User talk:JamieS93/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Talk pages

If some stuff in a talk page is added that is unrelated to the improvement of the article, do I delete the stuff, or do I keep it? It's been there for a while, but I've been too busy to bother with that. (See Talk:Poptropica.) By the way, if you reply here, could you make some note of the existence of the reply on my talk page? Thanks, Vltava 68 06:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vltava. Unrelated and chat-like comments are commonly deleted, so feel free to do so yourself on that talkpage. I just added the {{notaforum}} template, which is used for this kind of case. It's not detrimental to leave those comments, but removing them is encouraged. If some of the questions were recently placed on a talkpage, I sometimes remove them and leave a quick note on the IP/editor's talk page about seeking help at the Entertainment Reference Desk, or another reference desk category/topic which would pertain to their question (i.e., Science). Best, Jamie^☆S93 15:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but how about the stuff that's been there for some time? Vltava 68 06:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If a couple of older posts are clearly unrelated to the article content/improvement, feel free to simply remove them. I tend to drop notes on user talk pages for newer comments, just because there's more of a chance that the editor(s) are still around. Like I said, I wouldn't consider it urgent either way. Less constructive article talkpage comments are subject to removal, but WP:TALK doesn't emphasize it as a highly important issue. I sometimes ignore talkpages that may have a few unrelated or reference desk-type questions, because to me, it doesn't matter that much. I do remove unconstructive or vandalistic talk page comments when I see them – there is a difference between rubbish edits, and ones that are more inane. Hope that helps. Jamie^☆S93 15:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Hey, Jamie. Could you restore Flicko's? I've rewritten this article with multiple reliable sources and will paste it into the article once it is restored. Cunard (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it! Cunard (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)  Done, no problem. Jamie^☆S93 19:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Squirrel

Would it ok with you if I extended the protection? Based on the logs, it's in line for a 6 month semiprotection. Even a year would be reasonable. Enigma^msg 20:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead. Not sure why I didn't make it six months, I'm afraid I was being too conservative there. ;-) Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BRT

I noticed you deleted "Wikipedia:BRT" for the reason R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect. Non-existent section in target, shortcut not used there." It was not a section that was linked to, it a part of a section This works because of an anchor. Try clicking on Wikipedia:Bypass redirects in navigational templates for proof that this works. "WP:BRT" is a shortcut for "Wikipedia:Bypass redirects in navigational templates". I found it useful for linking specifically to that part of the page.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just realised my wording "Try clicking on ..." might sound like I was calling you an idiot, which I was not. Sorry for my poor wording.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The redirect was tagged for speedy deletion by R'nB (hanging around for about 20 hours), and I was thinking of declining it, since no admin seemed to think that it was non-controversial. Still, it was probably tagged because that phrase is not prominently used where WP:BRT linked to, and for that reason I deleted it (it also had no links). Redirects are cheap and generally don't cause much harm, since at least one editor (you) finds it useful—so I think I'll restore the redirect now. :-) Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 16:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I did link to wp:BRT in my edit summaries, but links form edit summaries do not appear in What links here. For more information on this see Help:What links here#Limitations and workarounds.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

for handling all my U1 deletions--Giants27 (c|s) 23:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Just nuked this one, too, as part of the cleanup. Jamie^☆S93 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks hadn't noticed that one since most didn't have talk pages.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Simply Music playlist

You speedily deleted this because it was set up as a redirect to Talk:Simply Music (as Simply Music playlist redirects to Simply Music) because Talk:Simply Music didn't exist. Since then it's been recreated as a page asserting that the prod originally placed on Simply Music playlist was removed and that it can never be prodded again. This is clearly deceptive, as the reason it was removed was not to say that the article shouldn't be deleted but because the article should be -- hence the redirect. I would appreciate it if you could speedily delete it again as a previously deleted page or restore the redirect to Talk:Simply Music like what is supposed to happen when articles are redirected. Thanks. DreamGuy (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It took me a few moments to figure out what had happened, but I've now deleted the redirect's talk page, since the prod removal template info is not necessary to retain in this case. Talk pages of redirects could be redirected to the target's talkpage, but generally talk page redirects aren't worth keeping anyway. Best, Jamie^☆S93 21:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do have questions

Hi Jamie,  

I'm trying to create a page for my company - Blatant Films Inc. - and am constantly being deleted. I only state fact, keep the article short, and reference my statements, but still am being deleted. How can I get this page up? I simply want a page that will come up should someone google us, and am not trying to advertise or make claims about being the best. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. I am new to contributing to Wikipedia (obviously). Cheers and Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldman42 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dab request

