• Lewis Dunk, Nickelodeon Kart Racers, Nickelodeon Kart Racers 2: Grand Prix, Soul (2020 film), The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part, Untogether

Hi, I saw that you reverted this edit by an IP in "Islam in Bangladesh":[1]. I just wondered if you had seen this person before and had any thoughts about it, or if it was just a general "unsourced" revert. They made basically the same edit again, so I reverted it, and some others.

I've noticed they keep adding claims about "non-denominational Muslims" to many articles, that misrepresent the sources and don't seem to followWP:NPOV. The latest is the creation of thisghair-madhhabi redirect. I'm trying to figure out what approach I should take. I've reverted some of their edits, left a few warnings on differnt IP talk pages, and had a somewhat frustrating discussion with them on an article talk page, but they don't seem to get it. If you have an opinion, let me know, thanks... --IamNotU (talk)19:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of ongoing block evasion, just looked likereference hijacking. Thanks for the heads up.OhNoitsJamie^Talk20:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any evidence of block evasion, just ongoing problems with NPOV, OR, etc., that are crossing into disruptive territory. It might end up at ANI, not sure. Thought you might be familiar with them, if not then no problem, thanks... --IamNotU (talk)23:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind closingWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeshan Mahmood now that you've blocked the sock? I am not an admin/clerk so I am not allowed to. --MrClog (talk)16:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you reverted three 'notable alumni' from theGilroy College page I have been editing. I was wondering why this is? Is this a referencing issue? If so, why did you revert some of the alumni and not others?— Precedingunsigned comment added byGuy incognito411 (talk •contribs)16:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entries Ididn't remove would likely passWP:GNG (i.e., being a member of a notable band, passingWP:ATHLETE, etc.).OhNoitsJamie^Talk16:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AtGlobal Records we kept some artists for some reason. I agreed with the other user. They are bigger in Romania than some on that list such asVanotek and evenDJ Project.--.karellian-24 (talk)18:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the message on your talk page, we don't list named/bands unless they have articles.OhNoitsJamie^Talk17:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lariss doesn't even owe a Romanian page, she has videos with 70 and 55 million views. Lariss on the English Wikipedia was deleted, and keeps being deleted, even though in Romania she's big. Just because she was deleted years ago when she was rising. MIRA has 7 videos over 25 million views, the maximum being 83. Now do you understand why we added them? Because they don't have English pages, but most of them are bigger thanVanotek andDJ Project which are on that list. --.karellian-24 (talk)18:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To get such views in Romania, dozens of millions, you must be at least regional force somewhere in Europe. In Eastern Europe or Southern Europe, sometimes our videos are also released to the West especially France etc. --.karellian-24 (talk)18:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Each language Wikipedia is run independently. If the article on Lariss got deleted, that means the consensus on English Wikipedia was that the article doesn't meet our notability criteria. Technically, having articles on other Wikis doesn't automatically make the subject notable on English Wikipedia, but I'm OK with leaving the entries that have .ro articles.OhNoitsJamie^Talk17:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically she is not on Wikipedia because her first article was deleted many years ago, and since then everytime when somebody is recreating it gets nomination and wrong deletion. Why? Because the users are wrongly calling for "deletion" even there is evidence she is enough notable. Many noobs are nominalising. I understand you, brother, because I must explain this knowledge to a foreigner. A little bit of Lariss for you:Dale Papi andDroppin da Bomb. She's very popular with her genre.--.karellian-24 (talk)19:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think she's notable now, feel free to go todeletion review or if you have substantially more content than the last article, recreate it, where it will have to survive another AfD if challenged. Until then, we don't list music acts that don't have established notability on English Wikipedia.OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Just to know, when I added them I was rational and objective, the other guy who is only into Romanian dance music also agreed. I will try to create her page in the future, and then we see if it stays. Regards--.karellian-24 (talk)19:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#RfC on welcome template standardisation.Naypta ☺ |✉ talk page | 08:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Naypta ☺ |✉ talk page |08:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am interested in learning about the proper formatting process for comments on the AfD page. I see you edited a number of mine to indent below other comments. Many of my comments were generally related to the discussion and not in response to others who posted their views. I may have done something wrong, so I would like to know how to properly comment from a general perspective in the future. Thank you!Mlepisto (talk)23:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The convention is an asterisk for each [[2]] (i.e., "Keep", "Delete"). For readability, comments are usually threaded underneath !votes, with each colon (:) creating an additional indentation. Ideally, an AfD discussion should just be !votes, with limited commented. (See discussions forMay 5, as an example).OhNoitsJamie^Talk23:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the example. Would it be appropriate to go in and reorganize or edit/reduce/consolidate mine so it isn't such a mess?Mlepisto (talk)10:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to that, as long as you don't remove a comment of yours that someone responded directly too (or if you move it, move both comments).OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was thinking about removing some of the links that I now understand don't help as I have learned more about the criteria and since I am updating the article there really isn't need for the inexperienced deluge of sources on the AfD page, right? The threading of your replies to me for the second batch was more about the policy than the sources. If you're OK with me attempting that per the above I will give it a shot. Feel free to revert if I do something wrong. I am not trying to create more work for you, just trying to get rid of some of my comments and extra junk if it is preferable to not have them.Mlepisto (talk)13:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I don't mind reviewing your changes. It takes awhile to "learn the ropes," I've been doing this for a long time and I'm still learning new things about policies, guidelines, etc. There's a lot to digest, and things change over time as well.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the biggest issue is that I am doing edits in small batches or I forget something and then add another minor edit and it probably makes it harder for others to follow if there's a bunch of them. Trying to get better at that... And the interface/markup is a bit difficult. If you have suggestions, I definitely would appreciate the feedback.Mlepisto (talk)13:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think youmeant to blockAanchalmahlotra, but that account does not currently appear to be blocked. Strangely, they are requesting an unblock so it's at least plausible my coffee hasn't kicked in yet and I'm missing something obvious. --Yamla (talk)14:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for catching that. I'm still on my first cup.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was mentioned on the sock puppet investigate, and I can prove that I am not a sock puppet of the Gun23man or whatever. What do you need? I can tell you.NamelessLameless (talk)18:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to comment at the investigation.OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, my name is Sarah.

I have been one of the people making edits to theLX Xander Wikipedia page, which it seems you've been keeping an eye on. thank you for making sure th page is up to Wikipedia's standards

I am a fan of LX Xander, I've followed him for a couple of years on instagram. He is originally from my town in England but i think he lives in LA now. i had added one bit of information to his page before and I noticed that some people had started vandalizing the page over the past couple of months - If you look at some of the earlier edits made to the page you can see there is a lot of hateful vandalism. I actually saw someone on social media from my town, someone who didn't like him when he lived here, posting about some of the insulting edits they had made to the page and laughing about it. I got bullied a lot at school last year and it looked to me like they were trying to bully him, so I decided to to fix it myself, and i kept trying to revert the edits myself and also to keep removing anything that seemed old and irrelevant, as I know that some of the stuff was added as a malicious attempt to embarass him rather than because it's relevant information, like when they put his dad's name on there and stuff about his old music. but they kept making the edits so i kept trying to fix it

I am new to Wikipedia, I had never edited it before this, and I did not fully understand the rules. I even emailed a couple of the references that were added by the 'haters' pretending to be his manager and requested their removal, which was definitely a step too far. I'm just a fan, I'm actually only 15, i've not been at school since the quarantine started and i've had a lot of time on my hands

Anyway, it seems that between these 'haters' vandalizing the page and myself trying to fix the edits, I have actually caused more harm than good and now it seems you have added this flag to his page, saying that it looks like one of the contributors is close to him. Obviously now I feel terrible, because although I was trying to do something good, now it looks bad on him and his reputation, as if he or his manager is editing his Wikipedia page, when it was actually me lol. I don't even think that knows about the the situation

I'm writing to ask if you would please consider removing this flag, sir - it's my fault that it's up there, and the last thing i wanted was to ruin the page. I have always tried to make sure that all my edits were totally factual and not biased, and I have no intention of making any more edits to the page as I can see I am causing more harm than good. From now on I will not touch the page at all, you can even block me? it seems unfair that his reputation might be damaged because i didn't know what i was doing. If you could remove the flag, I wouldn't feel as bad about everything. i've never even met him, i just thought it was unfair that people were trying to vandalise his page. Thank you for your consideration sir

5.198.8.143 (talk)18:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I observed that you always block users who don't have even an account. Please tell the reasonHeyday to you (talk)12:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need to be a little more specific, I don't know what you referring to.OhNoitsJamie^Talk12:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dude is talking about IP users.NamelessLameless (talk)05:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP was just confused. I probably would have done the exact same things if I hadn’t known better... why didn’t you at least try and talk to them? Regards. 21:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

