User talk:Ohnoitsjamie

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

Contents

Contacting me[edit]

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?[edit]

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.


Talk archives

Talk archives[edit]

PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE *BOTTOM* OF THIS PAGE.

Notability references[edit]

User:GTA5Player[edit]

See here. I think that WP:Competence perhaps applies to GTA5Player. Or he's just still too new to understand how things work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Article new edition[edit]

Hallo, good man. I am new editor in wikipaedia. I am new, so you be no angry. If I want to put edit two picture only in articl and one line down title, then how i doing the edition, you help me man by instruction. God bless you and may you long life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.69.185 (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You're going to have to be a little more specific. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for reply man. i know my English poor. I shall take help from friend. i need to put 2 pictures (upload and no copyright violate, i promise!!!!). Then I want to put caption under picture. 106.77.43.168 (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Rebel Heart[edit]

I have reverted your removal of content from the lead of the article here. The content is sourced in the "Background and development" section, sourced to Billboard where Madonna says "It was challenging to keep cohesion with the sound and the direction of the record with people coming and going in a revolving door of creativity." —IB [ Poke ] 18:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I see now that it's source in the "Background" section, but don't you think it's a bit redundant to also include it in the lede? It's a single comment made by Madonna about the album; seems a little WP:WEIGHTy for the lede. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Still vandalizing[edit]

Can you please revoke the talk page access for the IP editor 94.197.121.216? Even after you blocked them, they're still vandalizing their talk page. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Seasick Steve[edit]

Hi Jamie

I had not been to the Seasick Steve page in over a year and was a little shocked to see the disruptive unsourced editing going on. I do not edit any longer but just had to jump in there and revert a couple of these unsourced edits by User talk:80.195.100.70 The IP editor right away reverted my edits. A long time Wikipedia contributor User:Thomas.W then warned this IP editor and in the process found that it is the same IP address that has carried out disruptive edits for the last 5 years on the page and has resulted in 3 previous blocks.(could you possibly look into this IP?) From what I can tell, the basis for most of this type of editing has been, at least for the last 2 years, has been the unauthorised biography that i wrote to you about a year or so ago. I wanted to readdress that with you. As a fan of the artist, I unfortunately bought the book after it came out. In my opinion, it was one of the worst piece of journalism I have ever read and I am not alone apparently.(reviews on Amazon.co.uk) It really falls under Tabloid Journalism and again in my opinion, is nowhere near a quality source that Wikipedia demands. The writter himself works at a music blog called The Arts Desk. The only review of the book at the time of release was from, The Art Desk itself. Presumably by the writter himself, since the review was not signed. It was then picked up by a music writter for the Guardian's music online blog.(not print) It seemed at the time it was just picked up for its sensationalism and I'm sure there was no question about checking its accuracy or not. The author had no previous track record at all and I still can't find anythng at all about the publisher (Music Press). Certainly not a well known, reputable publishing house, with quality standards, to say the least. The book itself is basically just conjecture and maybes and might haves. There is almost no source material or facts at all. The writter did not interview one person who new Seasick Steve before the 2000's and those after, just a friend or two of the artist in Norway, who's information is in no way conflicting with the longstanding article. The only exception to this, is a conversation with the alleged (in the writter's own words) "estranged son" of Seasick Steve, whose own main motive for being interviewed as far as I can tell, was apparently to get his own bands name mentioned in the book.

