User talk:JamieS93/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:JamieS93. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

You forgot to move the talk page. Thanks! _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, done. JamieS93 13:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Err. The talk page you deleted had a section on some sources found. Is there any way you can move that page to where Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur was so the section can be retrieved? Or is it hopeless now? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to undelete those edits. Now that the edits are restored, there's a full record in the rev history (and the "possible refs" section has been restored to the bottom of the talk page). Looks like everything is in place, since you re-added the {{ArticleHistory}} template. Lemme know if you all need anything else. Cheers, JamieS93 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, if you will, can you delete the two revisions I made to Meowth on 1 September 2009 and then the (redirect) revision on WP:POKE/Meowth. After that it can be history merged.(silly conflicting histories...) Thanks for your help! _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted the "redirect" edit and merged the page histories. I can't individually delete revisions without deleting the whole page and restoring specific edits, so I'm just leaving alone the two edits on 1 September. JamieS93 16:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was under the impression it couldn't be history merged because those edits were conflicting. Thanks a bunch!_Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem! JamieS93 16:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by all of this activity. What part of WP:MAD prohibits having the history of the source article associated with a page in project space?

It was my understanding that the revisions from both pages were pertinent to the history/developement of the article. Thus it's best (or possibly required per GFDL, depending on the case) to merge the page history. JamieS93 16:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Bulbasaur was moved to project space, and the redirect to project space retargeted to the list. There was a little bit of edit warring, and Black Kite took care of the history at that time. The only thing this activity has done is make it easier for the group that refuses to respect consensus on the article to restore it to article space.—Kww(talk) 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bulbasaur is currently a redirect to the list. If edit warring begins again, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. JamieS93 18:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"If?" Took all of five weeks, Anonymous IP restores using false edit summary, Leftorium put back to redirect, followed by Colonel Warden beginning again with his habit of using false edit summaries to disguise edit warring over redirected articles. Putting this thing back in project space did nothing but invite this, and, as I pointed out earlier, was in no sense required by WP:MAD.—Kww(talk) 00:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Kww seems to misrepresent the case. The nature of the dispute seems well-known to those who watch this page. I observed some activity there and chipped in by adding some fresh sourced content to the article in question. My edit summary highlighted the important part of my edit - the addition of the new content and source, while the other aspects which were obvious and familiar were summarised with &c., as is my common practise. As we see that Kww reacted within 8 minutes, it seems clear that he was not deceived in any way and so his personal attack seems to be a wikilawyering tactic contrary to WP:CIVIL. As for the substantive issue, this is a former featured article and there is clearly no consensus for it to be suppressed as numerous editors wish to work upon it, as we see in this incident. We have other free-standing articles about major Pokemon of this sort and there seems to be no clear or good reason for this one to be picked on in the way that it is. My guess is that it is a target because because it was a featured article but this is just speculation and I would be interested to hear Kww's own account of why this article vexes him so. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Okay. Could you link to the most recent discussions where the redirect was supported/opposed? I want to see if there's any new consensus here. If there's not, I'd recommend that you start a talk page thread and discuss the merits of inclusion vs. redirect. In the meanwhile, my protection stands until there's better agreement (either way) on the issue. Regards, JamieS93^❤ 13:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey JamieS93. Could you remove me from the autoreviewer and rollbacker groups, please? I don't create new articles and I don't vandalism patrolling. Thanks! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jamie doesn't need all those extra log actions. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Tsk tsk Jamie. How could you! :-p Killiondude (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

K, fair enough. :-) And Julian, I need all the log actions I can get. JamieS93 18:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted Talk:Dag Frøland (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) giving the reason "‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)". I don't know why you conceded to this request without checking whether the user who requested the delete was the only contributor on the page. Please restore the page minus any possibly damaging contributions. __meco (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The user who requested deletion (a bot) was indeed the only contributor to the page, and there would be no point in restoring it. I have created a new page instead. decltype (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That is very strange. I'm (almost) sure there was a page with the banners earlier. Oh well :-) __meco (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please restore {{Latest stable software release/mzirc}} and its talk page. It did not meet the speedy deletion criteria and is still in use. Thanks. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored. :-) My fault for not checking to see that it was linked at Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. JamieS93 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. I could not remove the speedy deletion template myself because I created the template itself, [1] so a bot would have reverted me had I tried. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see somebody watching these talk pages... sadly generally nobody responds even with prompting :) You can read my concerns at Talk:Switchfoot/GA1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you make significant strides I'll keep it open as long as needed (well, not forever, but...) The one-week limit is just to push through the stuff that depends on someone actually showing up or not (I've been getting snippy responses to the effect of "fail it then, you bastard", so I can't wait 'till this is all done :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Jamie, let me know if you can't get it done and I'll help/do it. But not this weekend... Royalbroil 21:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

K, thanks! JamieS93 21:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I saw you edited David Baynton-Power. To satisfy my curiosity, did you you find it from User talk:WereSpielChequers or from somewhere else? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I saw it from there. Which prompted me to visit CAT:BLP, so thereafter I noticed it was in the Dec 2006 category. JamieS93 22:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I have noticed that when I have something restored, somebody else often adds sources before I get to add mine. Perhaps I should ask to have them restored to my user space, to avoid duplicating effort. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't want to step on toes/edit conflict. The article just caught my attention as a musician (I work with music articles a lot), so I thought I'd hit up Allmusic and pop in a source. :-) JamieS93 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem in this case. I hadn't found the Allmusic source. I am happy to move on and leave this in your hands. I also found this source [2], but it is probably not reliable enough. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the user-page armor. :) The vandal(s) in the last 24 hours created accounts, then went after my talk page, then haven't done anything since. I'm keeping lists of them, along with the original info, in case this flares up again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :-) I just indef'd the two as VOAs, btw. JamieS93 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For showing confidence in an editor and for digging deeper in an effort to resolve a problem, please allow me to grant you this token of my appreciation. McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you...I didn't do anything special! ;-) I appreciate it, though. :) JamieS93 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

JamieS93

I am a resident in Assemblymember Espaillat's District. i am right now at his district office telling him of whats happening. I would like to update Assemblymember Adriano Espaillat's biography with truthful information. I respect the freedom of speech, but the information the person posted are 100% Inherently untruthful. Please check the Assemeblymember's website, http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=072 He is one of the most respected legislators in the nation.

If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Denny Pichardo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denny Pichardo (talk • contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear JamieS93,

The article Adriano Espaillat has been VANDALIZED and PAGE BLANKED several times over the past 24 hours.

The version which you restored was PAGE BLANKED within a matter of minutes.

Some protection for this page may be appropriate.

Thank you,

69.203.119.66 (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear JamieS93,

As you can see, the Adriano Espaillat article which you restored has just been PAGE BLANKED again.

I believe this article needs some page protection.

