User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive39

Narendra Modi Stadium article
Have posted repeated and multiple sources on the stadium capacity. They are being repeatedly reverted.

How to request semi protection. sunny.......... 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talk • contribs)

While you're around
can you take a look at User talk:2600:1700:3BD2:8C0E:8DB2:D4A9:CF5D:E23 and the history. I think it probably needs revdel and the ip blocked. Something squirrely is going on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton. Have a great day. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Always happy to help, cheers! OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit warrior
Sir, this is regarding that edit warrior (K.D Manikya Tripuri) you blocked two days back. They are back doing the same thing today. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to restore Draft
Hey there User:Ohnoitsjamie, I hope you are doing well. Recently, I've noticed that you've deleted two of my drafts under speedy deletion criteria for promotion, namely Draft:Chirag Pardesi and Draft:Youth Against Rape; also, I saw your warning on my talk page. I'm here to explicate that my work is not promotional, and will never be. However, I understand notability is the issue with my draft topics specially with Draft:Chirag Pardesi, but I believe Draft:Youth Against Rape might be moved to mainspace in near future. So, there was no need to remove it. I would request you to restore the Draft page and also check Deletion review/Log/2021 January 4 too. Thank you and happy editing for your future. -- Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked that DR review; deletion was endorsed. I'm not restoring any of your drafts, as you've wasted enough of our time. OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ohnoitsjamie, I've wasted lot of your time? I know deletion was endorsed, also I didn't get your point, you deleted my drafts because they're promotional? Simply I'm asking you to check one time which word or line or paragraph was promotional in those draft. Notability is not issue in drafts until they've a scope of being published in main space. And for misbehaving with me, I forgive you and believe you'll correct this small error of yours soon :) Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not restoring your drafts. Please do not bother me about this again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked ip
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, You range blocked on Feb. 21. Regards, 220  of  ßorg 14:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to look at  too per this edit, where in their edit summary they claim to be the same editor, per a talk page comment by the first IP. Both IPs seem to geolocate to same US city.
 * Good catch; blocked, range extended. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My 'evil deed' for the day, accomplished! Bwah, ha, ha hah ...! 220  of  ßorg 04:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion (73.123.30.85, 2601:199:4181:E00:0:0:0:0/64)

 * User_talk:73.123.30.85 has been blocked three months for evading this rangeblock, but I wouldn't be surprised if they attempted to evade both of those blocks. user:220 of Borg, User:Binksternet, User:Mvcg66b3r, User:Magnolia677 - you've all warned this editor before, please be on the lookout for more socks; the IP will likely geolocate to the Boston metro area. They tend to edit articles about TV and radio stations and music, and have also edit-warred on Stunting (broadcasting), Broadcast signal intrusion, and Gender reveal party. Feel free to ping me if you see any suspicious edits. Thanks! OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like they occasionally use 174.255.64.0/18, per this continuation of the Blender edit war. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Article review
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, Is there by any chance any option to get an article reviewed by anyone; pref an admin before it gets published, so that it does fall in the eligibility criterias? I dont see any such button. PLs help Thanks in advance, good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insightisinside (talk • contribs) 06:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest using the Articles_for_creation process. The page covers the process pretty well; you create a draft, and experienced editors will review it, provide feedback, and reject/approve it for publishing to mainspace. Keep in mind that an approved draft may still be challenged via the WP:AFD process, as no single editor has the final word on that. If you're intending to create an article about your business, please don't.  It's not going to happen; it doesn't remotely approach our WP:CORP notability guidelines, not to mention the obvious conflict of interest. You've also been warned about promotional edits and blocked; further such edits will result in an indefinite block. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Troublesome IP
Sir, this IP is back vandalsing the quote in the article. I've reported them to WP:AIV, but thought it would be better to notify you as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Partial-blocked for a year, pending changes on page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Smear campaign onMohamed Abdullahi Mohamed Farmaajo's Page.
The Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed Farmaajo Wikipedia page is subject to a recent smear campaign in the form of massive disinformation. As you can see by looking at the recent edits in the last month or so by 1 particular user AmirahBreen. In the same breath, the same user AmirahBreen has edited former president Hassan Sheikh Mohamud during the same periods but instead posted positive and neutral edits. This is a clear indication of a biased and one-sided targeted attack using misleading information, this will lead to constant issues in regards to the validity of the page. Please look into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlottecracker (talk • contribs) 17:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you look at that talk page history, you'll see that I've already commented on it. I'm tired of arguing with the editor in question; I'd suggest taking the matter to an WP:RFC. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Same IP behavior I reported before, from the same range
User talk:2600:1700:3BD2:8C0E:A541:ADFD:3055:4DFF looks like they're posting logs of bounced email traffic from a school district. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Is there a noticeboard I can report this stuff to so I don't bother you directly? It doesn't seem like it fits the normal vandalism board. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That probably fits WP:AIV better than a lot of the other reports there, but feel free to ping me directly if it looks like I'm active. (Oh, and I expanded a rangeblock on that one. Can't tell if it's a bot or just a weirdo). OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality vs Whitewashing
So you removed my edit to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_St_Michael_and_St_George page noting that the badge of the order is unfortunately racist. Your rationale was that, apparently, noting the existence of the racism is not viewpoint neutral, which seems hard to justify unless one can demonstrate alternate imagery in which St Michael is portrayed as black and Satan as white! Regrettably, the net effect of your reversion is to create a whitewashed, defiantly not "viewpoint neutral" page where the unfortunate fact that the order's imagery relies on the undeniably racist imagery of a white figure vanquishing an evil black one. Now, I am absolutely open to suggestions as to how best phrase the edits, but I do not believe we can be complacent when one's notice is drawn to the problem. Of course, I'm aware of the dog-piling related to racism and the royal family, but I see a huge difference between noting that the imagery is problematic and linking that to other issues. Ultimately, the choice is quite binary: either we note and ideally regret the consequences of historical choices and decisions (racism, colonialism, misogyny, etc), or we pretend they don't exist (hence "whitewashing"). So I am hoping this discussion evolves to a "how" rather than "whether", because the latter is not acceptable in 2021!MalcWeir (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC) User:MalcWeir
 * Please read WP:NOR. We don't allow editors to insert their personal opinions in Wikipedia. If one or more reliable sources wrote about the badge image being problematic, then it may be appropriate to mention it with sources. In the absence of that, it's your personal opinion. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I find it a rather sad indictment of your personal ethics that you are able to consider such blatant racism as just a personal opinion: it's objectively racist, not an opinion. However, I've revised the paragraph to include citations to clear statements from two people who are entitled to wear the thing, one of whom is the Governor General of an independent country that banned the wearing of the racist insignia on the grounds that it is racist. Mind you, had you actually READ the citation to CNN at the end of the paragraph that offended you, you would have already known that the issue of the racism is not a personal opinion, but it appears that you didn't bother to investigate much. MalcWeir (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Section tag on Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed
About your tag on this page, your edit summary says that 95% of the criticism in the section is by one editor. It would also be true to say that 95% of the section was written by one editor. I would be as happy as you for other editors to contribute valid cited edits to the page which show a fair reflection of reliable media sources. I am watching closely what is coming up in the news and sincerely hoping that there will be some positive developments which can be added. Amirah  talk  23:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Any attempts I've made to prune material (or anyone else), you've reverted. I'm not interested in discussing it anymore, as it's clear that you intend to continue to monopolize the page, and as such, it should probably go to WP:ANI at this point. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for drawing my attention to Ownership of content, I have read the page carefully and will continue to follow all Wikipedia guidelines I am aware of with the intention of both improving Wikipedia and my own editing skills. Although you have said you do not wish to have any further discussion with me on the subject, I am still available for discussion if you decide you wish to discuss it with me. Amirah   talk  01:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Block Evasion
Sir, looks like User:K.D Manikya Tripuri is trying to evade the block. ,. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The range may need a bigger block
The narrow focus was good, but an impressive percentage of the busy edit history consists of disruption and reversions. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yikes, that's a really big range to apply a full block on. I've done it to ranges where 90% of the edits were garbage, but at least for the last 50 edits, at least half appears to be good faith. Were there any particular patterns of vandalism or articles you were looking at? I'm wondering if there might be some smaller sub ranges to target. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. I haven't established a clear pattern, and wouldn't know how to distinguish sub ranges. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If we see a few different IPs doing the same kind of vandalism, I can run them through this tool to try to identify a smaller range. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Revisiting this. A look at the last 24 hours suggests at least 75% of the edits are vandalism. I don't know if it's possible to connect them to a smaller range.... 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Indef or long block?
Hi Jamie. Based on your comment here, I thought I'd bring this edit and this edit to your attention. Clearly another WP:DOB/WP:BLP violation by this serial offender. Four days off their previous block for the same issue, I think it's obvious this editor is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Could you take a look? Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indef'd. We'll see if they can convince anyone in an unblock request that they understand how WP:BLP and WP:V work. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think the 7th edit by this new editor quacks loudly enough? Toddst1 (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup; blocked. (Even aside from that edit, other idiosyncrasies and patterns are a giveaway). Stay tuned for the inevitable outraged appeal. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

regarding changes made on a wiki page of Farnaz Shetty
hello, I made the changes on the page of Farnaz Shetty which were true. I know I have no source to mention as of now but I gave inputs after checking with the facts from the concerned person herself. Infact she herself asked me to make the changes. If possible if you can help with the changes then it would be kind of you. Her original date of birth is 16th September 1996. and she is born and brought up in Mumbai. Please help me look into the matter please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YashviBarbie (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have no reliable source, you can't add it, period. Your claim that the subject asked you to add it doesn't satisfy WP:BLP requirements. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "original date of birth"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

User talk:95.12.122.112
Hi, User talk:95.12.122.112 from Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059 seems to be vandalising a number of pages again after the last block expired. Could you block it again? Thanks, --WikiHannibal (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 95.12.122.112 hasn't edited since February? OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant User talk:95.12.118.65 which is also listed in that ANI subsection, sorry. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Same. All of the recent edits from that range have been football related updates; I don't see any obvious issues. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

174.255.64.228
You blocked this IP for "Disruptive editing: and block evasion" specifically edits to Exxon_Valdez. I have been looking at that page and I think that 174.255.64.228 was correct, the volume was hundreds of thousands not millions (ref later numbers in the article and references for them). I might be wrong so do the sums yourself but mid range numbers are 100000 m^3 and a barrel of oil is 159 litres 100000 m^3 x 1000 = 100e9 ltr / 159 = 0.629e6 million barrels which is in the hundreds of thousands and not millions. Mtpaley (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please look closer at the block; I blocked a range on March 26th (nearly a month after the Exxon Valdez edit) that was being used disruptively by a previously blocked individual; it's unfortunate innocent IP editors get caught in range blocks, but that's unavoidable sometimes. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Danny Mann
I heard that Danny Mann just got deleted from Wikipedia, and I wanna bring him back onto this wiki were he absolutely deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkrzywicki1 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's great. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

On the side of caution
Hi Jamie. To be on the safe side, I just rev-del'ed this contribution from a fan of yours. Not sure if the information therein met the criteria, but you can of course revert the delete if it doesn't. Favonian (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, revdel was fine, and thanks for giving that IP and extended vacation. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruption continuing after return from your block
Hi Onij, is just WP:NOTHERE. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Jeesh, gave them another vacation. Thanks! OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

OOPS!
Hi Ohnoitsjamie! I accidentally overwrote your indefinite block of right as you saved it. I restored your indefinite block - sorry for the mix-up! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem; any objections to the indef? Given that they'd already been already been blocked for abuse recently, I didn't see the point in giving them more rope. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed
Is there anything that can be done for this article? The slant has only gotten worse and the misreading or misrepresenting of sources to slant the article has gotten worse as well. Has it been brought up on the NPOV or BLP noticeboard that you're aware of? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, a long thread: []. It may merit an ANI ticket at this point.  I'm a little exhausted with it personally, but if it was brought up at ANI, I'd support a topic ban. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I know why I thought there was a BLPN post, I actually posted in it. Maybe I'll try to get something together, but I've never done an ANI posting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy shit, I read it, most of it--that editor thinks it's all about them, don't they. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:ScottishFinnishRadish - I appreciate your time invested in the article; it's a topic area I'm not well-versed in, and honestly most of my time is spent on short-duration admin tasks. Keep pushing back on the POV-slant as you're doing; if it goes to ANI, we'll want diffs to show that we've made attempts to address the issue. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The only familiarity I have with this is that I once ran a tabletop Shadowrun game set in Somalia. It's just so obvious that there's a problem. How much more than this do you think I'll need to get together? A lot of diffs are tough because Dec 18th - March 17th had to be revdel'd due to copyright problems, of which I just found at least two more. Take a look at my sandbox and let me know if I need to dig more, if you'd be so kind. Also, should I request revdel for the copyright concerns? I think this whole page will need to be checked for copyright issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I tidied everything up in my sandbox. Do you think that much is overkill, or not adequate? I don't have any ANI experience so I don't want to screw the pooch. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty good to me, though if you take it to ANI, I'd leave out the bit about removing stuff from his own talk page; per WP:OWNTALK, that's perfectly fine, as long as he's not altering what other people wrote. The essential issue is that he's clearly editing in a very slanted fashion, and you have plenty of diffs to support that. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That was removed from the article talk page after being responded to. You and both reverted him at the time, and one other person restored more of the comments later. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean now about him removing his comments from the article talk page, though he makes some sort of claim about "personal security." Regarding the copyvio stuff; the big question is; has he been warned about that, yet is continuing to do it, or did you just discover it? OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

