↓↓↓ 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.
I was enlightened that any contribution to interminable disruptive, dispensable modifications will repudiate and confiscate my contemporary (specified) privileges. Which, indeed, my privileges are miniature. I sincerely apologise for my contribution to unnecessary edits. However, from what you mentioned, these edits were ‘Tests’.
I can comprehend that this is no exception, however, I can assure you that I didn’t make any edits which had to be reverted. (No harm was caused, I reverted the edits).
Additionally, I am apprised of Wikipedia’s policy; I had no intentions of contributing to disruptive edits.
In case you weren’t aware, I have made contributions to helping Wikipedia enhance its articles and hope to continue doing so.
Thanks for editing protecting the Eric Peterson article. It needs to be permanent. Temporary is not enough. If they decide to wait it out, they will be back to making sockpuppets to do the same crap they've been doing for months. It shouldn't have taken this long for this to be done. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!21:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said that the early modern section already mentioned the old spelling "Teheran", but I checked before I edited and it wasn't mentioned at all other than in citations. The early modern section actually says "Taheran" and "Tyroan". I thought it would be important to mention the historical name used in English in the 19th and 20th centuries (similar to stuff like Leghorn for Livorno), though you might have a better idea on where it could go other than the etymology section. PikaSamus (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to exhaustively cover every possible transliteration. Do you have a source that says "Teheran" was the common spelling during a particular period? OhNoitsJamieTalk20:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate it, because otherwise I'd be trying to reverse additions by IP addresses... I fear that the page will continue to need semi-protection when this current protection expires, as those people are probably chomping at the bit, just waiting to engage in disruptive editing. Historyday01 (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can ping me directly if it resumes immediately after protection ends. We typically try short protections first, then try progressively longer protection durations if disruption continues. OhNoitsJamieTalk03:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I definitely will. There has already been one protection before, and when it expired, the IP addresses came back, so my guess is it will happen again. Hopefully not, but that is also my guess. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
I'm sorry, but what bad sources? I imported the genetic results from a book (Genetics of Hungarians, by Endre Czeizel) and the data of Székely himnusz from a portal of Lupeni.
( farkaslaka.eu ) CsifoZsombor (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three hours ago, you blocked 107.77.200.143 for abuse of multiple accounts with regard to their edits of Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori. They are already back as 107.77.201.229 (and yesterday it was 2600:1700:fb5:81b0:606d:4611:7ec5:8447). This isn't going to be resolved by blocking a single IP. Agricolae (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I noticed yesterday while asking Thrashon(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) to please WP:ENGAGE, that you had left a previous warning on their talk page about adding OR to articles; Not only has Thrashon ignored my request, he added further OR to Nico Hülkenberg today. [1] - He indeed added the source, but then edits his edit to add in a word that is not used or even implied by the source. I did just send him a message yesterday, so I'll give him more time to reply, but I don't know what else can be done on the OR front. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see "Varniku", he is mostly just insulting me, again. I have been advocating for him to be a good editor but he just can't let go of wanting to insult me and poorly researching topics. --Donald Trung (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP address 2A00:23C6:6A86:E01:7067:E85B:8E25:C7E4
I see that you have (quite rightly) blocked the above IP address for disruptive editing. That user has been behaving in a similar way on the article Little Amal, using two IP addresses, including the above address. The article Little Amal has already been reviewed and accepted for DYK, and will therefore be linked to the main page soon. I would be most grateful if you could please block this IP address (or at least unregistered editors in general) from the Little Amal article, at least until the Little Amal article has appeared on the main page DYK section. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Amara Sulya Freedom Movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Julius Darius Jones
Thanks for reverting. Please consider protecting the page from IP edits, it is highly likely to keep getting vandalized in the build up to his execution and I cannot keep reverting all the pro death penalty advocates who will keep vandalizing the page. 3 IP's have already done so and the page has been up less than 2 days. Please get it protected from IP edits for at least a week or two. Thanks. Inexpiable (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rangeblocked one of the users; the last edits were most likely from an unrelated user (very different location). I would've call this particularly disruptive; it's arguably unnecessary details, but certainly not vandalism or a blatant policy violation. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is that the sources they are using are flimsy at best, a book written 40 years after the fact through here say interviews, and to add insult to injury the editor does not faithfully relate what is in the book, for example the book states that the children of Fatima practiced fasting and contrition, so the editor changed that to "the children committed suicide by starving themself" and that summarizes every point in their controversy section, it is no more than cherry picking, personal opinions and taking statements out of context, in fact no a single authority on the subject ever claimed such points as controversy in the last 100 years or so, i tried to reason with the editor but they are being very stubborn and childish. please help with this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i can not belive you sent me a final warning when i am the victim here, why would i receive the final warning?i tried to reason with Spyrazzle, point by point, his editing of the page page is no more then personal opinions and interpretations of some flimsy sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hello, i have written this in the talk section, i believe my points are very reasonable, if the editor Spyrazzle does not make the changes would you be kind enough to step in and remove the controversy section???
the controversy section is very misleading, all of your points come from de marchi's book which IS a flimsy source and to add insult to injury you add your twist and interpretations to his words, you are not dealing in good faith, only interested in adding your personal displeasure of the apparitions and make it seem as a legit controversial points when they are not, fasting becomes suicide, a nightmare becomes demon possession, acts of contrition becomes self harm, and finally and unsubstantiated claim about an unfulfilled prophecy about ww1 taken from de marchi's book, and never ever mentioned in the thousands of other sources on the subject, i tried to explain to you that people faith and beliefs are issues that you should not troll, but you still show your deep bigotry. to summarize, unless you can find another respectable source beside an out of print book written by here say accounts after 40 years from the events then you need to drastically change the controversy section,all entries frm de marchi's book ned o be scraped or at least do the following: change the language, don't write the statement as matter of fact, write de marchi wrote in his book that people he interviewed claimed so and so, keep in mind he never interviewed any of the children even lucia who was almost impossible to get access to her during her life, and yet you claim de marchi as a close friend of hers which is not true. you can keep the entries from lucias memoirs about the blood on the penitence cords, keep it word for word and do not add your spin to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick one, I just saw a warning template that you edited warning an IP. It’s one of the best I’ve seen and had me giggling for a few minutes, where you stated you will demand the editor be blocked. Equine-man (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for protecting the page, you did not hide these vandal edits. Please do it. Also please take a look at the talk page history for similar violations, I have reverted it but it is better if they are removed as BLP violations. SeeVenkat TL (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, so I got a message saying that one or more of my recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I am a little confused and a bit upset because I was writing on the sexual assault cases that came to light. I can find more verifiable sources if that is what is missing here but I was reporting objectively on what had happened. If I am wrong please let me know because I am new so I may not completely have understood the guidelines.
