↓↓↓ 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.
Back in February IP user 139.182.208.223 received a two month block for continuously adding unsourced info to Carlos Correa. Not only was it unsourced, but they kept adding it directly before an existing citation that did not support the statement. Now, just over two months later, new user User:MinnesotaMethods has begun making the exact same change. After two warnings, another new account, User: KyleCrick, created just minutes ago, is attempting to back up the change. Seems like a WP:DUCK to me. Could you take a look when you get a moment? Thanks! NJZombie (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Carlos Correa edits, it seems possible that it’s the same user. To be fair, the issue was never that the original editor was claiming that Correa resided in Minnesota. It was the fact that they kept adding information about it directly in front of a source that didn’t support it and wouldn’t take the time to learn how to do otherwise. Doing a quick Google search now shows that Correa has, in fact, made a recent home purchase in Minnesota since it looks like he is staying with the Twins. So I don’t look at those edits about him being from Minnesota as a “hoax” necessarily. However, if it is a sock user, that needs to be addressed of course. NJZombie (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, why did U revert my edit on Cyberpunk 2077? I have several pieces of evidence stating why u shouldn't have reverted by edit.
1) The subtitles of the game clearly state the characters by their first names NOT their last names
2) in the accompanying article for Cyberpunk Edgerunners, most of the characters are referred to by their first name, not their last.
3) The game is clearly based off of fictional events, and no real people are involved in the game.
4) The surname is standard rule is completely bananas. Many wikipedia articles about video games clearly refer to the characters by their first name, like the ones for GTA V. HiGuys69420 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you reverted an edit by @Alex Colt47 and apon further search you have reverted other of his seemingly normal/ sourced edits, what is up with that? The edits seem good, have a source and arent conteraversial, is there something im missing? Realfakebezalbob (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you blocked an IP range from editing Van a little while ago (likely a Zerolandteam385 sockpuppet, not certain). They have moved on to add the same type of content to List of vans instead, while they are waiting for the other block to expire. Should I file a report somewhere or will notifying you suffice? Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more pblock targets and added a full block to a 64 range (the IP is dynamic across the /41 range, but at least for the last week has been within a smaller 64 range). OhNoitsJamieTalk18:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Names from other languages/cultures frequently have multiple acceptable variants/spellings in English. It's disruptive for editors quibble over the spelling variant. If a variant is patently incorrect and you have reliable sources to support that, it should be brought up on that article's talk page. Piping the name to an alternate spelling on other articles is not appropriate in most cases. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever language is primarily associated with the subject, that script/language can be used for showing their name in other languages; in some cases, more than one may be used. Regardless, it's not helpful to quibble over English transliterations. From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Spelling_and_romanization: Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article. (Relevant policy: Wikipedia:Article titles; see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).) For a foreign name, phrase, or word, adopt the spelling most commonly used in English-language reliable sources, including but not limited to those already cited in the article.OhNoitsJamieTalk22:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the matters that you have added to the site are subjudice. I see that you have protected the page and added what you think is right. It is against law in India to aid and abet media trials. The material should be deleted. 117.236.106.195 (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there Ohnoitsjamie this article The Great Gama was protected by you some time ago due to disruptive edits on the mans nationality it seems some editors may start engaging in this point of view pushing again [3] this user made a very strange edit I tried to restore back to the long standing original just wanted to know if you think it needs to be protected again thanks in advance. 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:F11A:E166:5465:8297 (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to place temporary protection on my talk page? There's a user that's been IP hopping in order to add unsourced box office analysis to the Clerks III article for the last day or so now. Myself and two other editors have indicated that it's an incorrect addition. After several false vandalism accusations made against me, user resorted to posting their arguments and accusations on my talk page today. After, refuting them and stating that I wasn't interested in having this discussion on my talk page anymore, the editor, using yet another IP address, reverted my deletion. Once that was deleted, they added even more. So now it's just harassment. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. NJZombie (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not affiliated with the other apparently banned user he keeps WP:HOUNDING. Either he’s confused or trying to stir the pot with his row against me. Blaming us for his feud with him is not his right.
For the record, I’m an employee of the Lyric theater in Colorado and some members of our cinema-lovers club do occasional editing from our public computers. I’m sure there is the occasional troll from here given these are public computers. However this zealous user taunted me into coming to his profile page to debate them only for him to change his mind without warning and revert my counter-argument out of spite. That’s his right. Then the other aforementioned allegedly-banned user that he was also taunting jumped in to apparently fan the flames.
I have no desire to debate this editor anymore on his profile page, nor become entangled in his drama. I told him to resume his debate with me on the article’s forum page if he must.
