User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive6

Comment regarding previous removal of an external link to Boutique Hotels

I apologize in advance, if this is not the correct method of contacting you, but I simply do not know how to communicate to you. A few months ago I corrected a misspelling on an article about Boutique Hotels, and added a link to a magazine, Deluxe Traveller, which I am the publisher of. I was not trying to vandalize anything, on the contrary, I happened to come across the page, and noticed an obvious error, namely a claim that only one magazine is dedicated to Boutique Hotels. That is not true. i made a reference to our own (printed) magazine, and also included a link to our website, where the electronic version of the magazine can be downloaded, free of charge. Instead of reverting to a version with incorrect information, you might have taken the time to investigate what you were erasing, or at least explain what in my actions you found offensive.

Best regards

Kenneth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.93.196.231 (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Fuck Article

Why was my link change refused? All I did was download the inferior wav file, convert it to MP3, upload it and then change th wiki link to a direct download of the MP3 file.

Update: Anybody out there?

Haystack.com links

We would greatly appreciate you reconsidering your policy of cancelling links to Haystack.com. The Haystack.com pages for artists are managed and controlled by the artist and label, making them more akin to the artist's homepage than links to Myspace, Purevolume, etc.

In addition, revenue from those pages goes to the artists themselves, unlike most other social network destinations on the web. See RightsNow Media Royalty or articles published in Daily Candy or Digital Music Weblogs. In a culture where piracy is so difficult to directly combat, we hope that the revenue generated from these pages can help support record sales, not supplant it. Haystack is not seeking to profit off artist's content.

The artists and labels that have created these pages have asked us to help drive interest in their new releases, and Wikipedia is an important destination where the artists can reach the fanbases that are asking to hear their music.

While we understand the culture of Wikipedia is to be diligent on links that are deemed commercial spam and appreciate the importance of your role, we hope you can reconsider upon reflection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.233.148 (talk • contribs)

If the links were added on an individual basis by the artist or fans, they probably would've been left. When one individual adds multiple links to the same site, it sets of the spam alarms. I looked at the page for Mew; it didn't seem to have anything that Mewsite and their MySpace page didn't already have. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Unearth Travel deletion

Entirely confused about the deletion. Unearth Travel is a creative commons travel wiki in a very similar vein to Wikitravel and World66, which as it happens has more free information than the named sites for some areas of the world. Surely if they are deemed appropriate entries then Unearth Travel should be? If the problem is that there is not enough information on the page, that can be recitified. Thank you for your time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PSBennett (talk • contribs).

Unlike your site, Wikitravel is non-commercial (does not have ads, etc.) I haven't seen any link-campaigns related to World-66, but I would've deleted those as well. As mentioned in the spam warning, you are encouraged to add content to Wikipedia articles, not links. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The ads have been taken off, I am proposing to add links where appropriate (as in there is more useful information for the user than Wikipedia currently has). We cannot transfer the information to the site as the licences are not the same. What do you think?

I have not had any reply from you but am still interested in your opinion, please advise. PSBennett (talk · contribs)

In my opinion, it's still in violation of WP:EL, specifically in that it is intended to promote a commercial website. Wikipedia is not the place to drive traffic to your web venture. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Should I then pose the question on the talk pages about the existence of Wikitravel links versus Unearth Travel links (in line with the WP:EL section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PSBennett (talk • contribs).

I'd recommend posing the question at the Wikiproject Spam talk page; that's a very active discussion area for debating WP:EL and WP:SPAM policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you,will have a go. PSBennett

Thanks for Rving the Personal Attack...

Thank you for reverting the personal attack on my talk page Ohnoitsjame. I appreciate it, thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem; I threw in an indefinite block for good measure. ;) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas

Hi J, thanks for yanking the excess "fact" tags in this section. The new user tossed out a bunch because I put a tag on the last sentence in that section. The rest is widely accepted, but would you review that last one to see if it can stand on its own? Maybe I'm being too sensitive about what we can assert vs. what needs a cite. If you think it's ok, I'm good with it, it just seemed to fall into the latter category rather than the former. Thanks for your time either way : ) Doc Tropics 04:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this cite tag; that's a tough one. I think the statement mostly holds true in the United States (though I've met very few parents who don't do the Santa thing for at least a little while) I have no idea how widespread it is in the rest of the world, or in real numbers in the US for that matter. I think a cite tag is appropriate, given that it's a shaky blanket/global statement to make. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I don't want to harass the poor newbie too much, so I'll let things slide for awhile. I really do appreciate you taking the time to review such a minor detail. Happy editing : ) Doc Tropics 05:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Panic links

Hi Jamie.You removed my external link on Panic Attacks. My site is not for any profit but has a talk community of over 250 people and we focus solely on panic attacks. There is a constant stream of information occurring there. Spam is FOR profit or FOR an agenda. This site is free information and aims to helps people suffering from panic attacks and give them detailed explanations from those that have had panic attacks. Thanks, Jeff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guymadison (talk • contribs).