We discussed it on my talk page, where he said he's used direct quotes before. At least one of those copyright violations has come since then. I think I linked to the conversation on my talk page in my sandbox. The first copyright violation is why there are 4 months of deleted revisions on the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what there is to discuss. You've done so much work in the article--do you have a list of edits they made that were copyright violations? Right now I'm looking at your reverts. With a list, we (that is, the admins, and experts like ) can consider if there maybe should just be a block for that--and God only knows how much should be revdeleted. Another option is to issue a topic ban for this article, but while an edit like this is clearly unproductive, we'd need more than a few to make the case. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you've seen this, but User:ScottishFinnishRadish compiled quite a few examples here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also copyright violation that led to 4 months of revisions deleted. Seems any time I start verifying sources it's either a violation or three source doesn't match the prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw the page with the pull-down menus--I'll take a simple list. But that's only two examples--I can't go and block for that. I looked at a few other menus. But look, if you complain about them adding this (and I'd remove it saying "not everyone is run by the president"), then the same applies to this--it's like in all those articles on American universities, where the president/chancellor gets to brag about the GRE scores or the football team. And this, I'd remove that too. Who cares what an Italian undersecretary said? What is Raxanreeb anyway? No, I can see problems with their behavior, but that page does not give me any good grounds for action. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The list is more aiming for a topic ban for bad faith editing, and the gist of most of the diffs is they add everything remotely related that's negative, and remove anything positive. After the removal about the Italian undersecretary there were 7 paragraphs, all negatively framed quoting everyone from the mayor of Mogadishu to an al Shabab functionary. The diffs are trying to establish that pattern. The additional copyright issues came up while I was reviewing sources and history. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , while cleaning more of the article I've so far found and logged four five many more examples that can be seen in my sandbox. I'm sure I'll find more as I go along. Is this severe enough to have to request a revdel? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK--first of all, if you want me to revdel anything, I need the diff where they stuck it in. I can't give you this one--that's messed up punctuation and stuff, and they are clearly a poor writer and editor in English, but it doesn't warrant revdeletion, IMO. I will agree with you on this and this. The others, it's just too short, and the ones that have names and dates, that's typically not so quickly seen as a copyvio. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This was an entire paragraph in our article and that they no longer recognise Mohamed as the President of Somalia since his term expired without any agreement on the path toward elections to replace him is exactly the same as the source except they change "a political" to "any". Is that an acceptable level of change to avoid close paraphrasing or copyright issues? As far as the revdel, I'm asking if any of this is severe enough to warrant it, since I'm pretty unfamiliar with the thresholds for copyright problems. Also User:Ohnoitsjamie, should we take this somewhere else to not clutter your page? The big problem I'm seeing right now is that the user just opens sources, finds a line that reflects poorly on the article subject, copies and pastes it then changes a word and cites wherever he copied it from. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought I just gave you two examples (after going through a bunch of them) that I'm willing to revdelete if you give me the original diff where the offending text was added to the article; right now I'm less interested in more discussion. Yes, doing this on the article talk page is probably a good idea. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie, would you possibly have the time to check my mock-up ANI report in my sandbox and let me know if that looks more or less correct before I post it? If it doesn't seem good enough I'd rather not waste anyone's time on an ANI. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I made a few copyedits to your intro; let's hold off on filing it until the behavior resumes, though. I'm going to be pretty busy for the rest of the day but I'd like to review it again before you file it if you don't mind. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just made another copy edit to tidy a bit more up. There's no rush on checking it again as I'll wait until their editing resumes before filing it. I look forward to another 20 sections on the article talk page, one for each edit I made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like the behavior started up again. Unfortunately I'm pretty much stuck editing by phone until Tuesday so I can't check the new additions for copyright problems and add more diffs to the npov section until then. I can tell they're mad at the removals because after adding a ton to make the subject look bad they removed some of the little neutral and positive coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I added two more NPOV links and another copy/paste from source from the recent editing to the collapsed links. Should I post this to ANI today? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , have you had a chance to give it a final review before I file it? It doesn't seem like anything has improved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you feel that you've reached an impasse, feel free to proceed. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would it be prudent to put a notice of the ANI discussion on the article talk page, or just let it ride as is? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is most important to notify all participants, but in this case, a notice on the talk page would also be useful. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the help. One last thing (I hope, because I feel like I've been bothering you for a week), should I U1 my sandbox or is blanking it sufficient to not fall afoul of WP:POLEMIC? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, there are no issues with using user/sandbox space to draft something you're willing to post at ANI. You could blank it after the issue is resolved if you'd like. It's in the history regardless. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to pester you again, but it's there a trick to get some uninvolved admin review at ANI, at least for the copyright issues which seem fairly unambiguous? I don't want to post anything on the copyright noticeboard or request a copyright revdel while there's an ANI thread active. It's discouraging when three people have supported my report, but there's almost no uninvolved discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I revdel'd a couple of them. If any there any further copyright violations it may be appropriate to open a new incident. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well at least I can say I tried before I remove the article from my watchlist and ignore it forever. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion on this article?
Korn's eight studio album is currently listed as Untitled Korn album on Wikipedia (which seems odd to me). They also have another "untitled" album (their debut), which is listed as Korn (album). Adding to this, they have yet another pseudo-untitled album, Korn III: Remember Who You Are (their ninth album).

Should their eight album stay listed as it is, or should it be changed (if it was up to you)? If so, to what? Online stores such as, Amazon, iTunes, and Spotify lists this album simply as Untitled, while listing their debut as Korn.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated, thanks. 2001:8003:3302:BC00:6148:85D8:8D88:64FF (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If it was up to me, I'd go with Untitled (Korn album), which reflects how the band, retailers, and reviewers refer to the album. At first, I was thinking it should be Korn (2007 album) but skimming through the talk page and references it sounds like the word "Untitled" is registered with the RIAA as Untitled and described by the band as "Untitled" (whereas they'd describe their first album as simply "Korn").  In some cases WP:COMMONNAME comes into play, e.g. Led Zeppelin IV, but I'm not under the impression that fan names for Korn's 8th album are widespread enough to invoke that policy. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, thanks. 2001:8003:3302:BC00:6148:85D8:8D88:64FF (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ohnoitsjamie Im Phantom Digital I Was Just Wondering If We Can Chat about helping me learn more about Wikipedia

Sincerly, PD
 * You can learn about our notability policy here. Wikipedia is not a fandom site; I've deleted all of the articles you've created. If you attempt to create them again without going through the WP:AFC process, you'll be blocked. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks
You've left a couple of warnings for a new user about their unsourced content. I've been reverting some of it on my watchlisted pages, noticing today that they're also logging out to insert it which I warned them about on their talkpage. They just left this response on my userpage. Their editing history, both logged in and out, is all about fan promotion of Zack Snyder, and there are clear WP:NOTHERE vibes that the personal attack on my userpage pretty well crystallizes. Grandpallama (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thank you for assuming good faith on my incorrect AIV report. Cheers!

EpicPupper 20:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC) 
 * Ha, thanks! OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Jacksonblack11 continues to make disruptive edits
You posted a warning about a subsequent indefinite block (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jacksonblack11&oldid=980885799) which the user manually removed (along with other warnings about disruptive edits), after which the user continued to make disruptive edits, and attacked those who politely advised against such edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jacksonblack11&diff=977467738&oldid=977456852) The user has numerous problematic contributions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jacksonblack11) that the user habitually marks as minor. -- Jibal (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That user hasn't edited since March 21. Am I missing something? OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The user only edits occasionally. It seems to me that a warning (in Sep 2020) that subsequent disruptive edits will result in an indefinite block should not be made lightly, yet they have made at least 5 edits since then that were reverted and that they were warned about. I noticed this and thought I should bring it to your attention, but I'll leave any action to your discretion. I have no particular interest in the user or the articles they edited and will promptly forget about this. P.S. There was another block earlier in Sep 2020 and the unblock was declined with "To be unblocked, you will have to commit to sourcing all your edits from now on" but the user has not stuck to that. -- Jibal (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If the disruptive editing resumes, an indefinite block would be appropriate, but blocking a user a month after they've last edited (in the absence of evidence that they are a block-evading sock) seems unwarranted. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Sneed
Steady on! That entry is why many people search for Sneed, and I saw that it wasn't mentioned, but some other TV character was mentioned right above. I don't mind someone undoing an edit if they don't think it's a help, but this was an edit made in good faith to benefit the readers of Wikipedia, and you jump to making ban threats in response? Blimey! NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I suggest that you don't do it again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Tanner Magee
Hey, I noticed you deleted this G5 back in 2016. If there's anything worth working with there, would you mind restoring this? I'm interested in writing a bio on this person and having the restored page might be useful. Thanks! Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 14:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've partially restored it (minus some stuff missing sources and deprecated infobox params). OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Lee (designer) Problems with user: Knewdates
Heja, firstly, thanks for stepping in earlier, this issue from the Soho House (club) page unfortunately continues and now I am being accused and attacked on the talk page of Daniel Lee (designer) after having asked for help and comment to begin with. I have refrained from reverting the page to the version before Knewdates (your last revert) as I do not want to deepen the problem and so I am hoping you could step in again to arbitrate the situation. I have logged the problem on the admin page more precisely: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I've also let the user know on their talk page that I have logged our issue on the admin noticeboard per standards, though I'm not very technologically adapt and I am not sure I did it correctly.

I'm actually kind of freaked out that the user Knewdates is trying to out my real-world identity after he posted someone elses twitter profile when looking up the moniker "talonx". I am a neurodiverse person and being on wikipedia is already too much social media sometimes, especially encountering people like this user. This situation is highly distressing to me and I feel like that was the intent, is their anything further I can do to protect myself that I am not already doing. I have been editing controversial topics (I have an academic background and am good at parsing data and citations for topics that are undetermined) and pages for marginalised people (being one myself) since wiki started. I Have not experienced this kind of pushback or what I see as threatening behaviour before. Please help! talonx78.55.186.185 (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We have a policies on WP:HARASSMENT and specifically on WP:OUTING, though I'm not sure if connecting the username (that you're appending to your posts voluntarily) with a Twitter account is crossing that line. Whether or not the material about the Berlin house parties belongs in Lee's page is also debatable. I lean toward our WP:NOTNEWS policy on such matters unless the incident is widely reported; in the case of Lee, I'd say it's more connected to the company than the individual. In any case, for simple disputes like this, protection of the page really isn't appropriate. Talk pages are used for arriving at a consensus on whether that material should be included or not. If there's a stalemate in a disagreement between two editors, you can request a Third_opinion. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you pull talk page access from User:207.163.15.122
Copy/pasting edit requests on to their talk page, as well as piles of email logs and templates and such. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry to go straight to you, but it seemed quickest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, and revdel'd. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's an account that's going around changing numbers for GDP rankings and the like for Indian cities do I have to take that to ANI, or is that something I can just ask you to look at real quick? Also, you can just tell me to buzz off if I'm pestering you too often. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If they've been given a level 3 or 4 warning for posting unsourced content, you could post at AIV; I'm on at the moment, so I can look at it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just gave them a level two after fixing seven articles. They already had a level 1. Someone pointed out the issue in an edit request. It was some pretty shady number changing, as well as reordering lists. They're not editing right now, so I guess I'll have to wait to see if it starts up again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I think I found my first sock, looks like its Sockpuppet_investigations/Blscholljim/Archive. Problem is I have no idea how to open a sockpuppet investigation. Is it acceptable to just ping one of the admins that blocked them before? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think pinging an previously involved admin is fine unless they ask you not too, provided that it's an ongoing issue. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the help. It is my grandest hope to not have to bother you again for a long while. I did manage to open the sockpuppet investigation, so I guess I'll let that ride. I am genuinely sorry that I keep popping up on your talk page asking for help, I feel like you probably have better things to do than respond to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Bob Newhart
These edits by IP 115.134.228.155, which I just reverted, look similar to those of blocked IP 210.186.143.82 (one you blocked more than 24 hours ago). Clear case of block evasion. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch, both blocked for 2 weeks. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Guidance on AfD
I created a new article on Gagandeep Reehal, but it has been marked for AfD. Can you guide or help in this? I have provided proper citations for every detail mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrexcoder (talk • contribs) 22:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * : You can read Articles_for_deletion. My !vote in the AfD indicates that I don't believe the subject meets our WP:BIO notability criteria. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