They had two warnings. Now they have plenty of time to read those warnings.OhNoitsJamie^Talk21:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying:)Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017^{(My profile |My contribs |speak to me)}21:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ohnoitsjamie, hope you are well. Would it be possible to revoke talk page access for2605:7c00:7:1::/64 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RBLs ·block user ·block log)? They were blocked as a webhost however it looks like they are vandalizing their talk page. Thank you! --LuK3(Talk)15:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneOhNoitsJamie^Talk15:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. --DQB (owner /report)19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I am unable to close the columns in the Wikipedia page list of busiest airports in IndiaIt's happening only in this page please do anythingKtdk (talk)08:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I remove passenger traffic for the year 2019-2020 then I am able to close Please check itKtdk (talk)09:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you had any additional comment or objection to the unblock request ofUser:Rajan.hoxha.331dot (talk)10:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:331dot I'm OK with giving them another chance. I recall that I was on the fence as to whether to block indef or for a fixed period at the time of the block.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expect I may not be going about this the best way but I have a concern that a possible follow up question (one that I thought about) might lead to an editor making an admission on line that might not be for the best. See [Youth Defence|Update] where mention is made of 'I worked as a doctor' Hence my bringing it to the attention of an admin.SovalValtos (talk)22:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! AtMKCheserek's Talk page you indicated a longer block would be in order if they were to continue adding unreliable sources. Today they did just that again (link), after I hadinformed them ranker.com was low quality.Robby.is.on (talk)16:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Blocked for one week.OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Happy editing,Robby.is.on (talk)18:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie sir could you please do anything to close the sections inList of busiest airports in India because of 2019-20 list the sectionswere not closing I'm not skilled in itKtdk (talk)03:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitosis Researcher (talk ·contribs). Think that Mitosis Researcher isGTA5Player (talk ·contribs)? Focused on the idea of boys being full grown at age 16, just like GTA5Player is focused on that.Flyer22 Frozen (talk)19:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the GTA5Player account again, GTA5Player was focused on adding age 18. Mitosis Researcher reminds me more of some other sock; can't recall a master.Flyer22 Frozen (talk)19:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will through theAdult article edit history. I see that you are still watching that and keeping the socking to a minimum there.Flyer22 Frozen (talk)19:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So briefly looking through the Adult edit history, there is stuff likethis -- an edit you reverted that was focused on age 16. The account is marked as a GTA5Player sock. It seems that GTA5Player has also been focused on age 16 as well, and I wasn't misremembering. I'd need to look at his different sock accounts to get a better feel for him again.Flyer22 Frozen (talk)19:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, same editor. Blocked.OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susenaes is trying to get me to upload a likely-copyvio image at Commons (seec:User talk:AlanM1#Upload image) to apparently evade their block.—[AlanM1 (talk)]—07:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin on Commons, but I filed a report there. Thanks,OhNoitsJamie^Talk15:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rice not spice is having fun. End it, can you...? All the best,——Serial^#18:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The end. :)OhNoitsJamie^Talk19:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thumbs up*——Serial^#19:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to pull TPA for them as well. --LuK3(Talk)19:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie. I seethis users talk page (content) was deleted and was wondering why as I had warned them in a personal plea about genre warring which I see they're continuing with. Can I repost the message I previously gave them?Robvanvee11:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that, I've restored it. That was deleted as part of a mass deletion of what I believed where talk page creations by a banned LTA. That one shouldn't have been in the batch.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again Jamie. Sorry to be a pain but not seeing any of the restored content yet. Could you take a look please. I ask because I am unable to find the message I left them in my contributions list, possibly due to their talk page content being deleted.Robvanvee18:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agh, I must've been looking at the preview and missed the "restore revisions" part. They should be restored now. Apologies for the inconvenience.OhNoitsJamie^Talk23:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted, thanks Jamie.Robvanvee05:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you at Recently Active Admins. It is fairly well reported that the wife of a notorious person currently in the news has filed for divorce and changed her name, but what her new name is hard to find. We have an editor who has found a source reporting the name and insists on not only inserting the wife's prior name in articles, but creating redirects from herchanged name. Not sure this qualifies for revdel but certainly the redirects should be deleted, though not sure under what criterion. See[3].EEng22:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My gut is that at least the redirects to her former name should be deleted, but I don't know if that's technically speedyable; it would depend on the source. I'm going to take it to ANI.OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'm blanking the redirects in the meantime.EEng22:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe AN would be a little lower-profile than ANI?EEng22:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, good point, but too late. I'd be OK with deleting it from there as well.OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects have been deleted as attack pages byDavid Eppstein, but it seems to me that 4 edits to the target article should be rev-deleted, starting at 21:28 with its edit summary.Yngvadottir (talk)22:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir the user name Carl Grass field is always reverting my edits see KLM fleet Air Canada and All Nippon Airways fleet page history other than him all are accepting my edits see these pagesKtdk (talk)12:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're trying to spin offKLM Fleet into a separate article, and Carl Grass disagrees with that action, thus it's aWP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Is there any precedent for making separate fleet articles? You could also propose spinning off the article onTalk:KLM to try to reach a consensus. Also, check outWikipedia:SUBARTICLE for our policy/guidelines on the matter.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then what I should do to make KLM fleet Air Canada fleet and All Nippon Airways fleet asa separate article and all the other users are accepting my edits user Carl Grass field was not accepting I need your supportKtdk (talk)14:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered that question above. You don't get to unilaterally decide that fleet articles are appropriate spinoffs. You need a consensus or a strong policy-based reason. The current prose size ofKLM size is about 60k, which is borderline for meriting a spinoff article. It would also depend on any established conventions or precedents for Airline related articles.OhNoitsJamie^Talk16:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed unsourced statements ' Largest operator' in both the pages but a use is reverting it with various references I don't want an edit warKtdk (talk)12:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A source was added for Lufthansa; I replaced a circular ref with a better one from Boeing, and informed Murtaza2000 of our policy regarding circular references. I appreciate you not wanting to edit war, but generally speaking you should try to resolve the issue via theWP:BRD cycle first. In this case, Murtaza2000 attempted to supply refs when you challenged them, so there wasn't any need to report them to me or anywhere else. IfWP:BRD fails, the next appropriate venue isWP:ANEW.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Apologies - I am new to this and am not navigating very well through the "talk" process. I can totally take down the legal "threat" part but can't figure out how to do so, if someone would help out with that. I am just at a loss as to how someone can post such incorrect info on here about this school. My family founded it, I tend to know a little more about the history than this BillHPike person. If we are allowed to edit pages, why can't we edit with the correct info? I think that's a fair question. I mean no disrespect.Kelhaddock (talk)17:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply announcing your willingness to retract a threat (implied or otherwise), as you've done here, is sufficient.WP:Verfiability andreliable sources are two of our core policies. AJC easily meets our reliable sources criteria. If you wanted to add additional information (for instance, what the school is abouttoday) you can do so if you can find a reliable source for current information.OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See[4]. Sigh.Spicy (talk)22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nuked and salted all of them.OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andanother.Spicy (talk)11:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, anothersock. One wonders what the point is.Spicy (talk)18:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andanother.Spicy (talk)14:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agh, so muchsalt, I'm going to have to get my blood pressure treated!OhNoitsJamie^Talk15:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that didn't take long.Spicy (talk)01:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP sock.Spicy (talk)19:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Mind you if I want to explain how on earth did you revert my edit? The edit itself isn't vandalism, nor disruptive. And the reason why I did was because I wanted to move the player to a safe spot where it can't cover the letters. Much appreciated if you respond me! –DoanVN (talk)04:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, a mistake on my part, I see that you were fixing a text visibility issue. I do wonder if there isn't a better way to accomplish that, like using a different template to display the ogg that alreadly handles that or has a parameter. In any case, the markup works.OhNoitsJamie^Talk12:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right. Try not to be lazy next time, and observe carefully before choosing to edit any page. Also, I would say there's no tool or something to fix the media player's position. If you are interested in finding more about this, check out theteahouse. Thanks for your time! –DoanVN (talk)13:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the teahouse sounds like a great resource for me to learn more about Wikipedia.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie Would you mind taking a look at1C_Company - it seems very suspect from an editing perspective. There are a number of editors who appear to be single-purpose that are editing it or related content. The most recent isSpecial:Contributions/Smileirk. I brought this up in Teahouse to learn more about how to handle it. Thatarchived discussion is here listing a number of editors including the most recent one.1C_(disambiguation) is repeatedly being redirected to this article as well. Thank you.Mlepisto (talk)21:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the cleanup tags are all appropriate; it looks like a mess of a COI/promotional article, not to mention poor writing. I'd recommend filing aWP:COIN report, listing all of thesingle purpose accounts (I see several at a glance).OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I have request to delete an image in above mentioned page International section phase 2 image I've replaced with correct schedule in the form of referenceKtdk (talk)04:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're talking aboutEvacuations by India related to the COVID-19 pandemic, do you mean remove the image from that article or delete it from Wikipedia? If it's the former, why can't you do that? If it's the latter, we don't delete images unless they meet some deletion criteria. More importantly, why are you asking me to do this? I'm not very familiar with the topic of that page.OhNoitsJamie^Talk12:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to upping the block onMayorOfRiverdale to an indef as a UPOL violation? Role account and all that.GeneralNotability (talk)22:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point. No objections here.OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't continue the edit war. --evrik ^(talk)23:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is you who are edit warring against multiple other editors.OhNoitsJamie^Talk23:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iinitiated a discussion at WPANI about revdels of edits related to thekilling of George Floyd. I think you are one of the administrators who made revdels based on BLP, connected to that set of topics.

Were some of those revdels to protect the privacy of what I referred to as the NEW NAME in the WPANI discussion?If there were other revdels to protect the privacy of what I referred to as the OLD NAME, were you aware the individual in question was not a BLP1E, and a web search for their name triggered hundreds of thousands of web hits?