I just want to to give you one strange example about the writting style in this book. It kind of says it all. A little background first. It is commonly known from different articles that Seasick Steve moved to Notodden Norway from the USA in the early 2000's. Apparently they mainly picked the town because of the huge blues scene there but also as an aside, because his wife ( who is Norwegian) had read the novel, T.Singer by the Norwegian writer, Dag Solstad. The book is apparently just a novel about a man moving to Notodden to change his life. According to Wikipedia, Dag solstad's '"early books were considered somewhat controversial, due to their political emphasis leaning towards the Marxist–Leninist side of the political spectrum" The novel, T Singer, has nothing to do with politics at all from what I can gather and yet the author of the unauthorised biography has inferred somehow and wtote that Seasick Steve's wife probably has 'Communists leanings' due to the fact she read this novel! It seems just ridiculous, baseless and certainly presumptuous to write somthing like that and also could be considered hurtful. WP:BLP It also has nothing to do with the artist at all. This book is just full of this type of writing, making this book, again in my opinion, a highly unreliable and questionable source. I get the feeling that most of the ( mainly) IP editors who have used this to edit the article have not even read the book. Just cherry picking the controversial parts that suits them to try and change the article. Jamie, in my opinion, this 'Tabloid Book' has no place having its own section in this article. I have not been able to find one instance of an unauthorised biography having its own section on an well known artist Wikipedia page. This book,as far as I can tell, just died a death right away but it has been having a free ride in the article for almost 2 years. It is really the only place I have actually ever seen it advertised. It has always seemed to me a case of self promotion. WP:Promotion I was hoping you could have a closer look at the unauthorised bio's right to its own section on this artist page. Thanks very much for your time Aircastle (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a question of the unauthorized bio having a "right" to the page. It's arguable that the small section is appropriate given that the bio was covered in The Guardian. I see that there are articles in New Music Express and The Telegraph as well. On a related note, I blocked the anon IP for continued disruption after previous blocks. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The editor of the unauthorised biography pursued a very persistent campaign here in 2016 in order to promote the book and himself (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Wright (critic), an article created by User:HoboLow, who in a post, see link in the AfD, claimed to be the writer of the book, i.e. Matthew Wright, making it an autobiography). The publisher of the book, John Blake Publishing, is a small publisher in the UK who obviously will publish anything, whether it's true or not, as can be seen in the controversies section in the article linked to, and the book has been very severely critisized for being inaccurate, and making many claims that are easy to disprove, and seems to be written only to get publicity for the otherwise totally unknown writer. So I don't feel it merits any mention in the article... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I can see an argument for the book itself to not be directly "plugged" in Wikipedia, but the claims about the subject's background are covered in multiple reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I've rewritten that section so that it's less of a book plug. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jamie for having a look. I really appreciate it. It was just my understanding that in the framwork of WP:BLP that the source should be a quality source by a writer of a proven track record and with expertise and published by a reputable publishing house with quality control. None of which this book vaguely meets. The fact that it was picked up by the above mentioned after its self review by The Arts Desk, in my opinion, does not make it any more of a 'Quality Source' but i guess it was a good story for them. I was just suprised to see this 'book' get its own section in the article. Thanks again for your explanation and I really appreciate your time. Thanks also for your intervention with the disruptive IP. Aircastle (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

March 30 Response from User: JHerbstman

Dear Sir, You have claimed that edits done are somehow SPAM. They are no such thing. These edits are to links was to an educational online liberty that has provided much content for many articles on Wikipedia. As the administrator of this online museum, I wish to inform you that it holds the copyright for the rare images that it has contributed to many Wiki articles.

As you may not be familiar with this online resource, this online financial library has contributed to the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Museum of American Finance, and several major universities its material from visual archives, all for the purpose of educating the public on US Financial History and the US National Debt. This online library takes in NO MONEY and SELLS NOTHING. It is purely educational. It is also the ONLY resources of its kind that houses these images, and they are an important part of US financial history

It is entitled to make contributions to Wikipedia and be cited as an external link. Here is the quote taken from Wikipedia: External Links: What Can Normally be Linked:

       3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues.. 

I hope you will act in good faith, and not unfairly target contributions here on Wikipedia when they are not SPAM or self-promoting.