If the article gets deleted, will it be possible to draft a new article on the subject in future if it becomes notable enough as per Wikipedia guidelines. Mrexcoder (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there are significant new reliable sources available that are about the subject (and not just mentioning him in the context of articles about the company). OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the help Mrexcoder (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Tawny Kitaen
Could you temporarily protect this article? What appears to be a death hoax is propagating. Even TMZ, who know when people are dead before they do, is not reporting this, but the Twitterverse is on fire. Not one edit has included a source, much less a reliable one.  General Ization Talk  03:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The trolling persists
. I'm a little surprised that this means so much to them.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 06:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's getting rather severe on AN/I. Maybe widening the range of the block is in order? I don't mean to rob Auckland of the opportunity to contribute, this this is getting rather absurd at this point.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 07:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like ToBeFree already took care of 122.56.192.0/20. I try to avoid a lot of collateral damage on rangeblocks, but sometimes it can't be avoided. I've added your talk page and a few others to my watchlist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I found something that may be worth a little digging. Check out Draft:Royal New Zealand Air Force Police and take note that both I.P. addresses from the ranges of 115.189.0.0/16 and 122.56.192.0/20 have edited it. Also, the draft's creator seems to edit many of the same subjects (predominantly air force content) as the troll's range. It may just be a coincidence and because someone who is an aviation aficionado edited from the same areas as the troll did, before they arrived. Yet, a user compare report may clear the air a bit.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 04:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's possible that it's the same editor, but given that we're seeing a lot of dynamic ranges, it's equally possible that it's an unrelated editor. Given that, I think we're left with what we're doing now; blocking a range as soon as it starts being disruptive, but short of blocking all of NZ, I'm not sure if there's anything "preventative" to be done. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat ironic that you mentioned "short of blocking all of NZ", as they left this on one of the talk pages without the banned range. It appears as though their tactic as of now is to be disruptive as soon as the range blocks lift, which will do all but keep all of Auckland blocked. It's quite unfortunate, as there are a handful of good contributors in that area - including academics.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 04:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked 122.56.232.0/22 for 6 months; only saw a smattering of good-faith edits from it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Please make me an admin
So that I'll add enlightenment information to Wikipedia DroneExagesimal (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Oops, hit the indef block button instead. Sorry. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this thread is delicious. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Stubborn IP range at Music of Detroit
Hello Ohnoitsjamie

I find myself in the unpleasant position of edit-warring with an IP user at Music of Detroit. The IP user keeps adding the same unsourced text involving "the band Pittbull leading the way into the future". I keep reverting, leaving my "unexplained and unsourced" edit summaries. The actual IP address can vary, but they all resolve to Chicago (Near South Side), Illinois.


 * 2601:402:C200:ECF0:E2:5819:EA1A:718D: Edit 1
 * 2601:402:C200:ECF0:B547:4C3A:F4BD:1427: Edit 2, Edit 3, Edit 4
 * 2601:402:C200:ECF0:D0BD:EC7F:CD5:544F: Edit 5, Edit 6
 * 2601:402:C200:ECF0:3427:D0BE:BA4F:154C: Edit 7

Can I persuade you to look at this behavior and possibly block (or warn??) an IP range (I don't really know what tools you have for that)? Or should I go formally to AN/I or AN/V (where's best)? And do I deserve an EW warning myself? I've tried communicating beyond WP:ES at their Talk pages, but I've never gotten any response, even via edit summary, other than reinstatement of the unsourced, promotional text (see User Talk 1427, Talk page 544F, each with two messages from me, and now User Talk 154C, with a more extensive message).

Thanks, &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ranged. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson
The one with the "tested positive for COVID-19" information in the personal life section, which was removed without a valid reason. You can compare selected revisions if you want to. ภץאคгöร 07:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, maybe the diff tool was acting up; it made it look like a lot more than that was reverted. OhNo itsJamie Talk 12:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Notability of Richard Sillman
Greetings ! Since there is a wiki requirement for 2 (two) verifiable references to be notable for an Alumni (i.e. Walnut Ridge High School) there is indeed 2 verifiable references for Richard Sillman even if one reference is in a non-online library. Please see other Alumni on that same page that have "NO" references at all. Those should be the ones you should remove. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boggle987 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This issue isn't whether the subject is an alumnus of the school; rather, there is no evidence the subject meets WP:BIO notability guidelines. You've been warned twice about this; do not add the name again. Most of the other names mentioned the article have references regarding the school in their article. Some of the football players are missing references, but those are easily found at sites like pro-football reference.OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

New message from AntoineHound
AntoineHound (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

2603:6080:F501:BE00:0:0:0:0/64
I've already reported at AIV, but just incase... this IP range that is persistently disruptive on The Masked Singer (American season 4) has resumed their disruptiveness immediately upon the end of their 1-week block you issued just last week on May 7. Definitely will likely need a much longer block, as they clearly don't seem to care enough to stop and would rather continue adding a previous season's contestant in said article. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

K
Instead of blocking me fix that and assure that Wikipedia doesn’t spread false Information Apo 5849 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone make an effort to help you when you're clearly refusing to move a finger to help yourself? I directed you to the talk page and left links to various articles that could help you understand how Wikipedia works, but judging by the way you keep sticking to your first point, it's fair to assume that you haven't read any of them. Should you get blocked, you'll only have yourself to blame. M.Bitton (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI
this is now at RFUD. YODADICAE👽 00:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Several other people are telling him the same things I tried to patiently tell him. Good life lessons. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Educate yourself! Don't you have any regard or care for AUTISM??!!
Hey, don't you have any care about Autism or awareness, bro? Educate yourself! There are lots of notable people who are trying to make a differents, but you guys don't allow that? Stop HATING! We're in the 21st Century. Most things (such as ableism) should be outlawed and unheard of by now. BCMj16 (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh
Hello Pinoy pop isn't a disambiguation please back P-pop again the revision history of P-pop was gone thank you Hyunsukie (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to fix your mess. If you redirect it again without a consensus, you will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * While we're still on this topic, you think it'd be a good idea to move protect Pinoy pop as well, or would that be going too far? SkyWarrior  02:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

On this topic as well, this is my first time requesting this, but is it possible to merge part of the history on Draft:Baby_Blue_(group) to Blue Blue? From rev id 603949431 to id 130851088. This was originally a redirect before the banned editor hijacked it. – robertsky (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to help, but I'm not sure how to do that. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense
I just came across this nonsense which I promptly deleted as pure nonsense, can you remove or delete from the history as well? Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone already did, thanks! Someone is mad that we've protected all of their favorite vandalism targets and put some other countermeasures in place. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, I thought as much. Celestina007 (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The link they were referencing is so silly that I used to link to it from my userpage, along with other sordid details just as outlandish. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No citation.
Hi, 15 days ago, you left a message on my talk page. What article where you talking about? Garfield Cat &#38; Lasagna (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I left you a warning on May 18th regarding the only edit you made on May 18th. See our verifiability policy for more information regarding our sourcing policy. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Pencil award
Not sure if you've seen but within the last 24 hours there's been a new user insisting on adding the Pencil Award gag to the Ryan Phillippe article. I warned them to no avail and I know you usually address it pretty quickly. Thanks. NJZombie (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet
user:Highheels48 appears to be quacking, based on their edits to P-Pop. (They did the classic cut-and-paste move of Pinoy pop to P-pop.) I know you've handled some of the user:Philippinesfan socks in the past, so I thought I'd leave a message here. Let me know if you'd like any more info. Thanks! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 23:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

172.58.172.0/22
Yes, this is the same persistent disruptive editor who just was blocked for 90 days by Wugapodes, he uses 2603.9000.9907 roaming ip address from Florida. He must be held accountable for his actions. He is hell bent on disruption. Thank you, Doriden (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

About recent questions on my talk page
Sir, I try my best not to make any mistake in checking pending changes, but some users targeting me and complaining after seeing my talk page (Questionable Reverts Message).....There are some blocked IPs also..I want you to see my editing history once.....am I making a mistake in checking pending changes?, If you think I checked wrong… then take this right back from me....I am sure you will take the right decision, on this matter.. ItsSkV08 (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of your accept/reverts are fine, but I see a few issues. In addition to the issue I questioned you about, your response to another user that any social media link will not valid as reliable source, always use website is incorrect.   It's OK in some cases to use cite a subject's social page page for simple biographical information or announcements (e.g., a musician announcing that they've begun work on a new album); see WP:PRIMARY. (Incidentally, the aforementioned user was subsequently blocked for block evasion, unrelated to the quality of their sources). This is another example of a bad revert on your part; the IP pointed out that the additional comment was indeed in the existing references, which you could've easily checked in a few seconds.  For now I suggest that you be more cautious with your pending changes permissions. We all make mistakes sometimes, and it takes time to learn all of our policies and the many nuances of some of them. One suggestion; when people do challenge your reverts or simply ask why you reverted them, you can provider them with the relevant policy link (e.g., WP:RS, WP:CITE).  Also, if you're reverting something that isn't obvious vandalism, it's helpful to include an explanation of why you're removing it in the edit summary. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection
Hello - you protected Dell Technologies, but only for two weeks. It just came off of a year of semi-protection five days ago for the same type of vandalism, and so I'm wondering if it's worth extending it for a bit longer that two weeks? It doesn't look like it's going to stop afterwards. Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 15:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see your point. Unfortunately Comcast uses a large /20 range; in theory, I could apply a partial block for that range, but our software doesn't allow applications of any blocks on a range that large. I'm wondering if an edit filter might be a better solution. Let me look into that. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Richa Jain
Hi! It says you protected it with "Create=Require template editor access". Was that a misclick, or is it actually a thing to create protect articles like this? Obviously it will work, as it's mainly being created by autoconfirmed socks, I am just curious whether articles are template-protected. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish I'd be using an autoarchiver with search, because my use of that was the result of a suggestion from another editor awhile back. My recollection is that it's a good level to protection against users who are determined to work around semi protection (making a series of minor edits first) but doesn't limit creation to administrators (a larger group of trusted editors not limited to admins). Admittedly, I can't find a policy on that usage. Do you think there's a problem with that? It would be easy enough to increase the protection to admin level. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, as I said, just curious. Practice-wise, I don't see why it should be a problem, since template editor is an incredibly sensitive user right. They are obviously not going to go around helping socks and UPEs bypass create protection.Policywise, it So, it appears the exceptions outside template namespace are envisioned to be pages that are used like templates nonetheless, i.e. high level of transclusion. So, it maybe worth asking the community if finding unintended but good uses like this is acceptable. But again, I looked at the list of template-protected titles in the mainspace, and I quickly found three other admins besides you. So, perhaps the policy needs updating instead. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

IPs on Covid statistics pages
Hi, could you fill me in on why you blocked/reverted and ? I've been seeing these and related IPs regularly on Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, which I myself update occasionally, and their edits seemed to me to be correct and constructive there. Have they been problematic elsewhere? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Saw this entry at WP:RFPP regarding block evasion; it appeared to be the same user as this one that was blocked. Taking a closer look.... OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did a little more digging, looks like those ranges have suspected block evasion from this user. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Would you please consider page protecting Abby Jimenez (writer)?
Please? Ifnord (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

125.160.65.13 and 125.160.67.157
I have a feeling these two IPs are the same user pulling very similar edits, and have a suspicion that the user may jump to a new IP on the relevant /22 range (125.160.64.0/22) by their next day based on Geolocation. Would you consider a rangeblock if possible? Jalen Folf  (talk)  04:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for catching that! OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain the reason for blocking me?
Hi, OhnoitsJamie, could please explain why you blocked me? I gave both the reliable source for List of Fast & Furious characters page regarding the Brian character section and didn't do any so-called "logic-twisting" stuff (same goes for Paul Walker filmography). Then why have you put restrictions on me? I mean, Wikipedia is supposed to provide every detail correctly, including acknowledge that Brian appears in the F9 trailer, which I even acknowledged in my recent edits which you reverted back; simply denying or ignoring that fact would only mean that Wikipedia is partial when it comes to sources (which I gave). Besides, the character table doesn't claim that the given key is an appearance key (only the word "key" is written) and from what I have observed in other pages, the character cast tables show "Mentioned only" for characters being mentioned (if not appearing physically) in the specified films; besides a dark gray cell actually means that the character is NOT even mentioned in the specified film(s). So why did you revert those edits and block me from including the information which was most definitely true? Yeah it's true that I ended up violating some guidelines (for which I apologize) but you are also not acknowledging my edits (for which I even provided source). If you aren't acknowledging facts even with sources, then what's the point in calling Wikipedia a completely reliable internet encyclopedia which people can look into for their reference? If this has to be the case, then Wikipedia shouldn't even exist at the first place. Please do think about it. P. S. Not only Brian O'Conner, but what about Mando, Jack Toretto, Elena Neves and Owen Shaw? They were also mentioned in films they didn't appear in.

Note: Please read carefully and then answer this time.

