User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive32

Happy New Year, Ohnoitsjamie!

Happy New Year!

Ohnoitsjamie,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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 [1]. 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 [2] 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!
	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:101.182.144.48‎

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 82.132.214.226)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Reported on behalf of 82.132.214.226 -- 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. Scr★pIron^IV 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)

Thanks

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 [[3]] block warning you left is as of currently still unblocked. Cheers. Boomer Vial^Holla 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 Vial^Holla 05:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

confusion

Marijuana/cannabis stuff

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: marihuana use by Michigan state governmenthttp://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,4601,7-154-72600_72603_51869---,00.html --Potguru (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC) 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis_dispensary#Not_ready_for_mainspace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis_dispensary#Name --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". http://rockymountainhigh.co/about-rocky-mountain-high/ 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) Dear Ohnoitsjamie, Why was I warned to be blocked, but then this user was allowed to erase my post without a similar warning? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viriditas&action=history (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) 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) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannabis_dispensaries_in_the_United_States&action=history 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

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)

Image

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)

KewinRozz

Hey there @Ohnoitsjamie: it appears it might be time for another block for KewinRozz for continuing to get the point. Your insight is appreciated. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You're going to need to be more specific as to what current behavior is blockable. I haven't been following the latest developments. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

General WP disruption including multiple attempts at Forum Shopping even after a warning, as recent as today. Failure to follow policies which have been explained, such as failure to follow the DRN policies such as "requesting a dispute already under discussion (current RfC in progress)" and failure to notify each person related to that case. Continuing to edit posts/comments after it has already been replied to here - previously brought up here. Many users have been attempting in good faith to bring correction to this editor, but instead of following WP policies, rather he is POV pushing his way around. I haven't had the bandwidth to assess his specific assertions on the validity of the content he is attempting to contribute, but even if valid, he is going about it the wrong way. It would be one thing if he was sorting his way through without knowing any better - that is excusable. However after blatantly, and repeatedly being informed about policies and then going right past them, is being disruptive. It appears that this editor is viewing the comments by me and other editors as hoops to jump through, a gauntlet to pass through to get his point across, instead of actually taking the time to understand the information being provided to him. Can we assume this is a well intention editor, in good faith? Probably so. I would support that his intentions are likely correct. However the manner in which is be going about contributing is disruptive. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: just pinging to see if you had any thoughts regarding the reply left above and/or recommendations to move forward. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tiggerjay, sorry for the delayed response. Yes, I would agree that KewinRozz continues to be disruptive, but I'm not seeing any acute issues that require a block at this moment. However, I also don't see any point in continuing your discussion with him. You and several other editors have made your point clear, and Kewin continues to make no sense, because either (1) he [[WP:CIR|his English-language comprehension and communication skills are lacking or (2) he has an acute case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He's been warned multiple times about editing against policy and consensus. Disengage on the talk page, and if he resumes making disruptive edits in article space, a longer block will be implemented. Or, if you'd rather not wait for that, you can take this to ANI now, where I'll be happy to provide my assessment of the situation as I see it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I effectively walked away for a week, and came back to see this still going on. I agree on your assessment. I'll let my current comments to him stand and see where it goes. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, time to take that back, while I was posting here, he started an edit war with Zoupan again... ANI created, comments welcome.[4] Tiggerjay (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy

Hi Jamie, you've been doing this adminning thing longer than I. These two templates Template:List of film institutes and Template:List of film schools were created by Deb1975, who appears to be here to spam Wikipedia with "Film Institute Model N Movie". Since the templates seem to be malformatted anyway (why would we have a list article take the shape of a template?), and seem to have been created to weasel in Film Institute Model N Movie, what would you recommend be done here? Speedy? Templates for deletion? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, missed those. I deleted them under T3, in that they don't serve any purpose and are not used. There are probably a few other speedy criteria they could be "squeezed" into, but that seemed like the best off the top of my head. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanky. I found another version of the Model N Movie article here and another user at Modelnmovie and have dealt with both accordingly. Also reported to the Spam wikiproject. Kids today... Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing

Note Back To You: I'm not making test edits, I'm just fixing things. M briglia05 (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Note to you: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umami&diff=prev&oldid=705283702 This is not "fixing" anything. "Test edit" is the nice way the standard warning templates describes unconstructive edits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

KewinRozz's block

You messed up the template a little bit, just FYI. --Tarage (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Oops, looks like someone already fixed it. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I half-fixed-it... when he replied it showed the other half of the problem. I think it's fully fixed now... Tiggerjay (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Will Heard

Same editor is back adding the gossip column nonsense. Removed, but spotted your warning on his page... Eagleash (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There's another one now. Added exactly the same stuff then amended it. Eagleash (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Never mind, someone else has already got to it... Eagleash (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access

After revoking talk page access of the 2a02:2f05::/43 range, could I get you to do the same for 86.121.96.0/20? It's also being used Alexiulian25 (talk · contribs), and he's posting the same unconvincing unblock request (here for example). Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Happily. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Lists of trivia on Solapur

Hello. FYI Coolgama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still edit-warring over his list on Solapur. Thought I'd tell you since you gave him a final warning for it yesterday. Thomas.W ^talk 12:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I initially blocked but rescinded it after a reconsideration. Coolgama did make an effort to refactor this list by eliminating obvious junk from it (lists of technical schools and other dubious items). I left a note on their talk page with suggestions. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1]

I took note and like the idea of "...material...no RELIABLE...SOURCES exist. My understanding is that many references from any websites, links and local magazines will be questioned. I am pleased with that.

