User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive26

Variety References

re: your comments on my recent entries - I have no connection or affiliation with the blog whatsoever. I don't know the person who runs it, I have no commercial agenda. (The blog is not even used to advertise anything.) I use it because it collates data from Variety, the film industry trade paper, a highly regarded source. This blog reproduces information from there (and other sources) to provide an invaluable information database that is incredibly useful for wikipedia readers. I could just put the reference to Variety and not have the blog link but it would mean users miss out on seeing where the information came from and being able to put it in context e.g. I give box office rentals for the films - logging on to the blog will mean people will also be able to see where those films ranked in box office rentals for that year. I believe the link is entirely appropriate until another website that contains all this information is created.Dutchy85 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think it was your blog or anything; I just don't think that a blog that simply replicates data from another site is an appropriate reference. That said, I posted it to the Wikiproject Spam board to solicit further opinions (and on that posting I did specifically say that I thought you were adding the links in good faith). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be best to use the original Variety link but its not available on the internet - the transmission of the data is accurate. So many wikipedia film articles are unreferenced - I'm trying to provide pages with some sort of reference for these pages. I've never done an entry which simple lists a link - I always include some other basic film information e.g. it's IMDB listing. I have checked a lot of the information in my own collection of Variety box office listings (photographed from papers at the library) and it is accurate. (If you can point to an error please let me know and I will remove it). I appreciate you're trying to decrease the amount of spam out there but ask that an exception be given in this occasion.Dutchy85 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I agree with Hu12 (a veteran editor very well-versed in EL policy). You shouldn't have kept adding the links after I notified you that they probably were not acceptable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dutchy, I agree that a lot of film articles are very under-referenced and appreciate your willingness to try to find an online link to information but you don't really need a link to an online source, you really only need a reference to a published reliable source even if there's no online link available. If you have information directly from Variety with those library photographs, then you include the Author/Volume/Issue/Page from Variety to back up your cited source. If the information is available in a reliably-sourced book like Solomon's 20th Century or Steinberg's Reel Facts that does not have an online version, then it's pretty much the same, just fill out the appropriate Cite template and leave the URL information blank. Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please Don't delete my page this time

Dear ohnoitsjamie,

I am recreating the page JT12_O2, please don't delete it this time, this page was being created for good reasons and was going to be there for people to see my good work i was not praising myself or trying to show myself off in a good way so please let me have the page

Thanks in advance

JT12_O2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JT12 O2 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not free web-hosting. The page does not meet any of our guidelines for inclusion; if you continue to recreate it, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed

I assume you're holding off on him because you're slightly WP:INVOLVED? Very nice of you but if it were up to me he'd be blocked a long time ago.

Anyhoo, just dropping you a note to let you know I've taken him to ANI.

Cheers,

Egg Centric 17:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry For Messing with your page !!

Im so sorry for messing mith your page i shouldn't have and i am really sorry i dodn't mean any harm to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JT12 O2 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Jamie It's OBAUM!! and I want to say I am sorry for messing with your page and didn't mean to cause any users of that were using that page for a report harm or misfault.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OBAUM!! (talk • contribs)

Why do I get the feeling this is going to end up at AIV? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Oopsies!

"Shankweiler's Auto Park: Orefield, Pennsylvania"....first result on the Google search. Argh, sorry for reverting your edits! No harm, no foul, eh? :D Theopolisme _TALK 03:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If only I had a quarter for every goof I made here...no worries, and cheers! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Carlin Romano edits by cinacina123

I'm not sure I'm doing this properly. Would you take a look at the recent edits to the Carlin Romano page? They seem to be made by someone promoting publicity. There are many deletions of sources that refer to controversies that define the importance of the subject and inclusion of only positive p.r. And they are done by someone with a single purpose and only on this page. Thank you. Philebritite (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC) (2) Thank you for your contribution; indeed you did come up with a compromise. I followed your lead and integrated all relevant material externally sourced as in-line citations. Cinacina123, however, is now using another sockpuppet (Ecoscrimps) to revert all substantive changes and remove all non-p.r. material. Again, it is single-purpose, single-subject, continuous with the previous actions of Cinacina123. This is one strongly determined person behind these edits. I don't know how to produce balanced coverage of the subject and his controversies under these conditions. Could you take another look, please? Philebritite (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't have much time to edit yesterday (nor will I today or tomorrow); there is always the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard if you'd like more uninvolved parties looking at it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you're interested, but Ecoshrimp, who I suspect is behind the sockpuppets/meatpuppets I suspect, send me a message which I think I'm supposed to interpret as a threat of legal action, similar to what Aennie and Encycedit did and were warned about. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philebritite&redirect=no In any case, the flurry of edits seems to have subsided somewhat.Philebritite (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Carlin Romano edits by Philebritite

Hi, thank you so much for your attention in the entry "Carlin Romano". Could you take another look at that entry. This nametag "Philebritite" keep deleting the information which is verified and with reference. What he defined as puffery is not necessarily defined by else. He holds hatred toward Carlin Romano and keep adding what he think is negative information to Mr. Romano. That is Okay if it is supported by solid evidence, and I can understand. What I cannot understand is why he uses double-standard to say that other nametags' editing (with reference) is "wordy puffery".

(cur | prev) 18:11, 13 June 2012‎ Philebritite(talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,578 bytes) (-1,440)‎ . . (shorten wordy puffery, add in critical references that have been repeatedly deleted by Cinacina123 sockpuppets) updated since my last visit (undo)

Philebritite's long-time destructive activities

Philebritite keep deleting facts with reference in the Carlin Romano entry (cur | prev) 16:55, 21 June 2012‎ Philebritite(talk | contribs)‎ m (12,120 bytes) (-17)‎ (→‎Career: correct the details of a reference so it does not go beyond the stated facts) (undo)).

Could you please take a look at history of all his destructive behavior in the Carlin Romano entry since 2009? All that he did only makes the entry unbalanced. It is not fair that you let him keep his crazy editing moves. His intention of putting what he think negative information to make the subject look bad is so obvious, he only add negative information and delete all positive information even with fact.

It is weird that Philebritite put minor controversies such as Philip Roth as the major content of this entry, and you encourage him to do so, which making the subject always rouse controversies, which is not true. You can enter"carlin romano " in the search bar, and you will see a lot of sentences mentioning "Carlin Romano", which cited Mr. Romano's reviewing opinion as the content of an entry. For example, entries of Jeffrey Eugenides,Binnie Kirshenbaum refer to Carlin Romano's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoshrimps (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Philebritite has a better understanding of Wikipedia policy than you do. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make in this post. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just feel sad about your judgement. So obvious that Philebritite is coming again and again to destroy the entry and to defame Mr. Romano. Some of his previous post in 2009, 2010 even violate Mr. Romano's privacy. I believe Wiki policy does not encourage libel as Philebritite did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoshrimps (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

We do have a WP:BLP policy that is taken very seriously; that said, I have yet to see anything that Philebritite has added that violates that policy. (Unlike yourself (and the numerous other single-purpose accounts editing the article), Philebritite edits a variety of articles). If you want additional opinions regarding BLP, feel free to post on the BLP noticeboard. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If you check all of Philebritite's history,you'll see 90% of his editing is in Carlin Romano's entry, especially when he first created his account to post false information in Mr. Romano's entry (Luckily, other editors save this entry with great effort, which you can see in the talk page of Carlin Romano's page). Philebritite just edited other articles to shape the impression that he is a objective editor(now he get what he wanted when you agree that he edits a variety of articles, which lead you to your conclusion that this so-call variety will make his editing in Carlin Romano's entry more neutral--strange logic), but his main purpose is still in Mr. Romano's entry. If you do based your judgement on the number of article the two of us is editing, I have nothing to say. Feel sorry and very sad about your judgement. Maybe I should not and will not seek help from you any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoshrimps (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Dicks page edits by Threegeny

Hi there, I'm asking you nicely to please not revert the Supreme Dicks page to any versions done by Threegeny as their edits to that page are vandalism. I'm also putting a warning on their page. Thanks! Mechaferret (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Did not notice that vandalism. I appended a "last warning" to Threegeny's page, as so far it's a vandalism-only account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ink Cartridge

Ink Cartridge Hi there. I am an expert in the ink cartridge field and while I know there was the potential for COI, I updated information on the page which accurately reflects the topic in a neutral fashion that is not promotional and contained no spam. Why did you delete it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.112.26.83 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.26.83 (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertising forum, period. I'm tired of SPA island ink cartridge spammers, and will start blocking them on sight. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Good Work on fighting Vandalism we need more people like you in this world JT12wiki (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Richmond Fire Department

Hi, you may want to take another look at Richmond Fire Department as I have began rescuing it and now it has independent sources including some unambiguous in depth coverage of one of the many environmental catastrophes that occur in Richmond and that this department in particular is notorious for dealing with. I have found more sources and will be adding them, thanks for giving it a second look and if you have any input or could help expand, copyedit, or trim the article in any way please be my guest. Thank you. -Troy.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Morse High School Alumni List

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Morse High School (San Diego, California)#IAR Petition. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Arthur C. Clarke". Thank you. Note I'm just informing you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you might stopping by...

...Talk:List of people claimed to be Jesus? Someone (who, if I wasn't going to WP:AGF, I would assume is a troll) wants us to get consensus again before I leave a note asking people not to engage in that bit of smartassery that always gets reverted. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Not spam...

