User talk:Ohnoitsjamie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
My Talk


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.


De facto prod challenge

Hello,Ohnoitsjamie. :) I wanted to let you know that an article you prodded, and which was deleted as a result of that PROD, has been recreated by its original creator at Patrick McCauley. I've restored the history for attribution reasons (even though all creative content may be attributed to the individual who restored it) and wanted to drop you a courtesy notice (now that I've correctly identified you - I first thought the PROD placed by another user) in case the changes do not address your concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi Jamie. I noticed this edit while checking out the owner of that page, a new editor who is already seeking adminship. I thought that was odd, considering this is their record at the moment "83 edits since: 2015-07-31". Their stay here hasn't been without problems.

Is he actually using socks (in a good hand / bad hand fashion), and his sock User:Marcos13525 is now blocked? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me if he was using a good hand/bad hand sock, or (perhaps more likely) a buddy was on his wifi or school network. I have no doubt that at the very least Randomstuff207 and Marcos13525 know each other. I wasn't too concerned about the RfA given how ridiculous and WP:SNOW it is. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
We definitely have a strong connection here: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Is it strong enough to block all concerned for socking? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Well...could just be forgetfully editing while logged out. If the user continues to push the RfA thing after being warned not to, I'd say block 'em all and be done with it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jamie, I have never been using sockpuppets, EVER. And I also do not use a shared network. The user Marcos13525 is a person that I know that was at my house and decided to vandalize Wikipedia. Just to let you know. And also, I will also stop sending ridiculous RFA requests. R@ndomstuff207 w (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Odd choice

Hello. I found this to be an odd thing for an administrator to do. Fortunately, a helpful IP user with no prior editing history saw the page as you left it, recognized the absurdity of the extraneous material, and re-deleted it. Methinks perhaps you haven't had enough sleep lately :) Etamni | ✉   06:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake. I reverted my warning to the IP. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
LOL no worries. I first noticed it as an IP user deleting lots of bytes from purple, then saw what was being deleted and thought my pet sockmaster was back (i.e. the now-blocked user who originally posted all the donuts), but when I saw it was someone else and checked your page, I realized it was just an accident. Etamni | ✉   09:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


Dear Jamie, I customized my signature on a CSS style sheet and got the results that I wanted. But today, I just found out that my customized signature could only be viewed by me and not by other people. How do you make your CSS custom signature so that it can be viewed by other people? R@ndomstuff207 w (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't use a separate style sheet. My signature is HTML using inline styles, set on my Preferences/Signatures page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Seems, Kingshowman is back with a bang. I undid their reversion of your edits in good faith, but it seems they are hell bent on having it 'their way or the highway'. I don't want to engage in an edit war, so I leave it up to you, as an admin, as you would have a better judgement of the situation. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was mercifully quick. It would have been unfortunate to see time wasted on another ANI thread. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This has been one of the most interesting blocks I have come across. I'm going to study the userpage and edits for behavioural patterns now. :D --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


Would you see here [1] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mailzzang+aus?--Altostratus (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I communicated with them at a venue at the same time. I persuaded them legal threats can be much bad and not to solve any problem. It was hard, but they now understand what faults they make and regret to you and others.-Altostratus (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in communicating further with that user or any of his friends trying to promote him on Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You did blocked them. You have to take responsibility for your behavior.--Altostratus (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no "behavior" here for me to take responsibility for. I'm not discussing it further. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Chet Baker

Thanks for spotting the wrong reference. It was a honest mistake. I do not understand what you mean by "one line" Or capitalization. As far as I know the title of the record was all in Capitals if that is what you meant. ( at least according to Billboard)

If only one line has the historical content and is acurate i don't see the issue.
Chet's tour in Europe was a big deal at the time and an amazing album came out of it. Billboard is a great source for music and muscians.