Anyhow, even though I didn't explicitly mention you, at WPANI, I am giving you a headsup of that discussion.Geo Swan (talk)23:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification; I'll weigh in if necessary. To answer your questions, my recollection is that an individual was trying to seed Wikipedia with numerous permutations of the name of an individual who probably didn't need to be dragged into a Wikipedia article, and I was erring on the side of caution. I didn't spend any time searching the web for that person, because they were not the main the topic of the article. My concerns were about the new name, not the old name.OhNoitsJamie^Talk23:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to recent edits onCorbin Bleu - please seeWikipedia:Long-term abuse/Projects. Hope this clears any confusion!Naleksuh (talk)22:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, wasn't aware of that LTA. Cheers,OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chole Jay Basonter Din Please do not delete this article This is a novel written byHumayun AhmedPlease tell me where the problem is I will solve it again,Thank you.HSaurab(talk •work)18:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were several problems with the article, namely (1) the name is a mispelling of the novel's name (it's spelled "Chole JayBosonter Din") and (2) the opening paragraph made no sense; it wasn't clear if you were talking about a book, or a novel. Please don't create articles until you have a better idea of how Wikipedia works. I suggest usingWP:AFC until you get the hang of it.OhNoitsJamie^Talk21:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I returned this morning to the page on List of Biochemists since 11th June, when I was surprised to see that I had been blocked, for the following reason: "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions." It took a while to understand what my crime was, but it appears to have been that I used hyphens (1883-1970) rather than en dashes (1883–1970) in new entries or entries that previously contained birth years but not death years. I should have realized that en dashes were used (as they always are in other stuff I write, for example, for journals and books), but I thought people were using hyphens and tried to follow them. It was certainly worthwhile to point out to me that I should use en dashes, as I shall do in the future (if there is a future), but to call it vandalism is surely extreme. If you really think that the edits I have made since 11th June are not "useful contributions" then you are welcome to restore the page to the state it was in before then and I shall go away. That way you'll get rid of at least 90 giants who created the subject in the 20th century, and restore around 40 people who contributed nothing significant — fathers of actresses, purveyors of quack remedies, etc.Athel cb (talk)07:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the block log for your account (Athel db); if you're talking about[5], yes it is quite disruptive to converten masse hundreds of date ranges to use the wrong dash. The reason for the block was pretty clearly explained on that IP page. If one is making large scale changes like that, it's probably a good idea to check something likeWP:MOS (specifically,Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes) to make sure there isn't a good reason they were already using an en dash.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"it is quite disruptive to convert en masse hundreds of date ranges to use the wrong dash." Yes, but I didn't do that. I didn't "convert" any dashes. I added dashes where there were none before, for example, changing (b. 1899) to (1899-1965) (invented example), or including date ranges in new entries. To call this "convert en masse hundreds of date ranges" is a distortion of language and an inaccurate description of what I did. Can you point to a single example where I changed – to - ? Just one, let alone "en masse"?Athel cb (talk)06:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That block was likely in response to anWP:AIV report six months ago. I'm not wasting my time discussing it further.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this photo a copyright violation or not there is no evidence that the airport was Amritsar if am not wrong the user who uploaded the image have taken. Photo from this sitehttps://travelandynews.com/british-airways-helps-thousands-of-british-travellers-return-home-from-india/

Ktdk (talk)11:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking closely at the resolutions, I'd say it was likely takenfrom this page (exact same resolution), which credits it to BA. Looks like the origin ishere.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That file should be deleted from Wikipedia commons and there is no evidence that the airport shown in the picture was Amritsar AirportKtdk (talk)14:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already nominated it for deletion on Commons as a copyright violation. I don't doubt that it's at Amritsar; that's how British Airways describes it in the source.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is now operating at User:Nadeemul Islam. Best,GPL93 (talk)00:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a user with that name. Can you link to it?OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It'sUser:Nadeemul Islam ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nadeemul_Islam contribs). Best,GPL93 (talk)15:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the Archbishop of Canterbury, and they are vandalising my articleArchbishop of Canterbury. The King might have complained to you. Kindly help. Did you realise that I was hovering over you yesterday? See you in 2022. Bye! -117.204.132.171 (talk)12:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP range can hover in a block for a spell. Harass me again and the next block will be longer.OhNoitsJamie^Talk15:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have noticed that the article for Robert L. BirminghamRobert L. Birmingham is being nominated for deletion. I hope that this reaches you since I am still figuring out the ropes of Wikipedia! I would like to nominate that this page not be deleted. Professor Birmingham is a notable member of the UConn Law faculty and has been teaching for over 40 years. He has written many book and and law review articles and his publications are often cited in the field of law. I sincerely apologize for previously removing the deletion notice from this article (as previously mentioned, still learning!). I hope to hear from you soon.Busybee1000 (talk)00:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Busybee1000[reply]

Removing the "prod" tag is perfectly acceptable; that's basically a "soft recommend for deletion." Anyone can dispute it. You are also encouraged to participate in the AfD discussion for Birmingham;see this guide for information regarding you can best contribute. You'll also want to review ourWP:PROF notability guideline, as that would be the most relevant specific guideline to the notability of academics. Cheers,OhNoitsJamie^Talk02:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that protectingthis page won't do any good as the LTA will just hop to another page to vandalise. --Minorax (talk)15:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That occurred to me, but given how much that page had been hit I thought I'd give it a rest. Is there an LTA page for this one?OhNoitsJamie^Talk15:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. It's related to the string of accounts attached toThe Suix, seethis edit. --Minorax (talk)16:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the edits/summary contains "You dead rats!" --Minorax (talk)16:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohnoitsjamie,Recently you have reverted my edit on the Galaxy S10. The sources of the article you have mentioned on the summary states that it's the fingerprint scanner and not the proximity sensor. I contacted the writer of the article and he said that he would update the article whenever possible. One of my friends own an original Samsung Galaxy S10+ and its build menu shows a virtual proximity sensor (covering the top part of the display while touching it) but not a proximity sensor because the display does not give any space to its placement. This is one sourcehttps://www.reddit.com/r/galaxys10/comments/b0dlsy/s10_fingerprint_sensor_activating_in_pocket/— Precedingunsigned comment added byMinukaDil (talk •contribs)11:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Reddit thread does not meetWP:RS guidelines, and can't be used as a reference in that case.OhNoitsJamie^Talk16:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know reddit isn't a credible source. But the writer has made a mistake and informed he will correct when possible.MinukaDil (talk)14:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to provide a source that explicitly states that the S10doesn't have a proximity sensor. Here'sanother, along with one from Verizon that says it does.OhNoitsJamie^Talk 14:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[6].OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently deleted an image from the article for "Ghost Call" and stated that it "doesn't add anything." Why do you say that? Many people learn and remember information better if it can be associated with an image. These people are visual learners. I created and uploaded this image for this page because it was a page without an image. By eliminating the image, you have diminished the richness of the article and are using your personal opinion on what is a valid image. Many historical articles use artwork for an image. It is not against Wikipedia policy. Had I taken a photograph of a phone and used that image, would you think differently? I would be happy to dive in to a discussion about the positive and negative attributes of painting and photography as a source of information, but that is not what this is about. I added content to expand the page that did not contain it. Why should it be deleted?

--Benjamincookart (talk)21:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained the reasoning. Photos are preferred, and only in rare cases would user-generated art be appropriate.OhNoitsJamie^Talk21:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred by whom? Is there a rule or is this your opinion on the hierarchy of value when it comes to images. Also, I would like to point out that the file I used is a photograph. --Benjamincookart (talk)00:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I am trying to reach a resolution regarding my reporting of user Dilbaggg for their incorrect editing of "The Reality Era" in both "History of WWE" page as well as the actual article itself concerning The Reality Era. Details can be found on the page you flagged as "content dispute". I am still figuring out how this part of Wikpedia works and would appreciate very much if you could explain. Are you the moderator to these previously mentioned pages? Have I gone the right route with regards to this issue thus far? Thank you.68.196.72.173 (talk)22:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're discussing the issue on the talk page, which is a good start perWP:BRD. I don't know enough about wrestling to evaluated sources for that topic. If you reach an impasse there (i.e., no clear consensus, disagreement between two editors) you could solicit a third opinionWikipedia:Third_opinion#How_to_list_a_dispute here, or post the question at the WWE project pagehere.OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!— Precedingunsigned comment added by68.196.72.173 (talk)23:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to the page where it states that photographs are preferred over other forms of imagery?--Benjamincookart (talk)00:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[7]It is an effort to acquire original portrait images for articleswhere no photograph is currently available. Alsohere; note that for the two examples given, both have been superceded by photographs. If you can make a high quality portrait of a biographical subject that is missing a photo, you can propose it at the talk page.OhNoitsJamie^Talk00:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a photograph that was already available? MLB hold their copyright very tightly. My image is a created baseball card featuring a 1987 Boston Red Sox player. This is not an article for Rodger Clemens. Even if this had been an article about a single person, the link you provided proves that the posting of this image is welcome:

“Image requirements[edit]Portraits are preferred using any medium or technique. Even a simple pencil sketch is acceptable provided that it is a good likeness of the subject.”

If however, your criticism is in the realism, a “simple sketch” is apropos in this case as the likeness is obvious to those familiar with the person in question.

--Benjamincookart (talk)02:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I would again point out that there was no picture to start. If you are on a personal crusade against me because I am working within the rules but in a way that differs from your own thought process, I would ask you to reconsider the greater good and focus on the stated rules.--Benjamincookart (talk)02:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think you need to readWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You will be blocked if you resuming adding the images.OhNoitsJamie^Talk02:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened discussion at ANI[8].73.186.215.222 (talk)02:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HiOhnoitsjamie my original intent for creating the page was to highlight a Combat Veteran who received Medals of Honor during Active Duty and then went on to contribute in to society in a major way. It looks like another wiki contributor has placed an FOI request to cite the Military accomplishments. Mr. VanderWerf's Military accomplishments and his contributions to society seemed notable and hearing about his story inspired me to begin creating pages to recognize Veterans. Thank you, for your insight on what helps to make a page notable. It helps quite a bit.PeytonRose (talk)17:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO explains it pretty well. The individual will have to have receivedsignificant coverage in reliable sources.OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohnoitsjamie. I am contacting you because you previously warned andblocked Light2021 for disruptive editing. Kudpungwarned the user for canvassing in January 2017 and other editorswarned the user for canvassing in July 2017.

AtWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021 (November 2016), the user was blocked for one month.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive961#Please review Light2021's behaviour at AfD was closed in August 2017 as:

But I do believe there is broad support for: a. User:Light2021 is to refrain from canvassing, with every single instance being a blockable offense; b. they are on notice for their AfD participation, which is frequently deemed incompetent or otherwise disruptive, and may be blocked for that by any uninvolved administrator; c. they are placed on a one-way interaction in relation toUser:Cunard--simply put, they can't go where Cunard goes (and Cunard will, of course, not be baiting Light2021). All these to be indefinite, with possibility for appeal via WP:AN after six months.

The user wasindefinitely blocked in August 2017 and was unblocked afterwriting in the unblock request, "I will not participate on AfD or CSD directly/indirectly or will not be nominating any articles by myself. As it was major concern on how I did it. I have learnt it what wrong I was doing, and I do not want to continue that." After the user was unblocked in April 2018 byDeepfriedokra (talk ·contribs),they were inactive until June 2020 when they began nominating articles for deletion again.