DYK queue 2, last hook, PSP should link to PlayStation Portable. Shubinator (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the lead hook the in that queue, Egg and chips, is at AfD now... Shubinator (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The first issue fixed. Looks like the AfD will be closed as keep, but if it shouldn't be closed yet, I might pop the image hook into a later queue. Jamie^☆S93 23:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, the AfD has run 5 days, still has a bit left in it. Could replace it with Eugene McCarthy presidential campaign, 1968 or Kitefin shark on the noms page. Shubinator (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm in a bit of a hurry, but I replaced egg and chips with the shark DYK. Egg and chips has been delayed (moved back to prep area 1), which may give enough time for the AfD to be closed soon. Jamie^☆S93 23:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Shubinator (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks kindly

... for moving that message to the bottom of my talk page, I always appreciate help with formatting and fielding questions. (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) Jamie^☆S93 17:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

re AfD closures

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dudes (film) = consensus was quite clear, multiple editors stated this was either an "invention" or a "hoax".
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Student Nurses Association = three unanimous deletes, seemed to also fall under speedy A7. Cirt (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take your words under advisement, and take more care to allow a bit more time for those discussions that are not clear. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

KM

Thanks for your help in December YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Medical Mutual of Ohio

Hi Jamie,

I am new to this and the company and would like to know what was offensive about the Medical Mutual of Ohio article? I would also like to rewrite it if at all possible. The previous editor is no longer with the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vman92 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vman. I deleted the article because it was written in a promotional tone, which does not mesh with Wikipedia's neutrality requirement as an encyclopedia. Somebody had tagged it for speedy deletion, since the article was written like an advertisement (it was also entirely unsourced). For more info, this page might help: Wikipedia:Spam. I looked at the the article again just now, and I don't think there is much neutral content to retrieve, so it'd be best to write the article from scratch.

If you plan to recreate the page, make sure to cite several reliable sources to reference facts and prove the company's "notability", which basically means that the organization needs to have received a good deal of attention from the press or media. Also, bear in mind that if you're related to an organization, writing an article about the topic is generally not recommended. However, it would probably be alright to start an article draft as a sub-page in your "user space", such as here: User:Vman92/Medical Mutual of Ohio. Let me know if you have questions. Best, Jamie^☆S93 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jamie, I wrote the article in a factual tone and included articles and references. Please advise if I need anything else. My plan is to continue enhancing with pictures and more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vman92 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I read through the article - nice work! :-) It's better than it was before, and the third-party references listed at the bottom are good. I've made a few formatting changes, but otherwise it's decent. I would suggest two things, however: 1) the "Timeline" table is unsourced, and I'm not sure it works well in the article. We tend to prefer prose over lists/tables when presenting data like the history of a company. 2) Try to replace your "self-published" references (using the company's website as a source should be avoided). Instead, third-party reliable sources are preferred. It looks like a lot of good sources are available, so it shouldn't be too hard. Best, JamieS93 16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I will be working on that quickly. Thank you much for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vman92 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Michoel Schnitzler

Hello, I saw you undid my edit on Michoel Schnitzler . I removed it as it is talking about a very different person. The article is about a Chassidic Jewish music artist while the source cited found was for a chamber musician. I'd love to keep the article as I feel he is notable to a good segment of the Jewish population but I'm not sure how to source it. Any ideas are welcome.

• Schnitzler album
• A very different Schnitzler album

Joe407 (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is what I assumed you had done. Even if it was mistaken, a contested prod is still contested, and for that reason I decided to open an AfD. I actually deleted the article first, then happened to stumble upon the fact that it was contested previously (not sure why I didn't see it within the rev history), and thus restored.

As for his notability, I still think the web searches confirm that he fails the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. It's a bit difficult to determine sometimes, though - often there are people who have made an impact on a certain culture, but there may not be many independent sources which highlight on this fact, which may be a systematic bias issue. After somebody's source-finding and rewrite, sometimes those AfDs are closed as keep (or delete). But in the end, I've searched (as others have, too), and there's just no sources to show for Schnitzler being potentially notable. Not sure if I had done a Google Books search, but the result shows nothing beyond publications under the same name, and a rather trivial name-dropping. Best, Jamie^☆S93 00:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My recent string of A9's

You missed Grumpy Ghost. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Contribs