I am not aware that looking at Billboard for histoical content is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I will be trying the edit again with the proper citation as i think it is good content ThanksAircastle (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC) I know see that the alblum was not all in capitals. ( i checked the album artwork) My apolgies. Thanks for the correction. I tried the edit again with the proper citation. Please let me know if there is any problem this time. Thanks for comments. Aircastle (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a suggestion; your paraphrasing is a little too close to the original quotes in several cases. This is obvious when you re-use less common or colorful words like "triumphant" or "crumpled the cars." Stick to more neutral language unless you are quoting directly. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I am fairly new to Wikipedia but the subjects i try to contribute to hold a deep interest for me. I really appreciate your help as i want to contribute in a concise and meaningful way. Thanks and still learning. Aircastle (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions; it takes a long time to get really familiar with all of the policies, and I still learn new things all the time after almost 10 years. Let me know if you ever have questions or need additional advice. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Brian Boxer Wachler Deletion

I wanted to ask you if you would be willing to have a discussion with me re: this issue given that we don't agree in hopes that maybe my ideas for editing the page might change your mind and we could reach consensus? Honestly feeling a little intimidated by some of the mods. I wrote on DOC James talk page too. I'm not asking for anyone to just do it my way, I just am trying to explain my idea and be heard... Jf3300 (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There is already a discussion going on that will determine the consensus; it can be found here. I'm not discussing it on my talk page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Started an SPI here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Bennydarko Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, should've let you know I submitted this case yesterday. The rabbit hole keeps getting deeper. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Help Akshardham Environment Violation Section


I noticed that you reverted an edit at the Akshardham article. If you have time would you please take a look at it again and the discussion. The users there are hell bent on removing the correctly cited and sourced criticism regarding their building because they do not want to see any factual information regarding the overall impact of their temple. Here are the links [2] and this discussion [3] and if you have time pleas provide your input. There is a cited content dispute I am having on the talk page and I feel you can help with some clarification for this topic. Thank you

Swamiblue (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Help Me Templates

Just remember to substitute 'help me' with 'help me-helped' once responded to: [4] --JustBerry (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes check.svg Done for you --JustBerry (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, didn't see the "help me" template; I'd already been giving the user some advice. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Michael Cambridge

Hi, just a reminder that even if the user agreed to conditions, he could only be unblocked with my consent or that of another CheckUser. If you didn't need this reminder, my apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, understood. I would never unblock without pinging the blocking admin. I was just trying revive some dead threads on the unblock list. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Bgenocchio

They were only blocked for a little while, it seems. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted NopCommerce article

My user page.

You said I vandalized my own page. Lol no I didn't NoTrack 17:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoTrack (talkcontribs)

LOL, you linked White Supremacy to an IP user page (which I have deleted). You will be blocked if you continue to make crap edits FWIW BTW. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


Hello, You said that I added "commentary and your personal analysis into articles," calling it "disruptive editing." However, I am completely confused. I simply stated facts.

Let's start on the "Adam Lindgren" page; I said that he won two major tournaments, but you reverted it. You could go check for yourself. He said on his AMA (which was approved by moderators as legitimate) that he considers himself a "duo main" (which I edited), but you completely took out the whole thing. Even when citing my facts, you still edited it out. You even edited out well-known facts about this player that I didn't even add in. Those are just a few of the problems I have with this article.

Next is the "William 'Leffen' Hjelte" page, or, more specifically, the "Controversy" section of this page. I cited the "Controversy" with several sources. Leffen was considered a villain in the Smash community and he was eventually banned by the European Smash community until he wrote a detailed apology. On the Smashboards page, he was banned and Lindgren himself posted my facts. None of the things I posted was an opinion. [5]

Lastly, we have "Joseph Marquez." I understand that you would delete "He is known for making Jigglypuff a top five character in Melee" since I failed to find a source, but the other ones do not make sense. The fact that he holds positive records over almost all Smash players getting deleted? How is that biased in any way? I'm simply stating a fact! Another thing I want to talk about is the HTC Throwdown paragraph. Mango did indeed attend this tournament and did played in it. It was also cited by many commentators on the Twitch tournament stream (I did not reference this since it might look like advertising). Also, while "many have criticized the list that Mango should be ranked behind rival Hungrybox" may look like an opinion, it is a fact. On the MIOM page, many people have expressed their disapproval of the ranking! The last thing I want to talk about on this page is you deleting the tournament results. Battle Arena Melbourne 7 is the formal name of BAM7. For whatever reason, you also deleted the CEO 2015 and the WTFox tournament results as well.