Dear Ohnoitsjamie it seems like editors who want to claim Great Gama as a Indian are back the neutral and stable version has been removed and they keep adding "Indian" wrestler when the consensus for over a year has been to use neutral terms since he took up Pakistani residence after 1947. Is there anyway of protecting the article? MahisoeoEk (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources which do not back Indian nationality claims
This source also states British India and later Pakistani as nationality [4]
Another source which states "Indian and then Pakistani after partition" [5] So sources are disputing this argument he was just a Indian wrestler most define him as a wrestler during the British Raj era which seems neutral I am not sure why Indian editors seem to insist he was always Indian. MahisoeoEk (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie sorry to pester you again it seems my edit summary's may not have been as clear every edit I made here [6],[7],[8],[9] and here [10] along with the others I may have missed is in response to a sock [11] (this account edits kashmir based articles and culture) and [12] (this sock edits all the massacre pages) they are both accounts of the banned same user hence I was attempting to restore the original neutral versions based on Ban revert policy plus the edits are so clearly biased I am surprised nobody has reversed them yet. I sometimes missed adding that to the edit summary which seems to be causing the confusion as other edits where I mentioned it were not removed. However please note this edit [13] has restored some seriously pov material referring it to as "occupied" is not a neutral term. I understand admins are busy and do not have the time to deal with every troll or sock on Wikipedia. Please let me know you have acknowledged this and sorry for the confusion. MahisoeoEk (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't need editors who are only here to argue about disputed territories and historic ethnic labels. I understand that some of your edits were reverting block sockpuppets; that's fine, but I'd suggest that you find another purpose here beyond the aforementioned quibbling. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have edited other topics but by the nature of the topics I have an interest in i.e food culture I tend to see these types of editors and come across their edits so I feel compelled to restore and remove the vandalism South Asian topics unfortunately are highly toxic and I try to remain neutral but it can be tough. Thanks for responding. MahisoeoEk (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you did not pay attention again Jamie I did source it to the Punjab origin. The term South Asia encompasses the entire Punjab reason so South Asia or Indian subcontinent rather than a specific country is more than reasonable. Please look a bit more carefully before jumping to conclusions. MahisoeoEk (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could this range be fully blocked rather than the current partial block on articles? This range (and others that are clearly related) have been disruptive on a number of articles, including SpongeBob SquarePants related articles, such as SpongeBob SquarePants (season 13). On that article, there has already been:
Thanks to them, that specific article has been protected until (at least) October, but now they are doing disruptive edits on the talk page ([15]). Also worth noting that of the 3 ranges listed above, the /44 range is currently fully blocked for 6 months, while the /38 and /41 ranges are both only partially blocked. They are continuing their disruptive edits/vandalism across many other articles, including disruptive edit summaries such as this. At this point, it seems like a full block for those two ranges (as well as any future ones) would be most beneficial. I hope you can help- thanks in advance.
I've expanded the blocks for now though I shortened the duration of the 38 range as it had some (a minority) of reasonable edits. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This account (Robepang) is most likely a sockpuppet of this account (Poberang). Similar usernames, userpage, scope of articles, and behavior, not to mention periodically reemerging from "hibernation" after other accounts were blocked. It wasn't long ago when you blocked the latter for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. 211.38.75.238 (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Killing of Jordan Neely Edit
Hi the source you used as an example doesn't mention the person who lead to Jordan Neely's death as a Marine? Presumably it was retracted.
Could you provide another source. I just don't know if it's appropriate to include in the lead till the identity is confirmed. LoomCreek (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to get your opinion. Does this need to go to an RFC? I'm not sure waiting around a few days is going to attract a lot more support one way or the other. What do you think? Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie: I understand but some action is needed as the creator of these pages uses random sources to falsely support his article. And he keeps removing tags without resolving them. He even did the same on the article you just moved back into draft space by undoing your revision and removing tags, [16] and [17]. If you have the ability to, can you also check for sockpupptery between users Kamal Afghan01 and Yousufzai033 and IP 39.40.68.238. There changes overlap as well as the reverts, [18] and [19] and [20]2601:547:B03:4098:9C47:2BF6:3929:738A (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with your removal of the quotebox from The Mooknayak - I had added it because I was trying to get into a flow of developing the article while the request for page protection is pending, and had started by adding the quote with the hope that it might help tamp down some of the disruption that has been happening. But it did not seem to help, and disruption has also continued on The Mooknayak founder Meena Kotwal's article in the meantime, so I'm glad you are also working on the article, and I figure I will get back to the article at another time. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't mean to step on your toes while you were working on the article, but there does seem to be a consensus (perhaps undocumented?) that box quotes should be used very sparingly in Wikipedia. I protected Kotwal's article and will keep an eye on the other.OhNoitsJamieTalk04:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than happy to work with you on the article - after the disruptive editing settles down, then working on the article will be much easier. And thank you for protecting Kotwal's article. I also totally agree about box quotes - I had been trying to extend maximum good faith to the editors who kept trying to change the article so it was about Mooknayak, so I was thinking the box quote could help clearly explain what the article was about while I tried to expand the article. After you (correctly) removed the box quote, I figured I would let you know about what led to the unusual addition. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have replied back with the reasoning. Please kindly help as this has happened over a long period of time and appears to be malicious-intended slandering and a clear violation of BLP guidelines. Wikicheck007 (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. In any case, I've blocked all of the throwaway WP:SOCK accounts and agree with you that the material doesn't belong on that page. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) OhNoitsJamieTalk04:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why no fandom links
On the backrooms page why cant it be there it is an essential part of the wider lore why cant there be an external link to it or is it that Wikipedians tend to be allergic to any other wikis online AvailableViking (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have been trying all my best to write up a letter to YBNL and am trying to use the reference deck to drop my comments but it's hard pls help me out P.bhoiomooba (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum or public relations interface. If you continue to misuse Wikipedia for this you will lose your ability to edit. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
iO Tillet Wright
Why did you block me considering my eddit of the page of iO Tillet Wright. He/she is more/most famous now for being Amber Heards friend and testifying on the Depp-Heard trial. @Ohnoitsjamie213.114.194.206 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you are repeatedly breaking Wikipedia policy on WP:SMEAR chud, you need to stop this (on Umskiptar page)
You have some kind of bias against the author (Varg Vikernes) as does the (((""reviewer"")) you keep adding to the page. A needless negative review from a nothing failure of a person (music critic.)