69.203.119.66 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re your message: Not a problem. I took out the one remaining referenced statement as I thought it put a little too much undue weight on the subject compared to the length of the rest of the article. The section title was rather loaded, too. So now the article is totally unreferenced. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re your message: Excellent! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

JamieS93,

Please look into the history of the following IP address:

69.203.119.66

I believe this person represents a vandal who has a clear motive to defame Assemblyman Espaillat. Please look into 'attacks' on his web page and then follow the (history of 69.203.119.66) trail to discover who this person is.

Also, the page has been corrected but misinformation can still be seen via a Google search of Adriano Espaillat because the info that comes up on said search is affiliated with what can be seen by clicking on the "Cached" link and not the corrected article.

Please advise because the last thing we need is sick people with a deceptive agenda using wikipedia as a platform to lie about a good man.

Thank you much!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.104.30 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You may want to read my comment to this IP on my talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my bot's mistake here. I'll make sure that the bot doesn't mark user talk pages for CSD G7 in the future. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh good, thanks. Exactly what I was thinking. JamieS93 22:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this article, too? The same IP that did the hatchet job on the Adriano Espaillat article did the same to this one. I removed almost everything, but the article is kind of an stubby mess. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will soon. JamieS93 00:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 14:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm unconcerned, really. The editors who opposed have largely indicated that they would reconsider if their specific concerns were addressed, and I consider it really good advice. Whether I try again or not the feedback has been a huge help for me.--otherlleft 19:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please follow this link. ReplyToMegaS (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm no longer involved with the article as an admin, so I don't really care to follow the discussion. Regards, Jamie♥S93 01:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear JamieS93: I am the user who initially created the entry on R oger P incus and then requested that it be deleted. I appreciate that the deletion request was granted. Can you also cause the person's name not to appear at all on Wikipedia? Right now, the record of the deleted entry is one of the first hits one gets when you Google him. Thanks.Pearsonbill (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pearson. Well, once the article is deleted, there's not a lot we can do about search engines retaining the entry - Google usually picks up Wikipedia articles and lists them within a couple of hours. And once an article is deleted, the original content or log entry will be temporarily cached on mirror websites or a Google search.

There is a mechanism on WP called "Oversight" that allows for certain edits to be permanently "suppressed" - however, this action is only performed in extreme cases (when somebody's privacy is compromised, etc). My best advice would be to simply wait a couple of days, and it'll disappear from search queries. Is there any particular reason why this page needs to be wiped from the logs? Regards, JamieS93^❤ 17:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, JamieS93, for the info. The reason why I'd like to delete the page from the logs is that the person who is the subject of the aborted entry is a real person who is an emerging fiction writer. I was trying to do him a good deed by giving him a Wikipedia entry, but the entry was deemed not sufficiently notable. Now, I fear I have inadvertently done him a bad deed, because when he is Googled, one of the hits is on WP, and when that hit is clicked on, the person's name comes up with the deletion notice -- basically inducatubg that the person was not considered WP-worthy. I understand WP's decision to deem him not sufficiently notable, but now he is the unwitting subject of a stigmatizing WP statement. Can you remove the statement and thereby undo my unintended bad deed? :)Pearsonbill (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Pearsonbill. Google caches separately, and we unfortunately have no control over when they refresh (but they do it fairly regularly). You may expedite the process by requesting directly if you have a Google account. I'm sorry we cannot offer a faster response, but I'm sure the information will not remain for long.

Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jamie, Plse be more specific on why you deleted (A church with very old history and Andrew Murray is an author with huge volume books in circulation for more than 100 years) First check who Andrew Murray was before you delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micmicl (talk • contribs)

The article was deleted because it was written like an advertisement or promotional piece about the church. Murray might be notable, but any article must be written from a neutral point-of-view and include reliable sources that prove notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - we have content standards, and all information must be unbiased and reasonably professional. You may wish to read the page WP:NOT. Best, JamieS93^❤ 20:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jaime, first off thank you for responding to my request. I did have another request if possible that I forgot to mention. Other Olympic articles have been protected until the end of the 2010 Winter Games: March 28th, 2010. See Olympic Games protection request for an alternative example. Hope this is possible. Mkdw^talk 23:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I considered protecting it longer - but I'm thinking that, while major articles such as "Winter Olympic Games" will be be highly viewed/vandalized over the coming weeks, the Olympic city itself might not receive much attention after the first several days. You might be right that it'll need longer, though. I'll watch the article when the protection expires and reapply the semi if needed. Fair enough? :) Best, JamieS93^❤ 13:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that R&R magazine doesn't exist anymore, I've had a dilemma. Billboard magazine does a horrible job with ranking Christian music songs. It ranks "Beautiful Ending" as peaking at #29. That's in left field! I heard it ranked in the Top 2 or 3 on other charts like the Weekend 22 & I bet it hit #1. So Never Alone (song) never charted? Yea, right! It was the most played song of the year. What reliable chart can we use that's accurate? What have you been using? Please respond here on your talk page - it's on my watchlist. Royalbroil 14:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I loved R&R. :-( I've simply been using Billboard's Christian songs chart, which I agree, does a bad job representing what tracks are most popular. With singles that were released in the R&R era ("We Need Each Other", "Give Me Your Eyes"), I'm just leaving the R&R stuff in there. No need to remove it. For newer singles, Billboard is kind of our only choice. It's usually discouraged to use an individual music provider as a "chart", but it also wouldn't hurt to mention how a song/album charted on iTunes' sales - most press/media coverage mentions iTunes like it's a music industry standard. Did we ever figure out who W22 gets their charts from? IIRC, they were either using R&R's Christian CHR data, or obtaining their own. JamieS93^❤ 14:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering where how they compile their chart. About helps a bit. I'm going to email them and find out more details! Can I include your email address in the request and ask for them to respond to both of us? I was contemplating Christian Radio Weekly as a potential source. Royalbroil 14:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! Jamie.wiki at gmail.com is mine. JamieS93^❤ 14:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I discovered something strange. R&R is clearly still generating weekly chart information [3]. Even if there's no separate weekly "R&R" publication, they're obviously still reporting charts, so programs like Weekend 22 have been picking up the data and continuing on like normal. As I recall the two charts (CHR & W22) always matched up identically. So it looks like R&R must still be reporting, tho that's not the impression I got back in July - they basically said, "all operations shut down, see Billboard now". JamieS93^❤ 22:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's surprising for the reasons that you outlined! I know that W22 used to use R&R, they said it on the program (or was it on the website?). Obviously I haven't done the email yet - I've been too busy on other things. I still need to do it and this should make the email more interesting. Thanks for letting me know! Royalbroil 01:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for deleting page User:Nascar1996/Jimmie Johnson.I was hoping that someone would delete it just in case someone wanted to use it.Thanks again. From:Nascar1996 ( talk • my edits )

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi JamieS93. When you deleted File:TSSA head office sign, Euston.jpg and File:Interior of Merseyrail 508 after Angel Trains refurbishment.jpg, did you miss the {{nocommons}} templates on both images? Please reverse your deletions. Thanks. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 07:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Sorry about that. Best, JamieS93^❤ 14:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Debresser and Avraham claim there is one, but every time I challenge them to come up with specifics, they refuse.

