User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive28

Certificate of disposition

Thanks for this edit. I have somehow explained (here) to User:Edesent why the image has been removed. Feel free to add anything to my explanation... Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

All Quiet on the Western Front

Hello. Would you consider putting a confirmed users only tag on this article? It gets vandalised pretty regularly and undoing has become very boring. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Great film (and book), BTW. Strange that this article would be a vandalism target...maybe because it's a popular school subject?OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that's exactly why. They all have to read it, so it's a great way for the high schoolers to send mostly derogatory messages to each other. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Egg Benedict

Hi Jamie. Please explaine me why the Egg Galley Cuisine is differently written (as you say advertisement) than for example Egg Sourdau from Antoine's restaurant? Either be consequent, or leave it I would say. As a flying chef I just came across this variety in Holland, and was very impressed. Eggs benedict is a specialty I'm always interested in, just like steak tartare. And If that's the name it's given by the catering company, than that's what it is, isn't it?? I'm just new to Wikipedia, but travelling a lot, and spending lots of time in my hotelroom, there is information to share! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying headchef (talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:Notability, both of which Eggs Sardou has, and neither of which your entry has. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Weasel"

Jamie, I might completely misunderstand the neutral point of view rules, but I posted a popular culture reference under the In popular culture section, and under the person's Wikipedia page there is a whole section referenced to this popular culture fact. I don't understand why a popular culture section is allowed if non-derogatory pop culture references are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etep2840 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:BLP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi why did you undid me i realy dont understoond i did not had any promotion meanings

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising your Forex platform. Promotional press releases do not constitute reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Helping another editor

This new editor needs help. I undo'ed references (that were also placed wrong) to an article of his, which he added to 3 Wikipedia articles. Don't sure what is appropriate to do.MH (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

We have lots of good links to help people figure out citation formatting. This is probably where I'd send them. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hedren thanks

Hi, Ohnoitsjamie. Just wanted to thank you for the bit of history as I was leaving the San Diego meetup. This month Tippi Hedren is the selected bio for Portal:Minnesota. I try to alternate men and women. Next month, Roy Wilkins. Cheers. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Neat, thanks Susan! Keep up the fantastic work; looking forward to the next meetup. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Myindiecrowd

I had just declined the deletion. Do not agree it is overtly spammy. It is hard to promote a company that folded in 2008. Cheers Dlohcierekim 16:15, 3 Sep:tember 2013 (UTC)

I had it open before you declined the speedy. On the other hand, the user account may qualify for an indef block per Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_names, though given that the company is defunct, not sure if that qualifies. On the other hand, the users only other edit seems to be an attempt to promote themself ("hey, my company is defunct but I was the first person to do this!") If you want to restore the article, I won't dispute it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: List of people from Missouri

Hi Jamie. I generally avoid entanglements or disagreements with Admins -- healthier that way lol -- but I have to disagreee with your recent removal of St. Louis based financier & politial backer Rex Sinquefield from the aforementioned list. So, I've placed him back on the list in the Business subsection along with other notable Missouri businessmen. I was curious as to why you found him non-notable enough to deserve removal. His original article is fairly well written and ref'd out the wazoo, both for his business activities and later political involvements. He's not quite as well known for supporting Midwestern and national conservative political issues as say, the Koch brothers, but he's gaining fast. His business activities alone, the creation of the index funds concept for Standard & Poor's, should be notable enough. Anyhow, I've restored him and if you feel strongly that is in error I'd welcome some dialogue as to why. Much thanks and have a great Wiki kinda day! Sector001 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't object at all. I'd removed it because it was previously a redlink before with no refs (his name had been spelled wrong). Now that it points to the correct article, I agree that he most likely passes WP:BIO notability requirements. Cheers! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Test edits

I'm not making any test edits. This is a shared IP for a library. Must be somebody else. Also, please stop reverting Cheat Code Central back and erasing my edits! CCC steals copyrighted material for their own personal gain! --156.110.82.222 (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you add the content again, your IP will be blocked from edting. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your to air your complaints. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia page

Hi there. I wanted to appeal/inquire why the Bob Schloemer page I created was deleted? I believe it was tagged as not a notable enough person? Bob Schloemer, along with Richard Bub (who already has a created wiki page) are two of three founders of GRAEF, the notable engineering and consulting firm with locations in Milwaukee, Chicago, etc. Schloemer served as a leader of the industry for 26 years and was active in numerous professional organizations during his time with the firm, including the firm's scholarship foundation. I'd be open to suggested edits rather than a total delete? Thanks.