In order to bring clarity to Wikipedia materials one needs use common sense. I guess this may not be accepted. The question is how to deal with so many contradictions? Pintade (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I started a new section on Talk:Zouk to discuss this. Please take it there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Rather an odd activity

Greetings! I am not quite sure if there is any violation here, but the following users' activity seems very odd[5]. If you take a quick look at his 500 most recent edits, you'll notice that he keeps carrying out serial edits in extreme speed across the whole Wikiverse, mostly focusing on the See also section. Moreover, all the edits seem to lack of an Edit Summary. I don't know, seems very odd to me. Perhaps he's running a script or something...? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see what the problem is. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, my original post was rather an ambiguous one, but I've had a closer look at the account now. Only yesterday, the account executed total of 131 edits between 00:12, 29 February and 23:17, 29 February - distributed quite evenly throughout the day - which seems to imply that we are actually dealing with a bot here. What caught my attention first, were the arbitrary edits the account carried out, e.g. adding links to the See also section, that were linking to other articles' See also section.[6] Moreover, I couldn't find the name from the WP's list of the authorized bots either.

Brevity is the soul of wit, so 1) the bot seems not to have an approval (WP:BOTPOL), and 2) the bot isn't really helpful. I hope this helped to clarify my point! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You deserve THIS.

	A Bentley for you!
	You know wikipedia. FixCop (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Vestavia Hills High School

Hi Ohnoitsjamie. I am wondering if you might take a look at this edit made to Vestavia Hills High School. It seems to re-add content you previously removed here just before you protected the page due to persistent sockpuppetry. The content was originally added by Special:Contributions/2602:306:3661:1880:58CA:3CA9:CB3D:57C8, but has been re-added by User:AdamsBHM021. I'm not sure they are connected to the IP, but AdamsBHM021 was previously blocked using multiple accounts; moreover, they seem to be trying to exert some kind of ownership over the article based upon their latest edit sum and some comments made on their user talk page. FWIW, I'm just letting it know because you were the editor who last removed the content in question and were also the admin who declined AdamsBHM021's last unblock request. I was going to just do a straight revert myself, but then decided to get some feedback first since the matter seems a bit contentious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems the aforementioned edit has been reverted by John from Idegon. I'll leave it up to you if you feel further action is warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Final warning given before issuing longer block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

R-41 sock just doesnt stop

can you please do something about this, another Dannis243 sock came out and starting doing identical edits, meybe revert and semi protect Authoritarian democracy see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authoritarian_democracy&type=revision&diff=708555962&oldid=708234023 Dannis243 (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Cordelia Mendoza

• User:Ohnoitsjamie, You mention a previous AFD, but I don's see a link to it on the talk page. Can you point me to it?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not on the talk page for some reason, but it's linked from the top of the article page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI Notification

Since you were involved in the blocking of one of the sockpuppets of User:CaptainHog, I am notifying you of yet another SPI regarding the user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:BeyonderGod

Hi, Jamie, thanks for fixing the unblock template. Are you saying it was the unclosed square brackets that broke it? I saw them, but it never occurred to me they'd matter. I mean, it's not like they were curly brackets. I do know equals signs can harm a template, so I tried coding them, but that didn't work. Oh well. A pair of square brackets..?? It's a wonder templates ever work. I don't think I'm likely to ever come to the end of things that'll break the poor fragile things. :-( Bishonen | talk 18:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC).

Yes, it was the brackets. I'm a programmer, so I'm accustomed to spotting that sort of thing, though. That doesn't stop me from accidentally breaking lots of templates accidentally, though. :) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel edit

Hello, I understand why you removed the link I added. I am new to this and was hoping to add a 'In Popular Culture' link, but couldn't figure out how. If I did that somehow, would that link also be removed because our band is not considered popular :-( Thank you for your efforts and taking the time to respond. Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalsberg (talk • contribs) 15:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. We don't add mentions of non-notable bands, books, etc. to articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate vandal warning

Wiki rules prohibit use of term "vandalism" in the case of good faith edits. Please remove offensive warning from my page. Constructive advice is always welcome. The deleted edit was accurate and did not warrant deletion nor "vandalism" warning. At worst, a level one response with constructive feedback would have been more effective and possibly appropriate. The edit you deleted was not intended as a test edit and remains a valid edit. Please explain how to improve the edit to remain in compliance, after removing the inappropriate warning. Thank you. Shinrindera (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Shinrindera (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I will continue using standard warning templates, and if you continue adding names that don't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Ionospheric Ionization Temperature

Thank you for nuking that one. I was pretty sure certain it was a hoax. I suspect that the user responsible has hacked the Freecom Wireless webpage. Meters (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Either that or they are an engineer who has developed some sort of mental illness. Either way, it was clearly OR bordering on nonsense. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The hidden text in the image sounded a bit Freemen-on-the-landish, which is pretty close to mental illness in my opinion. Meters (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a declined copy (partial) in drafts that was created by a now blocked IP. [7] It's clear form the edit contribution histories that the named account and the IP were the same user. Meters (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know off the top of my head what the deletion policies are regarding declined drafts. I'm not sure that this would qualify under a "purely disruptive" category of content, probably not. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The bogus refs were not added until after the article was recreated by the named user. Unfortunately abandoned drafts tend to live on. There was "6 months with no edits" rule for deletion but there has been push-back on that recently. Meters (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Fangusu

Thank you sir. "Being on the autism spectrum is no excuse for unacceptable behaviour ... Being on the autism spectrum does not give you carte blanche to be a jerk as well.". ThatPeskyCommoner put it best... nobody could possibly allow a community-banned sock to return here. Once again, thank you. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I hadn't seen this before, great read. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed. I think the author is now inactive, however. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus

The List Of Expeditions article is a battleground. Seems to be no consensus for Al-A's removal of the "Reasons" column. It was being discussed in the talk page prior to your revert. I am assuming you have overlooked this and I was planning to revert you. But I feel it is better to ask you first. Did you know this issue was being discussed in TP? --Mohammed77uddin (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do. I also know that you've made a total of thirteen edits to Wikipedia under this account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I mainly edit with my IP account. So do you think we have a consensus or NO consensus to remove that column ? --Mohammed77uddin (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing from multiple accounts within the same content dispute is a clear violation of sockpuppetry. I suggest that you stop it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hands up punishment