Essentially they are performing WP:OWN and forum shopping - they refuse to use article talk pages, for example.

I keep coming up on ANI because Debresser keeps raising it. Its an extremely misleading tactic of his - he's been warned against it by the Arbitration Committee, but he continues to do it

See

• log of Avraham's failures to comply with basic NPOV, CIVILITY, and OWN policies
• log of Debresser's failures to comply with basic NPOV, CIVILITY, and OWN policies
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement (especially "Debresser! You have yourself been guilty of dragging many cases to ANI any time you do not get your way.")

Thanks for the protection applied to the Robbie Savage page. Would you also consider doing the same to the Kris Commons page? There have been 9 separate entries of vandalism in the last 24 hours. Thanks, Animaly2k2 (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, semi-protected for a week. JamieS93^❤ 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you be able to do the same again for Kris Commons? There have been approx 20 attempts by several IPs to create a false rumour in the last 24 hours alone. Many thanks Animaly2k2 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, 2 weeks. The dust should hopefully settle by then. JamieS93^❤ 19:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at James Buchanan? The vandalism level this page has received in the past weeks are to very high levels, and I think it may warrant a protection. Please give me your thoughts. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a month, cause I agree that the vandalism level is high (basically every IP edit lately has been unproductive). JamieS93^❤ 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Woodrow Wilson. Might you consider some protection for Sacco and Vanzetti? Thanks.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. It's never been protected before, and it looks like the vandalism has risen only recently, so 1 week seems good at this point. JamieS93^❤ 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

For granting me rollback! Hamtechperson 22:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop you a line and say thanks for approving me for rollback! I'm looking forward to getting down to work with it. :-) --Warbirdadmiral (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Some of use just noticed that you changed MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown with these edits. The change has been reverted since your changes conflict with both the wording of A7 and {{db-a7}}. Please see WT:CSD#A7: No indication that the article may meet notability guidelines? if you want to comment on this edit. I'd like to ask you not to make similar edits without prior discussion first again, since such changes have a huge impact on all admins' actions. Regards SoWhy 13:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sure. I'll reply there when possible. JamieS93^❤ 13:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you were the Admin that deleted SPI for keepcalmandcarryon/Archive. I am unfamiliar with these processes. You seem to have carried out a speedy deletion of the content citing G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. I assume that this was the subject (Keepcalmandcarryon) of the investigation.

Normally I wouldn't have bothered one way or the other as I had minimal involvement in it. However having waited until its deletion, Keepcalmandcarryon is now making allegations against me concerning my involvement.[4] Without access to its content (or at least the fore-knowledge of intending deletion to take an Export copy for private reference), I have no means of making an evidence based response. If she wanted to rule a line under the investigation then fair enough, but this is just a case of "having your cake and eating it".

I know from my own Wikimedia instances that administrators can a undelete articles. However, is there any WP process by which I can have access to this content so that I can frame a defence against these claims. Siggghhhh. -- TerryE (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I was actually just deleting the lowercase "k" version of the page, apparently a minor mistake made by the page author. The archive was moved to a capital "K" at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Keepcalmandcarryon/Archive. JamieS93^❤ 02:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Feewwww. Thanks. I'll take an export and dump it into one of my Wikis just in case. I can now go back to her with an informed response. Like the ❤, BTW :-) -- TerryE (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JamieS93 my name is The K.O. KIng. I really need your help in editing the Tobymac page. It needs a major rewrite. I have helped the article out a little bit but it still needs more information on Tobymac himself. Any help you can offer will be greatly appreciated. I would like the Tobymac page to be like the Newsboys page, very organized and well written. I cannot do this alone (grammer is not my strongpoint). Please help me redo the Tobymac page and please reply to me ASAP about what we can do to fix that page. The K.O. King (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Man, I'd love to help. The article isn't as bad as it used to be, but I agree there's still much to be improved (sourcing, lead summary, research for career sect), especially since Toby's one of the highest-viewed CCM articles. Lately I've found myself with varying amounts of available time. Sometimes I've got plenty, but other times studying is a necessity. I'll try to help with the page, if possible. JamieS93^❤ 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If there is anything I can do to help as well, please let me know. I would not have bothered you, but as I said before grammer is NOT my strong point. Tobymac knowledge, however is a different story. I know that you are probably good at grammer, but if I can provide any help just let me know. The K.O. King (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Meriwether Lewis? Although the vandalism here is not all in one days, it is rather spread out, and there seems to be little to none productive IP edits. I'd appreciate an opinion. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That article would do good with a long-term protection, eventually. I went ahead and gave it a 1-month semi just now, since it's been protected twice before. Even though this isn't the ordinary case of "excessive" or intense vandalism within a smaller period of time, none of the recent edits have been constructive. It warrants semi-protection, cause I'd say that's the root of WP:PROT: is there excessive disruption, and/or will we lose any decent edits upon protection? Doesn't pass the test, so it ought to be protected. Regards, JamieS93^❤ 20:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please reprotect the article as content dispute is still unresolved? SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 04:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected for another week. Do let me know if/when you guys come to a conclusion or decide to quit edit warring, please. It's best for articles to be as editable as possible by non-admins who may want to make legitimate fixes. JamieS93^❤ 01:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that those sysop folks will be ever satisfied even if I find sources and mark the notability. Lighting Mafia activity is dangerous for it. In the mean time I was indefblocked in RuWiki. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 18:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you lots :) –ბრუტ (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jamie, thanks for the help. Could you by chance look up what was the last date that I modified that page? - Schrandit (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Last time you edited the page was May 11, 2009. Another user reverted some vandalism on June 29, 2009. Those were the latest revs. JamieS93^❤ 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, best wishes. - Schrandit (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can a deleted user page be restored? -- Rico 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, do you want that done? :-) JamieS93^❤ 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday you deleted my submittal to Wikipedia, I request that you review your decision and reinstate the page. When you first marked the page for deletion, I made some changes to the page. I am not sure if you saw these revisions. These revisions added a "Philanthropic" and "Innovation" section. I can send you copies of these sections if you have not seen them.

I believe that Family Matrix deserves posting in Wikipedia because is represents a new, Patent Pending, innovation that previously has not been done on the Internet. I believe that may users would be interested in this innovation.

If you still have concerns, can you provided additional details on how I might change the submittal to meed the requirement of Wikipedia.

Thanks and best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham the Hammer (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it was written in a promotional tone; the page sounded like it was an advertisement for the brand/company. Additionally, I'm afraid it's not notable in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. I tried Google searching for reliable sources to prove notability, and I couldn't find very many. Regards, JamieS93^❤ 22:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why have you deleted the entry on Ernest Backes? Please replace it, he was involved in VERY important allegations of international money laundering! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.70.122 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. The article was deleted because nobody contested its deletion in a seven-day period. The only claim to notability for this person was one event, which does not necessarily mean this person is notable. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see - he wasn't only notable for one event, he was connected to a criminal case. He claimed to have been involved in movign funds from a bank that supported anti-communist activity in Europe, supported by the US (CIA specifically). As he was the No. 3 in one of 'the bank's bank' Clearstream, this was siginicant.