i literally cannot imagine a greater tragedy to the divinity placed by the GODS into mankind than using that divine spark of life to post album reviews for some company.
maybe its even worse to do that and intentionally write smear articles against musicians you don't like
and worst of all 3, to continuously add it to Wikipedia in breach of the anti-bias rules
I would reccommend moving this up to some higher power of wikipedia editor circles, as its very clear to anyone that the reviewer has a personal grudge/vendetta/bias AGAINST the person, and not the music, and therefore has written negative reviews about his music repeatedly (commenting negatively on the artists non-musical character in the articles) which tells me he just doesnt like Varg Vikernes.
thx ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.233.220 (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a review from a legit and notable music site; as I've noted before, the reviewer has previously left more charitable reviews of other albums from the artist. This isn't the first album in history to receive a poor review. If you remove it again, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary Sources Tag
Hi. On the Barton Paul Levenson page it is tagged with excessive use of primary sources. Do you mean the citations based on the published interviews with the author? If so, how would you recommend that the page be remediated? Botendaddy17:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For most biographical information and especially for establishing notability, we require third-party reliable sources, especially for establishing notability of a subject; that is, newspaper, magazine, or journal articles written about the subject or the subject's work. Articles written by the subject or catalog links to the subject's work are primary links; the article has very few of the former and lots of the latter. The "Style" section in particular is problematic; most of the links are "cited herein" (presumably primary links to the actual work?) and links to a blog, which [21] does not constitute a reliable source.OhNoitsJamieTalk17:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have proof of that is what you want here is my IMDB page https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0498503/37 years working in hollywood! What else would you like? To make me notable?
Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Xurome".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for weighing in on the protection requested for this article. The phrase and citation for the intent to relocate was added on suggestion of another editor (admin?) to resolve the dispute. The original text was simply "Maas currently resides in St Kilda, roughly 40km from his electorate." which is highly relevant to a political figure and I believe should be re-added to the article. What evidence/citation would Wikipedia accept for a location of residence that balances the need for accuracy with the need to protect someone's privacy? 121.200.6.242 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I said. Please re-read; I am asking what evidence would be acceptable to reinstate the location information without the reference to the intent to relocate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.6.242 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'd need to find a recent third-party WP:RS that says Maas was criticized for living 40 km from his constituency. A "people search" or government records website is not a third-party reliable source. Further WP:SYNTH violations or attempts to disrupt that article will result in an expansion of the blocks. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TV SERIES
Can you please explain why it is not useful, as you reverted my edit?
Ues I know that not useful and unnecessary are the same. I am looking for an answer to why it is unnecessary. While TV Series is redirected from many sites. and the lede needs a summary and explanation of the TV series. This is what I add, isn't it?M.parvage (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, I'm looking more closely at those edits; what exactly is the disruption, and who is the LTA you think it might be? I intially misread this diff as adding a bunch of nonsense characters, but now see those are table codes. It's not clear to me what the disruption is, other than maybe WP:CRYSTAL? OhNoitsJamieTalk00:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to have run its course, with new comments by Colin more WP:NOTFORUM than about whether to blacklist/deprecate or keep. It is my first lead on a RSN discussion, so I am not sure how it ends, and have assumed that you or another admin would conclude it if there was consensus, as you stated.
I believe the tally is: keep (1, Colin); deprecate (2, Rhododendrites, Shibbolethink); blacklist (11-13, Zefr, NW1223, JoelleJay, Psychologist Guy, SandyGeorgia, buidhe, bloodofox, ScienceFlyer, OhNoitsJamie (conditionally if there is consensus: "the existing 500+ links are cleaned up prior to blacklisting"), Hipal, MrOllie, also MrOllie, AndyTheGrump, Alexbrn, now called Bon Courage); unclear (1, Whatamidoing).
Users Hipal, MrOllie, AndyTheGrump, and Bon Courage have not participated in this RSN discussion, but are regulars on the board. Would it be appropriate for you to invite them for confirmation?
Regarding your comment about the 500 or so entries where Healthline already is used, I assumed a bot would tag and/or remove those. Comments, please? Zefr (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of a bot that can cleanly excise links (especially if they are refs), but maybe such a thing exists? In most cases, those have to be manually removed, and if they were the only reference supporting a sentence, need to be replaced with a "cite needed" tag. It ends up being a lot of work. I definitely support deprecating the link (e.g., making a notation on WP:RSP), but if add the link to the blacklist right now, suddenly 500+ articles can't be edited until that link is removed. I personally don't believe in adding a site to the blacklist and then leaving it to others to do the cleanup work. OhNoitsJamieTalk04:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a bot doesn't exist for such a function, one should be written for the admin toolkit. I assumed an admin could request a bot from tech to replace Healthline refs with [cn]. I don't write bots, but that seems a straightforward solution. Village pump? Zefr (talk)
Anyone could request a bot, not just an admin. Good luck; I don't think writing such a bot is as easy as you may think, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, the following block is both about to expire and now filled with entries: [22]
I guess increasing its duration would be reasonable, and perhaps creating sub-blocks on smaller ranges. Or an edit filter. Yeah, probably an edit filter. Hm hm. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see there's quite a lot of recent disruption from 36 (or a possibly larger range). Feel free to full block the whole range; I have an edit filter for selectively targeting large ranges that I can use on a longer-term basis. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ohnoitsjamie! Can you please take a look on the AngelicDevil29's unsourced additions on a large no. of articles, a behaviour which they have continued on inspite of being warned at least five times, including your message on their talk page, this month alone. The user has recently also breached the 3R rule on Langah (clan) by again adding unsourced claims, inspite of being requested to do so. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeezard's edit
Could you check over Yeezard (talk·contribs) edits? I am messaging you since I saw you've commented on their talk. Could you look through some of their edits? I noticed they made an edit that was clearly factually incorrect and paired it with source that didn't check out at all. I checked another one of their edit and the cited source was invalid. I see some of their other edits remain and I feel uncertain about the accuracy of the information. 20:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Diff/1144035734 for example. I tried to check the sources and I was unable to verify.
