Ohnoitsjamie: (Again, hoping I'm doing this right...) Just wanted to thank you for unblocking me, I really do appreciate it. I'm still reading and mostly lost, however, and I was wondering if there are consultants that I could offer to pay for an hour of their time on the phone related to the whole Wikipedia movement. I really like and respect what you and everyone else involved is doing; it's really quite amazing. I come from academia, and probably have a lot to contribute, but I'm not sure and would certainly benefit from being able to speak with someone the old fashioned way. Any thoughts? Mandelman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandelman ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jamie, I was just going to add more data to Forex page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market and noticed that an external link that I had added was removed (ForexCalendar.Com). I also studied the WP: article about external link and I believe that this is not spam. Would it be possible to restore this or let me know why it cannot be added?
thanks, Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billw2 ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
hmmmm...okay, but when i add External link in the future, just wondering, why similar link(s) would flag as spam? thanks Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billw2 ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
...also to block User:Mattini, Matt72ni's "dad"'s account?
Willking1979 ( talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
i disagree with your suggestion that lawyer blogs are not reliable sources. not that i am a fan of them, but lawyers are very highly paid for their opinions, and i think that in general, they probably have very good information (hence the high pay). however, more than that, i don't believe that such a broad generalization is useful to anyone. if mcdonalds blogs about their happy meal, should we not cite their blog? each source should be evaluated on its own merit and not swept into a generalization as you are trying to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Good call blocking on this one. If you get any heat for it, and need backup, let me know. AKRadecki Speaketh 01:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for cleaning up my talk page after that little spat with Cryptographicsigns. And wow, just saw how much stuff was removed from the University of the City of Manila article. Seems a little harsh, but if that's policy, I guess it stands. Thanks again! Rmcsamson ( talk) 08:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It was not me who commited the vandalism, but another user of my server. However I have taken the neccessary precautions to make sure it does not happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanboy911 ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This user has been caught in your autoblock on Glin12 and is requesting unblock. They seem OK, if a little agenda-driven. Could you take a look? Daniel Case ( talk) 13:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for indef-ing the latest User:Pioneercourthouse sock, who created that user in October and then patiently waited for a chance to use it. This megillah has been going on since October of 2006. The persistence of these characters is amazing. I wonder how many more sleeper socks he's got, but I reckon we'll soon find out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi ....Jamie, you recently blocked Rbvrelucio ( talk · contribs) presumably as a sock of (well about 20 accounts I think) - as you're up to speed on the behaviour, could you look at Teststrip09 ( talk · contribs) and Sobresaliente ( talk · contribs). Obviously someone's new accounts but are they the same (I haven't really looked as yet)- Peripitus (Talk) 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You left a final spam warning for User:Derbylimo a while back. Just thought I'd let you know he's back and apparently spamming again. -- Movingday29 ( talk) 20:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, ok sorry. saludos-- Kusamanic ( talk) 01:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)-- Kusamanic ( talk) 01:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You deleted Mall-Central.com for blatant advertising. How come. I was not trying to be blatant. Perhaps you can help me as to how to improve it. If you cant help me can I get a copy of what I wrote? You seemed to be willing to do that for someone else (see above). Maclouie ( talk) 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I was clear that I would like the text. I will not post it on Wikipedia unless it is appropriate. Thanks. BTW, someone posted on my talk page that this note I posted here on your talk page was consider vandelism. Do you know why he thought so and did I do something wrong? Maclouie ( talk) 22:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I see it. I'll try to "lift" it before it gets deleted again (i'm not in the office right now and would like to keep it in my scrapbook. besides there was a lot of research that went into it today that I did not want to lose, so a BIG THANKS!!). I have seen articles in Wikipedia about various businesses (ie brick and mortar) and what they do and how they got started, etc. What did I do wrong or how did the "blatant" descrip apply? Maclouie ( talk) 23:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I am providing links (and extracts from) nearly 50 academically published journal articles - peer reviewed in the best journals on political science, religion, and ethics. My external link was not a commercial/promotional link but a serious piece of work to challenge communal forces in India that are responsible for either directly or indirectly instigating many killings of innocents in India. Your deletion is like deleting someone's compilation of problematic issues with Hitler's ideology and actions. It is strange that free speech and discussion is being curtailed. I urge you to examine the link carefully and then - and only then - delete it. I'd appreciate information being sent to me at: sabhlok@yahoo.com about this. Regards, Sanjeev Sabhlok
It is strange that you insist your action (of deletion of the link to academic research on this subject) is correct without offering ANY explanation or justification. It is astounding that on top of not apologising for your action you are threatening me, in the vein of a two penny Hitler or Mugabe to block me! I sadly note that Wikipaedia is no longer interested in links to the truth. As such I will stop further contributions on wiki and allow you and your gang of petty dictators to carry on their silly acts of ignorant dictatorship. Indeed, I'd much appreciate it if you can please block me NOW, immediately. A badge of honor that I would cherish. Goodbye, silly people on Wiki. Sanjeev —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabhlok ( talk • contribs)
With all due respect, I decided to remove your commentary from MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Procedures as it was really out of place and made any further discussion of the point raised near to impossible.