2401:4900:53EF:F918:F077:9B81:B8F6:840B (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I already explained on your (rapidly chaning) talk page here. If you post here again, you block will be upgraded from partial to full. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7F:8000:0:0:0:0:0/33
Please block the above fully. The user seems to have gone on a rampage of disruption since your recent partial block. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * /33 is a pretty large range for a full block, and likely covers quite a few users. It's not unprecedented to block a range that large, but I try to avoid it if possible. I see a fair amount of good-faith edits mixed in. What edits do you think comprise a "rampage"? Maybe there is a smaller subset I could target. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

IP 174.196....
FYI IP 174.196.194.26 whom you recently blocked seems to have leapt over to 174.196.200.162 and is continuing to vandalize Assassination of Jovenel Moïse as well as Claude Joseph. Looks like we may need a range block. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I just blocked 174.196.192.0/20 (and 174.242.64.0/18) for 3 months, hopefully that handles it. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Iron Horsemen
Can you please assume good faith next time? I made two mistakes; one in assuming there would be further sources for the gas station incident and another in failing to proofread a manual revert. If I was trying to add jokes, do you really think I'd have brought it to RFPP? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies for that. When I made the edit summary "get out" I assumed one of the IP socks had restored the content while I was in the process of protecting it, I didn't notice until afterwards that it was you. I can understand where you would think that including a straightforward statement with a ref was reasonable, but that's really just perpetuating the joke, and that Youtube channel wouldn't qualify as an reliable source for anything. In any case, in hindsight I should've assumed good faith in that situation. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Makes total sense. :] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia
Jamie, I have twice tried to correct the erroneous statement that the Capitol attack resulted in five deaths. Seeing that you insist on restoring this falsehood, could you please back that up with details. The Wikipedia article, "2021 United States Capitol attack," also claims five deaths. One, of course, was Ashli Babbitt, shot by Capitol Police within the Capitol. Rosanne Boyland died of a drug overdose (accidental death). Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Philips both died of heart failure (natural deaths). Those last three never entered the Capitol. Then there is Brian Sicknick, a Capitol Police officer who died the next day of a stroke, again ruled a natural death. The widely reported story that he died as a result of a head wound sustained during the riot has been thoroughly refuted.

Obviously, given that you are an administrator, you will win any tug of war, and a war is the last thing I want to pursue. My only goal was to correct obvious factual errors. If you want to insist on allowing those errors to remain in Wikipedia, well that is too bad, but you should at least try to justify your decision.

Dblake322 (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And I've warned you twice to stop it. The current section aligns closely with the lede of 2021 United States Capitol attack, which is the result of a consensus of users and sources. If you'd like to challenge that consensus, feel free to weigh in at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

CBeebies
Hi, thanks for protecting the article. Please could you explain why Semiprotection is better than Pending changes in this case? (I think this is the second time I have made a page protection request.) TSventon (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It could have gone either way; pending changes is ideal for long-term, occasional vandalism. PC becomes a painful when pending changes reviewers have to approve/reject a LOT of edits. In the last month, I'm seeing a fair amount of IP changes being reverted, so I felt like semi would be easier for the folks with this page on their watchlist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation, that makes sense. Longer term, I think permanent pending changes and semiprotection over the summer could be justified. TSventon (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Please Don't Block Me From Editing
Please Don't Block me from editing, I have added that blank in Siddharth Nigam Page for adding one ita award but I wasn't able to edit it that's why that blank was left. Kishmish Hu Main Ok (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Probable sock of BrightOrion
After you blocked BrightOrion a brand new editor, Pegasi lux, showed up and made the exact same edit to AA battery. It seems probably BrightOrion is evading their block. Should I do a sock report or is it obvious enough? Notfrompedro (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the underlying dispute is due to a difference between American English and British English. On the talk page, an IP editor geolocating to the UK states quite dogmatically that nobody says "double A", but in the US, the pronunciation "double A" is commonplace. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's an argument to be made for mentioning "double a" as an alternate name (similar to AAA battery) (hence this note); my objection was only to the aggressive nature of the edit-warring, especially the first iteration where BrightOrion was insisting on including a pronunciation that wasn't part of the dictionary ref. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Fun with surnames
Hi Onij, I know you've already tried with, but I don't think they're listening very well. The relationships of some of the 'see also' surnames looks pretty thin, and nothing is sourced. Going a bit wild with the original research, it seems. 2601:188:180:B8E0:9462:EA76:507:D9C6 (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sharon wiki
Why’d you remove it RogueNation554 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove the unsourced "Friendly City" or your vandalism? OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Lakewood Colorado population layout
I am going to restore the "no class" tables for population statistics (only) for Lakewood, Colorado. Not to be rude, but you are manifestly wrong in poo-pooing the idea that the statistics list in a table is "overkill"; I say the race- and age-distribution are quite long ordered lists, and numerical information to boot; hence tabular is best. However, there are lots of two- or three-item lists in the demographics that seem to read well enough as-is, and I didn't convert them to tables in the first place, and do not plan to do so again.

On the other hand, I have converted the "notable people" section to a bulleted list, rather than restoring a table. You might have a point about the table for four "notable residents"; since many other cities' "notable residents" sections are formatted as bulleted lists, I've converted it to that, and regularized the clause order to. My argument against your "overkill" idea is that four is (maybe) "long". Think about how gramatically "three is a crowd" (that is, merits a switch from "between" and "among", and in I.E. linguistics, an example remaing in English of a switch from singular or dual to plural), and other criteria (e.g. voting in in French-derived law courts, where 3 judges are a minimum number; or comittee-type voting in general: 3 is the first no-ties number of voters more than 1 person deciding). So four individuals in a list seems perhaps technically just over "short" / on the bottom edge of "long".

Since the whole reason for changing the text layout is so it will look good and is easy to read, and I have to warrant your feedback on that (regardless of whether three or more is "long" by some standards). I do say that having running text with four items described in scrambled-up order is harder to read, but as you remarked, it might be overkill to put it in a table (I did use a "no class" table to just get the layout, and avoid classical tabular formatting with margins and shading / coloring). 107.115.33.49 (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (I greatly prefer anonymous editing, so you might better be able to contact me via user:astro-Tom-ical. My ISP randomly assigns IP addresses every time I connect, and the above signature will probably not reach me after the end of the day, today Fri 16 Jul. And yes, as you can see from this posting on your talk page, I do enjoy formatting text a little too much.)
 * My only objection was to using a table for a selected list of notable residents, not for population. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (addendum) I'm not sure if we have a WP:MOS guideline for this, but your formatting for the "Demographics" section is atypical from how that section is usually formatted. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One guideline that surely applies is MOS:ACCESS; the section has two tables without captions and without headings, and neither the column headings nor the row headings are marked up as such. Visitors using screen readers will wonder what the heck they're looking at, and as the tables are unbordered and unlabelled, and quite different from the wikitable output we're used to seeing, even sighted users like myself will wonder the same thing: what are all these numbers and letters doing floating in the middle of the paragraphs? The content of that section, as far as I can make out, appears to be typical of such sections. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Helping out at WP:RFP
Hi Ohnoitsjamie! As far as I understood you are a regular at WP:RFP so I have decided to drop you a line :) I have been active at RPC for a while and thought I could also be useful at WP:RFP. As a quite new administrator I am trying to be really careful so I thought you could give me a piece of advice in case I need one. I have read the PP guidelines thoroughly and studied at least 20 of the past PP requests but practical knowledge is far more valuable. Is it OK if I sometimes bother you with stupid (or not) questions? Best, Less Unless (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be happy to provide a second opinion. I'll also give you a quick summary of my approach to RFPP:  In many cases, I can see that the issue can be easily addressed with a single block or a range block (and this tool is helpful for determining ranges). Especially for larger ranges (or ranges where there is also a lot of reasonable editing) I try to use partial blocks when practical. If there seems to be a wide variety of IPs, or a range block would result in too much "collateral" restrictions to good-faith editors, then I consider the protection options. If there's a lot of recent disruption from different users, semi-protection is usually my first go-to; as far as duration, that depends the protection history of the article. Like blocks, I start with smaller durations, and gradually increase them as needed.   For long-term and more sporadic vandalism, pending changes is useful. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Restored the text layout for Lakewood, Colorado, demographics
I restored the unformatted table layout for the Lakewood, Colorado, demographics section, which you undid. I claim that the reason given "for accessibility" is either too brief, or just plain false. Since the table has no formatting, and all the data are in identical order, just laid out in columns, page reading software will speak the information on the table in exactly the same way, and for "visually impaired" people, like me (partially blind) the layout of the text in columns makes it easier to read: More accessible. That's why I formatted it. I was having a hard time reading the prose-format text.

Because I've undone your undo, this has the symptoms of the start of an edit war; granted, vision and readability are big issues for me, but I would be ashamed to engage in one. If you want to contact me via the Talk page of my Wikipedia account, I am user:astro-Tom-ical. I almost never sign in to it, but messages left there will trigger an e‑mail alert. The signature below is not much use, since my IP provider gives me a different address with almost every new log-in. 107.115.33.50 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see User:JohnFromPinckney's helpful message above regarding WP:MOSACCESS, which is a policy that takes precedence over your particular reading preference. I suggest that you not revert it again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

70.18.248.206
User 70.18.248.206 is trying to make personal attacks on me while being blocked. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

your block of User:70.18.248.206
Might need to remove talk page access. Meters (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Spam site question
Hi - coming to you as I see you handling requests at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, an area I haven't been involved in before. was adding content to numerous articles, always citing https://english.gnptimes.in - a news blog with two authors, one of whom was behind the account. I asked them to stop, and had a bit of back-and-forth with them on their talk page and on mine, but in this this edit they threatened that if they were blocked they would sock in order to continue citing their blog. I blocked, and as far as I can tell they haven't started doing that yet - are preemptively blacklistings a thing, or do we need to wait for them to make good on their threat? Girth Summit  (blether) 11:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A good argument could be made for blacklisting preemptively it based on the threats; if someone did that, I wouldn't object to it. Personally, I loosely use a "three-strike" rule before I'll report/add to the blacklist. It's a little more work on my side (it means checking that link periodically for further abuse), but it gives someone a chance to rethink their actions and stop before we blacklist their site.  I've added that link to my list of monitored sites and put a "tracking" link on the talk page. (In this particular case, given the aggressiveness/threats, I think two strikes would suffice for me) OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - just for my own education, how do you monitor the addition of sites like that - is there a link you can point me to so I can see how you're doing it? (I've also fixed the link in my previous post, which I see I somehow managed to balls up). Girth Summit  (blether)  15:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I make a subpage in my userspace (i.e., you could create something like this) and add links to using this template: * ; additionally, I tag any spammer talk pages with a link like this:
 * That renders like this:
 * Next to "Linksearch", you'll want to click both "en" and "(https)" to check for new spam (one for http links, one for https). A little bit of a pain, admittedly. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Brilliant thank I'll have a play around with that. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

TPA
Hi, you blocked but they're still writing garbage on their talk page. Could you please revoke talk page access? Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Another Showbiz826 range
You blocked Special:Contributions/2402:8100:2160::/44 which Showbiz was mainly using a few days ago. He's moved over to Special:Contributions/2409:4051:2000::/36 and continuing being a pain. Any chance you could check if a block, even for a week or two, is viable? I think I've asked for 4 or 5 articles in the past couple of days and from his attitude, I don't think that's going to slow down much. Appreciate it!  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

PPPOO1 still not listening
I guess their block is over because they’re back now with more of the same. Mccapra (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ok I see they’ve been blocked again. No worries. Mccapra (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

San Diego in-person Wikimania 2021 mixer
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

St Marys Swansea
So what does One do when they are the Original Copy Right holder and you keep Removed the content? and you keep giving Warningss Out for uploading there Own work as a Origination may be its time Someone Blocked you and send you a Warning. as you not checking the data pout in Talk 00:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC) so
 * If you'd like to avoid getting blocked again, you should probably read the links that we've placed on your talk page several times. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * Responded. OhNo itsJamie Talk 12:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

IP topic block
Can you take a look at this IP address range again and consider adding a few other sites? e.g. Draft:Sudarshan DZ‎, Sudarshan DZ‎, Draft:Rahul Sathu, and Rahul Sathu. Also highly likely creating sock accounts, eg. newly-created (created very shortly following the block of  - all of which have been working on the pages above in addition to Thepssaini and Draft:Thepssaini (both of which should also be added). All the pages are similar to the ones from which this IP range has already been blocked. I would also consider blocking account creation as there's a lot of likely sockpuppeting going on. Happy raise this formally if you think it's needed. Thanks in advance. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As you'll see the IP is active right now... --10mmsocket (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * b.t.w. I just mentioned the above at WP:AIV, where I reported User:Parkashjit Singh --10mmsocket (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I realize that that this block looks like I issued it, but I'm actually just the last admin that touched it. That's a very large range, and the existing blocked was targeted at a particular LTA who was active in that range. The user who created the articles about is operating from a smaller /44 range as far as I can tell; . Rangeblocked that one for 2 weeks and blocked the other named account. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There's definitely some sockpuppetry going on that could do with some more digging. I'd love to have the tools to dig down and find the other users created from that IP address range and see what they've been doing. --10mmsocket (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * b.t.w. do you think the user you just blocked is the same user as here Sockpuppet_investigations/Sudarshandz? Should he be added to that SPI to add weight to it, or is it enough that you have blocked the user already?--10mmsocket (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Possible, but also quite possibly WP:MEAT, which which case CU may not help. If that's the case, salting is the best course of action. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