Th ebank was found to have been involved in this activity by the Italian Courts (see "Operation Gladio") and a former Italian Prime Minister was found guilty of complicity.

Backes is an important part of the story. Please replace the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.70.122 (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Without proper sourcing, we will not be prepared to restore this article. After a look, I was unable to find any that substantiated his notability enough to warrant an article. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please restore Category:Cemeteries in Nigeria? Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 03:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. JamieS93^❤ 12:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi-Thx for the help!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :-) JamieS93^❤ 15:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've said the same to the last person who removed that edit, but the IP involved is a user who is banned across one of his/her other IPs for incivility, stalking, harassment and sockpuppetry. Removing edits by banned users is a perfectly valid action, as far as I'm aware. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if the person is confirmed...just after my revert, I noticed the link to your talk page thread. He doesn't seem to be a confirmed banned user (not even blocked), but tbh I don't really care. Best, JamieS93^❤ 18:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the admin NJA recognises that the IP is a trouble maker. I've asked for help with filing a report at sockpuppetry, but the admin is often away for long periods. The IP has been editing in bad faith for a long time now and I'm so sick of it. Can we please lock the page down now? Paralympiakos (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking my account! LadySydney (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jamie, this anonymous IP has been causing allot of disturbance recently and has been warned various times regarding their vandalism. Can you give him/her a temporary block? Thanks Jamie, I appreciate it.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that the right person? (contribs) They've only made 2 edits in the past week – report it to WP:AIV if problem edits continue after warnings. Best, JamieS93^❤ 22:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello JamieS93! I see you have declined my speedy deletions request on Avruga caviar and Kalles kaviar saying that their are "not a spam or promotional page". But... then, what are they? I mean, they are just articles on specific brand names for certain types of product. Regarding Kalles I may even agree with you, since the type of product is quite known by that brand name. But Avruga?!? That is just one of a multitude of brand-names for a caviar substitute/imitation? And not even a particulary known one at that! Why is this not a promotional page? The Ogre (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You might be right that, at the core, those are probably "promotional" entries. However, speedy deletion is only meant to deal with articles whose verbage is spammy ("this delectable restaurant...for more info, check out the website", or worse, first-person narrative). As it is, I'm a fairly tough admin when it comes to spam-related stuff, but I can guarantee you that most every admin would not speedy those. Their nature of focusing on one semi-NN product might not be entirely encyclopedic, but it's not what a single admin should make a call on, especially when the article itself isn't particularly written in a style that sounds like a puff piece or plain advertisement. I haven't tried a Google search to look for sources/notability proof, but feel free to take it to AfD if you think one or both might not be notable. Hope that helps, cheers, JamieS93^❤ 19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my thanks and cheers! The Ogre (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs United States We Are One Tonight China East Siberian Sea Halewood Obiter dictum Canada France Prosencephalon Trust-busting Torremaggiore United Kingdom India Complex Condé Nast Traveler Rajavin Parvaiyile Cat Vision Vancouver Portuguese Wikipedia

Cleanup New South Wales Rural Fire Service Enterprise service bus Jesus Merge Brain implant Iraq Bones Brigade Add Sources Racism Unity Church Chemical physics Wikify Powell Peralta Government Loomis Chaffee Expand Handshake Dog Plymouth Reliant

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that you protected the Aesthetic Realism article, I wanted to give you some background on the edit war. For years, the Aesthetic Realists have been trying to remove any mention of their group's less than flattering bits from the article, especially from the intro (e.g. their "cure" for homosexuality, their being labeled as a mind-control cult by former members and the mainstream press, and the suicide of their founder/leader). A while back another admin (WillBeback) made the curious suggestion that the article be rewritten from scratch, and that the intro be stubbed until the rest of the article was rewritten. An independent editor briefly helped with the rewrite then went MIA, and then work on the rewrite effectively stopped. The AR people haven't made any meaningful attempts at rewriting in two weeks now. They want to drag out this process as long as they can, so they can have the stubbed/censored intro in place as long as possible. WillBeback gave them the cover to do so, and now you've helped them by locking the article down to its censored state. They're learned just enough of the WP lingo to try to appear to be reasonable (e.g., "Do not edit without consensus"), but the reality is that they don't respect WP as an encyclopedia; they don't seek consensus, they don't edit in good faith, and they never edit anything else except the AR article. (They might start now if they see this note, but look at their history over the last year before now and you'll see what I mean.) The AR people are gaming the system. I'm just saddened that admins here are playing into their hands. MichaelBluejay (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to aid in "censorship" of the article – I'm just putting a cap on an edit war that was not about to stop. You all need to discuss those changes, and not fight over the article via reverting. Regards, JamieS93^❤ 23:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I happen to be a fan of the First Amendment and I am not interested in censoring. It would be good to assume that other editors are acting in good faith, even if we don’t agree with them. Let’s all keep our composure and not use ad hominem arguments or be abusive. A careful reading of the activity on the article about Aesthetic Realism over the past several months will show that the comment above by MichaelBluejay is just not accurate. WillBeback’s suggestion has generated a great deal of industry, primarily in the collection of sources. (Look at the source sections and notice the dates on which these were gathered). In fact, for years WillBeback had been asking the editors to put in sources and that there had been very few –-until now. The Philosophy and Poetry sections have been entirely rewritten after undergoing many backs and forths, inter-editing, and merging of ideas. It’s important to really look at what has been happening with an open mind! It’s true there’s been some delay in the past several weeks but as I understand it that’s because the mediator disappeared. I know that LoreMariano, a lead editor, tried to find another mediator and asked Ludwigs2, but so far not everyone agrees to him. If more of the drafts had been put up on the article page itself, wouldn’t that be seen as unacceptable too because there was no consensus, no scrutiny of them with a mediator absent? So damned if you don’t and damned if you do. Hopefully we can all catch our breath and get towards what everyone really wants, which is an accurate, well-sourced article. We are still in need of a mediator in order to proceed. Nathan43 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

