulerdem 19:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi Jamie,

Thanks for your note. Is your concern about Philosophy part? I already deleted it. Actually I didn't write it. I just copied from somewhere after permision and a little modification. I always put a note that I will work on this version of his philosopy, this is not a final version.

I was wondering if you think similar about the intro part I propose too? I carefully tried not to put any comments to my intro version. All are widely accepted facts... I would appreciate for any feedback on that...

I am quite new to this WIki thing so I am not sure if I can succesfully request for moderation. If I cant, I will let you know.

Best,

Resid Gulerdem 03:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Patch

Who said anything about that being an experiment? 'sshole patch is a legitimate, widespread alternate spelling. Maybe you have a soul patch and don't like the implication, but the entire culture thinks they (you?) look silly. 69.9.28.81 07:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

192.195.225.6

I think its a person. I know I could blank them that fast. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northside Prep

In your unholy crusade against "vandalism," you have erased an actual, significant contribution to the Northside_College_Preparatory_High_School article. The need to protect Wikipedia from vandalism is clear, but when countermeasures are careless and thoughtless, nothing is gained. Please be more careful in what you are declaring "vandalism," and stay out of articles that you clearly have no care for, other than their potential to help you get another little medal to put on your user page. --65.43.127.235 06:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should be more careful in regards to Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy. I think it's safe to say that characterizing a teacher as "notoriously bland" runs afoul of that. Oh no itsJamie 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd be a better encyclopedia writer if you wrote only articles on subjects you actually knew about. The reversion was a bad call, as that was the one even mildly opinionated piece in the entire addition (which was fairly significant). --65.43.127.235 06:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments! Oh no itsJamie 06:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy for self-declared vandals

Not that I'm aware, the only possible would be for blocking but I can't see anything directly applicable in WP:BLOCK, if he's disruptive he'll likely get indefinitely blocked, he doesn't appear to have done much. I would guess from him bragging about more articles that he has editted that he got logged out, vandalised as an IP and got blocked anyway... --pgk^(talk) 18:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you didn't go deleting my comments from other users' talk pages. If you want to add a new section, go ahead, but don't delete what others have written. Thank you. --nihon 18:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, not sure what I was thinking. Oh no itsJamie 19:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --nihon 22:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't blank any pages. If so, it was in error. Please be more specific. --68.217.110.69 02:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited a page. I didn't blank any pages so get it straight before you make accusations. Editing pages is what Wikipedia is about. Perhaps if you wrote better and attributed your sources, there would be less need to edit your work. --68.217.110.69 02:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and have a great day! Oh no itsJamie 02:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When a link is highlighted in blue, that means you can click on it to find out more about the subject. That's why you don't need to explain who al-Zawahiri is on every page his name is mentioned. Also, when you do want to add a description of someone, you don;t do it in the middle of the page after his name has been mentioned 12 times. You do it at first mention. Keep improving. --68.217.110.69 03:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that super lesson on Wikipedia. Oh no itsJamie 03:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review policies on editing

You might need a refresher or a remedial English class. --68.217.110.69 03:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be my teacher! Oops, your tinfoil hat is starting to slide off!! Oh no itsJamie 03:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Penis

Jamie, I think you're clearly doing the right thing and the next step will be to file an article content RfC to draw attention to what is clearly an attempt at censorship against Wikipedia policies. I will assist in reverting until and unless that happens. FCYTravis 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gates

You would really need to have some good verifiable source for including Bill Gates. This is the sort of unverified entry which could get the list permently deleted. --Salix alba (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Rock Nerd

Does that mean that you are Jenoah's "Jamie" (assuming you are female, although the name Jamie is certainly ambiguous)? Furthermore, were you aware that Jenoah does not yet have a wikipedia article? Or do you not have any idea what I am talking about? ⇔ | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 04:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was just joking with you. It was a play on the name "Jamie", which is the title of a song by Jenoah, and the fact that you are from San Diego, which is (relatively) nearby the band's hometown in San Bernardino County - I don't remember where, and SBC is a big place. I guess it only made sense to me. Sadly, I'm not familiar with those two Rob Crow projects, but I'll be sure to check them out. ⇔ | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 05:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links on city pages

Hello Jamie,Thank you for the feedback. I was unaware that business-related links violated the Wikipedia submission standards. In reviewing the site, I noticed other corporate entities that have links on Wikipedia’s pages and assumed it was ok.

For example, on conducting a search for “Philadelphia” I noticed a link for philadelphiajobs.biz (local job search site, not unlike our own), as well as a link to Libertynet.com (a portal), Philly.com (a link to a local paper), and Phillylocal.com (an online chatroom).

All of these are corporate entities that have links on Wikipedia.

As a local employment resource that serves the greater Baltimore community, I feel that WorkBaltimore.com contributes substantially to a Wikipedia page about Baltimore.

Response While it is possible to find commercial links in Wikipedia, I'm just trying to prevent new ones from being added (and deleting existing ones as I find them). When I see a new or anonymous user adding ONLY external links, I assume it's part of a campaign to drive traffic to a site or a network of sites. Other editors do the same.

It's not a black-and-white matter; in some cases, links to sites with ads or commerce related are acceptible if there is a general consensus that the link is notable enough (for example; links to the site of a city's major newspaper). (P.S. I've deleted the job link you mentioned on the Philadelphia article). Oh no itsJamie^Talk 18:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you feel strongly that a link is notable enough to be included, you're welcome to state your argument on the talk page for that article. If other editors support your position, I'll accept the consensus opinion. Before doing so, read Wikipedia's policy on external links here: WP:SPAM. Thanks, Oh no itsJamie^Talk 18:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

I would like to nominate you: please let me know what you think and I'll will go and create the request page (if you say yes...!) -- Francs 2000 00:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francs2000 would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Francs2000 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ohnoitsjamie/archive2. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Changing comments

I wouldn't advise it, but you can add clarifications to your earlier comments. -- Francs 2000 00:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverted edits?