Hi Jeff. I took a closer look at your site. It seems to be non-profit. I reverted the links because it appeared that you immediately added the links to more than numerous articles (which made it appear to be a spamming campaign). If you re-add them to Panic disorder and Panic attack, I won't object, but those are probably the only articles that are highly relevant to the content. You could also post a query to the talk pages to those article asking others if they think the links are worth adding. Articles related to anxiety and depression can quickly accumlate way too many links, so we try to limit them to highly relevant and/or notable sources. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: 68.114.63.121

There was a recent vandalism by anon ip 68.114.63.121 to Russia-Ukraine gas dispute; you gave this user a final warning on 1 December so I wanted to let you know about this rather than {test4} again. Vandalism evidence: [1]. Regards, --Riurik ^(discuss) 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. IP is blocked 48 hours (second vandalism block). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Another offender

Hi there, I'm not sure where to edit the bottom of your page, so I'll try here. I see that you have banned 64.53.4.254 in the past. Just a heads up that I removed some more vandalism by them. EOBeav 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

San Diego

San Diego continues to be vandalized by the Anchorman reference several times a week. I applied for semi-protection a few weeks ago (see the talk page of the article) but it was taken down a week later, and this continues to be an ongoing problem. Can full protection or a longer semi-protection be reinstated that will last for a longer time period? I believe you know the standards for protection more then I do since you're an administrator, so you can make a wiser decision. Let me know what you do. --Nehrams2020 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "Ron Burgundy" vandalism is annoying and somewhat persistent, but I don't think it's quite hit the level of persistence requiring protection. I escalate warnings to the Burgundy vandals quickly (I start with a "blatant" warning and go straight to a test 4 if they persist), or block vandalism only accounts. If the frequency of attemts increases, I'd be amenable to going with semi-protection. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: External Links

We had a disagreement a few days ago about a few external links. Yet, I looked today in the "Cover Letter" section and there are two external links that are irrelevant, especially one with Adsense. This simply doesn't make sense in terms of what links are allowed and what links are disallowed. At this point, it seems that it is a subjective call. Do you know when there will be clear guidelines as to what external links are allowed? (I am aware of the current guidelines, but they are not that upfront.)

Also, these are the two external links:

• http://www.writinghelp-central.com/cover-letter.html
• http://www.csuchico.edu/plc/coverltr-ex.html

I compare these links with this one for instance:

• Cover Letter Samples

How are the two first links more relevant than the last one, which gives access to over 25 cover letter samples from professional writers?

And how about this link which gives access to close to 80 resume samples:

• Resume Samples

There seems to be no clearly defined criteria... But in terms of usefulness, it is arguable that:

• Cover Letter Samples

and

• Resume Samples

provide useful examples of what otherwise would be abstract concepts.

NOTE: Nowhere on the Web will you see so many resume and cover letter samples from professional writers. Yes, these are good samples, not spam.

I look forward to your feedback. Again, let me be clear that I appreciate your commitment to Wikipedia, but we have different views about what's relevant or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Workbloom (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, it's impossible to make a clear-cut, black-and-white policy regarding links. In many cases, an editor will propose the addition of a link on the article's talk page; a consensus will determine whether or not the link is included. In most cases, we err on the side of excluding links (the focus of Wikipedia should always be adding content, not links). Of the few you noted, I'd be included to leave the csuchico.edu link; I rarely remove links from educational institutions, non-profits, or government sources, as there's no commercial conflict-of-interest. Commercial links are accepted by editors in some instances if the links are from a very notable source and/or provide a extensive/high-quality content. Again, there is no litmus test for "high qualility/extensive"; decisions are made by individuals or by group consensus in the case of a disagreement.

In your particular case, your username makes it obvious that you are some sort of representative from the site whose links you are trying to ad. WP:EL makes it clear that editors should not add links to their own sites.

Keep in mind that if you see links that you feel violate WP:EL/WP:SPAM, you can delete them yourself. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Persistent spammer

Hi, I noticed you reverted some spam by 192.249.47.11, who tended to employ misleading edit summaries. He's posting under the name Parker_Curtis to spam SAT_calculator_program. Could you do something about him? Exeunt 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The same person is now under 71.165.157.97 . He's spamming the SAT_calculator_program article again with the same site. Would it be possible to block the HigherSAT.com URL from Wikipedia? Exeunt 22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I escalated the warning to spam4 (since it's obviously a sockpuppet spammer). Oh, and some friendly advice; as tempting as it is to bite spammers, it's always best to remain civil in such matters. Keep up the good spam fighting work! Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