...coney blog is used to get information for the site, it is not commercial and only informational, I have edited the wikipedia entry mysefl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmokevi (talk • contribs) 02:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

See the blurb at the top of this page. Continue to spam your site and you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Ohnoitsjamie

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Barrett's Osophagus. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Good Tools are Not Spam

We referenced a link to a free speed and quality tester in the section that mentioned Quality of Service (QoS). It seems far from SPAM and a very useful tool to readers. We respectfully request that you put the reference to the speed tester back. People that use VoIP have a real need to check network speed and QOS.Rogerbabbott (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the blurb at the top of the page. Your contributions thus are are leading you down the path of getting blocked as a spam-only account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Bulk SMS Page

I'm sorry that you feel my posting is advertising - what I fail to understand though is why the other links are considered acceptable? They are all links to similar providers as Textlocal, and indeed in most cases are competitors?! And indeed, Textlocal would be considered a much more reliable and bigger provider to say Txtnation! Nunners 13:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunners (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:COI, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:ADVERT. I'm not discussing it further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I need a need a little help

Hi Ohnoisjamie, I don't want to be bothering you about this, but since you reverted the same commercial links I reverted in Henson trust, I was hoping you could help with something. Can you take a look at Registered Disability Savings Plan because to me, the article seems like it's nothing but spam and would like a second opinion before editing as to avoid offending the editor who made all the recent additions. The same editor keeps adding this stuff to several articles, and left me a message earlier today on my talk page trying to argue that the links should be allowed becasue there helpul to people who have children with disabilities. I did my best to try to explain the policy about external links to her, but maybe if a far more experienced edior took a look and edited out the spam, she might understand why her links keeps getting reverted. Like I said above, I don't want to bother you because I know you're busy with other stuff, so if it wasn't appropriate for me to ask this of you, I appologize. Cmr08 (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

23andMe

Hi,

I don't know if I'd consider this source as spam. I struggled a bit with whether it should be included, but it does verify some text that is now without a source. Moment does seem to be a legitimate source, and the information, though slightly self-serving, does seem valid (noting for instance that 23andMe isn't solely doing free Parkinson's screenings out of pure selflessness but rather because of a family connection between one of the co-founders and the disease). Is there something I'm missing? Because right now I'm leaning towards replacing the citation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I deleted it based on the editor, an SPA spamming two magazines (I had a similar issue recently with a different SPA spamming the same magazine). Had an editor without an obvious COI added it, I would not have objected. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed and integrated it (and I totally see why you would be concerned over it being spam) and I would say it looks OK. Do you have any issue with me replacing it? Even spam accounts can make good edits on occassion, though often by accident rather than design :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't have any issues with you integrating it. My intent is to make it clear to SPAs that canvassing isn't permitted. I don't have an issue with the ref per se. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Jimbo should work on a way to get wikipedia to automatically reach out of the screen and punch spammers in the face. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

*mashes "punch" button furiously* OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Georgia State University Edits

James,

First of all, thank you for service to the world in editing Wikipedia. It takes a village... Your efforts no doubt contribute to the growth of Wikipedia.

I would like to question you on your reversal of my edits. Several of the persons that you removed can all be quickly googled and found to be either notable in academia or business. I did not do an exhaustive search on all of them, but after verifying two of them I could find no reasoning in your edit and reversed them all.

Case in point, on what reasoning and logic could you possibly remove E. Vachel Pennebaker from the list of notable alumni. A graduate in 1970, a former president of Sears & Roebuck as well as a Georgia State University Board member.

While I am not going to go through the entire list, I will challenge any edit you make at this point, on this page.

Please take a moment to look at the salient facts, consider the standards that we all strive to adhere to on Wikipedia when you decide to edit the page again. Make special note that many of the people you have removed meet and exceed the criteria we go by as they are academics.

I sincerely hope that your next edit is done after careful consideration of each of the individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 18:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:BalkanInsight

They have appealed against their block. I am going to change it as it is not a candidate for a hardblock, it is a standard COI/company name one which should have been given softer block. Secretlondon (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2012

OK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Kativw

Hi Jamie, I received a message that my external links didn't comply with the guidelines and were taken down, so I read the Wikispam policy and am contacting you per your page's instructions. I believe the links were removed in error and would like to know what other information you need to reconsider them. Thanks, Kativw (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Kativw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kativw (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to reconsider. We don't allow single purpose account link canvassing. If you continue to add them, you will be blocked, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Scutigera

You just autoblocked my IP address. No hard feelings (you referred to someone else's account, and there are ten thousand people using this IP address), but I was in the middle of an edit to Wikipedia: Activist; I wanted to change "It is definitely better for a conflict to be disclosed, than disguised and pursued on the sly" to "It is definitely better for a conflict to be disclosed than to be disguised and pursued on the sly". I had just changed the sentence from its previous form, "It is definitely better for a conflict to be disclosed than disguised, and pursued on the sly", and I'm feeling frustrated at leaving my work half-done (and at not having thought of the better structure before saving). If you agree and you have time, go ahead and make the change yourself. Otherwise I'll try to remember to do it when I get home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scutigera (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Activist redirects to Activism; I don't see that quote anywhere in that article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not "Activist", but "Wikipedia: Activist". Anyway, it's almost quitting time, so I'll get it myself when I get home. Thanks for your prompt attention. Scutigera (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. Sorry for the collateral damage, that quote makes a lot more sense in Wikispace now that I think about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsoursed edits to Indus Valley Civilisation

You have warned one user [Santoshlee1]] not to post unsoursed material and later his accounts were temporarily blocked. Now the same user has added lot of unsoursed material and wrong information to Indus Valley Civilisation on 31st July 2012 (today). Can you look into it?Rayabhari (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

For reverting vandalism to Indus Valley Civilisation and for immediate response. Thank you. Rayabhari (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The user in question seems to have good intentions, but seems to be primarily trying to advance a particular point of view across articles. I added a few more to my watchlist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Skrillex

Your removal of my edits to the skrillex page leaves me with questions. Have you listened to Skrillex? Do you know what dubstep actually is? Did I not have enough Sources? I dislike it when people try to push music into genres were they don't belong, and i need to fix the mislabeling of skrillex as dubstep by the ignorant population. The quote i supplied is real, does wiki require a more legitimate source despite the quote being exactly the same? Also, the fact that he helped a metalcore band with some programming and vocals does not warrant him a label of metalcore. When it comes to placing music into a genre there are few references that are helpful and most are hurtful. Most Legitimate publications don't care if they correctly label music with a genre, which results in most columnists labeling bands with genres that aren't accurate. Outside of columnists and "professionals" any other reference on the internet is going to be labeled as "an opinion" and deemed unusable in wikipedia, am i correct? I know that trying to label music with a genre is a fool's job, but i can no longer stand by and have skrillex be called dubstep, or breaking benjamin be called alternative metal, or many other bands be mislabeld by the ignorant public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsonokami (talk • contribs) 22:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary, you need a reliable source to change a band/musician genre. I don't have person opinions regarding Skrillex, but his genre is widely described as dubstep in numerous reliable sources. this one, for example. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well then I guess "the majority is always correct". Newspapers and publications can be wrong, as they are made of people, and these people don't care for a distinction between dubstep and electronic house. As once the meaning of awful was "filled with awe", it is now "Extremely bad or unpleasant"; and soon dubstep will no longer mean what it once meant, and will change into what people miss-use it for now. I do not hold any grudge against you or wikipedia for demanding "reliable sources" and exclusion of "opinion"; Instead I hold a grudge against the ingorant masses who continue to miss-use words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsonokami (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 July 2012‎

Honestly, as much as I love music, I think waaaay too much energy is spent here debating and edit-warring on genres. In most cases I don't get involved, but had I not reverted your edits to Skrillex someone else surely would've given that he's so strongly associated with dubstep (or brostep) in the press. I'm a big Beck fan, and a good friend of mine considers Beck to be "pop," which by some definitions I'd agree with; that doesn't diminish my appreciation for Beck. I don't care what people call his music. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See also this discussion about genre warring on Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that is an excellent summation of massive source of wasted energy on Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Roger L Kemp

I'm bordering on being a rogue admin with the block of this ip. Would love to have your verification on it. tedder (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Returning shortly after a block doing the same (obnoxious) thing? I'm 100% on-board with the second block. I'd go three months if it happened again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I even put a personal note on there, but that means it easily falls under Valfontis' Law. tedder (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

InvestedIn

Hi there. It seems you forgot to substitute the prod template over there, so I've fixed that. Please remember also to notify the article's author. That said, the page doesn't very notable to me either but they've provided some references so let's see what others think of it. De728631 (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for catching that. Funny thing is I almost always subst everything else, don't know why I often miss that with the prod template. Thanks again, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Rule of Three (writing) and copywriting pages

Hi. I understand the sensitivity towards spam and I do believe that you are right to police spam links and have done an enviable task to date.

However, I think the external link for the Rule of Three (writing) page was valid.

The reason: it formed the basis for the information added to the section regarding the rule of three techniques used in copywriting, marketing and advertising.

As this external article forms the basis of the information added (and does not promote any services within the article) I think it unfair to label this link as spam. With that in mind, I would like to reinstate the article as an external source.

Secondly, I think the same argument can be applied to the text added to the Copywriting page, which was:

"As well as possessing a command of language, copywriters must master and apply a broad range of persuasive techniques, such as sales psychology, marketing methods such as AIDA and CAB and other linguistic devices such as the Rule of Three."

I'm not sure why you have deleted this minor addition. I think it is a short and valid point, which touches upon techniques widely used by copywriters, while cross referencing both its sources (internal wikipedia links to the relevant sections on AIDA and Rule of Three (writing)).

I also added the external link to the Rule of Three article as I felt that it was a non-promotional article that covers the technique in more detail.

