Salutations!

I was enlightened that any contribution to interminable disruptive, dispensable modifications will repudiate and confiscate my contemporary (specified) privileges. Which, indeed, my privileges are miniature. I sincerely apologise for my contribution to unnecessary edits. However, from what you mentioned, these edits were ‘Tests’.

I can comprehend that this is no exception, however, I can assure you that I didn’t make any edits which had to be reverted. (No harm was caused, I reverted the edits).

Additionally, I am apprised of Wikipedia’s policy; I had no intentions of contributing to disruptive edits. In case you weren’t aware, I have made contributions to helping Wikipedia enhance its articles and hope to continue doing so.

I once again apologise.

Electromagnetic induction Electromagnetic induction ( talk) 20:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for editing protecting the Eric Peterson article. It needs to be permanent. Temporary is not enough. If they decide to wait it out, they will be back to making sockpuppets to do the same crap they've been doing for months. It shouldn't have taken this long for this to be done. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 21:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Do not punish me for this. Faster than Thunder ( talk) 01:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

That's fine, per WP:UOWN. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello. Thanks for the message. All of these United Nation years are located at the UN website: https://www.un.org/en/observances/international-years I will include that as a reference for my revert. Thanks again. ElkandAcquerne ( talk) 14:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

You said that the early modern section already mentioned the old spelling "Teheran", but I checked before I edited and it wasn't mentioned at all other than in citations. The early modern section actually says "Taheran" and "Tyroan". I thought it would be important to mention the historical name used in English in the 19th and 20th centuries (similar to stuff like Leghorn for Livorno), though you might have a better idea on where it could go other than the etymology section. PikaSamus ( talk) 20:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't think we need to exhaustively cover every possible transliteration. Do you have a source that says "Teheran" was the common spelling during a particular period? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't really have a source for the saying what was more common in what time period (other than Ngram), but there are plenty of sources (not necessarily good ones) mentioning that Teheran is an alternative spelling ( Britannica, European Space Agency, Longman Dictionary) or using Teheran only ( the title of an old newspaper (1954-1979), the United Nations in 1968). PikaSamus ( talk) 20:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I really appreciate it, because otherwise I'd be trying to reverse additions by IP addresses... I fear that the page will continue to need semi-protection when this current protection expires, as those people are probably chomping at the bit, just waiting to engage in disruptive editing. Historyday01 ( talk) 01:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

You can ping me directly if it resumes immediately after protection ends. We typically try short protections first, then try progressively longer protection durations if disruption continues. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ok, I definitely will. There has already been one protection before, and when it expired, the IP addresses came back, so my guess is it will happen again. Hopefully not, but that is also my guess. -- Historyday01 ( talk) 22:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but what bad sources? I imported the genetic results from a book (Genetics of Hungarians, by Endre Czeizel) and the data of Székely himnusz from a portal of Lupeni. ( farkaslaka.eu ) CsifoZsombor ( talk) 09:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Please read WP:RS. Your portal does not qualify. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I am afraid i need to send a mandatory notice that now you are involve in an ANI thread.

The 203.145.95.177 ip was in fact part of the HK unregistered ip cult that try to black mudding me . Matthew hk ( talk) 23:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the notification. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

And again the mandatory notice for the shorter thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#203.145.95.X harassment, personal attack and possible part of off site canvassing behaviours. Matthew hk ( talk) 06:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

মানিক গঞ্জ জেলার কি কি এডিট করলেন???? Sniper 65k ( talk) 07:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

This is English Wikipedia. If you continue to make pointless, bot-like edits without an adequate explanation, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Three hours ago, you blocked 107.77.200.143 for abuse of multiple accounts with regard to their edits of Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori. They are already back as 107.77.201.229 (and yesterday it was 2600:1700:fb5:81b0:606d:4611:7ec5:8447). This isn't going to be resolved by blocking a single IP. Agricolae ( talk) 20:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Rangeblocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

And while you're around... —— Serial 20:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I've given that range a well-deserved vacation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Feelin' 7Up! Cheers :) —— Serial 20:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Stop your wrong editing in the Kolkata wiki page. Kolkata's GDP was 150 billion USD in 2015. Their are many many valid reliable source you can cheak, and kindly stop using your power. I am giving you a valid link of 2016 report. http://www.businessworld.in/article/Richest-Cities-Of-India/28-06-2017-121011 Soumyadeep176 ( talk) 16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Why would we use a 2016 when we have a good 2020 source? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi! I noticed yesterday while asking Thrashon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to please WP:ENGAGE, that you had left a previous warning on their talk page about adding OR to articles; Not only has Thrashon ignored my request, he added further OR to Nico Hülkenberg today. [1] - He indeed added the source, but then edits his edit to add in a word that is not used or even implied by the source. I did just send him a message yesterday, so I'll give him more time to reply, but I don't know what else can be done on the OR front. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 18:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

[2] And back at it again. More OR, a host of other BLP issues, still no communication. Sigh. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 18:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I've given them a final warning; feel free to ping me directly if they do it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Please see " Varniku", he is mostly just insulting me, again. I have been advocating for him to be a good editor but he just can't let go of wanting to insult me and poorly researching topics. -- Donald Trung ( talk) 17:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I see that you have (quite rightly) blocked the above IP address for disruptive editing. That user has been behaving in a similar way on the article Little Amal, using two IP addresses, including the above address. The article Little Amal has already been reviewed and accepted for DYK, and will therefore be linked to the main page soon. I would be most grateful if you could please block this IP address (or at least unregistered editors in general) from the Little Amal article, at least until the Little Amal article has appeared on the main page DYK section. Thank you. Storye book ( talk) 20:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting. Please consider protecting the page from IP edits, it is highly likely to keep getting vandalized in the build up to his execution and I cannot keep reverting all the pro death penalty advocates who will keep vandalizing the page. 3 IP's have already done so and the page has been up less than 2 days. Please get it protected from IP edits for at least a week or two. Thanks. Inexpiable ( talk) 21:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I rangeblocked one of the users; the last edits were most likely from an unrelated user (very different location). I would've call this particularly disruptive; it's arguably unnecessary details, but certainly not vandalism or a blatant policy violation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

What about this? Just literally came in: [3] more vandalism yet again, I can't keep monitoring the page 24/7. Inexpiable ( talk) 22:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

/info/en/?search=Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima#CITEREFDe_Marchi1952a

the problem is that the sources they are using are flimsy at best, a book written 40 years after the fact through here say interviews, and to add insult to injury the editor does not faithfully relate what is in the book, for example the book states that the children of Fatima practiced fasting and contrition, so the editor changed that to "the children committed suicide by starving themself" and that summarizes every point in their controversy section, it is no more than cherry picking, personal opinions and taking statements out of context, in fact no a single authority on the subject ever claimed such points as controversy in the last 100 years or so, i tried to reason with the editor but they are being very stubborn and childish. please help with this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

i can not belive you sent me a final warning when i am the victim here, why would i receive the final warning?i tried to reason with Spyrazzle, point by point, his editing of the page page is no more then personal opinions and interpretations of some flimsy sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I believe that if you post your own commentary on the article again, you will be blocked for original research. Discussion belongs on the article talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

hello, i have written this in the talk section, i believe my points are very reasonable, if the editor Spyrazzle does not make the changes would you be kind enough to step in and remove the controversy section???

the controversy section is very misleading, all of your points come from de marchi's book which IS a flimsy source and to add insult to injury you add your twist and interpretations to his words, you are not dealing in good faith, only interested in adding your personal displeasure of the apparitions and make it seem as a legit controversial points when they are not, fasting becomes suicide, a nightmare becomes demon possession, acts of contrition becomes self harm, and finally and unsubstantiated claim about an unfulfilled prophecy about ww1 taken from de marchi's book, and never ever mentioned in the thousands of other sources on the subject, i tried to explain to you that people faith and beliefs are issues that you should not troll, but you still show your deep bigotry. to summarize, unless you can find another respectable source beside an out of print book written by here say accounts after 40 years from the events then you need to drastically change the controversy section,all entries frm de marchi's book ned o be scraped or at least do the following: change the language, don't write the statement as matter of fact, write de marchi wrote in his book that people he interviewed claimed so and so, keep in mind he never interviewed any of the children even lucia who was almost impossible to get access to her during her life, and yet you claim de marchi as a close friend of hers which is not true. you can keep the entries from lucias memoirs about the blood on the penitence cords, keep it word for word and do not add your spin to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not doing to discuss the issue here. Discussion belongs on the article's talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks Noah B. Smith ( talk) 18:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Just a quick one, I just saw a warning template that you edited warning an IP. It’s one of the best I’ve seen and had me giggling for a few minutes, where you stated you will demand the editor be blocked. Equine-man ( talk) 18:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Which one was that? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I have asked that Bodo-Kachari people be protected because of persistent vandalism by IP editors. ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Bodo-Kachari_people). You had earlier partially blocked a range but the editors are continuing to vandalize the page. Chaipau ( talk) 09:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, thank you for protecting the page, you did not hide these vandal edits. Please do it. Also please take a look at the talk page history for similar violations, I have reverted it but it is better if they are removed as BLP violations. See Venkat TL ( talk) 08:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Looks like you missed these, [4], [5], [6]. The name vandalism is being used to spread Islamophobic canards. So I suggest hiding it too. -- Venkat TL ( talk) 15:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

 Done It's odd that the article doesn't mention the "two Indias" comment, as that's getting a lot of press. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hopefully someone will add. -- Venkat TL ( talk) 15:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, so I got a message saying that one or more of my recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I am a little confused and a bit upset because I was writing on the sexual assault cases that came to light. I can find more verifiable sources if that is what is missing here but I was reporting objectively on what had happened. If I am wrong please let me know because I am new so I may not completely have understood the guidelines. EverFree66 ( talk) 19:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Please read WP:RS, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NOTNEWS, all of which apply. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello dear I got a message that you point the Hecta token an advertising page but this is not true due the most important to this page was multi functuality that this token present and this is a novel ecosystem in cryptocurrency in compare of others. If you want to know which page act as an adv please see safemoon page or shiba inu crypto. please before any acting go through the talk page of contributor and talk with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypto.en ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

There was zero evidence of notability. If at some point there are third-party reliable sources about the topic, a contributor can go through the WP:AFC process to create the article. Also, I'd suggest that you not address people as "dear" here. In some regional varieties of English (including American English), it comes across as patronizing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, you blocked 65.94.152.215 earlier today. I wanted to let you know that it appears the editor is evading the block by hopping to 65.94.152.178 and is making the same edits using this IP. CodeTalker ( talk) 23:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Oh well, rangeblocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks! CodeTalker ( talk) 23:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, I've sent you an email. Thanks, Anarchyte ( talk) 04:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Please, kindly check the history of the Wado City page and observe that the edit for which you intend to block me for were not done by me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenman Ethiope Star ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Kindly note that if you continue to make unsourced changes regarding a city that doesn't exist, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Smilealwayswiki ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Ohnoitsjamie. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Smilealwayswiki reported by User:Knight Skywalker (Result: ). I do see some personal attacks by the reported editor but I'm unsure if this is a true continuation of the previous fight. I think you warned them not to remove any more sourced material. Do you want to respond to the AN3 report? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

This is a little different; looks like they are trying to add material this time, and there is disagreement as to whether sources are RS. I'd treat that as any other 3RR dispute. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Kindly Help me out in creating a separate article for the City Brain, As it is everytime giving an error while publishing the page. That is why I tried to remove the Links in the main article of Alibaba to the City Brain.

