 | ↓↓↓ 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. |
Get the ****ing stable release version and date right for AutoIt!: that ****ing information is out of date.
Perhaps, you cannot read and research properly.
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.
PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE *BOTTOM* OF THIS PAGE.
Notability references
I thought that when you spend around the same as Non-Stop (film) on a movie and don't even cover your budget, that was a box office bomb. I was mistaken, sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sir ... User:Itcouldbepossible this is my original account I've accidentally created this account User:AAhap36 and this account is blocked... Now this is User:Itcouldbepossible my original account please give me admin rights ... I need it . 2409:4060:2D93:270A:0:0:5848:4005 (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) 2409:4060:2D93:270A:0:0:5848:4005, I don't know what to do here as I'm not an administrator. After a brief glance at AAhap36's talk page, I believe you are simply Shaiksuhana2 but logged out, as Itcouldbepossible uses Alliance Broadband rather than Reliance Jio Infocommunications. Now, just to inform you, Ohnoitsjamie is not a bureaucrat, as only they (bureaucrats) have the right to assign the "administrator" right to others. To add to the difficulty, you can only become an admin through some really intense process called requests for adminship.
- Also, @Itcouldbepossible—courtesy ping, if you want some insight on this. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 3PPYB6 Oh, thanks for the ping! I already know about this mess. This IP or IP range had created an account and made this same type of request on GeneralNotability's talk page. Firefly removed the message and blocked the account. Now it is back and making another of his silly requests. By the way, how did you come to know I use Alliance Broadband? Did I mention it somewhere? I don't recall it. Would you mind telling me how you gathered this piece of information. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Itcouldbepossible—You disclosed it at User talk:AAhap36#Blocked as a sockpuppet. Side note, Ohnoitsjamie… I'd suggest blocking the /64 range for this IP as it is probably block evasion. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 15:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 3PPYB6 Yes, now I remember it. Thanks for finding that out. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 16:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:2409:4060:2D93:270A:0:0:5848:4005 - I think you already know that's not going to happen. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently evading their partial block on 120.17.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) on 203.3.232.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). wizzito | say hello! 14:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked, thanks! OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Unrelated, but would appreciate you revdeling this personal attack. wizzito | say hello! 18:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Revdel'd, blocked /64. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect JENNIE-O® turkey and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2#JENNIE-O® turkey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 20:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are so fast! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It explains why my edit summaries are frequently garbled! OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your user talk page is very large, it makes me lag :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:4D05:3FEB:4DEB:38B8:D15D:8444 (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was a 6mo range block, but it's actually of a 3 Mobile telephone company range - lots of mobile users, fast-changing IPs. It came to my attention from a reasonable user whose phone service was blocked - David Gerard (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OK; the LTA has been dormant awhile, but they were using that range pretty consistently for awhile. I've bookmarked it for later reference. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah, it's a PITA when they hit an ordinary phone range - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the content you removed was not in question. Can you please undo? The content in question was the Bezeklik caves and Mogao grottoes part. --Gengiev (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No; you are edit-warring. Discuss your changes on the article's talk page, please. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, you are misunderstanding something here. So far there have been no complaints about the new content. You can ask the other edit-warrer. --Gengiev (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It was all about the Bezeklik caves and Mogao grottoes part. --Gengiev (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Read it up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Turkic_peoples — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gengiev (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not discussing it here. Discuss it on the article's talk page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I will write it to the talk page. --Gengiev (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ohnoitsjamie , An IP is constantly abusing my User talks, please protect my User talks for the time being.thanks ----- Aviram7 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie.[1] Over to you.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Imposter; thanks for catching that. Do you have meta admin rights? OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately not. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for blocking user Seven Years Turners today. I just wanted to call to your attention that it appears likely that there is a fair possibility that the user is a registered name for IP user 50.228.19.234. I noted this because an edit you reverted on the Washington Capitals article from Seven Years Turners was identical to an edit I reverted two days ago from the IP user, and the IP user (like Seven Years Turners) has an edit history consisting of a lot of edits to sports-related articles with a focus on single-season articles for specific teams. I doubt any particular action is needed at this time, but we'll see whether the IP user resumes activity (most recent edits yesterday; I have not had time to look at them). 