Because based on the state of that page when it was tagged for speedy deletion, the subject met our criteria for speedy deletion. Founders of companies (especially relatively small ones) aren't automatically notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Understandable. Would you be able to provide any recommendations for edits so I'm able to resubmit for consideration? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sullivm (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm the best one to do that, given that I'm planning on creading WP:AfD nominations for two other articles you created. I don't think any of them meet our notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a free PR board.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sex picture IP (range)

Hey, Ohnoitsjamie. As someone who understands and appreciates WP:GRATUITOUS, you might want to keep a lookout for the 2.28 IP range, as seen here, here and here. The same person also used this IP range after that first diff-link. In none of these cases is the explicit real-life sex image needed, considering that there are "equally suitable [alternatives that are] available" (drawings or paintings). And in the case of the Human sexuality article, a sex picture shouldn't be used as a lead image at all for the reasons I stated in this WP:Dummy edit summary. A sex picture is obviously appropriate lower in that article, however, in one of the sections specifically about sexual activity. Looking at the recent edit history for the Doggy style article, I know that you watch that article, so you probably would have reverted that IP if I had not. I'm not sure if this IP is a person in one or more of these pictures, but I know that you, like me, are familiar with people using Wikipedia as a form of exhibitionism (often citing WP:NOT CENSORED as an excuse). I think this editor is likely that IP range; after that edit is when I started seeing similar recent edits, and the same type of number style was used for the aforementioned image that was added to the Doggy style article. I've left this picture for now, but will replace it with an image that is more WP:GRATUITOUS-compliant when I expand/fix that article up somewhat better. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Question Regarding Deletion of Entries--Cynthia Trombley (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello ohnoitsjamie: I apologize for being unfamiliar with protocol here, but would like to know why you have deleted my submissions (Craig M. Spitzer). I am uncertain whether I am adding this request on the correct page, I cannot find a reply tab or discuss tab on your page, but would like to know what criteria you are using to delete the entries for Craig Spitzer. If it is because he doesn't yet have a wiki page, that article is under construction. I am an experienced journalist but am new to the wiki forum. I would be very grateful for a reply. I am uncertain whether you read my first submission requesting explanation, but I see it was deleted. Will you give me the consideration of a response please? Thank you for your assistance. Cynthia Trombley (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Cynthia Trombley (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Ohnoitsjamie I just found the new section tab and believe this is the proper format to reply. Cynthia Trombley (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Spitzer does not meet our notability guidelines for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a free PR platform. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you judge this? I read the notable persons guidelines and it appears that this judgement is nefarious and arbitrary. Mr. Spitzer is the founder and CEO of $100m company that did business in eight states and employed 700 individuals, was named Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year in 2000, and was named in the Top 3 CEOs under 40 in Philadelphia. His company rose to #3, and #7 in 1999 and 2000 in the Inc. 500 standings. He lost his New York Office, and seven colleagues in 2001 during the 9/11 attacks and subsequently sold his company. He produced and acted in several films with director Spike Lee, and actors Denzel Washington, Jodie Foster, Ed Norton among others. He founded two extremely successful nightclubs in New York and Miami, and has reestablished his corporation in Philadelphia, New York and Boston and is currently employing 160 people and has revenues of $30m. He is an active philanthropist with the Archdiocese of Brooklyn "Futures in Education", and is currently founding construction of a free public library in Salsburg, PA with actor David Conrad and has been a significant ($50k) contributor to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Many of his peers and contemporaries have wiki pages. There is no firm foundation to judge who is notable and who is not, and from what I see there are many individuals who have contributed far less to our society on these pages. I have citations for all of this information. Mr. Spitzer is certainly notable in the Philadelphia area, as well as an alumni of the University of Pittsburgh and the Kiski School, as they will be happy to confirm. Is there a way to appeal this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthia Trombley (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to try WP:AFC, but I suspect you will get the same answer there. In the future, I'd suggest that you not promise your clients coverage on Wikipedia. You may also want to read WP:PAID. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If neutrality is in question I can certainly understand that, and I don't believe anyone has ever questioned my ability to remain neutral. But how does any of this affect whether or not a person is notable. Shouldn't a person be judged on their own merit? Mr. Spitzer certainly has had a notable career and life. Isn't the idea to be a comprehensive encyclopedia? I look forward to you reponse. I would not produce any work without significant references and citations and fully understand the concept of neutrality.Cynthia Trombley (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to try creating an article about Spitzer at WP:AFC. You could skip that step and just create an article yourself, but I would send that to WP:AFD where you'd have the opportunity to ask the community to judge whether or not Spitzer meets our WP:BIO guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and I will do that. Cynthia Trombley (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Spam whitelist