About single-use accounts, external link sections and spam

Hi there Jamie, I have admired your work from the silent sections of the peanut gallery for awhile now ;), including your anti-spam efforts---which is why I'm here. I thought I'd ask for your input before I try one of the spam discussion pages: I'm troubled by the external link category called "Tourism" in geography related articles, especially in articles about popular tourist destinations. That category is a magnet for spam links, a virtual invitation to advertisers; it is attracting "info" from sites that exist primarily to generate commission for hotel referals or reservations, from tour operators and villa rental agencies (who often try to appear inconspicuous on Wikipedia by linking to their "General destination facts" section), from car rental places and general booking agents masquerading as "official travel guides", etc, etc. I've been working on one such tourist destination article for a while now, Nevis, trying to implement the standard format established by the other Caribbean island articles, while also attempting to get it in shape for the featured article selection process. But I'm really concerned about the standard established for the "External links" sections. The problem is not as acute in the Nevis article as it is in articles about larger and more popular island destinations, but it may only be a question of time. Right now, for example, there is a single-use account adding a personal site with a promotional description added (or search engine kick-line), that repeats the words "Nevis" and "guide" twice and adds the line "over 300 pages, 15 years in operation". Although a rather large portion of the site consists of paid advertisement for villa rentals, pictures of hotels, CD covers, guide books for sale through Amazondotcom, etc etc, along with rather large Google ad sections, the site has some merit as an essay-type, personal travel account by a frequent visitor to the island. Because of this, I only replaced the promotional description of the link when it first appeared, leaving the link itself. But the promotional kick-line keeps being reinserted by one user (1Nevis), a single use account that seems to exist only for the purpose of promoting this link, which finally led other editors to just remove the link altogether. And now it has become a revert war situation, which is making the article unstable. My point is: If the no-spam policy included a line about a Wikipedia preference for officially endorsed, government tourism department websites only in articles about popular tourist destinations, this problem would go away. But once an external link category called "Tourism" exists, as a separate entity from "Official links", it will continue to be seen as an open invitation to spam Wikipedia with pages about how to book a hotel and how to rent a car, etc. One side of this problem is instability: More aggresive site owners are deleting the other's links in order to be the one only one or the top link in the Tourism section. Another problem is that "Tourism" is such an open-ended category with the potential to grow out of control. What to do in the Nevis article and where to discuss suggested changes? Any suggestions? Best wishes, Pia 00:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't think that a separate subsection for Tourism links would be appropriate, for the reasons you enumerate. I usually delete any commercial tourism links unless they are city/state-sponsored (or otherwise official)or links to the Wikitravel site. I'm not sure if there is an official policy on having a separate section for Tourism, but I think it would be safe to say that most of (if not all) of links like that would run afoul of WP:EL or WP:SPAM. I'll see if I can find any "official" guidelines on destination articles regarding that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your position and I agree with your personal choice. I haven't been able to locate any established guidelines for external links on geography project pages, so perhaps the best way to approach the tourism spam problem is simply to raise the issue, including on the Caribbean project discussion board of course. The work by the project participants there to standardize the Caribbean articles has been very successful and has greatly improved a number of articles, so I think it's important not to make drastic changes to the categories they have established. Then again, it just doesn't seem fair to place so much on the shoulders of the spam patrollers, if a simple guideline could circumvent the spammers. Jamie, thanks for working so hard and being willing to help out with sticky issues. Much appreciated. Best wishes, Pia 23:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Web hosting service

Looks like Web hosting service is getting hit with more sockpuppets. With that kind of diligence, maybe they are a top ISP.  :) I'm reverting. Can you block a few? --EarthPerson 00:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked a few. They're all from the same range, so I'll consider a range block if it continues (or maybe semi-protection). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking 204.184.18.230

I'd like to suggest a permanent block of User:204.184.18.230, allowing logged-in edits only. I'm a former student of this school district - This IP address is a NAT router that serves every Ladue school (high school, middle, elementary).

Judging from the edit history at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.184.18.230 - this IP has essentially never made a non-vandalizing edit. crl620 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that there's much precedence for perma-blocking IP addresses, especially one that serves multiple schools. On the other hand, I'm not averse to blocking school IPs for progressively longer intervals. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I guess I misread the block page. Looks like 1-3 months is the going rate. Although, I guess I don't understand why an permanent anon-ban would be bad. It's unlikely this vandalism will stop but productive users could easily create an account and then edit (assuming anon-only still allows acct. creation). crl620 03:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve Niles

Are you his brother? Why do you feel qualified to delete everything negative about him even though it is footnoted, sourced, and newsworthy? (multiple news stories at the time). You don't even give reasons for your maneuvers. You need to cease now. ColScott 02:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)ColScottColScott 02:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed on the talk page; as mentioned there, the content violates WP:LIVING and none of the sources meet WP:Reliable sources standards. If you continue to add the content, you may be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Knights Ferry

Not trying to Spam, rather list some very important external links to what is now a significant aspect of the Knights Ferry experience...rafting and camping. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeffMGreen (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC).--JeffMGreen 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider review from different viewpoint

In removing some external links to GraceCentered.com pages reviewing movies you said, "Batman Begins, Shrek, The Incredibles, Friday Night Lights, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow don't seem to benefit from having a Christian review."

It would benefit Christians. Many Christians want to know if the movie is suitable for a Christian audience or if it's something they want to take their children to see. Many of the writers at Grace-Centered write for newspapers, have books that are best sellers and have Ph.Ds. Many Christians and non Christians value their viewpoints. Please respond. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leesw (talk • contribs) 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I never said anything about Batman or Shrek. You are mistaking me with another editor. Regardless, see WP:EL and WP:SPAM for more info regarding external links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable link

Hi Jamie, I noticed that you recently restored a link here which had been removed by another editor. I had actually just removed the site in question from another article myself because it appears to have no encyclopaedic content at all (and it was recently added to a series of articles in a questionable manner). The site itself contains no sources or refs, it is a "free" website that anyone can create, and it seems to be an opinion/essay. Since you have more experience with these things, I naturally wonder if I'm missing something. If you review the site, do you think it actually merits inclusion in our articles? Since I have taken a lot of guidance from you in the past, I'd very much like to know your opinion. Doc Tropics 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That was a mistake (I thought my revert would "remove" the link rather than restore it). I agree that it's not appropriate, and I've reverted my reversion. Thanks for catching that! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Jamie, I thought I needed a sanity-check : ) Doc Tropics 23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO DISCUSSION ========================================================================================

I posted 2 links to this site. One of which I removed myself. The second was removed by you.

