User talk:Ohnoitsjamie: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 18:48, 3 January 2025

Talk page

↓↓↓ NEW MESSAGES GO TO THE *BOTTOM*. NOT THE TOP. ↓↓↓

Please add new messages to the bottom of the page. If a conversation is started here, I'll respond here; if it starts on your talk page, I'll respond there.

Contacting me

I prefer to communicate via talk pages. Please only email me if there is a good reason not to conduct a conversation on a talk page. I do not respond to emails regarding link deletions and other issues that should be discussed on your userpage or the article talk page.

Why did you remove my external links?

If you've come here because you want to know why I removed some external links you've added, please read Wikipedia's policies on spam, Wikipedia external link guidelines and conflict-of-interest first. Because of Wikipedia's popularity, it has become a target for folks looking to promote their sites, which is against Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform.

Talk archives

PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE *BOTTOM* OF THIS PAGE.

Notability references

Policy
- Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria
- Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people (which refers back to the above link)
Essay
- Wikipedia:Your alma mater is not your ticket to Wikipedia
- Wikipedia:Write_the_article_first
School administrators: WP:RFCSCHOOLADMIN

Vandalism

Hello,

Just noticed you have blocked the account ApolloBurningEarth as LTA; [this report] I have made at AIV is another account and an IP of the same user. Thanks! CoconutOctopus talk 12:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Tinio page

Hello Jaime,

I am new to wikipedia and have been updating the page of our town. Please don't delete what I have been updating. Everything is sourced and if there are items that I failed to put citation, just let me know but no need to delete it. I constantly update the site and later repeat the citations. Just let me know if you think I should add citations and don't delete them. TheRealBasti (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to delete anything that violates the policies I've already outlined several times on your page. Please take the time to read about them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About your partial block of 2409:40C4:0:0:0:0:0:0/32

Would it be possible to block them from Travis Head as well? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by User:TillyFavoured742

Hi Ohnoitsjamie, an editor by name TillyFavoured742 has been deleting sources and sourced information with with no explanation or edit summaries. This has been prevalent on pages such as Kente cloth since 14 October. I have addressed him to at least, provide edit summaries or an explanation. I have also informed him on his talk page, to raise issues on the talk pages of articles, of which he has an issue with. But my plea on his talk page has not been respected as he still continues to delete content and sources without any explanation. His edit contributions show similar attempts on other pages as well. Kwesi Yema (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking oversight

You posted a block message at Johan jani (talk · contribs)'s talk page, but didn't actually block the account. He's still trying to spam his blacklisted site, just now with nowiki tags. MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that, fixed! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Aditya Mondol2013

Hi, entirely up to you, but when you blocked this account I wonder if you took into account that (Redacted)? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) sending to oversight.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 964 change

Hi Jamie, could you change admin to sysop on line 2? I don't think hits like this are needed. Nobody (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The B" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The B has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16 § The B until a consensus is reached. GilaMonster536 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maps on the western world page

Im asking again politely remove the map from the western world page! Do you understand that you dont do a correct job? You make this page not neutral and valid at all! Already 2 people disagree with this map and you dont care at all! You use a map that just express an a person's opinion! This map isnt based on facts and history books! So if some people want to help you to improve the pages in wikipedia they cant do anything because you dont listen to them and just remain to your opinions! In this way why you picked this specific map and not another one? Why you insist in this map that its just an opinion??? Really i cant understand you all the editors in wikipedia! The quality of your work is really low! Alikakii (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already told you, you don't get to make unlateral decisions here, per WP:CONSENSUS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous Filter (1094)

Hi Jamie,

It seems like filter 1094 is being caught a lot, probably for edits in good faith, as seen at Special:AbuseLog, and it shows that you edited the filter the last (I am not edit filter helper). WP:EFFPR is filling up quickly, could you check what's happening? Thanks, Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 19:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.145.0.0/17

Hi, Jamie. It looks like the partial block has made this anon more disruptive than ever. Doctorhawkes (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upgraded; thanks for the heads up! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie,

Just so you're aware, this block seems to be affecting other Aussies on the Telstra mobile network, including myself. It's a little unfortunate to be caught up in the collateral damage, but I suppose you gotta do what's neccessary.