IP editor unlinking Georgina Baillie
If that noticeboard isn't the right place to report this issue, then where is? I wasn't necessarily seeking a block, just a way to stop the IP editor from carrying on doing this. Or at least get them to discuss why they are doing this (which they apparently refuse to do) so a compromise could be agreed. Romomusicfan (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're talking about or how I fit in. I don't think I've ever seen that prank call article that the target redirect to until now. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The above is a reply to your handling of my reporting of the issue on the "Administrator intervention against vandalism" noticeboard.
 * If that was the wrong place to pursue the matter, please kindly point me in the direction of the right place.
 * (The IP editor later blanked off a warning on one of the three IP pages without explanation by the way.) Romomusicfan (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Take it back to WP:AIV if you want. I wasn't convinced that it was vandalism. I'm not interested in discussing it further here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Request from IP
Please remove block from Josh Shapiro. Providing details about Operation Outfoxed and the donations made to PACs benefitting Shapiro directly is both relevant and constructive. Dismissing this as "coatracking" is disingenuous. Deleting this info is akin to a coverup. Please revert my edits or allow me to do so myself. Thanks for your consideration

Respectfully — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:1218:3400:30E3:83E8:791E:AE5A (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No comment on the partial block you are currently under. But I will say referring to editors as an "illiterate moron", "corrupt", or "despotic" will result in you being more blocked, not less blocked.
 * Not lifting that partial block. If anything, I anticipate targets being added to the partial block. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

New film
Earlier today I added Kate Beckinsale's new film "Jolt" to her 2016-to-present section and the lead section. You deleted it from the lead section. Did you mean to also delete it from the 2016-to-present section? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I hadn't noticed that you'd added it to the career section as well; I've restored that part. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Add an article to a partial block
Hello Ohnoitsjamie. You partially blocked the IP range from editing Doraemon-related articles. I wanted to ask if you could add DORAEMON (and possibly other redirects) into this block too since IPs in the range have removed that redirect twice. Link20XX (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We're limited to 10 targets on a partial block, but I did block a smaller range from editing Doraemon (anime) and full protected the DORAEMON article (I can't imagine any reason why that would ever need to change). OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

New section deleted
Hello ohnoitsjamie, you have removed the section I have added to Alexander Lukashenko's wiki page on the grounds of it being 'not a reliable source'. Respectfully, I am asking to reconsider. The investigators from NEXTA Live conducted a very thorough investigation, talked to tens of witnesses and read through hundreds of documents. Perhaps, it's up to the viewers to decide how reliable their account is. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriBelarus (talk • contribs)
 * Please read our WP:Reliable sources policy. A Telegram channel clearly does not qualify. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Respectfully, I am not using a telegram channel as my source, I am merely informing the readers that an investigation took place and directing them to view it. If the way I did it is not quite right, could you please suggest a better way of doing that? Thanks in advance, YuriBelarus (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable source. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I am not using them as my source, I am merely stating that an investigation took place. There is no other source of this information because this was the only investigation of this nature. Also, the investigation I describe has been cited by reuters and Deutsche Welle. YuriBelarus (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably fine to mention the existence of the accusations with the Reuters/DW source, but not linking directly to it, per WP:RS. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

AA battery
Hi, am I allowed to now do the referenced edit on AA battery regarding the fact that it is also known as an "AA cell," "double-A," or "double-A battery"? Thanks Bright Orion |  talk  01:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Seek consensus on the talk page, please. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have now sought consensus on the article's talk page. It just strikes me as odd that I have to seek consensus for what is a referenced, I would say 'fact'. Anyway, if those are the rules I'd better follow them. Someone tried to do a Joe Job on me by the way... Thanks Bright Orion |  talk  07:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have sought consensus on the AA battery talk page, but no one has given an opinion. Could I ask you to give your vote (either way, of course) please? Thanks Bright Orion |  talk  08:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

2401:4900:40C9:E92D:71A7:9D81:44A:3D21
2401:4900:40C9:E92D:71A7:9D81:44A:3D21 was used yesterday. So were many other IPs from 2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range, which you range-blocked a week ago. Could you take a look again? --2405:201:4013:8066:9D24:D1EC:50F5:8C (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know my name is one it, but I only made a temporary modification to the partial-block targets; NinjaRobotPirate made the original block. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh my bad, I'll drop him a message. Cheers 2405:201:4013:8066:9D24:D1EC:50F5:8C (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

question
when did you become an admin? Esaïe Prickett (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2006. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sasquash
The creation protection on this page should be.lowered to extended-confirmed because it is a template. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 22:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no good reason to ever create it. It's an LTA target. If anything, it should be raised to admin, IMO. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

List of fastest-selling products
Hello. I've seen your reverts at List of fastest-selling products. Not only that page, but it's talk page Talk:List of fastest-selling products has been taking a beating. It seems the vandalism has been going on for years and in trying to avoid reverting too far, I restored the talk page to an earlier version, but that seems to have made things worse as the activity has really ramped up since then. And I'm not sure if my latest revert was necessarily the best thing either.

My best guess is it's one individual trying to get both List of fastest-selling products and its talk page semi-protected. I'm relatively new around here and have no experience in how to best handle vandalism attacks to talk pages. Is it fairly common or a thing rarely needing to be dealt with? I am considering removing the page from my watchlist. --DB1729 (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to vet all of the references, though I do note that a few have been tagged "unreliable," so I'm not sure if we've reverted to the "best" version at this point. I can understand your frustration with it; I've removed pages from my watchlist for similar reasons.  For now, I'm going to remove pointless requests from the talk, and can protect if necessary. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent block
I saw that you got pulled in here to make a block. That request seems to be a bit disingenuous. The requestor had already claimed "vandalism" as a basis for protection of a related NBA draft pick's article, which was denied. Moreover, there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association on how draft picks are to be displayed in the infobox, so it seems a bit heavy-handed to get someone blocked over a known disputed area. The user that was blocked is new, and I have left a warning on their page previously, but this doesnt seem like something they should be blocked over. The user requesting the block should have invited them to the central discussion, and did not disclose the ongoing circumstances when they pinged you. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, one one hand, that user had been warned numerous times about jumping the gun on transactions, but I do see your point in this case. I'm fine with unblocking. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk

Thanks
Thanks for protecting it from unverified users. As you know what they're doing from past 2 days. They made Anupamaa and Samar characterless and Leela a killer for no reason by cooking up their own stories. Pra2310 (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This pirate is done.
I hope ye mateys will do the right thing with this information about an LTA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1037323375&oldid=1037044350

SimoneBilesStan (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Revdel reqeust
Hi Jamie, I just wanted to request revdel for a very disturbing edit. I suppose I have a COI by calling it disturbing, because I'm the subject of the threat. An IP address said they know who I am, and subsequently threatened my life, on the page List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. The revision ID is 1037330154. If you could please remove it under "purely disruptive material", that would be deeply appreciated. Thanks, Helen (💬📖) 22:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I blocked the /64 range for a few weeks so they can focus on their sub-orbital ballistic propulsion coursework. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Page protection at Angela Cappetta
Hello Jamie.

A few weeks ago you confirmed-protected this article. The protection expired a few days ago and the IP is back. Could you reinstate protection, perhaps indefinitely this time? Here's the page history. Thanks. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a little unclear on the reasons behind rejecting that edit. Vice has a "no consensus" rating at WP:RSP. I thought about AfD'ing the subject to make life easier, but she might pass WP:CREATIVE given that she has a few pieces in what seem to be notable collections. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

24.46.80.14
This user keeps deleting a reference on the Quinton Flynn article about him voicing Mickey Mouse in Mickey Mouse Works, he keeps saying the info is false, but the source literally says he voiced the character. This is the second time he did this, is there any way to prevent him to stop removing it? Because the source is reliable enough to be accepted. 2600:1000:B06E:EFB9:A025:6047:83EE:5C4 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Power chords
Yes, I would like to see more changes in the Power Chords section. Also an easier explanation of what power chords are. The information now is not clear. Next to an explanation of the term power chords perhaps show more examples and by climbing up the next using barre how many more power chords can be used from the 4 basic ones. Like G5 xxx003 giving a GBG sound. D5 xx023x giving a DAD sound. A5 x022xx giving an AEA sound and E5 022xxx giving a EAE sound. Rising those 4 examples up the neck gives for all chords (and half-note-chords) more than 6 possibilities how to play each power chord on a guitar. Like G5 as desribled xxx003 rised 1 fret gives G#5 xxx114 (G#-C-G#) and 2 frets A5 xxx225 (A-C#-A) and so on, going to max (on my guitar) C5 x-x-x-17-17-20 (C-G-C). Knowing that wikipedia is not a forum to discuss a change, I'm not certain how to write these changes. Bengud (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You can propose specific changes on Talk:Power chord, provided that you have a reliable source as a reference to support your proposed change. Wikipedia does not accepet original research. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Script error
Hi, Hope you are safe. When i try to run the MOS:DATEFORMAT script in mobile on desktop mode it can't run. When i try to run that script as the error message appears i.e Javascript error:- Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'wpTextbox1' of undefined. Please help me. Thank you !Fade258 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know anything about that script; I don't maintain scripts here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Doubts
Hello, I want to know. What was the disruptive edit that I committed? Thanks --Nasty bits (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that any further edits like this will result in your account being blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Your concern
Hi Jamie, you left me a warning. I have already received same warning from other editors on the same issue. Earlier, I had already immediately stopped after the first editor brought it to my notice today. Now<, I will try to address their concern. e.g. try to convert "see also" in a template or "list of things" etc type and replace large "see also" with that. While I work on it, hopefully other editors will stop issuing same warning. Please let others know if there is any notice board to please stop issuing same warning as I am already aware, already stopped, and will try to replace large "see also" with other solution. I feel bit depressed and left out. I will go to sleep to replenish my emotional and mental energy. Hopefully, warning from more people on this will stop while I work on remedial solution. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You'll need to get community consensus before you go trying to convert your exhaustive See also list into a new navigation template (that's what it sounds like you're proposing). When multiple people ask you to stop doing something, it's probably a good idea to figure out why. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Since as an IP I can not directly create articles. I usually submit the articles, which go through a review and approval "quality check" process. I can replace the "see also" with that new "list article". Other editors can directly take out what they feel is not good enough and they can add more what they feel I have left out. I am not emotionally "attached" to the topic, i.e. no strong feelings either way. As a reader, I just want to see things laid our in categorised context which otherwise takes reading of several articles to start grasping. I wish there already was a footer template or list article. These editors who are watching the articles might be pissed off for now, but once they see I am sincerely trying to create solution hopefully they will pitch in by directly and quickly cutting/adding stuff from the list article instead of long winding talk with me. Since, I am emotionally not attached to the topic, it is perfectly fine if the list I create is dramatically altered or recategorised by others. At least there will be a deeper richer "related context" around the articles. As of now, as a reader, that thirst for context has not been satisfied. Thanks for your reply and understanding. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarification please. Are you suggesting that it is not worth the hassle to create the solution above, and simple walk away which will pout an end to the issue? Yes, thats a quick and easy way. That will be "least effort" for me. usually if some one objects too me on wikipedia, I try to resolve their issue and then I take a break from wiki for several days/weeks. Reason I offered to go through the hassle of putting additional effort are several, I already put effort of reading many articles and now I have a conceptual map their relationship with each other, it will be good to document it which will be useful for other readers. Also, if people watching the article felt frustrated, I feel it is my ethical duty to remedy it (I owe the effort to them as a fellow editor). I will simply create the list or template, will let others chop/change as they wish. I do not want to debate with them. I am recreational editor who edits for fun. I get stressed with notifications and debates. Hence, I always avoid/minimize dispute. But, if some one comes to my talkpage, I try to resolve it. I noticed you have a mammoth talkpage and your tone is civil. Seems you are lot more experienced and mature-minded editor who has "relatively" seen more wiki-life. For these reason, I will go by your advice on "what do you think is better, shall I just drop this issue and walk away from it? or shall I persist with creating a list or template? In the end, I just want peace and happiness. Thanks in advance for your advice. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The approach you were taking (adding a long list of topics to See also) is not supported by current consensus; we already have navigation templates, e.g. and categories. I think it's great that you want to improve Wikipedia, and sometimes it's OK to be WP:BOLD, but doing so can bite if you make a series of large changes as you did.  I'd start out small; pick out a particular article that you have suggestions for, and implement some changes in smaller steps.  If you think we're missing a navigational/subject template, you could submit one for RFA, or propose changes for an existing template at the talk page. I'm not trying to dissuade you from editing, just trying to dissuade you from making a rapid series of large changes; that's the kind of thing that sets of alarms, and results in a bunch of folks leaving you warnings. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Back as an IP
Hi Jamie. Looks like your threat fell on deaf ears. Here they are attempting to avoid their block as an IP. Could you take a look please.  Rob van  vee  12:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Seagate Technology
And it continues... FDW777 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Dhyan Chand
I noticed that you removed some reliable sources like The Hindu, Indian Express, NDTV and News18 while removing spam. These are reliable sources and therefore not spam. Pachu Kannan (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:601:1300:17B0:988E:8C37:6E04:ECB2
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, Good day. Could you pls block this user asap. Editor made and still making mass vandalism and disruptive edits (more than 50). I have reported to AIV. thank you.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  03:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  03:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that'd gone on for too long. Rangeblocked for 3 months, thanks for bringing it to my attention. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Proxy begging
Forgive me. I should've reported the evading proxing begging IP. But, was enjoying the back-and-forth banter, at my talkpage :) GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, wasn't an emergency! I'll leave your talkpage be if you'd prefer. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, it could be used as an example for how to communicate with block evading editors :) GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The conversation was helpful; his comment about it being "locked until November" made me realize I should take protection out a little farther past the holiday season. :) OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Name of Baghdad
Most of the sources used on the subject of naming Baghdad are links to sites that do not have a scientific basis. Also, the information is incomplete because I do not remember the Babylonian texts that were discovered in Baghdad مصطفى محمد ٣٠٥ (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's great. The discussion belongs on Talk:Baghdad, not here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Disney Infinity (video game)
Hi Onij, since you blocked one of the accounts, perhaps you can see if the edits there are WP:LTA, block evasion from the Orlando area. And maybe the page needs locking. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks! The ranges are a bit big, so semi-protection makes more sense in this case. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Terrific. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding i am disabled to edit
Why Happyrancho (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your account "Happyrancho" is not "disabled to edit." Are you talking about a different account or IP? If so, I would imagine there is a block message explaining why. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Reversion
Hello Jamie, I was wondering what the problem was with my edits to Morrisons that caused you to revert? Regards Keith D (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was a problem; looks like a misclick on my part. I've reverted myself, sorry about that. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Thought that I had got something wrong. Keith D (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Block settings for 2405:4802::/38
You should look into blocking them and 27.68.136.0/22 from editing the user talk page for Lệ Xuân as well. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That sock
I think may be another one given this. Cheers, Number   5  7  15:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, added to SPI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Minaean
Hi, jam I have heard from u that I have such a poor writing and I have a lot of mistakes on this article if u say so , if u think that I’m just poor in writing why don’t u fix it rather than deleting most of the article I was trying to improve the page but it turns that the people that r in charge doesn’t want this to happen, I appreciate ur efforts but on trying to make Wikipedia the most wanted  site for reading but deleting most of the article isn’t a solution, why don’t u dear jam try to give us from ur holy experience and fix it rather than delete it.