As far as your discussion.

(1) The site is non-commercial (2) It does not sell anything (3) It does provide more content to the subject (4) It does cite sources, in fact I counted 69 source references in the article (5) It is not a spam site (6) It contains an opinion you probably disagree with and prefer to censor (7) That is all the more reason it should be listed.

I will not repost the link, however, your objection to this link is hypocritical. It is certianly more more factually oriented than this one:

http://www.citybeat.com/archives/1996/issue304/cover1.html

PS. I think you have done the reading public a great disservice. I will leave it to you to reconsider your decision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seventhcroak (talk • contribs).

Thanks for agreeing not to repost the links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The link is being reposted on ather articles. Here it is on the Christmas article. Pastordavid 03:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Refinance Article

Good afternoon,

I have some questions regarding the refinance article that I just finished editting, and had all the changes reverted on. I understand your position in regards to spam links. I have fully familiarized myself with the spam policy, and I am fully confident that the changes I made, which you reverted, not only were not spam, but actually REMOVED spam from the article.

If you'll check the article now, there are two reference links to a site called "thetruthaboutmortgage.com" Go to that site. It is not an informational ressource about refinance, and the references aren't even properly formatted according to Wikipedia standards. In my changes, I removed those links, and replaced them with external links to non-commercial websites of purely informational nature such as HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) and the Department of Veterans Affairs. These sites are purely informational, an are definitionally not spam, as they are government websites created specifically to provide information on refinance. I also added reference links to the sites I used for references when writing the article in the first place, as I believe I am not only supposed to but required to do.

I forgot to sign in when I made these changes today, but I am the person who originally re-wrote the entire article about a month ago. At that time, I added reference links to the pages I had used as reference when re-writing it. Another moderator, whose name I have since forgotten (but who should appear on the page's history), informed me that I did not cite sufficiently authoritative websites in generating these references, and SPECIFICALLY asked me to locate government-run websites such as HUD or the VA and use THOSE as references. I only just found the time to do so, only to have my additions instantly removed for the very same reason I was told to put them up in the first place, and actual SPAM LINKS put in their place. Imagine my surprise.

I appreciate that you have to remain vigilant on spam matters, as I can only imagine the quantity of spam you receive, but I am at a loss here. In obeying the specific requests of one moderator, I have apparently run afoul of another, and even my removal of spam links has been reverted. Every link I placed on that site was informational-only, mostly to .gov and .org websites. The only .com reference link I used was to a consumer advocacy site I often consult, which does not sell anything even remotely related to refinancing. In fact the article itself was a detailed discussion of the pros and cons associated with this sort of thing. If the original links currently on the page are not spam, then I can't conceive of how HUD public service articles and risk assessments are.

I respectfully request that you reconsider your decision on this matter. Please follow the links you deleted, and the ones you reverted the page to, and tell me where you find the spam. Don't simply delete changes because you see an external link has appeared, especially if the changes are to delete spam links and replace them with informational ones.

I'm sorry this is so long, but I've put a lot of time and work into this article (you should have seen how it was before I showed up), and to have these changes revoked in favor of a spam site is disheartening to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.253.72 (talk • contribs)

Wikilogos

I've noticed you are a graphic designer, you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks!FrummerThanThou 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not a graphic designer. Master_of_Puppets (talk · contribs) did my page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

75.75.4.134

I saw that you warned this user for spamming. However I had already blocked him coz it really looked like a spambot. Hope you don't mind. :-/ --Húsönd 18:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

highersat

Why are you so against highersat.com? I am not pushing the link, I simply posted a message in the discussion area as you suggested because I think the link is relevant to the article (I mean the article is about the programs on the site yet you won't allow any mention of the programs or site), and so far a couple of users have in fact thought that a link to the site would be useful. Then out of the blue you warn me to stop pushing the site? I did exactly what you told me to do, I have not posted another link to the site, and have only asked for opinions. How is posting a message in the discussion area asking if users think a link to the site is relevant against any rules?

Also, for the record a link to the site had been on that wiki for a few months without any complaints until the SAT OS person started repeatedly messing with it and replacing it with a link to his site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parker Curtis (talk • contribs)

I don't see any of your posts to the calculator talk page. The most recent one was by a new user, who apparently registered an account for the sole purpose of suggesting the link. Regardless of how long the link was there before and how many new people register just to suggest it, it's a commercial link for a test prep country, and as such is spam. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've clarified. I posted the original comment (I forgot to sign in) which asked for people's opinions on the site. I don't see how that has anything to do with people signing up or making comments. Also, the link may be to a website that sells calculator programs, but they also give away a free program and have many useful resources. Furthermore, and more importantly, the subject of the most of the wiki is those very programs. Therefore, the link would be useful to show what the programs are, since it is helpful for someone to be able to see what is being talked about in the wiki. I mean at one point the wiki says they can be found online, why should there not be an easy link following that that says where they can be found online. It is not spam because it literally is the subject of a good portion of the wiki, or at least 90% of it until it talks about other recent SAT calculator programs. Try ipod's wiki or many others for examples of relevant links to websites that sell products (but keep in mind that this site also has a free program and other resources).