58.174.94.200 (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, query as to why I have been blocked

Hi there, just wondering why my IP address has been blocked from creating an account or editing Wikipedia pages? I don't recall breaching Wikipedia's terms of use. If you could kindly provide a legitimate explanation or otherwise unblock my IP address I would be very appreciativ. Thanks. 49.199.65.140 (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that you posted here means that you are not blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Maybe they mean their other IP. 49.199.65.140, do you mean another IP?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

I enjoyed a peaceful few weeks after you blocked them, but I see a block evasion. Would you be kind enough to do something about this? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before I make any more blocks around this range, would you mind explaining how the edits are disruptive? I see a lot of changes to political parties, but I'm under the impression that in parlimentary systems that isn't uncommon in some cases, though I know very little about Pakistani politics. I trust your judgement, but I'd feel better if I understood the nature of the disruption a bit better. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone unhappy with recent election results have been trying to flip them so winner is the candidate of the party which they wanted to win, this has been going on since August on most pages in violation of WP:BLP. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for one month. Do all, or only some, of those recent edits need to be rolled back? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another email sent

I've sent you another email related to some of your private filters, but I use a new email address provider -- please do not use my old Outlook email if you have contacted me before. Thanks. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 18:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taha Ali

Hi Jamie, I need help at the above article. There is something wrong with the info box formatting. For the life of me, I can't see what is wrong with it. I'm thinking it might be the template? Can you take a look please? Knitsey (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ffs, I'm a moron. I looked and looked. New glasses needed. Thank you so much.

Glad to help! I made a mistake once. Maybe twice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped counting mine around about 50!

Your talk page is a wee bit unusual. I started my message in mobile view, which worked fine, I then couldn't use mobile to reply. I swapped to desktop, lots of talk pages for users only allow desktop edits, but it wouldn't let me use reply either so I had to change to 'edit source' and indent to reply. Not a problem, and it is your talk page. I just wasn't sure if you're aware that reply doesn't work on mobile or desktop view. Thank you for also fixing the place of birth.Knitsey (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened it in mobile. Not sure why the reply option doesn't include your most recent comment. BTW, don't forgot to sign your posts in talk pages with four ~~~~ (Possible, though unlikely, that the mobile app is getting confused by missing sigs?) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double ffs lol. I thought I had got uses to signing when in desktop. That's one of the things I like about mobile editing. Knitsey (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You sometimes deal with them, so I figured I'd ask (current 'strategy' making posting this elsewhere inconvenient as well):
Should ranges like this be blocked? I know there's many more servers to pick from and that the majority of them is just residential devices with IPs that do change overtime (as costumer IPs tend to do), but it's curious that for some rare cases the /16 has been used multiple times... – 2804:F1...82:1C5E (::/32) (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first time I've seen that LTA hit the same range multiple times (most of their proxies are from disparate ranges). I've blocked it temporarily given that it's mostly been abused by that LTA in the last few months (i.e., hopefully not much other "collateral.") Thanks for bringing that to my attention. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that one in the public log (which is really not very useful, updates too slowly and only shows the /16 ranges of used IPs for privacy) that range shows up quite often as one of the most recent connections (maybe it's multiple servers under the same range? or maybe it's listed first? not sure why). There are other ranges from that log that have been used by them more than once, but that one had the most (that I saw).

Funnily this range appears in the log many times, but it's blocked for unrelated reasons (also block history). – 2804:F1...82:1C5E (::/32) (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political party disc logos

Dear Ohnoitsjamie,

Hi! I have a question regarding logos for United States political parties on Wikipedia.

Most political parties in the United States have logos on their Wikipedia page. However, about half of these images are not free images and thus cannot be included in the list of political parties in the United States article. As a result, users have created logos known as “disc logos” or “election discs” to represent the parties. These logos

Are based on the original political party logos or a symbol associated with the party—for example, the Libertarian Party election disc is based on the Libertarian Party porcupine, a symbol associated with the party
Feature the party’s logo or such a symbol in the middle of a circle, all of which is more often than not one color.

For examples of election discs, see the above-linked disc and the US political parties list article (also linked above).

Currently, just over half of the political parties in the United States have election discs on Wikipedia on the political parties list article (due to non-free images being banned there), on their official page under the header “Election symbol”, and/or on election pages (ex. the 2016 United States presidential election article features the election discs of the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties). These images are unofficial, but can be useful.