Please note, there are also links to blogs and articles in the copywriting section which, as with the link that you have deleted, come from organisations that sell copywriting services but are not actually doing so within the link posted.

Copywriting is a commercial pursuit. It is to be expected that copywriting organisations will produce informative articles on the subject, without promoting themselves directly.

I added the external link to the Rule of Three article as I felt that it was a non-promotional article that covers the technique in more detail. Please note, there are also links to blogs and articles in the copywriting section which, as with the link which you have deleted, come from organisations that sell copywriting services but are not actually doing so within the link posted.

I would like to reinstate the links. However, I don't wish to be inflammatory, so would only like to do so with approval and discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scampicat (talk • contribs) 16:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, per WP:COI and WP:EL. If you see other links that violate those policies, feel free to delete them as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I read both of these policy documents before I took the trouble to create the wikipedia content.

I honestly don't see how the content or links can be classed as a conflict of interest ( I don't work for the organisation who published the external link which I used as the basis for the content).

Also I'm not sure how the link violates the External link policy.

Please could you illustrate:

1. How the link violates these policies. 2. How the external link contains self-promotional material. 3. How this external link differs from the the two existing external links on the Copywriting page.

I think it slightly unfair to keep the section on 'copywriting, marketing and advertising' on the Rule of Three (writing) page but not link to the article from which it came.

Thanks for your time. Scampicat (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scampicat (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:EL and WP:COI exist for a reason; so editors don't have to keep explaining this over and over. As such, I'm not discussing it further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on the dispute resolution board: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Scampicat (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You'll quickly find out that it was a waste of time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Caiden Cowger

Reference your comment on my talk page, I have reviewed earlier versions of this article and have declined restoration on the basis that earlier versions still fail under speedy A7. Requesting editor has been notified. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good...I was leaning that way myself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lexus changes

Hello Ohnotitsjaime,

I would like to say I know Lexus since I'm an enthusiast of the marque. The reason why I removed Toyota as a manufacturer it's simple because it's not "Toyota" the one who is manufacturing. It's true that Lexus cars are built in Toyota manufacturing plants, but they are assembled in different assembling lines, they have their own quality standards and more importantly, the workforce and employees are different. So knowing that I can't say that these vehicles are manufactured by Toyota since not even the workers are from Toyota, they are from Lexus.

And Lexus don't have any more Toyota counterpart (rebadging) vehicle starting from 2005, where the marque was introduced in its own country Japan. The only vehicles which still have something related to Toyota in terms of platform sharing are the LX and GX which aren't even sold globally.

I hope this clarifies why I removed Toyota as manufacturer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoksevil (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: I just realized that you also removed what I wrote about the meanings of the Lexus nomenclature for their models. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoksevil (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A Lexus is still ultimately made by Toyota Motor Corporation, just as the Lincoln MKS is made by Ford. I'm a Lexus owner myself, but I'm not going to pretend that it's not a rebadged Toyota Aristo. You are welcome to bring up your points on the talk page for Lexus, but it's not appropriate to make changes like that without a consensus.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ohnoitsjaime,

If your Lexus vehicle was made prior to 2005 (which is your case since you are talking about a Toyota Aristo either the 1st gen or 2nd gen) then your car is still a Lexus but rebadged as Toyota for some domestic and overseas markets. I understand your point and I will not struggle anymore regarding who is the manufacturer.

I pointed out earlier than other minos updates I added (nomenclature meaning and so as fixing F Sport instead of F-Sport since it's the correct way of spelling) were also removed with no reason. May I add them again?

Thank you for your attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoksevil (talk • contribs) 02:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your F-Sport related fixes; yes, those reverts were a mistake on my part. I thought I had corrected them, but I guess I missed a few. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Pawlenty

Yeah, I was too in the moment moving the talk comment and fixing the vandalism that had been sitting on the article page for too long to think it through. Good call. Nice to meet you - have seen you all over the place for years, but don't think we've interacted. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 18:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh...I love Colbert's show but wish he would quit sending idiot squads to bother us. Seen you around too; nice to meet you! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Rhosymynydd =

What are we doing wrong to violate anything by adding our non commercial website to the ostomy pages on wilipedia. We are Non commercial. We accept or contain no advertising - we promote no product or service - we list everyone in the ostomy world for free - we are basiclaly the wikipedia answer to the ostomy world - all we do is send free ostomy puppets to the millions of children in countries all over the world to help them to adjust to life with a bag. Do you wear an ostomy Bag? If not you cannot imagine how difficult it is for children to live life with a bag containine facel or urinary output or both is like. How are we violating content on wilikpaedia. We ahve written books on the subject yes, and they sell but all the royalties are ploughed back into the puppets for kids - When we sed the puoppets out, they go with no commercial advertising materials or commercial information, just the puppet plus its stoma and bag, all of which we make at our expense. Tell me how we are infringing anything?

See the blurb at the top of the page regarding links. Also read WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Comic sans.

Good call on removing that section on comic sans. I removed the curse word monologue, actually I wanted to remove the whole thing, as you did,but I was worried a bunch of anti comic sans fans would have a fit. I think it was not notable as well.--98.87.89.184 (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad you agree; I don't think a single Huffpost mention is enough to establish notability for inclusion. I'm not a big fan of extensive pop culture sections anyway; they are often too crufty. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

-New Message-

Gaurangpotdar (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Thank you for you suggestion, i would do as you have instructed me. I use the Internet very rarely so I am in a lack of Puntuation. Please give me your e-mail ID i would connect you when i will get time for the Internet

From- Gaurang Potdar

Sorry, but I don't communicate via email for Wikipedia-related matters. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi this for you vewy cute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Zack239 (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

But I am stating facts though, am I not (for my edits on Namibia and versace ) ?. Why would i need a NPOV on facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh0833 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT and WP:SOAPBOX. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look

at the bottom of my talk page - discussion about the editor you reverted and Number of the Beast. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Samriddhi Edit

Dude, I'm a student of the college and have added the external link of the college fest. The old link that is present there is no longer valid. So I request you to kindly check before reverting any edits, don't just blindly do it. The link I had was the link of official college fest website. I won't add it again but you'll have to revert your changes now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljais (talk • contribs) 07:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Haikaa Yamamoto edit

pls. dont be biased regarding this. she had that page even before i edited it. i didnt even create it. she just asked me to add a reference to her book and add a pic. she is notable. has a yahoo link reference: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/haikaa-debuts-thought-provoking-book-174800209.html

if there are problems, i will just add references but pls. dont delete it just because you saw i edited it. i didnt even make that page. pls. do consider. thanks.

I don't care who made the pages. I don't send articles to AFD unless I think they deserve to be. With the exception of Jennifer Jolly, most of the pages you've been involved with don't meet our notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

ok fine, just inform me if you delete a page so i can do a refund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eslima5 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of them are up for deletion, but they won't be deleted until the end of the week long WP:AFD process. Note that I said nothing about you being a paid editor in the AFD noms. If you challenge them (or engage in WP:MEATPUPPETRY) I will bring that up.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

- oh well, il just do a refund if it gets deleted, i just want this done. its been quite a headache for 5 bucks each. no, i wont do meatpuppetry, that will just drag on it. i have a website business that sells products anyway, i was just doing this part time cause my stocks havent arrived yet. thanks.

Bye. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

FreePIE

Hi, you removed my reference to FreePIE in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_homebrew#GlovePIE, since GlovePIE is a direct open source equivalent to GlovePIE its very relevant to have it in that article, so please undo your edit.

Instead, please read WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You should then remove reference to GlovePIE too since they aim to solve same issues, only FreePIE is free and open and the other one is not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anders Malmgren (talk • contribs) 07:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Taiwan (again)

Hi, could you please undo your protection of Taiwan? Specifically, I think that it goes against the guideline that pages shouldn't be semi-protected for content disputes if autoconfirmed users are involved (WP:SEMI), and that it gives autoconfirmed editors an unfair edge in controlling the direction of the content. As the current level of disruption is manageable, I'd prefer that persistent IP edit warriors who refuse to discuss their changes be blocked individually, instead of having all IP editors locked out. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

(Followup) Actually, I can sort of see where you're coming from, what with dynamic IPs disrupting specific pages. I don't have a good solution, but it does feel like we're favouring the views of registered editors by having the article almost constantly under semi-protection... wctaiwan (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the dynamic IPs discussing the issue on the talk page. It's been protected many times before for the same reason. I was also under the impression that there is a pretty strong consensus for the current version (correct me if I'm wrong). It's troublesome to see never-ending disputes like this (Troubles, Greek/Macedonian/Turkish, etc). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. :/ I think I'll ask for others' opinions on the talk page. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Catalonia

Please, consider revising this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalonia&diff=508626097&oldid=508624980 It restores a flag in the infobox which was deleted and justified by a politic. It also deletes a blank section with a map about "cultural expansion of Catalan" (whatever it means) where the image foot said it was the extension of the Catalan (which is false because it includes all Aragon). Sorry for my englsh wwhich is specially bad today.--Ssola (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Take it to the article's talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Gynecomastia

I understand your issue with too many external links. Is there any chance that we can keep just a few of the links? Perhaps two or three? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMZ1122 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for increasing search results to your practice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Facebook Cover Art Section

I got a message from you regarding an edit to the Facebook Features page. I added a section for cover art. That was not an edit. That is a new addition to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akaliquid (talk • contribs) 19:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it was removed because you aren't notable. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

High-yield investment program

I posted an addition concerning the Zeek section, stating that a members were fighting the SEC allegations and provided three different links, all pertaining to this information (the third one was an audio, so I can understand why that was not accepted). I believe if WikiPages is to be relevant, it needs to provide both sides of the story, especially when there is a case currently on-going. So why was my information removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcgranahan (talk • contribs) 16:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read reliable sources, which was already posted on your talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes St. Louis!