In June 2020, CNMall41raised concerns about the user's competence. Today, the usercanvassed toWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pramati Technologies (2nd nomination) two people who had participated in an unrelated AfD atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Ledger (2nd nomination). (I had participated inan AfD on Pramati Technologies that had been closed two weeks ago.)

Would you review this situation? Also pinging unblocking adminDeepfriedokra (talk ·contribs). Thank you,Cunard (talk)08:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: I almost remember this. Sounds like they violated their unblock conditions. One cannot simply not edit for a while and then pretend the unblock conditions do not exist. If this is so and unless there is an objection, I'll reblock. Thanks for theprecis. --Deepfriedokra(talk)12:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Looks like you have some AfD problems as well, as I see atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pramati Technologies (2nd nomination) --Deepfriedokra(talk)12:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard:, could you help me see this more clearly. (Sorry, Jamie, for hijacking your talk page) --Deepfriedokra(talk)12:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I indef'dUser:Light2021 for violating the conditions. Thecompetency issues are still quite evident.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie and Deepfriedokra, thank you for reviewing this.Cunard (talk)09:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added notable person with over 500,000 followers to a wiki page, and you deleted. This person is very influential and should be kept on this page.— Precedingunsigned comment added byKosirreal (talk •contribs)

Add yourself again and you will be blocked indefinitely.OhNoitsJamie^Talk17:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in waiting. His edits suggest here only for self promotion. --Deepfriedokra(talk)18:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps, but sometimes editors get the message and become productive. Just recently I've had this happen with someone who was trying to promote their company. They're now actively working on things not related to their company, and are coming along nicely. It can happen. --Hammersoft (talk)22:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needed protection toRajiv Gandhi International Airport atleast for a period of 6 monthsKtdk (talk)12:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this acceptable?: In his view of the frontier, Richard W. Slatta wrote that historians, at times, "define the American West as the land west of the 98th meridian or 98° west longitude". The longitude crosses central Texas and Kansas and reaches the third east of Nebraska and the Dakotas. "Some definitions" of the territory "include all land west of the Mississippi or Missouri rivers".Emotioness Expression (talk)17:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking if that is sufficiently paraphrased from the original?Probably, though I'm not going to claim to be an authority on acceptable paraphrasing. I will note that "historians, at times," seems unnecessarily awkward. "Some historians" conveys the same meaning and flows better; you could also change the subject from "historian" to "definitions"; e.g. "At times, some definitions of the American West have used the 98th merdian..." blah blah.OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll do it.Emotioness Expression (talk)03:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's sufficient logic to include the reference as I proposed,or as it originally was there.Danielkda (talk)11:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates on consensus, not on "sufficient logic." I'd suggest opening anWP:RFC atWikipedia:WikiProject_Finance_&_Investment to get some subject matter experts to weigh in.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why are you giving false information about bihu originKrishna231 (talk)18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think you can unilaterally declare something to be "false" without explanation?OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please seecontributions from this /32. It appears you did a six-month partial block from certain named articles, on grounds of "Long-term abuse: LTA: contact #, reservation # scam". This same IP was just reported again atWP:AIV. I havemw:ORES turned on so I see more than 10% of all their contribs being highlighted in yellow as bad edits. I'd like to do a sitewide block, but it seems that would undo your partial block. What would you think of a three-month or six-month sitewide block? Thanks,EdJohnston (talk)00:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, that's a big range, but on the other hand, I'd agree that the majority of the edits from that range are at best useless. I'm fine with a 3-6 month full block.OhNoitsJamie^Talk00:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now blocked sitewide for three months. Thanks for your response,EdJohnston (talk)15:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might tolook at this and revoke their talk page access. Maybe extending the duration of the block wouldn't hurt as this guy clearly has no good intentions on this project. Best,ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk02:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ban the user Adûnâi for the userbox he put on his page or the edit summary? -TrynaMakeADollar (talk)03:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "ban" that user, I simply revoked their talk page access after I got tired of the racist trolling/baiting during their unblock discussion, though I certainly support the indef block, especially in light of thesesubsequent vile attacks made by a obvious socks of Adûnâi.OhNoitsJamie^Talk04:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Me_at_the_zoo#This_isn't_the_first_youtube_video_(again)

• Content:

I sawhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EurHP1DCJg that com-test is the first video on YouTube (but now deleted), not me at the zoo. My last edit was failed. Why?Chuanchauau (talk)00:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It probably had something to do with the message about not providing a reliable source I left on your talk page (the second such message you've received). Please take the time to read the warning messages you receive from other users. If you continue to ignore those warnings, you'll lose your ability to edit.OhNoitsJamie^Talk00:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking; you might also revoke talk page access, as no good will happen there.Chris Troutman (talk)16:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically,blanking a block notice is permissible (though not so with declined unblocks on active blocks). Were any of their edits constructive? I don't know enough about entomology to judge.OhNoitsJamie^Talk16:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thank you for helping with213.166.133.52 (talk ·contribs). Interestingly, right after that IP was blocked,37.127.34.245 (talk ·contribs) starting randomly reverting some of my other edits. Perhaps connected? --ZimZalaBim^talk17:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same geolocation,Quack!.OhNoitsJamie^Talk17:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Tamayo is at it again. Straight off the last block he createdWP:CRYSTAL categories, added drafts to categories, even after they had already been removed from cats and, as always, is using "Don't delete it!", "I added it!" or "I fixed it!" as his edit summaries. I reported this at AIV,[9] but the report was removed as stale. Meanwhile,Materialscientist deleted most of the pages that Dennis Tamayo created so the only thing left is another well-earned block. --AussieLegend (✉)15:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, noticed you gave a warning to a frequent editor of the page forWill Arnett, seems to be a constant argument on the page. There’s an old discussion on the talk page about whether he’s considered “Canadian” or “Canadian-American”... it would be nice to drum up some discussion on this and get a consensus I feel instead of just engaging in edit warring. Any way we could create a discussion on this?CaffeinAddict (talk)21:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure if we could apply a broad consensus for nationality identification in lede for dual-citizenship people; the default seems to be hyphenation, and on Rogen's page, there is at least a loose consensus for both.OhNoitsJamie^Talk23:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wikipedia precedent to this? The argument doesn't seem to be that he doesn't have American citizenship (which he does), more that he doesn't necessarily heavily identify as an American... seems a bit convoluted. Just kinda sick of seeing the same edit war happen over and over again.CaffeinAddict (talk)18:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a wide precedent for it, unfortunately. Regionally, I recall there is/was a lot of rowing about how to identify the nationality of people from the United Kingdom (British, English, Scottish?), but I don't know of a blanket consensus.OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Good day to you. I had posted this message earlier on Admin Doug weller's page (I admit barely an hour ago) but I am not sure if he did see my message. I do need help urgently and hence I am reposting the message I had for him here. I wish you look into this issue being created byUser:Kambliyil on the articles of certain districts of the South Indian state of Kerala. I think you may be aware that like with the European nations and also US and Australia, India is divided into *states* which are further subdivided into *districts*. Kerala State has 14 districts. And there are as many articles for the same. This user keeps adding a map of "North Kerala" in certain districts which happen to be in the northern part of the state.

As is typical of any old culture, there are subtle cultural differences from district to district, town to town, family to family, and caste to caste. There are 14 districts in Kerala State which is the very first primary level of division and then many other further subdivisions at secondary levels. This page [[10]] clearly shows that the first official level of segregation is at the district level. Yes the state is much longer than it is broad and is a very coastal state. Though it had been under a group of three inter-related primary royal families of the Deep-South of India from the earliest point traceable in recorded-history which goes back centuries before Christ until well into the medieval period. The details - cultural and otherwise - of the districts are already present extensively in the article.

Wiki articles for every district in any state in India has had only one map - the one showing location of the same within the state e.g -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirunelveli_district which is for Tirunelveli District in Tamil Nadu State.

The pages he is acting truant on are :Kannur districtKasaragod districtWayanad districtKozhikode districtMalappuram district

This user has been on WIKI for hardly half a year and has already been blocked once. I did read your message at the head of this page. I do think this will merit your attention and that there is substance in what I say. I also apologize for this message being too long. I would be very obliged if you would look into this and stop this vandalism.NYCLover2016 (talk)15:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you leave Lukashenko's name on the Belarus article? The election is disputed and he's not really the legitimate president of Belarus. The Belarusian people deserve better.Thanos2556 (talk)16:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikipedia doesn't take part in advocacy, no matter how noble the cause.OhNoitsJamie^Talk16:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please block74.134.227.52, back and forth reverting has been going on for a while onRay J. Thanksɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk21:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, semi'd, upgraded a few other blocks. Cheers,OhNoitsJamie^Talk21:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, I would like to know why I was blocked from editing Wikipedia for three days for “disruptive editing” when I have not edited a Wikipedia page for approximately two years. Please explain why you blocked me.— Precedingunsigned comment added by108.2.117.128 (talk •contribs)