User: JHerbstman  —Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC) 
We don't permit link WP:COI link canvassing. Your site lit up my adblocker with 20-some hits. Add it again and you'll be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Peto158 / spam[edit]

Just noticed you removed their liberally applied paper from a large number of articles. Yeah, that was spammy... however, it's actually an interesting study. I'm considering re-inserting it in Commensalism at least, where it's quite topical - unless there are other concerns with the source? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with uninvolved editors re-adding a link if you think it's pertinent for a particular page, but it looked like a pretty blatant conflict-of-interest link blanketing overall. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


Parulsingh1478 Spamming Alert??[edit]

Dear OhnoitsJamie,

  I am new to Wikipedia. I am currently pursuing my doctoral studies in art history and symbolism and significance of objects in various cultures interests me. I thought it would be relevant to add these details in the articles of various animals and plants etc. for the benefit of reader, as it expands knowledge. Since I have been using a specific book, which is a dictionary of symbols, it may seem that book that I am using is “spamming”. However, nothing can be further than the truth.

I really feel that the texts that I am adding regarding symbolism of objects, appends information on Wikipedia.

However, please suggest what can be done. Do I stop citing the book or delete the citations? Will it not then lead to copyright violations?

Please let me know what to do, as there are many pages where I can add cultural significance of objects, and I am really confused what to do next

ThanksParulsingh1478 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam as well as WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT. We have Symbolism_(arts) to cover the topic you're interested in; we don't need sections on every imaginable object about it's art and cultural symbolism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Select Survey Invite[edit]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_a4QG27mM3TjODv7&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

reverse order new zeland categories[edit]

thanks for the block - i wasnt sure whether it was tricks or simple perverseness or wierd understanding of english JarrahTree 12:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The edits may have been good-faith, but as you noted most of them were incorrect. A short block might be enough to get them to respond to feedback in the future. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Spamming?[edit]

Cruise Industry News is a legitimate source I've used many items to update articles, its used on probably almost every cruise related page. I've never had an issue using it before so I don't see how all of a sudden I'm now spamming; which is something I would never do or intend to do. --Yankeesman312 (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if the links were added in good faith. It raises red flags when an editor adds links to the same site over a series of edits, though I do understand that for niche topics there is a limited set of reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for blocking Gary123456L (talk · contribs)! Would you mind deleting the redirects he made to my page here: User talk:HickoryEatShit?4 and User:HickoryEatShit?4? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Done! OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Maroon[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of examples where a color is used. With regard to team colors, if the selection of the color has some verifiable symbolic significance (as appears to be the case for old gold), that might be a minimum of cultural substance. The mere fact that a team uses a color, without any indication of why it was that one and not another, is trivia. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You left a canned threat on my talk page over the over the removal of a poorly cited bit of trivia. Is that quite necessary? Is the sky going to fall? 24.7.14.87 (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Please take your concerns to the talk page where this discussion belongs. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Spam5i[edit]

Hi Jamie, I'm curious how you found Sharon Hilary's contribs that I reverted ... was it my frequent use of "spam" in the edit summaries? Anyway, I noticed that you used {{spam5i}} at her talk page (as I said there, I wasn't going to block the user that soon, but meh). That template was kinda broken – it referred to temporarily blocking the user rather than indefinitely blocking them – and I just fixed it to say what you wanted it to say, and resubsted it on Sharon Hilary's talk page. The modern equivalent now is {{Uw-soablock}}.

By the way, I think this is the first time we've interacted, but I've noticed your great anti-vandalism work for many years now ... keep it up! Graham87 17:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that template. I thought it was odd that an "i" (indefinite) template used "temporary" in the text. I'm trying to get used to using updated templates, but I have a few that are sort of ingrained in my finger memory. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Rise FX[edit]

I object to the deletion as this clearly is one of Germany's most important companies in special effects. Relevance and sources are clearly superior to some others in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Film_production_companies_of_Germany --LiterallySimon (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read to our WP:PROD and WP:AFD policies to see how those processes work. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia promote Christian evangelism[edit]

On What basis is Wikipedia allowing evangelical symbols to be put on a nations map? Is it not overt proselytisation? What is the standard rule or code on which it is being allowed or done?

How can you give such a severe warning for the edit? Did I not give you the reason? If your an admin, does it mean such severe threats can be issued in the first instance?