Are they the ones that get undone, or are they the ones in deleted articles? I would have thought that they're the former, but contributions to deleted articles don't show up in the list of contributions, so I'm not sure. Or perhaps they're something else? (I happen to have apparently amassed 75 deleted contributions, so I'm slightly worried about it.) Vltava 68 01:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Deleted contributions" are edits that you've made to articles that have since been deleted by an admin (and not viewable to the public) - so your second guess is correct. Unless a page has been deleted (or part of its history removed by an admin or oversighter, which rarely happens), every edit is still visible on history logs. I looked at your "deleted contribs" (admin-only) log just now. It looks like all of the edits are either tagging articles for speedy deletion (those pages have since been deleted), or edits to your personal user sub-pages that have since been deleted upon your request. People who are common NewPage Patrollers usually have a high number of deleted contribs, sometimes a few hundred, so it's usually not something to be alarmed about. :-) Let me know if you have any other questions. Jamie^☆S93 01:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This would also explain the low (or occasionally nonexistent) number of deleted contributions in some of the rather prolific vandals that I've come across. Vltava 68 07:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

WordyGirl90 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Aww, thanks! I saw the "new message" bar and scrolled over the preview, only to be somewhat surprised that "someone" was talking to me about my dab work!

Thanks again! WordyGirl90 (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thanks for your help in deleting the articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles! Much appreciated. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks! I'm not done yet, though, with those manual deletions. ;-) Jamie^☆S93 01:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for undeletion: User_talk:Tallulah13

Despite invoking her right to vanish, this user has never actually left Wikipedia, but continues to edit from various IP/anon addresses. Aside from posting at least one personal attack on me [1], the user is also engaging in discussions regarding image licensing and deletion Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_23#File:Cc-tub.jpg. Access to talk page discussions and notices involving the user's problems with prior uploaded images would be useful in the image deletion discussions. I address this request to you because you implemented the uploader's request to vanish. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I deleted Tallulah's userpage upon request, PeterSymonds was actually the admin who invoked the RTV by deleting her talk page (see logs). I would probably restore the revisions myself, but it'd be best to contact Peter about it. Regards, Jamie^☆S93 17:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted revisions (the deleting admin agreed). Jamie^☆S93 17:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

NOT#ALMANAC

Since consensus on WT:NOT seems to be that this tag is incorrect, I'd like to make a protected edit to remove it. As far as I can tell, the editwar you protected the page over was related to PLOT, so this should be relatively uncontroversial. (I'd put it in an {{editprotected}} request, but that seems a bit ridiculous...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarek. :-) I wouldn't call it "uncontroversial", but I understand what I mean since it's not related to the full-protection itself. After reading through the discussion, I've removed the shortcut and left a note about it on WT:NOT#Shortcut removed. Best, Jamie^☆S93 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback Request 7/01

To explain those edits (which, in retrospect, were hastily-made), it was clear from Talk:Foo Fighters#Post-grunge (and other sections) that the IP in question was fully aware that the community of editors saw his edits as unconstructive, and he states multiple times that he simple 'doesn't care', kind of ending any chance of WP:AGF. This was a year prior, and ended with a mass ban of his sockpuppets. If your decision still stands, I understand, but in the interest of reverting his rapid-fire edits, I felt justified. --King ♣ Talk 12:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've re-added your rollback request that the bot archived, and left a note there. Not sure where I stand at this point, but as long as you're easy on the rollback and only use it for obvious cases (not for reverting genres per consensus, since that's not blatant or clear to others), you should probably be fine. I'm leaving this to another admin for their opinion. Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 14:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. I had a lingering feeling that whole snafu would be back to bite me in the ass someday. Would you mind nowiki'ing your  Not done tag? Seeing two in a row has a way of pushing people's eyes right past it. --King ♣ Talk 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, because indeed, I can't say that I stand by the "notdone" anymore. In my opinion, ever since I've had rollback in April '08, it's really no big deal as long as you use it sparingly (when in doubt, hit the middle "rollback" on Twinkle or the AGF option). Jamie^☆S93 16:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

JamieS93, Syed Kazim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for responding to my CSD tag!

You're welcome. :-) Jamie^☆S93 15:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Joey Hamilton

Thanks for the review here, I think I fixed your concerns.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you tracked me down! ;-) Well, that sounds very good. I haven't actually read through the entire article, so I may still have questions about the prose, or breadth of the topic, etc. I'll be finished soon. Jamie^☆S93 20:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it's been placed on hold. I left the review page intact, even though it looks like you got most of the initial points that I noticed. There are a few additional ones, mainly prose that needs tweaking. Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 21:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied to concerns and I think I fixed them.--Giants27 (c|s) 21:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethan Hawke