Hello, I recieved a message on my talk page (two, actually, but one is old) but I have no idea what they're in reference to. I don't believe I've added anything that could be vandalism, but, I assume, since I'm on a school network, that this might be an IP mix up. Let me know! EDIT: Actually, I have found that it's a similar IP problem, looking over my supposed update history. Sorry about the mix up. I'll establish a real account.

Tim Buckley

Thanks, Jamie, that looks good. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to this page

I reverted the last message because it stood as vandalism in my eyes. (*See history of this talk page*) — Moe ε 00:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. :-D You were faster, lol. — Moe ε 00:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Spring page

Jamie...I clicked on Jasmol on Talk:Big Spring, Texas and it directed me to you. I don't know what, if any, interest you have in Big Spring, but at the time you posted on the Talk page there, you seemed less than impressed with some of the content posted by an anonymous person there. At any rate, I was very offended by that content and attempted to remove it, but he reverted. I held off on re-reverting in an attempt to negotiate with the guy. I would appreciate it if you would take a quick glance back at the article and the talk page, and let me know what you think. The guy claims to be a third-generation resident, and I have a feeling I'm going to have trouble here. I'm a new Wikipedian and I would love any thoughts or ideas. Thanks, Applejuicefool 04:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits on Big Spring, Texas

Hmm well... I am pretty sure that both IP addresses are used by the same person, so if I was handling this situation I would probably block for 3RR. If you do, I'll take the blame if you get told off for it :) If you don't want to take the risk, warn for NPOV and maybe even block for it if the warnings stack up. Thanks, — FireFox • T • 18:32, 28 January 2006

Ah ok. Well someone will sort it out at the 3RR noticeboard. I would, but I'm too lazy :P — FireFox • T • 18:46, 28 January 2006

Your RfA

I am sorry to say that your RfA did not reach consensus. Many candidates succeed in becoming admins in later votes, so don't be discouraged. Read what the voters had to say about your candidacy and good luck in the future. - Cecropia 23:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

soory to see you didn't make it. Better luck next time. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem. Sorry you didn't make it. Better luck next time. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 04:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite, welcome. It's a shame your nomination didn't pass, but I'll make sure I support you next time. Happy editing. --M e rovingian {T C @} 07:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Big Spring, revisited

Not a problem. I usually stick to RC patrol and only play with obvious vandalism, but that seemed like some serious axe-grindage. Y'all have shown remarkable willingness to negotiate the content of the article, and it'd be nice to see him work with you to craft a consensus article. Will see when the ban wears off. I'll keep Big Springs on my watchlist and help where I can. Kuru 22:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie and Kuru, thanks for your help at the Big Spring page. I appreciate it immensely! Applejuicefool 15:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday from everyone at Esperanza! Make a wish and blow at your monitor. --Tantalum T e lluride 00:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday x2!

Ohnoitsjamie/archive2 - HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

I hope you have a very joyous birthday today! Remember, another year older, another year wiser! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, and from all of us at Esperanza, Happy Birthday!

- Pureblade | ^Θ

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Dear Jamie,

At the article 'Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy' the cartoons about Propher Mohammed is posted. 1.3 billion Muslims are considering this as an insult. I know that an insult cannot find place in a wiki article. I would like to ask you please do something for it. We can discuss the issue without pictures too. That is totally unresponsible to put those cartoons to the article. It is very dangerous and a step towards clush of civilizations. Resid Gulerdem 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibat

Hi, I've updated this AfD with some info, and am notifying everyone who has participated in the discussion so far. I'm doing this because I think some users have misunderstood what Ibat is. Please read my comments at the AfD, and if you wish, update your comments. Thanks! Mind matrix 00:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The World Factbook

The World Factbook and all the information and images within it are public domain. See Talk:Israel. Not EVERYTHING is copyrighted ;-) Thanks! Sasquatch t|c 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Do you want to be renominated for adminship? If so, I can nominate you. Or, if you want to wait, just let me know if/when you want to be nominated. --Nlu (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine

Regarding your comments to 70.58.78.21, I don't understand your unilaterial reverting and threatening of this IP address after attempting to add (twice) the caffeine calculator. The points you made regarding adding advertisements and personal web links is not valid in this case.

the Erowid Caffeine Vault was added by the owner of that website, and has less information than Energy Fiend. Will you now be removing that link as well?
There's a link to Thinkgeek's shirt with a caffeine molecule on it. How is this not adding an advertisment?
Energy Fiend was written up in the New York Times and other notable publications as a definitive resource. How could this not be a pertinent external link?

I'm adding back the Energy Fiend link, this time logged in. I will also be removing the Thinkgeek link, as it's an egregious violation of external link etiquete. I would advise against brash reverts and threats just because someone edited from an IP address. If you have a problem with this, bring it up with me on my talk page.

--Velvetsmog 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club

Hello James, In regard to the phrases you pointed out in the describing the Olde English Bulldogge Club, these statements are facts. They can be confirmed by going to either the oebkc.us homepage and/or the leavittbulldogassociation.com homepage. If they continue to cause a problem for the website standards, I will gladly try and reword them in more politically correct format. However, I prefer not to because they are factual statements.

In fact, the information contained in the article on the Olde English Bulldogge is EXTREMELY in accurate and false. I would like to know how I go about having this information rectified? Leo

El juego

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article. "El juego" means "the game" in Spanish, so it's a legitimate redirect IMHO. howch e ng {chat} 00:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football Aid

I've noticed you did an edit on Kaká back a while ago. I nominated the article at Football Aid/Article Improvement. Maybe you can help out by voting and do more edits. There are also more articles you can do and you can nominate articles yourself.Kingjeff 00:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now receive this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Cel es tianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

OhNoItsJamie's Deletionist Bullying

Removed my redirection from the Spanish name for The Game, 'El Juego' as supposedly nonsense vandalism [2]. Later apologises to another Wikipedia user saying 'I guess I was too hasty in tagging that one'...[3]
Removes my addition that Aphex Twin (aka Richard D. James) grew up in Carharrack whilst leaving the info about his album.[4] Which is more important, that he named a remix after it or he grew up there?
Removed etymology of skunk (cannabis) from the strain Skunk No. 1 [5]
Removed a link to my How to Skin Up Guide (losethegame com/electric/skinup.htm Skinupperology), more informative and detailed than any of the other guides and including photos, all the other inferior links were left untouched. [6]
Removed my link to losethegame com LoseTheGame com, from [The Game (game)] page, even though it is by far the most comprehensive Game-related website. [7]