I conjecture that you have some connection with St. Louis based on your editing history. Please dismiss if this premise is incorrect.

Dust off your Polaroid camera and show off that inner photographer in you. The first-ever Wikipedia Takes St. Louisphoto hunt kicks off Sat, Sept. 15, around noon in downtown St. Louis. Tour the streets of the Rome of the West with other Wikipedians and even learn a little St. Louis history. This event is a fun and collaborative way to enhance St. Louis articles with visual content. Novice photographers welcome! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist page

Hi James,

This is Raj. I think my last point is not clear. The placing of links is done by someone to tarnish our image. Our marketing is basically brick and mortar setting. A simple google search shows our link in spam category....which damages our image and repute. We are getting affected.Thanks. Rajsharma1980 (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potato Valley Cafe

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potato Valley Cafe.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisting

Hi! Left you comment at WP:SBL#www.bioquestmedical.com. Probabaly a misunderstanding? Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Kashmiri people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Munir Dar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

not sure why you are considering my hair restoration advertising, i did not ad anything promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairplnt (talk • contribs) 07:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Human Sexuality Barnstar
		Thank you for watching over and reverting problematic edits on so many human sexuality articles. You have been a godsend around here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Since this week, I've been meaning to award you this barnstar. When I started seeing you around some time ago, I wondered how long problematic edits would have stayed in whatever article had you not been there. When I or another editor weren't/aren't there, you were/are. So thank you very much for that. And if you have room for one more, it would be greatly appreciated if you would watch over the Sexual intercourse article as well. That is, if you aren't already. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it. It's a tough topic, trying to maintain a balance between WP:NOTCENSORED and the influences of editors with questionable motives. As such, I have high admiration for anyone else willing to wade into those waters, especially those who have much more patience than I do in terms of formulating lengthy and detailed points/counterpoints. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. And tough indeed, and I know that these articles aren't the only articles you watch over and focus reverting problematic edits on. What I stated about you being there when others aren't was extending to a variety of articles, like Adolescence. So thank you again. Never hesitate to drop me a line about something, especially if it has to do with sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Glentoran

You removed a small paragraph I posted in the recent history part of the Glentoran FC page. There was no reason whatsoever to do this as I didnot express opinions and used ONLY fact. Please put my edit back on to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.87.149 (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your opinions of what "fans think" is decidedly not a fact. Continue to add unsourced point-of-view content and you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Requesting your comments (conclusive, if possible) @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Tadeusz_Sulimirski_.26_Rahul_Sankrityayan — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

List_of_Arab_Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Arab_Americans&diff=512184754&oldid=512122410 Hello Jamie. This was not a test. Thanks for the follow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.131.73 (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The individual does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

article

suspect islamic terrorism article might need a close watch in current global context SatuSuro 11:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Will do...on my watchlist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Source

The broadcast of amc tv have written on http://movies.amctv.com/person/en/quinn_lord about Quinn Lord and little sparoww. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.255.218.210 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Undelivered love notes

FYI:[1]

I reckon he/she'll be back in a different guise soon enough. In the meantime, I've blocked the IP for a week. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. A web search of the terms suggests that the individual is on a campaign to give the subject a nickname, and decided that Wikipedia was the next platform to stand on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I thought you were alluding to <censored> but after checking the talk page of TL article I see you were more likely referring to fans & promotion. Cheers, Tijfo098 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I spent some time dealing with (presumably) Lin's meatpuppets using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle (inserting his name into as many articles as possible, etc.) I'm not going to argue against Lin's notability, but in general I detest the use of Wikipedia as a promotional tool. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Dujomc

In case you're online, User:Dujomc, whom we both warned today, is edit warring on multiple articles and not discussing. I have to run or would file a 3RR report. Rivertorch (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

need to make a SPEEDY official discussion show up

help help please. i added a SPEEDY to Brian Pike as blatant artist spam, but it doesn't appear on the list of current articles to be looked over. after over an hour searching around, i realize i can't find a link for HOW (the process) to get something actually on that list. little help please? cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion shows all of the candidates; are you saying it didn't show up there after you tagged it? Looking at the deletion log, it was deleted an hour after you tagged it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It did show up in Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion; I should know: I found it there and deleted it. Placing a {{db}} tag on a page will automatically list it in that category, which is checked fairly regularly. However, it's worth mentioning that the page in question was a long way from being unambiguously promotional (I removed it under A7; the only source was a passing mention in a local paper). Cramyourspam, you may want to consider such tags more carefully - not every page that's about a potentially commercial topic is necessarily WP:SPAM. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that Yunshui (I apparently forgot how cat tags work!) Re speedy; I'd agree with Yunshui; A7 is best for bios like that, even if the probably intention is self-promotion. G11 is more for articles using a lot of ad-speak with regards to a non-notable product/company. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the guidance, seasoned ones. sorry for the rusty scalpel. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated the world over, coffee is known for its energising effect on people.

Andy Williams: Spam. Thank you for your explanation (on the edit summary) Noticed they returned to reinstate, but you got them. Find that sort of revision/vandalism sometimes difficult to interpret as such. Pointing me in the direction of clarification would be appreciated. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 16:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Were it added by a disinterested, regular editor, it would not be a problem. When it's added by a single purpose spam only account with an obvious COI, it's considered to be link canvassing, which is not permitted regardless the quality of the link unless there is a community consensus for the link. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, I understand that. Thank you for such a prompt reply. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 17:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC) No worries. I should have taken the time to add an edit summary explaining my revert. BTW, now you've instilled in me a craving for a cup of coffee... OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks for that. Also see that you have blocked them. Good! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 17:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Now that I have you enjoying your coffee – strong, black and unsweetened, if you were me – I wondered, perhaps you could advise me on the postscript here. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 17:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 04:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your help on this second matter. Much appreciated. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 17:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Edited my page

I received a message saying that my edit was edited. How can I know which edit you are referring to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakegray (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that you've only edited two articles, and the warning was regarding adding spam link, I'd say that narrows it down. Hotel/travel links are not appropriate references, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I found the answer to my first question, there is a "My Contributions" button at the top that I did not know about - I'm new to trying to contribute to Wikipedia, it appears I'm not so good at it! Regarding the edits, both of those links - the first regarding information about the Reserve, and the second regarding public holidays and those in Mozambican cities - are to websites from travel companies but they're also the best references I've ever seen on the net. The reserve article is very well researched and contains information about a place that is hard to research. The second edit, regarding public holidays, I included because I personally searched for a very long time to try to find a place where these dates were publicised. Isn't this information valuable? As it stands the revert back to the old version is actually completely incorrect (ex: Ramadan changes every year, but this article gives an actual month)

Travel sites violate WP:EL, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

How exactly does quoting somebody's own words violate NPOV

That doesn't make much sense to me. Didn't Silverman send that tweet out? Hasn't it received some media coverage? By the way, this is a dynamic IP address (I get a new IP every time I reset my router) and I know for a fact I did not make those edits to the Sandra Fluke article. Since you seem so determined to keep this information out of Wikipedia, I'll just give in and let you have your way on this one. 67.234.156.92 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Creating a new section on a trivial item that did not receive widespread media coverage is pushing a point of view, especially given your source. Continue doing it and you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not adding it back and I probably won't be editing Wikipedia again. I don't see how the NPOV policy can be anything but a farce if using sources that have a different point of view than the old media is considered POV-pushing, but I'm not going to press this issue any further. 67.234.156.92 (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You'd already said once before you weren't coming back. Hopefully you'll stick to your word this time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yours is Superior

I did my part for a few years, it's all yours http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Not_so_much_arguing_with_an_admin.2C_just_bending_over_backwards_and_saying_.22.2A.2A.2A.2A_it.22 Eedlee (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah...OK. I'm not here for the polemics, so don't expect any input from me there. Others told you the same thing I did; that better sources exists. Not sure why that was so hard to swallow. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell you exactly what was so offputting, but the event killed the experience for me. My shift is end-ed Eedlee (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bye. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

University of North Texas

You are right to urge edit summaries — especially for a university. I am accustomed editing jazz/music oriented articles that few pay attention to. Going forward, I'll be more precise. There are several articles that I have vowed to improve. The North Texas article, in my view, was originally patched together in a way that — like a lot of articles on wikipedia — was sophomoric and said very little about its purpose or significance. Making things worse, the things it DID say (spirit, Greeks, athletics, and the like) was poorly stated. In the next three weeks, I would like to tidy-up the inline citations. Eurodog (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries; I'm not perfect myself with edit summaries. I didn't see any issues with the actual edits you were making to the NT article; keep up the good work! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Verifying identity

Is q:User:Ohnoitsjamie you? If so, my apologies and I'll do an unblock; if not, I'll have to reblock the account to disable email. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is me. Sorry for the confusion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

It appears that I was wrong, I really thought strawberrys weren't a food but you can send them so they clearly are, I hope I didn't cause too much trouble! With kind regards. OvenFoodExpert (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Geek - Mazda 3 annotation