Hey, thanks for the more descriptive explanation of your edit on the abovementioned article. I can see you feel very strongly about that content and I don't mean any challenge or disrespect to you or your position. I am an inclusionist myself and I don't like to see a lot of well sourced content removed. With that in mind, how would you feel about maybe keeping some of that content and citations in a section in prose (as prose is usually better than lists anyway)? Any room for compromise here? Wishin ya the best. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Unlike most other "References in pop culture" sections (which I'm not too fond of to begin with), that list has no sourcing whatsoever to indicate that hands up punishment is a significant part of the plot of the movie. It would be like adding a list of movies in which bare feet were shown to the Barefoot article. I understand your consternation at seeing a largescale removal of material that is ostensibly sourced, but that one was just plain silly. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. I read you loud and clear from your edit summaries alone. So, list is totally out. Now about adding back perhaps a synopsis or summary of what it contained in a prose format. You cool with that compromise-ish idea? In the end it equals like 90% removed and 10% retained. Whatcha think? Buddy23Lee (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, not sure about that either for that entire list. I looked up a couple of them; we're talking about a few seconds of screen time where a character holds up their hands; in those cases, I don't think it's significant enough to warrant mention. It would probably be OK to summarize the topic, e.g, "hands up punishment is depicted in film in television, often in military-themed works," followed by references to a few of the examples. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, understood. I'm not trying to say I'm wed to every piece of that (or any, really) content, other than just in my (evidently) philosophically ultra-inclusional leanings, but I'll still give it the old college try in the not too distant future, and you pick a number between 1 and 3 on WP:CYCLE to let me know if it does not meet with approval. I'm becoming intimately familiar with that policy these days. Thank ya ma'am (I presume). Buddy23Lee (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi Ohnoitsjamie,

I discover only today that you have unblocked my account. Thanks for your help. LouisAlain (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry that it took so long. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saltwater crocodile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Predators. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

help with black and whitelist

You seemed to have written a kind comment here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist (see below for the edit)

I don't completely understand blacklist versus whitelist. I think that if I apply for a white list, if approved, that specific page will be allowed as a link but the rest of the website blacklisted. This is extremely labor intensive to have to ask for each link approved. Imagine the backlog that would happen if cnn.com pages required whitelisting.

I don't think farecompare.com will result in spam. Could you consider either acting to whitelist that page or remove the blacklist for the entire website? Thank you. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

farecompare.com[edit source] farecompare.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • WhosOnMyServer.com This website sells airline tickets but also has a section with articles. Some of the articles have information that is useful to Wikipedia. I present this link www.farecompare.com/news/american-airlines-discontinues-aadvantage-miles-with-no-expiration-date/#/

This link has information on when AAdvantage changed from non-expiry of miles to expiration. This cause a lot of controversy about 25 years ago. The American Airlines website doesn't cover this important part of history of the article because corporate news releases often highlight good news.

I don't think this is a spam website at all, at least by my examination of this link. Thank you for your consideration so that this website can be used as a citation. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Textbook case for whitelisting if no other ref is available; Defer to Whitelist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, it is blacklisted at meta, our global blacklist, because of heavy spamming back in 2009. Whitelisting in this case means allowing a link to a specific article on the site while keeping the site on the blacklist. You can make a request to allow for a link to the AAdvantage article at the whitelist talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Extendedconfirmed user rights & 30/500 page protection

Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I noticed that you applied the new extended confirmed protection level to User:Pit32. Unfortunately, this protection level is only for use in topic area authorised by ArbCom; which currently include the Arab-Israeli conflict. Would it possible for you to apply an alternate protection level? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tommy Coster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santana. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

Hello. I have recently visited family, and can no longer edit pages anonymously from their IP address. It seems you have blocked them. Yet there is no history of what this was for, and the IP range is suitably broad: 92.3.0.0/19

Can you give an explanation as to why you've taken such measures please? Thanks Marlinspike (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Block-related thread. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's all very well but using a blanket range of IP addresses unduly affects legitimate users as well. Marlinspike (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is unfortunate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Banned editor in "that café in London"

This guy you blocked [8] is back here [9] and apparently here [10] as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I polished up the blocks a bit. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Constable court services

The username "anthony barnes @ constable court services" seems fine to me, as per WP:ISU - "However, usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", etc." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I've just noticed that usernames of that format are actually suggested in the very first message on his userpage. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the heads up. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Which edits are not relevant?

Hello Ohnoitsjamie,

Although my edits have external links I, thought the edits are relevant to the articles, and add good information. Would you tell me which of the edits are not relevant?

Thanks, Talal.Itani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talal.itani (talk • contribs) 01:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The warning on your talk page makes that quite clear. Please promote your website elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

LLArrow

This user returned from a two-week edit-warring block, to immediately repeat their editing habits, without taking it to a page's talk page. This is problematic, and user does not seem to want to even attempt to follow Wikipedia's rules on BRD. Surely this isn't acceptable? livelikemusic talk! 23:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The block on FixCop

I've reviewed the contribution history of FixCop and have found constructive edits: to remove unsourced material here and here. FixCop also corrected a spelling mistake here. In addition, This user has left numerous encouraging messages on the talk pages of other editors. This is an important activity as it helps retain editors and shows appreciation of their work. All of these activities build the encyclopedia. I would like you to reconsider and remove the block on FixCop. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  09:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. A few positive reverts don't make up for the bulk of the edits, which were random positive messages (which in most cases were confusing because it wasn't clear what they were for) or screwing around (i.e., creating a bad hand account then asking me to block it). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

Your block of the editor at User talk:FixCop was 100% right, as were your statements that he or she was lying in trying to get unblocked. However, the editor has now admitted to the lies and sockpuppetry, and promised not to do the same again. In such cases I am a great believer in giving another chance. I have known ex-vandals to go on to become excellent contributors, and if the worst comes to the worst and the vandalism continues, it will be easy to block again. Any thoughts? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that they've come clean, I'm OK with shortening the block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead. The editor will need watching for a while, to see how it goes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@User:JamesBWatson; thanks. I'll be happy to keep an eye on them. I suspect this isn't their first account, given how they "found" this so quickly and then chose me to pusish their bad hand. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, interesting. Already since the unblock I have seen one rather strange edit. It may be interesting to see what follows. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sock notice

Hey Jamie, I wanted to inform you that I have replaced the sock puppet notice on my userpage with the current notice that appears there now. Here is a link to my userpage (if you need it) User:TheNerdisHere TheNerdisHere (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, though now that you're unblocked per WP:ROPE, it's not even necessary to retain any mention of your former sockpuppetting on your user page. Your account's history is still available via the talk page and block logs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

moroccotourguide.org spam links

Hello.