JamieS, I *am* discussing the Intro section. In fact, I'm the *only* one that's doing so. Nathan43 talks a good talk, but the fact is that he's not participating in the alleged rewrite at all. He's made *no* contributions to the rewrite in well over a month, and his last edit before that was to fix a typo on a *single word*! However, he's found time to eagerly censor the intro from the article itself on March 11, March 12, March 13, and March 14. Do you see the kind of people you're inadvertently aiding here? The AR people don't want to discuss, they just want to censor and delay. I know that your *intention* wasn't to aid in their ensuring that the AR article stays lame and sanitized, but that's the effect it's had. I hope the admins wake up and realize how the AR people are gaming the system. MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, JamieS, I am the editor who worked closely with IP71 on the Poetry section of the entry on Aesthetic Realism. Our work went very well and I believe his/her comments and suggestions improved the draft I submitted. He/she is the only person, by the way, who ever commented on the drafts I posted. I have not been idle while hoping for IP71's return, but am prepared to move more swifly with this article as you find convenient. IP71 wanted to combine the two drafts of the Poetry section, and I have done that and would like to post it to the Drafts page. Then we can move on to the next section, History. I have no wish to delay revision of this article, and an appropriate intro, but am proceeding according to the instructions of Will Beback and IP71. Thanks for your assistance.Trouver (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks. :-) Look, I only intended to serve as the protecting admin and not an outside mediator. Protecting the article still seems necessary at this point, because I don't really see evidence that the dispute wouldn't just continue on, via edit warring. I would recommend possibly seeking outside input such as WP:3O, which might be helpful. Best wishes, JamieS93^❤ 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll make one more attempt (tomorrow I think) to move editing along, which seems to be what everyone involved wishes. If this fails, will seek outside assistance, like WP:30. Thanks. Trouver (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and good luck with everything. JamieS93^❤ 23:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you review this request for temporary semiprotection here which was declined? See my followup rationale. Thanks. Respond here or my talk page. --Lexein (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism-per-week rate, if you may, is pretty low, so declining the request is understandable and a pretty reasonable action. However, it looks like more than not, anonymous edits have been uncontructive and/or introducing unsourced material. I'm a supporter of proactive semi-protection for BLPs, so if it were me, I'd probably protect it for a couple of weeks. With respect to SoV's decline, I would not overturn his decision, though I've left a comment there as a second opinion. Best, JamieS93^❤ 15:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Lexein (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted Magic: The Gathering rules recently. I don't know who PRODed it or why but the PROD was in violation of guidelines - that article had previously been AfD'd and kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules and no consensus'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules (2nd nomination), which means it was ineligible for PROD. Even if it was then I'm requesting it be overturned, which can be done to PRODs even after the deletion. Even if it's decided the article can't be kept a merger might well be appropriate which would require the history to be around. SnowFire (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Done; though I can't say I disagree with the reasoning. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jamie. Happy Spring! I am one of the people working on the Aesthetic Realism entry. In order to preserve the first draft of the Poetry section (which I think will be moved to the Eli Siegel entry, per Will Beback), I was trying to create a new drafts page for the History section, which is coming up next for discussion. I mistakenly created a page with the wrong url. How do I delete the Mistaken page?Here is the Mistake Here is the Good Page Thank you for your assistance. LoreMariano (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. In the future, you can tag such pages with {{db-g7}}. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. LoreMariano (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jamie. Thanks for protecting my user page. However, I'm curious to know how DYK works.. I've tried it with food yesterday and I was told the article isn't ready yet. Do I have to expand the article more? Do I need to create an article for DYK? Thanks --Tommy (message) 00:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK is meant for featuring interesting facts from new content. There are two ways to get an article featured at DYK; 1) you can create a new article, or 2) you can take a relatively small article and expand the prose fivefold its current size. There are a few requirements: a) the "hook" fact must be mentioned in the article and properly cited, b) the article itself should be in decent shape, c) the hook cannot be longer than 200 characters, and d) new articles must have at least 1,500 characters of text/readable prose. And if the hook is about a living person, it should not be negative or otherwise problematic. WP:DYK#DYK Rules gives a few more details, but the ones I mentioned are the basic/primary guidelines.

5x expansions are commonly done, too, but most people pick small articles so the expansion isn't too difficult to make. Food, for example, is a well-established and large article, so you wouldn't be able to expand it. When creating an article or making an expansion, try to get it done within 5 days, so you can successfully add the submission to the proper article-creation-date section at T:TDYK. Regards, JamieS93^❤ 13:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ohh, okay! Thanks Jamie! Tommy (message) 16:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering, but Why does it have to be new or recently 5x expanded? Tommy (message) 22:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's just the intrinsic nature of DYK. On the main page, it says "From Wikipedia's newest articles". JamieS93^❤ 15:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I need to figure out how to change a copyright for a photo I uploaded and later added to an article. There is no copyright on the image. It is in the public domain. What do I need to do? Woofiz (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a {{PD-art}} license template to the description page, and removed the deletion tag. Your image page didn't have the public-domain template, though you already had the info proving PD licensing (year 1856 = PD), which was good. Every image is required to have a basic description + a license template. So you were almost there – the image page just needed a template that classified its licensing. In this case, {{PD-art}} was good to use. Image license templates can be a bit confusing; it might help to see this list for guidance. Best, JamieS93^❤ 18:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday you deleted my submittal to Wikipedia, I request that you review your decision and reinstate the page. When you first marked the page for deletion, I made some changes to the page. I am not sure if you saw these revisions. These revisions added a "Philanthropic" and "Innovation" section. I can send you copies of these sections if you have not seen them.

I believe that Family Matrix deserves posting in Wikipedia because is represents a new, Patent Pending, innovation that previously has not been done on the Internet. I believe that may users would be interested in this innovation.

If you still have concerns, can you provided additional details on how I might change the submittal to meed the requirement of Wikipedia.

Thanks and best regards

Thanks for your detailed response.

Everything mentioned in the article can be verified from independent sources other than the author. The operation of the client /server interface can be verified by anyone on the web site. The patent pending application can be verified by application number 61/264,002 at the US Patent and Trademark Office wwwuspto.gov. Business Information Network, Inc can be verified at the Missouri Secretary of State office.

Please note that this is new technology and until this it is widely disseminated to the public it will be difficult to provide information from sources that are not closely connected with the subject. Because it is new and innovative technology, I believe it has a place in wikipedia. Abraham the Hammer 16:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In order for an article on a business to remain in Wikipedia, it must provide citations to credible sources that do two things: establish notability and verify all claims. In this case, the article lacked proper references, and did not explicitly indicate significance. If you feel you can bring the article up to standard, I'd suggest working on it in your own time at a sub-page of your userspace, such as User:Abraham the Hammer/Family Matrix. You'll be able to gradually improve the article's content without having to contest deletion nominations. Once you're done, file a request at WP:DRV, where other editors chime in and ultimately determine whether or not the entry is suitable for inclusion. Hope this helps. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We're going to go ahead and try this again! The contest will begin April 1. It is a contest to encourage editors to improve teh quality of WP:USRD articles and participate in USRD. Precautions will be taken to make sure that people do not "game the system" and bring article quality down. Please sign up ASAP! Announcements regarding the contest will be made at WP:USRDCUP, Twitter, and/or IRC. --Rschen7754 06:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In September 2009 you tagged the above article with concerns re the policy on biographies of living persons. I only noticed the tag now. Can you indicate specifically what text in the article your have concerns about? As you can see from the article, I have done relatively detailed research and referenced entries in full. If you do not have specific concerns, I recommend that the tag be removed. Zingi (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall ever giving the article a BLP-related tag; I simply added the "Living people" cat to the article for the sake of categorization. The article is referenced well and I didn't have any concerns about it. JamieS93^❤ 16:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for deleting the Christopher K. Stone, M.D. article so quickly. I really appreciate it. --Mah (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Glad to be of assistance. Take care, JamieS93^❤ 15:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'll never forget this. Shame on you. <_< 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Norm or correct format? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Norm - good luck changing pass precedent. Besides, "present" should not be capitalized. I hope you're following this discussion here? JamieS93^❤ 15:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the rollback rights. It's really kind of funny how I've been using Twinkle and I'm on the whitelist, but nobody every told me to get rollback rights. Anyways, thanks again. Spartan-James 20:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Jamie...we watch an article on Josh Byerly at NASA, and an anonymous IP has tried to vandalize the page with a libelous comment. Any way to either rollback the change or protect the article? Transformer911 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit was instantly reverted by a bot, but I am keeping eyes on the article now. According to the page's edit history, this problem has only happened once in recent times, but I'll be watching it in case there are future issues. Thank you for letting me know. JamieS93^❤ 21:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, didn't see that it had been reverted. Any way to delete the comment from appearing on the revision history page? Transformer911 (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the edit from the revision history. We normally don't delete individual edits very often, but this was plain vandalism against a living person that served no purpose, so it's no longer listed in the history. Best, JamieS93^❤ 21:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