Hi, Jamie! Back in August you commented on a link I had listed at the spam whitelist [1]. You discovered that any webpage containing "guy" is automatically blacklisted. (A second "guy" listing turned up shortly thereafter,[2] but it's now gone from the requests because someone found an alternate site for the material.) Since then nothing has happened; it's apparent from the Discussion section that the whitelist request page is massively backlogged.

The person who wrote the template (I think it was cyberpower678) said that any problems with the items on the blacklist need to be taken up with "the administrator who added it to the list". How do I find that person, or the place to request the removal of "guy" containing sites from the list? Thanks for any help. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the issue lies with Cyberpower678's script, not the blacklist addition. I just made an edit to Point Loma and the blacklist filter didn't complain despite a geology-guy link being there. However, it looks like there is an all-purpose "guy" listing on the blacklist [3] that was made by User:A. B. in response to this request. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just tried re-adding the deleted section to San Diego, with the reference, and it was rejected. So the alert template may have missed it in Point Loma, but the system still won't accept it. I can't figure out the "this request" link you gave me, but is there someone I could ask to remove the item from the blacklist? Should I try User: A. B.? (Oh, I see that you pinged them.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong request link; here is the correct one. I whitelisted the link and readded the section. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Bang, just like that, it is fixed! I'm keeping you on speed-dial! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW do you need to do something at the MediaWiki talk page to indicate that the problem has been solved? --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I haven't solved the blanket "guy" problem; I just whitelisted "geology-guy." I'll leave a note for A.B...I'm wondering if the regex could be tweaked to be less "greedy" with it's matches. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Were the links really inappropriate

Hello Ohnoitsjamie, I posted some links on wikipedia yesterday and got message from you: Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I just need a clarification about why you removed the links? Were they really inappropriate? I mean a link to an external page containing some good information about the same topic isn't bad. A lot of other sites also have their links in the External Links section. So what was the problem with our content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramshengale (talk • contribs) 05:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Our policies are linked in the messages I posted on your talk pages. If you continue to add links to a website you are affiliated with, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

... for my best WikiLaugh of the day! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad someone enjoyed that! A little humor helps me keep my cool. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for In vitro diagnostics

An article that you have been involved in editing, In vitro diagnostics, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ian McDonald (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for In vitro diagnostics

An article that you have been involved in editing, In vitro diagnostics, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ian McDonald (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Indian Politics

I do not understand what gives you (or American, English, etc. admins) authority concerning activities of Indian politicians, when you know very little about them. The decision to include a "Controversy" section is best left to a team of Indian WP editors who have much more insight into Indian Politics. Can this be done? -59.95.50.226 (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing any article on Wikipedia is best left to editors who have more insight into Wikipedia policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually Jamie, you're very very VERY wrong. The best articles on Wikipedia are the ones whose editors are the most knowledgeable about the subject at hand. An editor might know 100% of all WP policies by memory, but that doesn't necessarily qualify him to edit the Quantum Physics page. --189.122.201.52 (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That's very very VERY exciting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarifications

I am a WP editor and I have some questions. I hope the answers should help me in avoiding unnecessary edits. I've known you for some time on WP.