Yesterday a bunch of IPs and new user accounts added external links for moroccotourguide.org to EL and Ref sections for several articles. I have removed them and issued warnings, but thought you might like to take a look, as it seems to involve sockpuppetry and a concerted effort to promote a specific link. This is perhaps something best dealt with by blacklisting and other upper level button clicking.

Articles involved

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Google_domains&diff=prev&oldid=720879733

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Elephant_National_Museum&diff=prev&oldid=720880079

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BeIN_Sports&diff=prev&oldid=720880366

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%22Believing_Women%22_in_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=720880498

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011%E2%80%9312_Moroccan_protests&diff=prev&oldid=720880669

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walkers_Tours&diff=prev&oldid=720880813

Users and IPs

User talk:105.156.113.124

User talk:41.251.11.240 ← added after first response

User talk:41.143.37.251

User talk:Aatib jems

User talk:Amaraie med

Why am I telling you? Because of recent interaction on a theme. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Concerted efforts from four difference accounts is a good rationale for blacklisting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem - thank you. I've added one more IP which I initially though just moved the link, but actually added another instantiation. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Source for Black Separatism of Kochiyama

"She was one of the few non-blacks invited to join the Republic of New Africa (RNA), established in 1968 and which advocated the establishment of a separate black nation in the U.S South.[8]" Source is authorised biography of Kochiyama published by UMinnesota. NPalgan (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep the discussion on the article talk page, please. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Today's fastest cars listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Today's fastest cars. Since you had some involvement with the Today's fastest cars redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism by user:EMMETTS IT and user:naren 2410

It appears that EMMETTS IT was blocked for being used for advertising and promotion via WP:SOAP. But he created another account, Naren 2410 and is using it to evade his previous block and is using it to advertise his company. Please block the sockpuppet account. Thanks. FixCop (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. User:Yamla already blocked the sockpuppet. FixCop (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism & Harassment

Hi Ohnoitsjamie,

It appears that an IP editor is being quite hostile (incl. using profanities directed at me on an article Talk page - at Amherstburg). I have reason to believe that the IP user (User:2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:B54F:395A:F584:4B07), is User:Hazen89, who was recently banned indefinitely for similar offences.

The reason I am contacting you specifically, is because according to the block log, you dealt with this issue/user before. I will also post a similar message on the talk page of the other admin that helped you.

Furthermore, (not sure if this should be a separate issue), the above user and another one (User:Meganesia) are reverting edits to several climate pages, without providing any sources backing their claims. The articles of issue are: Amherstburg and Humid subtropical climate, as well as the talk page of user User:Meganesia. In the dispute, I have provided several sources from a variety of universities and government orgs. supporting the -3C isotherm for the Cfa climate, while the opposing parties provided none, instead resorting to insulting my country of residence and myself.

It would be awesome if you could help look into this, and if you could request that the articles in question be protected, (if you believe it is necessary of course), and ask the other editor to act civil and discuss facts vs. opinions (or at least provide sources).

Thanks, --Therexbanner (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The vandal is also on my personal/user talk page, doing his thing. Please protect that as well, when you can. Thanks,--Therexbanner (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. If they pop up again, I'll semi your page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you so much for your help! Cheers, --Therexbanner (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Monster High - sacrificial lamb...

Hi Jamie, a thought about the protection on Monster High, though yes, it is heavily vandalized by a poor girl who can't control herself, it does a make for a very attractive target and is helpful for spotting ducks. Just a thought. Have a good weekend! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I'll remove it in that case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This is gonna sound odd but.........

So I was checking my watchlist today and I saw several reverts being done by the same editor, now that's not the weird part as i see that a lot anyways. The weird part was they seem to target the same editors edits, The account was just created June 8th I believe, and they are issuing warnings to editors like a seasoned editor about vandalism when quite honestly the edits preformed were not vandalism from my point of view, IE: They were adding what Characters were going to be in the WWE 2K17 game that were announced at E3 2016. Something about them seems familiar but I can't but my finger on it. The editor name is User:Helper214. I could be wrong but something seems off and very familiar. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious enough that they are not new, but that itself isn't actionable. I didn't look at every single edit; were warnings in particular that you felt were unwarranted or particularly problematic? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The way they targeted user:Richardcoates26 "helper reverted all of their edits which were about WWE 2k17" was what got me to looking at them closer,granted Richard doesn't have a great track record by looking at his talk page but the stuff he was posting was actually legit yet Helper issued a warning for being defamatory on the edits. Posting someone's video game debut is not defamatory,so that's an unwarranted warning. I'd have to look again at the others which were IP edits. Im at work right now so I'll look again tonight. There is just something really familiar about the way they word things and issue warnings that aren't right and I can't figure it out. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That user has been blocked repeatedly for adding unsourced content specifically about wrestlers and the WWE video game series. They have returned from a block to engage in the exact same behavior that is why I reverted the edits and warned them. Helper214 (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is they were not unsourced, the information was all over the net that day because of E3 2016. Did he put the reference in no he did not, simple mistake. It would have been easier and more friendly for you to just add the reference as I did for them instead of automatically issuing a warning for something that truly wasn't defamatory as you stated or unsourced, It's called working together. Then let them know you added the source and remind them to add them. Its called working together. I also find it odd how you targeted every single one of his edits that day like you had a vendetta. Just because a user has been blocked doesn't mean that they are doing it again, yes their previous edits were unsourced and false before their block. The ones in question after they came back were not. It's called a simple error and should be treated as such until the time it becomes more than an error. I can tell by your edits that your a previous user which is why I brought this to an admin as something about this is off. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The bit about libel is just part of the unsourced warning templates. If a user has been blocked for the same thing before, they should no better; I would've templated them as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I feel the wrong template was used as it was all over the net that day and there was nothing defamatory about the edits but still think it's odd how they were targeting one specific user when that user hadn't really been editing for days like they were trying to get them blocked but ::shrugs::. Still think something is off, I'll leave it alone for now until I get more proof. Thanks for the assistance. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clear here: are you honestly accusing me of creating this account simply to target some other user even though I didn't encounter them until five days and about 80 edits after creating this account? And are you saying that you intend to stalk my edits until you "get more proof" of your paranoid theory? Helper214 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clear I believe you are an old user who has been blocked and made a sock to avoid block. That's what proof I will be watching for as to which blocked user you could be if any, you've clearly edited before your current user creation. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clear, you are wrong. I have not been blocked and this isn't a sock. Creating new accounts after abandoning old ones isn't against any guidelines, nor is against the rules to have alternate accounts. If I find you stalking me, I will report you for harassment. Helper214 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Problem