We appreciate it, Jamie.Transformer911 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Phebe Sudlow was deleted for copyright vios, I've recreated it, User:Moonriddengirl said it is good to go now, can I submit a DYK for it, or does it go by the first creation date? CTJF83 chat 21:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting one. Generally at DYK, the day the article hits the mainspace is the date we use. An article could be drafted in the userspace for weeks, but the day you move it over to the mainspace is the time it "went live". So either way, since you moved it to the mainspace several minutes ago, just list it under April 12th and it should be fine. Best, JamieS93^❤ 22:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! CTJF83 chat 22:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, can you check the deleted Talk:Phebe Sudlow and tell me what Projects there was, thanks, CTJF83 chat 22:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've undeleted it: the talkpage was simply deleted per G8, so it can happily pop back into existence again. And you're welcome. =) JamieS93^❤ 22:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The entry in the deletion log you made when you deleted Charles H. Carpenter (disambiguation) was G6.

As I noted here all the existing wikilinks to Charles H. Carpenter refer to the individual described in the (deleted) article on the Charles H. Carpenter who is a lawyer who defended Guantanamo captives.

As I noted on the other administrator's talk page, the Charles H. Carpenter who is a lawyer has left notes on some of our talk pages reflecting their confusion as to why links that clearly refer to him direct to an article about a relatively unknown photographer.

I asked the administrator who concluded the {{afd}} on the lawyer if they felt authorized to restore the Charles H. Carpenter (disambiguation) page. Since then I checked, and saw you deleted it.

Under what conditions would you feel authorized to restore the disambiguation page? Geo Swan (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little lost in the series of events. But I'd be perfectly happy to restore the disambig page, that's no problem...you need that done? JamieS93^❤ 22:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would be grateful if you would restore Charles H. Carpenter (disambiguation). Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. :) JamieS93^❤ 23:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well we just deleted the previous cat and template Harriet Harman and the Harriet Harman template and this is the exact same thing created by the exact same user, to stop the deletion he has made a simple change to the title but it is the exact same thing, let me know if you want links to the recent, like last week recent previous template and category deletion discussions. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Heres the cat deletion discussion that was created by the exact same editor a couple of weeks ago that is the exact same cat and content with a newish slightly altered name Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the template deletion discussion that was created by the same user that was also deleted, this cat today is simply a recreation of the same categorization that was discussed and deleted within the last two weeks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to upgrade the Tobymac page myself but I am a failure. I need your help. But, I am going to take it slow. The first thing I need to know is what needs to be added. I think a biograohy and a litte more on his dc Talk and his solo career. Just give me some tips on kow top upgrade the page. Any help you can offer will be appreciated. The K.O. King (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the talk page stalking, but I often work on improving biographies as well (even if it is often in a different area of the encyclopedia). I have some tips. The best thing that the article could get right now is adding citations from reliable sources. It is best to use the citation templates. Top of the line sources are the best - Jesus Freak Hideout, other Christian magazines (mainstream is very good, of course, but less likely to have what you're looking for). The article looks to be relatively well-rounded but everything could always use some polishing (and often expanding). I hope this helps! Royalbroil 23:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably better to delete it: it was intended as a split off fromm the main article where this section is far too long. But I am not sure that it is right to do this, so I am considering. In the meantime I've got it on my userpages, so go ahead and delete. Thanks for asking.--Smerus (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for your comment on my RfA. I'm humbled by all the supports, but your comment on the Diego Grez discussion made me smile. I knew it would be an issue when I put myself forward, but so far it has had only benefits and he's done good work on some content in his userspace and if one article of our 3-point-something-or-other million is improved as a result of his unblock, it's all worth it. Anyway, I'm rambling now, so thank you again! :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I always think it's interesting when you disagree with somebody, but nonetheless respect them for some reason; and in light of the opposes/questions, I thought it would be good to clarify my opinion. :) JamieS93^❤ 20:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with healthy disagreement. After all "variety [of opinion] is the spice of life" ;). Thanks, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Unbreakable - Fireflight song.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Formatting error in the article caused the infobox to not display properly, so the bot thought the image was orphaned... JamieS93^❤ 21:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I received this message, but I have edited absolutely nothing, ever:

User talk:75.21.123.224

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search [edit] March 2010 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. JamieS93❤ 02:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I was puzzled by this one. You consider making a page into a redirect to not be a significant contribution? (Note, I'm OK with page deletion, I just assumed that it wouldn't be applicable.) gnfnrf (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the author blanked the page after you made the redirect – I think because it wasn't another user (you) endorsing the original article, but instead trying to be nice and redirect it, I figured deletion based on the page-blank would be fine. But you might be right...I'm certainly subject to making errors. ;) Either way, recreate if it looks like a good search term. JamieS93^❤ 16:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sgaran, but figured given the notice on the main page, I should notify a clerk about it. Please let me know if you have any questions, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've transcluded the page. I'm not sure how useful an investigation is at this point, though. The IP address has been blocked for 24 hrs for removing AfD tags. To me it looks like a WP:DUCK case, since they're following each other around – as I see it, we have a duck case that can be revisited if the IP (or logged-in account) continues editing problematically and/or removing AfD tags after the block expires. JamieS93^❤ 23:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Sgaran is continuing to be pretty disruptive, but I figure to step back for a bit since they aren't communicating. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this, seems odd to me. Some of the users who are leaving keeps do not exist.... --Nuujinn (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, that's actually kind of funny. Anyway, I see Nsk92 has added 12.149 to the SPI report. I looked at their contribs and the name-posing didn't look very good-faith, so I left them a warning about it. There's clearly some meat/sockpuppetry going on. Those are sometimes hard to track down, and usually the best thing to do is just watch the AfD pages and mark SPA comments, and also block the repeat-offenders who've been warned. Got the AfDs all watchlisted. JamieS93^❤ 12:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's kind of sad really, whoever they are, they are paddling very hard. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. That happens with these kinds of articles sometimes – which is why a basic explanation of "reasons vs. votes" hopefully helps. A lot of people just don't know what Wikipedia is about. JamieS93^❤ 12:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it all goes back to this. User:Crusio redirected a page that User:sgaran authored and over which he has a clean COI. There's been some heated discussion about the redirect at Talk:Phenotype that User:sgaran did not participate in, and it looks like it spread from there to the AFDs. I think I've gotten User:sgaran to start talking about it, I'm going to approach User:Crusio as well, but any advice would be appreciated. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't have much advice to offer, besides that I tend to agree with your restoring the Phenomics article for now. It's not like the material is badly sourced, doesn't seem to be hurting anyone – as I see it, it's not really a "problem" (besides the COI), and less heated feelings will arise if the article is left to exist for the time being. Redirect-fights are usually proof that the issue needs to be discussed at more length than it's been. Mind you, haven't really looked at the talk page history, but whatever discussion occurred must have been a while ago. Good luck with your mediation. :-) JamieS93^❤ 00:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. (; My father told me many times when I was ass deep in alligators I should remember it was my idea to drain the swamp. Seriously, thanks for the comments, I'm very new at this kind of thing. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I need you to look trough a SPI. Its very important that you read through everything. From the beginning to the end. [5]