Thanks. Saad Ullah Bhatti 23:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if that topic meets our general notability criteria; in any case, I'd suggest going through the articles for creation process and start with a draft. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

You have partially blocked 82.132.213.71 and you may wish to extend the block because they do not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 19:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

That partial-block applies to a range; many users are on that range. However, given that most recent contributions from that range are not useful, I've expanded the block to be full for a month. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello there. You edited the St Ambrose College page back on 16 November, removing two individuals under the 'Former Pupils'. I'm not going to debate the actual edit, that is for the page's 'Talk Page'. However, I was just wondering what is the significance of the 'nn' comment you left. I'm fairly new to editing so sorry if it is a well-know editing initialism. Stuart Newmanite ( talk) 14:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

It's short for "not notable," meaning the individuals do not appear to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello a user named Geraldo Perez is reverting my edits for no reason can you block the user indefinitely? I'll even make a great deal. 185.69.145.159 ( talk) 08:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello can you block Gerlado Perez indefinitely for reverting my edits? I will even make you a good deal. Cpu8 ( talk) 08:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, that didn't work out well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Ohnoitsjamie. I noticed that when you partially blocked the range 2603:6011:c000::/34 ( block range · block log ( global) · WHOIS (partial)), it looks like you forgot to fill in the "reason" field for the block. I would fill that in to make it clear why the range is partially blocked. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 08:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply

 Done OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, Since you have partially blocked 2409:4065:0:0:0:0:0:0/36 to Bodo-Kachari people, an editor from this range has been disruptively editing Rajbanshi people and Koch dynasty. Is it possible to extend the partial block to these pages as well? This is most likely a case of WP:BE. Thank you. Chaipau ( talk) 10:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC) (edited) 10:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes, partial blocks can cover up to 10 targets. It looks like they haven't edited one page for a few days, and are using the talk page for Koch dynasty which is good. Let's hold off for now since it appears they're making an effort to follow WP:BRD. If that changes, feel free to ping me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes, that sounds good. Thanks! Chaipau ( talk) 15:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The IP user has started spamming. Special:Contributions/2409:4065:E9E:EF4A:0:0:140A:C70D. Chaipau ( talk) 19:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Chaipau ( talk) 14:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

OhNoitsJamie Hi there. I see you just reverted my edits under Non-fungible token. While I agree with you that this page isn't supposed to list every NFT project, the one I listed is a particularly important one in that (a) it has been covered by BBC, which gives a lot of credibility to the space, and (b) it appears to be the first project where equity is given in the original work. This are both significant advancements in the space and should be noted. I would appreciate it if you kindly un-reverted my changes (not sure if that's a word but I'm sticking with it! Thanks Knightingales ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Making a bunch of pointless edits to get autoconfirmation so you can plug an NFT isn't a great idea. Take it to Talk:Non-fungible token. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the edit summary link towards this. But, just to be clear, if I add a reference to thegenealogist.co.uk, in support of an entry on WDYTYA?, for a bio article (because that's where the supporting research for the TV programme is generally detailed), it will get summarily removed as "COI spam"?? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

There are better links available; the link to the actual episode on the BBC, as well as whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com, which is licensed by the television program. At the moment, I'm only removing entries added by the COI user. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

The references to thegenealogist.co.uk generally have far more information than the TV programme itself. We've agreed somewhere that references to the thegenealogist.co.uk are now blacklisted? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

No, I don't think blacklisting is merited at this point (the COI user has been given a warning, and seems to be the only user adding the links). I'm simply replacing links that were added by that user, not all of the links in general. I don't think thegenealogist is a strong WP:RS candidate, as it's trying to sell subscriptions and doesn't appear to have the editorial oversight that other sources do. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

As I understand it, the BBC programmes are produced using different teams of independent researchers. It's then a decision of those research teams to sell their background research work to thegenealogist.co.uk, if they wish. The tie-in with the BBC series is a good promotional tool for thegenealogist.co.uk. That website has to generate revenue somehow, just like any other commercial organisation. And yes individual subscriptions are the obvious choice. The Times and The Daily Telegraph also have to try and sell as many subscriptions as possible. We tend to think of them as WP:RS?! Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not opposed to organizations making money. I am opposed to setting a precedent where we allow single purpose accounts to canvass Wikipedia for years to promote their website. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

That's not unreasonable. But if the resulting "punishment of the SPA" means that the source in question, although still a useful or even unique one, is "outlawed" en masse, it looks a bit like Wikipedia cutting off its citation nose to spite it's bio article face? Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia isn't losing anything by replacing the COI links with direct links to the show or a licensed partner. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I'd beg to differ. I think it's "sub-optimal" to describe certain links as "COI-links" for evermore, thanks to the reckless spamming of one individual editor (who has presumably been deservedly blocked). I also suspect that, in some cases at least, thegenealogist.co.uk offers a greater level of detail than any other written source (and certainly greater than the BBC show itself), and of course provides a written alternative to watching the entire BBC programme. Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

One last question: are the BBC iPlayer links to WDYTYA permanently available to anyone outside UK? e.g. I have a UK TV licence but this one for Amanda Holden tells me I have only "one month left to watch". Many thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

The video links appear to only be available to UK IP addresses. Per WP:PAYWALL, that wouldn't disqualify them, but the officially licensed WDYTYA? Magazine would be the next-best replacement link. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Hardly ideal then. I guess you'll be replacing any BBC iPlayer link with a WDYTYA? Magazine link (assuming there's a magazine article for every episode). Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Sure. If I'm going to do that, I may as well replace all of them. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from TheGenealogist, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! — KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Ha! And now I see you got the AfD going before I even finished editing the DEPROD template. Apologies for the unnecessary notice. — KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the notification! Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your help in anti-vandalism. Your service as an administrator is truly amazing. Severestorm28 ( talk) 22:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

As a heads up, I went ahead and suppressed the revdel on the Child abuse page you did a few days ago (I have it watchlisted basically only for the purpose of catching revdels that should be suppressions.) Anything like that normally should be routed to the oversight team because it's pretty much #1 on the list of things we will suppress without question. You didn't do anything wrong, just giving you a heads up for the future :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Got it, thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, Jaime. It was suggested that it might be a good idea to contact an administrator directly about this, so here I am. I can't say conclusively, but these two very much appear to be the same person. While the named account isn't an outright vandal, I'm wondering if an indefinite block might be in order, filed under WP:NOTHERE, among some other things. See IJBall's statement here ( User talk:IJBall#Talk:Just Roll with It#Cancelled), where he mentions giving the aforementioned IP a warning for personal attacks. The aforementioned IP has also outed themselves not too long ago at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel#Show Cancelled: OH finally, if you ban me as I was warned I will just make a new account. IP addresses aren't permanent. While they don't specifically mention the Peacerocker07 account, I think it's pretty clear, at least to me, that it's them. And they're basically threatening to evade their block, if they're blocked, by creating other accounts and using other IP addresses. And based on messaging style (wording, formatting, etc.), I'm also sure 96.40.135.81, whose only contribution is to that discussion on the Just Roll with It talk page, is also Peacerocker07. I can't say whether or not this Hulk account, which has also commented on the Disney Channel talk page there, is also Peacerocker07. I don't think they are and are a totally separate user, but the IPs definitely appear to be. Based on their threats to sock, I don't think Peacerocker07 is really here to contribute anything useful. Thanks in advance for looking into this. Amaury • 05:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not familiar enough with the situation (and topic area) to block anyone per WP:DUCK here. I'd suggest filing a sockpuppet investigation if you think there is strong evidence that multiple accounts are being abused. Independent on the multiple accounts issue, the IP can be blocked if they make further personal attacks or other disruption; at the moment, they're appropriately using talk pages to discuss the issue, albeit perhaps not in the most constructive manner. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Would it be possible to get page protections for Bruce Boudreau, Jim Benning, and Travis Green? They need protecting for the same reasons as this request. Yowashi ( talk) 03:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

How long before the transactions should be completed/verifiable? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

At least a day. Yowashi ( talk) 03:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

 Done 3 days each. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello OhNoitsJamie. I never intended to hurt or disrupt Wikipedia. I just wanted to enlighten people about the wonders of different cities that do not own a collage in their Wikipedia page, like Chelyabinsk and Sydney. Could I have permission to continue??? I never meant anything bad for the community, and all the pictures are owned from me. I name the montages because me and some people around me call collages that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geografreak ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

We already have collage templates for making collages that use the original images; using the templates gives better control over the quality of the original images and provides for better flexibility. Adding a single composite collage is not an improvement in any way. If you continue adding these composite images, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hey!

Thanks for protecting Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi, but there is one issue.

This move should be reverted because it was done with ignorance of WP:COMMONNAME.

I am an IP editor so I can't do it. Thanks. 117.99.99.187 ( talk) 07:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Seek a consensus on the article's talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi. 110.226.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 47.9.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) and 2409:4063:4000:0:0:0:0:0/36 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) are already blocked but still continuing the harassment [7] [8] [9], please revoke their talk page access and increase their block duration because this just keeps on going. ManaliJain ( talk) 14:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Also, if possible, can you limit my talk page range to autoconfirmed and extended confirmed users only, please? I'm facing this since more than three months now and my talk really needs protection from all this harassment and abusing thing. ManaliJain ( talk) 14:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Partial-rangeblocks are a preferred solution here. We try to avoid any kind of protection on talk pages unless it can't be controlled via blocks; let's continue with that for now. Semi-protection is a possibility, but I don't see any argument for extended confirmed protection. Regarding the annoyance of getting pings from them, you can disable notifications from specific users by going to your user "preferences" -> "notifications" -> "Mute users." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Alright then, thank you. ManaliJain ( talk) 17:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank You for helping me out, I really appreciate it! ManaliJain ( talk) 17:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for clarifying that sockpuppet user. For me, I always have good faith assumption for every editor that approached me. And what I did is always the same thing, guide them one by one on how to write Wikipedia articles properly for them to submit through AfC, but not simply use my autopatrolled authority to publish their article into the main space. Chongkian ( talk) 02:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Good call, thank you! Just wanted you to be aware of who you were dealing with. :) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Ohnoitsjamie,

Can I ask you a favor, or if you can redirect this inquiry of mine to any admin that can do the task. I wrote/created the article Chung Li-he Museum on 17 August 2013‎. But on 15 September 2021, User:Sheijiashaojun black/empty my article and change/add a redirect link my article to the new name (probably name correction spelling error) to article Chung Li-ho Museum which is new article created on 15 September 2021 by that User:Sheijiashaojun. By right User:Sheijiashaojun should 'move' the original Chung Li-he Museum I created on 17 August 2013 to the new name Chung Li-ho Museum, instead of redirecting the old one and create new one (to maintain the full history and creation history of the article). Do you know how to clear this mess? Thanks. Chongkian ( talk) 03:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Fixed, hopefully. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello Sir, this is just to inform you that i strongly suspect users Kelly willikjamp, Thw ILLusionist and DCSozil for possibly abusing multiple accounts, these uses are repeatedly adding poorly sourced content on Economy of Maharashtra, i strongly suspect that the above mentioned users are sock-puppets of AMRozil whom you blocked on the Kolkata wiki page, i have studied these users edit histories and i can safely say that it shows a lot of similarities to the edit histories of AMRozil , Sniper 65k and Precious dracula etc. Their edit summaries are also similar. I have provided reliable sources for the GDP of maharastra and its clear from the source that the GDP is $32.24 trillion for 2020-2021 <ref name="Budget Analysis">{{cite web|title=Maharashtra Budget Analysis 2020-21|url=https://www.prsindia.org/parliamenttrack/budgets/maharashtra-budget-analysis-2020-21|website=PRS Legislative Research|access-date=25 March 2020}}</ref> but these users are maliciously reducing it to $26.61 trillion. all these users have just one motive and that is to reduce the economy of India, indian cities, states and provinces. I request you to please take the necessary action.