Hi, I've unblocked User:Most Played Songs because of the problem caused here. I have no idea why or how this has happened, but unless you can see a better way, I can't see how to help this editor other than unblocking MPS's account. Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I went into the "User Rights Management" for Sanglahi86 and checked the "IP block exempt" box. That should prevent future autoblocks. I didn't reblock MPS, but I did salt a few of their article targets; that should suffice for now.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Your username

I've seen your username for years, obviously, but it's only a few minutes ago that I got a good chuckle out of seeing it (at the Vegetarianism article). It's such a good username. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

San Diego Wiknic

Saturday, July 9: San Diego Wiknic

You are invited to the San Diego Wiknic on Saturday, July 9, from 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm in Fanuel Street Park, a grassy park on the Mission Bay side of Pacific Beach. Join San Diego-area Wikimedians at the "picnic anyone can edit" as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the United States. Visit our event page for full details. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sign up today! We hope to see you there! --Worldbruce (talk · contribs) 16:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for San Diego-area events by removing your name from this list.)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 73.114.34.217 (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked for block evasion. ANI thread reverted. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 19:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Serviced Apartment page

Hi Ohnoitsjamie,

I noticed you removed the whole paragraph "For many consumers the one issue with much of the corporate housing stock on the market is that it has been designed, often by hoteliers, with a similar mindset as hotels i.e. to get as many people into the buildings as possible at the expense of space. This often results in the apartments feeling fairly boxy and still more like a hotel suite rather than an apartment. This is acceptable for stays of one to six months, however the serviced apartment industry is seeing a desire by relocation customers and those staying 6 months or more to stay in bigger more spacious apartments which are more similar to non serviced apartments. Smaller industry players such as Maykenbel[4] and The Harrington Collection[5] are trying to find a niche within the increasingly crowded sector by defining a new class of serviced apartments, which are being labelled as serviced residences. The aim of this new class is to put an emphasis on large spacious living with bespoke interiors designed for living well and enhancing all aspects of personal service which are coming to be demanded from customers looking for long-term serviced accommodation."

I am curious to know why you removed the whole paragraph rather than just the links to companies if you felt the links were irrelevant for an encyclopedia? I would however suggest that it is useful for readers to see the difference alluded to in the text between conventional serviced apartments and serviced residences which is why the companies were mentioned and links provided. I feel it would be more convenient for readers to directly link to the companies' websites rather than have to search for them on google. Would it be better to reword the paragraph?

Kind regards,

p_s_macphail

(talk page stalker) P s macphail Completely promotional, unencyclopaedic, partisan language and tone, read like an advert and frankly total WP:TRIVIA... perhaps? _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

New user on Biological pest control

Hi, I see you just reverted the new (fully redlinked!) author on this article and popped a note on his talk page. I had chosen to give the user a welcome message, with a "small point" paragraph about his (interesting) reffing style, and why using refs would be better. I fully understand why you did what you did, but (s)he is very much a newbie, we were all there once... cheers, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I left them a note as well along with a link to WP:CITE. I don't think the note was bitey; it was obvious that the attempt was in good faith. I reverted because it was a large block of text with non-valid "refs" that didn't do anything. The user will hopefully read the instructions on how to properly make citations and apply that knowledge the next time they attempt to add content. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Same user, multiple IPs?

Thanks for your work on this recent situation. Given the parallels, you might also want to look at this one. Thanks again. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please check

HI OhNoItsJamie, can you also please check Philipandrew2's contribution to the article Philippines? It also seems that this user received too much barnstars/medal for "who-knows-who" contributors here in WP, as it may seem unfair not just me, but to all other contributors here (I think he is really proud of himself, though there is no given proof for all his good contributions, as he think this is a classroom that easily given an award to a student). Thank you. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 00:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Giving yourself awards may be silly, but it's not a policy violation that I'm aware of. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

wikilawyering is about not using wiki policy and tools to violate the spirit of policy

WP:WLTeeTylerToe (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful link. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

UTRS Admin

You're one of the most active sysops on UTRS right now, we've been talking about replacing King of Hearts with someone more active. Would you be interested in the role?--v/r - TP 19:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd consider it, though I'd need to know more about what it entails. Feel free to email me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's just a matter of banning abusive applicants, routing tickets that get stuck in some queue, creating/updating email templates, and approving new Wikipedia admin accounts. The workload is quite small but DeltaQuad and I have both been unavailable, Fluffernutter is WMF staff now, and KOH has become inactive. So we'd need someone new to step into the role.--v/r - TP 20:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to help with that. Do I need to click my heels together three times or anything like that? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Heh, no heel clicking. I've updated your userrights on the tool.--v/r - TP 21:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Per your request