If you are able to edit here, you are not blocked. A few days ago, I did block this IP forvandalism, which you can clearly see in the edit history. Perhaps you share this IP with someone else?OhNoitsJamie^Talk19:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I’m not sure. Very strange.— Precedingunsigned comment added by108.2.117.128 (talk)20:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ohnoitsjamie. Recently you did a partial block ofSpecial:Contributions/2600:1700:5E0:25C0::/64. I've had a few minutes to look over their contributions, especially to DAB pages, and am now convinced these edits are mostly vandalism. Either that or a form of WP:CIR that really can't be told from vandalism. Do you mind if I convert the block from partial to site-wide, for the same six-month duration?EdJohnston (talk)20:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was on the fence about that. I don't really understand the fascination with twiddling with radio/television station pages; it's not always clear if the edits are constructive or not. Feel free to expand the block if you'd like, that's a huge range.OhNoitsJamie^Talk20:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, tiny! A mere /64. Probably just one person (unless the IP gets recycled). Thelast one I asked you about was a /32, which is in fact, huge, and I should probably feel guilty. The DAB problem with today's IP was that they were violatingMOS:DAB in a similar way across three distinct pages. That behavior seemed likely to continue. They also never communicate so if there was (in fact) a good motivation for their changes we will never find out.EdJohnston (talk)21:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, sorry, meant to say "not huge"! Yeah, likely one person.OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RespectedOhnoitsjamie I request you to please put aWP:SEMI orWP:SILVERLOCK on the article ofBhairon Singh Shekhawat who was the formerVice President of India because of thevandalism attack on his article. ThankShiamPothuganti (talk)17:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What vandalism are you talking about? I don't see any in the last month. I see one unsourced edit in July that was reverted.OhNoitsJamie^Talk17:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Ohnoitsjamie, thank you for your message on my talk page. My main problem is with the exact clause that you pointed out: "so he cannot win the presidential election", which is unsourced POV. In addition, the same editor has removed a description of a summary of Kayne West's platform offered byThe Atlantic replacing it with vague terminology such as "pro-Black religious platform". If you look at thecampaign website itself, what do you think more accurately summarizes the platform, thestatus-quo revision or what the SPA editor is stating? Additionally, given the similarity of the usernames (User:Eqqqtt and User:Tttttqtrrt) and that they're reverting to the same revision, it is likely that these accounts belong to the same person. I hope this helps. With regards,Anupam^Talk19:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Aboutedition, I just brought to the project,the official nomenclature called by the United Nations for this territory in dispute between two countries. See, I don't want any problems, so all this information is based on official references. Furthermore, this title adopted by the UN, in addition to being widely used,seems to be the most impartial for the project. Good contributions.Ismael Silva Oliveira (talk)02:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. You won't have any problems if you seek consensus for a move first. If you take a look at the talk page for the article, you'll see in the archives that naming has been discussed at great length already.OhNoitsJamie^Talk02:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked 107.77.204.71 for six months two days ago, but the same user continues to make disruptive edits atRobert Costa (journalist) under a range of different IPs.Cwmhiraeth (talk)18:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks likeNinjaRobotPirate beat me to it. Ping me if they resume after the week is up.OhNoitsJamie^Talk21:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about your rationale forthis IP block. I was considering leaving a "Welcome" for this IP, as they have made several constructive edits in the past few days. However, I noticed that you had placed a partial block on the IP back in June, even though I don't see any contributions from this IP from back then. Is there something I am missing here?Kevin^{Hallward's Ghost(Let's talk)}17:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's aranged partial-block. An individual IP affected will show the block (note the /18 at the end that indicates it's for a range of IPs).OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, thanks for the response. I wasn't sure how that worked, so I just wanted to check in with the blocking admin, to make sure I hadn't just welcomed a problematic IP.Kevin^{Hallward's Ghost(Let's talk)}22:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A welcome message is rarely a bad thing, though I suspect that range is pretty dynamic, so hard to say how long an individual will hold on to a given single IP address.OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, thanks so much for the tips regarding welcome messages. I've been trying to reach out to IPs that show promise as editors, and it's good to know that some are really dynamic like that.Kevin^{Hallward's Ghost(Let's talk)}22:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isCLCStudent AIV reports & unacknowledged concerns. Thank you. (Sending this to you since you recently expressed concerns about his AIV reports at his talk page).only (talk)13:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InSpecial:Diff/974799648, it looks like you added the entry to the help text in addition to where you meant to add it.Jackmcbarn (talk)03:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for catching that. I've had a few inadvertent pastes like that recently.OhNoitsJamie^Talk04:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the editing of this list, I have perfected its contents so far. I have also improved the format of the article and made the page look more beautiful. However, you are constantly deleting, hindering the editing process and making the reasonable editing unable to continue. Can you give a convincing reason? Or is it just for personal reasons?李瞬生 (talk)14:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've told you, you're IP range was already blocked for edit-warring against a number of different editors. PerWP:BRD, if one or more editors disagree with an edit, you need to followWP:BRD and get consensus for your changes on the talk page. I'verestored some of your edits here where you make table columns consistent; as far as twiddling with 90px or 80px, I don't think that's worth quibbling about. However, the free-floating images to the right lack context and screw up formatting, especially on mobile devices. For list-oriented pages like this, stick the the lists/tables.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the problem of prohibiting me from editing. I would like to say that I never engage in sabotage, but I am not afraid of bullying. I hope you, as an administrator, should try to be objective and neutral, and not biased towards any party. Otherwise, it will not be trustworthy after all. (although administrators are not elected...)李瞬生 (talk)李瞬生 (talk)14:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.Doug Wellertalk10:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Bin Omar has asked for adeletion review ofAli Mahmoud Al Suleiman. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic10:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A likely sockpuppet of a banned user.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:23.160.193.14 is harrassing me on her talkpage.CLCStudent (talk)14:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, talk disabled.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{ List of people from Bakersfield, California }} Jamie, I am not sure why my edit to the page was removed. I am very new, so did I add something incorrectly? The person added is a family relative and is a notable person from this Bakersfield, California. Just trying to figure out how to make the edit correctly. I am also in the process of creating a separate "person page" for the person. Thanks!

SeeWP:BIO for our notability criteria, andWP:RS regarding criteria of sources that must be supplied to support notability claims.OhNoitsJamie^Talk16:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not put any commentary or personal analysis in any article. Stop blaming me for anything that I haven't done.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMaverick8017 (talk •contribs)13:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you add blogspot links again, you will be blocked.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a dollar
for every edit I have made--
I could remodel and upgrade my house into the 21st century.apologies to theGrateful Dead --Deepfriedokra(talk)16:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I guess it's hard for people to believe that some actions are not motivated by money. No one pays me to clean up the graffiti in my neighborhood, either. (Yet...still waiting for someone in a Bentley to throws wads of cash as they drive by, yelling "thank you good citizen for preserving my property values!")OhNoitsJamie^Talk16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OUgot12? --Deepfriedokra(talk)

"Why aren't people helping me promote myself on Wikipedia?"OhNoitsJamie^Talk17:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the latest range that you blocked2001:e60:3032:cce::/64 (talk ·contribs) is likely connected toWikipedia:Long-term abuse/Korean hanja/"sexdoll" LTA, given the /32 range's most recent edit onLee Byung-hun and their edits from July. The wholeSpecial:Contributions/2001:E60:3032:CCE:B190:D751:3B48:FBEA/32 should be blocked as the /64 doesn't cover it all.ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk20:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though it looks like we'll have some "collateral block damage" within that large range.OhNoitsJamie^Talk20:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Widr blockedAngelahemmed666 as NOTHERE on 2020-08-31. They were spamming links to watchlivenow.org. So, they resumed doing the same thing as various IPs in the range103.25.250.225/24. Today, you blocked one of them (103.25.250.228(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS)). They came back later as103.25.250.244(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS), and also COPYVIO'd text from [watchlivenow.org/list/association-football-highest-paid-player-of-all-time/ watchlivenow.org] toList of most expensive association football transfers.

Might I suggest a somewhat longer (than the existing 72-hour) rangeblock? Back to the beginning of July, there's little collateral damage (the others, even if not the same person(s), are not necessarily constructive), and the addresses used are limited even further to 103.25.250.224/27 .

Also, does it make sense to blacklist watchlivenow.org? It'snot present in any articles currently. Thanks.—[AlanM1 (talk)]—10:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneOhNoitsJamie^Talk13:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen it already,take a look.2402:1980:8297:EC45:C0E8:A7B7:DE2D:A5F0 (talk)02:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I removed the prod you left onMUSYCA Children's Choir because the article has been discussed at AfD. I only did this to comply with policy and have no comment on the merits of deletion. I would not object to bringing the article back to AfD if you are so inclined. —KuyaBriBri^Talk13:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I didn't catch that it had already been at AfD.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ohnoitsjamie, hope all is well. Thank you for the block of100.35.138.19 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log). Just a heads up, you might want to keep an eye out on their talk page access. They abused it after their previous block as well. Thanks! --LuK3(Talk)16:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes were made, talk page access was lost. In six months, spring flowers will be blooming.OhNoitsJamie^Talk16:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is Dude7291 regarding the deletion of my edit on 20:19, 4 September 2020‎. Why was it removed? It fit with the content of the page and I provided sources. I think it should be put back in. Please let me know. Thanks.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDude7291 (talk •contribs)

Discuss it onTalk:Genius first. There's already been a lot of discussion around the images used in the article.OhNoitsJamie^Talk21:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I added it and I'm happy to discuss. To be completely honest though it seems a bit unfair to flag this addition like this. There was the addition of Confucius earlier this year (for the same reason I gave) and it went by ok (no one reverted it!). There were also additions of "geniuses" from other fields for the same reason with no objection. I don't understand why this case was suddenly reverted.Dude7291 (talk)23:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Dude7291[reply]