EverFree66 (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear
I got a message that you point the Hecta token an advertising page but this is not true due the most important to this page was multi functuality that this token present and this is a novel ecosystem in cryptocurrency in compare of others. If you want to know which page act as an adv please see safemoon page or shiba inu crypto. please before any acting go through the talk page of contributor and talk with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypto.en (talk • contribs) 16:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was zero evidence of notability. If at some point there are third-party reliable sources about the topic, a contributor can go through the WP:AFC process to create the article. Also, I'd suggest that you not address people as "dear" here. In some regional varieties of English (including American English), it comes across as patronizing. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This is a little different; looks like they are trying to add material this time, and there is disagreement as to whether sources are RS. I'd treat that as any other 3RR dispute. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Creating Separate Article for City Brains.
Kindly Help me out in creating a separate article for the City Brain, As it is everytime giving an error while publishing the page. That is why I tried to remove the Links in the main article of Alibaba to the City Brain.
Hello there. You edited the St Ambrose College page back on 16 November, removing two individuals under the 'Former Pupils'. I'm not going to debate the actual edit, that is for the page's 'Talk Page'. However, I was just wondering what is the significance of the 'nn' comment you left. I'm fairly new to editing so sorry if it is a well-know editing initialism. Stuart Newmanite (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, partial blocks can cover up to 10 targets. It looks like they haven't edited one page for a few days, and are using the talk page for Koch dynasty which is good. Let's hold off for now since it appears they're making an effort to follow WP:BRD. If that changes, feel free to ping me. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OhNoitsJamie
Hi there. I see you just reverted my edits under Non-fungible token. While I agree with you that this page isn't supposed to list every NFT project, the one I listed is a particularly important one in that (a) it has been covered by BBC, which gives a lot of credibility to the space, and (b) it appears to be the first project where equity is given in the original work. This are both significant advancements in the space and should be noted. I would appreciate it if you kindly un-reverted my changes (not sure if that's a word but I'm sticking with it! Thanks Knightingales (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edit summary link towards this. But, just to be clear, if I add a reference to thegenealogist.co.uk, in support of an entry on WDYTYA?, for a bio article (because that's where the supporting research for the TV programme is generally detailed), it will get summarily removed as "COI spam"?? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are better links available; the link to the actual episode on the BBC, as well as whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com, which is licensed by the television program. At the moment, I'm only removing entries added by the COI user. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The references to thegenealogist.co.uk generally have far more information than the TV programme itself. We've agreed somewhere that references to the thegenealogist.co.uk are now blacklisted? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think blacklisting is merited at this point (the COI user has been given a warning, and seems to be the only user adding the links). I'm simply replacing links that were added by that user, not all of the links in general. I don't think thegenealogist is a strong WP:RS candidate, as it's trying to sell subscriptions and doesn't appear to have the editorial oversight that other sources do. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the BBC programmes are produced using different teams of independent researchers. It's then a decision of those research teams to sell their background research work to thegenealogist.co.uk, if they wish. The tie-in with the BBC series is a good promotional tool for thegenealogist.co.uk. That website has to generate revenue somehow, just like any other commercial organisation. And yes individual subscriptions are the obvious choice. The Times and The Daily Telegraph also have to try and sell as many subscriptions as possible. We tend to think of them as WP:RS?! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not unreasonable. But if the resulting "punishment of the SPA" means that the source in question, although still a useful or even unique one, is "outlawed" en masse, it looks a bit like Wikipedia cutting off its citation nose to spite it's bio article face? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd beg to differ. I think it's "sub-optimal" to describe certain links as "COI-links" for evermore, thanks to the reckless spamming of one individual editor (who has presumably been deservedly blocked). I also suspect that, in some cases at least, thegenealogist.co.uk offers a greater level of detail than any other written source (and certainly greater than the BBC show itself), and of course provides a written alternative to watching the entire BBC programme. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hardly ideal then. I guess you'll be replacing any BBC iPlayer link with a WDYTYA? Magazine link (assuming there's a magazine article for every episode). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from TheGenealogist, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! And now I see you got the AfD going before I even finished editing the DEPROD template. Apologies for the unnecessary notice. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a heads up, I went ahead and suppressed the revdel on the Child abuse page you did a few days ago (I have it watchlisted basically only for the purpose of catching revdels that should be suppressions.) Anything like that normally should be routed to the oversight team because it's pretty much #1 on the list of things we will suppress without question. You didn't do anything wrong, just giving you a heads up for the future :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jaime. It was suggested that it might be a good idea to contact an administrator directly about this, so here I am. I can't say conclusively, but these two very much appear to be the same person. While the named account isn't an outright vandal, I'm wondering if an indefinite block might be in order, filed under WP:NOTHERE, among some other things. See IJBall's statement here (User talk:IJBall#Talk:Just Roll with It#Cancelled), where he mentions giving the aforementioned IP a warning for personal attacks. The aforementioned IP has also outed themselves not too long ago at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel#Show Cancelled: OH finally, if you ban me as I was warned I will just make a new account. IP addresses aren't permanent. While they don't specifically mention the Peacerocker07 account, I think it's pretty clear, at least to me, that it's them. And they're basically threatening to evade their block, if they're blocked, by creating other accounts and using other IP addresses. And based on messaging style (wording, formatting, etc.), I'm also sure 96.40.135.81, whose only contribution is to that discussion on the Just Roll with It talk page, is also Peacerocker07. I can't say whether or not this Hulk account, which has also commented on the Disney Channel talk page there, is also Peacerocker07. I don't think they are and are a totally separate user, but the IPs definitely appear to be. Based on their threats to sock, I don't think Peacerocker07 is really here to contribute anything useful. Thanks in advance for looking into this. Amaury • 05:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar enough with the situation (and topic area) to block anyone per WP:DUCK here. I'd suggest filing a sockpuppet investigation if you think there is strong evidence that multiple accounts are being abused. Independent on the multiple accounts issue, the IP can be blocked if they make further personal attacks or other disruption; at the moment, they're appropriately using talk pages to discuss the issue, albeit perhaps not in the most constructive manner. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello OhNoitsJamie. I never intended to hurt or disrupt Wikipedia. I just wanted to enlighten people about the wonders of different cities that do not own a collage in their Wikipedia page, like Chelyabinsk and Sydney. Could I have permission to continue??? I never meant anything bad for the community, and all the pictures are owned from me. I name the montages because me and some people around me call collages that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geografreak (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already have collage templates for making collages that use the original images; using the templates gives better control over the quality of the original images and provides for better flexibility. Adding a single composite collage is not an improvement in any way. If you continue adding these composite images, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if possible, can you limit my talk page range to autoconfirmed and extended confirmed users only, please? I'm facing this since more than three months now and my talk really needs protection from all this harassment and abusing thing. ManaliJain (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Partial-rangeblocks are a preferred solution here. We try to avoid any kind of protection on talk pages unless it can't be controlled via blocks; let's continue with that for now. Semi-protection is a possibility, but I don't see any argument for extended confirmed protection. Regarding the annoyance of getting pings from them, you can disable notifications from specific users by going to your user "preferences" -> "notifications" -> "Mute users." OhNoitsJamieTalk14:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi, thanks for clarifying that sockpuppet user. For me, I always have good faith assumption for every editor that approached me. And what I did is always the same thing, guide them one by one on how to write Wikipedia articles properly for them to submit through AfC, but not simply use my autopatrolled authority to publish their article into the main space. Chongkian (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you a favor, or if you can redirect this inquiry of mine to any admin that can do the task. I wrote/created the article Chung Li-he Museum on 17 August 2013. But on 15 September 2021, User:Sheijiashaojun black/empty my article and change/add a redirect link my article to the new name (probably name correction spelling error) to article Chung Li-ho Museum which is new article created on 15 September 2021 by that User:Sheijiashaojun. By right User:Sheijiashaojun should 'move' the original Chung Li-he Museum I created on 17 August 2013 to the new name Chung Li-ho Museum, instead of redirecting the old one and create new one (to maintain the full history and creation history of the article). Do you know how to clear this mess? Thanks. Chongkian (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sir, this is just to inform you that i strongly suspect users Kelly willikjamp, Thw ILLusionist and DCSozil for possibly abusing multiple accounts, these uses are repeatedly adding poorly sourced content on Economy of Maharashtra, i strongly suspect that the above mentioned users are sock-puppets of AMRozil whom you blocked on the Kolkata wiki page, i have studied these users edit histories and i can safely say that it shows a lot of similarities to the edit histories of AMRozil , Sniper 65k and Precious dracula etc. Their edit summaries are also similar.
I have provided reliable sources for the GDP of maharastra and its clear from the source that the GDP is $32.24 trillion for 2020-2021 <ref name="Budget Analysis">{{cite web|title=Maharashtra Budget Analysis 2020-21|url=https://www.prsindia.org/parliamenttrack/budgets/maharashtra-budget-analysis-2020-21|website=PRS Legislative Research|access-date=25 March 2020}}</ref> but these users are maliciously reducing it to $26.61 trillion. all these users have just one motive and that is to reduce the economy of India, indian cities, states and provinces. I request you to please take the necessary action.
It was not necessary to lock this page due to so-called ‘disruptive editing’. The only disruption was from the editor who insisted on repeatedly reverting a factual edit. Michael Bates is not the Prince of Sealand. That is a fact, not an opinion. Whilst I am not disputing the notability of Sealand and the situation around it, an encyclopaedia should not be listing a real person under a fictional title. Bates is only notable as someone who has styled himself as the ruler of a territory his family has claimed as a micronation. That’s how he should be listed - not as a Prince. 85.255.236.129 (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sir, it seems as if every hour a new sockpuppet gets created and again the same editing pattern this time the user is Ronoj Sen and this user is also making the same edits just as the other blocked sockpuppets. Vijaydanny (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Conroy editing Blocks
I noticed on my page that you had blocked my ip address from making edits, I think you got the wrong Ip address. It is not a problem for me, since I have never made an edit on kevin Conroy , maybe you should check to see as you may need to block another person to get the edits your talking about blocked.2603:6011:DD01:5046:B1DA:D272:DA1A:1820 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An IP range that your current IP is a part of is blocked only from editing Kevin Conroy. There are no other restrictions on your range, so if you have no interest in editing the Kevin Conroy article, you needn't worry about it. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
For blocking a disruptive IP after they had been reported and received a final warning, and resumed editing. I noticed you were actively blocking other IPs on the list and so I pinged you since I was unable to re-report the IP since their previous report had not been cleared. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am Mirza Maulana Yasoob Abbas and I am only Editing my Wikipedia.. You Can take Reference that I am Shia "Mirza" and My Father Is Mirza Mohammad Athar.. Please Tell me how I will edit my Wikipedia Profile..Because Everyone is Changing it...You can also refer My Blue Tick Facebook Account "Yasoob Abbas" And take the Information from there ... Who we not (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects of Wikipedia biographies do not "own" the articles about themselves. All material in Wikipedia must be reliably sourced; regardless of who you are, your personal declaration does not constitute a reliable source in this context. A personal Facebook profile is an acceptable source for some information, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Please review WP:AUTO#IFEXIST. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RFPP
Hi Jamie - hope you are well. I see you've recently been active at WP:RFPP. I logged this one earlier today, but it's slipped through the net. Please could you take a look. No problem if you decline it. Thanks! LugnutsFire Walk with Me18:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
15:58, 13 December 2021 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs changed block settings for 2a02:c7f:8000::/33 talk blocking the page Steve Soley with an expiration time of 1 year (anon. only) (Block evasion: feel free to add targets to this partial block)
Hey! I'm not jamie, but I can tell you that you were blocked because of block evasion, you are only blocked from certain pages until a certain time. Sans9k (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you the same people who vandalized those pages or what? If so, your blocked from the pages for a year unless you request to get access to those pages. Sans9k (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're only blocked from editing 3 out of over 6 million pages on Wikipedia! If you're not the person the block is intended for, there's nothing for you to worry about! OhNoitsJamieTalk18:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your request was already addressed. For the last time, there's no reason to remove your site from the blacklist, and I'm not discussing it further. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if I disturbed you. I apologize for that. Maybe I explained it wrong way.
Let me quote your words. You said, "If the link is keeping you from editing Spacious, you can make a whitelist request so that the corp link can remain there. I asked this.
Not for the domain again. Last night got the reason finally! Ans thanks for your co-operation.
The whitelisting is no longer necessary after I changed the link to simply reflect the domain name. There's nothing else to tell you that I haven't already told you. Please do not post on my talk page about this again. 21:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
range
is huge--but of the last 500 edits, 170 are marked as "reverted", and a ton of edits I looked are vandalism, and I reverted some more. Don't really know what to do--but I think a block is appropriate. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie. I came across your blocking of this IP, and their changes and attitude looked reminiscent of a few IP editors who keep popping up and showing similar patterns of editing - often Australian and in particular South Australian, middle Eastern and Indian focused articles, also crime and passports/nationality, sometimes adding images, usually poorly written and sources with bare urls. I cannot find them all now (I think this was one of the early ones), and I don't know what, if anything can be done when you suspect it's the same person but they keep switching IPs. Their edit summaries are often combative, often revert other users' reverts, and don't show any willingness to learn how to properly format citations, or any other aspects of good editing. Anyway, for what it's worth, there is this one and this one.
Separately, I noticed that this one keeps blanking the warnings on their talk page - although I don't think the same as above.
Just passing it on in case there is something you can do to keep an eye on them... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that all sounds very familiar, especially the "poorly written" and "combative" parts. I looked at their recent edits, definitely the same voice (e.g., "lady who was shot dead"). Thanks for catching that! OhNoitsJamieTalk01:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Having just read the CIR page, unfortunately this editor falls into the category addressed in the very last paragraph, having shown themselves to be uncooperative and antagonistic, and unlikely to improve. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.
Sealand
Blocking my IP address because of so-called 'disruptive' editing to the Michael Bates article was completely inappropriate. Have you even looked at the edits, or are you just pushing your own agenda? Whatever you, I or other edits might think about it, the FACTS are that this is NOT a sovereign country or even a partially recognised one. It's the project of one family. Simply calling yourself royalty does not make it true. Also, the most recent edits, commenting that Michael Bates is not a self-proclaimed prince, are inaccurate. His father was not in a position to bestow a royal title, so even if he did 'declare' his son the Prince of Sealand, it's meaningless. Michael Bates is still trying to claim the title as legitimate, therefore he is self-proclaimed. 2A00:23C7:8905:CC01:791F:C50E:DD44:B86 (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're blocked because you were edit-warring from multiple IP addresses. You're not blocked from editing talk pages related to Sealand, where you may try to establish a consensus for your suggestions. I'm not interested in discussing Sealand on my talk page, and further comments about Sealand here will be removed. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My IP address is generated automatically - it's rarely the same twice. It's not an attempt to pretend to be more than one user. If you didn't want to discuss this on your talk page, you shouldn't have instituted the block.
Why, when I make a factual change, is it 'edit warring', yet someone else reverting each time is fine? It takes two. Also, if you look at the Michael Bates talk page, I HAVE raised this issue there. Anyone wishing to put a case for using a self-created, unrecognised royal title on a Wikipedia page could have done so, and could still do so. Yet they just revert with no explanation or justification. Who is starting the edit war here? 2A00:23C7:8905:CC01:791F:C50E:DD44:B86 (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained why you were partial-blocked. It should be clear by now that I'm not going to unblock you. You're welcome to follow the instructions at WP:GAB. Good luck. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have tried to clean-up the infoboxes in Alaettin Çakıcı, Sedat Peker, Ali Yasak, Dündar Kılıç, Savaş Buldan, Ömer Lütfü Topal, Sami Hoştan. This is just removing info that doesn't belong -mostly redundant nationality per WP:INFONAT and
unsourced/non-notable relatives (including the listing of children's names instead of just the number). A changing IP reverts every change within a day. Either they don't read the edit summaries or don't agree with the rational. Because the IP changes, I can't discuss and/or issue templated warning messages about this being disruptive. The edit history of Sedat Peker shows them making the same edits multiple times in the past several weeks, from IPs beginning with 88.234 & 88.236. This isn't vandalism, but still disruptive editing against project consensus. Is this enough disruption for a block? If not, what else? Thanks. MB19:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested to know, whenever you have a chance, what you think was going on with "that" account. To me it looked like a compromised account with a bot behind it or something? Mako001 (C) (T) (The Alternate Mako)13:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the mix of familiarity and missing competence, likely a user previously blocked for disruption. I don't know off the top of my head which one, but not that unusual of a pattern. (update) I see now there is some speculation on which sock it is; apparently Yamla confirmed it. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie, you've removed my link from the LinkedIn article. I've replaced the original broken link: https://www.networkcomputing.com/networking/what-linkedin-endorsements-mean-you with a fresh working link. The new link has the same content as the broken link, plus even more extended information about the topic. If the original link and linked content was acceptable, then the new link and content should be acceptable as well.
Why is that site not reliable? It's online since 2015 and has a lot of accurate information about linkedin, free resources, not just selling products and services. Actually, the article you've linked from businessinsider, only includes information about accepting and giving endorsements, it does not explain what endorsements are, no historial data, nothing. The article that I linked and that you call "unreliable" source has actually more information and more accurate information about the endorsements.
Please help me, I just try to understand the moderation rules. So basically, as I see, promoting businessinsider (which is a clearly for protif organisation) with a less informative article is perfectly fine. Ok, I don't agree, but I accept it. But please explain why?
WP:RS should make it clear why a site offering to sell LinkedIn recommendations does not qualify as a reference. I'm not explaining further. Please promote your business elsewhere. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question About IP Address Block (2600:1003:B02C:FD04:D465:6688:7B2D:2E18)
A block notice for my IP Address, under the reason of disruptive editing, had recently ended and I wanted to ask what specific reason there was for the block (i.e. not explaining reason for my edits of 1960 USA Presidential Election page, not citing enough sources for the page, etc.) and how I could avoid further blocks in the future.
Looks like "collateral damage" from a rangeblock to this range, which was also being used by a different block-evading editor making disruptive genre changes (e.g., [12],[13]). Rangeblocks are sometimes called for if a disruptive user is using dynamic IPs, but unfortunately they can affect innocent users as well. For users on dynamic ranges that are caught in long or frequent rangeblocks, we recommend creating an account. OhNoitsJamieTalk11:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Racism in Canada
Hi, I'm not entirely sure as to why Racism in Canada was semi-protected for disruptive editing. I do think that the reasons laid out per the IPs were quite constructive. It definitely is quite concerning that CASalt had indeed not merged the two pages appropriately, leaving out vital information over the definition of the word. I mean there has to be some sort of a conflict of interest here with their name, and that them requesting for semi-protection was a way to "lock out" IPs from editing, refusing to properly respond to the issues raised in the edit summaries. 188.113.161.59 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
The Malaysia/Singapore football pages IP vandal has jumped to 2405:3800:900:0:0:0:0:0/40. However, a block extending to 2405:3800:900:0:0:0:0:0/40 may effectively block the entire ISP on their IPv6 address space. Currently, it seems that IP editors are coming out only from the 800 and 900 space. – robertsky (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 recent posts in this blocked range
that are asking for an unblock. I've never even tried to unblock individual IP addresses from a range, is that possible? Or just advise them to get an account?[14]Doug Wellertalk11:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have anything akin to whitelisting within a rangeblock; ACC would be the way to go. It could be unfortunate collateral damage, but most of the edits from that range appear to be from the same disruptive editor, and this was the second block in 2021. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
I see you're the administrator who locked the page Straits Settlements. If you looked at the previous edits, the edits made were not disruptive or vandalism and were made in an effort to improve the article. The reports and continuous reverts made by the user Chipmunkdavis are frivolous and merely stems from the fact that they wish to remove content that they do not like. I assume because these are IP editors they probably thought it would be much easier to just brush it aside. Everyone should be invited to edit to make improvements. 220.87.216.167 (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the edits, and it's clear someone is abusing multiple accounts, hence the protection. Everyone is welcome to suggest improvements on the article's talk page. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I hadn't noticed that; I saw some obvious COI editing and assumed it was new. I can either (1) leave it be as is; I acknowledge that it was too old to draftify, but it clearly doesn't meet notability guidelines; or (2) move it back to article space and AfD it. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sir I mean to put biography instead of biology.Sir I'm sorry if you please could please retrieve my again. I'm sorry for my typo. Please respond if I'm doing something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricaneinfomation. (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few minutes ago you removed content from my edits due to me not providing a full explanation -- this is fully understood. If you could tell me which page this was I will make sure to go back and add a summary.
Ah, I see what you are saying about that. I believe (according to my editing history) what happened was that when I was editing through for grammar, I accidentally moved some of the brackets that denote a source and through this deleted the sources. That was all a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soudgfkj (talk • contribs) 01:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Hi
Many thanks for your help on the page Artificial intelligence art. But since the user Elspea756 came along last July and rewrote the entire page without any discussion it has not really been the same.
When I try to start to edit it again to make it better they always end up jumping down my throat and I end up walking away. I find it hard to believe that someone with only a few prior posts to the first edit on Artificial intelligence art can have that much wikipedia knowledge about how to edit wikipedia etc. I suspect they are using or have accesss to multiple accounts.
But anyway it is what it is, have a good 2022! Take care
Norttis (talk) 17.44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
XKCD references
Thanks for your message ("Please read Wikipedia:Xkcd_in_popular_culture and WP:IPCEXAMPLES.") - got it, won't do that again!
Hi! Pretty sure the user you temporarily blocked for disruptive editing on Zawe Ashton made a sock account to make the same exact edit as they did here. LADY LOTUS • TALK01:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie! Please check out this request. Did you intend to install PC for 3 months and it just didn’t happen? Or is there some misunderstanding? (BTW I think your “PC for 3 months” is a good call; I'd have done it myself but I didn’t want to do anything without checking with you.) -- MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, either I forgot to hit "enter," or I actually left 3 months PC on an adjacent request; have you noticed that occasionally trying to edit a section takes you to the wrong section? (either an app glitch or some stray markup I'm guessing). Thanks for catching that, fixed! OhNoitsJamieTalk04:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have noticed that. Usually I realize the glitch before I post to the wrong entry, but not always. Anyhow, glad you and the bot got things worked out. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that that only used to happen to me on the old RFPP page, before they put in those subpages that are actually not on the RFPP page but are transclusions. I found that system confusing, so I do all my patrolling directly from the "requests for increase" page (my own private redirect: WP:RFPPI) and I haven't ever had the wrong-section problem on that page. I'm not techie enough to know if that's significant or just a coincidence. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) When you edit a section of a page, it's actually referred to by number, not title. At this moment, my browser displays "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie&action=edit§ion=93" in its bar. Now, if a busy bot has archived some older entries while you were editing a recent one, section numbers will have shifted down by the time you hit save. I wouldn't call it a glitch, but as a feature it's questionable. Favonian (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that explains it. And if someone has added a new request while I was editing, the sections would shift up, right? When I encounter this problem (if I realize it!) I just reload the page, whereupon all the sections are right again. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is this IP hopper who is persistently adding incorrect soundtrack credit in film articles, probably for self-promotion because there's no other reason why they should do it. See IPs (49.15.***.*** & 27.97.***.***) [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. This person managed to obtain circular references for Meppadiyan[25] and Hridayam[26] that copied his own hijacked version of the article and cited it back into the same articles. If you google his name there's actually an IMDb page and other pages for this composer, but if you look deeper you can see that he's an amateur teenager who has uploaded exactly 3 music videos on YouTube (which is not original but altered version of existing works). I guess what he's trying to do is obtaining circular references mentioning his name as the composer of notable films so that he can promote himself as a music composer and create composer's profile (like the one in IMDb) at popular music websites that still needs more sources for verification. Please respond. --2409:4073:4D9E:8707:A480:A7C5:EAA1:6B9C (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Unsilenced, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BOVINEBOY200811:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jamie, a few months ago I made an article called Baarish Ki Jaaye which was also accepted by the reviewer. But a reviewer redirected that article on B Praak article (Musical Notability). Due to a lot of experience, the administrators are included in the group, so I request you to review it. Please check once. Thank you. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞03:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie On 13 September you protected a number of pages and rangeblocked a group of COI/paid editors repeatedly trying to enforce "their" versions of Italian Telecom company articles. The relevant log entries are:-
14:13, 13 September 2021 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs changed block settings for 151.24.0.0/16 talk blocking the pages PosteMobile, Wind (Italy), Vodafone Italy, WIND, Wind Tre, TIM, CoopVoce, Iliad SA, Wind (disambiguation) and TIM San Marino with an expiration time of 3 months (anon. only) (Disruptive editing)
14:10, 13 September 2021 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs blocked 151.15.0.0/16 talk with an expiration time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing: same disruption as last block)
14:09, 13 September 2021 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs blocked 151.24.0.0/16 talk from the page PosteMobile with an expiration time of 3 months (anon. only) (Disruptive editing)
14:08, 13 September 2021 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs protected PosteMobile [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 14:08, 27 September 2021) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 14:08, 27 September 2021) (Persistent disruptive editing) (hist) (thank)
I have explained why saying that Feijoada originated in Brazil is wrong. I have provided a source. Like I've said more than once, the article is about Feijoada. It is not about Brazilian Feijoada specifically. Just because (Brazilian) Feijoada is Brazil's national dish, does not mean that Feijoada as a whole originated in Brazil. Brazilian Feijoada, with black beans, is an adaptation of Portuguese Feijoada, which on its own also has several variations. What you are doing is called cultural appropriation. All the sources you and other users who claim Feijoada originated in Brazil have provided are merely referring to the variant that is Brazil's national dish. This is obvious when you realize that the central ingredient is black beans. Feijoada was already a dish in Portugal before the Portuguese even knew of the existance of black beans.
It was only once Portuguese people who moved to Brazil started adapting Feijoada to local ingredients that a Feijoada with black beans came to fruition, and it was only after the local population adapted this recipe that the typical Brazilian Feijoada came to be.
Although I respect your opinion, this is simply power abuse. What you are doing is essentially like looking up a source on the origins of Angolan Feijoada and then using that as evidence that Feijoada originated in Angola. Much like in other countries with their own versions of Feijoada, in Angola, Angolan Feijoada is also simply called "Feijoada", yet this article is about all Feijoadas in the Portuguese-speaking world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeijoadaOriginatedInPortugal (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi could you block this user 203.192.253.122. This is because of making disruptive editing and removing content in pages Sarrainodu , Singam without any explanation. It’s better to block him so that such disruptive editing doesn’t happen and also otherwise he will blank out the content and remove them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoder2055 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you deleted this as a CSD G5 but I can't see that a ban evading editor created this draft. It was brought to my attention because you didn't delete the draft talk page (something which often seems to happen in mass page deletions) but I was curious and went into the deleted page history and it doesn't look like the page creator was ever blocked so I thought I'd inquire about this. Thanks! LizRead!Talk!21:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're correct. I just saw this blocked ranged editing it and assumed it was the same self-promoting block evader. I'm not going to argue if you think it should be procedurally restored. It's quite likely the creator is the editor behind the IP range, but they were not blocked when the draft was created.OhNoitsJamieTalk21:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Morrison Page Changes
Regarding your comments
Shirts
The links/citations provided are to substantiate the statement made about the phrase. I consider it important to provide examples to ensure the words can be verified.
So I am clear, you are prefering no references to illustrate the statement?
Nuetral
I am unsure how you believe my comments to not be neutral. Without any examples I am unable to agree and I am unable to know what you would like changed.
Can I please ask that you provide more details, as the amount of content you have removed is substantial.
Wanted to alert you to a passage that you undid on the French language page. You undid a passage about Louisiana becoming the first U.S. state to join the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie in 2018, which is a major development and led to the creation of institutions to promote the French language in the United States. I wanted to suggest adding this information back in the paragraph on the Americas to contextualize modern developments for the French language.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizeuo (talk • contribs)
Thank you for your message. I saw your posting the COI, and I don't see any criterion that applies. I wanted to add information about note-worthy developments and added a page on an organization in Louisiana that promotes the state's minority French culture. The article on the Nous Foundation was written as objectively as possible. And the article published on Nola.com does mention the organization and what it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizeuo (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not. I am familiar with the organization through my interest in French in Louisiana Arizeuo (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Additional source materials from Radio Canada were added to the Nous Foundation article to ensure objectivity. Arizeuo (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jamie. You have restored text which contains a link to doxxing of a Wikipedia editor at Ketanji Brown Jackson.[27] I had previously revdel'd that text, because the Politico article mentions both an editor's username and their real name. Compare this discussion. I guess I give up. I've reported it to the oversighters; not sure if they'll think it needs suppressing. I'm bowing out. Bishonen | tålk18:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Apologies; I didn't realize there had been prior concerns raised about the naming of an editor; I'd made the assumption based on the source that the name was well-known, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. I've revdel'd those edits. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my revdels would speak for themselves, but I guess I didn't count on there being so many quick edits after mine in the history, making my actions easier to miss. An oversighter has now indeed suppressed the edits I revdel'd. I've written to them again, asking for further suppression. Bishonen | tålk19:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Much as I like both of you kids, I think we have to face the fact that that train has long, long since pulled out of the station, and that our efforts look sinister and self-serving to the non-Wikipedians out there. A species of Streisand effect has hit this editor like a rocket, and there's not a darned thing we can do about it. --Orange Mike | Talk19:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noahidism page has been continuously edited with antisemitic articles. These articles are not factual, and constitute harassment and a hate crime of a protected class. You have reverted the page back to this standing. This issue has been escalated to Admin via email to be addressed and if the problem is not rectified, further action will be taken. 2.53.157.239 (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you happen to know the procedure for reporting an obvious serial sockpuppet who is now circumventing blocks on Wikepedia and using Wikiquotes to canvas for their changes? Is it as simple as just reporting it to sock puppet investigations if the account name they're using isn't also active on Wikipedia? Thanks! NJZombie (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. The user has a history of first, making changes against consensus regarding the decade headers in horror film, and second, canvassing other users, including myself to make the changes for them since all of their accounts get blocked and articles protected. [29] They've recently started going to other Wiki sites and making attempts to do the same. Today they asked three editors, including myself and User:Grandpallama, another editor typically pestered by Jiniffer, to make their changes via Wikiquote.[30]NJZombie (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the warnings you've received on your previous accounts, the material you keep adding is not sourced; that is, you've provided no reliable sources to support the assertion that the individual you keep adding identifies as a Khatri. We'll continue to block your new accounts attempting to do the same thing. If you decide that you are willing to follow Wikipedia policy, you can request to be unblocked from your original account. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of it. I'm on mobile right now, or I would have pulled some diffs together and brought it to SPI. I've added some more articles to my watchlist and will keep my eyes open. Thanks again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My memory is hazy on that particular sock, but we certainly don't need any more genre-warring only accounts. If you see other accounts you suspect to be socks, you can always file an WP:SPI. OhNoitsJamieTalk02:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you please have a word with AbdSafMor92250? They kept test editing (creating a mess[35][36]) and then they started replacing sourced content with stuff they collected from god knows where while refusing to provide an explanation when asked multiple times. I have filed a WP:AIV report, but unfortunately, it hasn't attracted anyone's attention. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user (User:2A02:C7E:800:0:0:0:0:0/37) was one you partially banned for doing disruptive edits on an article. They have now gone on to do exclusively disruptive edits on other articles. Please ban them.
2A02:C7E:800:0:0:0:0:0/37 isn't a single IP, but rather a range of millions of IPs. In some cases, a user's Internet service provider uses a dynamic pool of IPs, such that over a period of minutes their IP changes frequently to another address within that range. Rangeblocks are used in such cases, but they have the disadvantage of affecting all users in that range, including good-faith editors. In this instance, I actually partially blocked that range from editing a single article which greatly reduces the potential for "collateral damage." What disruption are you referring to? Looking at recent edits from that range, I'm seeing a mix of good-faith edits and a few questionable ones. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
jeenyuhs
hello. i wanted to add a credit to jeen-yuhs wiki page. if you watch act 1 you see the original score is a band called live footage. Kudzu159 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your quick action on that. The same person is currently editing under these IP addresses: [39][40][41]. As you can see, they only started editing all of those Olympics articles the moment the first two IP ranges were blocked. And here are some other pages that might be relevant: [42][43]. - PM800 (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure those are all related. The second one geolocates to the same area as the previous block evasion, but the first and third are likely different editors. I rangeblocked 83.220.227.0/24; that range has previously been blocked for block evasion (not sure if it's the same editor, though). OhNoitsJamieTalk14:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) The block has expired, so this is not “evasion” (not to say that I disagree with the block in the first place)
2) I made the edits, then you made your “cleanups”. Where’s disruptive editing?
3) Finally, I addressed you on your talk page to resolve the matter, listing what I disagree with. You response? None. Instead you run to “report” me.
Shall I create an account to avoid being disregarded like that? 2A00:1FA0:8494:5271:4C88:96A3:F887:CFF7 (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He’s just “archived” his talk page without responding. If anything, he’s the one behaving totally inappropriate and like a child to be honest. And still, I’m not interested in pushing my versions of the pages, if he feels better knowing that he “owns” those pages, be it. 2A00:1FA0:8494:5271:4C88:96A3:F887:CFF7 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've included my IP, as part of a range, into a partial block for alleged offenses on pages I never visited, let alone edited.
I recently obtained this IP address (January 2022) and if I understand this correctly, it appears that my IP address may exist in a wide range of IP addresses that you may have partially blocked, in an attempt to block one or two offending individuals. Or, at least, that is what I think has happened.
The following is a description found on the top of my current User Contribution page:
"This IP address is currently partially blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 21:58, 14 July 2021 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs blocked 2601:543:4200::/39 talk from the pages Louis Armstrong award and Gideon Stargrave with an expiration time of 1 year (anon. only) (Long-term abuse)"
Sometimes rangeblocks are necessary to prevent disruption from individuals who use shared dynamic IP addresses. This particular range has a partial-block, meaning it only prevents uses on that range from editing the pages listed in the partial block. If you're not intending to edit those pages, the block doesn't affect you and you needn't worry about it. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a partial block targeting a single editor on a large range that was disrupting a caste article; the diffs above appear to be unrelated, and it's not clear to me what the disruption is in this case. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Warnings don't "expire"; if you were to re-add this or anything like it tomorrow or a year from now, you would be blocked. However, per WP:OWNTALK, you're free to delete other's comments from your own talk page in most cases, which serves as a tacit acknowledgement of your receipt of the message. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are well. An editor came to my talk page to inquire about recreating this article and you protected it so that it's limited to template editors. But it doesn't look like a template page so I'm wondering if this was a mistake when you scrolled down the list of editor groups. Can you check on it? Many thanks. LizRead!Talk!23:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used to use that protection level simply as an alternative to "admin-only" protection; another admin had mentioned using it in that way, and I think even gave me a policy link, but as I've been unable to find that link, I've gone back to using "admin-only" protections for WP:SALT. The short answer is that it has nothing to do with templates, was just intended to be slightly softer protection than admin-only (I just changed protection to admin-only to avoid future confusion). If you look at this edit history, you can see that we've had a lot of sockpuppetry around trying to create this article, so I'd be very suspicious of a new user trying to recreate it. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across articles like this, but I guess my personal reaction was, "What? I can't edit that page either?!" ;-) I had never seen editing limited to template editors except for on template pages, and highly used templates at that, so I thought it was just a simple mistake. Thanks for clarifying things for me. LizRead!Talk!01:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie:@Liz: Who said that this Actor is not notable ? See this link ... You can get all details and the actor done several TV shows I'm not promoting but I'm asking it with proper evidence and Sockpuppets won't ask you tho.;)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.182.162 (talk • contribs)
That's a partial rangeblock. If that user were to continue disruption that talk page, it would be simply a matter of adding Talk:Peter Dutton to the "targets" of the partial block (which would prevent any IP from that /16 range from editing that talk page). Partial blocks support up to 10 targets. They can also be applied more broadly to namespaces, but I'd want to avoid something that drastic on that particular range; there are a fair number of good faith edits from it.OhNoitsJamieTalk15:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Sorry, I'm still not clear on how to add that page to a partial block, and I'm not an admin, so probably not authorised to do so, surely? Assume I'd have to ask you? Anyway, although they did have a few goes at that page, they haven't been back again since the 26th, so hopefully won't be necessary. Cheers. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know my reasonings for unblocking didn't make sense to you. I just didn't know how to correctly upload non-free files and would sometimes upload higher quality files when it wasn't needed, because I didn't know what were the consequences for this and how wikipedia properly treats non-free images taken from a major company or source. But I'm on my way to understanding all of that. If you need more clarification, if you didn't understand, you can always contact me. ChallengeCick (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a dispute. This is a series on continuous attacks by this individual towards me. Personal insults, cross-wiki abuse, this has been going on for months. We block a range, he shifts towards another range. Blocking the directly-affected pages is the only way for him to stop. Nehme149922:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I'll have to use AIV every single day? He keeps changing IPs every time! This is the list of IPs he has used in this period. Today we'll block 89.172.170.38, tomorrow he'll be back as 88.1.400.92, or whatever... Nehme149922:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies again for misinterpreting it as a content dispute; it wasn't clear exactly what the disruption was, and I was unfamiliar with the LTA case. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your manual revert to the page about Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, I see that you requested a source for the changes made by the previous editor. While I trust the current state of the Belarusian government wouldn't have merited their changes to the title/date of office(s) held by her, was the linked tweet not considered a sufficient enough source to support the blurb which the user appended to her biography? From my inspection, the linked tweet could reasonably be considered a first party source from her verified Twitter account, containing a video in which she claims that Lukashenko "has committed high treason," and that she is "taking on the responsibility as the national leader of Belarus, and will create a transitional cabinet." Despite the veracity of her claims, is such a video not considered verifiable to the extent that it provides a known reference to the additional biographical information in question? For reference, the added blurb states that "In February 2022, she assumed the role of National Leader of Belarus, citing President Lukashenko committed high treason," and included the aforementioned quote from her video, verbatim: "Lukashenka committed treason – he made our country a participant in the invasion of Ukraine. So I declared myself as the national leader of Belarus to protect the sovereignty & independence of our country, represent it in security negotiations & crisis management in the region. "
(granted, it'd be more accurate that "she claimed to assume the role of National Leader of Belarus)
Thanks! Just to clarify, is it usually case that these sorts of claims by themselves are not considered notable enough to be included as supporting information? E.g. multiple reliable sources confirmed that the claims were made, but they don't (or don't intend to) provide a reasonable expectation that said claims are considered to be factual or not.
I don't have an issue with Wikipedia mentioning Tsikhanouskaya's declaration; it's clearly intended to a symbolic gesture, and it probably wouldn't be hard to find a third-party source mentioning it. My issue was changing the infobox; as there are no sources saying she is widely recognized as the leader of Belarus (election disputes aside), it's not Wikpiedia's role to take a side. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My intent wasn't to take a side or use Wikipedia as a "soapbox" as I was reprimanded for doing, but to edit with positive intent. Per the guidelines, I was merely aiming to make relevant adjustments to the page. They were unbiased and apolitical in nature and to share changes that had occurred since the page was last update. I'm new to editing, so I wasn't aware there was a distinction between the infobox and an addition –– especially given that other pages list controversial or unacknowledged leaders as such. I hope it's clear that I meant no malice. Thanks to the anon poster for articulating my thought process and challenging. Remember Hank Mobley (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You thought changing her title to "National Leader of Belarus" because she tweeted it was a constructive and apolitical change? OK. I'm not sure what "other pages" you're talking where Wikipedia puts "national leader" in the infobox of "unacknowledged leaders." OhNoitsJamieTalk04:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Just wanted to inform that vandalism and arbitrary removals are not supported on Wikipedia. Please don't remove established claims and facts from webpages.Kazmi If you think the sources are unreliable or I did something wrong, feel free to contact.--Sayed Ghazi Abbas Kazmi (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kazmi
Thanks for informing me. Please try reading the edit summaries and following the WP:RS link. Most of the source you keep adding do not come close to meeting reliable source criteria, and the Brittanica source does not support the text you're adding with it.OhNoitsJamieTalk01:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hey, actually I am new to wikipedia. Would you please help me cite sources in Wikipedia. I would be grateful if you let me know what was wrong in my citation in the Kazmi page, also how can i insert a more satisfactory information for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayed Ghazi Abbas Kazmi (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Content moved without page move
It is to bring to your attention that contents of an article have been moved to its redirect page [45] by a user without move request and discussion. They also blanked the main article [46] making it a redirect. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question about 2.26.253.31
Hi there. On 2 September, you indefinitely blocked the IP 2.26.253.31 because they clearly weren't here to contribute the encyclopedia. However, this was an IP not an account and a few months have passed since the block, so it's likely no damage is going to be done. Could you unblock the IP? Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good Evening Sir, that persistent disruptive editing person who has been blocked for a year under another static ip address is back and at it again, this time he's using up address of 172.58.188.128 . Wugapodes, Oshwah and you have dealt with him before using the blocked ip address (1 year) and you also blocked him for several months at first. Can you please be so kind and check it out. Thank you, Doriden (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago fire Department and others
He has also used 172.58.172.209 in the past. Same subject matter and same types of edits. Thanks again, Doriden (talk)•
Is there a way you can apply page protection to some redirects of the Cocomelon page that mirror the protection of the existing page? There's an IP that's constantly overwriting redirects disruptively and I have no idea what they're trying to prove. The related redirects are Cocomelon - Nursery Rhymes, which is about to expire in a few days, and Cocomelon – Nursery Rhymes. I'll make sure to get back to you if it starts happening to other related redirects before the current protection expires. Jalen Folf(talk)04:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Partial-rangeblocks, like the one for Ahluwalia (caste), can only target specific articles. I have a better solution for the vandalism you're talking about; let me know if you see any more, but it's going to be a lot harder for them now. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie: They did it again this time today. See the IP list below
It turns out that requests are archived, regardless of whether they are responded to or not. My last request got archived that way without getting responded to. If you or the other whitelist admins got time, please review my latest request which is different from my previous one before it gets archived. Kailash29792(talk)04:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