1) Is the purpose of Wikipedia to present the views of modern scientists (the current Modern scientific community)? Why are they considered to be the sole authority on science?

2) Is the modern scientific method, the only method? If there are credible edits by people with alternative explanations, but not according to the current scientific view, why are they not accepted? Then, WP science (physics, astronomy etc.) articles should have a tag: 'modern scientific views', because there are other scientific methods unknown to "modern science".

Thank you. -Polytope4d (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources a judged not in terms of being "modern," but in terms of "broad consensus of the scientific community." Wikipedia:FRINGE addresses the topic well, and has a good paragraph distinguishing Wikipedia's views on "alternative theory" versus "psuedoscience":

Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics. To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy).

Hope that helps. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's views on "alternative theory" versus "psuedoscience""

"Do you mean to say, Wikipedia accepts content which will support Wikipedia's views on science? Is Wikipedia a reliable authority, then? -Polytope4d (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that the above quote from one of our policy pages reflects Wikipedia's position on what it considers to be reliable sources. Obviously some folks are not going to accept Wikipedia as such (911 Truthers, Morgellons advocates, etc) if it contradicts their convictions. Not much we can do about that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I hope I've asked you relevant questions. Now since you have found that I was involved in violating policies slightly (I had never heard about Marco, it was a random visit. Well, this was just an experiment. I've done such things rarely), you may have formed an opinion of me, and thus your views about me may tend to get biased. What I meant to show is that people tend to form opinions about others because of some slight deviations, and collectively the scientific community has formed an opinion about religion, because they feel methods (which are actually scientific from a wider perspective) of obtaining knowledge in genuine religions deviate from their viewpoints and hence tend to reject religious explanations altogether.

Why I am writing all this is because I plan to edit some articles which relate to origins of the universe, life; evolution, philosophy etc with as neutral a point of view as possible. -Polytope4d (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's fine as long as you do so in the appropriate article (i.e., Cosmogony was not an appropriate article for content about Creationism). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A little introspection reveals that explanation about the universe originating from an intelligent source is no more unscientific than one that says origin from singularity. Can you comprehend singularity by the way? So now that paragraph is deleted. I knew this would probably happen after reading your previous replies. There is no point in editing then. I would like to say that many of the explanations (the big bang theory for example) are not from a neutral point of view. -Polytope4d (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I do my best to edit based on Wikipedia policy and community consensus, not based on my own opinions regarding science, religion, and philosophy. We have a few folks who would like to say the same thing about our September 11 attacks article, but that's not going to happen either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please STOP deleting color code references

The color code references you have been deleting are important references. They allow Wikipedia users to verify that a color's coding is correct. Just because these web references have ads in them does not mean that they are "spam references". Just about all websites have ads in them nowadays--they are necessary to provide funding to maintain the websites. Keraunos (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The references were being spamming extensively by a various single purpose account, and I will continue to remove them if I see such behavior again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes

Yes, I apologise. It won't happen again. I think I've been blowing off some steam in regard to Autumn kicking in full swing. Anyway, thanks for the heads up, you can see be my few hundred actually productive article edits that I'm here to help. Thanks, Herzlicheboy (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Another 3news spammer

Actually found 2. This guy active this week User:TracExNZ and another active in Feburary/March User:Tomsawyerford - SimonLyall (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

brooklynrail.org spam

Hi! I see that you've been trying to put a stop to this for more than a year, and that you blocked RB231 in August for spamming. I listed the site here, but that seems to have run into opposition. Any suggestions? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

While it may be tricky to argue that it meets blacklisting criteria, blocking RB231 as a single purpose spam-only account is not so tricky, and has been done. Thanks for the heads up! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that's one less! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rachel Maddow