A look through OhNoItsJamie's contributions reveals a rampant deletionist attitude having no respect for the opinions and knowledge of others. Jonty 23:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm not the only one who has reverted your edits, most of which consisted of link spam for your losethegame com site (your registration of that domain can be confirmed via NetworkSolutions whois). The spam warning template that's been applied to your talk page clearly states the policy regarding using Wikipedia to drive traffic to your site. The other edits were reverted because they were unsourced and/or unencylopedic. The info about Aphex Twin was reverted because it accompanied a spam link to your site. You're welcome to restore that information (assuming that it's verifiable). I'm sorry if you're upset that the "Pez" article of your that I nominated for deletion was removed via an afd vote (which now has been recreated with no attempt to address issues raised in the afd vote). I stand by my editing history. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bill Clinton

Regarding your comments on my talk page. My nullyfying your edit and bringing back vandalism was an accident. While you were reverting the page, I was doing a revert of my own. However, I was accidently reverting the vandalism back, not the trusted article. Just a little error on my part. Sorry for the problem. --John / Cloud109 18:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Big Spring, Texas

Okies. Thanks. --Zsinj^Talk

Skinupperology

Why do you keep removing this link, it is more informative than any of the others you have left. Jonty 21:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Spring, Texas

I didn't even notice it was paraphrased. The first sentence of both paragraphs sounded very familiar and I assumed this was more stubborn editing from the same anon editor with that other ip address. Feel free to unrevert me if you think it is the right thing to do. Sorry! ApolloCreed 02:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr noticeboard

Hi. I've just archived the noticeboard, including some of your reports that didn't get an answer. They are now stale, so need to be archived, but you may well have got a raw deal. If the problems continue, leave me a message next time you leave a report. Sometimes these things slip through, especially as there is no-one responsible (formally or informally) for checking that page. William M. Connolley 14:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Spam

Great work reverting that anon spamming hockey pages! However, you rv'ed my category additions in the process. I partially reverted to restore them. Just thought I'd let you know. Take care. SoLando (Talk) 20:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.49.215.174

This is a public IP address of my road runner cable modem. I have it hooked up to an unprotected wireless network. I live in an apartment complex. I know that some vandalism comes from this IP adress(probably from my neighbors), but I do legitimate contributions here. Could you please not block this IP? If the vandalism continues, I could possibly encrypt the network. --67.49.215.174 04:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chonga

Chonga was an article that went through AfD a few days ago about the exact same racially stereotyping bullshit only about hispanic girls in south Florida. See here. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 20, 2006, 05:01 (UTC)

VfD : Moog records

Please read and consider Talk:Moog records. -- Krash (Talk) 14:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE. BS. TX

Hey, Ohnoitsjamie, I'm afraid that the answer to your request for semi protection is no. SP not an option here. Unless the page is being heavily vandalized, semi protection is not applicable. For major disputes full protection can be an option. As I am rather unfamiliar with this situation, (since my protection of the article a week or so ago, I have not given much attention to it) I have the article on the CVU's watchlist in #wikipedia-en-vandalism so it is being monitored for major changes. If you would like to request protection please list it at WP:RFP. Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf 02:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like this guy is more in violation of WP:POINT. Try getting someone to help with that. psch e mp | talk 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I'm pretty sure I missed some of the reverts even with that huge list. I originally made it thinking it might be useful if RFAr comes up, but I don't think it will come to that. ~ Apollo Creed 03:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, that anon is dangersouly close to violating 3RR. psch e mp | talk 03:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I posted one more good faith request for reasons on the talk page and both anon editors pages. If this is not answered, we will wait a day and then remove the tag. At that point, any anon actions are vandalism. psch e mp | talk 04:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't notice the scope of the problem when I left that note on the anon's talk page! Other than trying to discuss it with them, all I can think of in response to your request for suggestions is to continue reverting and warning the IPs. They'll eventually get themselves blocked, and surely when one of his/her IPs gets blocked, surely the others can be too, right? Thanks for the tireless cleanup work! Peace, delldot | talk 18:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually brought this up on #wikipedia-en-vandalism on IRC. I was just talking to joanneB, and she said that it probably should not be treated like vandalism, and that maybe it should become an RfC if the problem persists. She also advocated discussing it with the person and linking to policy. Sorry I couldn't be more help here! Peace, delldot | talk 19:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, i'm drafting a RfC right now. Let me know the next time the page gets reverted by imposter and socks etc.. I will go over it with you and get it started. I fear that this is going to be a long term problem that comes back every time the page is unprotected or that a sock is unblocked. Later. psch e mp | talk 22:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohnoitsjayme

I've just blocked User:Ohnoitsjayme as an impersonator of you William M. Connolley 18:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure if I am to sign the endorsee line or the certifying line (I don't think I was involved enough in the attempts at resolution to certify). I am digging through some old RfC's to determine the correct choice. Congratulations on your first, second, and third impersonators, by the way. :) Kuru ^talk 01:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got the right line. Thank you! psch e mp | talk 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note On advice from Essjay I have changed the title of the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Happyjoe because it was causing some confusion as to who was doing the deeds. There is a redirect in place so nothing should be broken. Good work, psch e mp | talk 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted the editing insanity on WP:ANI. Maybe this will help. psch e mp | talk 05:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the Drama!