Let me explain.
I hope you understand me and if you feel it necessary to return you comment, please do so inside the relevant section or on my talk page. For your convenience I'll quote it here.
Forum-shopping won't get you anywhere. If you continue to make disparaging remarks (e.g. "dullheads") you will be blocked for personal attacks. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's be fair, you were quick to remove Mall-Central.com (even as I was editing to improve it) but Answers.com is even worse in terms of blatant advertising (it's either answer.com or answers.com) and it has been on Wikipedia for a long time. What gives? And it's been flagged as blatant and hasn't been removed. What's that all about? Maclouie ( talk) 20:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
of dirty socks... User:Unique as my fingerprint, and one that's trying to subtly communicate through the user name that xhe is someone unique...but wanted to get a second opinion before swinging the hammer. Thoughts? AKRadecki Speaketh 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You've mentioned a banned user and a sock editing University of the City of Manila, but I don't see the massive amount of text added to simple:User:Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila in the history. Was this copied from an oversighted version, or can you offer insight into the issue? Toliar ( talk) 19:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this your buddy again? University of the City of Manila - Philippines. That link was just added as an interwiki at Simple, and it looks like a newly created article by the banned user. Thought you should see/act on it, either way ( talk) 19:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Your of 17:39, 4 March 2009 to Declaration of Independence (Israel) removed what appears to me to be a notable news source providing a valuable historical reference with images of original news reports contemporaneous with the subject of the article. I realize that timesonline is a commercial site with advertisements, but that seems trivial compared to the value of the articles. That site seems to be the official source of those articles, so it's unlikely that a non-commercial site will have them. To its credit, that site even permits us to download each article as a jpg w/o any ads or other editorial content. I've read WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming and WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, and still don't see that link as spam. Please explain what I'm missing here, or let me know if you've changed your mind about that link. Thanks, -- Rich Janis ( talk) 07:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for deleting P1 Selling. The author had just removed the db tag for the second time and I was about to put it at AfD when you deleted it.
I've nominated P1Selling, which redirects to P1 Selling, for speedy deletion as a redirect to a deleted page. Could you please delete that page as well if you or another admin hasn't already done so?
Thanks again. KuyaBriBri Talk 22:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you add my User page and my User talk page (semi-protected) until May 2009. So that only established users can edit it. I been having problems with anonymous users (IP addresses). Thank you -- JEFF ( talk) 07:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jamie. Just a thought for the day post: I recently reverted some vandalism while patrolling filtered changes, and as is my habit - I checked to see what exactly it was that I was reverting. I noticed that you too recently reverted some vandalism on the very same article. As I looked through the article, I found myself shaking my head in disbelief. I wondered if you also shared a sense of amazement when you responded to the vandalism. I find myself wondering, how on earth does one go about actually vandalizing an article titled Human feces. — Ched ~ (yes?) 21:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I added a few external links (maps), all from the same site, that I thought were really useful, but you thought it looked like spam. I'm not a spammer, I just added some all at once because I have always thought they belonged but just now became and editor. I checked out the spam info and it says putting links up here is useless anyway because it doesn't help search engines, but I guess some people do it anyway. I've done some other contributions to other entries that weren't links. Like the links I added, they were just things I had seen on Wikipedia that I thought were needed but never got around to adding until now.
Before I put one on the "United States" entry, I posted it in talk like it said to, and someone said go ahead and add it. I didn't just add it on my own.
I think this site has some valuable info, and I've used it for research alot. I've used it along with Wikipedia to do research on some subjects, and always thought that Wikipedia ought to include them. I just want to know if I add any links again now, will someone just keep deleting them? I can't figure out how they violate the guidelines as long as you know I'm not spamming. Thanks. Wikitigger ( talk) 14:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you really want to be making [1] WP:OTHERCRAP argument?