Please clarify.

Many thanks!

Mkv22 (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

You've been mentioned at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Is Christian evangelism promoted by Wikipedia? Acroterion (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

List of YouTubers[edit]

There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding Content To Rochester, MN Page[edit]

Hello Jamie,

Thanks for the heads up about not including inline links. I do have a question about why you reverted content I added to the Rochester, MN page. I'm not an employee of the city or tourism council or anything like that. I'm just someone who's lived here for a long time, and I see holes in the content. I'd like to add info about other arts organizations and recreational options in the city. Please advise, and thank you.

Tomburket (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT, especially the subsections on not a directory and not a guidebook, most external links like that should generally be avoided unless it's highly relevant to the article. You can imagine how cluttered articles about cities would get if we added links to every civic, social, etc, organization in that city. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Organizational lifecycle[edit]

Dear OhnoitsJamie,

You have deleted a link and flagged it as a self promotion because I was a coauthor of the article. Could you please dedicate few more minutes and recheck, please especially take a look at the Table 1, pages 3-5 in the article. It shows review of research on the topic of Organizational lifecycle since the 1890. Also, it is an open-source article, I think it supplements previous two sentences, illustrates research done on the topic even better than references 8 and 9. I would not dare delete 8 and 9 in case I have oversaw some details, but I think that readers of Wikipedia will benefit with a link where they can find elaborated literature review on a research. Maybe not on a same amount of contribution, but in the same style as prof. Eric Flamholtz contributed with some of his own valued research, just one edit before me, and was treated differently.

PS Maybe the link would fit better here "Subsequently, much research has been done on the organizational life cycle theory (HERE IS ALTERNATIVE POINT FOR A LINK TO A REVIEW OF RESEARCH), and can be found in various literature on..... "? Also, I think that article can improve wikipedia page on Management consulting with the sentence regarding proactive and reactive engagement of consultants, but I will leave that to your judgment also. Without judgement what would we do?

Thanks anyway :)

Mladen.cudanov (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't the quality of the paper. We don't permit conflict-of-interest canvassing of links, regardless of the quality. If you'd only added it to one article (along with new material), it would not have been an issue. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Relevant Section[edit]

It appears that three sections that I added today were removed despite citing peer-reviewed sources. I am guessing that this occurred because I am the primary author of many of those sources. However, the sections that I added were important clarifications of the literature, and no other authors have conducted this empirical work. Many of the notions that I was seeing on Wikipedia were outdated notions based on prior evidence, and I was adding the most recent evidence. I don't understand how I'm supposed to ad a caveat to an outdated notion without citing relevant research. Njacobson88 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarify[edit]

Do you mind clarifying your revert on the talk page? 88.104.46.55 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A mistake on my part. The edit looks to be reasonably sourced, so I've restored it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry[edit]

I'm sorry I need to figure out how to edit first ;) have a nice day Ohnoitsjamie Charcol77 (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

96.31.195.238[edit]

You may want to disable their talkpage access. Thanks. 176.205.8.108 (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Block enhanced. Thanks for the heads up! OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Merxes[edit]

Hi there. You have blocked Merxes (talk · contribs) indefinitely. However, you indicated on his talk page that the block was temporary. Not sure whether the discrepancy is intentional. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Mistake, forgot the "i" on the template. Fixed, thanks! OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability Question[edit]

What makes someone notable (for a small town at least) (also sorry if this isn't were I'm supposed to ask questions) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonsnick (talkcontribs) 21:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:BIO. Size of town doesn't matter. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Can someone be notable without having a page on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonsnick (talkcontribs) 00:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily, but they have to at least qualify for a page. I.e., according to WP:PROF, being a department chair of a university usually qualifies, but that person may not have an article written about them (yet). Being an associate director may be an impressive accomplishment, but it doesn't address any of our notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks just curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonsnick (talkcontribs) 12:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing valid external links[edit]