I do not see how I put my own personal bias into this. I would like a response ASAP.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwoo217 (talkcontribs) 19:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of your additions were fine, but statements like He is also considered to be the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time) are violate neutral point-of-view policies. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


Sorry didn't know it was on Todd Griffin page my mistake. D Eaketts (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I make lots of mistakes myself. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kid Rock may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{columns-list|2|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Template protection

Hi Ohnoitsjamie. I see that you recently template protected User:StaufferBuddy and User talk:TokyEoul‎ – presumably you meant to select a different protection level?‎ Thanks, Evad37 [talk] 15:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I had intended to apply a higher level of protection to them so socks couldn't edit them. I'll fix that now. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Unblock requests are not easy or fun to review and there is little reward in the work. In fact, they can be so unenjoyable that the backlog accumulates not as a result of an unreasonably heavy workload, but simply due to the lack of administrators willing to deal with them. Luckily for the project, you're usually around to take a look at them. If there is an unblock request, you are very often the one to review it. Your responses virtually always seem fair, straightforward, and well-reasoned. In the multitude of your responses I've come across, I never recall encountering one that struck me as lazy, unfair, or harsh. Editors and admins alike can rest easy knowing that unblock requests are being seen to by a grounded and reasonable administrator such as yourself. Like I said, it's an utterly thankless job that most people don't want to do, so let me be the one to sincerely thank you for your effort in this area. Wikipedia is very fortunate to have such a great administrator and great person dedicated to its cause. Keep up the great work, and thanks again! Best regards, Swarm 05:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the kind words, Swarm. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Unsigned comment

Hi. Just to let you know that you seem to have forgotten to sign this comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for catching that! OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Trust on ALLAH

As I noted at User talk:Trust on ALLAH (where I maybe should have pinged you) I'm tempted to accept the unblock request and give them a second chance. Apparently they haven't caused disruption for the past two years; I expect at worst we can re-block if necessary. Would you object? Am I missing something? Huon (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with someone else giving the user a second chance. I was not personally inclined to do so after they cursed at me in Urdu. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
i am sorry Happy Mood (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)



You are being discussed here:

Better duck. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! Face-smile.svgThis e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


Came off his block, immediately made 2 edits removing "cult film", and then reverted my reverts. BMK (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User: User talk:Doctor Franklin

As was clear here, he never acknowledged being wrong for his block, and then retaliated by opening this ANI for which he probably should have been sanctioned, but instead (perhaps because nobody looked in detail into his editing history) his claims were merely rejected. Since then his disruptions have continued. Another editor opened up a Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion about a source Doctor Franklin complained about: [6]. Doctor Franklin disputed the source, nobody else did. After the discussion was archived, he went ahead and blanked the info referenced to that source with the misleading edit summary "remove comments by Eberhardt as not RS per failed discussion on RSNB " diff: [7]. He's also started a one-against-all struggle to include claims by some sort of extreme Russian nationalist posted on a Russian nationalist website, described briefly here: [8].Faustian (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. That's a pretty exciting discussion that seems to be resolving itself. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet Another CaptainHog Sock

This time it's User:‎RadioFanLMAO. Same edits to the same pages. I think semi-protection of the pages and a CU is needed. You blocked the last sock, User:HDRadioGuy2100 - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No I'm not. You have no solid evidence to back it up. RadioFanLMAO (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jamie, much appreciated. - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I semi'd two articles for three months. If that doesn't work we can go full protection for awhile, since both of those should be fairly stable articles by now. Thanks for the heads up, always happy to help out. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the page protection and the block. MikeV is running a checkuser to flush out any sleepers. - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi, you blocked Mookie234 (talk · contribs · logs) for disruptive editing. I just extended it for another week after they used IPs to avoid the block, her. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Good call on the semi-protection, thanks! OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I just upped it to indefinite; contributions are nothing but dumb vandalism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with this. Should I just ping you the next time I'm watching apparent socking on one of your blocks? Meters (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Meters: yes, please. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


Could you please explain the reason for auto removing corrections in Diwali page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil2000 (talkcontribs) 18:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(1) There is nothing inherently "chronological" about motivations behind Diwali and (2) "In all interpretations, one common thread rings true—the festival marks the victory of good over evil" violates WP:NPOV and doesn't add anything. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There is diversity in celebration of Diwali. Please look at Ten Avatar's of Vishnu, and then you will see that Lakshmi's reason is number 1, then comes Rama Avatar the reason for celebration is due to his return to Ayodhya (certain parts of India celebrates for this reason). then comes Krishna Avatar, again some parts of India celebrates due to the reason Krishna kills Narakasura. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil2000 (talkcontribs) 18:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line; your change added nothing to the article, and was distracting at best. I'm not going to discuss it on the talk page further. Take it to Talk:Diwali. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