My greetings, Fahad naji00 (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Editing the English Wikipedia articles requires competence in written English. We also require that articles be written in a neutral point-of-view. If there had been one or two minor errors, I would've fixed them, but I didn't see anything salvageable in what you posted.OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Nothing is salvageable? What about the info box why it has been removed can u tell me what’s wrong with it ? It looks just like the other wiki historical kingdom pages ! Why I have been  threatened By being  blocked from edit? The former in charge editor(kuru) told me that it has been removed just because of the copyright images and I told him no problem I will fix it dear kuru and then suddenly other editor  appears to tell me nothing on this article is salvageable ohh waw, I’m really confused right now anyway u can also delete these articles I created it ,if u have doubts about me , go on! 1-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aranyada_temple 2-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almuraba_Complex_Tower Fahad naji00 (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have doubts that you are sufficiently competent in written English skills to be contributing to English Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, I thought the content was fairly rough as well; I just couldn't get past the copyvios. Kuru   (talk)  01:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Valor Christian High School
If you're around....whitewashing in progress. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Minaean
Yes, I might not be perfect on writing articles in English as u claimed dear jam because I speak 4 other languages and English is not my first language, I speak Arabic, Persian, Chinese, English  I tried to improve  the Minaean article with my poor writing as u described me, even though that the message of the words I added  was pretty clear and reliable, when u search about the ancient  Minaean in Google now do u find the current Minaean wiki page is the perfect place to know this particular civilisation? I tried to improve the page and I was working for days on collecting data and making the info map and at the end all of these efforts was gone by one click on the delete button, dear jam u know that I know that the content I added was understandable and salvageable but u chose to remove it rather than  improve it or fix it by ur holy perfect English writing  , ur job is to fix and remove the non logical content which contains lack of sources, but my content was filled with sources, I might have poor writing skills in English but that wouldn’t be enough excuse to remove most of the article, maybe if u told me that u hate ur job as editor and u were too lazy to fix the content I would excuse and I will close this discussion with much respect to u.

My greetings. Fahad naji00 (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:BTS
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I was wondering if Talk:BTS needed to be semi-protected as well while the discussion is ongoing? There has been off-wiki canvassing ongoing on Twitter in which I have saw multiple trending tweets calling for other users (fans) to go to Talk:BTS (with the URL included) to voice their opinions. In addition, also like point out that several of the comments left by the other editors are newly created fresh account with their first edit being Talk:BTS.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  09:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to do that unilaterally. While not all of the commentary is particularly useful toward article improvement (e.g., attacking the journalism of the article), it's not blatantly disruptive either (yet). If there was an ANI thread or some other consensus among the community to protect it, I wouldn't object to that. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks you and happy editing.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  14:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Ohnoitsjamie, is there anyway to retract my comments on the talkpage as the I have attacked by crazy fans in Twitter where they screenshot the comments and labelling me as antis.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  17:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Our policy regarding retraction of comments on an article talk page is here. In short, it depends on whether or not the comment has been responded to as to whether or not you can delete it. You can strike it out and amend it if you wish. Which comment are you talking about? OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I read about it, however I'm not sure if I remove it entirely as they labelled me as antis for just commenting my views on keeping the content. Comment from this revision is the one that screenshoted from posted onto Twitter.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  17:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems like an even-handed comment to me, but obviously emotions are running high for this topic. You wouldn't think that a few neutrally-worded sentences about well-known publication's cover story would be this controversial, but here we are. I can understand how you wouldn't want to be commented on off-wiki, but sometimes it's sadly unavoidable when you're discussing contentious areas. If you want to distance yourself from the conversation, you could strike out the comment and append to it "I don't wish to further participate in this discussion" or something to that affect. If you receive any sort of harassment on-wiki, please take it to WP:ANI where it can be handled quickly. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure about striking off the comments as I'm scare that they would go check the history logs and write nonsense again in their tweets. The same thing happened with the original poster that adding that controversial paragraph, he was doxed beyond repair. I think I just leave it there for now. Thanks you for the help.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  17:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Please block this ....whatever
Thanx. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

114.4.214.151
This IP keeps returning over time. I think a full-block should be warranted. 120.188.5.235 (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I partial-blocked someone in that range for different edits. It's not clear to me how the recent edits from 114.4.214.151 are disruptive. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I Was Not Vandalizing Wikipedia
I Did Some Edits That Appeared To Not Be Vandalism Or Disruptive Editing To Other Users Gjeykretm (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

BTS
Hi, first of all don't presume me as a BTS' fan, I do edit K-pop and K-drama related pages but I rarely edit anything related to BTS. I just wanted to ask that can we edit an article during rfc. Because when I was new on wikipedia my edit was once reverted stating that changes can't be made during an ongoing rfc. Thank you.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  18:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Per our WP:BRD process, editors who meet the WP:ECP criteria (30 days' tenure and 500 edits) may edit it. I'd recommend against wholesale deletion of the section, though. I don't think we have a broad consensus to do that yet. If someone doesn't have 30/500 criteria, they may propose edit request. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I have no intention to unilaterally remove it, even the current paragraph is really acceptable than previous. Have a great week. Thank you.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  06:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too! OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Injured players
Your intervention on my talk page is completely wrong as I never asked to put injury logos next to injured players... So if you are interested you should better read what I wrote on the FOOTY talk page and the Italy national team talk page. Then if a rule is applied to the Italy national football team it should be applied to all the other national football teams at least.--Bergenoslo (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The Empire
Some ip editors have vandalized and removed the Refrence (https://thewatchdog.news/national-e/why-is-ban-the-empire-series-trending-on-twitter/) which says that those who opposed the series were hindutva nationalists. So kindly please replace the word "some" with "hindutva nationalists" in last paragraph of reception section of the empire article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Empire_(TV_series) 122.176.133.215 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a questionable source, and it doesn't explicitly say that so no, I won't be adding that. Take your suggestions to the article talk page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Duck (noun, not verb)
Hey, Jamie. I was going to up the block on to indefinite as a block evading sock based on Sockpuppet investigations/Joshua Boniventure Chen 1.. I didn't want to step on any process you had initiated so I thought I'd stop by and check in. Say the word and I'll hold up; or if you want, you can do the honors. See ya 'round.  Tide  rolls  14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; a temporary block was a bit optimistic on my part. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

more Newsgram spam
Thanks for removing that spam from the Maharana Pratap for me, it's much appreciated. While checking over the spammer's contributions I noticed that they had submitted Draft:Munish Kumar Raizada for review, a draft written by who is very obviously an alt account/sockpuppet of the same user - they've spent the last year doing the exact same spamming but with newsgram.com rather than newsgram.in, e.g.. They've also written a draft on the person who owns newsgram and an article on a doccumentary by the same person (Transparency: Pardarshita). What would be the best way to proceed here? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are about 60+ existing links, some of them added in good-faith by non-COI editors. That said, I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. User:RaiKashish hasn't edited since July, but I've given them a final warning. You're welcome to cleanup any of the newsgram links that they've added. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

More Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed drama
Looks like the drama is starting up on this article again,. I think I'm at 4RR, which I'll eat my dog's breakfast for, but I've posted three times on the article talk page and AmirahBreen is at 5RR on something that was hashed out, with them, on the talk page over four months ago. Since I'm already past 3RR I'm not going to revert, but without them being willing to discuss, I don't know what else I can do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Barawa & Battle of Benadir
Hey there, thanks for helping clean up the page Battle of Barawa and blocking off the sockpuppet JohnSmitty25. That page along with Battle of Benadir has been twice protected already, but both remain the object of persistent vandalism for some time now, hence I put up a request for an Indefinite Extented Confirmed Protection on them, as sometimes I'm the only one who has to keep clean vandalism and that gets old. Best Regards. Wareno (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added PC-protection for 3 months each. It's a bit frowned upon to use EC unless multiple attempts of using semi-protection have failed. PC gives us time to spot and block new socks before edits can stick. It's also a good solution for pages that don't have a lot of ongoing edits. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Seeseace and Death of Regis Korchinski-Paquet
Hi there, you had previously blocked from editing for 3 days for continued vandalism at Death of Regis Korchinski-Paquet. They have continued their vandalism after their block time. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Protection Appreciation
Thank you for semi-protecting the Pranati Nayak page, I had threatened to go to admin but I was trying to figure out the best way to do so. So thanks for stepping in! --Rdave97 (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible block evader
Hi, and sorry to bother you. If you apply your advanced forensic skills here (you blocked them) and here, do you detect quacking? If so, would you please consider wielding admin magic? Such a drag, sorry! Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP removed this query, calling it vandalism, see history. That certainly makes quacking seem more likely to me, but I don't know anything about the account. I've blocked the IP for 31 hours to be going on with while you take a look, Jamie. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Thanks . Best to all, DBaK (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Appears to be back here as this newly registered editor - same stuff again - and once more as this IP. Pinging also. Sorry, and thanks DBaK (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: the IP has just been blocked 3 months, thank you, but the new editor, who may (or may not!) be the same person, is still active. Thanks DBaK (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * All sorted now thanks DBaK (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Back again as WEWQWO11. Sorry. Boring. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/50.98.118.244
Mind converting their partial to a full block? They have one recent edit which is clearly in the same vein of disruption/obvious fabrication as the others... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks! OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yash Thakur(Fitness Coach)
Draft:Yash Thakur (Fitness Coach) can you help me with this draft sir.
 * There's nothing to help with; that individual does not come close to meeting WP:BIO notability criteria. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Denmark IP ranges under partial block


Can you place a partial block on Special:Contributions/147.78.28.0/20 to match the one you have one the range 213.237.80.0/20? It's the same person, I'm sure. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ (or afsluttet). OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You rock. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Help please
An IP editor has been making disruptive edits over the past several months by adding unrelated George Reeves content on various Superman-related pages, including Adventures of Superman, Adventures of Superman (disambiguation) and Superman (franchise). This editor seems to have moved on to "List of Superman comics". They have already reverted four edits, including a legitimate copy-edit change I made to the page. Can you please help and intervene. Thank you. Rootone (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification; I'll keep an eye on those pages. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Request
Hello.Could you do me a favor and tell your idea about ?Thanks in advance--Namaka (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not interested, sorry. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

blocked ip
hi.. I got message that my ip has been blocked. can you please help me with the reason and way forward to unblock it. KhrushchevN (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You've successfully posted on my talk page which tells me that you're not blocked. If you're talking about editing logged out, I have no idea what IP you're talking about. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