Good catch, thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

There's an IP range repeatedly reverting an edit request answer they don't like. Could that be addressed with a rangeblock for that page? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Partial-blocked for 2 weeks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks a ton. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Same editing from ‎174.242.79.119 now. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

And thanks again. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

It was not necessary to lock this page due to so-called ‘disruptive editing’. The only disruption was from the editor who insisted on repeatedly reverting a factual edit. Michael Bates is not the Prince of Sealand. That is a fact, not an opinion. Whilst I am not disputing the notability of Sealand and the situation around it, an encyclopaedia should not be listing a real person under a fictional title. Bates is only notable as someone who has styled himself as the ruler of a territory his family has claimed as a micronation. That’s how he should be listed - not as a Prince. 85.255.236.129 ( talk) 15:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

You're welcome to discuss the issue at the talk page. I'm not discussing it here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Could you please have a word with the disruptive IP who keeps removing the mention of Western Sahara from the West African Craton article (among others)? This is the same editor that has been blocked a number of times, including by you and that I reported to ANI in September. Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 01:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

By "have a word", you actually mean block, right? -- 2605:AD80:FFF0:14EF:6DFD:620A:836C:9F74 ( talk) 02:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello Sir, this is to inform you again that i suspect another sock puppet on Economy of Maharashtra this user is named Willing jon he made the exactly same edit on this page as user Kelly willikjamp, Thw ILLusionist and DCSozil , the same pattern of removal of sourced references and then reducing the GDP to Rs26.61 trillion(lakh crore) when it is actually RS 32.24 trillion(lakh crore) here's the link https://prsindia.org/budgets/states/maharashtra-budget-analysis-2020-21 also he gave an edit summery in a bengali language which is exactly the language of the country those sockpuppets come from. hence, i again request you to take the necessary actions, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaydanny ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello Sir, it seems as if every hour a new sockpuppet gets created and again the same editing pattern this time the user is Ronoj Sen and this user is also making the same edits just as the other blocked sockpuppets. Vijaydanny ( talk) 08:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I noticed on my page that you had blocked my ip address from making edits, I think you got the wrong Ip address. It is not a problem for me, since I have never made an edit on kevin Conroy , maybe you should check to see as you may need to block another person to get the edits your talking about blocked. 2603:6011:DD01:5046:B1DA:D272:DA1A:1820 ( talk) 18:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

An IP range that your current IP is a part of is blocked only from editing Kevin Conroy. There are no other restrictions on your range, so if you have no interest in editing the Kevin Conroy article, you needn't worry about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For blocking a disruptive IP after they had been reported and received a final warning, and resumed editing. I noticed you were actively blocking other IPs on the list and so I pinged you since I was unable to re-report the IP since their previous report had not been cleared. ― Blaze The Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I am Mirza Maulana Yasoob Abbas and I am only Editing my Wikipedia.. You Can take Reference that I am Shia "Mirza" and My Father Is Mirza Mohammad Athar.. Please Tell me how I will edit my Wikipedia Profile..Because Everyone is Changing it...You can also refer My Blue Tick Facebook Account "Yasoob Abbas" And take the Information from there ... Who we not ( talk) 19:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Subjects of Wikipedia biographies do not "own" the articles about themselves. All material in Wikipedia must be reliably sourced; regardless of who you are, your personal declaration does not constitute a reliable source in this context. A personal Facebook profile is an acceptable source for some information, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Please review WP:AUTO#IFEXIST. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Jamie - hope you are well. I see you've recently been active at WP:RFPP. I logged this one earlier today, but it's slipped through the net. Please could you take a look. No problem if you decline it. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Will this rangeblock suffice, or is there more? OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 19:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Ohnoitsjamie
Yesterdays block log includes:

15:58, 13 December 2021 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs changed block settings for 2a02:c7f:8000::/33 talk blocking the page Steve Soley with an expiration time of 1 year (anon. only) (Block evasion: feel free to add targets to this partial block)

IPs from this range are now edit-warring at LED art and Noel Clarke - could you please add these articles to your target list - thanks - Arjayay ( talk) 15:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

It seems like i have been blocked while just reading pages. Can you unblock me? 2A02:C7F:FCB7:2400:E547:FBFC:5D29:89E ( talk) 18:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hey! I'm not jamie, but I can tell you that you were blocked because of block evasion, you are only blocked from certain pages until a certain time. Sans9k ( talk) 18:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

The ip we are using is only used for viewing pages not block evasion we are innocent people 2A02:C7F:FCB7:2400:E547:FBFC:5D29:89E ( talk) 18:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Aren't you the same people who vandalized those pages or what? If so, your blocked from the pages for a year unless you request to get access to those pages. Sans9k ( talk) 18:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

We are not the same person, actually. You might have also blocked random people who don't vandalize, as well. 2A02:C7F:FCB7:2400:E547:FBFC:5D29:89E ( talk) 18:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hey, you're only blocked from editing 3 out of over 6 million pages on Wikipedia! If you're not the person the block is intended for, there's nothing for you to worry about! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Jamie is right, however, I am not a moderator. Instead, I'm just a Wikipedia editor who examines the recent changes. Sans9k ( talk) 18:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Could you explain why you RD3'd the edits by 190.43.228.88 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Nintendo Switch Online? Adding OR about YouTube dislikes doesn't sound disruptive enough. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I revdel'd at as disruptive, per WP:DENY as the user was trying to make a point via edit summaries. I don't care that much whether or not it's revdel'd, just figured it might discourage further WP:POINTY edits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello Jamie!
We have had a conversation last night about Spacious. You have said to drop a request here.
Can you help me with that, please?

Thanks,
Mahfuj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahfujNahid ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Your request was already addressed. For the last time, there's no reason to remove your site from the blacklist, and I'm not discussing it further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I am sorry if I disturbed you. I apologize for that. Maybe I explained it wrong way.
Let me quote your words. You said, "If the link is keeping you from editing Spacious, you can make a whitelist request so that the corp link can remain there. I asked this.
Not for the domain again. Last night got the reason finally! Ans thanks for your co-operation.

The whitelisting is no longer necessary after I changed the link to simply reflect the domain name. There's nothing else to tell you that I haven't already told you. Please do not post on my talk page about this again. 21:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

is huge--but of the last 500 edits, 170 are marked as "reverted", and a ton of edits I looked are vandalism, and I reverted some more. Don't really know what to do--but I think a block is appropriate. Drmies ( talk) 21:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm OK with a full block on that, though a shorter duration would be better on a full. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• 129.127.32.138 ( talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 180.150.113.77 ( talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 49.178.183.61 ( talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 222.153.41.39 ( talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Hi Ohnoitsjamie. I came across your blocking of this IP, and their changes and attitude looked reminiscent of a few IP editors who keep popping up and showing similar patterns of editing - often Australian and in particular South Australian, middle Eastern and Indian focused articles, also crime and passports/nationality, sometimes adding images, usually poorly written and sources with bare urls. I cannot find them all now (I think this was one of the early ones), and I don't know what, if anything can be done when you suspect it's the same person but they keep switching IPs. Their edit summaries are often combative, often revert other users' reverts, and don't show any willingness to learn how to properly format citations, or any other aspects of good editing. Anyway, for what it's worth, there is this one and this one.
Separately, I noticed that this one keeps blanking the warnings on their talk page - although I don't think the same as above.
Just passing it on in case there is something you can do to keep an eye on them... Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 01:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes, that all sounds very familiar, especially the "poorly written" and "combative" parts. I looked at their recent edits, definitely the same voice (e.g., "lady who was shot dead"). Thanks for catching that! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi again. I'm pretty sure our friend is back with another IP... Check out User talk:49.178.183.61. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 13:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Blocked, changed heading so I can ref back to this more easily. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Having just read the CIR page, unfortunately this editor falls into the category addressed in the very last paragraph, having shown themselves to be uncooperative and antagonistic, and unlikely to improve. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 23:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello Jamie, Jamesbath93 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who you blocked for a short period in August 2021: is again making inaccurate edits to West of England articles, including totally wrong changes to Dorchester, Dorset. It appears that he does not want to contribute in a constructive way to the encyclopedia. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 17:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply

IP editor 68.131.33.163 has been making more disruptive and unsourced edits again, even after the editor was blocked for a week. Please help. Brian K. Tyler ( talk) 04:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Blocking my IP address because of so-called 'disruptive' editing to the Michael Bates article was completely inappropriate. Have you even looked at the edits, or are you just pushing your own agenda? Whatever you, I or other edits might think about it, the FACTS are that this is NOT a sovereign country or even a partially recognised one. It's the project of one family. Simply calling yourself royalty does not make it true. Also, the most recent edits, commenting that Michael Bates is not a self-proclaimed prince, are inaccurate. His father was not in a position to bestow a royal title, so even if he did 'declare' his son the Prince of Sealand, it's meaningless. Michael Bates is still trying to claim the title as legitimate, therefore he is self-proclaimed. 2A00:23C7:8905:CC01:791F:C50E:DD44:B86 ( talk) 12:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

You're blocked because you were edit-warring from multiple IP addresses. You're not blocked from editing talk pages related to Sealand, where you may try to establish a consensus for your suggestions. I'm not interested in discussing Sealand on my talk page, and further comments about Sealand here will be removed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

My IP address is generated automatically - it's rarely the same twice. It's not an attempt to pretend to be more than one user. If you didn't want to discuss this on your talk page, you shouldn't have instituted the block.