Hey Jamie, how you been? Listen, since you were so great with your review of The Bella Twins, I was wondering if you could copy-edit Ethan Hawke's article. Reason I ask, I'm trying to aim the article to FA status, and like I've been told in the past, I should ask someone to copy-edit the article before an FAC nomination takes place, which I want to abide by. And maybe you could be that someone. :) If you can do it, awesome. If not, its very understandable, no hard feelings. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've doing good (getting back into writing articles makes me happy), how about you? :-) Well, I'm not really open to copyediting at this point, because I don't really have the knack down for FAC prose, and sometimes my copyedits feel like they go nowhere, not sure why. ;) Anyway, I would second the common recommendation of seeking a copyeditor; for some reason, I sometimes miss these little but obvious errors in my own GAN-type articles, much less FAC, and it simply takes another pair of eyes to spot them. An editor who has gone through an FAC or FLC would probably be preferable as a copyeditor, too. Anyways, good luck with your work there. :-) Jamie^☆S93 23:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's good to know. Me, well I'm just editing here and there, like I always do. :) Yeah, the people at FAC can be pretty picky towards the prose. I learned that the hard way with Brad Pitt's FAC. I feel you, no worries. :P Yeah, I'll try to see if I can find another user who's "familiar" in that area and stuff. Good to hear from ya and thanks. Also, good luck with you work, as well. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Chris Roberts (singer)

Hi JamieS93. Please restore the article in my userspace, the person in notable for sure. Not only as a singer (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:3jfexqrhld6e~T2), as an actor too (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0730931/). And he won several awards (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Roberts_(Schlagers%C3%A4nger)). Thanks. --Ilion2 (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good observation, thank you. I have restored the article into your userspace here: User:Ilion2/Chris Roberts (singer). Best, Jamie^☆S93 16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is good enough now. Would you move it to the article namespace or is it no problem when I do this? --Ilion2 (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the restore.

Yes, it looks good now, and with that list of awards, he indeed looks notable and I'm sure would be kept if the page was ever AFD'd (the awards don't appear to just be local or minor). One note: source the statement about his marriage (in the lead). It's a personal fact, and per WP:BLP, needs a reference. After that, feel free to move it back to the mainspace yourself; many editors do this, and it's not a problem. Best, Jamie^☆S93 20:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Readded wikilinks removed after deletion of the article by [2]. Could you please delete the redirect [3]. Thanks. --Ilion2 (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And while you are an admin and online and no one reacts on Template talk:FilmUS, could you please correct the template, it results in an error in every article using it and the template is protected. --Ilion2 (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done and done. The second was my higher priority, and a public error on a major template is something that sends me into emergency mode. ;-) To bring attention to the problem, next time you could place the {{editprotected}} tag on the template talk page, or possibly {{adminhelp}} if it's a bit more urgent (i.e., a nice ugly error, or public misinformation). The "adminhelp" template will ping several users in one of the Wikipedia IRC channels, so help may come quicker that way. Jamie^☆S93 22:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for the hints, I will try to remember them next time. --Ilion2 (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Jamie^☆S93 01:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight

Hiya,

Some users have decided to try and relaunch WP:SPOTLIGHT. I've helped out a bit; hope I'm not 'treading on any toes' here; it just seemed like the best approach was to simply give it a try - hence changing the project page around, and starting to work on an arbitrary article.

If you want to get involved, please do so. I will let the other previous 'coordinators' know too. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Tal & Acacia

For the first time, I'm currently listening to their song on the radio. They were the opening act for Superchick when I went to the concert in March or April 2009. If they become notable, let me know and I'll upload picture(s). Royalbroil 12:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you get inspired... [4] Record label bio Royalbroil 12:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. It's rare to create an article for a new artist and actually have an image available. :-) "Tal & Acacia" is a tricky search term, but I've looked on some of the usual CCM websites and they're only mentioned on a few of them. Once the album releases on July 14th I bet they'll gain some RS notability, like the "significant" coverage in your first link. The radio single might get popular, too, and Jesus Freak Hideout recently added a discography page for them, which shows some promise. Jamie^☆S93 13:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's a bit premature at the present time - just giving you the heads up about the potential. Or if you somehow see an article appear. I've already written an article when I had a gut feeling about an artist (Lesley Roy) and it turned out to be right. I hope things are well with you and that being an admin has turned out beneficial so far! Royalbroil 17:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've written musician articles like that, too, although I can't say that I'd do it again. ;-) Adminship has really been decent, and I like crunching away at backlogs like WP:PRODSUM or CAT:SD sometimes. It's really been stress-free, too, and I think the "sysopping is high-pressure" statements are a bit over-exaggerated. It would depend on where you work, though, and it's probably safest to assume the worse and be prepared to handle increased difficulty. Even though I delete articles, I personally don't feel like I work in any remotely contentious area—other than having some new, interesting things to do, and more chances to talk with people, my editing has not really been affected that much. :-) Jamie^☆S93 19:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well put, that's how I feel about it too. A few extra buttons - no big deal - like they say in the old cliches. Royalbroil 03:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested undeletion

Jamie, I noticed you deleted a factual piece on a popular racehorse in England called Matsunosuke, can you please replace this. It was deleted as non-proven to be factual, in actual fact it was the most factual article about a famous racehorse, and a simple search in google could of proved all of the facts, very well written and informative. Please un-delete this page I can confirm that all said in the article is true - as I bred the horse as stated in the article, PS. I do not know the author but this person knows the horse better than I do.

20:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)~Ryan Coogan20:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryancoogan (talk • contribs)

Hi Ryan. I had deleted the article after another editor proposed it for deletion with the concern: "notability not proven". It seems that you might be misinterpreting that comment. Matsunosuke's existence as an English racehorse can be proven, that's not the issue. However, on Wikipedia we have a general notability guideline that covers every article topic; in short, an article about any subject needs to provide info that proves that the subject is well-known enough (i.e., "notable") for inclusion in this encyclopedia.

I've restored the article, since you may be correct that the horse is "notable" enough. Don't be surprised if somebody wants to nominate the article for a deletion discussion at AFD, though. To improve the article, I would recommend that you add several reliable sources (media, books, news, information websites) that cover or talk about the horse's racing history. Let me know if you've got questions. Best, Jamie^☆S93 21:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank You Jamie, I will have a look at it and add various pros or extra sources.

Regards

86.132.31.250 (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Ryan Coogan13:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No drama

Dear JameS93, glad to know that you are also participating in WP:NODRAMA. :-)

BTW, how are you doing these days? We haven't talked in a while. AdjustShift (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, NODRAMA is a good project to support and promote. :-) I've only been editing in little waves; sometimes I feel plenty busy doing interesting janitorial tasks, and other times are actually a tad boring. ;) CAT:PROMO and my recent article works make me happy, though. How's your adminship going? I don't quite recall, but I think you worked with blocking and some deletion. Jamie^☆S93 17:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My admin work is going ok. I'm concentrating on articles these days. Best wishes, AdjustShift (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Request move

I've got a favor to ask. I saw that User:Midway redirected to User:Midway (usurped). I checked the logs, and Midway was renamed to Midway (usurped) in January. However, it looks like the new Midway kept the redirects, and has been using User:Midway (usurped) and User talk:Midway (usurped) as his/her user pages. So I tried to move the two pages back to User:Midway and User talk:Midway, especially because there's no history from before the usurpation. Problem is, User talk:Midway has 3 edits on it, so I can't do the move for the talk page. To make things more confusing, the move for User:Midway did go through, so now the user's pages are in two different places; User:Midway and User talk:Midway (usurped). So could you move User talk:Midway (usurped) to User talk:Midway? (Or maybe merge the histories...) Shubinator (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done. The talk page is now in the appropriate place, and matches the user page (simply "Midway"). I thought I had a decent feel for history merges, but there are 3 revs (2 edits, 1 log action) that got temporarily lost for the time being; I'll take another look over the situation and make sure that I restored them. ;-) Best, JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's all good; I hadn't purged the page, and now the revisions are showing up nicely. JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 20:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! (And nice sig...though reviewing GAs/DYKs/FLs/FAs/PRs should be added to the "exempt"...) Shubinator (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) I actually think that's the first time that I did a history merge. You could boldly add the reviewing exemptions yourself, I suppose. FAC can be stressful, but not "drama" due to its aim in perfecting the quality of an article. Looks like the Dramaout began 3 minutes ago! JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. The FAQ had something about discussions at FAC getting politicized, so we'll see if someone reverts. Shubinator (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (P.S. Since your own talk page isn't exempted, you can't reply to this :P)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I saw the log page. :-) JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 21:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello,

I just noticed you deleted the article Sonia Roca Chancellor Universidad Del Pacifico - Ecuador which I was working on. Under the no relevant content clause. If I put up the article again with the info I was researching will it be deleted again?

HarveyPrototype (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi HP. I deleted the article because it had no text content besides the beginning of a template, and it hadn't been edited for two hours. When starting an article, it should have proper "context" so the average reader can learn what the article is about. It should be okay if you re-submit the article again with a brief description in the beginning (for instance, "Sonia Roca is the Chancellor of a University in Ecuador..."). I've decided to restore the deleted article to your "userspace", and it is currently located here: User:HarveyPrototype/Sonia Roca. When you're ready to move it to the main article space, click the "move" tab at the top of the page to move to the appropriate title. Be aware of our notability guidelines to make sure that this individual is notable enough for inclusion here. Best, JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 16:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. HarveyPrototype (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let me know if you have any questions. :-) JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 18:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

安

Good decline, not CSD. We'll go the full week. ;-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. :-) Not sure if it should simply be deleted as a non-notable term definition, but we'll see how the discussion turns out. JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 23:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If I thought it ought to be kept, I wouldn't have nominated it. But it's clearly not speedy-bait. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Face of Love

On July 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Face of Love, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

{{User0|Wizardman 12:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Honk Band Deletion

Could I get a copy of the Honk Band page that you deleted? I belong to a community band that has attended the Honk! festival and is considering becoming more like a Honk Band. The information on the page was very useful. I might also be able to provide additional research to support the material that was on that page. Tdenmark (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tdenmark. I've userfied the article, and it is now located as a sub-page of your own userpage here: User:Tdenmark/Honk band. The article was deleted because another editor believed the topic to be non-notable per our standards of "notability". So if you were to re-publish the article, please try finding and adding reliable sources for verification. Best, JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 18:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

One of your images

Hi Jamie. Am I right in thinking that one of your images has been used on the website of some news organisation or something? Which image is it?

If not, do you know of any images here on Wikipedia (not commons) that have since been used elsewhere? Any image will do; it's the template that says something like "This image has been used by a media organization in..." that I'm interested in more than anything else. I can't remember where it is. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

commons:Template:Published –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I know that one of my images, File:Three nail polish bottles.JPG, has been used in two World News stories (this and this), which were publications from two different media sources (Canwest News Service and The Examiner). I never tagged the image, since I didn't know about that template. I can't recall any other images (my own, or anyone else's) that have been used in media, but I definitely remember the nail polish instance. :-) Is this some sort of evaluation/survey that you're doing? I'm kind of curious. Best, JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, nothing that spectacular. It is for Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos. I knew you had one of your photos published somewhere, but I thought it had been tagged. Oh well, thanks anyway :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. That's an interesting thread/news article. JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 21:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary states indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor

I see that UrbanMusicAwards (talk · contribs) has been adding Urban Music Awards nominations for a whole bunch of articles. Hmmmm. Per WP:IU, do you support a promotional username block? You can respond here on your talk page, it's on my watchlist. Royalbroil 02:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I just left them a {{uw-username}} note. Granted, the username gives us a hint that the editor is associated with the org, but if the contributions were promotional (against the neutrality policy), it would call for blocking. However, UrbanMusicAward's edits are not actually disruptive or spammy. So I've recommended that they request a name change and/or discuss the issue on their talk page. Since it's not really damaging the encyclopedia, I think it's best to give the user a chance to contribute positively. JamieS93 18:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What have you been doing. You have deleted Category:American neoconservatives ? I demand an apology.

You write this in the deletion log: (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). You got to realise that this Category was created for the first time ever on Wikipedia by me on the 20th of July 2009. Never has this particular Category existed before, - not with this name, not with this description, and not with this sub-category: Category:American people by political orientation. Whereas other attempts to categorise neoconservatives have focused on neoconservatives all over the world, this Category focuses on neoconservatives in America, where it all started and therefore is the appropriate place to focus. For the first time ever on Wikipedia, American neoconservatives are subcategorised with people with similar utopian philosophies, such as American socialists, American pacifists, American white nationalists, American monarchists, American libertarians, American fascists, American anti-communists and American anarchists. This is unique. So any previous discussions have no relevance, because they deal with another matter, and anyway had very few participants. What is more, these discussions used as argument, that Category:Conservatives doesn't exist, and so [[:Category:Neoconservatives shouldn't exist. This premise is false, since as any enlightenent individual knows, American conservatives are adequately covered by Category: Republicans (United States). I hope you realise then that your deletion was a mistake, and I expect an apology, before I shortly shall re-create this Category for the third time this week!. An admin is supposed to be constructive and welcoming to all categorisation efforts, not destructive, going about deleting, based on hear-say from others, without him having investigated thoroughly the background for the creation of this Category. Michelle Bentley (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The category was deleted per community consensus at WP:CFD. Jamie only deleted this per our speedy delete criteria G4, which covers pages deleted per consensus at a deletion discussion. If you recreate the category, it will be deleted again. If you dispute the closing of the CFD, speak to the original deleting administrator first, or start a discussion at DRV. Thank you for your efforts, and I'm sure you'll understand that this deletion was appropriate. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As Peter said, I deleted it since "Category:Neoconservatives" was discussed and deleted here; all recreations of that category, or very similar ones, will be deleted per Wikipedia's process. "American neoconservatives" may be different than simply "Neoconservatives" – but if you read the discussion, editors concluded that defining people as "neoconservatives" is too vague and potentially negative term for a category. If you disagree with the deletion, then bring the category to Deletion Review, please. I don't personally hold anything against your work on Wikipedia, I'm just following procedure and consensus. In this case, I'm really not the one to contact; instead, initiating a polite "deletion review" discussion would be a better choice. Regards, JamieS93 18:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Freshwater surfing

Hi, as I explained on the CSD tag, despite appearances I am the creator of Category:Freshwater surfing category, or more precisely, the incorrectly spelled Category:Fresh water surfing. Koavf is only implementing a rename I requested. Here's a diff of me requesting a rename on March 24, 2008 for the category I created, two days before Koavf appears in the edit history on March 26 as having "created" the category. I'd appreciate if you could go ahead and speedy delete the catgeory, if you have no further objections. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please add this to the front page?

