![]() |
@ | This user can be reached by email. |
---|
![]() Archives |
|||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||
Contents
- 1 welcome to
- 2 Plot tag bomber
- 3 A problem IP
- 4 Hello!
- 5 The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
- 6 Why do you keep blocking me from editing?
- 7 The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
- 8 The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
- 9 Enough time for wikipedia
- 10 A picture that shows something that is not what it claims to show
- 11 Unblock request on hold
welcome to
my talker list be patient to talk me thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectitude (talk • contribs) 10:11, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
Plot tag bomber
I'm not familiar with the plot tag bomber, do they regularly create accounts or mostly edit via anon IPs? You have this range hard blocked; would it possible to switch it to anon-only with account creation blocked instead so that valid users could request an account via WP:ACC? Or would that open the door to significant disruption? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Ponyo: Background for this is here, here and here is one ANI thread related to the above. He has used accounts as well as anon IPs before. I left some of the ranges alone but tried to get the ones he was jumping into most frequently. I'll let you evaluate his potential for further disruption if the blocks are altered.
- One good question for @NinjaRobotPirate, Aspects, and Flyer22 Reborn: Have you seen him recently or are the blocks since Nov 10-17 helping to deter him?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)- It's tough to say. I think the blocks are working, but there are some WP:FILMPLOT-obsessed editors that do seem a bit suspicious. The vast majority of historically disruptive edits came from IP addresses, but there were also a couple logged-in accounts. He used a wide variety of IPv4 and IPv6 ranges, so I doubt we'll ever be completely rid of him if he really wants to edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've only seen a single request via UTRS, so if the hard blocks are working I'd rather stick with them. I will give the unblock requestee some options for pursuing an account via ACC.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've been keeping an eye and while some suspicious registered editors came up, they all had other edits to other non-film articles, none of them took whole paragraphs of plot out or changed the dates on cleanup templates. Since the range blocks, these are the only IP addresses I thought were socks: User:2600:1006:B111:9E18:D1D2:2509:F7F9:2BF6 (December 17), User:2600:1011:B042:9182:94F1:5687:626F:8DF4 (November 19), User:70.210.231.31 (November 19 - blocked for 60 hours) and User:2600:1006:B15F:6768:9D6E:8C9B:69B3:987B (November 18.) So either they gave up (which seems unlikely how forceful they were with this), moved on to another area of Wikipedia or has a new registered account and making more fruitful edits. Aspects (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I keep seeing one registered editor, @JeremyCarl:,that keeps me thinking they are a sockpuppet, due to their massive reductions along with changing the dates of cleanup templates, which was one of the banned editor's MO's. For example this edit, [1], did not completely eliminate paragraphs, but did change the cleanup date template. While they had seven edits previously, starting in November 2015, when the blocks were going in place, they picked up the pace.Aspects (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Aspects. I see the messages on their talk page concerning plot summaries. Since you have pinged them, it will be interesting to hear what they have to say when they resume editing.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Aspects. I see the messages on their talk page concerning plot summaries. Since you have pinged them, it will be interesting to hear what they have to say when they resume editing.