Note from Essjay - "Make sure to tag them as socks of Ohnoitsjayme rather than Happyjoe". psch e mp | talk 07:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've confirmed that 212.142.140.149 is in fact an open proxy; if you know of other IPs he has used that are not listed at the RfC, let me know and I will scan them as well. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Account Unjustly Blocked

Dear "Ohnoitsjamie",

I have discovered that my account "Happyjoe" is blocked from editing due to some sort of misunderstanding over the Big Spring, TX article. I am not certain how to contact Wikipedia Technical Support or management to resolve this issue. As you were involved in the recent discussions over the Big Spring article I was hoping that you may be able to offer some assistance in having the block on the account removed. Please remove this block so that I may complete necessary editing on other articles. Thank you for your timely assistance in resolving this problem... Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to guess that the block has something to do with this RFC; specifically, the use of open proxies to circumvent Wikipedia policies and procedures. I'm afraid that I can't support a removal of the block based on your behavior documented at the RFC and here. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 15:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removal and accusation

Encyclopedias are supposed to be an objective, unbiased, and accurate account of an event. By not allowing disclosure of this entry you are breaking the fundamental principle this site must maintain to protect the integrity of its information. Wikipedia is ultimately acting as a third party bias between the author and its audience and I am disgusted that some stranger suggests, on a whim, that some event they know absolutely nothing about is nonsense. In essence, your ignorance and power to alter a historical account is nothing short of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.192.242.71 (talk • contribs)

The edit in question is decidedly unencyclopedic and unverifiable. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 18:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moog records

We're on the threshold of a no concensus here. I've moved relevant text into the appropriate section of Robert Moog. As I continue to contend that "Moog records" is protologism, would you support a merge and delete? -- Krash (Talk) 23:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer

Annoying, wasn't he?--Vercalos 06:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God, what is it with the pricks tonight?--Vercalos 07:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy scan request

Hello Ohnoitsjamie. Following your request, we've scanned User:69.145.215.206 and concluded that it was most likely not open. Note that this scan doesn't preclude the possibility that the IP address is a zombie computer or network; if you have reason to believe this is so, please list it at Vandalism in progress noting your suspicions. Thanks for your contributions to the WikiProject on open proxies. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. It's registered to Bresnan Communications, which "currently serves over 300,000 customers in Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, and Utah." I suspect that the user is a student at the University of Wyoming, because two of the non-proxy attacks came from IPs registered to that school. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 23:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for 129.72.77.27, by the way; I forgot to mention it in my message. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hammer

I posted a response to your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hammer. Could you please check it out and let me know what you think? Thanks! :-) CrypticBacon 05:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: proposed deletion tag

You're welcome! Haha, I was actually just writing you a message about them when I was checking the names of the articles under my user contributions when I noticed you'd left me a message. :-) Jude(talk,contribs) 00:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you!
Hi Ohnoitsjamie/archive2, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Michael Hammer and James Champy

Hi, you voted 'keep, here. Could you have a look here for discussion on a related article? Those pages have my response and I have improved the articles as well. Both of them are well-established authors in their fields and sold more than a million books individually, so they are notable. btw, I am under some time constraints and cannot research right now to improve James A. Champy to the same level as Michael Hammer, but I'd get around to it soon, in case it is not deleted ;) TIA, --Gurubrahma 18:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing my edits

Please stop removing the links from the hangman page. I don't believe any of the group are particularly commercial. The friendlydragon one certainly is not. GameMan GameMan 03:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The domains of all of your external link additions are owned by the same individual and have Google syndication links. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to increase traffic to those sites. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 04:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be more honestly worded as both (as in two) of your external links are registered to the same person, and one of them contains google adsense. But an honest portrayal is not what you had in mind, is it?

Yes, please do post everything. All 2 of my external links? Friendlydragon.com and perfectpixelpage.com for any other editors that care to take a look? Oh, and all two logons. The one before I registered, and and the one after I registered in order to be able to set up a permanent personal page to speak to you both have the same IP? Wow! I'd say that's pretty deceitful stuff! Definitely should be tagged as "Sockpuppets".

What did I do to you that you are pursuing me to be a nuisance? I have done nothing inappropriate. I have added 3 links in my entire 2-weeks on Wikipedia. I added my link to the hangman page after others that existed. On the pixel ad page, I added content as well as my link. If you don't want links on that page, fine, but don't harrass me elsewhere, where you removed relevant links that had been there for months, presumably so you could claim impartiality. Don't accuse me of spamming for 3 different links on 3 different topics, and don't accuse me of using sockpuppets for registering.

Yes, friendlydragon.com has adsense ads. A free gamesite for hangman, concentration, and nim is a big moneymaker, generating almost 1/2 what it costs to host it. The site has been online for nearly 10-years and has a higher page-rank than the wiki page I posted to. Yeah, I'm wildly spamming the Wiki for personal gain.

Anyone who takes the time to look at that site can see that adsense or no, it is done for fun and as a service and not for profit, but then you wouldn't want to be confused with the facts, would you. The other of the whole 2 domains you refer to, perfectpixelpage.com, has no revenue source and exists merely as an art experiment.

I used to have a lot of respect for the wikipedia community - still do actually - but you are sure leaving a sour taste. Just because you don't like an edit I make, does not give you the right to be rude and slanderous. Bring it to other editors if you like, but don't imply things you must know to be untrue. If you are smart enough to be this much of a pest, you are smart enough to know there has been no attempt to mislead or distort on my part, so watch your accusations.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on polite web etiquette, instead of pursuing others over your personal pet peeves. Oh, and by the way, I have my email listed, so instead of misrepresenting my actions to the community at large, perhaps you could email first in the future.

If you are picking up a note of anger here, it is because I am furious at the moment. Your self-annointed-god-like attitude doesn't help, but your attempts to portray me as deceitful with the misleading wording of your comments about me truly ticks me off. GameMan

Response I'm just calling it like I see it. Your anon IP address did nothing much else besides add external links with Google ads whose domains were registered to the same person. I removed the ads (as well as other commercial links that were on those pages), User_talk:24.149.205.186 warned you about it and responded on the talk page. You then registered an account and added those links back. I sockpuppet tagged that account and warned you again. These actions and the fact that you seemed to adament about retaining the links led me to think you were trying to increase traffic to your sites through Wikipedia (which many folks attempt to do). Yes there were "only" three links, but I was trying to nip the issue in the bud. I'm sorry that you think this is harassment, but when a user does little else besides add external links with ads, I always check their history, and remove ads from any previous contributions. I believe strongly in keeping Wikipedia free of adverts and not letting it degenerate into a link farm.