1995hoo (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads up; I'll keep an eye on that IP and range. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I see it's now irrelevant because someone else blocked the IP editor. Sorry to waste your time! 1995hoo (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not a waste of time! I didn't realize SYT was an LTA. Good to communicate these things. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you were the one that last protected SML (Youtuber)... In any case, that page has just been recreated and it's of very low quality (all the sources are Youtube or fandom wikis; the tone is entirely unencyclopedic, ...). Just letting you know - I don't know the particulars, but it's a new account with nearly no other edits, recreating a page which has seemingly been previously deleted, so that's immediately suspicious. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be the LTA; I'll keep an eye on them. Moving to draft is fine, it's not going anywhere in that state. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New administrator activity requirement
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
- Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
- Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
2003:f1:b706:f436:1c2f:ce86:6b6a:6222 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) reverted your reversion of 2603:6081:5b03:4e30:2cf4:5301:5958:3cf9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on Salem, Massachusetts. Considering that the earlier IP netted a block from you just for adding that in the first place, the reinsertion definitely merits a block as well, whether or not it qualifies as block evasion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been having some issues with a user that seems to have a special focus on pelock.com and pelock's products - [2], [3], the now deleted Draft:PELock, and this image (note the dialog's title bar), which they claim to be copyright holder of. I noticed you blocked User:WójcikBartosz for the same issues a few years ago. Did you want to handle this one as well, or should I bring it to a noticeboard? MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that they tried to vandalize the above talk page comment. - MrOllie (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, since you were the one salted this redirect, can you change it now into Steve (minecraft) because it was recently created by someone. Thanks. 2001:4455:699:AB00:4C35:731D:6928:7E17 (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Just a quick courtesy note to let you know I've modified your block of 78.2.0.0/16 to allow account creations — the disruption appeared to be only coming from logged out users, and we'd received a request from someone inadvertently caught in the range. Hope that's okay! ~TNT (talk • she/her) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that should be OK. Thanks for letting me know! OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 180.150.112.0/23 Blocked till November 1, 2022
- 49.178.0.0/17
- 49.178.128.0/17 - blocked till May 14, 2022
Hi again. Going back to your most recent archived talk, under the heading "Same IP? (Australia WP:CIR user)", re the earlier discussion, I think that this one shows remarkably similar traits: 49.178.99.219. Would you please have a look and see if you can determine anything? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaand I suspect that 49.178.132.148 might be our old friend again, although slightly less belligerent so far. Pattern of editing looks similar though, as in topics, bare urls, etc. I don't have time to follow up all of the changes now, will check again tomorrow if you don't get there before me. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Yep, same voice. I've blocked that range and added known ranges above. Let me know if I've missed any. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Jamie. I'll keep an eye out, but I don't know how to recognise ranges. I just notice odd edits and then look what else that IP has done. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jamie. Thought I'd let you know that 173.241.188.47, whom you blocked last month over their conduct at Special:PageHistory/Talk:Kmart, is still causing trouble. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you; I see they've been warned (probably should've been a level 3 or 4); I'll keep an eye on them. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie. What do you think of these wholesale removals of content from Russian related articles? Some of the content that was removed (the one that I checked), such as this one, is easily attributable and I would of have added the RS and left it at that if this was a one off, but the rate at which they are removing the content, instead of tagging it, means that I (or others) won't be able to keep up. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For content that doesn't intersect WP:BLP or is otherwise not particularly controversial or dubious, I'd lean toward CN-tagging rather than wholesale deletion. You could try restoring some of the material you think is salvageable with a CN tag. If they challenge that, then you can seek wider input. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. It looks like they attracted the attention of other editors (after another 150 edits or so). I'll await their response to the concerns that have been raised on their talk page. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i am idolings. How can i edit 1st.One page?, i want to know because i already create a new one Here as a draft - Draft:1st.One, and i saw some reasons why did you or some admins locked the page, hope you read it soon!, you can review this page or give me some criticsm, thank you! Idolings (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A disruptive user kept recreating the article after warned not to, so it was salted. If you draft is accepted via the WP:AFC process, it can be "unsalted". OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thank you so much! Idolings (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure if I’m doing this correctly, so apologies. I am trying to add history and information to the Part Time band wiki page and it keeps getting deleted or replaced. I believe you have left me a message so i am just trying to find out why it keeps getting deleted. My write up had many sources that are still available. I would like to replace it with correct information as well as remove the false information of the wiki such as “domestic abuse” and issues with the label that are wrong, and i would like to add history as well as new information regarding the band. They are still present, the members have changed, and they are now on a new label. The constant removal if the information seems like a concentrated attack that has no place for a website of free knowledge. Thank you for your time i look forward to talking -Kerberosmusic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerberosmusic (talk • contribs)