Special:Diff/1144034119. They changed say it's owned by Cargill, which is untrue. I checked the source they added and turns out artco.com has nothing to do with the company. I checked archived version too. I'm beginning to suspect it's vandalism only account. Graywalls (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I originally just deleted it (after I warned the user to stop creating A7 articles), but then saw that it'd been moved from draft, so recreated the last draft, which probably wasn't necessary. I'm fine if the draft is deleted; sending any of those through AFC is a waste of time anyway. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It probably won't make a lot of difference whether the draft is kept or not, as it isn't likely to become an article anyway. However, as long as is kept, the editing history needs to be kept too, so I have restored it and history merged it. JBW (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm confused. You deleted the summary of Nimona, citing that it was unsourced. But after checking 20 other movies, including Shrek, The Iron Giant and The Departed, movie summaries don't typically have sources. They have references to subjects shown in the movie, but I'm unsure what would qualify as a source for a summary. Apologies if I mistype anything or am horribly getting the rules wrong, this is my first time editing or writing in one of these. CormacMind (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OhnoitsV looks like a sock of Narendra7302 to me. Bringing it to your notice because the username of the former and your block of the latter suggests that you likely know more of the background than I. Abecedare (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to have a list of scams on this article. Reason I'm asking is that there is some new and novel scams going on, like the one that some Spam will cause you to lose everything in your bank accounts IF you click on a link that said "You WON $100,000,000!", one that claimed your kid is in jail, you lost all of your property in some kind of mortgage scam, you clicked on some Spam and you ended up with kiddie porn via some kind Trojan Horse bug. I've seen these on the news and some computer ads, in my newspaper in which my AG/DA has warned people of a new scam. Can a list of these be added to the Scam article? 216.247.72.142 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May you kindly remove your proposal that the wikipedia of hawpa be removed? I added "serhatnews" and "democrathaber" as sources to their connection to "kurden nasyonalist" i think 2 medium sized independent turkish news stations reporting about them is enough to comply with GNG. Thanks
Those aren't very strong sources. For one, the section on "Hawpa" is identical in both pieces, suggesting that one copied the other. Secondly, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations, the author of the pieces isn't identified, making it difficult to ascertain if these are articles written by the staff of the papers or whether they are editorials or an article submitted externally, neither of which would pass WP:RS. Per WP:PROD, you may dispute the tag yourself, but then I'll send it to WP:AFD unless you can come up with stronger sourcing. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Ritika Verma page
Dear Wikipedia Editor,
I request you to please restore this page to main space as the person is notable as she was awarded one of the prestigious award presented by the Indian Government and honorable President of India i.e. National Service Scheme award (NSS award). I have created this page on March 2022, I agree with your edits which you made to the draft now, the page is now crisp and clear.
Thank you very much and regards, Gargkk (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Winning a social work award does not automatically confer notability. I suggest taking the article through the WP:AFC process, though you'll probably be wasting your time as it's unlikely you'll find sufficient depth of coverage from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead already says this and i wrote it..HES offers over 900 courses spanning various liberal arts and professional disciplines, offered in on-campus, online, and hybrid formats. These courses are generally available to both its matriculated students and to the general public.
No one is hiding anything!
Also respectfully,
I DIDNT start an edit war, I collaborate with people -- even you if you recall. the lede was fine. People had different edits but it was fine. You made some I made some others made some..everyone is happy. Lyonsden1995 is a troll. This guy who has a hard on for Extension..goes through all the alumni pages at Havard Extension and scrubs their university affiliation. This guy is a troll. Look at his edits!
So please revert it back to before he edited it..also what he said isn't even true.
Extension is Harvard University's part-time, ***open-enrollment program***, offering undergraduate ALB and graduate ALM degrees primarily for nontraditional students. Academic certificates and a post-baccalaureate pre-medical certificate are also offered.
They don't offer any open enrollment degree programs. So please just revise his edit. There's a section of the leade that I mentioned above and it mentions the mission to punooc and open enrollment but the section for degrees is not it because it confuses people ..you need to be matriculated to get a degree and that is not open enrollment.
If you have any further questions please talk with me but please don't be your usual fiesty self my anxiety isn't handling this tn.
Very unlikely to be the same user; /30 is a *huge* range, which is why there's only a partial block on it. The Henry Cort edits appear to be good faith, albiet mildly disruptive; let's see if they respond to your feedback. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your reminder on this matter. I'm new here. I've been trying to get some help with source placement, etc.😭 Can you help with this? 🥰 216.247.72.142 (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless block
Hi, your two-year article specific range block on my current ip address is a bit pointless. Customers of the provider are regularly reassigned to massively different ranges and can’t, so far as I know, select a range. Regards, Chris. PS, I didn’t make the contested edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:B430:F300:657A:3C9B:37A7:B7C6 (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's exciting to hear. Since it's a very specific block, unless you are the editor it's intended for it's unlikely to affect you. I will continue adding partial blocks for that editor as needed. Partial blocks are great for avoiding too much collateral damage. I'm also pretty handy with edit filters as that user has no doubt noticed. Happy editing! OhNoitsJamieTalk18:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a regular spam-blacklist helper I wanted you to be aware of the new tool for blocking external domains. This should be used in lieu of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist for simple requests to block entire domains when no exceptions will need to be made. Blocking parts of domains, anything with regexen, and anything where the whitelist will be needed will still use the old process.