- I keep seeing one registered editor, @JeremyCarl:,that keeps me thinking they are a sockpuppet, due to their massive reductions along with changing the dates of cleanup templates, which was one of the banned editor's MO's. For example this edit, [1], did not completely eliminate paragraphs, but did change the cleanup date template. While they had seven edits previously, starting in November 2015, when the blocks were going in place, they picked up the pace.Aspects (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've been keeping an eye and while some suspicious registered editors came up, they all had other edits to other non-film articles, none of them took whole paragraphs of plot out or changed the dates on cleanup templates. Since the range blocks, these are the only IP addresses I thought were socks: User:2600:1006:B111:9E18:D1D2:2509:F7F9:2BF6 (December 17), User:2600:1011:B042:9182:94F1:5687:626F:8DF4 (November 19), User:70.210.231.31 (November 19 - blocked for 60 hours) and User:2600:1006:B15F:6768:9D6E:8C9B:69B3:987B (November 18.) So either they gave up (which seems unlikely how forceful they were with this), moved on to another area of Wikipedia or has a new registered account and making more fruitful edits. Aspects (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've only seen a single request via UTRS, so if the hard blocks are working I'd rather stick with them. I will give the unblock requestee some options for pursuing an account via ACC.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's tough to say. I think the blocks are working, but there are some WP:FILMPLOT-obsessed editors that do seem a bit suspicious. The vast majority of historically disruptive edits came from IP addresses, but there were also a couple logged-in accounts. He used a wide variety of IPv4 and IPv6 ranges, so I doubt we'll ever be completely rid of him if he really wants to edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
A problem IP
- 108.52.17.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Massive vandalism for many days. Does this by adding incremental misinformation. Attacked dozens of dog articles, particularly. I've been reverting NOW, but this shit has gone on unchecked and only barely warned. Really insidious. Typically the edits are eventually reverted. but few warnings were issued. the bad data sometimes just gets absorbed. Thought you should know about this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Stan. "Insidious" is definitely the right word for it. It makes you wonder what is wrong with some of these people. If he comes back after a month-long block and doing the same thing again then I'll increase the block time to 3 months.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello!
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sir, please don't even think that I will revert your edits. Thank you.-Nimit (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do you keep blocking me from editing?
Not sure why, but I keep seeing your name come up quite a bit. I can assure you all my edits are good faith edits, If you are finding issue with any of my edits lets discuss. Mathew Stilwell (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC) (I guess a signature would help...)
The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Enough time for wikipedia
hi there,i wonder how do you find enough time and motivation for wikipedia? Your job is easy or taking short time? :)--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
A picture that shows something that is not what it claims to show
Hello, my name is Tice Estes and I have been an avid wikipedian for many years but have never really edited or added content to a page before. Recently I have become quite knowledgable about the trees in my area (souther Indiana), and on my very own twelve acres farm I recently had an approximately 50 year old black cherry tree (Prunus serotina) that toppled over in the forest due to a bad spot about 10 meters up. While mushroom hunting (Morchellla season) I happened upon said fallen tree. The stump was three meters high and solid at two and a half meters was a beautiful cherry burl. As a rare hardwood woodworker who specializes in awesome bangles made by hand, I was really excited because I knew with a little time I would have a beautiful piece of wood to work with. By happenstance, today I was reading the wild black cherry page on wikipedia and one of the pictures shows a really nice burl exactly like mine, a bit bigger actually on a much smaller tree, but the same thing in fact. Then I notice it is labeled as a black rot which has a link and upon linking to view the black rot page, I read and learn and see about a totally different thing than the previous picture shows. The person has mistaken what is actually a big beautiful burl (which is caused by a very small wound in a very young tree and is in effect simply a scab that increases in size every year the tree live and does not hurt the tree at all) for black rot infection. I have lots of pictures of my cherry burl before and after i cut it in half to dry it for use in my woodworking projects. I would love to see this little error fixed especially because I am so certain I am one of the few people on Earth who would be able to spot the mistake. Sorry for rambling, but it would mean the world to me if you could give me some help. Tice Estes (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Unblock request on hold
There's an unblock request at User talk:Gharouni, relating to a six month range block which you placed in November. The block log can be seen at Special:Block/103.251.67.0/24, and you stated that the block was because of the editor whose history is at Special:Contributions/A_Pizzon_Lamb. I can't see any resemblance of the editing by the editor requesting the unblock to either that by A Pizzon Lamb or anonymous editing from the IP range. I suggest that the block, which has already run all but 18 days of its six months, can be lifted now, or if not at the least it can be made anon-only. Any comment? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've just seen that you haven't edited since February, so I have decided to go ahead on my own. I shall make it anon-only. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)