Hi Jamie. Please bear with me. I'm quite confused at the moment. I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia & thought I was making a worthwhile contribution to a public article. I read some guidelines encouraging me to make a contribution so I decided to do so in good faith. I didn't have an account but I decided to annotate the Mazda 3 photo because of its inaccurate content. I considered my behaviour to be just as geeky as that of the Mazda 3 owner with Pi displayed, so quite appropriate. I'd thought of a username a few hours later, so I removed my annotation, created a Wikipedia account, & reannotated the photo so my username would appear against it. However, my actions were interpreted by the security software as vandalism, so my annotation was automatically removed. I followed instructions to reinstate my annotation & reported the false positive vandalism alert. I'd ticked the minor edit box because I didn't realise what it meant, but now I do. You then removed my annotation because, in your opinion, the Pi error didn't matter so my annotation was unnecessary. I wasn't sure what to do, but somebody else changed the photo annotation from an emphasis of mathematics to humour. I followed suit by annotating the photo again but with the humour lead. I left a detailed explanation & felt quite pleased with my responsible effort. Next thing I know, you've removed my edit & started threatening me. I read some further guidelines which included not biting newcomers. I really don't understand your motivation. Are you very opinionated & insist on getting your own way, or are we simply having a communication issue? The photo has been included for its comedic content, which is subjective & open to opinion. You're in a position to guide me to do things properly or be obstructive & prolong the learning curve. I like to think I have a good social conscience, to the extent that I've emailed somebody at the University of California Irvine, the source of the photo, to try to alert the Mazda 3 owner of the potentially embarrassing error on the car. I'd like to think somebody would do the same sort of thing for me. So, how can I best help you to help me make sense of this situation, so we can all simply enjoy the excellent resource that constitutes Wikipedia? Thanks for your time.XYMonozygote (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Your annotation is unnecessary commentary that reflects non-neutral point of view, period. I'm not spending any more time discussing such a trivial matter that is clear cut. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

190.44.158.38

It should be of no surprise that 190 went ahead and continued edit-warring at Schmidt Sting Pain Index. The editor is rather active, but unfortunately extremely abrasive and strong-headed, with a penchant for rude edit comments. Glaucus (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Pizza cheese merge discussion

There is a merge discussion in which you may wish to participate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Crowd funding directories

Hi, you removed a contribution I made into the "Crowd Funding" article. Your reason is SPAM but actually it's not. The link does send to an external website which is useful for people who search a list of crowdfunding websites. If you consider my contribution as a spam, how should you consider the "Comparison of crowd funding services" article which is also linked in the article ? Please understand there is a non-sense here and a lack of objectivity. So please remove your edit considering my contribution is fully compliant with the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnedelec (talk • contribs) 12:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion that it's not spam, it meets Wikipedia's definition of spam. If you continue to add it, your account will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Wikipedia's definition of spam ? You don't event prove what you're saying. But don't mind, I searched about you and now I get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.126.242.17 (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear that worked out for you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: User:Pakiman19 -- I noted as I was leaving a notice that I had tagged this editor's latest contribution as spam that you had given the individual a final warning about contributing spam. I thought you might like to be notified; feel free to handle this as you see fit. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Indef'd. Some people don't listen to warnings. Makes it easy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments at Article Rescue Squadron Rescue list

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list#Suicide of Amanda Todd.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Jamie, I wanted to note that IRWolfie- has made a serious accusation of canvassing against you in this thread. I believe you have already attempted to explain your behavior was appropriate, but serious accusations cannot be left without a response, in my opinion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Rodeo Clowns in Clown Article

Can you please explain why you have reverted the clown article to include 'rodeo clowns'. I asked this question in the talk pages but have had no reponse. My reasons for wanting to exclude this section are in the talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You removed the section without explaining in the edit summary why you were removing it. Furthermore, rodeo clowns aren't completely unrelated from the concept of a clown (wild costumes, etc). There's nothing wrong with including a short section in Clown on them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Alfred Mueller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Santa Barbara and Institute for Theoretical Physics

Ikaros Bigi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to German

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

not a huge deal

but why did you revert this?[2]. Thanks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, that was unintentional, probably the by product of bouncing around between tabs. Reverted myself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. no problem.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong usage of term

Hey, remember this revert you did a month ago? The new accounts/IPs were removing that image because it was being used the wrong way. The LOL on heart candies for Valentine's Day most likely means "Lots of Love", not "laugh out loud". I couldn't believe I missed that, but I guess now we know. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. It's hard to say for sure what the manufacturer intended it to mean, but I'd lean toward your assessment. Good call removing it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

External links removal

Hello, thanks for your warning. I'm new to Wikipedia "edit" and I didn't know I couldn't put link to material I created. But at the same time every single link I put was pertinent to the topic and adding extra informations. Maybe I still don't know how it's working Wikipedia, but I wonder how to implement a link by suggesting it in the talk page, if the talk page of the related topic had no activity in the last months or even years, and probably nobody is going to see it. Or even if I'm creating a brand new topic, I guess it would be the same problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phidias81 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the blurb regarding external links at the top of this page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your message Jamie. We thought that the reports (e.g Niger and Angola) should be online especially because they are free-to-access independent reports that are sanctioned by government but written independently of them and their content isn't available elsewhere. How would you feel if the government were to put up the links- would this be agreeable? NDD DMA (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Natalia

Removing the links

Jamie,

Thank you for removing the links. I agree they were in breach now I have read the references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbates95 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire

I'm not sure why you're changing every mention of Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast, but you might want to read WP:NOTBROKEN before you go any further. To quote from the guideline, "...it is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects". DoctorKubla (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that guideline. Furthermore, now that I see how many instances there are, it's looking like a waste of time anyway. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Responded on my talkpage, but to keep this in one place: in addition to NOTBROKEN, there's also the issue of creating problems/inconsistencies at the articles affected (for example, I noticed a lot of changes to alphabetical lists without associated changes to the entry's position in the list). If it were just a matter of redirecting someone could write a bot to do it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand the issue of alphabetization, but that only applies to a few of the edits I made; I see no point in undoing all of my edits. Knock yourself out if it makes you feel better. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Beauty

Thank you for editing this. You beat me to it. I reverted the most recent vandalism but it didn't take out the picture! Nathan43 (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure; every once in awhile, there is an intervening edit from a different editor that causes the standard undo/rollback to miss all of the vandalism. Easy to miss! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For all your hard work, contributions and administration of the Wikipedia project. Cheers. --Hu12 (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thank you Hu12! That means a lot to me coming from you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Empty pictures in Wikimedia Commons

Hi Jamie, I encountered something strange that you may be able to remedy. Please look at the commons file "DE CDB 2 1 090.jpg" on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DE_CDB_2_1_090.jpg You'll see it's an empty picture with 1 pixel. But below you'll see that this uploader has uploaded 620 duplicate empty files. 620! How must we deal with this? Is this something for a mass deletion? Please deal with this, I'm not an expert here. Thanks and Greeting from the Netherlands, Loranchet (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Micromax GPL violation

The pages cited are from the consumer court forum of the country which hosts the major operations of the said company, the other link was included as it is a google android support forum and has a direct response from a google public relations employee regarding the matter. They are aware and have been notified but the issue has not yet been resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.14 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting

Hehe - loved this summary. You beat me to the revert and snuck a witticism in there also ;) Sitush (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha, can't help myself sometimes. Glad to hear you got a kick out of it. :) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks wiki for guide me about minor changes in any page and for practice we need to use "Sandbox". Will you please guide me about how i can edit any good pages ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharendra (talk • contribs) 06:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There were multiple issues with your edit, including (1) nonstandard capitalization (2) improper use of voice ("we") (3) it was an inferior repeat of the lead sentence and added no substance to the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

changes

Well aware of guidelines and I think the changes I made are appropriate. The links are to a well known researcher in this are with lots of publications in referred journals. I note you left the other stuff by the IP poster, which is considerably more spammy.Drjames1 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A physician's own commercial site constitutes a reliable source. The IP added a link to http://jcadonline.epubxp.com/title/9606, a journal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a relaible source. The site is commercial, but the individual page is not. Well within the guidelines. BTW, the journal cited by the previous poster is basically advertising. Drjames1 (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Koro and Peyronie's Disease

I noticed you removed my reference to Peyronie's disease (PD) in the Koro article. I have since read all about WP:Synth, and I think you need to reevaluate how much you know about these two topics before citing that guideline. The two topics are certainly related. By what I say next: please do not think I am not creating original research or advocating a position. I do have a MA and PhD (which have allowed me to deal with people who have this issue) - but that only means I have a different perspective than you, which is the entire point of wikipedia. I could not explain the entire perspective in the character limited box on the edit log of the page.

Regarding the "synth" issue - here is the connection: Patients are sent to psychologists who "think" their penises are shrinking and that they have a "version of penis panic" by primary care physicians. These patients do not know what Peyronie's disease is - and neither do their doctors (it is very rare and hard to diagnose at first). I know this is sounding like "original research" here but there are simply no published papers on the number of medical practitioners who refer patients to psychologists who think their penises are shrinking. Sorry - there just are none and will never be any. There is not a published source for every clinical occurrence out there. Such an expectation is impossible. Thus, clinical experience prevails where empirical research does not exist in medical practice. Besides, I do not need a citation for the Synth at all (per the guidelines). My own experience with these 2 conditions & pure logic make the connection obvious. I still cited published sources that were relevant.