HI! I noticed that you have blocked the IP subject from modifying this page for vandalism. That's why I came here to ask for your help regarding it, since it is repeatedly vandalizing the Drag Race Philippines (season 2) page, disregarding all the rules and compromises made on the talk page. So we kindly ask for your help to avoid yet another edit war within the page. I thank you in advance. :) Dominikcapuan (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi it's Abdullah you removed my draft for a leather bags website. I didn't realized that it was considered spam. Just wanted a backlink from the worlds biggest encyclopedia wont happen again and thanks a lot for not adding this in the blacklist. Abdullah-Ibn-e-Akhtar (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the article was in draft-space as it was not completed and was missing references. Someone moved it to main-space and since then I am editing it there. I kindly request you to move the page to drafts so that I can complete the article ans submit it later. The purview of the page is far more than List of Rajput dynasties and states, it is far more elaborative and covers much broader area. Even the title 'Rajput Dynasties of India and Pakistan' was given in hurry.
/40 is a huge range; a full block would likely affect many good-faith IP users. We do sometimes block ranges that large (or larger), but only when the majority of edits from that range are disruptive. OhNoitsJamieTalk11:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note that this appears to have bled over to 2607:FB91:100E:213D:74FB:7159:B045:E135 in these edits. This additional range is also registered to T-Mobile in Detroit. It's without a doubt the same editor. The year 1870 in the disruptive edits refers to the founding year of Cedar Point amusement park, a point of contention this editor has made a big deal of in countless discussions at Talk:Cedar Point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sock accounts of Kamal Afghan01
A sock account Kamal Afghan01 created an article "Battle of Nara" which was reverted back to draft after the user was blocked. A new account, Surajsingh09, confident its same person, moved the draft article to regular article name. See here [24]. There are also other new accounts which overlap with Kamal Afghan01. They are RevolutionaryPatriot. The Contributions overlap with all previous sockaccounts of KamalAfghan01. See here. Clearly a duck.[25] and [26]. There are two more RTC710 and Khekom. How both take interest in making their first edits on a newly created article by sockpuppet Surajsingh09. See here [27] and [28]. I mentioned to Ponyo but he is out on vacation. 71.27.92.193 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as the admin who protected the page User talk:Emergency-user-slap because the user didn’t exist, and this page kept being recreated, apparently this user now exists and has inappropriately added a few trout-related templates on a few pages. See their contrib history at Special:Contributions/Emergency-user-slap.
Could you please do something about this, possibly a WP:NOTHERE block and/or unprotect the page since the user apparently exists now? I can’t report them to WP:AN or WP:ANI because I can’t leave a notice on their protected user talk page. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell? That dispute was years ago, I lost that argument and 100% dropped it years ago, and I didn't use administrative powers in that those disputes. Why in the world are you still obsessing over this today? None of this makes any sense. Sergecross73msg me23:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I feel like in that scenario, you were aiding a known long-term vandal, whether intentionally or otherwise, blatantly disregarding evidence that the entry was not originally added in good faith, and giving said long-term vandal the attention and recognition they craved. If you don't think to yourself that something's not right even after being presented with a mountain of evidence, then I think you're not doing your job as an admin. TheGrandDelusion(Send a message)00:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that fundamentally does not equate to the definition of Admin abuse. I merely restored the edits of a block evading editor on the grounds of WP:V, which is completely DENY-compliant. Now I ask you again, why are you obsessing, yet again, about a content dispute resolved 4 years ago? Especially after I warned you 2 years ago to stop harassing me about this? Twice even. I've never met someone so obsessed over harassing someone over a dead content dispute they won. This is completely baffling to me. Sergecross73msg me00:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with this episode. I should note that as primary schooler SPLHCB was my favorite record, and during that time I also greatly enjoyed the movie, and as such have personal biases. That said, I don't object to the inclusion of the cheesy SPLHCB cover album on the current Worst as the sources for it's inclusion are good enough. ANYWAY, I respect both of you as editors, and I'd rather not get involved. I can certainly understand the feeling of "unresolved injustices," but as I've aged I've become (somewhat) better at letting go of things and moving on. It's not always easy, but it's a great feeling when you can do it. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, there's very literally nothing to be done here. I'm just trying to figure out why it keeps on coming up every couple years even though it's not a recurring debate. To my recollection, no one has attempted to add, or even argue, that the Beatles album to the list since 2019. It's not some perennial debate that keeps coming up, GrandDelusion just randomly brings it up in completely unrelated discussions. Sergecross73msg me13:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Manji Sahib, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit on Abu Tesht not just that but also protecting the page [34] even though I haven't vandalized anything, neither have I added wrong information, the information you reverted also didn't need any sources it was just geographical, so if you could tell me the reason for all of this I'd appreciate it, thanks. MohamedWhd (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you look over recent edits made between myself and User:Revirvlkodlaku at Live (band). All edits made by myself and others, whether helpful or not, are being reverted to their last edit and it’s approaching WP:OWN. The biggest bone of contention right now involves my deletion of three stacked images, of different sizes, directly under a heading. The images were placed there only three months ago and are an eyesore as they appear, especially on mobile devices. I’ve tried to explain and direct them to WP:STACKING in order to show why this is an issue, to no avail as they apparently see no issue with the images as they are placed. Thanks for any assistance or guidance you can provide. NJZombie (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NJZombie is being overdramatic and disingenuous. As soon as they took the time to explain why stacked images are discouraged—something they merely mentioned previously as if it was fact—I did not revert back. User is just upset that I called them out on edit warring and immature behaviour. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see an attempt at conflict resolution devolve into name calling. Disingenuous would be stating that I never explained WP:STACKING previous to the final time which the edit history clearly shows I did. NJZombie (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions
Hello Ohnoitsjamie,
I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We wanted to invite you to join the study because we noticed that you have experience dealing with NPA violations in your work as an administrator, as such, we feel like you might have a unique viewpoint that could be very valuable for this line of research.