I feel that you are simply in the mindset that this is linkspam because another user reported me as link spamming, while they were simply removing the link that was there and adding 7 links to SAT OS. Doesn't removing the link that was there and adding 7 links all to the same thing sound a little suspicious? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parker Curtis (talk • contribs) 05:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Regardless of how the page came to my intention, the higher sat site does not meet WP:EL guidelines. Regarding my mindset, anyone can see in my edit history that I've deleted many, many spam links. This isn't about me "having something against" your site. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My main point was not how the site was brought to your attention; that was an aside in case that was affecting your judgment as I believe it may be doing just that. I saw that the person who was adding 7 links to SAT OS and removing the link to highersat.com was writing to you that I was spamming which I why I brought that up - that person is clearly the link spammer and trying to soil my name. But I digress, the website does in fact meet WP:EL guidelines. I have thoroughly reviewed the guidelines and cannot see how it does not meet them. The site is in fact "directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject" as much of the article talks about the exact programs listed on the site and even the maker of those programs - it is the "official site" for them. Links are and can be to sites that sell products, as long as the site is relevant to the article (again try ipod etc), and especially if the website offers free items (the free program from the site, resources, or simply a better understanding of how such a program would work). So again, please show me why a link should not be included to the website, because everything I can find says that the link should in fact be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.153.190 (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

People from Cities

What are the requirements for putting people on City pages? Like What makes them eligible to be listed from a certain City? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wagesb (talk • contribs) 02:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

See WP:BIO notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett, Stephen/ Quackwatch

I wouldn't say that Quackwatch is a reputable source, as Stephen Barrett is well known for SLAPP and libel suits against perceived opponents. Geo. 22:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the medical expertise to say 100% either way, but I've been under the impression that most of his opponents are peddlers of snake oil and dubious treatments/therapies with no reputable research backing them. I don't think there's one single medical opinion that will be accepted universally. Personally, I'd be fine with Barrett or Andrew Weil as sources, even though I doubt there's much they agree on. Both have reasonably large bodies of supporters. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Coastalfields

You recently removed some of the links I added. I was wondering how they were inappropriate: I added links to outside sources that provdied citation for the areas in the articles that needed citation, and further reading on the subject. These sites I linked to provide the book for free (in full!). Would you like me to redo the links directly to google books? Is there another way to cite these books? Please let me know! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coastalfields (talk • contribs).

Between your username and links, it appeared that your contributions were primarily intended as a vehicle to promote your site. If you'd like to use a book as a source, see WP:ISBN for instructions on how to make ISBN links (they're pretty easy). Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. However, some of these books don't have ISBN's yet (I'm digitizing them and trying to get them all on googlebooks, but the process is slow). May I link to the books that do not have ISBN's? Also, wikipedia's ISBN search won't help your readers find the book: because I've only purchased 10 ISBN's, I can't be listed with any major booksellers or libraries (I'm working on that, too). May I link to the googlebooks (a 3rd party) and, when that is impossible, to the website where they are posted for free download in MS WORD format?

Michael 'Warble" Finucane

Since Michael 'Warble" Finucane had survived prod back in October, I've moved the discussion to AfD. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call, thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeffree Star

This guy has been deleted and protected because of repeated lack of notability, it's not a good idea to recreate it without going through DRV. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I recall that at the time of it first few speedy deletions and subsequent protection that none of the versions created had any claims of notability. I'd noticed recently that there were numerous posts on the talk page asking why it was deleted; I did some research and found several media mentions that met WP:BIO, so I restored it. The deletion policy states, "If it is believed that a significantly better researched article would be verifiable and otherwise meet Wikipedia article criteria, then recreation for good cause and in good faith may well be reasonable." If it had been deleted and protect via AFD, I would've sent it to Deletion review. Whoops, my mistake; I see that it did go through an AFD. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey, I don't know if I'm writing in the correct place about this or not, but I just wanted to apologize for the vandalism that originated on my computer, and I wanted to let you know that it was not the owner's (my) fault, but rather one of his (my) stupid jerk friends who edited the page. I'm not actually quite sure what page it was that was vandalized by my friend, but I hope that it could be reverted, he told me about what he had done when I regained possession of my computer (as I had lent it to him previously). Again, I apologize and hope that this is the right place to do so and that this message finds you.

Heads-up

As you are an admin who has dealt with this editor before, I thought I should bring this to your attention. The article Five-fold ministry ministry has been hijacked by the user Seventhcroak -- whose questionable link you have removed before. The article, edited with that user name and anonymously as 68.154.25.139, has become a repository for the material that is on the external website in question. The content is (a) inflamatory and (b) biased against catholicism. That is less important in WP ... it is unreferenced, unverifiable, and represents POV. The article has been tagged twice, with the tags summarily removed. Please check it out when you have a moment. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk · contribs) 03:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Heads-Off

Evidently you don't seem to mind the "Inflammatory remarks" against Puritans.

http://www.historytoday.com/dt_main_allatonce.asp?gid=12890&aid=&tgid=&amid=12890&g12890=x&g9130=x&g30026=x&g20991=x&g21010=x&g19965=x&g19963=x

This one is even a PAY SUBSCRIPTION SITE!