New article question

Hello. As you are an administrator, I thought I'd pose this policy question to you. I recently added a new article, but it was blanked and a redirect added in it's place. At the time it was blanked, there was no discussion and no AfD. What is the proper protocol in this situation? Other new articles I've created and/or worked on involved at least some discussion before it is removed. Thanks for your time.--Surv1v4l1st Talk|Contribs 20:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a policy forbidding changing a small article into a redirect if the topic of the new article (1) isn't particularly notable on it's own or (2) could easily be covered in the main article. If the community deems it to be a controversial claim, then it would usually end up in AfD. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for letting me know.--Surv1v4l1st Talk|Contribs 22:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Lexus unsourced material

Hi there.

All changes I have made were to standardize what´s written in the Wikipedia. The pages for both Lexus CT and IS were shown only as "Lexus (manufacturer)" and there was no mention of Lexus being the luxury division of Toyota, something that pretty much everybody knows in the English world (Lexus dropped its name tag around 2010 for new models). Furthermore, I don´t see why Audi doesn´t have the same treatment by calling themselves the "luxury brand of VAG".

Regarding the unsourced material, which part exactly do you mean? The "RC has design cues from both the IS and GS?" You can clearly see that yourself by I can add the source for that if it´s needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoksevil (talkcontribs) 16:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the design cues of the IS and GS, feel free to find a source for that without removing the Toyota connection. Lexus has always been the luxury division of Toyota, the same as Acura/Honda and Infiniti/Nissan. If you removed well-sourced material like that again, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Greensboro, North Carolina

The IP you blocked is back. I can't do anything, I live here and edit it regularly so too deeply involved. He didn't even try to make a comment at the talk page after the block expired, just made the edit, so intent is crystal clear, imho. Adding to the blacklist might be the most effective means of managing the problem, but I would leave that to your discretion. Ping me if needed. Dennis Brown - 02:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Blocked for a week, will be happy to blacklist if user starts IP hopping. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Difference between sock tags

It's better to use {{IPsock}} for an IP address, as {{sock}} says "this account", which can be confusing to editors (including me and the other IP's who reverted you). (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That's fine with me; my objection was to moving the sock tag to the bottom with a heading. Sock tags are by convention placed at the top of a page. You are correct that an IPsock makes more sense than the general sock template; I'm just more accustomed to using the latter. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk: Update

It looks like another IP editor from the same general range as before has changed the sock tag to be established. The editor said in the summary that it's obvious because the first block was made aganist this IP following the blocking of Mister Encyclopedia, which is a confirmed sock account of I Love Bridges. Just so you know. (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Page has been protected, as there's no reason for anyone to be fiddling with it now. [9]. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for your review of User:HAILXSATANX666's block. They, or someone seemingly closely related to them, are now kicking up a storm at WP:AN/I, and I'd value your input there. -- The Anome (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for input. I hope that you also tell Melanie to shape up. She is very rude to delete the page of an Indonesian artist. She should make suggestions of improvements. I will never accept a straight attack without a conversation first. I hope that you help to black list her from Wikipedia.

Thanks, Nick.Jonsson75 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


She is a long-time, trusted contributor, so no, she will not be blacklisted from anything. The page was deleted per our WP:BIO notability policy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What did I do wrong??

I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia pages. I only changed the colors of the infobox to fit the flags in which the style of music originated, just like Reggae's infobox. My bad anyways...Marcelinm (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't match infobox colors to flags. There is a preferred color scheme based on genre; see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force/Colours. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting to join a debate for James Stunt

@Ohnoitsjamie: I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I was wondering whether this account belongs to you (it seemed suspicious to me as within a few hours of registering it already requested test-adminship on Incubator and made a request for closing Swedish Wikinews on Meta). Now I saw the notice about impostors on your userpage. Could you confirm that this account as well is not you? --MF-W 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not me. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I locked the account and will see whether checkusers will also do something about it. --MF-W 18:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please use proper Afd tags