The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.
If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.
If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP. Thank you for your consideration.
The only way to fix that is to turn all of those cites into "Cite needed" tags; the original ref to film-reference was blacklisted and removed. A bot kept trying to re-add the links, so I intentially broke the name so that the bot would stop filling up the blacklist logs. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you look over this request on this talk page and consider changing the protection on the article page? I'm not sure why protection is restricted to template editors here. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used to use "template protection" for WP:SALTing in situations where full protection seemed excessive based on advice I'd received years ago; I no longer do that as it tends to confuse people. I've lowered the protection to "semi" for now (I'm concerned that if I remove it entirely we may have unregistered users trying to recreate the article prematurely). OhNoitsJamieTalk19:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly move the article name to Iran men's national football team, because articles related to team redirect to Iran men's national football team (a non-existing page) instead of Iran national football team.AkephalostheHeadless (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have seen that the recent edit on this page Suriya related to other names has been revoked from your side.
I would also like to bring into your notice, some of the other pages are still using it from where I have took a reference. Kindly take a look at the below pages and confirm:
Hello there, I noticed that you've changed my edit regarding that she recently gave birth to a daughter in February as I've read it on the "Personal life" section. I just had to put the number of children even if I read it. Arieledits2000 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've already been given feedback on those drafts. You'll need to address the feedback. I don't know enough about those topics to be of further assistance. OhNoitsJamieTalk11:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Page Protection.
Hey Jamie, I'm James. We have great names.
Thanks for your swift responses. I actually did both, applying for increased page protection and reported them for edit warring as they surpassed 3RR/qualify as someone with "clear intent to persist". Last time I had an issue, I tried both, and 2-month semi-page protection was the solution that was chosen, perhaps because that was an uncommunicative IP address?
So I opted for both again, but I understand re: vandalizing being inappropriate..because they didn't mar it with malicious content. Hopefully my report will yield results, especially since they were vitriolic and quite threatening even. Ugh, people.
Thank you for that. Really appreciate it. I'm so relieved that I was in the right about the ampersand usage, too. Phew. Sry to spam your talk page, but..Just wanted to inquire about "I don't see how these edits are improvements"--if that was directed towards me or them, and if me, what in particular? Just some clarification that I could elaborate with on the talk page, if it's me. Or why I swapped 2 actors just to appease them, maybe..Futile effort. But If you meant their reverse edits, never mind. But again, thanks for handling that. --Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire16:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a controversy some times back. But it went upto the Supreme Court of India and the court verdict was on behalf of St. Xaviers University. I have proof of it. Please refer to the link below:
Even after Supreme Court (the highest judicial authority in India) has proven the allegation completely wrong, then why are you people spreading this wrong news across internet and trying to defame the concerned person and the university.
I can contact the concerned authority in the university and can even upload the supreme court verdict here if needed for proof. Please let me what documents of proof are needed to remove these wrong allegations. I will do the needful.
Hi Jamie. I think it was you to whom I have reported this user and you have acted on it several times in the past year or two. (Let me know if it doesn't ring any bells, in case I am misremembering). This user is almost certainly the same one who has been blocked many times before, for the same kinds of disruptive and/or unnecessary edits - the pattern and subject matter are identical. As you can see, many of their edits have already been reverted by other editors, but I think that they need to stop wasting everyone's time. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why was I banned for adding two photos to a Wikipedia page? I need to go back and edit this page to reword the caption Pinus brutia to Pinus sp. because its identification is still not 100% certain.Gallip pine (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the template, sorry for deleting it. I deleted it because there was no link to the MfD discussion page then. Thanks for notifying. Brachy08(Talk)23:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
I was editing behind a public IP 185.100.232.91 to circumvent local internet censorship while I didn't realized my login session had expired for half an hour. I'm quite aware of MOS:DAB and fixing the format of dab pages with a (disambiguation) qualifier and missing entry of base name on its top per MOS:DABPRIMARY. I notice you reverted my edits on Forks (disambiguation), JPN (disambiguation), Loken (disambiguation), Coexist (disambiguation) and Matty (disambiguation). Thus, I would like to hear your advice about this.