While the intent will be eventually to bring the non-notable Family Guy episodes into compliance with our notability guidelines, if I did make the mass nomination of non-notable articles that would be considered WP:POINTY. Begining with the application of our policies with the start of a new article that does not meet our guidelines appears to be the non-POINTY thing to do. Notnotkenny ( talk) 01:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (aka User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom)
I notice you are engaging in edit warring. This is not welcome in wikipedia and telling others not to edit war while yourself edit warring is paticularly unwelcome. Please think about stopping. Thanks.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 16:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you removed a link I added to Rogue Software. I have spent a lot of time editing that article, not just adding links. That link was intended to provide an example of rogue software that hijacks the desktop (the rogue I chose as a sample being Brave Sentry). I added it as the first in an eventual set of links to reference each of the different aspects of rogue software. If you still feel that it is spam would you mind explaining why? The link was http://www.malwarehelp.org/news/article-2944.html Desktop Hijack
PedroDaGr8 ( talk) 22:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I was not spamming or promoting anything. I have to ask you: did you read here or did you take time to take a look at the webpages you removed? These were pretty reliable secondary sources on webpages that not primarily exist to sell products or services or with objectionable amounts of advertising. I really hate commercial promotion on Wikipedia like you, but we cannot ban a useful, informative and properly referenced webpage because on a different page on that domain there is something for sale. So please restore them or allow the restoring. -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Basilicofresco PLEASE STOP SPAMMING MY TALK PAGE WITH YOUR LINKS TO YOUR COMMERCIAL WEBSITES. YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN WARNED TWICE ABOUT SPAMMING. IF YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO GET AROUND THE SPAMMING RULES BY ADDING YOUR LINKS TO MY TALK PAGE YOU ARE MISTAKEN! PLEASE DO NOT ADD THEM AGAIN!
Mannheim 34 ( talk) 16:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ohnoitsjamie. It appears that you are one of the few people on wikipedia that actually take the spam guidelines seriously. I wasted my time arguing with spamophles yesterday about the incredible amount of spam being used as "references" in numerous articles. Thank you for removing the spam reverted by Basilicofresco. You missed a number of his reversions on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enstatite_chondrite. I performed quite a few searches for links from commercial sites and found a couple hundred. Would you be interested in handling these links? If so how can I get the list of links and referring pages to you without posting it here? I don't want to further reward these sites by posting their links yet again.
Mannheim 34 ( talk) 20:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC) 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannheim 34 ( talk • contribs)
You removed an article in my User Profile that I was working on the the main Wikipedia. I was not spamming. I was simply using my UserProfile to construct the article, since using the sandbox , quite frankly, suck, as it is changed so often that it's useless. If you will tell me where an editing sandbox is I can use that isn't deleted every 2 seconds, I will gladly use that instead.
If you would have looked at the "Edit Summary" you would have seen that I put a note there explaining this. Petrosianii
Oh I see that I can create a user subpage for a sandox. Sorry about that. I just now found it.
Petrosianii —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC).
I see you speedy deleted Mortgage Modification on 19:26, March 17, 2009. I saw the article earlier and I thought it was terrible and wanted to replace it. I just wanted to confirm that the subject is significant enough and discussed enough in reliable sources to merit an article. My intention is to sandbox a complete article and rename into main space, rather than starting with a stub. patsw ( talk) 19:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw an already existing article, Loan modification, and I have edited it. It was almost an orphan. I added it to the infobox and to the relevant Wikiproject. As expected, it had an advertising EL already added to it. patsw ( talk) 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You blocked a user (see User talk:74.242.254.23), and there was a suspicion that it was a sockpuppet. One of that user's edits was this one, and I just reverted another, very similar . Coincidence? Drmies ( talk) 20:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. A couple of hours ago you protected that talk page. I believe it should be unprotected; his block is over and I don't believe his actions on the talk page required protection in the first place. I believe, per WP:BLANKING, that removing block notices is permitted (while removing denied unblock requests is not). If you have a rationale of which I am not yet aware (but I'd love to hear it), then by all means keep the talk page protected, but based on what I know of the situation, this should be unprotected. Useight ( talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Why was Bearded Dragon in captivity deleted? What was it a duplicate of? Trying to figure out where to point Bearded Dragon to since it redirected there. Q T C 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
As seen here in your protect, there is no sock template. Could you pleas re-add it?— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a ban of a user you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero. Thank you. --— Dæ dαlus Contribs 10:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
For some reason Rabbit has once again become the target of a large number of vandal edits. Would you consider adding a short term (week or two) semi-protection? -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Matthias Kuhle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthias Kuhle. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CyberGhostface ( talk) 12:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I am writing in concern about your reverts to the Cancer article. In my humble opinion, you may wish to be more careful what exactly ou are reverting. I know that as an administrator you may be pressed for time (as evidenced by the many edits you've recently made), but most importantly as an administrator surely it is important not to accidentally delete major sections of articles? Please look at what you revert; I saw no mention in the edit log about why you reverted numerous edits and a couple of hours of revisions, nor in the talk page. My only clue was that it was assisted by a "reference robot", so I checked the references; apparently I made them in an inappropriate template format, and am in the process of fixing them now. However, I've noticed that some users on this talk page have similarly complained, and thus thought I'd voice my concern. Also I figured you'd appreciate knowing why I unreverted and knowing that I am in the process of correcting said links. Ninjagecko ( talk) 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Awww.... I was wondering what would happen when he reported me to "the mods" ☺. WP:AN/I needs a bit of humour!