Why, when I make a factual change, is it 'edit warring', yet someone else reverting each time is fine? It takes two. Also, if you look at the Michael Bates talk page, I HAVE raised this issue there. Anyone wishing to put a case for using a self-created, unrecognised royal title on a Wikipedia page could have done so, and could still do so. Yet they just revert with no explanation or justification. Who is starting the edit war here? 2A00:23C7:8905:CC01:791F:C50E:DD44:B86 ( talk) 15:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I already explained why you were partial-blocked. It should be clear by now that I'm not going to unblock you. You're welcome to follow the instructions at WP:GAB. Good luck. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, you corrected the technical error I made when moving Chung Li-ho Museum, thank you. I tried to follow instructions to move Lian Heng to the proper spelling Lien Heng. (This family always spells its name Lien, see Lien Chan and Sean Lien.) Here's a book about him： https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE%7CA458557455&v=2.1&it=r&sid=AONE&asid=ae2e82ff https://www.amazon.com/Lien-Heng-Taiwans-Identity-Tradition/dp/0933070535 But the move didn't go through, because there is already a redirect at the proper spelling to the wrong spelling. Can you assist? Thanks Sheijiashaojun ( talk) 21:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

 Done OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Sheijiashaojun ( talk) 05:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, I have tried to clean-up the infoboxes in Alaettin Çakıcı, Sedat Peker, Ali Yasak, Dündar Kılıç, Savaş Buldan, Ömer Lütfü Topal, Sami Hoştan. This is just removing info that doesn't belong -mostly redundant nationality per WP:INFONAT and unsourced/non-notable relatives (including the listing of children's names instead of just the number). A changing IP reverts every change within a day. Either they don't read the edit summaries or don't agree with the rational. Because the IP changes, I can't discuss and/or issue templated warning messages about this being disruptive. The edit history of Sedat Peker shows them making the same edits multiple times in the past several weeks, from IPs beginning with 88.234 & 88.236. This isn't vandalism, but still disruptive editing against project consensus. Is this enough disruption for a block? If not, what else? Thanks. MB 19:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• I blocked two ranges for 1 week [10], [11]; let's see if that gets them engaged in talk. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I've cleaned them all up again. MB 20:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Something didn't work. The links above are both to 88.234. They were back again as 88.236. MB 21:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hey, Rhodendron is complaining about you at WP:AN. Just a heads up.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Glad they are taking it there for more eyes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm interested to know, whenever you have a chance, what you think was going on with "that" account. To me it looked like a compromised account with a bot behind it or something? Mako001  (C)   (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 13:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Given the mix of familiarity and missing competence, likely a user previously blocked for disruption. I don't know off the top of my head which one, but not that unusual of a pattern. (update) I see now there is some speculation on which sock it is; apparently Yamla confirmed it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

The range is still continuing to vandalize outside of Lilybuds. You should probably block the range fully and not just one page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.62.31 ( talk) 19:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Ohnoitsjamie, you've removed my link from the LinkedIn article. I've replaced the original broken link: https://www.networkcomputing.com/networking/what-linkedin-endorsements-mean-you with a fresh working link. The new link has the same content as the broken link, plus even more extended information about the topic. If the original link and linked content was acceptable, then the new link and content should be acceptable as well.

The link you added does not qualify as a reliable source. Please do not add any more links to that site. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Why is that site not reliable? It's online since 2015 and has a lot of accurate information about linkedin, free resources, not just selling products and services. Actually, the article you've linked from businessinsider, only includes information about accepting and giving endorsements, it does not explain what endorsements are, no historial data, nothing. The article that I linked and that you call "unreliable" source has actually more information and more accurate information about the endorsements.

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting websites. Further additions of the link may result in blacklisting, which is bad for SEO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Please help me, I just try to understand the moderation rules. So basically, as I see, promoting businessinsider (which is a clearly for protif organisation) with a less informative article is perfectly fine. Ok, I don't agree, but I accept it. But please explain why?

WP:RS should make it clear why a site offering to sell LinkedIn recommendations does not qualify as a reference. I'm not explaining further. Please promote your business elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the explanation. Have a nice day :-* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelboton ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

A block notice for my IP Address, under the reason of disruptive editing, had recently ended and I wanted to ask what specific reason there was for the block (i.e. not explaining reason for my edits of 1960 USA Presidential Election page, not citing enough sources for the page, etc.) and how I could avoid further blocks in the future.

Thank you; Sincerely, Anonymous 2600:1003:B004:7702:DCE5:DCA3:F5B4:CAD6 ( talk) 00:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Looks like "collateral damage" from a rangeblock to this range, which was also being used by a different block-evading editor making disruptive genre changes (e.g., [12], [13]). Rangeblocks are sometimes called for if a disruptive user is using dynamic IPs, but unfortunately they can affect innocent users as well. For users on dynamic ranges that are caught in long or frequent rangeblocks, we recommend creating an account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm not entirely sure as to why Racism in Canada was semi-protected for disruptive editing. I do think that the reasons laid out per the IPs were quite constructive. It definitely is quite concerning that CASalt had indeed not merged the two pages appropriately, leaving out vital information over the definition of the word. I mean there has to be some sort of a conflict of interest here with their name, and that them requesting for semi-protection was a way to "lock out" IPs from editing, refusing to properly respond to the issues raised in the edit summaries. 188.113.161.59 ( talk) 18:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Take your concerns to Talk:Racism in Canada please. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

A token of thanks Hi Ohnoitsjamie! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}}  talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

The Malaysia/Singapore football pages IP vandal has jumped to 2405:3800:900:0:0:0:0:0/40. However, a block extending to 2405:3800:900:0:0:0:0:0/40 may effectively block the entire ISP on their IPv6 address space. Currently, it seems that IP editors are coming out only from the 800 and 900 space. – robertsky ( talk) 17:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

that are asking for an unblock. I've never even tried to unblock individual IP addresses from a range, is that possible? Or just advise them to get an account? [14] Doug Weller talk 11:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't think we have anything akin to whitelisting within a rangeblock; ACC would be the way to go. It could be unfortunate collateral damage, but most of the edits from that range appear to be from the same disruptive editor, and this was the second block in 2021. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks. That's what I thought but I wasn't sure. I'll do that. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. / Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I see you're the administrator who locked the page Straits Settlements. If you looked at the previous edits, the edits made were not disruptive or vandalism and were made in an effort to improve the article. The reports and continuous reverts made by the user Chipmunkdavis are frivolous and merely stems from the fact that they wish to remove content that they do not like. I assume because these are IP editors they probably thought it would be much easier to just brush it aside. Everyone should be invited to edit to make improvements. 220.87.216.167 ( talk) 10:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I looked at the edits, and it's clear someone is abusing multiple accounts, hence the protection. Everyone is welcome to suggest improvements on the article's talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

( talk page watcher) Fwiw, I blocked the IP above – it's very likely INTSF, and definitely a proxy. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks; I'd considered that myself, but I'm not too familiar with that LTA. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hiya. This draftification looks a little odd - were you aware the page was as old as it is (created in mainspace in 2014) when you moved it? Best, Darren-M talk 15:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

No, I hadn't noticed that; I saw some obvious COI editing and assumed it was new. I can either (1) leave it be as is; I acknowledge that it was too old to draftify, but it clearly doesn't meet notability guidelines; or (2) move it back to article space and AfD it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I think reverting the move and then AfDing is probably a better route that gives a cleaner resolution. Best, Darren-M talk 15:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Seems the IP you blocked at said page is back evading their block on an account. (Muse-ic-luhvah)

Hi. Previously: User talk:DaxServer/Archive 1#Lobstobar blocks. Could I entice you for a block of similar meatpuppetry: Special:Contributions/223.238.107.139/24 (edits/reversions of the same kind of governmental agencies as the IPs from October) — DaxServer ( talk) 18:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)' reply

 Done OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks — DaxServer ( talk) 19:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Landachuda - Not here and GS/SASG caste POV edits — DaxServer ( talk) 19:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, sir I mean to put biography instead of biology.Sir I'm sorry if you please could please retrieve my again. I'm sorry for my typo. Please respond if I'm doing something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricaneinfomation. ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You are repeatedly creating articles which don't meet our notability criteria. Please read the many warnings and messages already left on your talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi,

A few minutes ago you removed content from my edits due to me not providing a full explanation -- this is fully understood. If you could tell me which page this was I will make sure to go back and add a summary.

Replied on your talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Ah, I see what you are saying about that. I believe (according to my editing history) what happened was that when I was editing through for grammar, I accidentally moved some of the brackets that denote a source and through this deleted the sources. That was all a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soudgfkj ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi

Many thanks for your help on the page Artificial intelligence art. But since the user Elspea756 came along last July and rewrote the entire page without any discussion it has not really been the same. When I try to start to edit it again to make it better they always end up jumping down my throat and I end up walking away. I find it hard to believe that someone with only a few prior posts to the first edit on Artificial intelligence art can have that much wikipedia knowledge about how to edit wikipedia etc. I suspect they are using or have accesss to multiple accounts. But anyway it is what it is, have a good 2022! Take care Norttis ( talk) 17.44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your message ("Please read Wikipedia:Xkcd_in_popular_culture and WP:IPCEXAMPLES.") - got it, won't do that again!

Drjamesaustin ( talk) 06:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi! Pretty sure the user you temporarily blocked for disruptive editing on Zawe Ashton made a sock account to make the same exact edit as they did here. LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Blocked the sock, temp protection. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi again! There is another sock of CherryF - User:Upkeep1253. Making the same edits as before LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Jamie! Please check out this request. Did you intend to install PC for 3 months and it just didn’t happen? Or is there some misunderstanding? (BTW I think your “PC for 3 months” is a good call; I'd have done it myself but I didn’t want to do anything without checking with you.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hmmm, either I forgot to hit "enter," or I actually left 3 months PC on an adjacent request; have you noticed that occasionally trying to edit a section takes you to the wrong section? (either an app glitch or some stray markup I'm guessing). Thanks for catching that, fixed! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, I have noticed that. Usually I realize the glitch before I post to the wrong entry, but not always. Anyhow, glad you and the bot got things worked out. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

It occurs to me that that only used to happen to me on the old RFPP page, before they put in those subpages that are actually not on the RFPP page but are transclusions. I found that system confusing, so I do all my patrolling directly from the "requests for increase" page (my own private redirect: WP:RFPPI) and I haven't ever had the wrong-section problem on that page. I'm not techie enough to know if that's significant or just a coincidence. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) When you edit a section of a page, it's actually referred to by number, not title. At this moment, my browser displays "https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie&action=edit&section=93" in its bar. Now, if a busy bot has archived some older entries while you were editing a recent one, section numbers will have shifted down by the time you hit save. I wouldn't call it a glitch, but as a feature it's questionable. Favonian ( talk) 15:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that explains it. And if someone has added a new request while I was editing, the sections would shift up, right? When I encounter this problem (if I realize it!) I just reload the page, whereupon all the sections are right again. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Mystery solved, thanks Favonian! I like your RFPPI solution too, going to use that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