Request for mediation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Kaiju (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mediation request for ohnoitsjamie admin removal re admin tool abuse. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion, BTW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't be in charge of closing discussions, come on. There was no discussion. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that worked itself out to its inevitable conclusion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "kaiju". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 July 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning kaiju, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

46.37.55.80

• 46.37.55.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

It appears that this IP has returned to editing immediately after the previous block. I stumbled upon this IP as I had found their talkpage and it looks to be operated by a banned editor (although there were allegations that it was a "shared IP of some sort of cafe"). It seems awfully suspicious that this IP would return to editing just a couple of hours after the blocking period expired. Though I'm not sure if it really is the same person editing with this IP as previously, a look into this behavior would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! 172.56.42.218 (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

MarianStern

GBH went ahead and created another sock right after MarianStern was blocked, reinstating MarianStern's edit. I CU confirmed the sock. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. At least they are easy to spot and pick off. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Smiths edit by mrjoethurston

First please accept my advanced apologies if I'm breaching any sort of etiquette here. Tried to read all of the instructions, but I'm new to this, so not sure if I'm doing this correctly.

Second, I'm posting to ask about an addition that I made to The Smiths' Wikipedia page that you subsequently removed. In the Visual Imagery section of the article I linked to a gallery of newly collected Smiths photos that were taken in 1985 and '86 but kept private by the photographer until just few months ago when they were published in a book and displayed in an art gallery in Washington, DC. Thinking that these previously unavailable photos of the band at the height of their fame would be of interest to Wikipedia readers, I linked to a selection of them accompanying a write-up of the gallery show on DCist.com. Before doing so I read the external link policy and this seemed like a case where I had a relevant resource (the photos) that could not be brought onto the page because of copyright, and that it would therefore be OK to link to them. My questions are 1) have I misinterpreted the policy? and 2) is there an acceptable way that I can add this resource to The Smiths' entry? I have no affiliation with DCist or the photographer in question, so there's no conflict of interest here, and this is not an attempt at advertising or promotion.

Here's a link to the edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Smiths&oldid=731545114

Thanks Mrjoethurston (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A link with a handful of photos of the Smiths does not meet WP:EL guidelines. Please take any further concerns to the article talk page Talk:The Smiths. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

TrevorPhilipsEnterprises

I don't know anything about Grand Theft Auto, so I had no idea that it was anything but a real company. Thanks for your note; I've unblocked TPE and left an explanation and an apology. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm only vaguely familiar with the game, but hadn't heard of that fictitious company until I looked it up! Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WP?

I noticed you are removing a statement about case 2:16-cv-00670-EAS-TPK because of WP?? The first source is from the people who filed the case and the second is just a website that displays court cases, you know to prove it is a case. please explain?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.251.254 (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I notice that you haven't read WP:PRIMARY yet. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thursday, August 4 San Diego Wiki-Dinner

Join us for an informal San Diego Wiki-Dinner meeting with visiting Wikipedians Rosiestep and Fuzheado, to get to know each other, and to help prepare for WikiConference North America in October 2016! --Pharos (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies to the admin I was not useing this IP at this time and I believe it was a proxy.

This will sound far fetched I know but I myself as the user of this computer do not consciously remember altering 1040 B.C.

Please Pardon me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.197.242.26 (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Wednesday, August 3 ChernobylPathfinder

It seems that you're deleting some links even without visiting them. I can understand you. Good thing you have cleaned all that mess that was before my edition. I did some comparison to existing links. Some of them contain 10-14 photos. Allright, if you don't like my panovision project just check my photogallery (http://chernobyl-city.com/gallery/) i have more than hundred of images from Exclusion zone because i work there and it's constantly growing because every season we do more of them. Yes, it's commercial site (travel agency) but i was pointing to it's image content part not comercial - consider this as hobby. If you still think im bringing harm to wiki project, well, take my apologies then! Let me know if it is - i will delete my account myself. ChernobylPathfinder (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If you continue to post links to your own website, your account will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Block evade?

This seems to be WP:EVADE on the part of User:Topbookclub. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Blocked for awhile. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protect Kdchan's talk page?

May want to semi-protect the talk page of Kdchan (talk · contribs) because they are still continuing to edit it via IPs. —Farix (t | c) 17:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Your cancelations

Hi, I did not get your "oh please" message attached with your cancellation [11]. The sentence "one thing is for sure" was specified to address the issue about the doubts about the origin of the poodle, since all sources do not agree about the country of origin. The only thing that is certain is that France owns the standard according to the FCI that is the official regulation agencies for dog breed and that the breed was standardised in France around the 17th century. Even the German wiki agrees with this affirmation [12] see Ursprung. Furthermore, it is well known that the poodle, like the Labrador enjoy great swimming ability, especially since they have skin between their toes that help them to swim. So could you please tell me what the "oh please" is about?? Personally I don't see this comment as being very positive nor friendly. And why did you cancel as well the sentence about their swimming abilities? For instance I quote the AKC " THE TOY POODLE, LIKE ALL POODLES, POSSESSES WONDERFUL SWIMMING ABILITY; THE COAT IS ADAPTED TO WATER, AND WILL CORD IF LEFT TO GROW NATURALLY." I don't want to argue about an article about poodles, but I really don't see what are your motivation to cancel those edits especially accompanied with this kind of comment...Thanks --Gabriel HM (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted those edits per WP:POV and WP:TONE. "Wondeful" is decidedly POV/WP:PEAKCOCK-y, especially given that the paragraph already makes it clear that they are swimming dogs. "One thing for sure" is far from encyclopedic in tone. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I used the adjective "great" swimming and not wonderful nor wondeful as you are saying [13]. --Gabriel HM (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"Great" (like "very", etc.) is an example of a WP:PEACOCK word in that context. As I said before, the sentence had already established that they used for water hunting. Please take further concerns about the article to Talk:Poodle. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please next time, in order to avoid those kind of discussion, instead of a "oh please" comment, take the time just to add a real explanation like the one provided in this thread. This will save time to all parties. I might not know all the wiki rules, but I am able to understand them if they are explained. And to close the subject although I won't argue with your cancelation about the word "great" based on the PEACOCK rule, I really don't thing that this applies in the context of the sentence, since it is not used as a promotion or for bragging. Those dogs a great swimmers, not the greatest. As Labrador are great swimmer, vulture great prey birds etc. I don't think (but I can be wrong) that the sentence was being under the rule specified above. But as I said, we have wasted too much of our time on the poodle subject already --Gabriel HM (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sodium Borohydrid