I can't imagine why you would actually think it benefits any wikipedia user to delete my edit under the synth guideline (which is very flexible), either. It does not make the article more organized or clear, as the SYNTH guideline is intended to do. The issue here is that you lack the understanding of WHY these two disorders are significantly related from a clinical perspective...and I have that understanding. If you can't accept that - sorry - but if you have a PhD or MA in psych with a focus on sexual health issues (and I am not creating original research - just bringing another perspective!) then please let me know. Otherwise, you just need to accept when you are unaware of a topic. I didn't spend 5 years running on a hamster wheel of graduate school so I could see patients come into my office with a print out of the very wikipedia article that I tried to correct (which you apparently will not let me) who have Peyronie's Disease (and a lazy primary care physician) and not "Penis Panic" or a psych condition (thus missing the window to have any medical interventions early on). I won't edit anything now because I know you will just revert it again - but I await your reply. I am sure we can mutually agree on an edit that incorporates Peyronie's disease into that article even if you felt the original edit somehow violated the guidelines of wikipedia. Thanks. Angelatomato (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability are core policies of Wikipedia. We don't make exceptions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I cited the most respected urology journal in the field (The Journal of Urology.) What are you talking about? It's blatantly clear in my edit that you removed. I also cited National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse (NKUDIC). BOTH discuss penile shortening as a medical symptom that happens to patients - not a PSYCHIATRIC disease (which Koro is classified as)...and because you didn't understand that - you just deleted what i wrote and put "wiki:synth" (which was also an inaccurate application of the rules). I don't see why wikipedia should be dumbed down just because certain admins (or whatever your are) who have no understanding of medical topics. Why are you trying to enforce rules against putting correct information on here just because you can't understand it? I have no problem with rules, except when ignorant people are enforcing them. Go to medical school or get a PhD in psychology and then come talk to me. You can't enforce rules on topics you haven't studied at all. Sorry - but you can't. Very simpe / common sense...no wikipedia rule necessary.Angelatomato (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I checked your sources; none of them make a connection between Koro and Peryones. Given your attitude, I'm done discussing the matter with you (i.e., any further posts on my talk page by you will be removed). Feel free to continue your crusade on other venues as you are already doing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for having such a close eye on Pierce The Veil and now semi-protecting it. Ivxiimmx (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Semi works well to give us a break from tiresome vandals. I don't follow a lot of bands like that (mostly samplings of bands from different genre's or bands that tend to draw a lot of vandals), so feel free to let me know if you run into a similar situation with another article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think I'd get back to you so soon, but maybe you could check out Vic Fuentes? I'm not sure if it's enough to warrant a semi-protection, but it's suffering from similar vandalism issues as the PTV article. Ivxiimmx (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist (along with Mike Fuentes). If it gets worse, I'll apply semi. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's me again! I was wondering if you could have a look at Oliver Sykes? One user in particular has been going crazy there. Thanks! Ivxiimmx (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's see how a one-month protection goes. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canon Powershot S110, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Point and shoot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

P2P Financial and Optimize Capital Markets

Hi - You recently deleted a link I added to Optimize Capital Markets because we changed our name and website from P2P Financial to Optimize Capital Markets. I don't think there is anything wrong with this or is 'spam-like', please reverse your deletion - thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew McGrath (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It's preferable to use links to other Wikipedia articles rather than inline links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

OK - Sorry, I am new with Wikipedia, can you pls undelete it then and I will remove the link to our site - thank you! Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew McGrath (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI, as you've already been instructed to by another user. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD Renomination

Several months ago, you commented on an AFD that was closed as no consensus. It has been renominated, and you may wish to comment again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Aarons Nomination

This article should not be nominated for deletion. The Lawyer in question does in fact meet the criteria for importance in the legal field of the United States. For 1.) Being in the top 100 trial lawyers in the country 2.) Representation of Robert Ray Fry - who will be the last person to die (on death row) in New Mexico, save gaining clemency. 3.) Involvement as legal council in noteworthy cases important to case law in the United States. 4.) High profile nature of the cases. 5.) Hundreds of mentions in the media in the United States. (which is why the article has almost 100 citations - most of them media.)Meanie (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Save your arguments for the AfD page. Paid editing is frowned upon here, and is easy to spot. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in and trying to clean up the sad sorry state of the wikilaw project - I have found very few lawyers - even very high profile ones - Like Kardashian who are well edited. Meanie (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

How much are you getting paid? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What ever happened to assuming good faith? Im just interested in the law and small business. Meanie (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I find that difficult to believe. You still haven't answered my question as to whether you have a financial interest in promoting the subjects of the recent articles that you've created. See WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:SqueakBox_and_paid_editing_(again). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The extent of my financial interest is to have been "tipped" and by that I mean of all of the articles I have helped people with I have been paid a grand total of $5.00 an article - or $4.00 after Fiverr takes a cut. Given the region of the world (North America) I live in that is the equivalent of buying me a Starbucks Coffee for the "work". Meanie (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, then it won't be end of the world if some or all of your articles get deleted due to lacking notability. BTW, the vast majority of editors here, including myself, create articles for free because we want to make a better encyclopedia). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Coinstar Controversies

Thanks Jamie Ohnoits. I've added additional reference citations and further edited text in an attempt to address your concerns over "soapbox" activism. Please keep sample receipt image as it is an accurate image of the receipt Coinstar generates for it's customers. Please do not delete the controversy section wholesale, only make changes to the text you disagree with. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riptide360 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I deleted some of it based on reliable sources and notability. A poorly-printed receipt image is not useful. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You are appreciated

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For diplomacy on recent medical article edits regarding external links. Ramwithaxe talk 00:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Noticed the little tit for tat. Thanks. Ramwithaxe talk 00:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Jamie, do you have any thoughts on androgenic alopecia as I've edited it so far? Ramwithaxe talk 17:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

MusclePharm article being edited by the company

Hi Jamie! It's been awhile. When I started editing on Wikipedia it was to help keep it free of advertising. Last night it was brought to my attention by User:Yankees76 that the MusclePharm page is the site of some pretty blatant Legal or advocate editing. Check this out[3]. Note the language: (From time to time, the Company is or may become involved in various legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business or otherwise. Legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties as to timing, outcomes, costs, expenses and time expenditures by the Company’s management and others on behalf of the Company.)

This is one of the most blatant cases of a company getting it's legal representation to edit Wikipedia to remove "negative press" and replace it with a prepared statement that I've seen. Since this page is lightly watched, I expect this to continue. I'm not on Wikipedia that much anymore (kids take up a massive amount of time, previously used for editing), so I just want to point this out to you, so perhaps you can take it a step further if needed. I've warned User:Nonstop111 once for blanking content, and also put a note asking him to propose these edits to build a consensus on the article's talk page. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! --Quartet 15:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This user - User:Nonstop111 - is now edit warring to keep a variation of the material that Quartet has paraphrased above in the article - though I notice the little "company" spiel is now removed. It's still clear though that this is a paid advocate or employee of the company who is editing this article. They've removed past information on legal issues claiming they're "outdated" instead of simply updating the material (which isn't necessary, as most of these cases have been resolved), and now they've removed the expanded info around the "Awards" the company has "won" from Bodybuilding.com. I've started a report at WP:ANI.--Yankees76 ^Talk 19:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri Pandit

How do? We return to your amusing summary last month at Kashmiri Pandit. The insertion of this particular material has been repeated umpteen time before and since. It mostlycomes from User:108.176.3.186, whose latest attempt is here and who has done little else since September than repetitively adding this puffery. User:4.28.128.194 has also had a go and the two IPs seem not to be that far apart geographically. There has also been some nasty unsourced stuff that is the very opposite of puffery from a 141.* IP, eg: this on 17 December. Is it time for some long-term semi-protection again? The last time round was six months. - Sitush (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Gave 108 a final warning, will block if they return. If we get vandalism from other IPs within the next few days, I'll be happy to semi-protect. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Howdy & welcome to 2013. I see that you reverted another NY state contribution of the same unsourced "purity" POV at Kashmiri Pandit. I can't be bothered digging through it all but NYS-centric contributors have been fiddling with all sorts of things for ages on that article. It could be that there is a big ex-pat community in NYS, given the persecution of the KPs in their homeland, but the phrasing is often very similar across the various points that are made (and always unsourced). Are we now at semi-protect time? - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think we've arrived at that point. Happy New Year! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, for the action and the wishes! - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Phentermine

Phentermine caused me to have Psychosis. I am a 29 yr old women who took this diet pill. I have been in and out of hospitals. I went through 3 mnths of panic attacks because of this drug. It gave me strong paranoia, delusions, and I went through major trauma. I was raped under withdrawal from phentermine. I left my house walking outside completely out of it going from withdrawal from phentermine, got kidnapped and raped. Then tried to comment suicide. I have hospital records and police records of this event. I am taking myself through school right now to fight this drug one day. I believe I have a very good case against it. I have someone that I am paying to edit this page everyday. So give up. Some people in this world never come back from Psychosis. They stay in it. It is hell on earth. You don't know what is real and what is not. This is a AMPHETAMINE. They don't know what they are doing selling this drug. Let me give you a mental picture of what psychosis is. It is like limbo. Inception type limbo. Ever seen the movie? You don't know what is REAL. I did not abuse this drug. I have proof of that too. I took as recommended. Phentermine hurt my mind. Stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKidd9221 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You have my sympathy for your troubles, but Wikipedia has a firm policy regarding verifiability via reliable sources. Someone's personal account or experiences are not suitable as a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What's more reliable then a person who took the drug as recommended, and went through Psychosis? It is a common side effect and this is a amphentamine. All the edits I made on your page are facts. Why hide them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKidd9221 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Dirty Socks

Thought this might interest you: SPI

I also believe this banned used should be part of the list: Eslima5 which I saw that you had words with.