I suspect 72.39.35.178's not some complete newbie, though - it smells a bit like some blocked sockpuppeteer trolling. I especially like
which I'll put on my userpage somewhere when I redesign it Real Soon. Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 00:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that PLM College of Medicine was deleted because it was created by a banned user. I'd like to take a look at the content to see if it is worth saving. (Mostly because deleting it gave a red link at a page that I watch. But I think that's a good enough reason :) ) Naraht ( talk) 14:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I watch the Fortyhands article and really enjoyed the (admittedly, not perfectly "flowing") dude-in-a-cage picture. I apparently enjoyed it enough to leave it. Why'd you delete it? Al1encas1no ( talk) 02:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. South Bay ( talk) 06:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC) |
NoFactZone.org is not unofficial, Stephen actually plugged it an episode of The Colbert Report.
I am a bit confused at how that photo is unencyclopedic? The caption underneath the picture stated, "The aftermath of an Edward Fortyhands game with a participant suffering from Blackout (alcohol-related amnesia). The reference to blackout should be enough to warrant the picture's entry into this article to add a bit of relevant information as opposed to random rules for a drinking game. I will bring this up in the article's discussion and see if there is a consensus amongst the community members. As far as the warning about my being blocked, this can be avoided if you provide adequate rational for why you are removing data from articles as opposed to "hahahahah no
I'm curious why recent edits that have the appropriate sources identified are being undone. The user was even given the threat that he or she would be blocked. The original text seemed to have information that was not relevant to the Origins of Koi, but instead was unrelated information about the origins of goldfish. The sources on the new edits were not commercial and did verify the information supplied in the updates. Jediknight95758 Jediknight95758 —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC).
There is a reason to remove the origins of goldfish from the origins of koi. Its confusing and misleading. Additionally, there is already a section describing the differences between koi and goldfish. That particular section is specifically related to the Origins of Koi and that specific species of carp. Do some reading on taxonomy and you'll see the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediknight95758 ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
That's why there is already a section for Differences between Koi and Goldfish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediknight95758 ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I just realized we are neighbors, after looking at the last edit to San Diego. I was thinking about giving Logan Heights, San Diego, California a good clean scrub. Let me know if you are interested in some collaboration. East Village, San Diego could be expanded as well. Cheers. Law shoot! 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I was reading your description on your user page and I noticed you own a 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado and I was wondering if its hard to find parts and if it still runs
Just some weird questions I felt like asking Please reply if you get some time
ImDone1 (
talk)
02:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I warned an IP vandal, and then noticed you'd already seemed to block them for being a sock account. But your decline of their block on 9 April occurred before their recent vandalism... I think the block didn't work. See User_talk:193.120.116.145. Fences and windows ( talk) 13:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Please restore Renaissance Resort at World Golf Village, deleted stating WP:CSD#A7. As the golf courses were designed by, or in consultation with, four of the 20th century's leading golfers, I would contest that it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. It possibly should be merged with World Golf Village, but in the meantime, I believe it should be recovered. Kind regards. wjemather bigissue 17:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This guy might pass WP:PROF, so I'd recommend you put it up for an AfD discussion. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with you in that I have found in researching and writing histories, it is always valuable to know who lived where and when, and who contributed to that local history. Listing such person or persons brings color, and expands the interest to that area. Rodeohistorian ( talk) 07:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Please check User talk:207.144.4.62 and what you promised there. A small check with his contibutions will lead to the conclusion that it is time to make that promise hard. :) Debresser ( talk) 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{ Unreferenced}}", "{{ Fact}}" and , "{{ advert}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 11:51 26 April 2009 (UTC).