Hi, I having a hard time figuring out why you keeo erasing vital information of how Sodium Borohydrid poweder flows. There is no "self promotion" here. If you can find any other place were a mechanical model of the powder is available I'd be happy to hear. Note that NaBH4 is usually available as powder and it is not discussed in the article. --talk (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Naama1976 (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the material because it is obvious that you were canvassing links to your own articles; please read WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

1. This is an article I recently read and I took the time to update the term since I thought its important (I'm overdoing it now, because the deletion is annoying:), The material I've added is relevant and missing altogether (the article do not contain any information about the mechanical properties of the raw powder. And as I wrote this is a very "hot" topic now since people are looking for a reliable source for hydrogen for fuel cells).

2. As for wiki rules (suppose that I site myself) the exact statement: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself is "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant... >> see 1. .. ",conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, >> no conflict there either. ... "and is not excessive. >> since there is no mechanics discussion - obviously its not excessive. ..."Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. >> As I wrote earlier, there is no other paper discussing it.

Please reconsider. Best, and well done for the work - it seems fun ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naama1976 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I've reconsidered it, and have come to the same conclusion. I've also removed other instances of obvious conflict of interest reference spamming added from other anon IPs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Shopportobello link on Portobello Road page

Hi - I've put this comment on the Talk page for Portobello Road, but wasn't sure you'd see it there.

I'm not sure why this has been deleted. This is from the website's 'Who we are section':

"This website is managed by the Portobello and Golborne Management Committee (PGMC), a non-profit group representing the businesses and residents of Portobello Road and Golborne Road.

The PGMC works in partnership with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), the local authority which manages the street markets." Ken Macdonald (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I looked at that site as well as a few others that figure high in the search results for Portobello Market. The site you mention appears to be the closest to an "official" site for the market, so on second thought I'd agree with you that it's worth adding for now. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

regarding a recent block, and an issue you'll want to know about right away. --Yamla (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Content being removed from Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri page

I have already submitted by concerns on the talk page and it has been well over a day and no one has addressed them. I honestly do not understand why my edits are being reverted every single time! I have done over 100 edits and not a single edit has been accepted by editors even though I have provided answers to every question raised. The editors objected upon the neutrality of sources, so I added as many third party sources as possible, then the editors objected to copy rights issue and I provided reasonable explanation and removed the content which I felt was in copyrights violation, but still not a single query of mine has been addressed. When I was blocked I was told to communicate changes on the talk page, I did that and over a day has passed, no one has replied! --Danial 20:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanialAhmedSheikh (talk • contribs)

Can you please explain why 14000+ character revisions have been reverted 3 times! Without any satisfactory explanation? It is almost as if the editors do not want any constructive edit on Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri`s page. The talk page is full of concerns raised by other editors, every time there has been a meaningful edit in the last 3 years it has been deleted. Waiting for answers. (Danial 20:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanialAhmedSheikh (talk • contribs)

Please take your issues to the article's talk page, not here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

John W. Goode

I participated in the AFD for this article a couple of months ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Goode and made a note to myself to improve it. I looked for it today and found you deleted it due to some block violation. I don't know anything about that and can't see the history anymore. But from what was said in the AFD, the subject was deemed notable and I want to add to it. Can the article be restored to my user space or to draft space so I can work on it? (and then put it back as an article). Or is there something else that is necessary (I really don't want to start over from scratch). MB 03:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Earlier this summer I found a bunch of sockpuppets created to evade a ban (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billy Hathorn, and subsequently deleted numerous articles that met the Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5._Creations_by_banned_or_blocked_users criteria. This one probably shouldn't been deleted, given that it'd survived an AfD and that a few others had worked on it besides the sockmaster (i.e., you). I've restored it. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 10:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Jamie, I never received it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Parachuting

I noticed your revert of my edit to Parachuting. Actually I work in the patent industry as my "day job"--it is how I earn a living. Untested--but original and potentially useful--ideas do in fact sometimes qualify as inventions. Of course da Vinci was working before the development of the modern patent system so it may indeed be controversial to call his sketch an "invention" by modern standards. I've re-inserted the da Vinci reference, but reworded it to suggest that it was only a sketch and calling it an invention--although a common claim--might be controversial. I added one more reference to support the idea that some do consider da Vinci as the inventor of the parachute. Hope this is sufficient.Dash77 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I just realized we have separate articles for Parachute and Parachuting. It's already discussed in Parachute; I don't think it belongs in Parachuting since Da Vinci never actually demonstrated a prototype (i.e, the act of parachuting didn't begin until centuries later). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

OK fair enough. da Vinci's role--whether one calls it an invention or merely a sketch--seems notable enough to mention somewhere on Wikipedia so I'm glad to see it is already mentioned in the Parachute article.Dash77 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's not immediately clear that there is a second article on Parachute if you start on Parachuting. I only figured it out because I thought it was strange that Parachuting didn't have a history section, until I realized that was all separate. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Gubbaare