Not every disambig needs a primary topic, and I fail to see how any of those meet primary topic criteria. Fork and Coexistence do, but those are already separate disambig pages; other grammatical forms do need need to have the same primary topic. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that these dab pages must have a primary topic while the base name is automatically a primary topic if they have a "(disambiguation)" qualifier. However, if it really has no primary topic, it should be moved to the base name per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; all of those disambig pages are fine the way they are. Disambig policies and guidelines are based on improving navigation for likely use cases; none of your changes represent obvious improvements. There are thousands of other improvements that can be made to Wikipedia; adding primary topics to those pages is not useful.OhNoitsJamieTalk15:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see your actual argument for reverting. Have you really read these guidelines? Did you enjoy reverting these edits simply because they were made by ip? You can't use none of your changes represent obvious improvements as an excuse to issue an edit warring here. Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and MOS:DABPRIMARY before make more claims about this. If you are feeling embarrassed about this, I can sympathize. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I misread the diff. The source is paywalled so I wasn't able to see if it supported the "worst" characterization, but I see now that your edit was not vandalism. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you and some other editors trying to hide the scandals of 2023 AMC 10/12A? Even MAA acknowledged the facts. Please see the important announcement of MAA's page https://maa.org/math-competitions. In this situation, do your guys still want to hide the scandal? Could you explain why? As I said, if my edit is not accurate, you can edit it but not to hide it. You can never hide a scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:160:EB08:0:0:0:0:B (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is probably a repeat/SPA./LTA..something about adding errors to articles by altering/mispelling the names of the deceased people killed in mass deaths of almost any kind - accidents, disasters, mass murders, spree killings - and changing the ages of especially dead children (even though the ages are correct & cited before these odd changes). This editing seems purposeful and I have seen the exact same editing pattern somewhere - I think in "Bath School disaster" but can't quite find where/when it occurred. If I could search edit summaries on an article for the phrases "corrections of victims list"/"Number error"/"Name error" and similar wording then I might be able to suss out what I am almost certain is a LTA/SPA/POV/error-adding editor. At the very least I am going to ask for permanent auto-confirmed protection on the Bath School article. I sometimes do get tired of feeling like Sisyphus... Shearonink (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the filters are private so I can't view them but thanks. Yeah, I know I have come across this SPA/LTA editing before...somewhere. They will even occasionally sprinkle some legit edits in amongst their odd alterations, one of their usual edits being altering ages by a year especially to children's ages in some disaster article. I keep an eye on some of the tragedy/disaster type articles, not because I am especially interested in these awful sad events but because I think our history shouldn't be mashed-up together with whatever is floating some vandal's boat... Thanks again. Shearonink (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you can't even see the filter hits when it's private? I was thinking that "private" just hid the rules definitions. The good news is the filter is working so far, and can easily be modified if they try to find ways around it. Let me know if any edits sneak through and I'll do so.OhNoitsJamieTalk21:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When a tennis player becomes inactive after more then a year we add this on the top of the profile, check Qiang Wang (tennis). We also maintain a list of the inactive players on the 2023 WTA Tour page under Inactivity, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashona (talk • contribs)
I'm asking you where is the consensus to add "inactive" to the lede sentence of tennis players? You're saying "We add this" as if there is one; so far, you seem to be the only editor insisting on that convention. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you said Pointless addition in your title comment, so was not sure how you determined that, and how it was that related to disruptive. We say “former” player for a retired player in the lede, but if not officially retired, not current playing and having no ranking, or a suspension, it is an inactive player.
Former/current is fine, but you should have a consensus to add "inactive." Where is your reliable for the word "inactive" applying to these players? The WTA doesn't use that term anywhere on her profile. You deciding that a player is "inactive" because they haven't played for a certain period sounds like WP:SYNTH unless you can provide sources for such a status.OhNoitsJamieTalk18:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make any edits to the WTA Tour record page. There was a column already for active players. Brooksby is currently suspended for the rest of the 2023 season and beyond, that makes him inactive.
Not a mistake; years ago, I was in the habit of using template protection as a slightly less restrictive measure then full, and I could've sworn there was a guideline around it but I haven't been able to find it, and as such I've stopped using that level. Is there an issue with that level at the moment where it needs to be increased/decreased? OhNoitsJamieTalk22:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not at all. I was having a discussion with friends on discord about when our birthdays are and the famous and not so famous people we share them with. That guy came up and then we were all a bit confused about why that page would be restricted to template editors if the purpose was salting. So I figured I'd ask if it was intentional. Clovermoss🍀(talk)22:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Hi, Ohno. There's an unblock request on UTRS (UTRS appeal #81774) from a person on an IP in a range which you have blocked. The range is 80.233.32.0/19. The appellant claims not to have edited before, and I don't see any reason not to assume good faith. Looking at the appalling editing history, I don't think that there's any question of removing the block, but do you think making it anon-only might be an option? JBW (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know that the person adding and inserting unsourced claims is back at Hai Kun-class submarine. Previously you protected the page against this vandal, but it seems after a month he has returned and is inserting the exact same unsourced claims as before (see the major edit on 4 December 2023). I have restored the page to how it was before it was vandalized, however, if this person continues I hope you can step in like you did previously? Thanks in advance SailingthroughHistory (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
I don't understand your action. The user is devastating the page with various registered new users viewable in history. You have the wrong user. The changes made by the registered user conflict with the Wikipedia articles of the respective historical periods (with lots of sources). The user made personal attacks. 2A02:B125:8F00:F619:61EB:561C:E112:4310 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that was an appropriate G14 deletion. There's nothing prohibiting editors attempting a rewrite of an article to do so in Draftspace (though the AfC tag was indeed misguided). Also, as I commented on the talk page one of the users you blocked, they're unlikely to be socks, and this actually appears to be an undocumented school project. I raised this back in 2017, and meant to reach out to the instructor to explain how their assignment has been causing problems for Wikipedia, but never got around to actually doing so. I might have to revisit the issue soon.