Hi, I believe that User:Aquafanatic is the user you banned, Jediknight95758. He has started an (inappropriate in my opinion) Request for arbitration about the edit war over the inclusion of goldfish in the Koi article. You may want to drop by and comment on the proceedings. Thanks, LK ( talk) 13:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:ANI#Block threats from Admin User:OhNoitsJamie, in case you weren't aware of it. Looie496 ( talk) 22:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Ohnoitsjamie: (Again, hoping I'm doing this right...) Just wanted to thank you for unblocking me, I really do appreciate it. I'm still reading and mostly lost, however, and I was wondering if there are consultants that I could offer to pay for an hour of their time on the phone related to the whole Wikipedia movement. I really like and respect what you and everyone else involved is doing; it's really quite amazing. I come from academia, and probably have a lot to contribute, but I'm not sure and would certainly benefit from being able to speak with someone the old fashioned way. Any thoughts? Mandelman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandelman ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jamie, I was just going to add more data to Forex page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market and noticed that an external link that I had added was removed (ForexCalendar.Com). I also studied the WP: article about external link and I believe that this is not spam. Would it be possible to restore this or let me know why it cannot be added?
thanks, Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billw2 ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
hmmmm...okay, but when i add External link in the future, just wondering, why similar link(s) would flag as spam? thanks Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billw2 ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
...also to block User:Mattini, Matt72ni's "dad"'s account?
Willking1979 ( talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
i disagree with your suggestion that lawyer blogs are not reliable sources. not that i am a fan of them, but lawyers are very highly paid for their opinions, and i think that in general, they probably have very good information (hence the high pay). however, more than that, i don't believe that such a broad generalization is useful to anyone. if mcdonalds blogs about their happy meal, should we not cite their blog? each source should be evaluated on its own merit and not swept into a generalization as you are trying to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Good call blocking on this one. If you get any heat for it, and need backup, let me know. AKRadecki Speaketh 01:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for cleaning up my talk page after that little spat with Cryptographicsigns. And wow, just saw how much stuff was removed from the University of the City of Manila article. Seems a little harsh, but if that's policy, I guess it stands. Thanks again! Rmcsamson ( talk) 08:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It was not me who commited the vandalism, but another user of my server. However I have taken the neccessary precautions to make sure it does not happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanboy911 ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This user has been caught in your autoblock on Glin12 and is requesting unblock. They seem OK, if a little agenda-driven. Could you take a look? Daniel Case ( talk) 13:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for indef-ing the latest User:Pioneercourthouse sock, who created that user in October and then patiently waited for a chance to use it. This megillah has been going on since October of 2006. The persistence of these characters is amazing. I wonder how many more sleeper socks he's got, but I reckon we'll soon find out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi ....Jamie, you recently blocked Rbvrelucio ( talk · contribs) presumably as a sock of (well about 20 accounts I think) - as you're up to speed on the behaviour, could you look at Teststrip09 ( talk · contribs) and Sobresaliente ( talk · contribs). Obviously someone's new accounts but are they the same (I haven't really looked as yet)- Peripitus (Talk) 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You left a final spam warning for User:Derbylimo a while back. Just thought I'd let you know he's back and apparently spamming again. -- Movingday29 ( talk) 20:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, ok sorry. saludos-- Kusamanic ( talk) 01:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)-- Kusamanic ( talk) 01:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You deleted Mall-Central.com for blatant advertising. How come. I was not trying to be blatant. Perhaps you can help me as to how to improve it. If you cant help me can I get a copy of what I wrote? You seemed to be willing to do that for someone else (see above). Maclouie ( talk) 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I was clear that I would like the text. I will not post it on Wikipedia unless it is appropriate. Thanks. BTW, someone posted on my talk page that this note I posted here on your talk page was consider vandelism. Do you know why he thought so and did I do something wrong? Maclouie ( talk) 22:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I see it. I'll try to "lift" it before it gets deleted again (i'm not in the office right now and would like to keep it in my scrapbook. besides there was a lot of research that went into it today that I did not want to lose, so a BIG THANKS!!). I have seen articles in Wikipedia about various businesses (ie brick and mortar) and what they do and how they got started, etc. What did I do wrong or how did the "blatant" descrip apply? Maclouie ( talk) 23:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I am providing links (and extracts from) nearly 50 academically published journal articles - peer reviewed in the best journals on political science, religion, and ethics. My external link was not a commercial/promotional link but a serious piece of work to challenge communal forces in India that are responsible for either directly or indirectly instigating many killings of innocents in India. Your deletion is like deleting someone's compilation of problematic issues with Hitler's ideology and actions. It is strange that free speech and discussion is being curtailed. I urge you to examine the link carefully and then - and only then - delete it. I'd appreciate information being sent to me at: sabhlok@yahoo.com about this. Regards, Sanjeev Sabhlok
It is strange that you insist your action (of deletion of the link to academic research on this subject) is correct without offering ANY explanation or justification. It is astounding that on top of not apologising for your action you are threatening me, in the vein of a two penny Hitler or Mugabe to block me! I sadly note that Wikipaedia is no longer interested in links to the truth. As such I will stop further contributions on wiki and allow you and your gang of petty dictators to carry on their silly acts of ignorant dictatorship. Indeed, I'd much appreciate it if you can please block me NOW, immediately. A badge of honor that I would cherish. Goodbye, silly people on Wiki. Sanjeev —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabhlok ( talk • contribs)
With all due respect, I decided to remove your commentary from MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Procedures as it was really out of place and made any further discussion of the point raised near to impossible.