Hi, Jamie! Could you take a look at Talk:Rachel Maddow's recent history? An anonymous user recently posted a filthy diatribe against Maddow on that page. Somehow the bots missed it, and it stayed for two days before I noticed it. I have deleted it and warned the user, but I wondered if maybe the comment and my reverting of it should be also deleted from the history? I'm not familiar with the policy for blanking edits from the history, but it occurred to me this could be such a case, because of BLP issues as well as community standards. Thanks for checking. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been taken care of. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Trick 'r Treat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ]-related scary stories. One common element that ties the stories together is the presence of Sam (, a mysterious pint-sized [[Trick-or-treating|trick-or-treater]] wearing shabby orange pajamas with

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Bollywood films of 2013 may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Jamie. Based on some edits you made back in 2011 you might have some interest in this. It still requires admin attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Spam whitelist

Hi,
\bwww\.annabelkarmel\.com\b actually matched all links in the www subdomain so the blacklist entry was pretty much negated by it. I've changed it to only allow the home page.
Cheers, Amalthea 11:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much! I wasn't sure if I did that right, still trying to get the hand of regex. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:GRATUITOUS again

We have another one of those WP:GRATUITOUS/using Wikipedia as a form of exhibitionism cases, as seen here and here. The editor even came to my talk page about it. I might need your help on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Content deleted from Mobile Payments page

Hi Jamie,

Do you also delete the original content if there is a problem with the links? I added the discussion of 'Mobile wallets' to mobile payments, which is very relevant to the topic, but it has been removed by you. If you like the content but not the references, I can work on better ones.

Also, I went through the guidelines as you mentioned but could not figure out the reason for inappropriateness of the reference links. I am a student and not representing any company and all the links were from third party websites except one.

Regards, Kumar KumarAbhinavS (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of the references were OK, but paywiththis.com does not qualify as a reliable source and violates our WP:EL guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

So would you reject the entire content because of one reference? How about publishing everything else and skipping the objectionable reference? KumarAbhinavS (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

http://spam.qtrax.com

HI, thanks for the explanation as to why you headed the section on User talk:Lilamey2013‎‎ http://spam.qtrax.com - you said it's so that if you do a link search, you can see who's spammed the link; e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.popzara.com. I may be missing something but I don't quite see how putting a bad link as a section title does that. Is there an explanatory guideline somewhere? I would think one could much more effectively put something like *check for links to qtrax.com and nobody would be confused. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding a dummy link to the spammers talk page allows the link search to not only pick up article space where the link appears, but also identifies users who have spammed the link. It's helpful if someone asks, "why is this link on the blacklist?" Being able to click on the linksearch and show that multiple users added the link provides justification that blocking in itself was not effective (as in the popzara example above). Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Got it. This should perhaps be codified somewhere, with an easy shortcut. Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I've seen other editors using the "http://s.sitename.com" pattern; would be a good idea for it to be consistent and documented. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist

Hi. Since you have edited the blacklist before, could you please add a new entry to it (the one added in these diffs)? I don't want to mess the code up. Thanks! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 18:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Marketing Mix modelling

Jamie - got your note regarding deletion of my entry to the Marketing Mix Modelling page. You claim it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This strikes me as strange. It is a reference to a published article I wrote on the subject, focusing on merging short and long-term marketing effects. Consequently, it is no different from the other citations for published works on this page - the Ataman article for example. The Booz article is just an internal company doc and this is permitted. I checked out the guidelines before editing and didn't see any obvious problems. Could you clarify?

Bewst

Pete

Marketing Mix modelling

Jamie - got your note regarding deletion of my entry to the Marketing Mix Modelling page. You claim it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This strikes me as strange. It is a reference to a published article I wrote on the subject, focusing on merging short and long-term marketing effects. Consequently, it is no different from the other citations for published works on this page - the Ataman article for example. The Booz article is just an internal company doc and this is permitted. I checked out the guidelines before editing and didn't see any obvious problems. Could you clarify?