Ah, but it's OK to call everyone else that disagrees with you a "Grinch"? And expect it not to be considered "inflammatory"? I think it is a perspective readers should have to opportunity decide for themselves. It does represent the history and speak to the perspectives of 172 Million Americans. [even if it is one you would prefer to censor]

http://www.freewebs.com/christmaslie/

Dear Pastor Dave, I noticed in your Bio you are Lutheran. You claim the site's content is inflammatory and biased against Catholicism. Your founder was biased against catholicism and your very existence is considered "inflammatory". You are quite hypocritical in your censorship behaviors.

I noticed the Jehovah Witnesses have to cower their links behind plain numbers to keep you and/or others from deleting them. There are 6 million people who would like to see those links and this is an open public access encyclopedia. I am not JW, but I appreciate both truth and freedom of speech and feel it is important to respect the right of the public to read what people like you spend all their time trying to censor.

I also noticed you have tons of links with no references whatsoever [in favor of Christ-mass] of course. Christ-mass is currently a controversial subject in America. The other side of this debate has a right to be heard and represents millions of diverse American opinions from Pagan to Atheist to Jewish to Muslim to Biblical Protestant. In fact, the combined MAJORITY of Americans. http://www.freewebs.com/christmaslie/thescrooge.htm

Your censorship crusades are inflammatory and biased. You spend your time evidently deleting every opinion but your own or those of "kindred spirit".

I am fairly confident Luther himself would be ashamed of you. BTW, you are of course familiar with his comments on your Church building, which he made in his Ephiphany Sermon of 1527 [If I remember correctly?] I believe it's somewhere around page 161 in "What Luther says", Concordia Press. You should read your founders words occasionally.

You are fighting on the wrong side of this historical fence my dear Pastor. http://www.freewebs.com/christmaslie/thespirit.htm

You will not stop this message from being heard. And the more you fight it, the worse you are going to look for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seventhcroak (talk • contribs).

Cites

Dont remove cites, give a reference for them but dont remove them as such an action may be considered vandalism, SqueakBox 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism to remove unnecessary citations. I've added a few in the talk page if someone absolutely insists, but the ongoing efforts by a user or two to pretend that bongs are used primarily for tobacco is vandalism, and I've started blocking users who continue to do it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is vandalism to remove cites. Just give references, dont remove the cites as I assume it means you cant source and therefore if you remove them again I will follow policy and remove the unsourced material, SqueakBox 19:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year Ohnoitsjamie! I havnt talked to you in forever! Anyway, Merry Chirstmas, heres your present:

File:Geek rubber duck.jpg

Sincerely, Tooj117 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toojburn (talk • contribs) 04:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, I love it! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

You recently accused me of vandalism. It turns out my friend was having fun on my computer when I wasn't looking and vandalized the Geek article. My sincerest apologies,

66.67.107.143 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You accused me of vadalism, and rightfully so. I thought that I was hot stuff, and I thank you for putting me in my place. I'm a new man. Happy wikiing :) Please write back, friend. --204.72.196.62 15:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up that vandalism on my user page. Very much appreciated. Irongargoyle 00:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis

Marijuana is a North American slang term for cannabis, so please dont add it to any cannabis articles when what you mean to say is cannabis. If I added weed or blow whenevr I editeded the cannabis articles you can imagine the chaos that would bring. So please dont use this slang term instead of the generic, inclusive international term cannabis, or whenever referring to grass, herbal cannabis. Please keep in mind that this is an international and not a US or North American encyclopedia when editing. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to tell me that this is an international encyclopedia. Marijuana is not strictly a North American term; Britannica mentions it [2], as does The Guardian [3]; I don't dispute that the term marijuana is less popular than Cannabis in the U.K.; doing a Google search limited to the UK domain for marijuana yields over 200,000 hits, while a similar search for "cannabis" yields over 900,000. (Doing the same thing for .au sites yields 300k+ hits and 200k+ hits, respectively). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Game

I had a recent page entry titled The Game, and it was deleted, could I please know the reason? heydabop 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a consensus to delete it via articles for deletion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins (see :Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tooj117)

Hello, I would like to know how to report an administrator for abuse. Is there a page I can visit or an admin i could speak with about this issue? Thanks

Albott 06:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The only time I indef block without warning is when it's obvious that (1) the account is vandalism-only or spam-only or (2) the account was created to avoid other blocks on other accounts. Example; this user was using a deceptive edit summary to try to sneak in spam in an obvious case of sockpuppetry in a case where many warnings (and blocks) had already been issued. See WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK for more info. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, listen I know 6 people who have been blocked indefinitly by YOU for minor vandalism without warning. Its become out of hand and thats why this matter is being investigated. Either you shape up, or this could get serious. And thats not a threat. I don't mean to sound hostile about this, but it has become a problem.