IP block
You seemed to have blocked this IP from certain pages with the message "CheckUser block". Does this mean this IP is a sockpuppet of someone? And why are they blocked from "AnEsonGib, Cr1TiKaL, EZTV, IDubbbz, Joji (musician), Ryan Higa, TommyInnit, Wilbur Soot, List of Fast & Furious characters and Paul Walker filmography" - I don't see any contributions they made to any of those articles. Sorry if these questions seem trivial, I don't understand blocks very well and am trying to learn. Thanks.VR talk 21:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:NinjaRobotPirate added the CheckUser comment; my name is on there because I added a few targets to the partial block for that (very large) range of IPs. I don't know anything about the CheckUser case. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just saw this now. That partially explains my query. Would also be good to learn about the checkuser part.VR talk 22:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:CHECKUSER. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And regarding that block; that's a very large range of IP addresses in India. When we block a range, the larger the range is, the more likely it is we'll have "collateral damages"; that is, good-faith editors who also edit from that range are now unable to edit. In this case, I presume that NinjaRobotPirate determined that a vandal was operating from that range and targeting a group of articles, and as such, rather than fully block that range, he instead partial blocked the range just from editing those articles. I think I added a couple of articles to the partial-block, but those are most likely unrelated to the user targeted by NinjaRobotPirate's block. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand now about the range block. But checkuser implies some sort of sockpuppetry as opposed to run of the mill vandalism, right?VR talk 23:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, and I'm guessing that NRP determinate that some sort of sockpuppetry was occurring from within that range. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Help with an article
Hey! Could I please get some assistance with Bomberman. I'd like it if you checked out Talk:Bomberman as well due to a dispute going on there. Blaze The Wolf &#124; Proud Furry &#124; Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Drmies bombed that range with a block. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Drmies has no more patience for that kind of nonsense. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, User:Blaze The Wolf (your signature is very confusing to me), I have no idea what that dispute is about. Maybe, on the talk page, you can clean up--stick in proper indentation, create a new heading for the 2021 comments. Ohnoitsjamie, when tempers flare that high and people call for others to be banned (not blocked...), it's usually about a video game. There's another user there who needs to be very careful. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would do that except the whole conversation on the talk page is rather confusing and a bit hard to read for me. Blaze The Wolf &#124; Proud Furry &#124; Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

GDP correction of west Bengal
What you have given the economy size of west Bengal is constant price GDP (2011 base) the current price GDP is 16.69 lakh crore and economic rank is 4th not 6th. Kindly update it on economy of west bengal. Soumyadeep176 (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you provide a reliable source supporting those figures, I'd be happy to. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Please Return Editing Privileges
Hi Ohnoitsjamie. I don't understand why you banned me from editing Gerti Daub for Disruptive Editing. It was editor Wes sideman who reduced the Daub article from what I believe had been a fairly good entry for about seven years to a very short one that lacked much of the pertinent information it previously contained. I changed it back several times and he did likewise. Would you please tell me why you consider my editing to be the disruptive kind and not his? I feel it is the other way around. I would ask that you please allow me to edit again. Thank you. 2600:6C50:7000:1:7181:A2B3:7A9F:8762 (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your version had rampant neutrality issues and read like an inspirational hagiography. Your welcome to suggest changes on the talk page, but I'm not about to lift the partial block if you don't understand why your version was wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, I wish you would do some research about Gerti Daub and not just go along with Wes sideman's post. His version says: "Since 1965, Daub has resided in the village of Luhmühlen within the small municipality of Salzhausen in Lüneburg Heath." Daub has not lived in Luhmühlen in over eight years. She lives in an apartment in Hamburg after selling her country home. Also, you will see that it was both national and international news that Daub came in 5th in the Miss Universe contest when almost everyone thought she would win. Coming in 5th in the Miss Universe contest wasn't that newsworthy by itself. As currently written, the Daub article leaves out the most important information about her. Rwgutmann (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No; the version that you're promoting is awful, and violates a long list of policies including WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:MOS. You're free to propose specific changes to the talk page of that article, but there's no way we'll be restore the previous version you favor. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

You were not being asked to restore a previous version, but to not print something that is factually incorrect. Rwgutmann (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Take your concerns to the article's talk page, please. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Seeseace and Death of Regis Korchinski-Paquet again
User:Seeseace is out of being blocked and disrupting Death of Regis Korchinski-Paquet again along with another editor. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

201.196.205.164
This IP is continuing to add unsourced bio info after your last warning. I suggest another block. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hansson proof
The Hansson proof is in a reliable source and it proves superdeterminism. What’s your problem? DH39 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hansson Proof
The bio information is in the cited article. DH39 (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:UNDUE. Take it to the article talk page, not my talk page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, this is almost certainly a block evading sock. Sockpuppet investigations/Johnbannan MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

TROUBLESOME IP
Hi Jamie! I saw that you have partially blocked this IP user 2409:4063:4c97:8003:814e:de:6f20:8dab (talk) from several pages. I want you to have a look at my talk page and see how this IP is continuously stooping onto personal attacks and disruptive editing. Despite of many requests, the user isn't stopping. I request you to view this and block him from my page too, please. ManaliJain (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That block is for a large WP:RANGEBLOCK, which covers hundreds of not thousands of editors. Unfortunately, that range is quite dynamic as you've noticed, so it's difficult to target a single user.  I've partial-blocked that range from editing your talk page for a week. If they continue to harass you elsewhere, let me know and I can expand the block. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright, thank you! ManaliJain (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. You blocked on September 17, but it appears they're evading their block on. Comparison edits:. Recent vandalism and disruptive edits:. Do have a look and please do something about it sir. ManaliJain (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The person is evading and repeating the same again through. ManaliJain (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This person is evading their block and repeating the same through so many IPs one after the other. Another evade of block, disrupting talk pages and trolling editors-. Do have a look:, , , , ,. ManaliJain (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I blocked the IP for harassment; however, their removal of the Ashi Singh is correct. A "cite needed" tag isn't an excuse for a WP:BLP violation. We don't list birthdays or other personal details without a reliable source.  I wasn't able to find any good sources for her birthday, just crap aggregator sites that probably scraped it from Wikipedia in the first place. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I get that regarding the DOB and wasn't able to find a valid reliable source either. Also, thank you for blocking the particular IP. ManaliJain (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey! The same person that you blocked yesterday is evading blocks AGAIN and repeating the same thing AGAIN. I don't know why does that person do this thing even after several blocks and various warnings. This time, , , through  and. ManaliJain (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how's it possible but this troublesome IP whom you blocked a day ago is still able to make edits. ManaliJain (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've revoked their talk page access and increased the block duration. If you're being harassed in the future via ping notifications (as that user was doing), Wikipedia has a great feature where you can turn off notifications from particular users; go to "Preferences" -> "Notifications", then add the user to "Muted Users." OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the needful :) ManaliJain (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliably sourced?
Hello. You claim that the article of contention in the South Korea article is reliably sourced. All the article says is that the government funded a ministry. Is funding a ministry the same thing as a government funding an entire industry? Please read my response to you on the talk page. I do not wish to make biased edits or break any rules, but this one is simply misrepresented and clearly written by users who want to present their biased opinions about South Korea. Otterslort, who made the reversion, has a history of making biased edits such as this I am not claiming the article is false but that what it is claiming is misrepresented and miscited. Would really appreciate it if you could please look into this carefully. Thank you. Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not discussing it here, the discussion belongs on the article's talk page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you please have a glance at article Purvanchal Expressway
Hi Jamie! Please give a glance at article Purvanchal Expressway. A certain user has been reverting and removing sourced data. Through his activities, he has been keenly omitting the referenced data that clearly mentions that the foundation stone of the expressway was laid by then Chief Minister. I’ve asked the user numerous times to discuss it on talk page, but he has consistently removed sourced info ever since. Only if you could see into this. Thank you. Shresthsingh71 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Qwertyasdf0192363
I'm not sure where to take this but Qwertyasdf0192363 has continued to attempt to continue to force their views at South Korea. They have been harassing users on their own talk pages and claiming other editors "clearly have anti-Korean bias" they whole time ignoring every argument against their edits and generally claiming WP:IDHT.

Now they are resorting to making WP:POINTy edits to Japan and Taiwan making the exact same edits they claim shouldn't be made to South Korea. I think they are here to right great wrongs and not so much actually work with others. This comment makes it very clear these edits are retalitory POINT edits. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh no. I accept the viewpoint and the consensus of other editors on the talk board that any investment by the government in its culture shows that its culture is supported by government funds. As you told me, I accept the consensus and "drop the stick." In order to present this viewpoint, which has been well and strongly argued by users like you, I found additional information about other countries who fund their cultural aspects and cultural reach globally. I supposed an article from TIME is a reliable and appropriate source of evidence and it directly claims Japan has invested multimillion dollars on its culture. See Cool Japan. And with my statement on anti-Korean bias, I provided enough evidence of those users' previous edits. And I was also personally attacked by the user Horse Eye's Back and all I did was leave a comment about his personal attacks as stated in WP:CIV. Just because you want to claim that a polite comment left on a talk page after a personal attack that followed Wikipedia guidelines is a "harassment" does not make it a "harassment." The facts are there.Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Just like following me around to here your "comment" wasn't a one time thing. You edit warred to keep readding it to another user's page. You are harassing people to make a point. Notfrompedro (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not making a point. I left a comment after the user personally attacked me, which was ignored by that user with a sarcastic comment, so decided to do it one more time. That is not called a harassment, I was simply following WP:CIV since you like these code of conduct stickers so much. You following my edits, which are based on your exact arguments and claims, and calling them incorrect, and going to as if I am harassing or doing something with blank evidence should be called harrassment. Leave ohnoitsjamie alone.Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a bit of an issue with Notfrompedro about anyone who does not align with his views. He continuously provides evidence from one side of view and interprets them as he likes, and seems to be enjoying "playing the police" incorrectly, as shown when he reported users for vandalism, which was immediately overturned by the wikipedia administrators, for a situation when he himself was also engaging in edit warring. Just because you can't accept a person's argument does not mean you can suddenly start thinking all the code of conducts and rules on your side and you can slap them with blank evidence.Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * If you truly believe my actions are harrassments and against the Wikipedia code of conduct, you can report me to the adminitrator's board with your so-called evidence and try to get me blocked. Those people won't just look at your "code of conduct stickers" and feel a "consensus" to act in a certain way but they will actually view the facts as they are presented. There is no reason for you to bother Ohnoitsjamie about this issue. Thank you. Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk)
 * Qwerty, your battleground and bludgeoning behavior has become tiresome. Consider this a final warning to (1) stop making unfounded accusations and casting aspersions (2) drop the stick, and (3) stop making pointy edits on other articles. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Problem IP
Hi. You blocked for three months in July for DE, and it appears they're evading their block on. Comparison edits: 1, 2; 1, 2; 1, 2. – 2 . O . Boxing  10:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Assistance needed with another editor
Hey Jamie. I need your assistance with User:Lynchenberg. For months now, this editor has attempted to insert autism connections, including accusation of discrimination or hatred against people with autism, into articles it doesn't apply to. My first encounter with Lynchenberg was several months back in which they attempted to add a claim into the Mr. Bungle article stating that the band took its name from a nickname they gave to an autistic child that they bullied. In reality, the source provided for the informationstates that they got the name from a 50s children's health film. While they did refer to a child in their class by that name afterward, it mentions nothing at all about autism and whether they bullied the child or not regardless. I thought the conversation we had on the article's talk page would be the end of that but it continues in other places.

Last month, after Mindless Self Indulgence singer, Jimmy Urine was accused of sexual abuse of a minor, Lynchenberg began leaving a series of edit summaries on both articles,with statements like "I never wanted him to get in any trouble, don't you know that he has autism? Just leave him alone." even when the change the summary was connected to had nothing to do with autism. In fact, not only does the article not mention the singer being autistic, a simple Google search connecting the singer and autism brings up zero results. The only mention of Jimmy Urine having autism is here via Lynchenberg's assumptions. When this was brought up to them, some sort of unusual threat was made in response.

Most recently, Lynchenberg has been asking other users to find them sources backing up his own claims that Mr. Bungle singer, Mike Patton, is prejudiced against autistic people because they can't find any sources other than their own claims. When another user said that, regardless of sources being found or not, this could be a BLP problem, Lynchenberg brought up the Jimmy Urine accusations listed above and accused the editor of wanting to see autistic people in pain. When I mentioned that there's a chance of it not being a BLP problem, not just in the article but also making the accusation via the talk page, which is exactly what they were doing, the response was to assume that I wanted Lynchenberg to commit suicide. They then added that they are hopeful that Patton, who just cancelled tour for both of his bands due to mental health issues, does in fact commit suicide himself. I can't imagine that publicly wishing that article subjects commit suicide doesn't break the rules of Wikipedia and I believe this needs all needs to be addressed once and for all. Thanks for your time. NJZombie (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of new award listed on Burnaboy page
Hello, i recently edited what i saw in tabloids with verification from the website. And you removed it, kindly inform me on the reason for removal. Chinez nmegwah (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that the award itself meets any of our notability criteria; Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for your website. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tabloids are not reliable sources. That's why they are not used.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

List of YouTubers
You reverted on the basis of "unsourced notability." That's not a valid reason on this list due to the fact it was decided in a discussion that sources aren't necessary. When you revert or remove an entry, you do so on the basis of there is no article. An article which establishes notability is required. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed entries that had neither an article nor a source. If there is an article, I would assume (hope) that the article would contain reliable sources. Talk page discussions don't get to override WP:V. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed on multiple occasions including me bring it up again in 2018. But the result remained the same.  No references needed.  You can find the discussions if you search the archive.  Basically, if an entry has an article, it should establish notability and have the sources to back it up.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please try re-reading my original response; the part where I said neither an article nor a source. I'm not disputing that entries that have a linked article don't need additional references on the page. I'm simply saying that the only entries I've deleted are entries that had neither. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Talib Kweli.
You just logged the page after somebody undid my changes.