PeterWesco (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Other than that both accounts were admitted paid-editors, what makes you think it's the same individual? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The recalcitrant checkuser is considering maybe taking a look at this, but perhaps some of the players should sit out the rest of the game? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is either a group of socks or a coordinated group of paid editors. Boatingfaster voting on the Robert Ray Fry AfD was the first tip off. Then when Meanie, Boatingfaster, and Craddock1 all appeared on the AfD for Amirite that was too much of a coincidence. It could be Craddock1 is the paying customer and is defending his paid services as Stephen Aarons did or Craddick1 is part of the WP:PAID crew. Not sure as I do not have Admin access to logs. If you expand Boatingfaster, Meanie, et al you will see a pattern of articles made about un-notable people (WP:VANITY) where the first edit was creating an info box and dumping a prewritten article into place. Look here for overlap: click me PeterWesco (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not want to reveal all of the similarities so they could learn and work around them, but I have explained enough to hopefully get a check user or at least plead a WP:DUCK. Feel free to add to it: Meanie has responded

I saw that you banned Boatingfaster and temp blocked Meanie. What is the policy on blocking the other confirmed accounts? I ask because Meanie is using one of the other accounts to do de-Prod an article and now another AfD on one of her articles is about to heat up. It seems like we have been dealing with this one editor for weeks now. PeterWesco (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't thoroughly look at all of them, but using Meanie and Boatingfaster to advocate at two different AfDs was definitely a violation of "using multiple accounts to suggest support." The WP:SOCKPUPPET page has the criteria for inappropriate use of multiple accounts. I'm about to hit the sack, but send me the diffs and I'll take a look at them tomorrow (unless someone else takes care of it before me). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Epilogue- nice work, Peter! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Cervix page and Fertility Awareness page

Hi, I recently received a message from you regarding some changes I made to the above pages. It mentioned that my changes seemed to be a test and I was confused as to why you thought this...possibly because I was not signed in? I changed the name cervical mucus to cervical fluid on both of these pages because this term is gaining popularity. The word mucus has a very negative connotation and makes women very uncomfortable with their bodies, which is unacceptable. Imagine if a man's seminal fluid was instead referred to as seminal mucus...it makes a completely natural process sound disgusting. Simply do a google search for cervical fluid and you will see that many women are now referring to this term instead of cervical mucus. Women should not feel as though their body is disgusting, and the word mucus implies this. I believe there should not be a double standard here. If the term cervical mucus must remain, seminal fluid should be changed to seminal mucus on all pages. If you would like references to professional articles and texts that refer to cervical fluid, I would be happy to do some searching and find some to back up these edits. For example, author Toni Weschler is referenced many times on both of these pages, and in her well-regarded book she uses the term cervical fluid. I am very interested to work with you to see if we can do anything about this terminology on Wikipedia. To me, this website is meant to educate people and pioneer the use of socially acceptable terminology, especially for terminology that is increasing in popularity.

Thanks for your consideration. Jennyjitters (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the term is "gaining popularity." It is most definitely not Wikipedia's job to "pioneer" anything; see WP:OR. The medically correct term is still cervical mucus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I know its what you guys do but thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome; I do my best to allow folks like yourself to focus on article improvement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Rohingya people edits undone

Hi there, just a polite inquiry as to why my edits on aforementioned page have been undone. Are they in violation of any WP policies? Thanks, Aminul802 (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Username unblock

Hi Jamie. Just letting you know that I've unblocked User:Womenaretoolsformentouse, since he's agreed to change his horrifically misogynist username to something more tolerable; thought you'd appreciate the heads-up. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing Links to Sales Data

You keep removing links to sales data for the various car manufacturers when they link to a non-manufacturer site. We keep an archive of all the manufacturer's sales data in one place where as the manufacturer media sites generally remove the pages after 2 years. As such, our archive is generally more reliable long term than the manufacturer's site. I am aware of links being nofollow on Wikipedia, but the data is still relevant.Oldsmoboi (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There are better sources you can get the data from. If you continue adding links to your own site, you will be blocked. Also see WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Better sources than the manufacturers? Again, we simply archive the manufacturers work so that it is not lost when they do a site update.Oldsmoboi (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia to promote your own site, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

External links

No. None of those changes were spam. They all added links that cited previously uncited information. In addition, some of my edits added relevant information.

I would also demand an explanation of why you removed my edits to John Hardon. The previous edits spelled "obedience" and "home" incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.123.174 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Law office links do not meet WP:RS criteria, period. Continue to spam and you'll have to explain to your employer why their domain is blacklisted on Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

On the page Emergency vehicle, there were NO references or sources on the page before I edited it. I added a reference. We all know that it is the preferred policy for Wikipedia pages to be cited. So why are you claim that I'm "spamming" when I add a reference to a page that is unsourced?

I'm curious as to whether you are employed by any law enforcement agency. Most of my edits dealt with legal topics (except for John Hardon). If you are employed by a law enforcement agency, it could be a confluct of interest for you to edit pages dealing with law enforcement. The cite I added to the Emergency vehicle page said that emergency vehcile drivers can be sued for reckless driving. Maybe that's something you don't WANT drivers to know.

At this point I will refrain from making further edits, since there is a dispute between us (though I will restore the source to Emergency vehicle.) But, I still demand an explanation. I supect that YOU are the vandal, not me.70.128.123.174 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Try reading WP:EL during your block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for my breach of Wikipedia etiquette. I was unaware that you did not allow business links. Thanks for showing me the rules. 70.128.123.174 (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries. I've posted a "welcome" template on your page; it has links to many of our important policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You removed my link

My link was posted on the Wikipedia Astrology page an a Examples of Free Readings Could you please suggest me which page of Wikipedia will be an appropriate for this Link, Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.53.86 (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read the blurb at the top of this page regarding external links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Bangalore

Language of Bangalore is Kannada from centuries. who gave you the right to wikipedia to change that ....Don't play with culture and Language of Kannadigas...We are very emotional towards our language...Every big city have numerous languages in the homes of residents where as there will be only one language as spoken language to communicate with each others. That doesn't mean you should list all languages as spoken language. Same with Ethnicity... Bangalore is and was always a kannada city founded by a kannada ruler. How it is possible to declare Bangalore as Tamil ethnic city. This is a grave mistake against history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globaldesign (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Continue to make the mistake of making unsourced changes or deleting sourced materials and you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

174.48.195.49

Hi,

I notice you warned 174.48.195.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) about adding original research to articles. Given the rollback I just had to make at Security engineering, you may want to take the matter further. I'd consider making a block myself but am taking some time off from doing that (long story).

Thanks, — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

Will do, thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed external links

Hi, you removed external links from different articles, this links are about the content of the article and are very relevant. There are links to a campaign material from the politics I changed the article. I'm doing something prohibited? thanks for ur attention. Izquierdojv (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please read the blurb at the top of this page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Stargate (film)

Whilst I am aware of how long you have been editing for, I do feel that your edit summary lacked Civility and your accusation of edit warring was completely unfounded, especially when 1) I support it's removal in the first place and 2) It was a single revert. See you around. MisterShiney ✉ 20:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your complaint has been registered. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't a complaint. Was just a general notice. Would do it to anyone/anything I saw. But thank you for acknowledging. MisterShiney ✉ 21:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, why do you not wait for the end of the discussion [4]. Your edit is controversial. We can together improve the article, please discussion first, later edits. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOLD; there is no rule that no one can take a crack at refactoring shoddy material while a discussion is going on. As others have mentioned and I concur with, most of that section was complete crap and an embarrassment to the project. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly Subtropical-man. Whilst that most certainly applies and is relevant, acting in the middle of a conversation, especially when there isn't a real urgency. It is controversial and can be considered disruptive making changes on sections under discussion. MisterShiney ✉ 21:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Take it to ANI if you think it's disruptive; you'll just get more consensus that the previous version was terrible. I'm not replying to this further on my talk page. I already commented on the article's talk page, and as the talk page's consensus supported, I refactored the section without deleting it in it's entirety. Obviously, others are free to further refactor it as necessary, which is the essense of WP:BRD. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I support Ohnoitsjamie's edits: both his decision to remove the awful passages and then his decision to take a much-needed crack at fixing them. The discussion ended some time ago. Erik said he would refashion the material, but has been understandably held up. I do not see what advantage is serves to keep shoddy material on full view. Parties can still whittle the section down to something acceptable without the original being visible. I do not believe Ohnoitsjamie's edit summary lacked civility. Again, thank you Ohnoitsjamie for your contributions and welcome to the page. - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Pratikshapatil

It appears his edits were good faith, he tried adding them as references, and is a new editor. He was not aware that references should be independent. He swung by the help chat and seemed very understanding and apologetic. I noticed no prior warnings on his talk page and you left him a lvl 3 spam warning so I explained to him that it was a bit strong and he wasn't about to be immanently banned. Mkdw^talk 08:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

See this, which suggests either sockpuppetry or at the very least a concerted effort by the company to canvass links, hence the strong warnings issued to all offending parties. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Adjustment Bureau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teleport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

I had some comments with an external link deleted but i was wondering if I could reenter the information and replace the external link with a wikilink? or no link at all? Because I've been finding that subject is well recieved and quite unknown to many companies and marketers.

Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, period, so the answer would be no. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please Explain Process

Dear Jamie,

Thank you for your hard work to keep Wikipedia accurate and meaningful. Would you have a moment to explain what it is you do there, and the criteria you use?