Best

Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.215.0 (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI and WP:EL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. Is it ok to reference my work in this area in the text with no external link, or does that still constitute a conflict? 90.215.215.0 (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The would fall under WP:ADVERT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. So I guess a third party has to edit and reference my work - as is the case for the Booz references etc. Unless this can only be done by the original author. 90.215.215.0 (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Please take your SEO activities elsewhere

I posted relevant information about how to stick on a temporary tatoo.

You don't work for Wikipedia and you're impeding the public right to post here. This is a breach of section 10 of the Wikipedia Terms of Use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleExtima (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Your ability to edit will be breached if I see any more spamming from you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Haluk Şahin

Hi, I've deprodded Haluk Şahin, cleaned it up a little and added some refs (and moved it). I think the subject is almost certainly notable but at the same time it'd be difficult to flesh it out into a proper article (there are hundreds of articles on Google News but they're almost all in Turkish, and of those I think a lot are by him rather than about him). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for providing the reason. If it had been done before, it'll be better. I agree with you the fact that wikipedia is not a place to post personal photos. But if it is really a poor photo, i wouldn't even upload w.r.t. commons' guidelines. Thank you once again. Hope we keep making wikipedia, better. --Bala(blitz) 19:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a terrible photo, but for an article about a photography topic, we have plenty of very high-quality examples available. I'm an amateur photographer myself, but I don't think any of my photos are good enough to illustrate a photography topic. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Pzrschreck

Hi Jamie (assuming that might be your name ), I reverted your reversions of the introduced content from Pzrschreck, as it sounds like he has the source, but is simply struggling with how to cite it. I left instructions on his talk page, and if he cannot figure it out, I will get the source via email or via his talk page and add the sources myself. Thanks! Go Phightins! 21:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but I'm skeptical. I Google'd terms he was introducing into the article and got 0 hits for every one I tried. I don't think the topic is so esoteric that at least a few online sources would turn up. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's possible, but ... well, I will email you the rest as it deals with something off-wiki. Go Phightins! 21:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

YGM. Go Phightins! 21:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Padmashali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laya (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) 12:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in community notice

Dear Ohnoitsjamie/archive28

As a Wikipedian interested in African subjects and specifically Uganda, we thought you might be interested in the following opportunity.

WikiAfrica is looking for a Wikipedian in Community from Uganda to play a pivotal role in its Kumusha Takes Wiki project. This might be a position that you would consider. Or it could be the perfect opportunity for someone you know from this country, please spread the word! For more details, please look at this page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/call_for_wir_en/

If you have any questions about the above, please contact isla on isla [at] wikiafrica [dot] net : Isla Haddow (talk)

Help needed at Murder of Stephanie Crowe

Hi, Jamie! Could you take a look at recent additions to Murder of Stephanie Crowe? I am asking you because you are the only regular editor other than myself who had edited there recently. (I suspect I am the only person watching the article.) An IP has added a rather sensational claim to the article three times; they provide no evidence and I can't find any such information in a search. After the second addition I posted at their talk page asking for the source of their information, but they ignored my comment and instead inserted the claim into the article a third time. I have reverted them twice; I don't want to do it a third time for 3RR reasons. Could you take a look and see what you think? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

After discussion at the other editor's talk page I have reverted their additions a third time. So if they persist I will have to back off and leave it to others to deal with. If they don't re-add the claim nothing further needs to be done, but I would appreciate it if you would watchlist the page. --MelanieN (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I believe the IP is acting in good faith but in ignorance of WP rules. So I am not asking for your help as an admin, just as another experienced user. --MelanieN (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External Link for Jazz Hall inductees

I understand you have deleted a link to one of our inductees pages, specifically in honor of them being an inductee of the Oklahoma Jazz Hall of Fame. I am not sure how that violates the rules when it is an added source of information on their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzdepot (talk • contribs) 21:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If you read WP:EL, everything will be illuminated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

block log for 72.94.234.173

It mentions User:TimothySheridan rather than User:Timothy_Sheridan. —rybec 07:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, thanks; I'll double-check next time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann. You were involved in a prior discussion about that user. -- Lexein (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, the matter was closed soon after this was posted. --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Blink-182

This user helped promote Blink-182 to good article status.