The discussion belongs at the talk page, not here.OhNoitsJamie^Talk23:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cat and mouse game continues over onDredg. Page protection has been denied and the dastardly vandal seems to be using a VPN or cellular data connection to continue making edits. I seem to recall reading about Wikipedia’s stance on using “is” vs “was” but can’t locate that information presently. Drat!Plantduets (talk)08:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection would be easy, butthat seems to be what the pest wants, so I'm more inclined to use partial blocks so as not to prevent non-annoying editors from editing the page.OhNoitsJamie^Talk15:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed an editor rapidly uploading images and adding them as replacement. At Amish Devgan they've added a much better one, but supposedly as fair use - which I'm not sure about - not an area I deal with much.Doug Wellertalk14:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine how that image would be fair use; according toThe Hindu, it was taken from the subject's Twitter feed.[11]OhNoitsJamie^Talk15:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your warning. Seems to have been ignored.File:Robert Vadra with Bianca.jpeg is copied presumably from Twitter.[12]Doug Wellertalk17:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and blocked indefinitely.Doug Wellertalk17:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, recently I noticed a contribution fromthis user where he made disparaging additions about a real person. Looking at all of his contributions, I saw he had done it in multiple places (I reverted him). Then I looked at theNicole Franzel history (I didn't even know if it was a real person at the time) and saw that recently, you protected the page and also, a bunch of edits were hidden, presumably because they were defamatory? My question is, do the edits fromRealitisaurus also qualify as ones that should be hidden? And where would I request this, if that's the case?JimKaatFan (talk)18:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The reason I left the crime part up was because I was looking for a source, however I couldn't find anything in the police crime statistics to prove that point (in fact, crime in that area went down in 2017) so I was going to remove it anyways. Just felt like I needed to explain myself in case it seemed like I was being un-neutral. Thank you for your help with that article!! --Curbon7 (talk)22:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, thanks for working with me on it.OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend keeps coming back. Would you like to take action?Ghmyrtle (talk)12:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It did not take[13] him/her long before the old trick returned. Could you take some more action. Thanks, -Derek R Bullamore (talk)14:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I would like to understand the rationale behindMrkallan only getting partial ban where he is allowed to continue editing. Because even after that action he either deleted the warnings from his user page[14], promoted himself[15], disruptively edited[16],[17],[18] and whatever this is[19],[20]. This is his total edit history after getting that partial ban, number of edits which you yourself reverted. On top of which this account is being accused of being a sockpuppet of an user with a huge rap-sheet. The official investigation seems to have been closed[21], so I am not clear what the implications of that are. But this account seems to obsessively be promoting himself and his work (I created this user's talkpage which he then converted into article of his book and moved to mainspace)[22], deleting a good number of warnings from its talk page and heeding no warnings.Roller26 (talk)15:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that to my attention! I'm not sure what happened there; when I went back to review the block settings, somehow the default "block from editing" was unset. Not sure what the point of that is. Anyway, the block should be fixed now.OhNoitsJamie^Talk15:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the currently partial banned2600:100E:B10B:A4CB:F2B2:D49A:F365:3344(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS) keeps vandalizing theWorld Channel page after multiple warnings. He does it at least once every day after I revert his mess. Can something be done about this? I reported him yesterday and got no response. Thank you for your time.Mo2010 (talk)02:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the block.OhNoitsJamie^Talk03:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please. We need a block and rev/deletion. Thanks,2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk)03:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just found that I've been blocked when I was trying to correct some information on a page. I rarely edit Wikipedia, and have no recollection of doing so recently. Can I get some kind of explanation? My username is pfelice, 2605:A000:160F:42B5:80C:D170:A9F4:CC25. It says it's for Disruptive Editing. I'm at a complete loss here, I love Wikipedia and donate funds, I'm mortified to think I messed up somehow!— Precedingunsigned comment added byPfelice (talk •contribs)18:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're able to edit my talk page, your Pfelice account is not blocked. You may have been brieflyautoblocked due tothis rangeblock which was put in place to stop vandalism from someone using various IPs in that range.OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have another sock just created at Hooyah. This is the first time I've dealt with an issue and a suspected user who is this persistent. How do you recommend I go forward with this?Garuda28 (talk)16:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it's sockpuppetry ormeatpuppetry (equally likely), they can blather all they want on the talk page. Attempts to post unsourced material on the article will result in more blocks, and if that becomes tedious I'll semi-protect the article.OhNoitsJamie^Talk16:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I'll keep an eye on it. Thank you for helping with the situation.Garuda28 (talk)16:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an ANI thread[23].2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk)17:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks like it's crossing the line of talk page disruption.OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear. Wikipedia is not the place for trolling and misinformation and we always keep our contributions in a way that others could get proper information about someone's positive and negative figure with a balanced perspective, not to harm anyone's personal or professional position. The previous information seemed an act of personal research and one side of the story that affects the credibility of the public figure. Please help me put appropriate information on theSehar Kamran page which shall not hit one side but both sides of the story as everything is available regarding her on the internet. I'll be glad for your contributions and support. --Anonymous Scripter (talk)14:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me what Wikipedia is for. Please take your specific concerns to the article'stalk page. I removed one paragraph that was on shakyWP:BLP grounds, but the remaining material as ofthis revision seems to bewell-sourced.OhNoitsJamie^Talk15:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got someone reaching out to me from 151.21.73.72over on WikiBooks (even though I exclusively edit Wikipedia), claiming to have been wrongfully caught up in a range block. I haven't really taken much of a dive into the situation, but it seems weird. Like some IP addresses vandalizing and other IP addresses in the same range asking for page protection instead, and seemingly reaching out to random editors. I don't have any skin in the game and have only heard the side of the story from an IP in the range, but what's your perspective on what's going on here?Useight (talk)01:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Useight: heh.See my talk page for more of same --Deepfriedokra(talk)01:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe suggest theyWikipedia:Request an account. --Deepfriedokra(talk)01:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The individual whinging about Dredg is quite clearly the same person who is disrupting Dredg. Here's the short version: (1) someone from Italy has been engaging in long-term disruption onDredg; there was a request for protection onWP:RFPP, and rather than restrictingall IPs from editingDredg, I thought it could be handled better with partial range-blocks of the 3 or 4 ranges the person from Italy was using. That way, a few thousand IPs in Italy are prevented from editingDredgand nothing else rather than preventingall IPs and new accounts from editing Dredg. For reasons beyond me, the individual from Italy took umbrage from that approach; it's as if they feel that if they're prevented from editing, all other IPs should also be prevented from editing it. Very strange. In any case, what started out as a range block unfortunately had to be expanded to a full block because they began a disruptive forum-shopping campaign, that has spilled out of the bounds of en Wikipedia.OhNoitsJamie^Talk01:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any precedent for a short-term global block of a range?the range that's currently fully blocked comprises 8192 IPs; pretty small compared to some of the large ranges like Sprint, etc. that are perpetually blocked.OhNoitsJamie^Talk01:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks. Yeah, it's best to limit the scope of the blocking to the minimum that is necessary to prevent the vandalism. Partial block to prevent the IP vandal from editing Dredg appears to be the route that would have the least amount of collateral damage. And, in the off-chance that there really is an innocent bystander getting caught in the crossfire (s)he has been informed aboutWikipedia:Request an account. As for precedent,here is the globally-blocked list, which does include some ranges.Useight (talk)01:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, that's what I was thinking the best course of action would be for this individual, in the event that it really is a different person than the IP vandal. But reading your talk page, it seems like Ohnoitsjamie suggested the samehere. Not sure if the IP saw it, though. I attempted to reply to the IP over on WikiBooks with a link to our Request an Account page, but it shut me down with an error of: "Your edit has triggered an automated throttle designed to limit spammers. It appears you are adding external links to many different Wikibooks pages in rapid succession. For some kinds of links this may be okay, but it is often a sign of people abusing Wikibooks. If that is not your intent, we apologize." So it seems that adding one link in one edit is too many in rapid succession.Useight (talk)01:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Useight: And a link to Wikipedia.Wow. Did you tryen:Wikipedia:wp:Request an account? I'll pop over there and look. --Deepfriedokra(talk)13:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done They are quite loquacious, no? --Deepfriedokra(talk)13:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the core of their argument is they don't like the 2-year partial block ofDredg as a badge of shame on their IP range? Good stuff.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spemppne should explain this is Wikipedia and not the supreme court, or law school moot court. Grandiloquence and sophistry are right out. --Deepfriedokra(talk)13:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since they're already settling in at Wikibooks, perhaps they could begin a Wikilaw volume?OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...for blocking Hydraulic pump and rev/deleting the defamatory content. Cheers,2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk)15:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, thanks for catching that!OhNoitsJamie^Talk15:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking the sock puppets! I believeUser: Barbaros10711923 is one as well, they’re editing the same pages like Plevna. -AW (talk)03:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now also blocked.OhNoitsJamie^Talk03:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended protection for this article is highly irregular, especially given the lack of vandalism after confirmed protection. I urge you to reconsider. Thanks.Onetwothreeip (talk)21:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the page invited users via Twitter to vandalize her article. I see now that the last instance of what I thought was vandalism can actually be sourced, so I think it's probably fine to step it back down to semi. Thanks,OhNoitsJamie^Talk21:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milly Zero - I would like you to allow me to put more detail about her life and a photograph added. Thankyou

I'm not required to maintain her page. You're welcome torequest edits atTalk:Milly Zero.OhNoitsJamie^Talk21:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but why does it say you locked it? User Darkglow is ruining this page to send information to magazines.

I can see you have made some edits so can you please add in an awards section with correct nominations ? Thankyou

Please read the links I sent you in the last message. Take your concerns to the article's talk page, not here.OhNoitsJamie^Talk21:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Londongirl2580: As has been said, you should discuss sourcing and content onTalk:Milly Zero --Deepfriedokra(talk)21:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie! I see you've blocked numerous 2402.x IP's belonging to a certain vandal a couple of days ago. He's now continuing asSpecial:Contributions/2402:9D80:3E4:DDE:EFA:F967:1884:4B99 andSpecial:Contributions/2402:9D80:328:8229:0:0:99A9:CA0C. Can you block those as well, or, preferably, apply a range block? Cheers,ExcitedEngineer (talk)13:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an IPV6 /40 range, which is pretty large; for now, let's see how thispartial block works.OhNoitsJamie^Talk20:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he’s still at it. Fromspecial:Contributions/2402:800:63B6:F27D:FD2E:C28B:C8C5:2CBD andspecial:Contributions/203.205.62.158 this time.