Hi. I added some news and links to a few pages, citing a market-leading source and you have removed one of them from a page on Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. I don't work for the title in question (The Lawyer) or have any form of commercial arrangement with them, so would like to understand your thinking a little more. Thanks. Legalinsider (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

When someone creates an account and adds links to the same site in all over their initial edits, it's usually a single purpose spam account. We don't permit link canvassing, regardless of the quality of the site in question. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop removing legitimate citations[edit]

I'm not spamming Wikipedia. I'm posting legitimate citations of where the information came from. You've undone a bunch of hard work that I've put in and you're saying it's "Spam". You should start reading the actual pages of the citations I've posted. For example, on this page (https://lancasterpa.com/amish/amish-frequently-asked-questions/) that you removed, they did an interview with the non-profit Mennonite Information Center. How in the world is that spam? Those folks are experts about the Amish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinSayin (talkcontribs) 20:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an SEO venue. See WP:REFSPAM and WP:COI, which is obviously in play here. If you add any of your clients' links again, you'll be blocked indefinitely. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You didn't even respond to what I said.

I don't think you've read WP:COI either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

How in the world can you prove that I'm in conflict of interest? You seriously aren't paying attention at all. If you can't respond to what I said about the Amish FAQs, then I honestly don't understand what's going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinSayin (talkcontribs) 20:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:DUCK is sufficient in this case. When a user canvasses the same links to multiple articles, it's pretty obvious what's going on. I'm not discussing it further; I've already provided you with the policy links. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean, if you look at the Amish and Amish Furniture pages, they're riddled with spam and you didn't remove those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinSayin (talkcontribs) 13:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You've already removed other sites that didn't meet WP:EL; feel free to remove more if you find them. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Sock?[edit]

A sock of who? The pages do not elaborate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed to User:AlexanderHovanec, as tagged here User:Botany and Art. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Spamming?[edit]

eSellerCafe.com is a news source for small business online retailers and often covers news related to eBay, Amazon, Etsy, and other eCommerce marketplaces and platforms. Both entries covered news that also was covered by mass media (try Google News search if you don't believe me). You removed two entries from them (one on eBay and one on Coinstar Wiki pages). Why? Did you even bother to read the sourced articles to see if they were actually news or just assumed because two entries on two different Wiki pages that day came from one IP there must be some kind of foul play?

But if you prefer, you can restore the entries and use the following two sources, unless you think I am now spamming for TechCrunch and Business Insider...

https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/17/with-its-new-interests-feature-ebay-again-tries-to-personalize-its-marketplace/ http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-coinstar-expand-cash-top-up-2018-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.245.95 (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

When we see the same account adding the same link to multiple articles, there's a good chance it's conflict-of-interest link canvassing. There are links from better sources readily available. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I will do a better job of varying the sourcing. But if articles on Wikipedia are not updated with the latest RELEVANT news, I am not going to wait until BBC or NYT finally publishes the news. There are many specialized news sources that do a much better job covering specific industries then waiting for one of the mass media guys to finally catch up. Also they were not the same article, but two different articles on two different Wiki pages... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.245.95 (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stick to Twitter and other outlets if you want to promote your website. Sites that have ongoing issues with conflict-of-interest link canvassing end up on our MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Nude beach[edit]

Why have you reverted my edits on nude beach without any suitable reason? All of my edits were required for making it a better article. I wasn't doing a test or doing vandalism. I'm not new to doing edits on Wiki, just that my IP keeps changing. 106.219.251.7 (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

At first it looked like you were adding new photos to the article (which already had plenty), but now I see you were rearranging them. The current arrangement was fine; your edits didn't improve the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The vintage pic of Germany needs to be in the History section. A current times pic should be the lead image of article. See MOS:LEADIMAGE. My other edits just improved the captions.106.219.251.7 (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

HLKidd (talk · contribs)[edit]

You previously blocked this user for adding spam external links. Well, the block has expired and the user is back at it.[5] Yilloslime (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