If you've set up an account to contribute other things besides links to personal pages, great. We welcome your contributions. Assuming good faith, I'll remove the sockpuppet template. Regards, OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 15:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I do not agree with you about the links, as I obviously felt they were relevant, but as you have been around longer here longer than I have I will defer to your opinion, at least until I have reason to be convinced otherwise. I was pretty angry when I wrote the last post, and in light of your more polite reply feel less attacked. As a suggestion for the future, you might want to pay more attention to overall context before replying in a way that could be considered insulting. Whether it was intended or not, your attitude came across as extremely insulting to me. I had taken care to ensure the links were relevant to the topics, I noted that on the hangman page, which was the only one I particularly cared about, there were several longstanding links. I posted mine discretely under the others as the last link, and tried in every way to be low-key and non-offensive. When you removed the link in the pixel ad section, I went back and read the history of the page, noted there had been a long-running problem with numerous links, and did not repost there. I did the same on the hangman page, and noted the links were longstanding, and had never been an issue, so reposted there. When I registered, I left you a note asking that you please stop remove my links. Would I have done that if I were trying to pretend to be someone else? There was really nothing to add about hangman, so I added nothing else. I had additional relevant comments on both other topics (the concentration addition is on the main page noting another meaning, not the game page). I was miffed that you just bulk deleted on the pixel theme, without even noting the additional comment, which is not only relevant, but would seem to reinforce the reasoning for not wanting the external links on that page. I also noted that while you were very quick to remove the labeled links where I placed my link, you left the dead link to tic-tac-toe hangman, and then in your haste to revert the page, restored the dead link I had removed. Perhaps I was being oversensitive but the fact that you just undid every change, without bothering to separate the ones that you objected to from others I made did make me feel attacked. Again, I understand the reasoning on the pixel page, but on the hangman and concentration pages, which are unlikely ever to attract more than a handfull of links, I think you should reconsider restoring the removed links. I would think links to a few relevant examples would be a useful addition. However, it is not something worth arguing about. If you had simply asked that I not include links on the pixel page, without making the comment "sorry spammer" in the edit, which came across to me as rather snotty, I would not have had a problem or felt offended. The fact that you felt you should then look at my post history, and remove everything without bothering to read what else was there also annoyed me. The three other additions may have been short (one sentence in the case of the pixel page -- one dead link removal on hangman, which I researched and spent a good 1/2 hour trying to find and correct before deleting -- one addition to the main concentration page on chemistry) but they were thoughtful, well considered, and carefully worded. They certainly took a lot more effort to post than you spent removing them. Anyway, I would send this privately, but can't seem to find how to get an email from your registration. It's wordy and picky, because I still feel a bit attacked and want to feel vindicated. However, the tone of your last post indicates some of that feeling may be overreaction on my part. I often remind others that straight text contains no inflections, and can be misinterpreted, but am having a hard time following my on advice in this instance. I would suggest that in the future, especially when writing to someone you've never had interaction with before, that you put some thought into how you could be interpreted before making comments, and that you take the time to check the totality of a change before removing it in total. It would have been nice to see the dead link remain gone in hangman, and the comment about link farms remain in the pixel page. Meanwhile, I'll try to remember my own advice about written messages before becoming angry in the future. P.S. I know this is wordy. Feel free to delete it after reading if you like.GameMan

Response I rarely leave "snotty" edit summaries, like the "sorry spammer" one. I suppose I did in that case because it was on the Pixel advertising page, which is a hotspot for spamming; also, I feel very strongly about not letting people turn Wikipedia into a link farm. Nonetheless, I apologize for failing to assume good faith on your edit. Regarding the edits to the two game pages; I'll admit that it's debatable whether or not those pages need an external link section. I try to maintain a pretty strict interpretation of what articles really need external links. For Concentration or Hangman, a quick Google search will yield hundreds of free games; I lean toward the attitude that unless there is a particularly notable one, or a completely advert free, public domain one, let the user find examples via web searches. If you posted a question on the talk pages for those games to see what others thought about adding a few example links, I would respect the consensus opinion.

I tend to make my reverts very quickly; the idea is that if a vandalism or link spam is reverted within seconds, that endeavor will be abandoned as futile. In my haste, I do occasionally make mistakes.

Fighting link spam can be more frustrating than fighting vandalism, as (1) there's already a lot of existing link spam and (2) link spammers are often able to operate faster and cause more disruption before they're blocked. Here's one of the more egregious examples that I had to cleanup with the help of another user. I tend to take a hard-line approach when I see a few instances of what I think is link spam in an effort to avoid situations like that. I have a few personal sites with lots of info relating to a few topics here, but I've resisted the temptation to add them to the articles (even though they have no ads). Unfortunately, there isn't a black-and-white rule for what's an appropriate link and what's an advert/promotional/vanity link. Just today, I changed my mind about a few travel links a user had added (travel links comprise a large portion of spam links) after examining the link contents and deciding that the site seemed to be non-commercial and useful. [8]

I appreciate your taking the time to write a thoughtful response and consider both sides of the issue. Your constructive criticism of my handling of the situation is noted and appreciated. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 03:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thank you!
Thank you for your support in my recent RFA. It passed 53/1/2 and I am now an administrator. I appreciate that some of you made exceptions to your usual requirements re length of service and so on because we've interracted positively in the past, or because of my credentials, so I will endeavour to use my new mop cautiously. I'm always open to feedback and gently constructive criticism. If you're not an admin and need some assistance do of course please let me know. Thanks again --kingboyk 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

P.S. If you are interested in The Beatles, User:Lar has asked me to tag on a little note advertising the creation of a new Beatles WikiProject that we are currently setting up. Please sign up and help.