Happily, that was a smallish range;fully blocked for three months.OhNoitsJamie^Talk12:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk)18:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an RfC about a topic you have been involved with - you may wish to comment here:Talk:William_S._Stickman_IV#Request for Comment: Analysis of ruling in Butler v. WolfTrying to reconnect (talk)21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1002:B104:8DFF:AD30:122D:DC56:F1CA (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Continued disruption after partial block:[24][25] Also see the filter log. --Guy Macon (talk)05:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded to full block, thanks!OhNoitsJamie^Talk12:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I've asked for help at ANI[26], to no avail. Thanks for trying. Cheers,2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk)13:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That the IP is dynamic is frustrating and makes it difficult to establish a clear conversation, but it does seem like they're trying to compromise. I'm not sure if we're at a clear blocking point; let's give the ANI item a little more time. Also: "Specialist Doctor" appears to be a formal job title in Australia; I did some Googling and saw it capitalized and uncapitalized.MOS:JOBTITLES says that it can go either way depending on the context.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking this troll. Can you please revoke the talk page access as well as the IP has been using the talk page inappropriately and/or disruptively.Train of Knowledge (Talk)02:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneOhNoitsJamie^Talk02:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to unblock perUTRS appeal #34757 It's long-winded and in broken English, but I think hits the salient points. Thoughts? - --Deepfriedokra(talk)08:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: agree withUser:Yamla thatWP:ROPE applies here. I'm a little on the fence about the file space restrictions. On one hand, I'm not sure if there English is up to par for contributing to the text. On the other hand, even if they restrict themselves to photos they've taken, does the project really need 200 indiscriminate photos from this user's camera roll? It seems like their approach is, "I'm going to upload all of my photos, and then see if they fit anywhere." You could unblock with the condition that they start out uploading no more than 5 new photos; if they're appropriately licensed and have a good use on the project, that restriction could be loosened. Just an idea.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm addressing issues as they arise via the UTRS ticket. Eventually, it may all come together. --Deepfriedokra(talk)13:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was just wondering if you could tell me about title formatting.

If song and band titles are written in one word, do we write it as one word or written as it should be? Example should it be Blessthefall (band) or Bless the Fall? Should it "Ishookhandswithdeath" (song) or "I Shook Hands with Death"? Thanks. --2001:8003:32A5:7700:BCE3:929:7644:F28B (talk)22:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we try to reflect names/titles as artists intend them (as written)Blessthefall is a good example. We spell it as the band spells it, with no spaces. However, we may use standard capitalization conventions in the name of the article, while noting that the band may stylize it differently (all caps or all lowercase).Sunn_O))) consistently renders the title wiht the close parens, so the article title reflects that. You may find examples of apparent inconsistencies that may be a result of a consensus/compromise (seeQuestlove and!Kung people).Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles andWikipedia:Article_titles#Article_title_format have additional details on the relevant policies.OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just asking as this is an issue that I'm wondering about a song title. Specifically "Ishookhandswithdeath" byNorthlane from their album,Discoveries. As seen on the track listing on thephysical CD and vinyl, "Ishookhandswithdeath" is written in one word (final track). However, one user is stating that we shouldn't write it in the way the band intended to be. This can be said the same as the actual band name itself. Written as "Northlane" not "North lane". --2001:8003:32A5:7700:F494:ED56:2F8E:8441 (talk)09:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the thing is, some sources I've looked at lists it as separate words; including theBandcamp page; the only one I've seen that lists it without spaces isDicogs. It's not clear what the authoritative answer is; while I'd tend to favor the CD cover as canon, the typography/letter spacing on that back cover is unusual. If a back cover had typography that rendered individual letters in different font faces or sizes, we wouldn't try to replicate that. I see that another user added a footnote about it; that seems to be a reasonable compromise.OhNoitsJamie^Talk12:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This IP range is being disruptive again.Flyer22 Frozen (talk)01:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, block upgraded.OhNoitsJamie^Talk02:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The pageBrian has been semi-protected for years. I'm not sure why. Can that be lifted now? The problem is, an editor or two refuse to add notable Brians with wp articles (eg, world junior tennis champ, world # 2 in men's tennis). (Alternatively, perhaps you could glance at the talk page and those addition rejections). Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:9DDC:30C1:3289:F57E (talk)16:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I have submitted an image to be deleted; but, I was wondering if I did it right.here is the image. --49.195.99.169 (talk)00:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did it right in the sense that you used used the prod template correctly, but I don't think your rationale is likely to be accepted. Yes, it's a color-swapped version of the infobox image, but it also appears to be described accurately as the cover of thedeluxe version.OhNoitsJamie^Talk01:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James. I hope you are doing well.In this edit, were you referring to times of india? —usernamekiran(talk)09:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was. See[27],[28], which confirm my suspicions.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You urged an editor, who had insisted on deleting sourced criticism of a controversial ruling by this judge, to take it to the Talk page instead. That editor brought in two other editors, who also have a record of partisan editing and have frequently been accused of disruptive edits, to the Talk page and jointly they have decided that between them they have consensus to rewrite the article to: (1) delete any criticism of the ruling; (2) delete the judge's reference to the notorious Lochner ruling (which is at the heart of his own ruling, the very reason it is controversial); and (3) replace it with a rhetorical quotation that says nothing about the legal basis for his ruling and which therefore cannot be objected to. To me this seems like rank abuse of the idea of census building, whose purpose is to improve an article rather than to make it poorer in pursuit of an ideological or partial agenda. How does one marshal other editors to step in to correct such abuses?72.86.137.189 (talk)17:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should have mentioned that the supposed improvement of the article also would involve deleting the citations to 2 sources that include criticisms of the controversial ruling in their analyses, and replacing them with sources that do not do so and whose publications have a conservative/GOP bias.72.86.137.189 (talk)17:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm enough of a subject matter expert (law) to address theWP:WEIGHT issue. Perhaps give the RFC some time? Regardingeditor brought in two other editors, who also have a record of partisan editing, which editors are you referring to, and can you give me some examples of partison editing on their part? I took a quick look at two of the editors on the talk page and didn't see any obvious issues with their past edits.OhNoitsJamie^Talk21:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most glaring partisans here are Trying to reconnect (whose Talk page had a series of warnings/complaints about disruptive editing - until four days ago, when he appears to have deleted much of it...after I had called attention to his history of partisan editing on the Stickman Talk page); and Tchouppy (I discussed in detail on the Stickman Talk page his attempt to delete a controversy on Republican Senator Steve Daines' page [Daines' implication that DC residents weren't "real Americans"] which he was called on by Snooganssnoogans...the tactics he used in that attempt are directly parallel to the tactics he's trying to use to delete the Stickman controvesry). Over the years I have also seen Marquardtika on multiple politicians' pages engaging in editing wars that struck me as plainly partisan/ideological but I don't have anything immediately at hand to point to. He was he invited by Trying to reconnect to join in the current dispute that Ttr was pursuing.72.86.137.189 (talk)22:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie, the IP address above is going aroundcasting aspersions at multiple editors on multiple pages. See, for instance,Pam Bondi. PingingCurbon7, who has been a recent victim of this as well.Marquardtika (talk)00:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of partisans on politicians' pages deleting information willy nilly while offering little or no justification. Bondi's page is a particularly egregious example, much more glaring than the tiny little partisan battle over Stickman; the partisan edit warring on Bondi goes back years, as one of the editors I singled out there (Niteshift36) is at pains to avoid acknowledging. Odd that you think it makes your case stronger to draw attention to absolutely blatant partisan vandals like him. As for you, Marquardtika, just moments ago I stumbled across yet another bizarre deletion made by you on another Republican politician's page (Rep. Scott Perry), once again with no apparent justification and just coincidentally once again eliminating info that would seem to be unflattering to the politician.72.86.132.18 (talk)19:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, he did "single me out". I've edited a single word in that article in the past 4 years. One. Then I started a discussion about some material (no edits at that point, discussion only) And all this IP will talk about is edits made years ago. Several editors have reverted him and he is still edit warring. His conduct is bordering on disruptive.Niteshift36 (talk)15:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not sure what happened, but you seem to have applied a non-existent template (Template:uw-spam5i) withSpecial:Diff/980858297 so it didn't subst properly.Nathan2055^{talk -contribs}21:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, between mixing up templates and errant pasting, what a comedy of errors. Thanks for catching that.OhNoitsJamie^Talk21:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A couple of weeks ago you responded to my page protection request against an IP-hopping blocked user by blocking their range for the targeted articles (seehere). Could you also please addBattle of Khanwa to this block? Note that IPs within the block range haveperformed edits to the article with the same grammar errors that I had mentioned last time (over-capitalising words and missing spaces after punctuation). Thanks.
Alivardi(talk)14:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iimplemented a narrower full rangeblock (though it's still large); I see very few constructive edits from /40 though.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they're still managing to slip through the cracks, seethis edit. Maybe semi-protection on that article would be best for now? What do you think?
Alivardi(talk)14:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocked, EC protected for awhile.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few days after being unblocked2806:107E:1E:26A5:D2E:2E7D:C6D7:5242/50 (talk ·contribs) started making disruptive edits (excepting for some trivial edits). As you were the last admin that blocked the IP woithout the need of requesting page protections, I'd like to ask you to reblock them. Thanks.(CC)Tbhotch^™20:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, reblocked for a month.OhNoitsJamie^Talk00:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite you to check outWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Didierstreckx since you recently blocked one of their suspected socks (Riddish).Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk)01:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've found a wikipedia page that might have been vandalized. Could you check it out please? Here is the link:www.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Berson— Precedingunsigned comment added by50.230.244.158 (talk)14:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications do not work well. was there somethin you needed? --Deepfriedokra(talk)18:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed you.OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eeewww! --Deepfriedokra(talk)18:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing the famous nickname for Lahore despite the citation??Kwachigwamba (talk)19:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citation does not say that it's a "nickname," but rather a title bestowed on it by Sufis. That's not the same thing as a nickname.OhNoitsJamie^Talk19:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the IP from this article seems to have expanded beyond the rangeblock and posted again on the talk page (and my user talk as well, incidentally). Can you take another look please? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?)20:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a full block on a small range and a partial block on a larger range. Let me know if more slip through.OhNoitsJamie^Talk20:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

16:15, 5 October 2020 Ohnoitsjamie blocked 2a01:119f:200::/39 talk from editing the pages Code page 1117 and Talk:Code page 1117 with an expiration time of 1 month (anon. only) (Disruptive editing)

Looks like he has found another page to disrupt.[29][30]

SeeSpecial:Contributions/2a01:119f:200::/39

This IP geolocates to Poland near the Lithuanian border, and all of the edits appear to be to MS-DOS and early Windows code pages relating to the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian languages. (all obsolete; we now use Unicode for everything) All of this appears to be somehow related to[31] and[32].