My bad--you warned this user--not actually blocked them. At any rate, I don't know if you are an admin, but if you are, it's probably time to actually issue the block. Yilloslime (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, they're blocked now. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, why do you think I am making test edits? I was adding relevant information. This all can be sourced from the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farooqi12345 (talkcontribs) 12:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access ?[edit]

I suspect that this relentless sock need talk page access revoked as well! Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they resurrected Sinclair method / The Sinclair Method after that 2015 AfD vote[edit]

As per the suggestion on the closing admin's talk page, I am pinging active editors who voted on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sinclair_Method_(2nd_nomination) a few years ago about what happened to that page. Within a month of the original Sinclair Method (currently a redirect) article being deleted, The Sinclair Method (also a redirect) was created; that was moved to Sinclair method and finally made in to a "soft" (i.e. history preserved) redirect; here is the history of that article. I myself have restored Sinclair Method as a redirect, for pragmatic reasons: The page http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/10/26/alcoholics-anonymous-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ has a link to the old Sinclair Method article, and I think a link to a short summary is more useful for readers than a dead link. (I personally think The Sinclair Method probably doesn't work, since the same treatment has only shown a modest effect when other scientists than Sinclair try to replicate the results, but I'm biased towards 12-step approaches, WP:NOTAFORUM and all that) Defendingaa (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Repeat vandal[edit]

Special:Contributions/RyanNavilius5 has managed two edits after your last block ran out; one arguably and one definitely vandalism. Rather than go to AIV I thought I'd ping you and see if you fancied just wielding the banhammer again.

(I'll also bet they're not unrelated to Special:Contributions/PorothanSaomper given their user pages and common style of vandalism...) Pinkbeast (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I reblocked them for 2 weeks; the only reason it's not indef is they've made few constructive edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
And they're back again. This might superficially appear to be a good-faith but incompetent edit, but I don't believe that can be the case both because of the assertion that the book "will be" published in 1994 and because it is a page this editor has vandalised repeatedly before. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll let you know when they come back with a fresh sock. :-/ Pinkbeast (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm[edit]

REHopkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - note the obsession with adding Ruth Elizabeth Richardson's work, exactly the same as BethANZ. I smell a rat. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw that, and assumed that REHopkins is an abandoned account that BethANZ used to edit with. There's a 2.5 year gap between edits of those accounts. If REHopkins had been used recently or were still being actively used, that'd be another matter entirely. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Rather undermines the claim to be new, though. A decade of nothing but self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm typically very antagonistic towards anything that looks like self-promotion; I just have a gut feeling that in this particular case that it may be more of a genuine passion. The topic is rather niche, and I don't imagine that anyone would expect to make much money from that pursuit. For what it's worth, her website doesn't have any adverts, which is unusual. If I turn out to be wrong, a reblock is simple enough. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I am sure it is a genuine passion. I am less sure that she is as much of an authority as she claims. People have published some very fringe stuff through minor local presses like the one that did her book. But we'll wait and see. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Mmmm. When I advised her to go to RSN, I definitely didn't expect the outcome to be a block! I was hoping she'd get a bit more awareness of how we do things, and I hope it does pan out that way now. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please check this user page[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asoksevil Saw your note about them using inappropriate links/sources - they're done it again. I just reverted a change to Jensen Huang page that seems like similar issue. I wasn't logged in when I reverted the change (sorry for the error there). Hope you can help with this user. Thank you! Linda Popoki 🐱🐱 chat 20:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Prod on Nina Cuso[edit]

FYI - The creator of the article, Ohare415, is on indefinite block for suspected sockpuppetry. I cut parts of the article in an attempt to get it to NPOV, but have no interest in the topic, nor what counts are worthy referencing in the fashion industry. David notMD (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It had come to my attention via the sock ring blocks and the attendant unblock requests. You did a nice job of cleaning it up (getting rid of the promo language). The person may meet our notability criteria someday, but I don't think they do at this time. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree on NC not notable (yet), and on false claim of naivety on part of Ohare415. Will see if the Prod goes through. This would not have been exposed if Ohare415 had not tried Teahouse, so unintended consequences. David notMD (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Lipulekh Pass[edit]