There is this IP hopper who is persistently adding incorrect soundtrack credit in film articles, probably for self-promotion because there's no other reason why they should do it. See IPs (49.15.***.*** & 27.97.***.***) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. This person managed to obtain circular references for Meppadiyan [25] and Hridayam [26] that copied his own hijacked version of the article and cited it back into the same articles. If you google his name there's actually an IMDb page and other pages for this composer, but if you look deeper you can see that he's an amateur teenager who has uploaded exactly 3 music videos on YouTube (which is not original but altered version of existing works). I guess what he's trying to do is obtaining circular references mentioning his name as the composer of notable films so that he can promote himself as a music composer and create composer's profile (like the one in IMDb) at popular music websites that still needs more sources for verification. Please respond. -- 2409:4073:4D9E:8707:A480:A7C5:EAA1:6B9C ( talk) 12:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for catching that; added an edit filter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

An article you recently created, Unsilenced, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed ( verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BOVINEBOY 2008 11:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty certain that the user on the range 2601:19A:4500:4C70:0:0:0:0/64 ( block range · block log ( global) · WHOIS (partial)) is evading your block on 73.61.8.0/24 ( block range · block log ( global) · WHOIS (partial)). Their edits to talk pages are a dead giveaway; there are other behavioral similarities as well. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Blocked, thank you! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello Jamie, a few months ago I made an article called Baarish Ki Jaaye which was also accepted by the reviewer. But a reviewer redirected that article on B Praak article (Musical Notability). Due to a lot of experience, the administrators are included in the group, so I request you to review it. Please check once. Thank you. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 03:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

User talk:60.53.132.109. Do personal attacks count? See the kind of language till writing in talk page after the block. Revoke access? This guy lost an argument and now finds relief by personal insults.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 16:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Your comments to the user aren't helpful either. I suggest disengaging. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I used civil language and has already established their lies with proof. Why not fully block for the language?-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 16:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You called the IP a shameless liar, the IP called you a fool, you both told each other to cry. I suggest dropping the stick and moving on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Ohnoitsjamie
On 13 September you protected a number of pages and rangeblocked a group of COI/paid editors repeatedly trying to enforce "their" versions of Italian Telecom company articles. The relevant log entries are:-

• 14:13, 13 September 2021 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs changed block settings for 151.24.0.0/16 talk blocking the pages PosteMobile, Wind (Italy), Vodafone Italy, WIND, Wind Tre, TIM, CoopVoce, Iliad SA, Wind (disambiguation) and TIM San Marino with an expiration time of 3 months (anon. only) (Disruptive editing)
• 14:10, 13 September 2021 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs blocked 151.15.0.0/16 talk with an expiration time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing: same disruption as last block)
• 14:09, 13 September 2021 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs blocked 151.24.0.0/16 talk from the page PosteMobile with an expiration time of 3 months (anon. only) (Disruptive editing)
• 14:08, 13 September 2021 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs protected PosteMobile [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 14:08, 27 September 2021) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 14:08, 27 September 2021) (Persistent disruptive editing) (hist) (thank)

The same editor(s) are back - as seen at PosteMobile using 151.15.169.29 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 151.15.222.159 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) yesterday - although 151.15.214.188 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 151.15.60.164 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 151.15.185.163 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) have also been used in the last month.
Could I please ask you to consider further blocks / article protection - Thanks - Arjayay ( talk) 17:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

151.15.0.0/16 has been rangeblocked again; thank you! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks - extremely prompt - Arjayay ( talk) 18:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Block evasion

Hi Ohnoitsjamie
Sock has moved to 151.47.45.162 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) - still a wind Tre account, but from Latium, the region that Rome is in - Don't know how big a range would be needed.
If it is more efficient to semi the articles, a list is at User:Arjayay/Italian Telecom - Many thanks - Arjayay ( talk) 12:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Is now using 151.24.97.94 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) a Wind Tre IP from Rome, and edit-warring about it. Has previously used 4 other 151.24.... IPs - Seems we may need to re-instate the semi-protection? Thanks Arjayay ( talk) 13:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

And now using 151.25.219.66 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) - another Wind Tre IP from Rome - Arjayay ( talk) 17:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Blocked, thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I have explained why saying that Feijoada originated in Brazil is wrong. I have provided a source. Like I've said more than once, the article is about Feijoada. It is not about Brazilian Feijoada specifically. Just because (Brazilian) Feijoada is Brazil's national dish, does not mean that Feijoada as a whole originated in Brazil. Brazilian Feijoada, with black beans, is an adaptation of Portuguese Feijoada, which on its own also has several variations. What you are doing is called cultural appropriation. All the sources you and other users who claim Feijoada originated in Brazil have provided are merely referring to the variant that is Brazil's national dish. This is obvious when you realize that the central ingredient is black beans. Feijoada was already a dish in Portugal before the Portuguese even knew of the existance of black beans.

It was only once Portuguese people who moved to Brazil started adapting Feijoada to local ingredients that a Feijoada with black beans came to fruition, and it was only after the local population adapted this recipe that the typical Brazilian Feijoada came to be. Although I respect your opinion, this is simply power abuse. What you are doing is essentially like looking up a source on the origins of Angolan Feijoada and then using that as evidence that Feijoada originated in Angola. Much like in other countries with their own versions of Feijoada, in Angola, Angolan Feijoada is also simply called "Feijoada", yet this article is about all Feijoadas in the Portuguese-speaking world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeijoadaOriginatedInPortugal ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You've been warned multiple times for edit-warring by multiple users. You can discuss the issue at Talk:Feijoada, not here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi could you block this user 203.192.253.122. This is because of making disruptive editing and removing content in pages Sarrainodu , Singam without any explanation. It’s better to block him so that such disruptive editing doesn’t happen and also otherwise he will blank out the content and remove them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoder2055 ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie,

I see you deleted this as a CSD G5 but I can't see that a ban evading editor created this draft. It was brought to my attention because you didn't delete the draft talk page (something which often seems to happen in mass page deletions) but I was curious and went into the deleted page history and it doesn't look like the page creator was ever blocked so I thought I'd inquire about this. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Ah, you're correct. I just saw this blocked ranged editing it and assumed it was the same self-promoting block evader. I'm not going to argue if you think it should be procedurally restored. It's quite likely the creator is the editor behind the IP range, but they were not blocked when the draft was created. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Regarding your comments Shirts The links/citations provided are to substantiate the statement made about the phrase. I consider it important to provide examples to ensure the words can be verified. So I am clear, you are prefering no references to illustrate the statement? Nuetral I am unsure how you believe my comments to not be neutral. Without any examples I am unable to agree and I am unable to know what you would like changed.

Can I please ask that you provide more details, as the amount of content you have removed is substantial.

Regards Harry — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarrySullivan1968 ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The article already mentions the lying accusation; your edit was adding undue weight to the matter, compounded by the pointless bit about t-shirts with links that don't meet WP:RS. Further discussion belongs at Talk:Scott Morrison, not here. Please get consensus there for your edits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert W. Lee IV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Wanted to alert you to a passage that you undid on the French language page. You undid a passage about Louisiana becoming the first U.S. state to join the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie in 2018, which is a major development and led to the creation of institutions to promote the French language in the United States. I wanted to suggest adding this information back in the paragraph on the Americas to contextualize modern developments for the French language.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizeuo ( talk • contribs)

I've already alerted you to our conflict-of-interest policy; please also see our policy on promotional material. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your message. I saw your posting the COI, and I don't see any criterion that applies. I wanted to add information about note-worthy developments and added a page on an organization in Louisiana that promotes the state's minority French culture. The article on the Nous Foundation was written as objectively as possible. And the article published on Nola.com does mention the organization and what it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizeuo ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Your saying that you have no relationship with Nous? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

No, I do not. I am familiar with the organization through my interest in French in Louisiana Arizeuo ( talk) 17:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Additional source materials from Radio Canada were added to the Nous Foundation article to ensure objectivity. Arizeuo ( talk) 17:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Please add your arguments for inclusion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nous Foundation, not here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, Jamie. You have restored text which contains a link to doxxing of a Wikipedia editor at Ketanji Brown Jackson. [27] I had previously revdel'd that text, because the Politico article mentions both an editor's username and their real name. Compare this discussion. I guess I give up. I've reported it to the oversighters; not sure if they'll think it needs suppressing. I'm bowing out. Bishonen | tålk 18:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC). reply

Apologies; I didn't realize there had been prior concerns raised about the naming of an editor; I'd made the assumption based on the source that the name was well-known, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. I've revdel'd those edits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I thought my revdels would speak for themselves, but I guess I didn't count on there being so many quick edits after mine in the history, making my actions easier to miss. An oversighter has now indeed suppressed the edits I revdel'd. I've written to them again, asking for further suppression. Bishonen | tålk 19:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC). reply

Much as I like both of you kids, I think we have to face the fact that that train has long, long since pulled out of the station, and that our efforts look sinister and self-serving to the non-Wikipedians out there. A species of Streisand effect has hit this editor like a rocket, and there's not a darned thing we can do about it. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I guess so, young Orangemike. Drmies has blocked them, not before time, and I've blocked a sock. [28] It could be someone else's sock, I suppose. Doubt it, though. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC). reply

Noahidism page has been continuously edited with antisemitic articles. These articles are not factual, and constitute harassment and a hate crime of a protected class. You have reverted the page back to this standing. This issue has been escalated to Admin via email to be addressed and if the problem is not rectified, further action will be taken. 2.53.157.239 ( talk) 01:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Take your concerns to the talk page of that article, please. I also suggest you carefully read WP:NLT; legal threats will result in an immediate block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Do you happen to know the procedure for reporting an obvious serial sockpuppet who is now circumventing blocks on Wikepedia and using Wikiquotes to canvas for their changes? Is it as simple as just reporting it to sock puppet investigations if the account name they're using isn't also active on Wikipedia? Thanks! NJZombie ( talk) 21:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Sounds like good candidate for a global block. ( block request page) If there's an existing SPI that involves admins with global block permissions, that could be an appropriate venue as well. Which edits are you referring to? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your help. The user has a history of first, making changes against consensus regarding the decade headers in horror film, and second, canvassing other users, including myself to make the changes for them since all of their accounts get blocked and articles protected. [29] They've recently started going to other Wiki sites and making attempts to do the same. Today they asked three editors, including myself and User:Grandpallama, another editor typically pestered by Jiniffer, to make their changes via Wikiquote. [30] NJZombie ( talk) 22:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

talk with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Histrologicalfieldeye ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply

As noted in the warnings you've received on your previous accounts, the material you keep adding is not sourced; that is, you've provided no reliable sources to support the assertion that the individual you keep adding identifies as a Khatri. We'll continue to block your new accounts attempting to do the same thing. If you decide that you are willing to follow Wikipedia policy, you can request to be unblocked from your original account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Please revoke TPA from 106.212.102.192. Speaking rubbish. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 10:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

JGH293 is AmirahBreen, right? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Behavioral evidence and timing was enough WP:DUCK for me, but sent it to SPI for confirmation and sleeper check. Good catch, thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking care of it. I'm on mobile right now, or I would have pulled some diffs together and brought it to SPI. I've added some more articles to my watchlist and will keep my eyes open. Thanks again. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 03:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply

After one year of silence, the sock is back as a new user. S/he still editing Gorillaz articles. 113.210.52.34 ( talk) 05:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply

​Hello? 113.210.119.200 ( talk) 02:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

My memory is hazy on that particular sock, but we certainly don't need any more genre-warring only accounts. If you see other accounts you suspect to be socks, you can always file an WP:SPI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I noticed you partially blocked this IP range [31] [32], [33], its still causing disruption. Magherbin ( talk) 22:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

That's a very large range, so I applied a partial-block to that range on a single article. The three IPs referenced above belong to a much smaller /64 range, [34]. However, it's not clear to me what the "disruption" here is; looks more like a content dispute to me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Ok thought it was the same user. Magherbin ( talk) 23:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, back in December 2021, you blocked Special:Contributions/109.79.162.41 for making problematic edits and using multiple IPs. They are at it again, this time with Special:Contributions/109.78.209.52. If you could block them from BLC1 that would be appreciated. Viriditas ( talk) 20:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Update. Same behavior that led to your initial rangeblock. Viriditas ( talk) 20:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Second update. Viriditas ( talk) 22:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your assistance. Viriditas ( talk) 22:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for catching that! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi. Could you please have a word with AbdSafMor92250? They kept test editing (creating a mess [35] [36]) and then they started replacing sourced content with stuff they collected from god knows where while refusing to provide an explanation when asked multiple times. I have filed a WP:AIV report, but unfortunately, it hasn't attracted anyone's attention. Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 23:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, despite being warned, they're still insisting on disrupting the article (without communicating of course). M.Bitton ( talk) 02:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Blocked, with a linked suggestion to use the article's talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for your assistance. M.Bitton ( talk) 02:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply

This user (User:2A02:C7E:800:0:0:0:0:0/37) was one you partially banned for doing disruptive edits on an article. They have now gone on to do exclusively disruptive edits on other articles. Please ban them.

I am new to Wikipedia so I think I am not sure if I wrote this where I am supposed to but I can't figure out this UI. GreenStrings ( talk) 14:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

2A02:C7E:800:0:0:0:0:0/37 isn't a single IP, but rather a range of millions of IPs. In some cases, a user's Internet service provider uses a dynamic pool of IPs, such that over a period of minutes their IP changes frequently to another address within that range. Rangeblocks are used in such cases, but they have the disadvantage of affecting all users in that range, including good-faith editors. In this instance, I actually partially blocked that range from editing a single article which greatly reduces the potential for "collateral damage." What disruption are you referring to? Looking at recent edits from that range, I'm seeing a mix of good-faith edits and a few questionable ones. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

hello. i wanted to add a credit to jeen-yuhs wiki page. if you watch act 1 you see the original score is a band called live footage. Kudzu159 ( talk) 17:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Please make an edit request on the talk page of the article; you'll need to include a reliable source for it to be considered. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm letting you know that an IP editor who you recently blocked [37] is still editing under different IP addresses [38]. - PM800 ( talk) 06:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Blocked, thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your quick action on that. The same person is currently editing under these IP addresses: [39] [40] [41]. As you can see, they only started editing all of those Olympics articles the moment the first two IP ranges were blocked. And here are some other pages that might be relevant: [42] [43]. - PM800 ( talk) 05:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure those are all related. The second one geolocates to the same area as the previous block evasion, but the first and third are likely different editors. I rangeblocked 83.220.227.0/24; that range has previously been blocked for block evasion (not sure if it's the same editor, though). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

This user [44] has returned from their block and is making the same disruptive edits. - PM800 ( talk) 17:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I’m sorry but this is so bad faith.

1) The block has expired, so this is not “evasion” (not to say that I disagree with the block in the first place) 2) I made the edits, then you made your “cleanups”. Where’s disruptive editing? 3) Finally, I addressed you on your talk page to resolve the matter, listing what I disagree with. You response? None. Instead you run to “report” me. Shall I create an account to avoid being disregarded like that? 2A00:1FA0:8494:5271:4C88:96A3:F887:CFF7 ( talk) 18:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Both of you, please pursue dispute resolution. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply

He’s just “archived” his talk page without responding. If anything, he’s the one behaving totally inappropriate and like a child to be honest. And still, I’m not interested in pushing my versions of the pages, if he feels better knowing that he “owns” those pages, be it. 2A00:1FA0:8494:5271:4C88:96A3:F887:CFF7 ( talk) 18:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Please stop posting here. Take it to WP:DR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Your name has come at AN concerning an IP who keeps adding unreferenced material and is unhappy. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I recently obtained this IP address (January 2022) and if I understand this correctly, it appears that my IP address may exist in a wide range of IP addresses that you may have partially blocked, in an attempt to block one or two offending individuals. Or, at least, that is what I think has happened.

The following is a description found on the top of my current User Contribution page:

"This IP address is currently partially blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 21:58, 14 July 2021 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs blocked 2601:543:4200::/39 talk from the pages Louis Armstrong award and Gideon Stargrave with an expiration time of 1 year (anon. only) (Long-term abuse)"

I never even visited those pages, let alone attempted to edit them. So, why did you block my IP address, even partially? Please respond and reverse the misguided block. 2601:543:4200:73E0:5864:B375:D019:EBBC ( talk) 06:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Sometimes rangeblocks are necessary to prevent disruption from individuals who use shared dynamic IP addresses. This particular range has a partial-block, meaning it only prevents uses on that range from editing the pages listed in the partial block. If you're not intending to edit those pages, the block doesn't affect you and you needn't worry about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Ohnoitsjamie: See this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1073195243 2409:4060:2E1B:FED4:0:0:5888:E401 ( talk) 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Which LTA are you talking about? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

This LTA IP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:1F04:5455:3EF9:AC00:3AA7:156C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:2E06:AF90:0:0:5888:8504 ( talk) 17:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

That's a partial block targeting a single editor on a large range that was disrupting a caste article; the diffs above appear to be unrelated, and it's not clear to me what the disruption is in this case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

will the warning expire after months — Preceding unsigned comment added by TzarN64 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Warnings don't "expire"; if you were to re-add this or anything like it tomorrow or a year from now, you would be blocked. However, per WP:OWNTALK, you're free to delete other's comments from your own talk page in most cases, which serves as a tacit acknowledgement of your receipt of the message. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hey, Ohnoitsjamie,

I hope you are well. An editor came to my talk page to inquire about recreating this article and you protected it so that it's limited to template editors. But it doesn't look like a template page so I'm wondering if this was a mistake when you scrolled down the list of editor groups. Can you check on it? Many thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I used to use that protection level simply as an alternative to "admin-only" protection; another admin had mentioned using it in that way, and I think even gave me a policy link, but as I've been unable to find that link, I've gone back to using "admin-only" protections for WP:SALT. The short answer is that it has nothing to do with templates, was just intended to be slightly softer protection than admin-only (I just changed protection to admin-only to avoid future confusion). If you look at this edit history, you can see that we've had a lot of sockpuppetry around trying to create this article, so I'd be very suspicious of a new user trying to recreate it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I've come across articles like this, but I guess my personal reaction was, "What? I can't edit that page either?!" ;-) I had never seen editing limited to template editors except for on template pages, and highly used templates at that, so I thought it was just a simple mistake. Thanks for clarifying things for me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ Ohnoitsjamie: @ Liz: Who said that this Actor is not notable ? See this link ... You can get all details and the actor done several TV shows I'm not promoting but I'm asking it with proper evidence and Sockpuppets won't ask you tho.;)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.182.162 ( talk • contribs)

We'll continue blocking all accounts you create; your time would be spent elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi. I noticed that you had done a partial block on this IP editor after undoing one of their edits at Talk:Peter Dutton, so just reporting to you because I don't know how else to extend a block. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 10:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

That's a partial rangeblock. If that user were to continue disruption that talk page, it would be simply a matter of adding Talk:Peter Dutton to the "targets" of the partial block (which would prevent any IP from that /16 range from editing that talk page). Partial blocks support up to 10 targets. They can also be applied more broadly to namespaces, but I'd want to avoid something that drastic on that particular range; there are a fair number of good faith edits from it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Okay, thanks. Sorry, I'm still not clear on how to add that page to a partial block, and I'm not an admin, so probably not authorised to do so, surely? Assume I'd have to ask you? Anyway, although they did have a few goes at that page, they haven't been back again since the 26th, so hopefully won't be necessary. Cheers. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 23:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

If they return, feel free to ping me and I can add necessary targets to the pblock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't know my reasonings for unblocking didn't make sense to you. I just didn't know how to correctly upload non-free files and would sometimes upload higher quality files when it wasn't needed, because I didn't know what were the consequences for this and how wikipedia properly treats non-free images taken from a major company or source. But I'm on my way to understanding all of that. If you need more clarification, if you didn't understand, you can always contact me. ChallengeCick ( talk) 10:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

P.S. It's time to make some archives for that talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChallengeCick ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not interested in discussing your unblock request here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

This is not a dispute. This is a series on continuous attacks by this individual towards me. Personal insults, cross-wiki abuse, this has been going on for months. We block a range, he shifts towards another range. Blocking the directly-affected pages is the only way for him to stop. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 22:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I blocked the IP. In the future, use WP:AIV. It doesn't make sense to protect that many articles because of a single IP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

So I'll have to use AIV every single day? He keeps changing IPs every time! This is the list of IPs he has used in this period. Today we'll block 89.172.170.38, tomorrow he'll be back as 88.1.400.92, or whatever... Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 22:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I've blocked this range for a year; that covers a lot of the addresses they've used. Blocking is much more efficient than protecting that many articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Ok, thanks. I'll try going down this route more in the future. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 22:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Apologies again for misinterpreting it as a content dispute; it wasn't clear exactly what the disruption was, and I was unfamiliar with the LTA case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, he's back as 78.2.205.1 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked). He had already used 78.1.6.49 and 78.1.21.101 before ( full list); is a rangeblock possible here? Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 07:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• I blocked 78.2.0.0/16 for 1 month; I'd block it for longer if it wasn't such a large range; there were a few good-faith edits a few weeks back. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Regarding your manual revert to the page about Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, I see that you requested a source for the changes made by the previous editor. While I trust the current state of the Belarusian government wouldn't have merited their changes to the title/date of office(s) held by her, was the linked tweet not considered a sufficient enough source to support the blurb which the user appended to her biography? From my inspection, the linked tweet could reasonably be considered a first party source from her verified Twitter account, containing a video in which she claims that Lukashenko "has committed high treason," and that she is "taking on the responsibility as the national leader of Belarus, and will create a transitional cabinet." Despite the veracity of her claims, is such a video not considered verifiable to the extent that it provides a known reference to the additional biographical information in question? For reference, the added blurb states that "In February 2022, she assumed the role of National Leader of Belarus, citing President Lukashenko committed high treason," and included the aforementioned quote from her video, verbatim: "Lukashenka committed treason – he made our country a participant in the invasion of Ukraine. So I declared myself as the national leader of Belarus to protect the sovereignty & independence of our country, represent it in security negotiations & crisis management in the region. " (granted, it'd be more accurate that "she claimed to assume the role of National Leader of Belarus)

I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, so I'd appreciate any clarification you can provide on such issues, as it pertains to ensuring proper sourcing and verification of historical/biographical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:842:7600:F0F8:4871:CFFB:9318 ( talk) 23:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Tsikhanouskaya declaring herself the leader of Belarus doesn't make it so. Wikipedia requires multiple third party reliable sources for that sort of thing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Just to clarify, is it usually case that these sorts of claims by themselves are not considered notable enough to be included as supporting information? E.g. multiple reliable sources confirmed that the claims were made, but they don't (or don't intend to) provide a reasonable expectation that said claims are considered to be factual or not.