Recently you placed an Afd tag for Kimberly Jesika where there is no page to contest the deletion ? when you click in the Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry the this article's entry redirects to a big page ??? I have contested it in the article Talk page ? Also how can you accuse the author on false grounds and only based on your assumptions ? Its terrible . More over the person Kimberly Jesika is a childrens comic book author and a Animation film director. Entertainment host is her secondary job . You highlighted that only ??? I want to make my points . Always :) (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That was a mistake. I meant to use the WP:PROD template; it is now corrected. If that prod tag is disputed, I will then send that article (and any other disputed prods you've recently created for your clients) through our WP:AFD process. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


This page is on my watchlist. Recently the user (re)appealed to be unblocked and you declined. However, you put the decline rationale inside the original block notification template by mistake and the page ended up a bit mangled. I have fixed it - which may have been a bit forward of me Face-smile.svg. You might want to check you're happy with what I've done. RichardOSmith (talk)

Oops, thank you for catching and fixing that. Cheers! OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Solstice & Season's greetings

Clifton Mill Christmas 2005.JPG Merry Christmas and happy New Year
Thanks for making Wikipedia
A better encyclopedia.
Best wishes to you and your family. 7&6=thirteen () 23:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |}

Merry Christmas!

Gerard van Honthorst 001.jpg
Ohnoitsjamie, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day.
Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A barnstar for you!

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for contributing to the clean-up before, during, and after the sock farm of paid editing that was discovered at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alwayssmileguys. I do not suspect this is last we've seen of this sock farm so thank you again for any future efforts as well. Mkdwtalk 03:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I shared your concern, will be keeping an eye out for resurrections. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ohnoitsjamie!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Nobel Oil Group

I've noticed you made some edits to the Nobel Oil Group [10]. The "deadlinks" are only dead as of yesterday, since the Nobel Oil Group has been putting pressure on Azerbaijani media to remove the reports. Due to such extraordinary pressure, the already strongly pressured media removed critical reports. However, I have them saved in PDF and TXT formats. So what is the best process to make these reports available, or at least to remove the "deadlinks" tags?

Second, the Financial Times report about corruption payments in the oil industry is applicable to Nobel Oil Group, and was properly cited. Perhaps we can reword it somewhat, so that all readers could benefit from this oil industry knowledge?

Finally, the listed owner of the company does not have any oil or energy experience prior to founding the company. It is not listed anywhere, he did not have any companies. And then in 2005 suddenly established this fairly large, by domestic standards, oil company and started getting contracts. Nobel Oil Group itself does not list any bio of its founder and beneficiaries. Redzed9876 (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The statements about the owner and what Nobel is not listed in clearly violates our WP:SYNTH and WP:OR policies (i.e., does not come directly from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. I haven't yet posted several authoritative sources that show exactly that. Please consider the fact that there is not a single independent, authoritative source that shows the company or its owner as transparent, non-shadowy, non-murky, non-secretive. But the 3-4 independent news sources that are from well established sources and are the only one's that write anything based on investigative reporting, all agree that Nobel Oil Group is a secretive, mysterious, non-transparent, shadowy company. Redzed9876 (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you to find sources to say it is murky or secretive, not on Wikipedia to find sources that say it isn't those things. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Very true. Which is why when I find those sources, verify them, make sure they are accessible, that they are independent and authoritative, they should stay. The edit [11] was about Nasib Hasanov and his office that dealt with oil. It has direct relevance to the Nobel Oil Group article. Why remove such well-sourced, accessible, verifiable, independent, authoritative information? Redzed9876 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thank you for protecting the article. Redzed9876 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
It was becoming obvious that a concerted effort to whitewash the article was occurring; full protection should take care of that for awhile. If you find additional sources (for anything related to Nobel) that meet WP:RS guidelines, please feel free to suggest them on the article's talk page. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year .jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Ohnoitsjamie:

Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

North America1000 12:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

User talk:‎

Thanks for the laugh. They didn't even last a full 24 hours before getting blocked again. :D CrashUnderride 17:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad to help. Let me know if they need another vacation. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice (on behalf of

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Reported on behalf of -- samtar whisper 08:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if there's any substance in it, but best you know I guess -- samtar whisper 08:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Stop it, Ohnoitsjamie! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Despite the IP's "disgust", I'd say the exasperation with consistently disruptive / edit warring / vandalising IP editors is entirely justified. BITE is entirely not appropriate since some of the IP's aren't new. Blackmane (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
That's the most exciting ANI notice of the year. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I figured you'd get a kick out of that one, Ohnoitsjamie :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Shmuly Yanklowetz

My apologies if I stepped on your toes here, while you were editing. I think we have the same goal, but I may have undone some of your work. That was not my intention; but upon reading the sources (opinion pieces, Temple Bulletins, Op-ed pieces) I felt a full reversion was appropriate. Again, I apologize if it interrupted your work in progress. ScrpIronIV 19:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That's probably what I should have done in the first place, no worries. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


Thank you very much for unblocking me. Vishwanath Bite (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Game

The Game (mind game), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

'Mass-sock attack' IP...