The Nefer Tweety account is exclusively used to do the exact same edits as Arab Cowboy, and so far no one has explained how its possible that the NT account contacted ACs sock in this edit. How this could have been a coincidence. Can you take a look at the evidence? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Beginning to end?! Sorry, I don't have the time or patience for that. I'm not an active clerk at SPI anymore, so I suspect that another, better informed individual would do a better job. Regards, JamieS93^❤ 00:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. The problem is that the case has been opened for a long time and no admin/SPI clerk has explained how its possible that the NT account contacted ACs sock, so that's why I'm trying to find someone to answer to this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your name is in the active clerks here: [6] maybe you should move it since you are not active. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. XD Done. JamieS93^❤ 16:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is not locked by the time you get this, could you lock it please?

My fellow Reading fans are a bit delirious today. SCIAG (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected for a week, plus removed some of the old vandalism/nonsense. JamieS93^❤ 22:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is an illegal infringement of copyright - the photo belongs to the Mail on sunday and is not the work of the user who uploaded it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Hitchens_in_Iraq.jpg. I'm not an editor so hope you can deal with this. Thanks.

It seems there is already a discussion taking place on the userpage of the person who uploaded the file on Commons. [7] —Soap— 14:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The file has been nominated for deletion by Sfan00: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Hitchens in Iraq.jpg. Thanks for the heads-up. JamieS93^❤ 17:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Renzenberger From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to:navigation, search [edit] May 2010

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. JamieS93❤ 17:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has firm guidelines on content that is promotional in nature. Also, please stop edit warring with others. It's not a productive way of handling a dispute, and it will cause you to be blocked if you continue. Thank you. JamieS93❤ 17:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, they think our profile is too promotional and obviously we are in a ‘warring’ situation with people who have nothing better to do than to revert the page – Sandy, can you provide guidance on the verbiage that would seem less promotional and just the facts?

I’ll follow up and figure out how to take the poor description about us in a civilized manner.

Thanks.

JamieS93, thanks for reaching out to me - perhaps you can help. We did not create the original Renzenberger, Inc. page - in fact, we strongly suspect that someone with malicious intent created the original posting which is less than flattering. If you study the original posting, you will see a long history of debate within the Wikipedia community whether to keep or delete the article in the first place. We are simply trying to correct the misinformation about our company. How would you suggest that we go about making said changes within the Wikipedia rules? Sincerely, Renzenberger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renzenberger (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might enjoy learning that you are a Grand Tutnum!!

For your service, you are awarded this pretty ribbon:

.

Meekly, WordyGirl90 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, thanks! It's pretty. "Meekly" – d'awwww. By the way, our signatures are very ugly together. The shades of pink clash terribly. JamieS93^❤ 17:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not interested in the wild world of sig formatting. --------------------------------------------------> But just so they can line up... :P WordyGirl90 21:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Shushrusha Citizens' Co-operative Hospital, Shivaji Park, Mumbai was deleted to-day, because of adveritising aspects which, i understand, need to be eliminated. This, I can do and you might be able to give me pointers.

• Can the User page User:Patelurology2/Shushrusha Citizens' Co-operative Hospital, Shivaji Park, Mumbai which you helped delete, since it was converted by me to regular page with above same title, be resurrected? Or, I might to work harder to reconstruct. As I understand, which might agree with or correct me, that a hospital page would be acceptable, without the adverising aspects and on making it just encyclopedic with the co-operative aspects highlighted.

Patelurology2 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Patelurology2 (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've restored your user sub-page. Best, JamieS93^❤ 15:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Any pointers, when you can.

Patelurology2 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• You might want to contact the admin who deleted the page, User:Jac16888, at his talk page. He might be able to provide some advice about your article. Best, JamieS93^❤ 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 supports, 9 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please undo your protection of Courageous (film). The user who just redirected the page is just a sock-puppet of the banned User:SuaveArt (I'm filing a report now). He returned and disrupted all the previous pages he damaged. Also, please look at the deletion discussion. The reason for redirecting was solely because the film had not began principal photography. I recreated the article several weeks back because it is now filming, and many production details, including cast, crew, locations, etc., have been released. It clearly meets WP:NF, and protection is a misuse of the admin tools. Please review the article and deletion discussion before making such an action. American Eagle (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I promise you that I did this with best intentions, attempting to follow consensus. I will look into it. JamieS93^❤ 00:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, they have started filming, and you are correct that it was the basic notability issue in AfD #2, but WP:NFF doesn't solely require principal photography. I do have a question: has there been any subsequent discussion about recreating the article? The release date is still far off, and it is possible that an unrelated user may bring objection to it being recreated so soon after the last AfD. Recreating an article pretty soon after consensus was established, based on the claim that notability has now changed, commonly leads to disputes. I have indeed seen both AfD discussions, by the way. I'm willing to unprotect the page and let the article continue, and I see that there are a few new sources, but can you give me good reasons that a non-SuaveArt user won't take objection to this? It seems to meet WP:NFF, but I want to be sure – you know more about the film than I do probably. Thanks. JamieS93^❤ 00:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article upon further thought – if the only "disputing" during the past four weeks of the article's recreation has come from a sock, it might not be an issue – but either way, taking action now is preemptive, and I'm also not the one to decide whether or not the film is notable now. If issues arise, they can be dealt with. JamieS93^❤ 01:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. As far as why I decided to recreate it, see this message. AFD #2 was actually five months ago, so I didn't feel I was "challenging" the closing admin or the consensus - therefore, I didn't assume anyone would object. If anyone finds reason and can explain why the article doesn't satisfy WP:NF, I'll be willing to question my decision to recreate. Hopefully this covers everything. ;) Also, I'm sorry if you felt I was challenging you as an administrator. Quite the opposite! I was in a hurry and my message was far too hasty. You are a fine admin! God bless, American Eagle (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasonableness. That might sound a little contrite, but I mean it in all sincerity. You erred on the side of caution, but then took the time to consider the whole picture and reversed your decision. Again, thank you. Seregain (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

@ AE: Sounds good, and no offense taken. I see that you've already discussed the matter with another editor who wanted the redirect restored. Now that another objection has been raised, it would probably be best to formally repeal the AfD and replace it with new consensus (if you haven't done it already), so nothing's up in the air. WP:DRV is probably the best place.