However, recently an editor has informed me that the election symbols, due to being original research, should not be used. Personally, I was reading the original research policy and, although I might be trying to preserve the election discs, I believe that the discs might still be used if they are explicitly labeled as unofficial. (For example, I have already put such a note saying this up on the US political parties list.)

Do you think the discs can still be used? If so, where? (Only on the list page, or wherever they have been used in the past?) Should the discs only contain certain things (ex. only be derived from the logo of the party or a symbol associated with the party?) Essentially, what are your thoughts on this?

Thanks! RiverMan18 (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this isn't the sort of thing a single adminsistrator can unilaterally decide. While I understand wanting to have "symmettry" in being able to apply discs, I would lean toward the "no original research" policy in this case in an RFC on the matter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Is it ok if the discs are used with a warning that they are unofficial and are merely based on the party’s logos? Thanks! PS: I’m sorry for editing in the source editor—it wouldn’t let me reply. RiverMan18 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of warnings/disclaimers either. I think you should seek a consensus or start an WP:RFC at Talk:List of political parties in the United States ; if you could do, you could post a link to it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/American politics or any other relevant projects to seek additional input. This isn't the sort of thing that should be decided by a single admin, especially me, as I'm not particularly active in building politics-related pages. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok—thanks! I just added a general request for comment (NOT an RFC) on the talk page for the US political parties list. If I don’t get a lot of replies, I’ll start an RFC. Do you think this is a good plan? (I’m sorry—I’m still relatively new to Wikipedia, and this is my first time doing something like this.) RiverMan18 (Talk) 20:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good course of action. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC posted—once it’s up on the RFC list I’ll put a link to it on the American politics board.
Thanks for your help! RiverMan18 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the responses to the RFC, it appears that the general consensus is to not use the disc logos (one of them has already been deleted from Wikimedia Commons). In addition, it appears that using party color to identify the parties might be the better path.
As a result, I have created an edited version of the infobox political party template which features party color more prominently—what do you think? Template:Infobox_political_party/sandbox RiverMan18 (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the accessibility issue (for colorblind folks), using colors is probably the next best thing in the absense of a free logo. It's somewhat suprising that a political party wouldn't publish a free logo. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So then am I good to add the colorful-ish infobox template to the US political party pages? (I wouldn’t replace the general infobox, but would instead make a new one.) Thanks! RiverMan18 (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highgate

Dear @Ohnoitsjamie,

I hope this message finds you well. I am 90.218.120.231. I noticed you commented on my false report complaint. Thank you very much for correcting me. I am writing to you to shed light on what you did next. Once you did that, you proceeded to go to the article Highgate and revert my citations used to source the London boroughs, and you said in your edit summary that the citations weren't useful. I would like to humbly disagree with you here. The reason why I am disagreeing with you is because Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not the truth. The only instance that it is fine to not use citations is in the lead, when MOS:CITELEAD is cited in the article body. I have not come to cause more not useful havoc, (I am very sorry if you think I am), I am here to shed light on the mistake. I would like to have a conversation with you on maybe going over your mistake and maybe reverting it to stick to Wikipedia's guidelines. If you think I made a mistake, please do tell me.

Kind regards,

90.218.120.231 (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for educating me on the ways of Wikipedia. We do not need Brittanica references in the lede for information that is inherent in any map of London boroughs. We also don't need silly trivia about how Underground announcements pronounce words. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:12, 15 December 20welcome.)

You are most welcome. I am most sorry for the Britannia references and the Underground announcements. Just a question, I have copied the Underground part from the pronunciation content on the article. Would you suggest me or you deleting that? 90.218.120.231 (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already deleted it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not see. Thank you very much for your help. 90.218.120.231 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of continued disruption by user you partially blocked

Hello, I noticed you partially blocked the IP @2001:8F8:1E6D:1F49:B0B9:8FAC:CD06:EBCC on the 12th of November for being a sock. It appears that they have continued to be disruptive. I wasn't sure what to do with this so I decided to bring it to your attention (~~and also sorry if I get the formatting of this talk page wrong, I just hit "new section"~~ nevermind, it worked!) Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 12:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That partial block was for a very large range (/34). For IPv6 (long) IP addresses, /64 ranges usually are more likely to be limited to a single user or small subset of devices, whereas lower numbers like /34 are likely to cover many thousands of users. I try to avoid full blocks of large ranges because we're more likely to affect good editors, but sometimes it's unavoidable, especially for mobile ranges. For the disruption you're describing above, it's unlikely to be the same user I targeted in my partial block; please use WP:AIV if they continue.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock

Possible sock activity here. Please have a look - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding emails

Hey, Jamie. Listen, this is a very late reply to your message, but the reason for that is that I wanted to be sure that the Auckland troll's attention had faded. The only reason I utilized emails was that I, along with you, were being harassed and I didn't want them to know that I was so much as acknowledging their existence, but something had to be done. I at least hope it doesn't matter now that I'm replying publicly to you. But, I hope you understand why I went about the way I did. BOTTO_(T•C) 17:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New political party template for US parties

Dear OhNoitsJamie, I’m sorry to bug you (again), but I was wondering something.

As you probably remember, I started an RFC on the US political party disc logos, and the consensus was that they should be removed. However, I took away from the RFC (maybe wrongly) that party color should be used instead to identify the parties.

As a result, I have created a new template which can be used to identify political parties based on their color. However, I have some questions regarding implementing it.

I first implemented it by putting the template on Wikipedia proper (it is here) and by putting it on minor political party pages as a test run. However, another editor told me that I shouldn’t do that without a consensus, resulting in my removing the template from the pages where it had been put up and asking for a consensus on the US politics WikiProject task force page. When that talk post failed to get any responses, I started another RFC, but it was taken down due to an error on my part (I didn’t include a link to the previous talk post—I have fixed this error). However, when talking with the editor who took it down the idea that it could have been a WP:TALK violation came up (it might be a continuation of the previous RFC, but it was after it was recommended to me that the old RFC be shut down).

I’m sorry if this is confusing—please let me know if you need anything to be cleared up.

Is it ok if I seek a third opinion (namely yours) on whether or not the template should be implemented instead of holding an RFC? Here are the other editor’s feelings on the matter:

”Establishing a new template as a standard requires consensus, and I, for one, oppose it. There is no reason why American parties should be presented differently from other parties. The colors are already displayed in the infobox, and adding a large colored area is ugly imo[.]”

In addition, if an RFC is required, is the new RFC (on the use of the template) a WP:TALK violation due to being a sort-of Part 2 to the first RFC (on disc logos)?

I’m sorry for the long post (again). Again, please let me know if you need anything cleared up.

Thanks! RiverMan18 (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that other editor that you'd need to establish a consensus first to apply your new template in a topic area where there is a lot of participation as well as established conventions and templates. Most of my edits to topics related to American politics are administrative actions in cases of obvious vandalism or other disruption. I'm generally not involved with template creation or establishment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok—thanks! Do you think I can put the RFC back up? RiverMan18 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to do that, you don't need my permission to proceed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok—thanks! I’m sorry. RiverMan18 (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not made aware of any discussion started on replacing the infobox. I only follow WikiProject Politics/Political parties and WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Wowzers122 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the removal of my edit on the "Handyman" page

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie,

I noticed that you reverted my edit on the "Handyman" page on December 19, 2024. I tried to follow Wikipedia's guidelines by keeping the content neutral and adding reliable sources.

Could you kindly explain what was deemed inappropriate about my edit? If there are any suggestions or issues to address, I would be happy to revise the content accordingly.

Thank you for your time and response.

Best regards, Resear4er Resear4er (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that you are spamming, and I'm not interested in discussing it further with you. The warnings on your talk page make it pretty clear what will happen if you do it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist

Hi Dear, I have noticed Radar Chronicle is an reliable source. Few editors used it for vandalism purposes mass edit using that site. I appeal you to remove \bradarchronicle\.com\b from blocklist. Eram7 (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an approximately 0.000% chance of that happening. I appeal you to not message me about it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement.

Hello!

Merry Christmas!

My name is Adam, and I represent rvrentservice.com. I noticed that content from our website was added to the Wikipedia page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_vehicle] at 05:13, 12 July 2024. I would like to point out that these materials are protected by copyright: The History of RV Trailers - https://rvrentservice.com/the-history-of-rv-trailers.html

We have invested significant time and effort in creating scientifically based content for internet users, including references to reliable sources. According to our viewership statistics, our content attracts substantial interest, underscoring its importance.

Yes, our website is commercial; however, our blog operates separately from advertising and serves as a non-commercial platform, providing access to high-quality information without direct monetization. We have no objection to the use of our materials on Wikipedia, as it promotes the dissemination of knowledge, but it is crucial that a link to the original source is included.

