↓↓↓ NEW MESSAGES GO TO THE *BOTTOM*. NOT THE TOP. ↓↓↓
Please add new messages to the bottom of the page. If a conversation is started here, I'll respond here; if it starts on your talk page, I'll respond there.
Contacting me
I prefer to communicate via talk pages. Please only email me if there is a good reason not to conduct a conversation on a talk page. I do not respond to emails regarding link deletions and other issues that should be discussed on your userpage or the article talk page.
Why did you remove my external links?
If you've come here because you want to know why I removed some external links you've added, please read Wikipedia's policies on spam, Wikipedia external link guidelines and conflict-of-interest first. Because of Wikipedia's popularity, it has become a target for folks looking to promote their sites, which is against Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform.
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)[reply]
Perhaps you need to look at 73.123.30.85 (talk·contribs) 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.
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
@Insightisinside: I'd suggest using the Wikipedia: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. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same IP behavior I reported before, from the same range
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). OhNoitsJamieTalk21:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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[reply]
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Amirahtalk23:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. Amirahtalk01:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk03:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup; blocked. (Even aside from that edit, other idiosyncrasies and patterns are a giveaway). Stay tuned for the inevitable outraged appeal. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please look closer at the block; I blocked a rangeon 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. OhNoitsJamieTalk02:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk02:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, a long thread: [[7]]. 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. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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? OhNoitsJamieTalk23:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Diannaa) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Drmies, while cleaning more of the article I've so far found and logged fourfive 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've left a couple of warnings for a new user about their unsourced content[8][9]. I've been reverting some of it on my watchlisted pages, noticing today that they're also logging out to insert it [10][11] which I warned them about on their talkpage [12]. They just left this response on my userpage [13]. 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)[reply]
A goat for you!
Thank you for assuming good faith on my incorrect AIV report. Cheers!
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)[reply]
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | contribs) 14:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
.jpg)