...whose inblock request you rejected yesterday seems to have returned with a similar message, here (now archived). Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Blocked for three months so he can focus on Pokemon or Minecraft or whatever it is 11-year-olds are usually into these days. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I almost choked on my coffee when I read your reply. Thanks for that! OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
One of those coffee/ nose interface moments eh  ;) sorry about that! Thanks for your help with both of them though. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

IP vandal not blocked

Hey there, Jamie. I just wanted to let you know the IP vandal that undid this [[12]] block warning you left is as of currently still unblocked. Cheers. Boomer VialHolla 23:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks. To think of the productive things one could be doing instead of looking for new IP addresses to attach to for a few minutes before they are blocked. Tragic. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Your welcome. :) Boomer VialHolla 05:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


Dude, what the ______?

Lay out all the rules because this is growing tiresome.

First, some facts....

I wrote an article, all by myself, about a thing called a marijuana dispensary. I cited everything I wrote.

I asked for help.

Then some jackhole came in and renamed my page because he felt like it.

He named it something it should not be named because, frankly, nobody seems to be able to supply any evidence of the actual of the term cannabis dispensary.

Here... a puzzle for you...

I'd like to write an article about a famous Marihuana dispensary (ref link removed) in Michigan. Am I allowed too or is some jackhole going to redirect it to cannabis(drug) because said jackhole thinks it should point there... even though community is 12 to one against said jackhole. Curious minds want to know. --Potguru (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

ref link:

Where is the community consensus that it should be marijuana consensus? If there was such a broad consensus, I would think that the article's title would reflect that. As it currently stands, the article is still titled Cannabis dispensary, and as such the first identifying description if there are multiple names should reflect the title. Also, it's not a sound strategy to immediately resort to the same behavior following a block that got you blocked in the first place. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Article was originally in my draft space, then launched as marijuana dispensary. Then viriditas renamed it. There is no concensus on what it should be named. There has never been a vote on the subject.... viriditas just renamed it "because".--Potguru (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not the warring party, I am the injured party.

--Potguru (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

One of the changes you reverted has no support.

  • "File:Cannabis Station.JPG|thumb|right|Cannabis Station, a medical marijuana dispensary in Denver, Colorado"" my correct statement
  • "File:Cannabis Station.JPG|thumb|right|Cannabis Station, a medical cannabis dispensary in Denver, Colorado"" your incorrect revision, which YOU used to block warn ME.

Look at the reference I included.

"Rocky Mountain High is Colorado’s line of premier, upscale medical and recreational marijuana dispensaries".

Read the words. It CLEARLY is a marijuana dispensary named cannabis station. It's not a cannabis dispensary as you proposed.

--Potguru (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll make this simple for you; until there is community consensus that results in changing the article name (currently named Cannabis dispensary) to another name, the article itself should reflect that name, period. Further discussion on this topic belongs on the article's talk page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Then the article should be deleted, in favor of the original article name. --Potguru (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't delete articles for name changes, we move them, and there is no consensus for that. I'm not discussing the name on my talk page further; that belongs in the centralized discussion on the article's talk page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to add such a section but, frankly, I'm afraid you will block me as you have warned me and not given me any belief that I am able to touch the page I wrote at all. So much for being bold, eh? --Potguru (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

doubly confused, unfair blocking warnings?

Dear Ohnoitsjamie,

Why was I warned to be blocked, but then this user was allowed to erase my post without a similar warning?

(cur | prev) 18:41, 22 January 2016‎ Viriditas (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,221 bytes) (-532)‎ . . (Wikipedia isn't a battlefield where people win or lose, "marijuana" isn't the correct term, and I'm not swayed by appeals to the majority) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:46, 22 January 2016‎ Potguru (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,737 bytes) (+516)‎ . . (→‎Nomination of Cannabis dispensary for deletion: --Potguru (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)) (undo)

I was of the impression we could not remove other peoples posts... I have been warned about the same.