Let me explain.
I hope you understand me and if you feel it necessary to return you comment, please do so inside the relevant section or on my talk page. For your convenience I'll quote it here.
Forum-shopping won't get you anywhere. If you continue to make disparaging remarks (e.g. "dullheads") you will be blocked for personal attacks. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's be fair, you were quick to remove Mall-Central.com (even as I was editing to improve it) but Answers.com is even worse in terms of blatant advertising (it's either answer.com or answers.com) and it has been on Wikipedia for a long time. What gives? And it's been flagged as blatant and hasn't been removed. What's that all about? Maclouie ( talk) 20:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
of dirty socks... User:Unique as my fingerprint, and one that's trying to subtly communicate through the user name that xhe is someone unique...but wanted to get a second opinion before swinging the hammer. Thoughts? AKRadecki Speaketh 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You've mentioned a banned user and a sock editing University of the City of Manila, but I don't see the massive amount of text added to simple:User:Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila in the history. Was this copied from an oversighted version, or can you offer insight into the issue? Toliar ( talk) 19:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this your buddy again? University of the City of Manila - Philippines. That link was just added as an interwiki at Simple, and it looks like a newly created article by the banned user. Thought you should see/act on it, either way ( talk) 19:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Your of 17:39, 4 March 2009 to Declaration of Independence (Israel) removed what appears to me to be a notable news source providing a valuable historical reference with images of original news reports contemporaneous with the subject of the article. I realize that timesonline is a commercial site with advertisements, but that seems trivial compared to the value of the articles. That site seems to be the official source of those articles, so it's unlikely that a non-commercial site will have them. To its credit, that site even permits us to download each article as a jpg w/o any ads or other editorial content. I've read WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming and WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, and still don't see that link as spam. Please explain what I'm missing here, or let me know if you've changed your mind about that link. Thanks, -- Rich Janis ( talk) 07:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for deleting P1 Selling. The author had just removed the db tag for the second time and I was about to put it at AfD when you deleted it.
I've nominated P1Selling, which redirects to P1 Selling, for speedy deletion as a redirect to a deleted page. Could you please delete that page as well if you or another admin hasn't already done so?
Thanks again. KuyaBriBri Talk 22:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you add my User page and my User talk page (semi-protected) until May 2009. So that only established users can edit it. I been having problems with anonymous users (IP addresses). Thank you -- JEFF ( talk) 07:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jamie. Just a thought for the day post: I recently reverted some vandalism while patrolling filtered changes, and as is my habit - I checked to see what exactly it was that I was reverting. I noticed that you too recently reverted some vandalism on the very same article. As I looked through the article, I found myself shaking my head in disbelief. I wondered if you also shared a sense of amazement when you responded to the vandalism. I find myself wondering, how on earth does one go about actually vandalizing an article titled Human feces. — Ched ~ (yes?) 21:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I added a few external links (maps), all from the same site, that I thought were really useful, but you thought it looked like spam. I'm not a spammer, I just added some all at once because I have always thought they belonged but just now became and editor. I checked out the spam info and it says putting links up here is useless anyway because it doesn't help search engines, but I guess some people do it anyway. I've done some other contributions to other entries that weren't links. Like the links I added, they were just things I had seen on Wikipedia that I thought were needed but never got around to adding until now.
Before I put one on the "United States" entry, I posted it in talk like it said to, and someone said go ahead and add it. I didn't just add it on my own.
I think this site has some valuable info, and I've used it for research alot. I've used it along with Wikipedia to do research on some subjects, and always thought that Wikipedia ought to include them. I just want to know if I add any links again now, will someone just keep deleting them? I can't figure out how they violate the guidelines as long as you know I'm not spamming. Thanks. Wikitigger ( talk) 14:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you really want to be making [1] WP:OTHERCRAP argument?
While the intent will be eventually to bring the non-notable Family Guy episodes into compliance with our notability guidelines, if I did make the mass nomination of non-notable articles that would be considered WP:POINTY. Begining with the application of our policies with the start of a new article that does not meet our guidelines appears to be the non-POINTY thing to do. Notnotkenny ( talk) 01:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (aka User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom)
I notice you are engaging in edit warring. This is not welcome in wikipedia and telling others not to edit war while yourself edit warring is paticularly unwelcome. Please think about stopping. Thanks.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 16:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you removed a link I added to Rogue Software. I have spent a lot of time editing that article, not just adding links. That link was intended to provide an example of rogue software that hijacks the desktop (the rogue I chose as a sample being Brave Sentry). I added it as the first in an eventual set of links to reference each of the different aspects of rogue software. If you still feel that it is spam would you mind explaining why? The link was http://www.malwarehelp.org/news/article-2944.html Desktop Hijack
PedroDaGr8 ( talk) 22:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I was not spamming or promoting anything. I have to ask you: did you read here or did you take time to take a look at the webpages you removed? These were pretty reliable secondary sources on webpages that not primarily exist to sell products or services or with objectionable amounts of advertising. I really hate commercial promotion on Wikipedia like you, but we cannot ban a useful, informative and properly referenced webpage because on a different page on that domain there is something for sale. So please restore them or allow the restoring. -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Basilicofresco PLEASE STOP SPAMMING MY TALK PAGE WITH YOUR LINKS TO YOUR COMMERCIAL WEBSITES. YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN WARNED TWICE ABOUT SPAMMING. IF YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO GET AROUND THE SPAMMING RULES BY ADDING YOUR LINKS TO MY TALK PAGE YOU ARE MISTAKEN! PLEASE DO NOT ADD THEM AGAIN!
Mannheim 34 ( talk) 16:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ohnoitsjamie. It appears that you are one of the few people on wikipedia that actually take the spam guidelines seriously. I wasted my time arguing with spamophles yesterday about the incredible amount of spam being used as "references" in numerous articles. Thank you for removing the spam reverted by Basilicofresco. You missed a number of his reversions on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enstatite_chondrite. I performed quite a few searches for links from commercial sites and found a couple hundred. Would you be interested in handling these links? If so how can I get the list of links and referring pages to you without posting it here? I don't want to further reward these sites by posting their links yet again.
Mannheim 34 ( talk) 20:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC) 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannheim 34 ( talk • contribs)
You removed an article in my User Profile that I was working on the the main Wikipedia. I was not spamming. I was simply using my UserProfile to construct the article, since using the sandbox , quite frankly, suck, as it is changed so often that it's useless. If you will tell me where an editing sandbox is I can use that isn't deleted every 2 seconds, I will gladly use that instead.
If you would have looked at the "Edit Summary" you would have seen that I put a note there explaining this. Petrosianii
Oh I see that I can create a user subpage for a sandox. Sorry about that. I just now found it.
Petrosianii —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC).
I see you speedy deleted Mortgage Modification on 19:26, March 17, 2009. I saw the article earlier and I thought it was terrible and wanted to replace it. I just wanted to confirm that the subject is significant enough and discussed enough in reliable sources to merit an article. My intention is to sandbox a complete article and rename into main space, rather than starting with a stub. patsw ( talk) 19:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw an already existing article, Loan modification, and I have edited it. It was almost an orphan. I added it to the infobox and to the relevant Wikiproject. As expected, it had an advertising EL already added to it. patsw ( talk) 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You blocked a user (see User talk:74.242.254.23), and there was a suspicion that it was a sockpuppet. One of that user's edits was this one, and I just reverted another, very similar . Coincidence? Drmies ( talk) 20:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. A couple of hours ago you protected that talk page. I believe it should be unprotected; his block is over and I don't believe his actions on the talk page required protection in the first place. I believe, per WP:BLANKING, that removing block notices is permitted (while removing denied unblock requests is not). If you have a rationale of which I am not yet aware (but I'd love to hear it), then by all means keep the talk page protected, but based on what I know of the situation, this should be unprotected. Useight ( talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Why was Bearded Dragon in captivity deleted? What was it a duplicate of? Trying to figure out where to point Bearded Dragon to since it redirected there. Q T C 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
As seen here in your protect, there is no sock template. Could you pleas re-add it?— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a ban of a user you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero. Thank you. --— Dæ dαlus Contribs 10:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
For some reason Rabbit has once again become the target of a large number of vandal edits. Would you consider adding a short term (week or two) semi-protection? -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Matthias Kuhle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthias Kuhle. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CyberGhostface ( talk) 12:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I am writing in concern about your reverts to the Cancer article. In my humble opinion, you may wish to be more careful what exactly ou are reverting. I know that as an administrator you may be pressed for time (as evidenced by the many edits you've recently made), but most importantly as an administrator surely it is important not to accidentally delete major sections of articles? Please look at what you revert; I saw no mention in the edit log about why you reverted numerous edits and a couple of hours of revisions, nor in the talk page. My only clue was that it was assisted by a "reference robot", so I checked the references; apparently I made them in an inappropriate template format, and am in the process of fixing them now. However, I've noticed that some users on this talk page have similarly complained, and thus thought I'd voice my concern. Also I figured you'd appreciate knowing why I unreverted and knowing that I am in the process of correcting said links. Ninjagecko ( talk) 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Awww.... I was wondering what would happen when he reported me to "the mods" ☺. WP:AN/I needs a bit of humour!