I don't have an issue with Wikipedia mentioning Tsikhanouskaya's declaration; it's clearly intended to a symbolic gesture, and it probably wouldn't be hard to find a third-party source mentioning it. My issue was changing the infobox; as there are no sources saying she is widely recognized as the leader of Belarus (election disputes aside), it's not Wikpiedia's role to take a side. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Update: someone has added that content as a short paragraph; that's OK, though like I said, it would be ideal to include a third-party source as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

My intent wasn't to take a side or use Wikipedia as a "soapbox" as I was reprimanded for doing, but to edit with positive intent. Per the guidelines, I was merely aiming to make relevant adjustments to the page. They were unbiased and apolitical in nature and to share changes that had occurred since the page was last update. I'm new to editing, so I wasn't aware there was a distinction between the infobox and an addition –– especially given that other pages list controversial or unacknowledged leaders as such. I hope it's clear that I meant no malice. Thanks to the anon poster for articulating my thought process and challenging. Remember Hank Mobley ( talk) 03:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

You thought changing her title to "National Leader of Belarus" because she tweeted it was a constructive and apolitical change? OK. I'm not sure what "other pages" you're talking where Wikipedia puts "national leader" in the infobox of "unacknowledged leaders." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

	The Admin's Barnstar
	With the power invested in me, I bestow upon you the Admin's Barnstar! Thank you for your contributions! —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ( 🗣️💬 | 📖📚) 01:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, appreciated! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hey there. Just wanted to inform that vandalism and arbitrary removals are not supported on Wikipedia. Please don't remove established claims and facts from webpages. Kazmi If you think the sources are unreliable or I did something wrong, feel free to contact.-- Sayed Ghazi Abbas Kazmi ( talk) 01:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for informing me. Please try reading the edit summaries and following the WP:RS link. Most of the source you keep adding do not come close to meeting reliable source criteria, and the Brittanica source does not support the text you're adding with it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

hey, actually I am new to wikipedia. Would you please help me cite sources in Wikipedia. I would be grateful if you let me know what was wrong in my citation in the Kazmi page, also how can i insert a more satisfactory information for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayed Ghazi Abbas Kazmi ( talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

It is to bring to your attention that contents of an article have been moved to its redirect page [45] by a user without move request and discussion. They also blanked the main article [46] making it a redirect. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 20:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi there. On 2 September, you indefinitely blocked the IP 2.26.253.31 because they clearly weren't here to contribute the encyclopedia. However, this was an IP not an account and a few months have passed since the block, so it's likely no damage is going to be done. Could you unblock the IP? Thanks, -- Ferien ( talk) 16:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

And same with 43.231.252.58. Thanks :) -- Ferien ( talk) 16:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for catching those, they are now unblocked. I must have been trying to plow through WP:AIV too quickly those days! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Good Evening Sir, that persistent disruptive editing person who has been blocked for a year under another static ip address is back and at it again, this time he's using up address of 172.58.188.128 . Wugapodes, Oshwah and you have dealt with him before using the blocked ip address (1 year) and you also blocked him for several months at first. Can you please be so kind and check it out. Thank you, Doriden ( talk) 01:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply

He has also used 172.58.172.209 in the past. Same subject matter and same types of edits. Thanks again, Doriden ( talk)•

Is there a way you can apply page protection to some redirects of the Cocomelon page that mirror the protection of the existing page? There's an IP that's constantly overwriting redirects disruptively and I have no idea what they're trying to prove. The related redirects are Cocomelon - Nursery Rhymes, which is about to expire in a few days, and Cocomelon – Nursery Rhymes. I'll make sure to get back to you if it starts happening to other related redirects before the current protection expires. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply

They're all semi'd indefinitely now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Estelí, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fernando Silva.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• 2409:4060:E98:FBD4:0:0:5888:4201 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4060:100:894D:0:0:ACB:40B0 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4060:10B:79D6:0:0:13CF:68B0 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The above IPs are continuously adding fake/hoax actor ' Ayan Nayak' in different TV shows articles. I suspect they are related to User:AnonymousIndiaz and now engaged in vandalism. I have reverted them. Looking at their frequency, I think they will again come back soon to add the fake artist in TV shows. Please block an appropriate range to stop disruption. (Blocking 2409:4060:0:0:0:0:0:0/35 range can be an option same in the lines of 2402:3A80:0:0:0:0:0:0/35 for Ahluwalia (caste)). Thank you. 2402:3A80:68C:AAED:5819:B21F:B9BE:C5CD ( talk) 17:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Partial-rangeblocks, like the one for Ahluwalia (caste), can only target specific articles. I have a better solution for the vandalism you're talking about; let me know if you see any more, but it's going to be a lot harder for them now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Ohnoitsjamie: They did it again this time today. See the IP list below

• 2409:4060:E90:CFE3:0:0:5848:FB09 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4060:E81:8C:0:0:5888:120B ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4060:E85:1AF6:0:0:58C8:A13 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thanks. 2402:3A80:1A46:2548:A41D:323F:913A:CBA7 ( talk) 07:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ Ohnoitsjamie: Remember the Above IP 2402:3A80:1A46:2548:A41D:323F:913A:CBA7 is sock of User:Amkgp see this SPI Archives their mentioned about this above IP.Thank You

@ Ohnoitsjamie: See this User_talk:El_C#Please_protect_Kora_Pakhi. They are doing vandalism since a long time in disguise. Please stop them, they are not here for any constructive edits. To save themselves they are doing vandalism and I am not User:Amkgp. I am being targeted because my IP matches with that of Amkgp and most importantly to take revenge as I reported SPI of User:Blogs19 and User:AnonymousIndiaz and they were proved and blocked 2402:3A80:1A46:2548:A41D:323F:913A:CBA7 ( talk) 08:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I did not ask for page protection this time because they will move to new articles after being protected and I contribute regularly at different TV shows which I will not be able to do anonymously as I have doing since 6 years. 2402:3A80:1A46:2548:A41D:323F:913A:CBA7 ( talk) 08:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ Ohnoitsjamie: This time this IP 2402:3A80:1A46:2548:A41D:323F:913A:CBA7 which is sock of User:Amkgp defending themselves . Also I'm editing over 10 years to wikipedia and also senior than this sock.

2409:4060:E85:556D:0:0:58C8:570A ( talk) 03:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Oh my God ! It means you are vandalizing articles in the name of sock revert since 10 years. Please block them ASAP. Ohnoitsjamie you can see how he/she copies what ever I says. Also, if they are editing such a long time then they must know how to sign posts and that 'seniority' does not work in English Wikipedia as per WP:SENIORITY policy. 2402:3A80:6BE:FFDB:4273:E741:F40:98D2 ( talk) 09:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Also you can find similarities in edit summaries (like ++) with that of 117.226.182.162 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who was advocating to allow creation of ' Susovan Sonu Roy' at your talk-page few days back. 2402:3A80:6BE:FFDB:4273:E741:F40:98D2 ( talk) 09:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• You are make me laugh to taking such name of articles and blamming me . Ha Ha Ha !!!

2409:4060:E85:556D:0:0:58C8:570A ( talk) 03:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

What more can you do when you are caught red handed. They were also engaged in disruption from 117.226.146.124 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) asking admins for blocking in the name of Amkgp since they were caught vandalism by me. For more proof see contribution from 2409:4060:2E01:5DA8:0:0:5808:3714 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).Thanks 2402:3A80:6BE:FFDB:4273:E741:F40:98D2 ( talk) 10:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Hey Sockpa User:Amkgp see this [47]

2409:4060:E85:556D:0:0:58C8:570A ( talk) 04:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:E92:4553:0:0:58C8:340B ( talk) reply

Please stop blowing up my talk page with this. 2409:4060:0:0:0:0:0:0/36 is blocked for awhile; please report future block evasion to WP:AIV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

It turns out that requests are archived, regardless of whether they are responded to or not. My last request got archived that way without getting responded to. If you or the other whitelist admins got time, please review my latest request which is different from my previous one before it gets archived. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Given that site's engagement in a recent spam campaign, I'm not inclined to whitelist it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

My gendering of animals in articles is not pointless, it is necessary to educate others on the proper terminologies. I would like to request that you STOP undoing my edits on this. Babesonion ( talk) 17:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Peppering articles about hybrid speciees with references to archaic gendering is distracting and disruptive. If you'd like to keep editing Wikipedia, you should move on to constructive editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't see a path to resolve a copyright question on a 70 year old picture. Maybe even 72. If someone could explain how to resolve this issue that would be great.

EDIT: If a picture is taken between 1923 and 1963, the copyright lasts for 28 years. This picture is clearly older than that. Therefore, the copyright has expired.

-- Itsjustjody ( talk) 23:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You need to go to the commons page for the photo and resolve the copyright tag there. There is a way to handle expired copyrights of old photos, but your upload needs more info. Please discuss it with the person on commons who tagged the image. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Duck! – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 16:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

•  Done OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Apologies for criticism, but I believe I did not make contributions that appear unconstructive or destructive. It must be a minor mistake here, fella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.10.148.222 ( talk) 17:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I believe that per WP:OVERLINK, piping "another word for" to "synonym" is a violation of that policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi there, my edits on the page Jane Taylor (Lawyer) were removed for the reason: "some of that is WP:SYNTH and all of it is WP:UNDUE; none of those references even mention the subject of this article" - however if you read through the main reference ( https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/the-courts/supreme-court/case-summaries/case-information-2007/sc-43-and-44-2007-ben-nevis-accent-v-cir-complete.0.pdf) you will find that the facts stated are true and not undue, as this is an official court transcript of New Zealand referencing the subject by name and backing up every claim made. I would recommend searching the transcript for the name 'Jane Taylor'. I appreciate that the matter is confusing as the subject has changed their names multiple times through marriage (born Deborah Jane Strongman, married to Garry Muir hence becoming Deborah Jane Muir/Jane Muir, and then marrying Mark Taylor hence becoming Deborah Jane Taylor/Jane Taylor). You will find that the transcript also confirms this if you look at the third reference to 'Jane Muir' within it. Please reverse my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinity2022 ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Transcripts and court summaries are primary sources. I'm not disputing whether or not she is or was married to Garry Muir. As I already noted on your warning, all of those articles are about her husband, not her, and as such adding a large paragraph about them to her Wikipedia page is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. I'm not discussing it on my talk page further; please take it to Talk:Jane_Taylor_(lawyer), but there's not much else to be said unless you can come up with third party, reliable sources (not a court doc or marriage certificate) that directly discuss Taylor in regards to the tax scheme. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, please reconsider the locking the article or issuing IP blocks, because now its 3 IPs that revert the changes in the Kia K5 article. The two other IPs are 174.90.223.58 and 174.90.223.54.