Hello there, I notice you protected a repeatedly recreated A7 article Gubbaare but a new user has recreated the same article with different name as Balloons (2016) which I again tagged for speedy but the author believe the subject is notable (see my talk page) and requested more time to improve the article and I was thinking to move it to draft but am a little bit confuse because the actual title is protected so I need your suggestion what to do? Thank you – GSS (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe the original author was User:Ucstudentc. Now they are socking as User:Preetiahluwalia and User:Somalia4578, creating the same article and removing speedy deletion templates. Would you mind blocking these sockpuppets? Sro23 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No. They aren't sockpuppets. I explained it infinite times before and doing so again, that the previous articles from above mentioned accounts were made by amateurs who didn't add cited links and just uploaded an article, resulting in an obvious assumption that its a fake entity. However ever since I have made an account and created an article, I have made sure to let you guys know that its a real entity notable niche film with as many links as I have at the moment. Still I am getting constantly bugged by speedy deletion articles despite me constantly posting you links to an article and IMDB video that this is real. Please stop the process, look into the links and lift the deletion.Preetiahluwalia (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ken Mercer

Hi, a new editor has created this page which I understand you deleted in the past.

Basically, it's very large and I was surprised to see a new editor write something so good and looking at the deletion log I found you'd deleted this as the work of a blocked user last month. I don't know the context (sounds like an interesting story) but am guessing it's something you'd want to know about. Blythwood (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; taken care of. The short version of the story is that the user in question is blocked for repeat copyright violations. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

NN Clarification

Can you please help me understand the criteria around not-notable reason you used in [this deletion]? Zaurus (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is the diff link you mean. Names were removed that did not appear to meet WP:BIO notability criteria. Generally speaking, names should not be listed unless they have a corresponding Wikipedia article. An exception to that would be a name that doesn't have an article, but at face value could easily merit one (i.e. a pro athlete or Olympic medalist per WP:ATHLETE, politician who's held a major office per WP:NPOL, etc.) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Light2021

Hi there, I'm writing to you because I noticed that you unblocked User talk:Light2021 in June. Something odd is now happening: it appears that this user is adding AFD templates to articles, but then not actually completing the deletion nominations by creating a deletion discussion. This user is adding these AFD templates to pages that also don't look particularly AFD-worthy, which furthers my concerns that this is just disruptive editing. I wrote to the user to request clarification but haven't heard anything. Just wanted to bring this up here in case you have any insight. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Update-it does look like these were disruptive edits. I undid all of them. This user seems WP:NOTHERE. Do you think they should be blocked/banned, and if so, is there anything I should be doing to move that forward? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been watching all this unfold. I think I am the first editor that Wikipedian encountered when he joined the site, he came on board with an account name that was the same as his own business and his first page was a promotional page for said business, which I AfDed. He was more than a bit upset (you can see this in the history of his page, with multiple attacks on other editors & admins, some of which he carried to our talk pages; and in the AfD discussion which he assaulted with multiple sock accounts) by what he felt was unfair treatment in having his promotional page deleted when others he felt were similar were left alone. After changing his name and getting his initial block removed he's been on a crusade to nominate as many pages as possible for deletion to prove a point about how his page was treated. While some of his deletion noms look legit he's essentially carrying out a personal issue at this point. I was wondering how to report this for proper review, IMO admins need to look at the whole history & decide if his behavior is helping or hurting. JamesG5 (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I was debating on whether to report it at WP:ANI as a somewhat disruptive WP:POINTy issue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting case for sure. I've looked through many of the deletion nominations, and some of them are definitely legitimate. Others are definitely not. On the one hand, I don't want to discourage work that is actually improving the encyclopedia (reducing/removing promotional articles). On the other hand, does motive matter? Because it does seem like the definition of WP:POINTY--trying to make a point about the past treatment of his/her company's article versus how other company articles are treated. The rapidity of nominations is also concerning, as is the fact that the user appears to be copying and pasting the deletion rationale and not even coming up with a unique reason for deletion for each of his/her many nominations. Anyway, I think this unique case is worthy of further discussion by the community so I'd support bringing it to WP:ANI just to get more input. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a pretty spot-on assessment. Use of WP:PROD would've been better (though the user was only recently made aware of that deletion avenue), but the pointiness and lack of research coupled with boilerplate deletion rationale probably merits more community input. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced content removal

Could you please review the talk page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Coster for content removal. I've highlighted some content which is unsourced, also there are a few companies listed which are non existent.Thankyou (Dralgos (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC))

I agree that more work is necessary to deal with unsourced content in the article; I just removed the most egregious stuff that had obviously been added by someone with a conflict of interest. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Tatjana Patitz

Thank you Jamie, I'll be rewriting the page. It helps to have another set of eyes to review so it doesn't read like a puff piece. I used references, I researched, and read other Wiki entries within the scope and realm of the fashion industry to improve this entry. The one that was restored and is online now has some inconsistencies, two different birthdates listed and gaps that leave out noteworthy periods of activity.

How should I set out to do this?

Many thanks! LaVicente LaVicente (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaVicente (talk • contribs) 02:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Start by focusing on edits that just correct birthdates and other simple things like that; if future edits need to be reverted because of further neutral point-of-view issues, we can at least revert to a version where the basics are solid. After that, you can start adding timeline sections (business ventures, charity efforts), but most of those things don't require a lot of detail. Christy Turlington's article handles it pretty well. Getting ideas from other similar articles (Turlington, Evangelista, etc) is a good start, but you should note that those articles do a much better job of describing their subjects without going overboard with quotes and hyperbole. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santa Montefiore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Festschrift

Do we need a Category:Festschrifts or Festschriften?

Hmmm. I'm not sure how many pages we could tag with that; most of the inbound links only make a passing reference to it. Regarding the plural form, while the latter is grammatically correct, the former might make more sense if we treat it as a loanword. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Unblock appeal

I am currently editing from my local library because my home is also blocked due to a "range block". Is there any way that I could be made exempt? Also, I have picked up a copy of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Great book. Moxhay (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my response, I only grant IP block exemptions to editors with a well-established editing history. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)