Albott 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to get very far in your "investigation" without providing specifics. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, : Check user confirms that you are a serial sockpuppet vandal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen asshole, you blocked my previous account for absolutely no reason. I stand with Albott on this. You have been completely misusing you adminship. Don't think the rules dont apply to you because youre some bigshot administrator who must prove himself better than someone else. I also find it funny that you remove any comments from your talk page whenever someone confronts you about something you did wrong. Not to mention you indefinitely block them as soon as you remove anything they added to the talk page. We're all on to you, so I suggest you shape up. So, listen here, YOU WILL STOP THIS CRAP RIGHT NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME?

Systemofdisw 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Check user confirms that you are a serial sockpuppet vandal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My monobook.js

Good evening (GMT time); I am editing under an IP address, but I normally pass as User:Anthony cfc. I have entered a script into my monobook.js barring me entry to Wikipedia pending my wikibreak; however, I have set it to one too many days.

Would you care to either remove the wikibreak code, or delete the entire page altogether.

Regards,
86.144.41.98
(User:Anthony cfc)

My monobook.js

Good evening (GMT time); I am editing under an IP address, but I normally pass as User:Anthony cfc. I have entered a script into my monobook.js barring me entry to Wikipedia pending my wikibreak; however, I have set it to one too many days.

Would you care to either remove the wikibreak code, or delete the entire page altogether.

Regards,
86.144.41.98
(User:Anthony cfc)

I changed the date to the 7th...let me know if that doesn't fix it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

==DinoFun Hello, I'm not sure why you are deleting the DinoFun link. It is not a commercial website and everything on it is free. I have had this website for years and it is totally non-profit. I believe that kids learn quite a bit about dinosaurs while playing these games. Also I believe it is properly categorized under EXTERNAL-CHILDRENS-DINOSAURS. What other place could it be listed under. Thank you, Tosoft

It's your website and it has Google ads. That's a violation of WP:SPAM in terms of conflict-of-interest. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok... so no Google ads. Did you look at the other websites under this category? It's very confusing because they are running google ads, requiring logins and asking for money. How am I different? The fact that I make $50 a month from Google ads doesn't come close to paying for the time I put into programming, research and website maintenance fees. Thanks again, Tosoft

User:Sundiiiaaa

Thank you. KP Botany 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So, is she allowed to use her own talk page to post these rants? I thought that even user talk pages were for Wikipedia discussions. Blech. KP Botany 16:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for watching. KP Botany 03:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

She's still doing it.[4] All of what she posts is taken from her personal blog, she already has a location where she can post this. KP Botany 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And again. KP Botany 01:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Liza Hausman

Can you explain to me why elearners.com is an acceptable external link on the online degrees page, but worldwidelearn.com is not? Thanks Liza Hausman 17:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove any links that violate WP:SPAM or WP:EL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dedicated spammer, need your help.

hey,

I'm new here at wiki, and I'm trying to build up some pages and do some edits. However, there is one topic with a spammer who keeps on revising the changes I made. Modeling agency and I hope something can be done to remedy the situation.

What is so annoying is that there is a list of agencies there that is considered the most reputable in the industry and the spammer keeps on adding two scrupulous ones, with no identity or even a reputation to speak of. Thanks!Modelwatcher 05:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have the right to block User talk:64.8.190.50 After their last warning they just replaced the catholic page with a load of abuse. Block on sight.--Rasillon 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Its okay, Martinp23 has took care of it :)--Rasillon 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Block?

Hello, I'm curious as to why my primary account user:h4xx0r was blocked for being a sockpuppet of an account Ive never heard of. user:h4xx0r and user:h4xx0rz are the only accounts I have ever used or created. Please reply back on my talk pageuser_talk:h4xx0r. I have posted an unblock request already and it seams to be ignored. Thank you.

H4xx0rz 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Check user confirmed that account as a vandal sockpuupet; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tooj117. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tooj117

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Prodego ^talk 23:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Happy Wikipedia Day!

Happy Wikipedia Day!

On January 15, 2007, Wikipedia turned six-years-old. According to statistics, Wikipedia has around 1,500,000 articles and Wikipedians have made 104,000,000 edits. The millionth article was Jordanhill railway station, created on March 2, 2006.

Wikipedia has moved from an Alexa rank of 20 to a rank of 12 having already briefly visited rank 8 (current rank). Happy editing!

—S.D. ¿п? 23:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Segway Geeks Recruitment

Template:Segway Geeks Recruitment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —S.D. ¿п? 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi, just wondering, how do you alter the way your username looks in your signature that way some users do? Do you have to be an admin to do this? (EnglishEfternamn 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

Question

Please stop moving information relevent to the Post-presidency section. I do not have time to clean it up, but request that someone else does-- I simply pointed them in the correct direction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.142.65 (talk • contribs)

Please don't add material requiring cleanup to the main article page; take it to the talk page first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

==Hello Jamie, I reviewed the spam policies. I posted an external link to a company called Phone Sherpa (I'm not affiliated) because I have tried several of these service and this was the only one that seemed to work as advertised. I think ringtone makers are big news but I realize that my first post was over enthusiastic and not neutral and I put more than one link which I should have seen and edited out. Here's an edited version I'd like to post. Please let me know what you think:

Proposed addition: Newer mobile phones allow the users to associate different ring tones for different phone book entries. Taking advantage of these features, a new Ringtone Maker trend has emerged. For example, websites like Phone Sherpa let users make ringtones from the music they already own (MP3, CD etc.) and upload directly to their mobile phone with no limit on the number of songs uploaded. In addition to the cost benefits, a key feature is the music editor that lets the user easily pick the part of the song they wish to set as a ringtone. The service automatically detects the phone settings to ensure the best file type and format.