Re : Nomination for adminship for (aeropagitica)

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to vote for me in my recent request for adminship It ended successfully with a final score of (40/10/5). I value all of the contributions made during the process and I will take a special note of the constructive criticism regarding interacting with users in the user talk space. If you have questions or requests, please leave a message. (aeropagitica) 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long-deserved and well-deserved award

Greetings: It's high time someone gave you one of these, for your tireless efforts at NPOV, especially (at least that I have noticed) on articles on towns and cities, and in spite of persistent attempts by sockpuppets and meatpuppets to subvert our core policy of NPOV:

For tireless efforts toward keeping articles NPOV, I award you this well-deserved barnstar. Antandrus, March 8, 2006

Hangman

As you suggested, I posted a request for comments on the hangman page, but no response. What is the next step? Thanks, GameMan

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Excellent compromise on the crime stats! Thanks! --M @r ē ino 21:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate usernames template

You can dump a {{PUB}} on them, though I'm not sure how many admins are watching the category as of yet. Theoretically some of the vandal fighter tools do / will check for that template and make admins aware of it.

Just thought I'd let you know. Of course, dumping PUB and reporting them to WP:AIV has twice the chance of getting them blocked. ;) --Syrthiss 21:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India Online Classifieds

How do I talk to you. Sorry I am new to contributing to wiki. - bluesargam

When an article is written about the online indian industry and there is a reference to the top classifieds. There is a need to list some of the popular sites. This is not an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesargam (talk • contribs)

I spent some time researching the top classifieds in India and then a lot of time researching the strengths and weaknesses of each. I would appreciate it if you put it back for discussion purposes. --bluesargam

Thanks for your help. Regards --bluesargam

My post on the india page: Hello, I am the author of the online classifieds in india article. I would like to request that the original article be reverted to on the main site so that knowledgeable users on India can review it like ohnoitsjamie mentioned. bluesargam 23:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Online Classifieds Industry

I added {{prod}} but it was removed by Bluesargam. Sending to AfD for review. Moved Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Indian_Online_Classifieds_Industry to Talk:Indian_Online_Classifieds_Industry. Hopefully we can get some more input from other editors on how to handle this article. Monkeyman^(talk) 05:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Happy Birthday!

Click the cake for a Birthday Suprise!

J.Steinbock ^(Talk)

Bulldog spam

Heya, you and I had edit conflict with you about about that breeder spam guy, you were a little faster than me :) Just as an FYI if you see him do it again and need to report him on WP:AIV.

It's actually spam4 instead of spam1 - he has added those links under two other accounts and has been warned there.

    MASTEROFALLBULLS (talk · contribs) and 64.12.116.197 (talk · contribs)

- Trysha ^(talk) 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was happy to find out that there are so many nice templates - here is a list - Trysha ^(talk) 22:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Thank you Jamie! psch e mp | talk 07:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

and thank you again :) psch e mp | talk 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

OhNoitsJamie, please stop deleting content that has been created, edited, and maintained by dozens of other Wikipedians. Rather than deleting the content of others, perhaps you could focus on adding to and improving Wikipedia. Then instead of people saying OhNoitsJamie, they will say HoorayitsJamie, he no longer indiscriminately deletes content, he is a valued contributer. PoolGuy 15:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not "dozens of other Wikipedians." --Nlu (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Correct. The dozens of page contributors are. PoolGuy 17:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Dozens of users could contribute to an article called My Favorite Ice Cream Flavors. That doesn't make it appropriate for Wikipedia. The Pet Peeve article was degenerating into "post your favorite pet peeve here!" The consensus on the talk page was that the list was unencyclopedic and more importantly not verifiable. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 02:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Article My Favorite Ice Cream Flavors

Very Strong Support - Chocolate rules! Monkeyman^(talk) 13:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC) (I kid, I kid)[reply]

LOL OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 17:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack

Please do not attack me personally by calling me a spammer. According to Wikipedia "Spamming is the abuse of any electronic communications medium to send unsolicited messages in bulk." I have not sent any messages in bulk. I have sent individual messages to a finite group related to an AfD. My postings have not strayed from Wikipedia:Spam guidelines relative to internal spamming (which is actually linked at the top of your user page). Based upon your familiarity with this guideline, it is my opinion that you are personally attacking me by using this negatively connotated expression. At Wikipedia:No personal attacks it states that users can be banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. GoldToeMarionette 04:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Your only contributions thus far have been to post messages to over 80 users asking for support in an afd (who's author has already been blocked once for violating Wikipedia policy [9]).

Anyone looking at your history, the edit history of the article and the afd can draw their own conclusions. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfc

Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse Me

I don't appreciate being accused of vandalisim for acting in the best interests of the public. I have a six year old son who came across a page about the vagina when doing biology homework. I was horrified to see a photo of a real vagina, as was my wife. I have no problem with the diagrams, but is there any reason for the real thing to be shown? No there is not.

Rather than making suggesting I am defacing this site, you should appreciate that I am spending a portion of my very limited time improving it for the benefit of others.

I expect an apology, but doubt very much that I will get one. —This unsigned comment was added by 88.108.27.142 (talk • contribs) .

Response Deleting content repeatedly despite extensive discussion of that content on the talk page is vandalism as far as I'm concerned. Wikipedia is not censored. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly? This is the first time I have ever edited something for crying out loud. If this site is truly uncensored, perhaps you wouldn't mind me making a page about how much I hate Wikipedia, and especially 'Ohnoitsjamie'. —This unsigned comment was added by 88.108.27.142 (talk • contribs) .

Such a page would be tagged for a speedy delete in accoradance with Wikipedia policies. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 23:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would "such a page be tagged for Wikipedia speedy deletion"? Because you wouldn't like it. This site is about informing, so surely I should be allowed to give my honest opinion about Wikipedia whether it is good or bad. Or is Wikipedia immune to criticism?

I think that you, ohnoitsjamie, should be tagged for speedy deletion in accordance to Hotspur Warrior policies.—This unsigned comment was added by 88.108.27.142 (talk • contribs) .

I've already provided links to the the relevant policy pages (WP:NOT and WP:Speedy_deletions). OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 23:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously think you need to take off the swastika badge, shave off the little 'tache and keep your arms, especially the right one, down by your side at all times. Oh, and Poland have been on the phone. They want you to stop invading them. They said it wasn't funny in the 30's and it still isn't now. —This unsigned comment was added by 88.108.27.142 (talk • contribs) .