- The messages on your talk page explain why it was deleted. Please take the time to read them. You don't get to remove well-sourced material that you don't like. New material must be written in a neuteral point-of-view and be attributable to a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I probably messed up at Linda Elriani. After asking for protection, I wrote a talk-page message explaining that the sourcing was unreliable anyway (New York Post). After I'd posted it, I noticed that someone has rev-delled all the IP allegations. Since I alluded to what the allegations were in my talk-page message, you might want to rev-del me too? I didn't say anything explicit about it, but was aiming to give some explanation to the IP editors, who I felt were probably impossible to contact via their talk-pages. Sorry! Elemimele (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, easy enough to fix; better to err on the side of caution. Thanks for calling that to my attention! OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie. Hope you are doing well. I was thinking to propose, addition of qadrishattari.xyz to whitelist again or it's removal from blacklist. As I think it is not spam but a useful source for atypical niches like Sufism. I think various articles like Mustafa Raza Khan Qadri, Hurufism, Hashmi Miya can be improved with its addition. Many thanks. Dove's talk (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is that is should stay on the blacklist given the history of spamming and the fact that it doesn't meet WP:RS. Any further discussion belongs at WP:SBL, where you've already been told the same thing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all arguing with your decision but just want to say it looks like the Sufi org website and might help the project. Especially in atypical niches like Sufism where no enough good quality sources are available. Dove's talk (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding the references now and correcting incorrect references on Krasinski's filmography page, but we happen to be working at this at the same time, so it is like an add-delete-add-delete undo-redo-undo-redo situation unfolding. I just need a few minutes for formatting the correct references for the information I am adding. Can you please wait on undoing my information while I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichWatt (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You can add the references at the same time you add the content. You don't get to add the content then add the references later. There's no reason to remove references from unrelated content while you're doing that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok no problem. Just so you know, the reason for the deleted source is because it contains incorrect information. I am adding a correct one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichWatt (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Stricter block for Indian IPv6 ranges due to sockpuppetry. Thank you. Please look at the thread, since you were the blocking admin for some of these ranges. — B. L. I. R. 00:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, reaching out because I see you've been active at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I recently posted a request there that looks to have been archived with no action taken. What's a good next step? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest request specific whitelisting requests. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I made a request there. Marquardtika (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I think you mistakenly placed an indefinite page protection on the article Robby Soave, which seems disproportionate and contrary to the conclusion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2021/12#Robby_Soave, in which you called for a 2-week protection. I think the initial vandalism was triggered by a TV statement, and have no idea if the article will be threatened with vandalism in the future (which could apply to any Wikipedia article at any time), but please consider returning the page to normal level. Thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooops, good catch, that was definitely unintential; as you surmised, it was supposed to just be for 2 weeks. I've unprotected it. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! --Animalparty! (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the article Anantapur, you've protected it for "Persistent disruptive editing", but you've only move-protected it to autoconfirmed, which is the default protection for all pages anyways. Did you perhaps intend to edit protect it instead? Aidan9382 (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the move protection was intended; I've elevated it to administrator. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising I am pointing out the facts that there is a community radio station in Scunthorpe which broadcasts 24hours a day 7 days a week, it launched in 2020 and is 2 years old it is a legal station and has on average 25000 listeners per week, it is a not for profit radio station with guidance from Ofcom on how to operate and generate an income.
Steel FM broadcast from studios on Britannia Corner, they are members of The Community Media Association, Radio Academy and Voluntary Action North Lincolnshire.
Steel FM are backed by North Lincolnshire Council, DN Colleges, UCNL, Humberside Police, give work experience to students from North Lindsey College.
So as you can see they are a service just like Viking FM and Lincs FM and so should have a mention just like them, you are been unfair to Steel FM as a community service and precedential towards them, and giving Bauer Radio all recognition and nothing for an independent.
If it's not clear within the description please feel free to re-write it so it fits your criteria but as a community station Steel FM deserve to be listed under Scunthorpe and with it's own page.