In the Rat Na case, I think the best possible option would be to restore the draft and direct the user to keep working on it until it's of acceptable quality (or until they lose interest). --Paul_012 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't view it, but the number of hits on it since the last edit to it seems to be rather disproportionate. Is this intentional, or is it bugging out? DrowssapSMM15:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's hoping your holiday time is wonderful and - especially -
that the New Year will be an improvement on the old. CHEERS!
Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.
The editor targeted by that partial block was engaging in tiresome tribe/caste edit-warring, probably not the same editor; that's a fairly large range. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion of deeply offensive material
I have reverted a recent message here on the basis that I viewed it as deeply offensive. Over to you if you wish for revdel, or even to reinstate it since it shows the IP editor up completely. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Back in June 2023, you blocked and warned an editor that continued spamming of this URL would result in it being blacklisted [39]. I've just blocked User:Sebastienenthailande for spamming the same URL. I've purged the link from mainspace, but I thought I'd give you a heads up. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not to fully block that large range, but I've made some adjustments such that they won't be leaving any more messages on your talk page. Let me know if they cause disruption elsewhere. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - could you please add a protection to Claudette Colvin’s page, as you did two years ago? Please let me know if you’d like to chat about this request - if there’s a way for me to email you or if you prefer to email me. Thank you. SpeakersBureau200167 (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was reverted due to Wikipedia not being a 'restaurant directory' on Lyndhurst's page but there was already restaurants previously there and there's currently one as well. Why am I being persecuted for adding information of relevance? Please advise. Biggly (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have declined my request to increase page protection of Nothing, citing lack of disruptive activity. How much disruptive activity/vandalism is warranted for an increase of page protection? PicoMath (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your block of 216.125.0.0/16
Hi Jamie, see this block log; when removing talk page access on the original three-year school block by Materialscientist (who happened to revert an edit to Lyman Beecher by this IP on my watchlist), did you intend to change the block length to 72 hours? I've restored the block and reset the block length for another three years, because it seems clear that nothing good is coming from this range being allowed to edit. Graham87 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the block length to 72 hours was definitely a mistake on my part, not sure how that happened. Apologies for the inconvenience, and thanks for letting me know! OhNoitsJamieTalk14:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can i ask why my ip is blocked from editing information about televisions?
Hello my friend. Sadly I need to request a block for Jimthing (talk·contribs) who's blown far past WP:3RRWP:ORWP:RS. He has been warned extensively on the article Talk page for Apple community and on his own Talk page that everything he's doing is categorically unencyclopedic. This guy does not believe in any rules or respect whatsoever, is a fansite person, and is WP:NOTHERE. He has edit warred a dump of trivia about Shazam with no sources at all. It's all on my User Talk page warnings to him. Once he even littered Lewis and Clark Expedition with a section dedicated to one unsourced sentence about a travel brand with their name. Just on Apple community alone I'm pretty sure he's up to five instances of edit warring of the same content, surrounding before and after he was exhaustively instructed on the article Talk page and templated on his User Talk page which he simply reverted and repeated. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk)20:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smuckola: That's completely unfounded. I added extra links during reinstating this section and a whole load of other tidying up editing, while you instantly removed it without even bothering to either check properly nor asking me about them. Rude behaviour. As for "is a fansite person" means what exactly? Apart from being rude again (then using one addition to Lewis and Clark Expedition from MONTHS ago to help make your case, is pretty low behaviour too!) Jimthing (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though in some cases it might not be obvious vandalism; many of those target LTAs and may appear innocuous. If you're familiar with the LTA feel free to identify it as such on the AIV template. Looking at hits from the last few months, there's about a 5% or less false positive rate. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP user 158.62.50.158
Sir I think this IP user is mine when I started here last year and I don't know tht time how to used Wikipedia... because as I visited the IP user has been partially blocked and when I'm not logged in my account and as unanimous it said this IP has been blocked...can U unblocked please 🥺 thanksRc ramz (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You put a one year block on 174.214.48.0/22 for several articles (Deputy, Indiana, Talk:Deputy, Indiana, Talk:Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics, Talk:Leaders of the Ku Klux Klan and Talk:Ku Klux Klan) but we've had 6 garbage edits from this one IP. I was about to do a block on it, but decided to bring it to you instead, as I don't want to walk on your carefully crafted ip range block. Dennis Brown2¢10:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with expanding the block to full. I make an effort to limit collateral damage, but the vandalism expands beyond limited targets, it's unavoidable. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this has randomly shoved onto your talkpage to deal with. The user above has been engaged in a days long campaign at the article in question to effectively railroad their POV that basically seems to be their demand the article declare the game is being overall terribly received because it killed Batman.
The user was only a couple of days ago blocked for edit-warring with another user on the same article (which for disclosure I reported), where it was observed by multiple people this user has a WP:IDHT problem and tries to claim policy supports them when it doesn't.
I really am at my wit's end at this point as I really don't know what to do at this point while avoiding a 3RR situation given I've tried to engage with them on the talkpage of the article (even as they've accused me of deliberately ignoring sources even though said source was published days after the edits they were upset at me over), and when they've added sources but badly used them as part of the POV-pushing I've tried to fairly structure them into the article[40] but they've wholesale refused any interest in that sort of compromise[41].
Frankly I think the fact they've come here asking for you to resolve the dispute only to continue their own editing speaks volumes to how I don't think they want a third-party to amicably resolve it so much as hoping an admin will help shove through their POV. Rambling Rambler (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