VantageScore

Jamie, please do not remove the Credit Help Guide US link from the Source section of my articles. It adheres to Wikipedia guidelines in that the content I am helping to create is in part based on information on Credit Help Guide US (www.credithelpguide.us). This site, also according to Wikipedia guidelines, is free to all consumers and charges nothing for access to any of its content. Dwcusc 00:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, explain to me how you feel the SOURCE link I placed is considered advertising? Real content was produced thanks in part to this FREE site. Where do you see signs of advertising? Dwcusc 00:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the site: The site is trying to make a modest profit by promoting credit services. [10]. That site is certainly not the only source of information mentioned in that article. It's clearly a promotional site. Wikipedia is not for advertising. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, Credit Help Guide US displays sponsor ads or links just as many other for-profit sites that are quoted throughout Wikipedia. The site does not charge its consumers a single cent for reading its articles. On that very same Wikipedia article, Payday Loans, Slate.com is listed as an External Link. When I go to Slate.com I see 3 different sponsor ads to the left, bottom and top of the actual article. I also see an "advertiser link" advertising to "Get a $200,000 loan for $833/Month." Sites like Yahoo News, MSN Money and many more have the same links. Why do you feel you can indiscriminately single out sites that don't have large corporation names behind them? All the sites mentioned are open to the public to read their content, but place ads to allow consumers to help support the site IF they choose to. Please reverse your edits and add back the Source links to Payday Loans and VantageScore. Dwcusc 09:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slate has ads, but it's also highly notable and frequently cited along with other major news outlets and magazines. The Credit Help Guide article was already afd'd because it did not meet the criteria in WP:WEB. As I said before, there are more authoritative sources for that info (such as vantagescore.com). Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote your website. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vantagescore.com site is purely a commercial site, and apparently you have little to no knowledge of the subject matter in question. If you actually take the time to go to the vantagescore.com site you'll notice it gives NO information on the distinction between the new VantageScore versus the existing FICO score. The Wikipedia Guidelines are just that, GUIDELINES. You need to also apply some sense to your random edits. You cannot claim unbiased articles by having all of your sources be commercial sites that are the owners of that particular site (like vantagescore.com is of the new VantageScore credit score option). I am not trying to use Wikipedia as a means to promote my site, but use it as it was intended as a forum for public, reputable knowledge and actually reference a site that was used in the creation of the article. You will let me know BEFORE you remove my links. Dwcusc 19:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you so much for supporting me in my recent RfA, which passed with a final tally of 56/1/0. I thank you for your confidence in my abilities. If you ever need anything or find that I have made an error, please let me know on my talk page. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Morrow High School POV tag

I didn't know were to put this, so I am putting it here. Yo ucan remove it after you read it. I have added things to Dwight Morrow High School to make the page more neutral. I have removed the tag. You may add it back on if you feel that the artcile is not yet beutral enough. Dmhsgarduate2006 19:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the page once again with new information. Let me know if the new edits are within wikipedia's standard so I have a basis of writing good articles with proper sources. See the talk page of the artcile as well. Dwight Morrow High School. Put any personal comments on my talk page. Dmhsgarduate2006 20:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have added some citations to the arctile, but it needs major clean up to make it look more ncie and presentable. Can you help me clean up the page to make it look more presentable? Dmhsgarduate2006 22:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, what should I do. On the Dwight Morrow High School page their is a new user who keeps adding anti-DMHS comments taht are POV and degrading to the current students. I keep changing it back to the old version, but that user keeps adding that paragraph that has no sources and is aimed to degrade the current students off the school. Dmhsgarduate2006 00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing the right thing now (reverting because passage is unsourced, asking user to cite sources). Because it's not vandalism, you need to be aware of the Three Revert Rule. Even in instances where it's obvious unsourced/POV, you should cover your bases and avoid running afoul of that policy. When you're doing the right thing (asking for sources and avoiding POV), you should end up with other editors stepping in to revert so that you can avoid the 3RR. If you feel like you're fighting a one-on-one battle, it's appropriate to ask other editors (as you did with me) to look at the issue and weigh in. If the user attempting to insert POV resorts to sockpuppets, you can request sock puppet checks from an admin. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1

Reach out
Reach out is a program aimed at allowing users to bring issues that they have had in Wikipedia to a listening, sympathetic and caring audience: "No one can know how we feel if we do not say. We cannot expect to get understanding if we do not ask for it. No one will dispute that sometimes life's issues are too much for one person. It is fair to say that sometimes Wikipedia's problems fall under the same heading. This is a place where you can bring the bruises that can sometimes be got on this project for attention."
Stress Alerts
The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of their stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.
Note from the editor
Welcome to this new format of the Esperanza Newsletter, which came about during the last Advisory Council meeting - we hope you like it! The major changes are that each month, right after the Council meeting, this will be sent out and will include two featured programs and a sum up of the meeting. Also, it will be signed by all of the Advisory Council members, not just Celestianpower. Have an Esperanzial end of March, everyone!

The last AC meeting (full log)
Future meetings are to be held monthly, not fortnightly as before. Bans and Access level changes (apart from autovoice) in the IRC channel are to be reported at the new log. In the IRC channel, there is going to be only one bot at a time. The charter requires members to have 150 edits and 2 weeks editing. Why this is the case will be clarified. A new Code of Conduct will be drafted by JoanneB and proposed to the Esperanza community. The NPA reform idea is to be dropped officially. Charter ammendments are to be discussed in future, not voted on. The Advisory Council is not going to be proposed to be expanded by the Advisory Council themselves, if others want to propose it, they will listen.
Signed...
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 17:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution link

Put at bottom so as not to mess anything up. Is there a simple way to discuss article I submitted? It is an addition and should be in there someplace. I see your point but it does follow the whole chimpanze/man discussion. It is a scientific study so I don't think their is disagreement that it should be added right? Sorry for sending this way. I'll watch your change to see how to discuss appropriately with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Questioning (talk • contribs)

Well, there are scores of articles about human and chimp/monkey DNA homology. That particular study has a pretty tenuous connection to the Evolution article; it deals with evolution specific areas on the DNA strand (recombination hotspots). How exactly does that particular topic fit in with the rest of the article? OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 04:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 05:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Sunday

I noticed that you just tagged this article with {{db-bio}}. This explains that they are real people but don't assert any notoriety (sp?). As the first sentence says, they are characters in series of books, not real people. Just thought you might want to rethink your tag on that. I have no ties to the article, I was just patrolling the recent changes log and noticed it. Dismas|^(talk) 07:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see you changed it. Dismas|^(talk)

Where is this consensus?