* - FBI andIRS agents arrests 44 people, including five rabbis, two New Jersey state legislators, and three mayors in Operation Bid Rig.

If the latest example of the all to frequent air-crashes in Iran are worthy of inclusion on the front page, so this should be. Naturally.Michelle Bentley (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michelle. I'm personally not involved with the "In the News" section of the Main Page. If you want that fact to appear in that column, first nominate it here. Best, JamieS93 14:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nodrama Barnstar

		The Anti-Drama Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in The Great Wikipedia Dramaout 2009, avoiding drama for a full 5 days!--The LegendarySky Attacker 04:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Much-belated congratulations

Hi Jamie, I'm sorry I didn't participate in your last RfA (I haven't been active over there in a while), but I'd sincerely like to congratulate you on the outcome. The results of your first RfA were depressing and discouraging, but the success of your second raises lots of hope. I hope that people will continue to judge you by your work and not by your age--or, at least, that they'll take your work into account before casting any judgment on your age group. Again, congrats! Best wishes, Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Cosmic. Thank you for the kind words, I quite appreciate it. :-) I accepted your earlier comments as a preemptive support back in March, and it really doesn't matter to me if somebody never publicly "supported" the RfA as they had intended to. Encouraging comments, via RfA or otherwise, mean the most to me. :-) Adminship has been an enjoyable way of further maintaining the site and helping both backlogs and people, too, with only mild bits of difficulty or stress; so I really think it's been a net positive for me personally as an editor. Best, JamieS93 21:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Spam

Regarding this edit, some reality checks:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nakesha7c
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Attorney_pages
• MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Attorney_spam

As far as User talk pages are normally not deleted, spam, regardless of location, is not supposed to be rescued and hidden away, spam is supposed to be deleted. Period/full-stop. Many admins appear to disagree with you about that. Note in particular what the last admin on that list has done regarding notifications. --Calton | Talk 04:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. I'm personally an anti-spam advocate, too, and have made efforts to cut down promotional pages. As long as there's no talkpage messages or useful edits to a usertalk page, I agree that it should be deleted and out of sight (in retrospect, my above decline was groundless hesitancy). Please keep up the good work with spam tagging, I don't mean to hinder that. Best, JamieS93 15:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability of music articles

Hi, I'm trying to figure out whether a music article I created a few months ago is actually notable or not. However, the notability guidelines I found didn't quite work since the article in question is about a piece of classical music, while the criteria given apply more to other types of music. Any ideas as to where I can find a more suitable article on the subject of notability? (By the way, could you either copy your reply to my talk page or put the messages template there?) Vltava 68 04:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Im Frühling. There have various recordings by rather famous singers, but other than that, I'm not sure. Vltava 68 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit concerns

Hi. Thanks for informing me about it. I wasn't so sure what was the correct word. Sorry about it. I'll use "seemingly unconstructive" in the future. BejinhanTalk 14:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just activated Twinkle for my account. :) BejinhanTalk 14:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB

I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) I appreciate your kind words about my thoughtfulness and also thank you for pointing out my weakness of over promising. I will certain work on fixing that ASAP. ;) I hope that I can continue to serve the community well in my new role and will definitely work on getting more article work done in the future.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jonny Diaz