@ Seregain: Thanks so much! It seemed like kind of an iffy case...your words meant a lot. :-) JamieS93^❤ 21:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

I am wondering if you could undelete the St. Mary's Catholic High School page. It was deleted back in November of 2009. As a former alumni, I would love to contribute to it. I am new to Wikipedia but would love to see my old high school have a site. I realize that probably it was some deviant students trying to make a joke, but I think it's time to re-open it so that we can contribute. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stmaryswarriors (talk • contribs) 21:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page, so it can be recreated now. By the way, for tips on creating your first article, you might want to take a look at WP:FIRST. Regards, JamieS93^❤ 21:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi JamieS93. Sorry, I see this is the wrong place to bring this up. :) Captmonkey (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

JamieS93 - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  15:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Was the message an automated one? Hey, even if it was, I'm still thanking you. I don't intend to make a username though; I'll stick to this IP address. 112.201.55.19 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For your help in revoking the IP's right to edit own talk page, the boy's beginning to become a nuisance to the rest of the users in that IP range. Not to mention that it's the school holidays here again! *sigh* Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, summer is here. No problem! :) JamieS93 19:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey. If I ever make a username (I'm starting to change my mind), will my contributions in this IP be carried over to the username's contributions? 112.201.55.19 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No, they won't. However, you can say that you edited from your IP on your userpage; the contribs can be linked. Also, I recommend creating an account, see why.

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock 04:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why am I getting this message? Mono's delivery method is random, so you probably showed up somewhere Mono went. :)

For rollback. :) dffgd (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem! :) JamieS93 21:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know why you have blocked entire Singapore Starhub IP from editing or posting.

what kind of vandalism have you faced? I find it unfair on your part. I believe admins have to be unbiased and have to act with some ethic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frustrated viewer (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the block log – even though my name is highest on the list, I wasn't the admin who first administered the /16 range block (I messed with a block setting and later reversed myself). But to answer your question, yes, we have faced extremely persistent vandalism from an editor using that entire range; probably over a year now. It's unfortunate that it had to come to this, but believe me, we don't make big blocks very often. Actually IMO, in regards to blocking accounts and IP addresses, Wikipedia is fairly conservative for a website—we sometimes warn a vandal 4 times in one day before blocking them. Best, JamieS93 20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Don't Give Up (Sanctus Real song) Christopher Stevens Never Going Back to OK Manic Drive The Older I Get EP WDCX-FM The Fight Song (Sanctus Real song) Friend Like That CJYE Lightning Strikes Again CJLF-FM Robin Mark Everything About You (Sanctus Real song) Ardent Worship Love Is on the Move Over and Underneath Hey You, I Love Your Soul Skillet (album) The Outsiders (album)

Cleanup Brian Welch Ibrahim Index of African Governance 6-step Merge David Rudder discography 1987 Australian Manufacturers' Championship Period 8 element Add Sources Kev Orkian The Christian Post DJ Maj Wikify Chatmonchy Men O' War Tickle Me Pink Expand Awake (Skillet album) The Foundation (Zac Brown Band album) Grand Rapids, Michigan

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Coming soon to a Wiki near you...The Third Great Wikipedia Dramaout will be July 5-9. Please join us for serious content creation! Signup is here. You have received this message because you participated in The Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout.

Yeah, I know the rules of capitalization. :P The only reason I capitalized them was that is what the album lists the tracks as, so I figured they should spelled what the album lists them as. I'll revert it if you want me to. :) TN05 20:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty; I'll switch it. :) TN05 21:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

{{rfctag}}

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Thanks for lifting the auto block! LadySydney (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no problem! Best, JamieS93 14:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jamie,

I'm a father of a special child here in the Philippines and I was just wondering why Christian Doroin's "entry" was deleted. Since he's pretty much responsible for most, if not all of the volunteers of Special Olympics in the Philippines, it was really helpful that he had a wiki entry. People found it as a sign of credibility and that he wasn't leading people on or anything. He's not as famous as a lot of people but he should be. He's achieved so much at a young age and I'm sure he'll achieve much more. He's a 25 year old man with a simple family who has worked for Special Olympics for the past decade (or more I think). He's been the Head of Delegation for international competitions, trained and handled around a thousand special athletes for soccer, basketball, volleyball, lawn bowling, table tennis, athletics and swimming all over the Philippines.

Now that he's really trying to focus his energies in developing the volunteers all over the Philippines, it would be great if interested people would get to look up his information and say that he's trustworthy. It would work wonders for the organization. He's been featured in multiple youth oriented magazines in the Philippines as well as having a published short autobiography of his life.

He may not be famous, but the purpose of the entry could lead to a big help. Imagine parents and volunteers looking up his name and discover that he is real and that he's achieved so much. It would be so much easier for parents to entrust their special children to him. I am an example of that.

Though I know that wikipedia only features famous and popular individuals, perhaps you can include someone important like him.

Thank you for your time and I will respect whatever decision you make. I just had to share my two cent(avo)s. =)

-Brando Sebastian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beohram (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I deleted the article within the proposed deletion process: two other users placed tags on the article, and nobody disagreed with the proposed deletion, so I deleted it. There were two reasons for the proposed deletion, one that had to do with lack of notability, and the second reason was because this was a living person whose biography has no sources.

I have undeleted the article and moved it to your personal userspace: User:Beohram/Christian Doroin. If you want it moved back to the mainspace, please add reliable sources first so the article is compliant with the living people sourcing policy. I can't promise anything about the article staying around; it might get nominated for deletion because Christian isn't notable according to our specific standards (see WP:GNG). Either way, you have a copy of the article now, and you're welcome to move it back to the article space after adding references that back up the information. Regards, JamieS93 19:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Manic Drive CJLF-FM Skillet (album) Lightning Strikes Again Everything About You (Sanctus Real song) Jason Ingram Don't Give Up (Sanctus Real song) Christopher Stevens Never Going Back to OK The Fight Song (Sanctus Real song) The Older I Get EP Love Is on the Move Over and Underneath Ardent Worship Lori Peters The Outsiders (album) Hey You, I Love Your Soul WDCX-FM Friend Like That

Cleanup Tony Rich 6-step CompassionArt Merge Israel Houghton R3 Motorsports Unobservable Add Sources The Glorious Unseen Vicky Beeching Trey Songz Wikify Monica Kim Africana womanism International Motor Sports Association Expand Awake (Skillet album) The Foundation (Zac Brown Band album) Bessie Cursons

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)