I kindly ask you to review this matter and restore the link to our website in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, which require the citation of sources to ensure the accuracy of information.

Thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation.

Sincerely, Adam AdamSmit26 (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @AdamSmit26: While we wait for Jamie to reply, please allow me to point you to the WP:Volunteer Response Team. For copyright problems, it is best to contact the VRT team. Per Wikipedia:Contact VRT, info-en-c

wikimedia.org handles reports that Wikipedia is violating your or someone else's copyright. Hope this helps. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence that was copied verbatum from your website and also revdel'd all revisions that contained that sentence. Regardless of whether or not your site was used as a reference, we do not permit copyrighted content to be reproduced directly in Wikipedia. I will not be restoring any links to your website, as it was spammed repeatedly by multiple users who have been warned. Any further spamming of your site will result in a blacklisting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor wants to connect "Akan people" with Ancient Egypt and Nubia without reliable sources.

Greetings Ohnoitsjamie. This editor Kanimankwesi is hellbent on Akan people, where he edits on the origin section by using oral history, claiming that the Akans came from underground and settled in ancient Egypt and Nubia. Even worse, this editor provides no journal, secondary source, primary evidence, or scientific material. His only source is an international conference posted on research gate. User Kanimankwesi has been addressed on talk page for a year now by experienced editors about the value of reliable sources and fringe theories. But he is very difficult to cooperate with. Especially when he believes he is a descendant of Rameses III. Kwesi Yema (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Ohnoitsjamie! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Papiermark and other money from Weimar Germany, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for Adding Reference on E-Cigarettes and Sleep

Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I noticed that my reference to a blog discussing the relationship between e-cigarettes and sleep disturbances was removed. I’d like to provide some context and justification for its inclusion: Content Relevance: The blog focuses on the impact of e-cigarettes on sleep, a topic currently underrepresented in the article. Sleep health is an important public health concern, making this information valuable for readers. Evidence-Based Approach: The blog summarizes findings from a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies. It references high-quality academic papers and synthesizes their conclusions to highlight the potential sleep-disrupting effects of e-cigarette use. Neutral Presentation: The content in the blog is presented in an objective manner, strictly based on cited research. It does not advocate for or against e-cigarette use, aligning with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. Gap in Existing Content: The current article discusses general health effects of e-cigarettes but lacks detailed exploration of sleep-related consequences. The blog fills this gap, complementing the existing content. Author Expertise: I am a medical doctor, a public health researcher with over 50 international publications, and a meta-analysis expert. This blog represents a professional synthesis of evidence, written with the intent to educate and inform. My background ensures that the information presented is accurate, reliable, and grounded in the latest research. I understand that Wikipedia prioritizes reliable and verifiable sources. While the blog is self-published, I believe its evidence-based nature and unique focus on sleep health warrant consideration. I’m open to discussing ways to improve the reference or suggest additional sources if needed. Thank you for your time, and I welcome any feedback on this matter. Best regards, [Amr Ehab] Amr Ehab El-Qushayri (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your blog does not meet reliable sources criteria. If you continue to spam it on Wikipedia, you will be blocked. See also WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Greetings Ohnoitsjamie, and a Happy New Year. In the past, you blocked this puppet, 57ntaledane90. I am writing to alert you to a puppet of the already blocked user Alon9393, exactly this account alerted by this noun, who has created an article and is basing his comment edits on deletion requests. At the moment he only exists in the English edition, but he may make the jump to other editions at any time. Pichu VI (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pichu VI; while I did block 57ntaledane90, I don't see an obvious (WP:DUCK) connection from that user to Tgvarrt, and Twitter comments are really helpful to me here. If you have an explanation and/or evidence that there is block evasion here, you can file an WP:SPI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their AfD votes do look similar to the ones from 181.197.42.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but that could just be a coincidence. Nobody (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The connection is among Alon9393 and Tgvarrt. The application would be most effective on Wikipedia en Español, where we blocked more than 120 puppets. He only uses other languages to evade and has more fluency in these to feel outside the law. We monitor some accounts with vandalism ratings like this one, which has previously vandalised posts about Hamas and Israel, for example. I know it may sound complicated, but I ask that you investigate further if you can. Pichu VI (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]