Updated discussion is on 104.205.17.178 talk page. Alawadhi3000 ( talk) 19:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure how customary it is to do this for an IP, but can you revoke talk page access for 159.242.68.46? They're making nonsense/garbage edits on their talk page while blocked. Thanks. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 13:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Someone beat me to it. Per WP:OWNTALK, blanking a talk page while blocked is generally OK (except for declined unblocks on an active block), but this kind of crap is not. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

That was really necessary, i even requested for an admin to do so on the Talk Page, and you finally did it, you probably have read that talk or not, but i thank you for doing so, ever since IShowSpeed started streaming these games, Talking Tom & Friends page was being vandalized a lot of times, mostly in the "Talking Ben" game section. Thanks again, for protecting the page, hope you do really well on this website. VirtualizerExtreme ( talk) 18:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Happy to help! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

baju kurung is from malacca, malaysia, tun temenggong hassan introduced baju kurung to malay after ban sarong and arabian cultures during sixth sultan of malacca, please can you edit baju kurung for me. Stonefiyyy ( talk) 15:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

No. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The data of chapter Climate has been maliciously tampered with, I hope it will be repaired immediately. In addition, I hope that more severe sanctions will be added to User:5.173.139.129, thank you! Seele2021 ( talk) 15:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Not sure what you mean. Please use WP:AIV for vandalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Earlier, you had blocked this IP who's was socking to disrupt the same subject with other IPs. [48] [49]

He is back with a new IP range and is making the same edits on here and admitting that he is using "sources are either primary sources and from fatwah website" [50] instead of WP:RS.

He is making the same edits that he did with the old range of IP [51] and the new one, [52] and evading the block you had placed.

Can you block this range as well or at least block the user from the article space of Banu Fazara or semi-protect? Thanks TolWol56 ( talk) 19:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

There was zero OR in what I posted. Everything was sourced. 174.255.1.48 ( talk) 05:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Adding in commentary about the sources is what I'm referring to. Furthermore, your edit didn't improve the article; the number of stores was already properly sourced and up-to-date. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I have seen you have reverted my edit at Badi'_al-Din , But I think it would be better if you had look at [53], before reverting, Anyways I will again be going to remove that spam After 24 hours. Thank you. 37.111.217.175 ( talk) 20:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You can propose changes at Talk:Badi'_al-Din, since I've blocked you from editing Badi'_al-Din for awhile for edit-warring. I'm not discussing it further here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I think I have not exceeded the Wikipedia:three revert rule, your block is quite vague. No worries will see you after 3 months. 37.111.217.175 ( talk) 20:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I think I have underestimated the block duration. No worries. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Jamie, just leaving this for the record. That IP hopper from Bangladesh whom you reverted [54] waited for their initial range block to wear off (WP:ANI imposed), [55] has consistently ignored talk page discussions, [56] and is now yet at it again. [57] They are willing to revert anyone at the Badi' al-Din article as long as the material from Brill Publishers (#1 source related to Islamic Studies) is removed. In their persistent efforts in fulfilling this campaign, they even hampered my comments at "Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase" [58] To complete the circus act; they even filed a bogus SPI on Kansas Bear. [59] - LouisAragon ( talk) 20:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Pinging @ Apaugasma: @ Kansas Bear: @ HistoryofIran: @ Blablubbs: as they were involved too - LouisAragon ( talk) 20:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

IP hopper's latest comments:

• at "Wikipedia:Requests for page protection" referring to the third edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam: "Aragon or Falasch whatever name you have, I will never let you spam your rubbish on Sayed Badiuddin" [60] )
• Directed at OhnoItsjamie "I think I have not exceeded the Wikipedia:three revert rule, your block is quite vague. No worries will see you after 3 months." [61]

Said IP hopper is not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon ( talk) 20:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I doubled the duration. Let me know if you see indications that the same user is disrputing other pages. It would be nice to keep the block partial; itt seems like there may be some good faith edits on that range, likely from different people. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello Sir, Sorry to bother you but there is an issue on the Kolkata wiki page, User Shubhrojeet is reducing the GDP of Kolkata to $60.447 billion and the source he is providing is this https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-metro-monitor/ this brookings report is from 2014 nearly 8 years ago. I have provided multiple sources for the year 2020 like, https://www.indiatoday.in/information/story/top-10-richest-cities-in-india-in-2020-1726702-2020-09-29 this source is from India today a leading newspaper in India, https://www.businessworld.in/article/Richest-Cities-Of-India/28-06-2017-121011/, https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/social-relevance/top-10-richest-cities-in-india-2021-552132.html, https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/top-10-richest-cities-in-india-1634553081-1 all these sources clearly state one thing that Kolkata's GDP is 150.1 billion for the year 2020, but he keeps reverting my edits and keeps saying that these sources are not reliable, can so many sources that say the same thing be unreliable? and all these are from leading news media outlets in India. Even you have blocked multiple accounts for reducing the GDP with outdated sources on this very wiki page, Its my humble request to you Sir is to update the GDP on kolkata wiki page tp $150.1 billion with the source that you had approved earlier(any one of these which i have provided for the year 2020) and please remove all outdated sources, I tried doing that but he keeps reverting my edits.Thank you Sir. Vijaydanny ( talk) 17:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Please use the Talk:Kolkata and follow WP:BRD. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hey — I'd suggest that this block be extended site-wide, as this user was editing several pages at once. Sorry for the disruption. Sylvie N (she/they) ( talk) 18:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

 Done, thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

( Peanut gallery comment) You may wish to revoke account creation rights. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 15:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Also  Done, thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'd like to understand the reason why [ Stockfish defeats] section was reverted. The matches are all recorded and I can add Lichess links for the actual games. Is that enough? If not, please give me a hint on what was meant with "third-party reliable sources". Or is the third-parity sources requirement related to the comments that were added about those games?

See WP:RS and Wikipedia:Independent_sources/ Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Someone's Youtube video's do not qualify as a third-party reliable source. For that content to be included in the article, you'd need a third-party source to report on those games. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Ok, I have found the link of the games, which can be checked in Lichess game database. Each game has an ID. I guess that is a reliable source. Is it ok to re-post the section now?

No, that's not a third-party source; that's a primary source. See WP:RSP for some examples of sources that are generally considered to be reliable (sources in green). For a more niche topic like Chess, sources like uschess.org or chess.com would also qualify as reliable source. Also see our No Original Research policy, which your additions violate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks for your quick action on my Request for Protection on Bruxy Cavey. I'm new here and still learning, I hope you won't mind me asking a few questions.

Could I ask why it's protected for only 2 weeks? If the vandalism continues beyond that, should we just request protection again?

Also, I am concerned that the vandals will switch to The Meeting House (the church investigation Bruxy), which is unprotected. Would it be appropriate to request protection of that page also, or should I wait until the vandalism actually occurs?

Thanks again Dizzyflamingo ( talk) 02:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

We generally start with short protection periods; the amount of time is admin discretion (if you watch the board, you'll see that shorter protection periods are also quite common). In addition to the two weeks of protection, I also blocked the IP range that disclosed unsourced names and hid those edits. If vandalism resumes after two weeks or crops up at another page, you can re-report to WP:RFPP, or if the disruption is only from one user or IP, I'd suggest WP:AIV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that makes sense. dizzyflamingo ( talk) 02:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for blocking him. It's the same person who has been blocked by you before using another ip address. He has a long history of this nonsense. Thanks again, Doriden ( talk) 17:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You want her instagram or something? Loldermanoo ( talk) 21:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You could read WP:RS or something. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, I am Pierre Fabre, kite specialist based in france who did some modifications on the kite page that you rejected. I have been international correspondent of Kitelines Magazine for more than 10 years, travelling to more than 100 international kite festivals in 25 countries with a stock of over 30000 kite photos, having published over 20 articles internationally on this topic I am currently researching the origin of kites, again, a quest that my deceased friends philippe Cottenceau ( the first foreign kite researcher to be shown the Muna cave kite painting) and Tal Streeter were involved in too. It has been confirmed to me that by the top archelogist that no scientific datation of the Muna Sugi Patani cave painting has yet been made. According to archaeologists who visited this cave this painting is genuine but cannot be older than a few thousand years. 3000BP max . So the claim,based on this painting, that kites were invented 9000years ago is not scientifically proven . The only reference given in the Wikipedia article is that of a tourist office brochure.... this is not a reliable source! 37.164.58.49 ( talk) 15:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Please take your concerns to that article's talk page. (1) If there are existing sourcese that do meet meet WP:RS, you can remove the content or tag them with the {{unreliable}} tag. (2) "Confirmation from a top scientist" does not qualify as a reliable source; the source needs to be published. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello , I would like to know why you removed the section "wealthy landlords as well as upper sections ........" .The content was recently missing from the page and is well written in all sources starting from osella to pulappilly ..Also, around 80 percent of the main people come from this section, hence it is important to mention this .I request to atleast move to the other section , the section is well needed to explain the disparity existed in the community . Bilgiljilll ( talk) 18:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I explained it on your talk page. Please take your suggestions to Talk:Ezhava. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, again I thoroughly read the content "Ezhava" and the citations ,while i accept the typo errors made by me , i found out that around 70 percent of the citations in the page are in the similar (the way i did previously)way only . Also i would like to know why you allowed , the "Inscription" section edit which is made on 4 march 2022(made by Anonymous user ) with sources which are not even readable ...I think that need to be verified , and removed , as a native ,(who knows about the ethnicity very well )i feel that the inscription part given in the page is wrong. Also 70 percent of the citations in the page are like that only ,after checking the citation again, i feels that it is a big injustice to the time and effort i invested in researching and improving the page (that too just because my edits gappended to be recent ones ), hence ,i humbly request you to kindly check that . Bilgiljilll ( talk) 20:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not discussing it here. Take your concerns to Talk:Ezhava. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Vaultralph ( talk · contribs)

You gave this user a final warning back in January, they were then blocked about a week later by another administrator. Their behaviour has gone on exactly as it did before and that is after another final warning by myself issued at the beginning of the month. Could you please do something about them? Thanks. -- TylerBurden ( talk) 21:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I think a block or ban is needed given what I've seen from this editor since TylerBurden's warning. Would WP:ARBEURO apply? -- Hipal ( talk) 22:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Blocked for a month, with a warning that the next block will be indefinite. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for handling Braxton. I had started looking into the appropriate venue for inquiry regarding the situation. If there was anything I did wrong in my handling, I apologize, I promise after the confirmation that they had no adult understanding that I was done with the conversation with them-- CreecregofLife ( talk) 22:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

No, you did nothing wrong! You were being admirably patient. I have little patience for these sorts of hoaxes/fancruft stuff, as I see this type of disruption quite frequently and don't like to see other people's time wasted dealing with it. I thought those edits looked familiar, and indeed it was block evasion. Feel free to ping me if you encounter this sort of thing again. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply