↓↓↓ 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.
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.
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.
Hi Jamie, I was just looking into some strange IP activity and noticed you previously issued bans on the IPs in question, so I was hoping you might be able to help. Today a collection of IPs have attempted to resurrect a speculative draft Draft:GPT-5 by making a couple minor edits and submitting to AfC, despite previous consensus and clear notices indicating the article shouldn't be moved to mainspace until GPT-5 actually exists. The IPs in question are: Contributions/62.74.32.95, Contributions/62.74.58.35, Contributions/62.74.32.77, Contributions/62.74.56.192, and Contributions/62.74.58.183. This looks clearly to me like sock-puppeting or ban evasion. Could you please take a look? I was also wondering if there was a way to withdraw the AfC submission, since it plainly will fail, but I'm having trouble finding a way to do that, so if you know how I would appreciate a pointer. Cheers! StereoFolic (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upgraded that partial block to a full block, quite possibly the same person. I reverted the AFC submission tags; I think that should be sufficient? OhNoitsJamieTalk23:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am not but you are WP:griefing me now because I disagreed with an edit of yours. You also only did a few edits of which one is a summary starting with the words "We have been over this many time" in the edit summary of your first edit, implying that you are an alt. Please let's just avoid each other and not bicker with each other. ThanksBleggen (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yolo i hope you are having a good day (hope this makes it better lol), btw so much messages!, anyway have a great day and enjoy a picture of this adorable kitten!
He has vandalized multiple articles including Mickey’s Mouse Trap (horror film), Kung Fu Panda, and more without citing a single source. He said March 22 for Mouse yet I searched everywhere and nothing. A couple of other users seemingly joined on this too. Can we ban him from editing? 98.144.64.54 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems they are at it again on Vyond-related videos regarding child discipline. Since I already reverted once, and NatGertler appears to be understandably busy on other parts of Wikipedia, I wonder if you can review the second attempt and help me make it clear to the editor that such content is not notable? Sometimes I feel that the whole article may not be notable at all. Best, --Minoa (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's that IPs third block for vandalism; many admins such as myself will impose progressively longer blocks on IPs that disrupt frequently. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have been contacting editors with experience in specific areas of editing to participate in a survey study. In order to limit access without forcing editors to disclose their identity in the survey form itself, I have been contacting them via email, which you have disabled for your account. If you would like to participate, please send me an email through Wikipedia and I will follow up with additional details and a link to the survey. Jonathan Engel (researcher) (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A remark that you made in the reversion of my capitalization edits in titles is incorrect. I recommend you read the Wikipeda Manual of Style section on it.
There you will find that citations should, in fact not follow capitalization that would be incorrect in Wikepedia articles. And that Wikipedia citations are under no obligation what-so-ever to match the capitalization in the cited original. To the contrary: Capitalization in all Wikipedia (English language) article citations should be "corrected" to follow Wikipedia standards, despite not being identical to the capitalization in the cited source. A classic example of this is excess capitalization in titles of journal, magazine, and newspaper articles. Only the title of the journal itself, or the newspaper, or magazine, or conference proceedings, is allowed to have full capitalization.
You might find it a helpful clue, that the full-capital titles are usually the fields that are automatically italicized by the Wikipedia "cite" template.
However, there are some cases for foreign language title capitalization that I'm uncertain of: For example all German language sentences have all nouns (whether personal or general) capitalized; it's just a language standard (e.g. "a man from Munich" is ein Mensch von Munchen, not ein mensch von Munchen) so I presume that the normal sentence capitalization is carried over into cited titles (but not into their translation, of course). But to the contrary, I notice that a lot of citations for French and Italian language book titles (neither of which I have any language training in) seem to only start with upper case, and then go lower case for the rest of the title. I'm not sure how to proceed; in edits I've made so far, I've just retained the lower-case in a book title, and applied capitalization only to the translated title. However I might be being deceived by some style used by the citing editor that isn't standard for French or Italian the language, or which might not be standard for the Wikipedia for those languages.
But other than that, I really would suggest that you read up in the W:MOS. After that, you might want to revert your reversion, unless you find other intolerable errors. 107.122.85.58 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may find it helpful provide links to the MOS policies you allude to. Where in MOS:TITLECAPS, MOS:ALLCAPS, or WP:CITESTYLE does it say that we should "correct" article titles to follow "Wikipedia standards"? The only prescription I see is that we should convert all caps to title case (quoting from MOS:ALLCAPS: Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case, sentence case, or normal case, as appropriate.) Furthermore, please note the discussion at Talk:French_Bulldog regarding capitalization. While the MLA does support the notion that "french bulldog" should not be capitalized, there does seem to be an existing convention in Wikipedia to capitalize dog breed names (e.g., Labrador Retriever; to systematically change all of those titles would require a policy or a consensus, neither of which I'm aware of. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HI Jamie, I had made the original Dholuo language guide J"https://www.freewebs.com/themulders/luoguide.htm" back in 2006 or so. This was on the wikipedia Dholuo site for ages (I didn't put it there, someone else must have seen it was very long/comprehensive and added it). I just noted that the freewebs is defunct and so I updated the link to a duplicate site that I had created years ago as a back-up - http://dholuo.weebly.com/ - but you removed this. I'm not sure why. I don't think there is a better more comprehensive language source out there. I have no interest in the website itself; you are welcome to copy the content and make your own. I just think that the information is helpful to have for the world so please consider re-adding that link in the wikipedia references for this. Helperlady2 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok I won't - I have never edited any wiki page ever before and this was my first try to try to help; sorry i didn't know that rule. but if you care about people having access to this dholuo source please consider copying the content from that site and making a new site and adding that new link.
Hello its me Joey. I think we got off on the wrong foot. Firstly Im sorry for not listening to your warning originally from August. After your warning I stopped working on the Wikipedia page, but resumed in February and im sorry, I understand that the salted article rule is in place to prevent an article that has been previously deleted several times for not meeting notability to not be recreated. I should have listened to you.
Also sorry for the mess in the deletion discussion. I just was new at it and I kinda seemed a bit new to it, also you were right about the sources. I couldn't find many on him, their were only 2 kinds of sources, 1: Controversy about Jeffy which the Sun reported on and Good Morning America, but it is rather criticising the show rather than giving an indepth source and infromation and 2: The Tom Brady auction, well good sources on Logan that mention him, they only cover the winning really and not his channel career, just because Logan won an auction doesnt equal Wikipedia notability, I understand that indepth sources from third parties are what equals notability because first party sources could be biased in favor of that person. I understand that my arguements werent good arguments in favor of keeping said article.
I promise to listen to administrators warnings and only create articles using reliable third party sources.
PS: I like the serious business user box thing on your user page with that picture of Gary Busey, he is a good actor. Anyway OhnoitsJamie, I promise I wont recreate that page again, and I promise I will follow all adminstrator rules and take ever warning very seriously. Joey (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked another proxy range, but when persistent LTAs are employing proxies, there's no simple all-encompassing solution other than to block IPs/ranges as they crop up. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last month you gave a user a final warning "Third block for WP:SYNTH". Sadly, right after the one-month block ended he edited Wilson Medical Center (North Carolina). The citation he provided does not support the statement added, once again engaging in WP:SYNTH.
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I found 2a02:c7c::/32's block settings interesting enough to start a discussion about it; it's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § 2a02:c7c::/32 and your input would be welcome. I'm notifying everyone whose name appears in the block log as this is practically a review of a series of admin actions yours was a part of. I hope that, due to the amount of administrators who built the block to the current state, discussing this in a central location directly rather than asking everyone for input on their own talk page is okay. And perhaps there was a past discussion and this is completely unnecessary silliness of me; I apologize in advance if that's the case. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Massage in so-called "Turkish baths" and in the Hammam
While I'm not prepared to go to the stake over your revert, I am interested to know your thinking. There is increasing unhappiness in the Islamic world about the use of the phrase "Turkish baths" as it implies that this originated in Turkey whereas it is an intrinsic part of Islamic culture worldwide, including Turkey, of course. Furthermore, today's use of "Turkish baths" in The West can include anything from Russian steam baths to gay saunas and day spas. This is one of the reasons why a couple of years ago it was decided to split the article on Turkish baths into two: 1. "Hammam" (about which this part of the massage article is certainly true); and 2. "Victorian Turkish baths", the hot dry air bath (about which the description in this paragraph was only true in a very few establishments, for a very short time, and is certainly not true today). I was merely bringing a specific phrase into synchronisation with current wiki practice. If you've searched wiki recently for "Turkish baths" you will probablyhave found a redirect to "Hammam". However, perhaps I should have taken even this small change to a talk page first. I did not do so since similar changes, with updating the wikilinks accordingly, has raised few objections in other articles. Best wishes, Ishpoloni (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In February 2021 you warned an editor twice (1, 2) about COI/Refspam. In the second warning you called it the "last warning". It seems they haven't stopped, as they have continued adding their refspam. Would you be able to take a look at this?
Hello dear Jamie, I worked with a freelancer to help to publish our VC&MD and CEO pages on wikipedia, and for some reason they were deleted, can you please help in fixing the issue and having the pages back? Or do I need to hire another free lancer to publish new pages?
Marco Arcelli - Wikipedia
Raad Al-Saady - Wikipedia
Based on CU data, Meless13 appears to be operating from a different location than the LTA. I base this on the assumption that 4.39.232.210 and 2600:8800:4182:4c00:b5e2:27ca:88b5:c24d are examples of that LTA, both of which geolocate to warm areas of the U.S. I'm not permitted to say much about Meless13 but can say they are not on the same continent and aren't using a proxy (based on spur.us and on my own port scan). --Yamla (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a false positive; let me see if I can tune it a bit. There have been so many WP:SPA accounts disrupting that article (some of them likely socks that the filter targets), probably should just semi or EC protect that page for a long time. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is in regard to the article Delhi University Students Union. On [April 18] I made a request for page protection, the action taken on that was the blocking of the User by You. Thanks for that.
Further, I made certain changes to the article on April 19, that changes were redacted by you. The imitation of same on my [talk page] has been replied to you, action awaited from your behalf.
Pl guide me thru further course of action for both, undoing the redaction(s) and, page protection as the vandalism of the same content is still on.
Hi Jamie,
Recently you blocked this account [[2]] for sock-puppetry; could you compare the IP address of that account to the IP user commenting in [[3]]. I'm finding what's on going on a bit weird and out-of-place. CeltBrowne (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back in October 2021, you stepped into a situation where User:Lynchenberg was, at first, making unfounded allegations against the band Mr. Bungle and Mike Patton within their articles, and ultimately making aspersions against me for not allowing their attacks against either.[4] Soon after, Lynchenberg stepped away from editing for the most part. When they returned in December 2023, they making minor disruptive edits to articles that they obviously saw I was active in.[5][6] When warned, their response was to request I delete my account.[7] In the meantime, and ever since, they've decided to leave nonsensical edit summaries to most articles that they edit.[8][9][10][11][12] Another editor requested an explanation for the most recent edit summary[13] and their response was more of the same nonsense.[14] At this point, it really seems obvious that Lynchenberg is WP:NOTHERE. Would you mind looking into this? NJZombie (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, as you may know, there's an Indian IP that keeps making reports without triggering any filters. Just in the last weeks there were at least four (IP 1, IP 2, IP 3, IP 4). I'm wondering if theres a better way to deal with this than just revert and ignore. Nobody (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jamie. BTW, do you think it would be possible to revive Filter 707 to stop edits like this? It's happened a few times and usually isn't picked up by 1151. (Feel free to Mail if there's some private specific concern.) Nobody (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you mind extending the move-protection alongside the edit-protection? There have been several messes made with pagemoves by this user and I don't see the page needing to go anywhere anyways. Thanks! Tollens (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert all my changes to this article? You removed the cn template from the mostly unsourced history section and restored the controversy section with many unsourced statements and an unencyclopedic tone that I had spent time remedying using the one reliable source that had been present there that actually mentioned the article subject. The citations that I removed were only tangentially related and didn't mention the article subject by name at all. If you are reverting per WP:QUO, that's fine, but should probably indicate as such in your edit summary and should probably contribute to the discussion that I started on the article talk page.
The problem with this article is the various sock/meat puppets that have been trying to remove the controversy section entirely. Uhai (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't remove this material, you added it back, and some of it is not adequately supported by said source and lacks sufficient inline citations. There's also concerns regarding relevance and WP:UNDUE (e.g. the whole thing about climbing the rafters and assessment scores). This is exactly why I started the talk page discussion: to discuss these things and modify the section as necessary. It honestly is WP:TNT material. Uhai (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello OhnoitsJamie,
I've been cleaning up Wikitable syntax errors for the last few months, and have gotten it down to the last one hundred and some pages. Ran across your User:Ohnoitsjamie/Box page today, which has some missing table closing tags and a few other WP:LINT errors.
As the page is Full protected and I have Extended Confirmed access, would you be willing to update the page to this? Just copy and replace the full page, it will add the missing table closing tags, and update the obsolete font and center tags to HTML5 compliant equivalents.
I'm a user from Germany who mainly edits in the German Wikipedia. I am writing to you because there is a user that you have indefinitely blocked and who asked for help in the German Wikipedia (link). After the discussion was archived, he asked me for help again on my private discussion page. Of course, none of us can help him, since we don't know the case (and most of us aren't otherwise involved in English Wikipedia). But the way he asked us for help (instead of making an attempt with a new account) didn't give the impression that this was a case of block evasion. He seems a bit desperate and has no idea whose sock puppet he is supposed to be. The fact that he was a bit rude to you and used very undiplomatic language probably didn't make it any better.
Can you perhaps explain whose sock puppet he is supposed to be, where the suspicion comes from and whether it might be possible to unblock him? I'm only asking on his behalf because he asked for help. I have no idea if he's just taking advantage of my good faith. Bildungskind (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That user was engaging in WP:DUCK block evasion of an LTA that primarily edits from a number of IP ranges; they made nearly identical edits that a user from one of those known ranges had recently attempted to make. That's all I can tell you. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know about the IP range. In the German Wikipedia it is allowed to say which accounts are linked as long as you don't mention the exact IP range. But I don't know if the policies are different here. Anyway, thank you for your answer and have a nice day. --Bildungskind (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OhnoitsJamie. I've noticed in the past few days there's been a bit of deletion related activity which seems to be from a range you've p-blocked. I'm not to familiar with sock stuff unfortunately, but I was wondering it that range was known to be something specific and if there's anything else we'd be able to do (it doesn't seem like there's enough to get anywhere at SPI? But again, I'm not really familiar). Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a huge dynamic range in India that is likely to cover a wide mix of anon editors. The partial block was to minimize disruption to an article from a small group of socks. I try to avoid fully blocking large ranges, but IMO if 75% or more of the edits are non-constructive it's worth considering a full block. (For precedent, we routinely block large mobile ranges in the US). OhNoitsJamieTalk11:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NJZombie: You can, but it's not necessary to snoop around as I’ve believed I have conducted myself properly since then. If you take offense to the comment even though I myself didn’t think it was much of a violation of NPA until you've taken note of it here, then sorry. Name calling was not my intention towards you. And FYI most of the links you’ve brought up since then are not really violations of uncivilly, but I will admit when I deserve to be called out for NPA.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. Most are your perceptions of uncivil claims here are weak at best and are presented without much context behind them beyond what you linked at face value. It doesn’t matter anyways since I’ve already received an NPA warning from this user, so let's move on.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:Diff/1223573078 - it seems they didn't want to peddle their keto elsewhere and decided their talk page 7 months after a block was the right place to do it. Figured I'd let you know if you found it appropriate to remove TPA. Thanks! jellyfish✉01:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have a rough consensus at Talk:Vuze#May 2024 to include a section containing BiglyBT now, so a redirect created on BiglyBT would be helpful.
This IP is editing disruptively again after your previous block. Not sure who they are block evading as, but you may want to look at/revert their edits again. Thanks. 73.67.145.30 (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You PC protected this article 11 years ago over an edit war that appears to have been long over. Do you think the protection is still necessary? Lynch44 (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These days I rarely protect anything for a time period of indefinite, and that certainly seems unnecessary for this particular article. Unprotected, thanks for catching that. OhNoitsJamieTalk11:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me why set my work for soeedy deletion? When it had all citations and references from a reliable source. Just send me a copy of my work please, that work was not saved. Miss Rosewood (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my edit of the statics animal shelters of england. This is my second time, where i edit in the englisch wiki. Why you delete my edits? And why spam on animal shelter?
For the reason I already put on your talk page. Your edits here (and on de Wiki) suggest a pattern of spamming links, which we don't permit here. If you continue to spam links here, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recent discussions on the 2024 Libertarian National Convention talk page, I'm wondering if it might be worth creating and whitelisting a Source Assessment page for Chandler. It would be something that could be easily referenced in the future to show why Chandler isn't considered notable. I'm not gonna create one until I run it by you since I don't want to trip the filter and I don't want to create said page if it goes against policy, but it seems to be exactly what Source Assessment pages are meant for.
Also, I want to apologize if I took over the discussion on that talk page, and if I took time away from your day by doing so. I understand that you get a lot of bad faith contributors wanting to reference Chandler on various pages, and I understand that it's probably just frustrating at this point. I'm sorry if I came off as one of those people, because I really try not to be. Thanks for your patience. Cerrathegreat (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently undid your reversion of an edit on Rahaf Mohammed and you re-reverted it. While the English language coverage is limited, it got considerable coverage in the Arabic language, and I listed five additional sources on the Talk page and tagged you there also.
I noticed that one of the sources was RT, so I'm not sure if there might be some political slant to this. However, all of the articles mention verifiable public statements made on social media by both the subject and her husband, and apparently the Canadian police were also involved in the dispute. Chagropango (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried debugging it earlier with adding/removing parentheses but I always ended with same result, so I tried changing the !contains_any but I haven't finished that attempt yet. Nobody (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I figured it out and fixed it; I think it had something to do with how irlike was normalizing IP addresses, or it could've been nesting, but the "test against past hits" looks good now. (The Kiwi Farms trigger was removed from this filter because it's covered by other filters). OhNoitsJamieTalk11:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In "It was based on the Sargent and fashion exhibits at those two museums in 2023 and 2024, linked to below in "External links", you deleted the crossed-out phrase as "unnecessary." Perhaps it is not strictly necessary (what is?), but it is certainly helpful to readers. That is because the article on Sargent has no section on exhibits, so a reader who wants information on the two exhibits would find them only in "External links" but would not necessarily think to look for them under "External links." Actually, I can see a reason to delete the crossed-out phrase, which is that, if someone edited "External links" to delete the two exhibits, then the crossed-out phrase would also have to be deleted but might not be noticed by the editor. But it seems highly unlikely that any editor would delete the two exhibits from "External links," and I think that the helpfulness of the crossed-out phrase easily outweighs the likelihood of that occurrence. I will not revert your reversion, but I'd appreciate it if you would, or at least elaborate, in light of what I've just written, on why you still think the crossed-out phrase is unnecessary. My philosophy is that too much information is better than too little, unless, of course, the information is irrelevant or unnecessarily lengthy. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't annotate/comment on navigation in a Wikipedia article beyond standardized conventions. As you've already noted, making those sorts of comments in an article becomes especially problematic if the reference subject is modified or deleted. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OhNoitsJamieTalk (I pasted the foregoing because I was not permitted to click "Reply" to your comment.) I'm glad that I was able to provide you with a better reason for your edit than the one you offered ("unnecessary") :-) Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the reason given for 95.147.145.134's block was "block evasion". I cannot find the name of the sock master from the IP's talk page or logs, but just a heads up, the long-dormant account Dqwyy made an edit to one of the articles the IP was blocked for shortly after the start of the 3-month block on the IP, and Dqwyy has the same set of very specific topic areas (e.g. Asian pornography) and only makes mobile web edits. Seems like a duck to me. Yue🌙20:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked that IP for making similar edits to an LTA that I've seen use a variety of IP addresses; I'm not aware of a master account, though perhaps someone else is. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a strong feeling that 91.75.6.80 is bubblemario based on his edits, and seeing his history of editing certain legal pages in the UAE. Please look into if he's another sock169.255.56.205 (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I partially blocked a large IP range for spamming lawyer sites; I'm sure this is unrelated. For situations with editors making unsourced changes, please give them "unsourced edit" warnings (e.g. {{subst:uw-unsor1}} {{subst:uw-unsor2}}, etc) and report to WP:AIV if they keep it up. I've given the IPs an initial warning. OhNoitsJamieTalk11:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TV-related edits are going to be filtered on those ranges because of the LTA. Constructive users on those Tunisian ranges who wish to edit TV-related articles can create an account. OhNoitsJamieTalk12:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ohnoitsjamie: I have noticed you reverted a few edits, such as removing WP projects at Talk:Karni Sena or Talk:Pravin Togadia. I have added related WP projects to these articles. WP Discrmination and WP Crime Projects are added because in the main article, the organisation or an individual entity is involved in such heinous activity and it is properly described in the main body of the article page, moreover they're properly sourced. You can read the article properly before reverting my edits. For example you removed WP projects from Talk:Sudarshan News. Please read the main body of the article its clearly mentioned the news channel is involved anti-Islamic or discriminatory rhetoric. That's why I added. Thanks 2409:40E0:54:2813:A013:8080:43F2:1B54 (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OhNoitsJamie - I actually reinstated the IP's edit at Talk:Karni Sena - the version you reverted back to had a completely messed up template on top, and (more concerningly) it had what appeared to be a real name and a phone number on one of the more recent comments. The problematic revisions have been suppressed now - would you mind reviewing and removing any wikiproject stuff that you don't think is appropriate? Cheers GirthSummit (blether)14:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous user who leaves the said edit summary while commiting edits on software- and company-related articles. Albeit narrower ranges are currently blocked, they seem to be editing at a wider range. most recent activity.102.158.130.25 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on 1164 and 1242, the tag is not required since the edits are going to be prevented anyway. Just the disallow action (and nothing else) works fine. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk17:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, those are good suggestions and I've implmemented those changes. (I think I'd initially misunderstood the purpose of "tag" and thought it had to do with User:DatBot reporting). Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to that, {{User:Ohnoitsjamie/Talktemp}} doesn't seem to work well with the new dark mode. Much of the page isn't readable in dark mode. You might consider using the new background color variables instead of hard-coding specific colors. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel; I agree with you, but I got some pushback from here, so I'm just letting the edit filters do their work for now. Personally I found all of their RFPP change requests to be mostly pointless and disruptive. Thanks for the note about my talk template; I'll look into that. OhNoitsJamieTalk03:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. From what I've seen, their RfPP requests are generally busywork rather than helpful so I went ahead and tweaked. I'm less familiar with their history elsewhere so I don't have a strong opinion on blocking. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the same editor. I don't think there is an entry for them in the WP:LTA list, but I became aware of them using multiple accounts to edit-war stuff about North Korea into the Home Alone articles, and have an edit filter for that. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are 2409:4085:E4F:5257:2C5C:F56:AEBB:94A9, and it might be worth adding the whole range(s) [such as 2409:4085:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 and 2409:4052:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 for example] to 1242 (hist·log), and for the whitespace code that they spam on articles, it's easy: get line 3 of 1215 (hist·log). You might wish to email me more details if it's too sensitive to discuss here, but it looks like you do not have email enabled. Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk21:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the suggestion! (Tested it successfully against Juliet Macur). Regarding email, I thought I'd disabled it globally with a local exception for en.wiki, but maybe that didn't work? OhNoitsJamieTalk22:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the email thing, on the local Special:Preferences page, where it says Allow other users to email me, check the button that says Set a local exception for this global preference below that and enable email access for it locally, and you should only have local email enabled that other users can email you for example, filter additions that may be too sensitive to discuss here. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk01:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie (or any tps), advice please. User:U feature is replacing a medical picture with 'artwork' which consists of a pair of knickers made of flowers, [[21]] which I think adds nothing to a medical article.
I've reverted twice, if I revert again would this be a content dispute? Vandalism? I'm not sure where to go with it if they insist on posting their artwork?
Many thanks. Knitsey (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also it does reflect the essence on MRKH condition. Which Knitsey has no way of knowing. Flowers represent a missing uterus. Also there are no explicit rules that prohibit non technical pictures on medical conditions articles. The opposite is true. Unless you explicitly quote such rule. I would appreciate. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by U feature (talk • contribs) 00:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I was wondering if there was anything in my article, I could fix concerning Wind Zones of mobile homes to make it acceptable? It that was rejected in the external links. If not I understand, thanks! Have a great day! MobileHomeExpert (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2409:40D0:0:0:0:0:0:0/35 is a very large IP range that I applied a partial-block to because of frequent disruption to a particular article. Partial blocks only allow for 10 targets, so it doesn't make sense to add additional blocks unless it's repeat disruption from that range. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie. Would you mind taking a look at User talk:JagritiLuthra#Roohani Sisters and the account's recent edits to the article "Roohani Sisters". Based on the account's username and their uploading of File:Dr. Jagriti Luthra Prasnna.jpg, they might be the same "Dr. Jagriti Luthra Prasanna" listed as the founder of the group. If they're not, then the username would seem to violate WP:REALNAME. FWIW, I'm asking you about this because you previously posted on the account's user talk page back in May to warn the user about disruptive editing at the same article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had already added {{uw-coi}} to their user talk page, two posts above yours. I can remove mine if you want since it seems a bit of overkill to add the same template twice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a valid reason in the edit, (Defamation). Saying an 11 year old who graduated college with an advanced degree is just due to "hard work" is patently nonsense, and is tantamount to defamation.~ 68.189.2.14 (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It became a direct quote later, but was originally not a direct quote the original statement was "His early achievements may have been more due to endless hard work than to inherent intellectual capabilities.[1]" from a secondary source (Defamation) and then it became, "De Mello told Morley Safer that his early achievements may have been more due to endless hard work than to inherent intellectual capabilities." That's a huge difference, best regards 68.189.2.14 (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You realise your contribution history is public, right? Anyone can see this is not truthful. See this edit which removed the entire "Bitcoin Advocacy" section. --Yamla (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove the "Bitcoin Advocacy" Section. I just created a new Header called "Bitcoin Advocacy" and updated it with the most recent numbers from MicroStrategy. Also, I just noticed that I removed the Quotes. I can add it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RohitPVS29 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently noticed that knowbe4.com has been added to the spam blacklist at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, so that no URLs containing that domain can be added to any Wikipedia article in any namespace. When I looked in the logs, I found that you added this site to the blacklist back in 2014 because a sockpuppeteer was spamming links to it. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log/2014#March 2014. I wanted to ask if you would consider removing the site from the blacklist given that it is not malicious but rather the website of a well-respected and legitimate security awareness company. Thank you. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in unilaterally removing it from the blacklist given the history. If there's a particular article from that domain that has relevant material not covered by any other reliable sources, you can make a request for a whitelisting of that link. OhNoitsJamieTalk02:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue against the validity of having a Wiktionary entry for that. Are we going to make wiktionary entries for every derogatory nickname of notable people? OhNoitsJamieTalk01:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - I submitted one edit for Wilbur's allegations and it says that you said on my talk page I 'continued to make disruptive edits' even though this is my first time editing Soot's article.
I have sourced the allegations with articles from MSN and Dexerto, alongside other news outlets.
Get consensus on the article's talk page. We take WP:BLP very seriously here, and allegations being mentioned in a few media outlets does not automatiacally warrant inclusion of serious allegations in a Wikipedia article. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked back at a comment you made to me around BookBrowse and seemed off topic in terms of what it said with it being a irrelevant look it seemed was your point from what I read. They basically have a section that shows media reviews which could be helpful in showing critical reception easier if the spot is empty or has lack of info or even if doesn't gives a more general idea like RT. From what I can recall, edits are case by case and less by whole from what I remember, and see many wikis that could use it and if you take issue with them you could revert and we discuss. I, for the moment, would love to discus the topic. Themashup (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As your not intrested and haven't explained throughly enough, I'm not sure how to take anythign you say seriously. You seem rather than good hearted clearly bad intentioned and lacking context. Hvaing had discussions already, it's clear why a source like for instance RT is used on the site. Rather than showing discussion or context you are ignoring it for quite rude and problematic judement regarding the understanding it seems of what a aggregator is used for. Themashup (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, on filter 1094 (hist·log) in line 58 after the regex for Hailey Welch, where there are two capturing groups, you have to surround the beginning of the first capturing group and the end of the second capturing group (for the Hawk Tuah regex) with word boundaries (\b); doing that would have at least prevented this false positive.
The above IP has this ID apparently. They have added the same 'personal analysis' against one paper here, which is nothing but WP:OR using random articles that didn't even test referred communities (Kashmiri Brahmins for example) for the said steppe EMBA ancestry. They even created an article Jat community in a with disparaging and unnecessary info, and fake/OR representation of DNA based ancestries, comparing them with Rajputs who weren't even tested in all those random researches added by the user. I believe it acts as a hoax/attack page. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following our previous discussion of Mdj112233(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) on my talkpage, Mdj112233 continues to engage in disruptive editing, particularly regarding the Chinese paddlefish, which was declared extinct by the IUCN in 2022 after an exhaustive survey of the river. Mdj112233 seems to want to downplay this based on WP:OR despite the highest conservation authority officially saying its extinct, this including re-instating the edits you reverted a few days ago [40][41], and edit warring regarding taxonomic templates [42][43]. At this point I don't see an alternative to blocking them, in my opinion they're hopeless and a indefinite block will ultimately be necessary, given that your 36 hour block didn't seem to change their behaviour. I'm sorry for getting angry in the edit summaries but I find their behaviour infuriating. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no point in wasting more time if they're not going to communicate. They'll have the oppportunity to petition for an unblock if they decide to start communicating. Let me know if you seen anything that looks like block evasion. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk19:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on revert [44] of Loren Gray's Snapchat link
I wasn't aware that there was a backlog; I didn't realize that requests were archiving after a week, though I see that GreenC has lenghtened the archive interval. It wouldn't hurt to have a few extra eyes on that page, but I don't feel like it's that demanding. I don't pay attention at all to the whitelisting counterpart; that side probably needs more help than the blacklisting side of things. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whitelisting might be an easier place for folks to start, as they shouldn't have to create an regex directly. I'll see if we can find you a couple of folks to help. Just having it on a few more watchlists wouldn't be a bad start. IMO we have a bus factor problem on that page: if you get hit by a bus, we don't have a lot of folks ready to step in. (So please watch out for buses. ;-) ) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I saw that it has been three years since you protected the BTS article as extended-confirmed users only. Do you think there is still edit warring or not anymore? ScarletViolettc01:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you have admin-protected this page and its draft page for re-creation. On d:Q117305113, there are actually 21 entries on different Wikipedias. Do you think all of them actually should be deleted or should the English Wikipedia page rather be undeleted. All images of the person seem very selfie-esque and promotional. Do you think it's some kind of extensive promotion or should the subject actually have a Wikipedia page? Jonteemil (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a self-promotion LTA; that individual doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO notability here. The creator should be globally blocked, but I'm primiarily concerned with English Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamieTalk12:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the pages have actually been created by trusted users, that's what I can't wrap my head around. I would suspect that the pages have been created by the same user but that's not the case. Strange.Jonteemil (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in investigating the users on other wikis, but I can tell you there is zero chance of that article being unprotected here. I looked at the one on the German Wiki, and it's using the same vanityspam/press releases as sources. OhNoitsJamieTalk11:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If users continue to disruptively (self-edit: that was not the right word for all cases: the correct phrase is "using weak sources to") add so-called "grounded" videos against consensus, amid poor sourcing (I just removed two sources that did not mention such trend by name), then I think we may have to increase the protection level further. --Minoa (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did the content you just reverted mention "Grounded" videos? The notability/WP:WEIGHT of the parody videos sentence was debatable, but I wouldn't call that a level of disruption that requires protection. I think Vyond will need to be semi-protected indefinitely, but issues beyond that can be dealt with on the talk page and at a per-user level. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. The sources I removed either did not establish notability or mention such videos by name: I have been cautious due to the article's history of questionable edits. --Minoa (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey friend, how are you? I hope so. I would like to ask you to stop reverting my edits, because I am not violating the WP:DP rules. Furthermore, all the sources I added in my edit are scientific articles, organizational sources, and a news site from The Guardian. I would also like to point out that it took me a while to create that edit. And if you think I am wrong, then I ask that you review each link in my article and if you find any link that does not comply with the WP:DP rules, let me know and I will quickly correct it. Thank you for your understanding. I wish you all the best! 😉🙏 Wiki7Hell (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have a difference of opinion with an editor over an editing issue.
He is insistent on deleting a (long-standing) "see also" from various articles. Because he has created a new "see also" that, though not coterminous, he believes requires that he delete the long-standing "see-alsos".
I know. This will end up on some list of silly WP disputes.
Any way, efforts at discussion on my part have only led to him saying he does not want to discuss it with me.
Certainly not an ANI issue by any means. But could you perhaps point me to the best conflict resolution approach, under the circumstances? Thanks. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Shai Davidai has been locked, while being worked on, for alleged copyvio issues pending a copyvio investigation. But it is in the midst of being worked on. Any copyvio issues will be addressed. And it will only then be offered up for consideration as an article (and presumably then only made an article if there is not a copyvio concern). But the locking of the article prevents this from taking place. Thoughts? 184.153.21.19 (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that was jumping the gun, I wondered whether perhaps you could open it up to editing - which it was in the midst of - rather than have it continue to be locked down mid-edits in draft form due to possible copyvio. It's not an article, nor has it been proposed for article status, and it was being edited the day it was locked - we can remove anything linked to the indicated ref in the meantime, and allow normal editing to begin. I would hope. This struck me as inimical to the interests of the project, given the timing, and I don't see what would be lost by the suggested approach, while the gain would be work on an article that may well be of interest to readers. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've consolidated those targets into one filter; I don't expect to cover all permutations, but it's pretty clear when people write like that that they are evading a filter, and as such will be blocked quickly anyway. OhNoitsJamieTalk12:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the only range we've seen that particular disruption on? (I haven't seen the email yet; I only access that email from one of my computers, and will be on that one later today). OhNoitsJamieTalk13:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can a party who is going to contest 69+ assembly constituencies out of 81 assembly constituencies and is one of the two parties who are going to contest 50+ assembly constituencies be added in infobox election? Ritwik Mahatat@lk08:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
The WP:LEDE should be a succicnt summary of the topic; you made it unnecessarily complicated. Details of middle schools by region are already discussed throughout the body of the article. Please take any further discussio to Talk:Middle school. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Either that source is used by an LTA or various spammers, and perhaps we can move it to line 1 of 1094 (that uses ccnorm)? It does not make a difference when you move Alchetron from line 2, but I highly recommend using ccnorm. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk14:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but why is ccnorm important for filtering a domain? It's rare that spammers will use non-Latin characters as doing so breaks the link anyway. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that it already had pending changes; I removed that. The tag is strictly informational; applying or removing tags does not affect the actual protection level. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I noticed some problematic edits on the article Alwar Balasubramaniam by the user Kiranslomka2, went to their talk page and it seems you notified them about some issues with other edits they tried to implement on the page. I've reverted their exhaustive, very poorly sourced exhibitions list twice now, but I don't want to keep reverting their contributions and imply an edit war. Any advice on how to move forward? Already tried pinging them on the article talk page, no response. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