Would you please copyedit the article? I became inspired after hearing "More Beautiful You". Wow, whatta song! If that song doesn't get your heart beating a little faster then I wonder if you have a pulse! I'm anticipating a big hit and I wanted to be the one to write the article. I'm nominating it for DYK since it's unusual for someone to have passed on a probable professional baseball career in order to become a musician. I hope things are well with you! I keep finding it hard to have time since I've been working out fulltime. Royalbroil 03:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's really neat, I'd be happy to take a look through the article. I've been hearing the song on the radio a lot, too; just yesterday I was wondering if Jonny had an article! I'll probably be able to get a copyedit done this morning - I'll be out for the rest of the day. The only thing I'm kinda bummed about recently is that, just on the heels of R&R merging, Billboard totally rearranged their website recently, which means a bunch of dead links everywhere and a new layout to get used to. :/ But oh well, I'm not going to even think of fixing them. One song that I love recently is Phillips, Craig and Dean's "Revelation Song". It reached number 1 this week, so maybe I could make a page for it. :-) JamieS93 15:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I presume you got my response to your note earlier? JamieS93 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit. They were great improvements! I did see that R&R merged into Billboard. I'm not surprised, I knew that they were merged. I had started the R&R article. I'm still wondering what chart is being used for the Weekend 22. Any idea? Yea, I did get your earlier reply about the username. My concern was more about the nature of their edits being about the same topic as their username. I wasn't sure so I asked for your opinion. Thanks for the second opinion! I'm satisfied with the outcome. I don't want the person to be discouraged because they were helpful edits. Royalbroil 23:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good then. :-) Several months ago I figured out that the Weekend 22 is a broadcasting of R&R's "Christian CHR" (contemporary hit radio) chart. They still confirm this on their website, even though R&R merged. It's kind of confusing now: I know it can't be Hot Christian Songs (Billboard), since that's more contemporary/pop and has an entirely different list than W22. On the other hand, the W22 countdown always features a mix of alternative-based music. Maybe it's some weekly information that they receive from Nielsen Company, although I'm fair sure that they compile sales-only info, not radio. So I honestly don't know at this point. JamieS93 00:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up

I shan't bother even putting my two cents' in at this point. I will say that I do a lot of talkpage creation and error cleanup with AWB, and tend not to do much article creation (my recent work on Brazilian rivers excluded; however, as those have met with no problems at all I see no reason not to continue.) You know these things better than I; what's your advice? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. However, given some of the comments that were made towards me in the ANI, maybe you can see why I'd be a little gunshy about it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the rights aren't ungranted; I used AWB myself the other night to do some more talkpages. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've responded. Doesn't come across as too sharp, does it? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he should be permitted to use AWB to create articles but not BLPs unless they are properly referenced. His new articles on New Zealand rivers generated by AWB are already being expanded and will evnetually be very useful. I think he should be able to generate new articles freely using it providing they are referenced and the task is a useful one. If AWB is used ocorrectly it can be very useful in starting new content particularly if they have common ingredients and are ones which the encyclopedia should be working towards. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good way of putting it. Creating articles with AWB in and of itself is fine as long as it's sourced, and preferably, relating to inane subjects. JamieS93 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, thanks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ten case backlog "waiting clerk approval"

There are 10 cases that have been waiting for over a day to get clerk approval/denial for a checkuser.—Kww(talk) 20:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Cindy10000 block score another one for mr. Scheinwerfermann whatever

Cindy10000 block

score another one for mr. Scheinwerfermann whatever

he consistently generates a big mess and argues any wiki rule out two or three sigmas

a little detective work and elementary logic and thinking makes makes it readily apparent what you are dealing with

but anybody with more than a couple of thousands edits can not have time for that

Wdl1961 (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the exact username? Could you list some evidence at the case page for why you think this person is a puppet? Thanks, JamieS93 14:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

just check mr. Scheinwerfermann record

Wdl1961 (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK dab

In queue 2, Garhwal links to a dab page. Garhwal Himalayas doesn't exist, so maybe it's best to unlink. Shubinator (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads up! JamieS93 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Muslim Christianity

Hi! You just deleted Muslim Christianity, apparently under A7. I'm the one who originally tagged is as a hoax. I agree that's it being a hoax is questionable since the article quite openly stated that it was simply WP:MADEUP, but WP:MADEUP isn't a speedy criteria so I tagged as G3. Doesn't A7 really only apply to people, organizations and web content? I don't think a made-up religion is neither... What should I do with articles like that? Tag them as A7 anyway? Clearly content like that doesn't belong here, but if it doesn't fit any of the speedy criteria shouldn't it have been prodded instead? Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note Jafeluv. You're right about A7, and it was meant as only part of my reason for deletion; I cited it as a general concept, rather than a strict criterion. WP:MADEUP in and of itself isn't a real reason to speedy delete something, either, and I mentioned it in my deletion summary to provide a better explanation for non-admins. I sometimes add a personal note about certain deletions, since the generic CSD deletion messages are ambiguous and sometimes would leave a non-admin scratching their head about the original content. The article self-admitted that the subject was clearly non-notable, recently made up, etc., and thus in my opinion qualifying for deletion right there. I can't quite agree that it was a hoax, per se, but obviously a few editors were agreeing that it should be deleted. Most of the time, WP:NFT-type articles are prodded or brought to AfD (and often are promptly snowed out and deleted early). Best, JamieS93 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Jafeluv (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

EC

You're going to edit conflict....now! :) decltype (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha. XD JamieS93 01:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)