Please take a look at Lipulekh Pass page. Thanks. — Jakichandan (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

ohnoitsaduplicateblock[edit]

Beat you to it, sorry! Nice to see you agree with me though. Yunshui  16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Amanmustprayandgotochurch[edit]

Hello. It's an obvious sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwegba4real. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Report[edit]

Hey Jamie, three months ago you warned User:Kingston, CA that he should not make further large edits without consensus (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kingston,_CA&oldid=841019180). Today he just started to do so again on the Sudan page though:

He clearly is only interested in pushing his own version without making the slightest concession. LeGabrie (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Edit: he also just broke the three revert rule. LeGabrie (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie The page is not very neutral. All the changes in the review page is done by him he prevents my edits and others edits. This is not a follow-up method in Wikipedia, he his edits does not find a consensus from any users if my edits are also. Kingston, CA (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Youth League U15[edit]

Can you please help me to get back the contents of my article Youth League U15 Please sir Abhishe78 (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

San Diego Wikimedians User Group October 2018 meetup invitation[edit]

San Diego Wikimedians User Group.png

Who: All members of the public

What: Filipino American History Month-themed Edit a thon in Mira Mesa, San Diego.

When: Sunday 7 October 2018, 1:00PM PST / 1300 until 3:00PM PST / 1500

Where: Mira Mesa Branch Library

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to limited space available.

(Delivered: 01:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list.)

Third opinion[edit]

Hi Ohnoitsjamie

I am not able to create consensus with a user on the article Nadars. We have also tried a discussion on the talkpage, Talk:Nadar_(caste)#The_Nalavars. A third opinion would be appreciated. Xenani (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to help, but I'm not sure that I'm knowledgeable enough in that topic. Off the top of my head, User:Sitush may be a good resource. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi![edit]

Just a notice, you will have to renominate Jonathon Prandi to AfD because it was nominated there once and kept (so PROD is unable to be used on it per Wiki guidelines). Thanks. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you will find a BLPPROD is not subject to that condition. The only requirement is that it be an unsourced BLP (which it is). The tag "can only be removed if a reliable source is added". I suggest you restore the tag forthwith. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


Edits to schools and the RfC on school administrators[edit]

Greetings Ohnoitsjamie. I hope you are well. I note that you have continued to remove/reduce sections on school/district administrators such as [10], [11], and [12]. Per the second bullet point of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Suggestions_for_responding, I'd like to ask you to suspend making such edits at least until such time as the RfC concludes. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I've been mostly focused on cleanup up "alumni" sections, but I'll leave the admin sections alone for now. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elgin Community College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Gilliam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited UCLA School of Law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Rich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Newcastle Boys' High School[edit]

I'm curious as to what your criteria was for removing "Notable alumni" from Newcastle Boys' High School. All of the entries but one were sourced and many had articles but you didn't remove all of the entries that didn't have articles while you removed one that did and was therefore clearly notable and left the unsourced entry. Like I said, I'm just curious. --AussieLegend () 07:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

When I'm cleaning up lists like this, I try to be conservative with how much I'm removing entries. If an entry's claim to fame is such that I think it would have a good chance of surviving an AfD challenge if an article was created for that entry, I tend to leave it in. There are a lot of Olympians and presidents of universities that don't have articles written about them, but both of those criteria are generally accepted as qualifying for notability in WP:BIO and it's subarticles. As far as I could tell, all of the sources for the deleted entries were primary sources that simply established who the person was, rather than 3rd party neutral sources normally used for evaluating notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
That seems fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. I'm glad somebody finally did this. I went to that school and actually know two of the people who were listed. One has an article and the other doesn't. Ironically, the one without the article is, in my opinion, more notable than the one who does but because I'm so close to it, I didn't feel right pruning the list. Cheers. --AussieLegend () 05:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