Well done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

With Regards to Quaxelrod

I felt that this posting was not spammy or inappropriate. It is a character from a published book, and I did not believe any of the post to be vulgar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.177.36 (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no indication that it is notable. Do not add it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What about here, where Wired Magazine specifically calls it Literature? [4] also, this article from The Atlantic, both of note. [5] The latter specifically mentions "@MayorEmanuel is sometimes accompanied by political advisor David Axelrod and a cast of imaginary characters: Carl the Intern, Hambone (a dog), and Quaxelrod (a duck with a mustache)." 75.68.177.36 (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the link to the page you may have deemed as self promoting and provided you with evidence that this character is of note. I am genuinely curious why you continue to remove my addition. 75.68.177.36 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional examples of the notable nature of this work of real-time literature: The Economist, "The first real work of digital literature?" [6]; Chicago Tribune, "Tweets take their (expletive) place among city's rich literary tradition" [7]; Politico, "Rahm Emanuel unleashed: Fake feed a Twitter hit" [8]; the author's appearance on the Colbert Report (March, 2011) [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.168.213 (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice that all of the other entries in that list are associated with a Wikipedia article. I'm not discussing this further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, Hi we have no idea how to use wikipedia, we tried to add our association IDCA that certifies dating coaches for number of year now to the list. But you removed a link, probably because we didnt know how to use wiki format of editing, it feels like programing. But it is not as you left a note in your message: " wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. " We just don't know how to use wiki, if you look at dating coach wikipedia entry and their resources, they dont have real reference to dating coaching. If you look at our association, www.datingcoach.org - we certainly not a spam, infact if anyone should be on dating coaching page, it should be us but we cant even add ourselves. If you could help us to format it correctly, we would be highly obliged. I tried to do it, and just got confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IreneIDCA (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for dating coach agencies. The message left on your talk page makes it clear that such links aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Your possible review calendar

Hello User:Ohnoitsjamie; My interest is in possibly initiating or starting a review for a GA or FA wikipage for a medical article. Any possible interest in participating? BillMoyers (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Have an article in mind? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ohnoitsjamie; Thanks for getting back to me. The situation is that a group of articles dealing with medical pages in mental health and psychiatry are in need of being upgraded since the new major diagnostic manual "DSM-5" has been released earlier this year. I started with Page:Shizophrenia and posted the list of 15 needed upgrades and transition edits there on its Talk page. The 15 essential DSM-5 transition edits have been posted for about two weeks now and a recent flurry of activity has died down now without addressing the larger part of the essentially needed transition edits. It would be very helpful and useful if an experienced editor like yourself could help to start the FA review process (last done 3 yrs ago) to make sure that everything is done on the up-and-up. I thought it might make sense to try it for one medical article and then decide about going on to other ones if it works out that way. Does it sound interesting? BillMoyers (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that does sound interesting. My first career involved psychiatry and as such I'm pretty familiar with the DSM-IV, and am interested in the DSM-5 changes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ohnoitsjamie: If this is an area of mutual interest and familiarity, then it sounds pretty good. To start things off it might be worthwhile to look at the DSM-5 page here at Wikipedia just for general orientation. After that I could offer to post the 15 DSM-5 transition edits I have already prepared either on my Talk page or on your Talk page, whichever sounds more convenient, for discussion or as preparatory comment for starting the FA review process. If I should be providing of list of users to inform as to starting the review process, then I would probably start with the top five contributors to the Wikipedia "DSM-5" page. Your familiarity already with DSM-4 would be a large advantage for this process to start in a good direction. What should I be preparing next? BillMoyers (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

New incarnation of an IP you just blocked

Hello. IP 68.146.120.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was blocked by you two hours ago, quickly reappeared as IP 70.72.13.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), repeating the exact same edits that the first IP got blocked for... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)