The sad part is that if he would stop edit warring and block evading and start discussing, those of us who work on these old MS-DOS pages are a friendly bunch and we would be glad to discuss and possibly fix whatever the heck he is so upset about.

In case you want to expand the partial block, here are all of the code pages related to those languages:

• ISO/IEC 8859
• ISO/IEC 8859-4
• Code page 773
• Code page 775
• Code page 866
• Code page 1117

--Guy Macon (talk)17:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upgraded to a 2-week full block (partial block only accepts 10 targets; articles and talk pages are treated separately). Not much other activity coming from that range, so hopefully collateral isn't too bad.OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk)19:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You previously protected the pageNergis Mavalvala, which expired on September 19. I'm requesting if you could please extend the protection once more and perhaps for a bit longer period as it once again was vandalized. The vandal seems to be the same person as the changed things are the same: removal of the fact of her birth in Lahore as well as the bit about her sexuality. The vandal seems to be operating from a number of different IPs though (among themSpecial:Contributions/104.163.190.173,Special:Contributions/39.50.187.16, &Special:Contributions/39.50.205.217). And if the article has been vandalized again, could you please also revert it before extending the protection once more? Thanks. --2607:FEA8:4E80:63A0:4B5:5D41:856E:3EBA (talk)16:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's enough resumed disruption to necessitate protection at this point.This IP has been warned,this edit looks OK; it looks like the bit about her sexuality was removedbefore protection was last implemented. I'll keep an eye on it.OhNoitsJamie^Talk16:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you create-protectedthis page (template editor access required - I probably would've gone with allowing extended-confirmed editors to create it if that is possible, but you've got the mop, not me) because it is repeatedly re-created.

It might be useful to remove the protection and use an edit filter, bot, or other mechanism to alert SPI clerks if it is re-created. As it is, this LTA may just create the page under a similar name and it might go unnoticed.

The same goes for any other pages in Draft: space that are "favorites" of long-term abusers.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)18:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I've just started dabbling in edit filters (having only gotten permission for them recently). Fortunately, this particular LTA has no qualms about telegraphing his intentions, but it would be more efficient to catch/block them that way. As far as template-editor access; I used to use "admin only" but someone suggested the slightly lower level and had a good rationale for it; unfortunately, I don't remember what exactly the rationale was.OhNoitsJamie^Talk19:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. By the way, the diff for that reply (here) looks a bit odd. It looks like agremlin got into your keyboard.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)21:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, that's an unwanted function of the fancy mouse I use. I should figure out how to disable it, which isn't easy with the OS I use.OhNoitsJamie^Talk21:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please unban me from the Warner Archive Collection page. Media type for Warner Archive discs is incorrect. Warner Archive material is created on factory authentic dvd discs not consumer dvd-r. This statement is constantly changed on the page. I want the correct information out there. I have no malicious intent for the site or the page. I just don’t want false information made reality through your site.— Precedingunsigned comment added by134.6.138.74 (talk)00:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the period oflong-term abuse of addingunsourced material and scam warnings is over.OhNoitsJamie^Talk01:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...you just blocked, it's probably the same person asthis one. Just FYI. Thanks,Drmies (talk)15:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie I want to make consensus regarding Vijayawada Airport is international or not in talk page of Vijayawada AirportI claim "Vijayawada Airport is a public International Airport"User LeoFrank claim is it's a domestic airport since they are no international operations I need your help regarding thisSince you are familiar with this page I am asking you. clarification is requiredKtdk (talk)03:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Please give me reply[reply]

Please don't post on my talk page anymore about this. Use the talk page for the article. Disagreements should be resolved viaWP:BRD, and failing that,WP:Dispute Resolution.OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked IP address122.177.155.197 from editing the pageDoraemon in India almost a month ago and the article has now been deleted. So will the IP still not be able to edit the other pages they are unable to edit until the expiry date?-Cupper52 (talk)18:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That will have no effect on the partial blohttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIn_the_news&type=revision&diff=984057210&oldid=984055208ck.OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! How can I block an IP address from vandalising a page again and again? Is there any way to semi-protect/fully-protect that page?(Asking for help since I'm new here and need guidance)Tithi.sarkar (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byTithi.sarkar (talk •contribs)19:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article's talk page to propose changes if you don't know what you're doing. SeeWP:BRD.OhNoitsJamie^Talk19:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie. The picture of Jacinda Ardern on the front page is mislabeled as "Jacinda Ahern". Just hoping you can fix that.— Precedingunsigned comment added by38.18.97.178 (talk)22:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone elsefixed it, thanks!OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Ohnoitsjamie. Thanks for protectingLake Travis back in September. It seems an anonymous editor is back again, adding generic boat safety information to the Lake Travis article, which they were also doing in October 2019. What they're adding has nothing to do with Lake Travis specifically. Is there any chance you could protect it again, perhaps for longer this time? Thanks.Andrew Englehart (talk)22:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State Foodshttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&type=revision&diff=984399533&oldid=984399419 true, but all of 3 days. The problem user isWP:NOTHERE to make an encyclopedia which you can easily seeSpecial:Contributions/68.111.87.80. Any chance the page could get semi-protection?Graywalls (talk)22:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of semi-protection when the problem can easily be addressed at the IP level. Ipartial-blocked the from editing that particular article for one year. I approach it this way; (1) some form of protection when the disruption is coming from a number of users, or a single user with access to a lot of IPs, or if rangeblocking is impractical due to potential collateral damage to constructive editors; otherwise, blocking makes more sense. This is an ideal case for apartial block.OhNoitsJamie^Talk22:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

awesome thank you. That should work unless they IP hop, or create an account to repeat.Graywalls (talk)23:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can ping me directly if they find another IP. If blocking becomes impractical, I'll be happy to protect.OhNoitsJamie^Talk23:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTyler (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageTyler Robinson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user: 99.116.24.175 is abusing her talkpage.CLCStudent (talk)13:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Handled, thanks!OhNoitsJamie^Talk13:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie:At 13:00, 27 October 2020 you protectedLekki massacre, requiring autoconfirmed or confirmed access until 17 November 2020, due to "persistent disruptive editing." However, therevision history does not demonstrate disruptive editing over the course of recent days. I request that you remove protection.NedFausa (talk)13:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw two disruptive edits soon after the previous protection expired, which I figured might continue. If you strongly feel that it shouldn't be protected, I don't mind unprotecting it.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: Yes, please unprotect. Recent editing has been constructive and non-disruptive.NedFausa (talk)14:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You kindly protectedMelanie Bracewell yesterday for a longish period, but the IPs are still getting through. Maybe the mop bucket was dry when you protected it ?Thanks Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 23:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they're not getting through (though it may look like it from the perspective of a logged-in editor). SeeWP:PENDING for an explanation of how pending changes works. On the other hand, if there are going to be frequent attempts, it might make sense to go back to semi to save us some effort.OhNoitsJamie^Talk00:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - just realised that. It is getting too late and brain fog starts sweeping in. Time to get some sleep. Regards Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 00:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's easy to miss the tiny "pending change" text! I just changed it back to semi; we had four customers just this one day. PC makes more sense for sporadic vandalism.OhNoitsJamie^Talk00:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atWP:AN § ATK Mohun Bagan FC. --Marchjuly (talk)02:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohnoitsjamie. Since you're the admin who indefinitely protected this page, perhaps you could try and sort it out. An SPA recently showed up, got autoconfirmed, and immediately started trying to undo the redirect. You've already warned this account atUser talk:Sonabhaumik87#Removing other editor's requests over something related to this. They might be correct, but it appears to be quite a contentious topic that is probably best resolved through discussion. I've got no stake in this, and if you or another admin feel that the redirect should be removed and the article restored, then that's fine by me. --Marchjuly (talk)02:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the block. 48 hours seems fair to allow things to cool down. Again, I've got no preference either way, but it does seem to be quite a contentious matter that probably is going to take a lot of time and perhaps some divine interventation to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. --Marchjuly (talk)02:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit not the most severe one I've seen,this appears to come across as a death threat.Amaury •17:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "you'll be sorry" merits an immediate block (as the implication is tied to the editor's fictitious association with "the creator of Wikipedia"; perhaps we're supposed to believe the "creator" will yell at us for disrespecting his best friend?) but nonetheless, the final warning is appropriate.OhNoitsJamie^Talk18:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to understand what you did to thisAntarctic explorerpiece of crud. Am I correct that the article had been tagged yet again asA7, and that you tried to draftify it as an alternative to deletion, and this was blocked because the left foot (the other sock) is already in draft space? So is the copy that was in article space gone? And is the copy that was in draft space still in draft space for now?Robert McClenon (talk)07:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would've happily deleted it, but it didn't seem quite A7-able. It looked like it had been moved prematurely out of draft into article space, so my intention was to move it back. Do you have an alternative course of action in mind?OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a situation where there is no obvious right answer because disruptive editors are making the options difficult. It's a relatively common problem in which a page is created in both article space and draft space at about the same time. The article cannot be pushed back into draft space. Sometimes the draft and the article are the same. Sometimes they are similar but slightly different. Usually they are by the same editor. Sometimes they are by two different editors, but then sometimes the two "editors" are sockpuppets. If the subject of the article (who is almost always either aliving person or a company) satisfies a special notability guide, that is the easiest. Redirect the draft to the article. Occasionally the article can be tagged forA7,G4, orG11. If the subject does not appear to be notable but is not speediable, I eitherpropose it for deletion ornominate it for deletion, more often AFD. I am coming to the conclusion that AFD is the best course, because that way there is a record when there is more repeated creation. In this case, the draft and the article appear to be by two different editors, but the draft and the article were identical. That smellsducky.Robert McClenon (talk)15:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Noindexed pages
• Pages with missing files