Please restore my changes, as the referenced article has been updated as per below and is not credible:

Editor’s Note: The following article has been flagged by theGrio’s Editorial Board because it did not meet our editorial standards. While we strive to bring our readers newsworthy and timely original stories, we are committed to transparency when a story falls short of that standard. TheGrio was first notified of the issue Aug. 13, 2020 and regrets this error. The publication has committed to a rewrite of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.210.50 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. I've removed the section; it had WP:SYNTH issues as well. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Good 4 U
As you were the last admin to semi-protect the article about a couple of months ago, I decided to come to you regarding this article. The reason for the semi-protection (the most recent which lasted three weeks) was primarily the genre warring going on, with IPs persistently removing the "grunge" genre from the infobox, and at times also from the rest of the article, even though the genre is sourced. This problem has not gone away since the expiration of the protection period, though likely not as bad as prior to the semi-protection in July. I placed a request at WP:RPP for another semi-protection at the end of August, which went ignored (, for some reason this doesn't appear in the RPP archives). In my request, I said something about wanting it semi-protected for a while (on the order of months), but at this stage, I won't go that way. Could you please review the article? I'd be OK with pending changes at this point. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Pending-changes protected&#32;for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If PC reverts become too annoyingly frequent, we can revisit semi-protection. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sanat Sawant
Hello, Ohnoitsjamie,

I was dealing with a recreation of this page under a slightly different title and I noticed that you protected this draft page. But you put the settings so that "Require template editor access" which I hadn't seen before...I've seen requiring autoconfirmed, extended confirmed and administrative status but this one was new to me. Was this intentional or a slip with a pull-down menu? Thank you. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Intentional; I wish I could find where I originally became aware of that "convention," but my recollection is that it's a way of avoiding full protection (which I try to avoid if possible), but requires a level of access that typically only trusted users would have. Someone else pointed it out to my awhile back, but like I said, I haven't been able to dig up that conversation (or a guideline page). Would you suggest a different level for that particular page? OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Request you add a page to a block list
Hi, I see you recently blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2401:4900:51D5:79A8:88A1:3BE2:48:C766 from editing several pages, they're now persistently removing speedy templates from Ram Prasad Tiwary. Could you please amend the list to include that page? Thanks! JamesG5 (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Indian UPE range
Jamie, what do you think of blocking the range 122.177.0.0/16 sitewide for a year? They've recently been removing criticism from Raheja Developers, which can of course be semi'd (and is, right now), but still. When I tried to add more pages to the partial block, I came up against the limitation of partial blocks: only ten pages may be specified. "If conditions require additional blocking, a conversion to a standard sitewide block should be considered" says WP:PBLOCK. Oh la la, that's all very fine when it's an account, or an IP, but being able to specify more pages would be quite useful for a big range like this IMO. I tried looking at the range's contributions, but the search crapped out, understandably, so I don't know if maybe there's a massive amount of constructive editing from other people on the range. It feels a bit hairy to block such a big range sitewide, so I thought I should ask. You probably understand these things better than I do (not much of a compliment, actually), and I notice from the log that you blocked them for a year in 2020. What's your opinion this time round? Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC).


 * If I'm not mistaken, it looks like a partial block of the smaller range 122.177.64.0/20 would cover Raheja Developers. The partial block message at the top of that page can be deceiving; it shows the partial block for the larger /16 range. I do my best to avoid blocking large ranges with any fair amount of constructive editing; I have a preference setting somewhere the highlights edits that are likely bad, which can be a good (if not inexact) which helps in making that determination. I'd estimate that at least 50% of the edits from range are not useful, probably 75%. If we blocked that entire range, we'd lose a handful of potentially constructive edits, but maybe those folks would be encouraged to create an account? (I've noticed that the mobile ranges I use are frequently blocked when I've tried to make minor copyedits on the fly). Unless I'm misreading the logs, I don't think I've ever fully blocked that range for a year; I fully blocked it for a month or so at a time when we were getting a lot of customer care/reservations # spammers on it. If a full block seems to make sense, I think 3 months would be a good place to start. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I might as well hold off for now, since Raja Developers is protected for three months anyway. But the log for 122.177.0.0/16 says you blocked the range for a year at 15:35 UTC, 22 August 2020. Was that actually the smaller range 122.177.64.0/20 that you blocked? I guess I don't understand how the block log works. :-( Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Yes, I partial blocked that range for a year; sorry, thought you meant fully blocked. Since they were only targeting one page, semiprotection probably makes more sense in this particular case. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't Spread false information
Ohnoitsjamie, there no channel that exists with the name Sony SAB Tamil, don't spread false information WikiEdtrincharge (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP accounts.
Hello Ohnoitsjamie, seems a Anon IP(88.230.169.26) is is restoring its disruptive edits at the Van cat article. He is also using another IP to perpetuate its POV on that article. He also keep a POV SOAPBOX attitude on other editors because of their nationality. He was reverted the last time. But can you cast a warning on him or maybe block him.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

No? and I don't have another IP. You wrote Anatolia instead of Turkey, that's factually wrong. Anatolia doesn't include eastern Turkey. And if you're talking about geographic regions of Turkey, then it should say "Eastern Anatolia region of Turkey" since such description was defined by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Geography_Congress,_Turkey

"Armenian Highlands" was wrong as well since it includes regions from Iraq and Armenia as well which the cat doesn't even inhabit. When I check your user info I see you always making such edits, and fighting over little things like this about Turkey.

When a user comes to wiki about Van Cats he/she should know which country they inhabit in first paragraph. It's like, we wouldn't be writing and saying that Kangal dog lives in Armenian Highlands would we? It originates from city Sivas in Turkey.
 * Please take this issue to WP:DR, I'm not interested in getting involved in silly nationalism disputes at the moment. If we had solid sources that said that cat was from Anatolia or the Armenian Highlands, that would be one thing, but all of the sources I've found so far simply say that the cat is from the Lake Van area. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by blocked IP
Hi, Ohnoitsjamie. You blocked in July on two pages, but I recently noticed that they have been repeatedly reverted on many pages for disruptive edits to American football articles. I also noticed that the range is being used by the same editor as the account, as they have the same changes and edit summaries regarding the word "title":. The overlap looks to go back several years. I'm not exactly sure how to deal with this type of sockpuppetry on an IP range, and I was hoping you could look into the issue or point me in the right direction. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The NFL edits are coming from a smaller range that is already blocked; see . /39 is a very large range; we do our best to avoid full blocks of ranges that large. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crescenta Valley High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Hull.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Lake Superior
Me again. I see you warned someone who added spam links yesterday. They might be at it again on Lake Superior. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

SBHandler
Hi, I presume that the script is also botching for you: diff? I have just tried to debug, but I don't get a clear error message, it does not 'break' on my code, it breaks on something deeper in the Wikimedia code (bad token?). Any ideas? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was traveling, but I see you were able to fix it. BTW, I love that script; manually logging is a bit of a drudge. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

assistance requested
Since you resolved the prior issue on Mobile Government Plaza's page so well, OhNo itsJamie, can you add this to the page as further evidence that the renaming never happened? https://www.al.com/news/2021/10/honoring-a-legacy-after-controversial-candidacy-how-does-mobile-honor-its-late-council-president.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12slb345 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Date-changing vandal from Oslo
Hi, Jamie. Could I persuade you to look at 81.167.113.53 and consider some kind of block? User is from/in Oslo, Norway, and used to change IPs more often, but this last address has been stable for weeks now. The problem: the user's raison d'etre is to change existing dates (without new sources) or to add entirely new dates (w/out sources). Their last three edits to The Whispers changed the arrival of group member Leaveil Degree to March 28th 1973, April 22nd 1973, and May 6th 1973, respectively. Appears therefore to be random additions for the kick, not just inept at citing sources. All w/out edit summaries, of course. Has had FOUR final warnings, but has never engaged at all, although apparently NOT using mobile. Thanks,&mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Query
Hello, Ohnoitsjamie,

You left a comment on Talk:Rahim Yar Khan City but it showed up on the Orphaned Talk page list as there was no article accompanying that talk page so I deleted the page. But I wondered if you left a message on the wrong talk page. Thought I'd ask in case the comment was supposed to be elsewhere. Hope you are well. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 05:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake; I'd intended to leave the comment on Draft talk:Rahim Yar Khan City. Thanks! OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Danish discography vandal
Hi Jamie. A couple months ago you blocked a Danish range from editing several discographies, including the related Take That discography and Gary Barlow discography. They're now targeting Robbie Williams discography using the same range (213.237.89.174), and just mere minutes ago, using Special:Contributions/192.38.133.1. Would you be able to extend the block to this article and/or protect the page? I don't know the best approach here but the edits are bad and they clearly intend to keep making them.  Ss  112   20:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again. It looks like the same editor returned using to edit Gary Barlow discography. They split the singles section exactly as they did on Robbie Williams' discography the other week. Would you be able to protect the article?  Ss   112   10:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Star Wars Theory
An article that was deleted a few months ago after your nomination has been restored after the creator of the article objected. I have nominated the article again (since little has changed). Not sure if you're interested or not, but just in case: Articles for deletion/Star Wars Theory. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Looks like there's a bit more coverage now, though the depth may be questionable. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Danish voiceover sock
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, thank you for range blocking the Danish voiceover vandals using 192.38.128.0/17 for a month. There is, however a second "sock-drawer" who have used today and  in September and, more remotely,  was also used in September. I know little about range-blocks, but the first two appear close enough - Please could you consider a block? Many thanks Arjayay (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked, thank you! OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Message on my page
Hi Jamie! Left you a message on my page. Thanks and God bless! Antonio Miracle Man Martin (dime) 00:14, October 23, 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Jamie..again, on my talk page..BTW your name reminds me of a special girl from my youth (and maybe you are a man I don't know, Jamie is a unisex name, but I had a girl friend named Jamie once) great memories for sure! Antonio Man-Teen Martin 01:11, October 23, 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive spam link removal.
Please be aware simply removing cited sources tagging as "spam" is disruptive. The key thing is to replace with an appropriate Template:Citation needed perhaps with reason=Previous citation blacklisted. This makes it easier for people to understand what is going on and to handle the situation and can especially avoid assumptions later citations are covering content they were originally not intended to. Please review your recent work and add Tempalte:Citations needed where necessary. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Unreferenced comments
You left a strange comment on my Talk page. The references to the Tate entries which you saw fit to revert are both contained in the articles of the people in question. Austin Tate's dob is contained in the infobox on his personal page; Emma Tate's is in a link provided on her page. No research outside those Wikipedia pages was involved. Your comment about defamation is bizarre and your threat vexatious. I do not intend to get involved in an edit war with you by reverting the edits but please use more discretion before reverting bona-fide content and desist from unseemly threats.Rcb1 (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)rcb1
 * Please show me the reliable source that indicates Emma Tate's date of birth, and I'll be happy to revert myself. (IMDB does not qualify as a reliable source for biographical info). OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had taken the IMDB source.  So, on the basis that IMDB needs corroborating,  I have added this further reference: https://www.xappie.com/person/emma-tate/211493, from quite a large number of sources on the Internet, and added it to her pageRcb1 (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)rcb1
 * You may want to review WP:RS; it's very unlikely that anyone would consider a non-notable entertainment/gossip site to meet the criteria there. "Quite a large number of sources" is also not a WP:BLP criteria, as most of those are likely aggregating imdb info. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Request
Hi there Jamie, hope you're doing well. A page that you've protected in the past, Van Cat, is being edit-warred and POV edited with weird WP:OTHER edit-description arguments like this, completely ignoring the origins and historical background. That IP with different range was pushing same POV previously in the page, re-reverting multiple editors and edit-warring:, , , , , , , ,. I left a notice in their talk page but to no avail.

The IP just re-reverted again, calling the 400,000 km2 Armenian highlands a “mountain”. Lead of the article was accurate per Lake Van page as well, where the cats inhabit, but that doesn't stop IPs. Another IP removed information with no explanation. Can you protect the page? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the source that says that cat is from the "Armenian Highlands"? Awhile back I looked for one, but was unable to find a ref. One of the archive pages suggested "Lake Van region," which seems to be consistent with most sources I've seen. At the end of the day, we have to go by what reliable sources says. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Lake Van where the cat originates from, is currently the largest lake in the plateu and has been for quite some time. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the existence of Armenian Highlands as a place. I see that Lake Van is within a region known as the Armenian Highlands, but I have yet to find a source that says that the cat is from that larger region, versus simply from the immediate region of Lake Van, a smaller subset of the larger region. I'd suggest WP:DR, as this is a content dispute. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

AJ Green page
Hello! Thank you for adding temporary protection to the A.J. Green page. I reverted the vandalism posts I saw, but in the future, is there a way I can maybe alert an admin if I see consistent vandalism on a page so that it could get temporary protection? I'm still new to this, so I thought I would ask since you put the protection up. I appreciate your help and have an awesome rest of your day! Spf121188 (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * General rule of thumb; if all of the disruption is from one IP (or similar looking IPs), report to WP:AIV. For the AJ Green case, WP:RFPP was the right place to go given that disruption was coming from a wide variety of IPs. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)