I am new to wikipedia. Thank you. --Potguru (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly rules regarding deleting posts have some caveats. (1) You are generally free to remove comments other people make from your own talk page. It's possible that in some cases it may be seen as rude or dismissive, but it is permitted. (2) you are not permitted to remove other peoples' posts from talk pages beyond your own talk pages, or refactor other people's comments (3) when you are under an active block you may not remove declined unblock templates. Hope that helps. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thank you for the clarification. --Potguru (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

my article keeps being attacked by same user

per this edit: (cur | prev) 20:49, 22 January 2016‎ Viriditas (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,337 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Viriditas moved page Talk:Cannabis dispensary to Talk:Cannabis dispensaries in the United States: Bold move per excellent talk page suggestion) (undo | thank)

User (viriditas) is moving the article with no consensus. Now he's moved it to an area it doesn't belong as marijuana dispensaries can be found around the world. Can't he be stopped while my petition is considered?

Should he not be equally warned for edit warring as he clearly is yet you will not let me respond?? --Potguru (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem with moving it to that target, since (1) "cannabis" has already been established on Wikipedia as the consensus synonym for the substance in question and (2) the article is US-specific. I wouldn't get your hopes up about your petition. You still don't seem to understand that (1) ownership does not exist here and (2) decisions are based on community consensus, not perceived absolutes of correct or incorrect. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Jamie, silly me, I was still of the belief that we followed actual rules and pointed to actual references instead of just conjectured about things. Where is this consensus on cannabis vs marijuana you allege exists?

Did you locate any references to cannabis dispensaries in any meaningful source yet?

And, since you have not done the research, how is one supposed to talk about non US marijuana dispensaries such as the ones in Canada or the caribbean or europe now that the article is (incorrectly) US centric?

--Potguru (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll tell you one more time: I'm not going to discuss this with you on my talk page. Use the article's talk page. The makes for a single centralized location for other editors to keep telling you the same thing you've already been told. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not about the issue (marijuana vs cannabis) this is about your questionable policy enforcement. I requested you ALSO warn the other user to stop the edit war as you did me. I authored the talk page you are speaking about so... let's deal with the issue I brought to your page. With all due respect. --Potguru (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to warn them about. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

So just to be absolutely clear...

He moved the page to a place I think it definitely does not belong and there is no consensus or evidence to support that is does and if I move it back, or somewhere else, you intend to block me. right? --Potguru (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there's a good chance that will happen, whether it's by me or another admin. You may want to take a deep breath and read WP:BATTLEGROUND before you continue down this path. Further posts on my talk page about this topic by you will be ignored. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

== Naomi Ragen ==TeeVeeed (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In regards to your rv to my section deletion on the article, there is a current DRN which is hopefully going to start, and I have a section on the article TP about my deletion. Since you have presumed knowledge of BLP, we could really use your help in hashing this out. I actually was looking-for excellent sources for this part of the article when maybe it was a little knee-jerk of me but the link to the author's site where she claims liable, AND that she was allegedly threatened/blackmailed with having her reputation ruined on the "internet"......well, that added to the BLP warning at the top of the TP, made me just blank it because that is how I interpreted "potentially libelous" must be rm------ and we really need editors who have dealt with BLP issues to help us--I hope you can, thanksTeeVeeed (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And re: your recent edit to restore the "cross currents" source, we are discussing not using that source. That is actually why I was looking-for better refs, and I stumbled-upon the authors blog which I have linked on the above mentioned post on the TP---the author claims that crosscurrents blog's owner has some kind-of personal bias, also it is a blog, and if we are going to include the legal at all we are going to have to be scrupulous about sourcing-thanksTeeVeeed (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussions about article content belong on article talk pages, not user talk pages. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


What is amazing is that that cell phone quality photo on the home cinema page was taken just yesterday with a Nikon D5100 with stock lens. It's a haphazard setup and I might peruse Flickr for better image candidates as I don't like using my own stuff too much because it's haphazard, but I'm surprised by the lack of images (and references and up to date or neutral info) on the page. The lead image and image with the wooden TV look even worse than my noise-filled farmhouse free-craigslist setup. B137 (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)