I suspect 72.39.35.178's not some complete newbie, though - it smells a bit like some blocked sockpuppeteer trolling. I especially like
which I'll put on my userpage somewhere when I redesign it Real Soon. Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 00:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that PLM College of Medicine was deleted because it was created by a banned user. I'd like to take a look at the content to see if it is worth saving. (Mostly because deleting it gave a red link at a page that I watch. But I think that's a good enough reason :) ) Naraht ( talk) 14:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I watch the Fortyhands article and really enjoyed the (admittedly, not perfectly "flowing") dude-in-a-cage picture. I apparently enjoyed it enough to leave it. Why'd you delete it? Al1encas1no ( talk) 02:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. South Bay ( talk) 06:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC) |
NoFactZone.org is not unofficial, Stephen actually plugged it an episode of The Colbert Report.
I am a bit confused at how that photo is unencyclopedic? The caption underneath the picture stated, "The aftermath of an Edward Fortyhands game with a participant suffering from Blackout (alcohol-related amnesia). The reference to blackout should be enough to warrant the picture's entry into this article to add a bit of relevant information as opposed to random rules for a drinking game. I will bring this up in the article's discussion and see if there is a consensus amongst the community members. As far as the warning about my being blocked, this can be avoided if you provide adequate rational for why you are removing data from articles as opposed to "hahahahah no
I'm curious why recent edits that have the appropriate sources identified are being undone. The user was even given the threat that he or she would be blocked. The original text seemed to have information that was not relevant to the Origins of Koi, but instead was unrelated information about the origins of goldfish. The sources on the new edits were not commercial and did verify the information supplied in the updates. Jediknight95758 Jediknight95758 —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC).
There is a reason to remove the origins of goldfish from the origins of koi. Its confusing and misleading. Additionally, there is already a section describing the differences between koi and goldfish. That particular section is specifically related to the Origins of Koi and that specific species of carp. Do some reading on taxonomy and you'll see the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediknight95758 ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
That's why there is already a section for Differences between Koi and Goldfish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediknight95758 ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I just realized we are neighbors, after looking at the last edit to San Diego. I was thinking about giving Logan Heights, San Diego, California a good clean scrub. Let me know if you are interested in some collaboration. East Village, San Diego could be expanded as well. Cheers. Law shoot! 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I was reading your description on your user page and I noticed you own a 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado and I was wondering if its hard to find parts and if it still runs
Just some weird questions I felt like asking Please reply if you get some time
ImDone1 (
talk)
02:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I warned an IP vandal, and then noticed you'd already seemed to block them for being a sock account. But your decline of their block on 9 April occurred before their recent vandalism... I think the block didn't work. See User_talk:193.120.116.145. Fences and windows ( talk) 13:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Please restore Renaissance Resort at World Golf Village, deleted stating WP:CSD#A7. As the golf courses were designed by, or in consultation with, four of the 20th century's leading golfers, I would contest that it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. It possibly should be merged with World Golf Village, but in the meantime, I believe it should be recovered. Kind regards. wjemather bigissue 17:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This guy might pass WP:PROF, so I'd recommend you put it up for an AfD discussion. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with you in that I have found in researching and writing histories, it is always valuable to know who lived where and when, and who contributed to that local history. Listing such person or persons brings color, and expands the interest to that area. Rodeohistorian ( talk) 07:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Please check User talk:207.144.4.62 and what you promised there. A small check with his contibutions will lead to the conclusion that it is time to make that promise hard. :) Debresser ( talk) 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{ Unreferenced}}", "{{ Fact}}" and , "{{ advert}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 11:51 26 April 2009 (UTC).
Hi, I believe that User:Aquafanatic is the user you banned, Jediknight95758. He has started an (inappropriate in my opinion) Request for arbitration about the edit war over the inclusion of goldfish in the Koi article. You may want to drop by and comment on the proceedings. Thanks, LK ( talk) 13:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:ANI#Block threats from Admin User:OhNoitsJamie, in case you weren't aware of it. Looie496 ( talk) 22:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)