Christmas tableau.jpg Happy Christmas!
Hello Ohnoitsjamie,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 19:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Ha, Merry Christmas to you as well. (P.S Wales is a lovely place) OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

MrBooth7[edit]

Appears to be practicing some block evasion with IP address now (here).18abruce (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks! OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastchester High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Doherty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Lafayette notable deletions?[edit]

As I noted on the Lafayette College talk page, I was surprised (and probably disagree) with most of your deletions. Could you discuss there? Bellagio99 (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Names listed as "notable should either (1) already have a Wikipedia article written about that individual or (2) be eligible for a Wikipedia article; that is, meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Regarding number 2; I tend to leave in entries such as CEO of a notable company, president of a University, or Olympic athlete; those are all examples where there often isn't an article already written, but if an article was written, it would likely survive an SFD. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
DK about most of the others, but Hutchison was a Dean at Lafayette and had an important Jamaican government post. Your call. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Having a diplomatic post doesn't address any WP:BIO criteria as far as I know; see this essay on diplomatic notability. I didn't see mentioned that he was Dean. Dean of the college, or Dean of a department? OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
This is pure WP:OR because I dealt with him when I was visiting there. He handled my invite. He was the Dean of Studies but not the main Dean of the College. I'd guess he was the #2 admin. He was also one of the first/only? black admins there. Here's an article I quickly found: [13] Once again, your call.Bellagio99 (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Having an article or a mention in Wikipedia isn't a signifier of merit; I'd consider Hutchinson much more worth of merit than most of the reality show contestants we have articles about. The link you included probably wouldn't meet WP:RS criteria as an independent, 3rd party source in that it's published by Hutchinson's employer. This might count toward WP:BIO notability, but it's all I could find, and BIO requires multiple depth-of-coverage, third party sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

SelavkaS2031[edit]

user:SelavkaS2031 just threatened me on her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Handled, thanks! OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to attend a mini Unconference in Mission Valley[edit]

San Diego Wikimedians User Group.png

Who: All members of the public

What: San Diego mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 February 2019, 6:00PM PST / 1800 until 7:30PM PST / 1930

Where: Starbucks at Fenton Marketplace

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 01:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list.)

RE[edit]

  • Qin Gang, Deputive Minister of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the People's Republic of China
  • An Min, former vice minister, Department of Commerce,China

These two peoples are top Chinese officals. They satisfy the "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges. 钉钉 (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I've restored those two per your arguments, though I'm not sure if the second one technically qualifies. In practice the policy usually doesn't extend beyond top level positions, but that depends on the position, and different countries assign different weights to "deputy" and "vice." Regards, OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy birthday![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Thanks for all you do around here! Best,  ~~Swarm~~  06:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

175.176.32.0/20[edit]

user:175.176.32.0/20 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


107.77.192.0 - 107.77.223.255[edit]

Did you know that this block is blocking 8,000 IPs and a significantly larger number of AT&T mobile phone users? I assume there is a problem member who keeps resurfacing and you are trying to stop them - but is it worse to block this many users for so long? I have attempted to use my phone a few times in the last couple of years it has been blocked every time. This is not a huge problem for me personally, as I am a low volume editor. This is just an FYI. 76.186.185.122 (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the rangeblock tool shows how many IPs are affected. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to attend a Southern California Regional mini Unconference[edit]

Southern California.png

Who: All Wikipedians & Wikimedians

What: Southern California Regional mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 March 2019, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:10PM PST / 1610

Where: Philippe's at Chinatown, Los Angeles

San Diego Wikimedians User Group.png

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list & the Los Angeles mass mailing list.)

Block of User:CITPrat[edit]

Sorry,Ohnoitsjamie! It looks like we applied the block to this account at the same time, and I overwrote your block with mine. We both blocked the account for the same reason and for the same duration; at least we agreed on the action needed. Anyways, I just wanted to leave you a message to let you know what happened and to apologize. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I think I accidentally did the same thing to another admin yesterday. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)