You and several other accounts repeatedly spammed links. All accounts were warned. The spam continued, so all accounts were blocked, and the link was added to our spam blacklist, a pretty cut-and-dry scenario of how we deal with spam. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Contacting Ohnoitsjamie

Jamie,

I am confused, you continue to remove my comments and questions from this page and I am unsure why? My comments and questions have not been insulting or vandalism and I am following your protocol for preferred method of contact. If you view my comments and questions as vandalism or insults please let me know and I apologize if you feel that way. Should we not contact you via this talk page if we want to talk to you about an issue on wikipedia? Is this talk page only for issues you are correct on and do you decide not to respond to individuals if you make a mistake?

Again, I am sorry if you feel this is insulting or vandalism, I genuinely just wanted to talk and confirm if my thoughts on the issue were right or wrong. If I am or was wrong I have no problem admitting it and if presented with a logical reason of why things shouldn't be done on wikipedia (like you've correctly done for so many others on this page) then I will gladly revert my own edits where I am wrong and appreciate your help in the matter.

Was I wrong in my reasoning with my original edit?

As a side note, I would like to thank you for your contributions to wikipedia, and if you could help me I would appreciate it, and if you were wrong, I'd appreciate if you would let me know I was correct. Either way I would like to know so I can become a better member of this community. Burtonbluntsnowboard (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the original photo because the quality wasn't substantially better than the existing one. That said, I know little about snowboarding in terms of what is a correct binding, etc, so I'll leave it to others to decide what is the most appropriate lead photo. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond Jamie. I completely see your point in regards to the quality of the pictures being about the same. I am new to wikipedia and was looking at the page and noticed the image showed a very old, outdated snowboard and then noticed that the equipment being put on wrong could possibly cause a safety problem, and then I thought that someone could possibly copy the configuration because they saw it on that page. After researching a little on how to replace the image I found the WP:bold and WP:BRD pages and seeing it discussed in the talk pages I figured I'd change the image, then I found issues with possibly copyrighted images so I decided to quickly take my own and replace it. Once you reverted it I was simply just trying to follow protocol from what I had read and from your talk page and respond. I will admit that my first response to you may have been slightly snappy and I do apologize for that. I was sincerely trying to follow with what I had learned on the spirit of wikipedia though! I do feel that if the images are of similar quality, that the one depicting a properly configured snowboard should stay, but I am definitely open to others thoughts and a discussion, and hope that someone can replace it with a higher quality photo before I get a chance to get back out to the snow. Like I said, I am new here and I am just trying to get a feel for how the place runs, I think we're both ultimately on the same team! BTW, good thing you responded this time, I was reading your pages and was about to bring out the trout slap if it got deleted again! ;) Thanks again for responding Jamie, and thanks for contributing all of your hard work to wikipedia! Burtonbluntsnowboard (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I should be more patient with newcomers, but I admit being put off by your initial tone. Thank you for coming back and giving me a second chance to respond. Wikipedia is a huge project, and can always use extra help from folks who care about the content and are willing with work within policies and consensus; you are obviously one of those people. I'm not going to dispute the current photo you've added, as I can see that it's at least marginally better than the previous one. I do have one suggestion; if you or any of your friends have a decent camera, perhaps try to take a higher-quality photo (i.e., better focus, resolution, composition). Let me know if you have any other questions about policies and how things work around here. Cheers, and thanks for trying to make Wikipedia better. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mass removal of Lithuania-related links

Good afternoon,

I noticed that You have reverted a great number of links I have added. In response to Your comment at my talk page I would like to note that I contribute to Wikipedia for 7 years - I know for sure that Wikipedia links have nofollow attribute. To clarify it, I do not work in SEO optimization of any websites - I don't care about page ranks of the websites I link to. However I want to improve Wikipedia articles by adding links where there is a lack of them on a particular topic. Yes, Wikipedia is not a web directory, but quality links to additional online reading material and media which could not be reproduced in Wikipedia are always welcome as per policy. Among my work in Wikipedia is finding articles with no links to a website about a particular topic worth linking to, finding a good website to link to and adding the link.

I take that Your problem was that most of the links I have added was to webpages of a single website. True, but there were links to other websites too, especially in the new articles I have started. I prefer to end the job I start and I wanted to include links to several useful websites on my own country (Lithuania) from relevant articles, and then go on to adding links to other useful websites. Unfortunately now You have removed a great deal of my work.

It may be so that I have overdid it at some places by adding links to quite short online articles (perhaps my wish to complete the work made me do that). But I believe that you overdid it more in removing many completely appropriate links. For instance I don't think it was appropriate for you to remove a link from Lithuanian American article to the most extensive English language website on Lithuanian American heritage, to remove a link from Vilnius article to the most extensive English online travel guide to Vilnius and so on (the same goes for Kaunas, Lithuanians in the Chicago area and many other articles). I take it that You have not checked the links before removing them.

In many cases You targetted only the links I have added while similar other links remained (including less informative links on a similar topic). Also I would like to note that most of the links I have added previously stayed for many months without reverts or complaints.

I can therefore look into this more critically and double check and restore the links I think are definitely appropriate as per Wikipedia policies and not restore those which may seem to be doubtful.

Of course I do not enjoy the fact that I'd have to do the same work again in cases where prefectly appropriate links were removed...

I don't believe I breached any Wikipedia policies as there is no policy which does not allow a single person to add multiple links to different webpages of the same website from different articles as long as the links are relevant. In fact there are many websites which are linked countless times from Wikipedia - e.g. Internet Movie Database - and as long as the link adheres to policies and is useful it should stay. BBBDBV (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the blurb at the top of the page. We don't permit link-canvassing, period. If you add the link again, you will be blocked. I've also reported the link at Wikiproject:Spam. If I see other accounts spamming it, I will personally add it to the blacklist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

More protection, please.

Thank you for the semi-protection of Prince Jinan‎. It would be grateful if you could protect these articles too. Joseon and Taejo of Joseon. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked at IRC and the articles are protected. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Just saw that. I also added another one of their domain redirects to the blacklist. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought you left. I remember this one. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Great Prince Royal Jinan. This should be declined. Oda Mari (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked and deleted. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's me who have to say thanks. I think I can have a quiet night today. You know it's nearly midnight in Japan. Thank you for the last night. Cheers! Oda Mari (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Rahm Emanuel to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Rahm Emanuel, which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Prince Jinan

Could you kindly take a look at Talk:Prince Jinan and consider semi-protecting it? I know it's a rare step, but the same block-evader is attempting to use the talk page to continue editing the article. If you look at the history you'll see that he changes IPs with almost every edit, so blocking won't work. I don't want to violate WP:INVOLVED, so I'd rather someone else make the call. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I protected it for 3 weeks. I don't think that will be a problem, as it's not a high-volume page, and to my knowledge no one else has expressed interest in it other than our banned sockmaster. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I'll wait and see if he pops up somewhere else. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet spammer?

You blocked User talk:Exenola for adding 3News "references" a few weeks ago, well it seems like they might have crept up again: Special:Contributions/Evilbalthusdire. Cheers, Jack (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked that one and found another one...wondering if an SPI would be approved to flush out any others....OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it's probably worth it, a quick search also found these two Special:Contributions/Alkylightsword (blocked) and Special:Contributions/Goodnicodemus. Cheers, Jack (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

3news.co.nz

Hi Jamie, I see you've blocked a few users for adding links to "spam.3news.co.nz". While I don't want to comment on the cases, and obviously if they are employees then its a clear COI, I do want to just let you know that TV3 is one of the biggest four media companies in NZ and obviously any potential blacklist of this organisations website would have serious ramifications for New Zealand based wikipedians when they are trying to legitimately source articles. Cheers! Mattlore (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that it is a source used appropriately in hundreds of NZ related articles, and as such I would not pursue a blacklisting. I just wish they'd find better uses of their employees time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing policies and month-long bans

I was beyond frustrated to be banned for a month for "disruptive editing."

I seek clarification on Wikipedia policies and, more importantly, the motivations therefor.

If you are, say, a historian focusing on the Dark Ages, there is no public "glamor" in this, and people work hard to produce the most utterly factual material on Wikipedia pages, with diehard fidelity to accuracy.

If you are, unfortunately, a computer security expert (among other things), you run into a different set of problems. Since computer security is "sexy" (one hears about the value and lucrativeness of such careers), every imbecile and his brother fancies himself an expert, and a host of self-styled "universities" are cropping up to offer lightweight, unaccredited "degrees." Thus, the expert finds untold volumes of incorrect material, riddled with nonsensical personal attributions and glaring conceptual errors. Plus, if one tries to fix impossibly lousy "explanations" of things by posting one's own hard-fought analogies or examples that have been, say, classroom-tested over decades, one is accused of posting "original research" by obvious subject matter non-experts.

I also find that mathematics articles are burdened by utter nonsense. Those who purport to "explain" something but lack the fundamental conceptual underpinnings are fond of posting lots of Greek letters and fancy symbols ("alphabet soup," a former professor of mine was fond of saying) that achieve nothing but showing the world how incredibly brilliant and astonishingly knowledgeable the 20-year-old author of the section thinks himself to be. These fancy-pants inclusions are typically proffered at the expense of useful information, amid glaring terminological errors.

What, then, is one to do? Does Wikipedia promote and encourage promulgation of garbage, or is there any desire to maintain quality in science and technology articles?

Bruce David Wilner 16 Feb 2013 <bdwilner@erols.com>

You've already been pointed to our WP:OR and WP:V policies. If you are unable to understand or abide by those (noting that following the expiration of your unblock you still don't seem to get it, then it may be that Wikipedia is not for you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Prince Jinan

Could you consider reprotecting Talk:Prince Jinan? A day after the last protection expired, an IP sock came back and started disruption again. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I'd say that your recent revert, here, deserves this barnstar. Thanks! AstroCog (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha, thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)