Just like you have Beverley FM on Beverley's Page, Sine FM and TMCR on Doncaster's Page, Lincoln City Radio on Lincoln's page, they are community stations just like us so why do you keep deleting Steel FM from the Scunthorpe page.
Fbg999 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Marco[reply]
- @Fbg999: If you dont mind me leaving a comment while jamie is not here, your revisions seem to have been reverted by multiple editors for sounding like WP:PROMO (Specifically see point 5). A lot of the information presented in the paragraph is also info about the station that I'd say is generally not considered relevant towards the main article (E.g. Steel FM will also be applying for a SSDAB licence as soon as Ofcom advertise the licence in late 2022/early 2023.). As for your comment about as a community station Steel FM deserve to be listed under Scunthorpe and with it's own page, id recommend reading up on WP:NOTABILITY. I won't be commenting on whether or not its notable myself, as this is no where near my area of expertise. Aidan9382 (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You will be blocked if you try to add it again. You've been given plenty of warnings with explanations of why it's not an appropriate addition. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irvington, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Braden.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie! It's good to talk to you again, and I hope you're having a great Saturday! I was checking into the edits for user 志強演員, and I saw that you had revision-deleted the revision text and edit summary of both this user's edits citing RD3. I'm very likely missing something (and, if you know me well, that's usually the case... lol), but I don't see how the edits and summaries constitute purely disruptive material. Can you tell me the reasoning behind this? I know there's suspicion of sock puppetry here, but the edits themselves don't appear to meet the threshold. Thanks in advance, and I wish you a great day! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Oshwa; edits were from an active LTA self-promoter using edit summaries to circumvent content filters. Probably would've been sufficient to revdel the summaries in this case. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohnoitsjamie - HA! Hey, fair enough! ;-) While I don't think the edits themselves necessarily meet the RD3 criterion for redaction, we're talking about an LTA here... In these cases, the level of "shits I give" regarding the strict compliance of the rev-del policy takes a significant plunge. ;-) Even if I wanted to or felt the need to start a discussion with you over this, in the end, it would only be a huge waste of our time. Instead of moving on to do more good work, we'd be spending time discussing an LTA's edits, meaning that we're giving the user time and attention when we shouldn't be. ;-) Anyways, thanks for getting back to me, and I hope you have a great weekend. :-) Happy editing! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted; appreciate the feedback. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which caused me to accidentally tag the micronation AFTER your bold redirect. Since I haven't made this mistake before, can you help me clean this mess up? I'm fine with the redirect as long as the page creator doesn't object. BusterD (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- So I removed the AfD tag from the wrong article, withdrew my nom and talked to the page creator, who seems a good sort. (I also foolishly removed the process from the AfD log, then quickly undid myself.) I'm so used to using the scripts it's been a while since I managed this material by hand. While the process is still listed under various afd discussion categories, I think everything will drop away after the process is closed. Did I miss anything? BusterD (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the confusion; when I saw your G4 tag, I checked the history and saw that prior to the AfD it had been a redirect. The newer article was slightly different than the previously AfD'd one, but it still seemed that whatever notability that existed was intrinsically a part of the other article, so I restored the redirect. I think the withdrawn AfD nom is fine, unless someone wants to contest the redirect; then we're faced with either (1) unwithdrawing the 2nd AfD or (2) creating a third AfD. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the note and your BOLD. The page creator doesn't seem to have problem with the redirect, which gives that editor options on how to restore it when and if better sources are revealed. I feel I over-reacted in the moment and your redirect righted me a bit. Thank you for being dependable. I'm a bit on edge today because two articles to which I'm a major contributor (Vicki Iseman and John McCain lobbyist controversy) have been edited today with a just released primary source which spills a bunch of dirt on everyone EXCEPT McCain's widow. I'm seeing pop culture journals which are linking the controversy page directly. If you would watchlist these two pages, I'd appreciate the sharp eyes. I'm expecting a sh%tshow because there's sex AND petulance AND journalism AND partisan politics involved. It is entirely possible even the NYTimes will be unable to cover this, since they signed an agreement with Iseman in 2009. Today I'm seeing NY Mag and Salon as RS so far. The show will escalate when TV newsrooms think they have enough cover. I think we've done a reasonable job as wikipedians on these pages to date, but I expect some passion to work its way into these pages over the next little while. BusterD (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