Others also allow users to create their own music tones, either with a "melody composer" or a sample/loop arranger (such as the MusicDJ in many Sony Ericsson phones). However, these use native formats only available to one particular phone model or brand. Although other formats, such as MIDI or MP3, are often supported; they must be downloaded to the phone before they can be used as a normal ring tone. Commercial ring tones take advantage of this functionality, which has led to the success of the mobile music industry. Southern rapper Chamillionaire was the first to have a ring tone go 3x platinum for the hit single "Ridin." He now has his own category on certain phones.[citation needed]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tradcast"

I don't think it would be appropriate to add info about Phone Sherpa unless Phone Sherpa is notable enough to merit it's own article; see WP:CORP for guidelines regarding company notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Obit

I have a question. why did you delete my friends obituary? i did everything in order and it wasn't a prank. answer me back please. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpm826 (talk • contribs).

From WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you put jennifer strange's obiturary in. she was in the news, but so was my friend. even if its just the local news. - Rpm826

First of all, I didn't remove your friend's obit, and I didn't add Jennifer Strange's obit. I warned you for vandalizing another page. Jennifer Strange is notable because of the national and international media coverage surrounding her death. On the other hadn, a mention in a local newspaper does not satisfy notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is it bothering? You should have kept it up. -OnionRingMaster

at least someone ogrees with me. - Rpm826

Given the fact that you were both vandalizing Laptop at the same time, I'd say that doesn't count for too much. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it counts, We knew her. And it wasn't just a mention in the news....-OnionRingMaster

Once again, please refer to WP:NOT and WP:BIO for policies and guidelines on notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a dumb rule....:p. Seriously let him keep it up. It isn't bothering anyone....-OnionRingMaster

as for the laptop "incident" we were play a game to see if the other could find the mistake. plus we were going to put everything back. - Rpm826

The WikiGame

Why did you delete my article. There was nothing wrong with it. You are on a roll.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onionringmaster (talk • contribs) 01:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

About the warning you gave me. No, you didn't explain the rule to me. I am still waitingo n that one Mr. Jamie.

== Hi James

This is Srihari Raju. I have post Republic Day India eGreeting on Republic Day Parade article. Please check external link is this OK.

Thanks Gsrihariraju

No, as mentioned before, adding such links is considered to be spamming. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey James, Why did you delete my WikiGAme page? You didn't explain anyting to me. You just deleted it.--Onionringmaster 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)OnionRingMaster--Onionringmaster 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting on an answer....You didn't explain anything to me. Just deleted it. Why? --Onionringmaster 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)OnionRingMaster--Onionringmaster 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not verifiable, for one thing. Someone has created a page for it in the Wikipedia namespace (as opposed to the main article namespace) at Wikipedia:Wiki_Game. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Links

Hi Jamie We were just giving people the opportunity to be able to train in Beauty/A&P/Nails etc to introduce them to the beauty Industry. We didnt consider it to be spam christina —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.227.9 (talk • contribs).

If you read the links in the warnings you've been given, you'll see that Wikipedia does consider it to be spam. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Game, Redux

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Game (game). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hamz01 03:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest reading the previous AFDs before nominating this for review again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT and List of notable University of Pittsburgh people

Please do not edit Wikipedia to prove a [[WP:POINT|point, as you did at List of notable University of Pittsburgh people. Bad-faith edits are disruptive and not conducive to the betterment of Wikipedia. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a WP:POINT violation. I was looking at other "notable alumni" articles for a sanity check, and I noticed that the University of Pittsburgh one had very few citations. Shouldn't that article meet the same level of rigor? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are describing a WP:POINT violation. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm won't argue about the WP:POINT aspect further, but you have yet to address the lack of citations on that page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that you'll argue that this is not a WP:POINT violation? I won't re-add the cite-needed tag to the Pitt alumni article, but the fact remains that the majority of it is not cited. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How does that have anything to do with WP:POINT? The article is claiming something major about the school's notability, and so it should be moved up. Also, trivia sections are weak. I don't see your point on this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Webmaster Link

Hello,

I added a link to Webmaster, and the link was removed:

I've looked at some of Wikipedia's spam policiies & I believe it should be added to that article:

• It was not commercial
• No advertising
• Fairly popular
• And it's a helpful resource

I had added http://multiz . com/ webmaster.php.

Any reasons why would be very much appreciated.

--Mjas

The link in question has little content; it mostly points to other advertisement-oriented sites. I see no evidence that it's "fairly popular." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Some evidence to show it has popularity is http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?url=http://multiz.com.

Thank you for your time, and I'm sorry we couldn't come to an agreement. --Mjas