Leotardo 08:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was about content

There is a lot of content in those photos and I give a heads-up about the commercial nature of the site for those who might feel that they will not be able to resist the offer for sale of the images. Those images have a lot of content in them and you are being a hair-splitter by ripping them out just because copies of them are for sale. To do shun all art museums that have a shop atteached to them? Get a life: I am putting that link back. -- 70.231.170.160 19:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are as empty-headed a Wikipedian as I have ever met. You obviously do not know, nor do you want to know nor do you want anyone else to know why San Francisco is a great city to live in. You are acting like a child because you refuse to view the images as they are offered for free. Historcal, exciting images of a great city. There is no other site on the web such such a good collection of images of that great city available like that for free and you want to sit there and whine because copies are also availble for ordering. -- 70.231.170.160 19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you pathetic, authority-obsessed whiner: you cannot find a better set of historical and contemporary images on the subject matter for free on the web, can you? Huh? -- 70.231.170.160 20:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Frankl

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Stifle 21:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Unblocking request

I was attempting to be a neutral party and reverting articles to previously agreed-upon versions (and was not warned about the possible 3RR violation prior to blocking). The user who filed the report was initially blocked for 3RR and then used two different sockpuppets to continue reverting the articles.[11],[12] I realize that it's only three-hours, but as someone who puts a lot of time into vandalism patrol, spam patrol, projects, and dispute mediation, I'm more concerned about the "black mark" on my account for what I believe (and what others believe) to be good faith efforts in this matter. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ohnoitsjamie. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 23:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block has expired. Stifle 00:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unable to edit. Furthermore, I certainly did not create this account. For one, I would not use socks to circumvent policy. Secondly, I never spell my name like that ("Jaime"). Please compare the IP of that account with my IP. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imposter

JaimeitsOhNO is an imposter. I certainly would not create a sock to circumvent policy. I never claimed that the reverts were simple vandalism reverts, either. In fact, I'm guessing that an IP check would probably show that the imposter is using the same IP address as the sockpuppets mentioned in the original 3RR request.

I wasn't concerned about the three-hour time period; I'm more concerned about having a block-log record associated with my account. (See talk page note). OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies concerning the incorrect suggestion of circumvention. That is withdrawn. Unfortunately, block log entries can't be deleted.

I'm aware you never claimed the reverts were simple vandalism reverts - that was addressed to the impostor. I hope we can put this issue to bed, at least for the remaining 15 hours of the other party's block, eh? :) Stifle 00:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

The user (Poche1 (talk · contribs)) who filed the 3RR complaint against me (which I still maintain was bogus) has been blocked indefinitely, as have all of his/her sockpuppets. Good riddance. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 15:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR, etc.

No problem — this whole thing has been going on for over a month now, with an endless succession of new sockpuppets showing up to keep the fiasco rolling...and I'm really beginning to get tired of it. But I despair of ever figuring out how to make it stop. *sigh* Bearcat 01:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me With My Artcile

I am writing an artcile. I already asked other Wikipedia people for help, but I want help from as many people as possible in order to write a great article. My article is Islamic Rulings, the point of this article is to provide a point of view from the Islamic perspective so people doing reports on Islamic law can see how muslims view the laws. I am citing as many sources as possible. I just need help knowing if it is to point of view. Leave all comments and suggestion on my personal talk page. Thanks for helping out. MuslimsofUmreka 02:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Spaces

The article I wrote was ancient spaces. Addressing the crystal ball problem would have been simple as all that was needed were a few changes in wording. Phrases like "scheduled to" doesn't at all suggest something set in stone nor does it attempt to make a prediction. As far as the noteworthyness of the project it was featured in Wired magazine April 2006 issue. I am a bit non-plussed at how flippantly the page was deleted and thought that measures were taken to try to fix borderline articles to bring them up to Wikipedias standards were taken before deletions were made. I do not have much free time and will be hesitant about writing articles for the Wikipedia in the future if there have been unclear changes in policy regarding deletions. I would like to humbly ask that the ancient spaces article be undeleted and fixed to remove any crystal ball problems. If it can't be undelted I would like more insight as to why not. Any insights on this matter as well as pointing out things that I have missed would be welcome. I try to be as careful as I can about my submissons. You can e-mail me at john11235813@yahoo.com to discuss this further if you wish. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John11235813 (talk • contribs)

Ohnoitsjamie please double check

Hi,

I added a link to the Church of Christ page (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Church_of_christ) that you chose to delete. It was to the online magazines section. The link was Grace-Centered Magazine which is located at http://www.gracecentered.com. I repsect your right to do this, but I don't understand why you did. I would like to present reasons why I think it should be there and thank you for reading my message.

If you do a search on Google, you will see many, many Churches of Christ linked to it. If you do searches on the authors listed in the archives section you will see that they are preachers for Churches of Christ. I, myself, am a member of the Fourth Avenue Church of Christ here in Franklin, Tennessee. If you visit DMOZ.com, you'll see that it is listed in the Church of Christ section there.

Grace-Centered Magazine has been written about in New Wineskins (which is listed in this category) and Christian Chronicle (also listed in this category). Articles that appeared in Grace-Centered Magazine have been discussed at Church of Christ lectureships that were presented on live television.

Would you please reconsider its listing?

Thank you for listening.

Lee

Important AfD

The article for the G10 Group of Prestigious Canadian Universities is up for Deletion, please go and support Education related articles in Canada. This is a very important group of schools, Canada's version of the Ivy League, and it needs your support! -- pm_shef 03:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DaGizza's RfA

Hi Ohnoitsjamie/archive2, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. Gizza^Chat ^© 11:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:)

Let me be the first to say, "Welcome back!" :) psch e mp | talk 21:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It wasn't as long as I anticipated (it pains me too much to see vandalism and link spam go un-reverted). OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 22:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]