Misplaced Pages

User talk:JBW: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:24, 7 August 2011 editDegenFarang (talk | contribs)2,116 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:37, 17 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,056 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:JBW/Archive 84) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:

<big><big>Please post new sections at the ''bottom'' of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.</big></big>

{{Clear}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 300K
|counter = 31 |counter = 84
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(10d)
|archive = User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:JBW/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}

<!--TABLE MUST START ON NEXT LINE START, ELSE SANDBOX BUG-->
{| CLASS="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{lc: }}|yes|small|standard}}-talk"
|-
{{#ifeq:{{lc:attn }}|none|<!--NONE-->
| {{!}}{{!}} [[Image:{{#switch:{{lc:attn }}
| blank = No image.svg
| plus = B plus.svg
| lang = Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
| info = Info talk.png
| attn = Emblem-important.svg
| stop = Stop hand nuvola.svg
| frag = Merge-split-transwiki default.svg
| #default = attn
}}|{{#ifeq:{{lc: }}|yes|30px|50px}}|User talk]]
}}
|<!--NEW CELL-->
{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{runon}}} }}|yes||*}}'''If I left you a message:''' please answer on '''''{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{you}}} }}|other|my|your}}''''' talk page, {{#switch:{{lc:talkback }} | other=else inform me | watched=as I am watching it | notify=then notify my talk page | talkback|#default=then place {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{hint}}} }}|no|{{tl|Talkback}}|{{tlp|Talkback|''your&nbsp;username''}}}} on my talk }}.
{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{runon}}} }}|yes||*}}'''If you leave me a message:''' I will answer on '''''{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{me}}} }}|other|your|my}}''''' talk page, unless you request otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page.
{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{hidenew}}} }}|yes||{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{runon}}} }}|yes||*}}<SPAN CLASS="plainlinks">''''''</SPAN>}}
|}

{{Notice|Please add new sections to the '''bottom''' of this page, and new messages to the '''bottoms''' of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked.
:

After a section has not been edited for a week it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.}}

{{archive box | auto=yes }} {{archive box | auto=yes }}


== Likely back again ==
== ] ==

Thanks for your . The user has now returned with a sock, ]. I started an ], but since this is such an obvious ] I thought you might be willing to take quicker action. Best regards. --] (]) 05:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
{{Done}} A duck indeed. ] (]) 09:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
: Sadly, he . --] (]) 09:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

== Why did you delete ]? ==

You deleted the page as an implausible redirect but it wasn't a redirect at all. I tried to look for a cached version on Google but could only get the tiny blurb you see in the search menu. All I could notice was that the article was PRODed. In the instance of a PROD it shouldn't have been deleted until the 4th and the other problem was that the author was never notified.<tt> </tt>] ] ] 12:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:Yes it was a redirect, left over after the original article had been moved to ]. ] (]) 12:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
::Ok, thanks. I just found it and came to tell you.<tt> </tt>] ] ] 12:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Maybe someday they will make it so you can still view edit summary information. <tt> </tt>] ] ] 12:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, it is often inconvenient not being able to see what the history of an article was before its deletion. However, if you look you will see two log entries: the second one is my deletion, and the first one tells you about the earlier move of the article. So the information is available, even though not very obvious. ] (]) 12:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Ahh, I should've checked. I think I cam here as soon as I saw that it was deleted as a redirect. Logic should have told me that the article had been previously moved. <tt> </tt>] ] ] 12:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

===]===
Hi. Please tell me why you deleted ]. Thanks, '''''] ]''''' 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
:Can this even be speedy deleted since it is a contested PROD?<tt> </tt>] ] ] 22:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
:I deleted it, as the deletion log showed, because it duplicated an existing topic. There is already a much more complete list of insurance topics in another article. Contested PROD? Well, the PROD reason was that it was an unnecessary disambig page, but the reason given for removing the PROD was "removing PROD, this is now a list not a disambiguation page". My reading of that is that the PROD was removed because it did not apply to the current version of the page {in effect it was a deletion proposal for a different article) rather than that you thought the version of the page which was current when you removed the PROD should not be deleted. If you do want to contest the deletion then let me know, and I will undelete the article. However, I will then immediately take it to AfD, as it is clearly totally redundant as a duplication of an existing topic. My opinion is that leaving it as it is will save time and trouble and almost certainly produce the same end result. ] (]) 08:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


] is acting like ] ] (]) 08:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== Grandmaster Caz ==


:Have not notified as some of recent edits outside regional context and perhaps in area of another terminology disagreement that I am certainly not going to be involved in but rest of pattern similar. ] (]) 09:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I was surprised to learn you cited notability concerns as a reason to delete the ] page. Please take a look at ]. Please note that it establishes his notability through reference to articles published online, published books, and interviews with rappers who cite him as an influence on their careers.
:: {{ping|ChaseKiwi}} Thanks for drawing my attention to this. See my comment at ]. As for notifying the editor, I think it's likely to be better not to. ] (]) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ta, but why once confirmed did you not totally revert on principle the edits to ]. As said, not an area I will get involved in, due to minor PoV, but the truly constructive editing was in my view, which I do not wish to impose on others, limited. ] (]) 01:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|ChaseKiwi}} I thought I had done that, but evidently I edited the wrong version from the history of the article. I've done it now. ] (]) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Another helpful block evader? ==
Please verify that your notability and verifiability concerns have been addressed. If I should promote the page to full status before you have had a chance to review and verify, please do me the courtesy of contacting me with any concerns before deleting the page again.


&ndash; is there a 1.0 somewhere? &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 19:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you.


: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} As you can see and , there are many accounts with names beginning with "Grahamcracker" or variations on it. Most of them are old accounts created years ago which have never edited, and as far as I saw was the only edit more recent than 2018, until Grahamcrackers 2.0 came along. I don't see any reason to connect any of them to the new account. ] (]) 19:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 15:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


: ...and are a couple more. ] (]) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I didn't cite notability concerns: Tracer9999, who proposed the deletion, did so. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the deleted article did not establish notability, lacking any references at all to reliable independent sources. ] (]) 09:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


== Userspace drafts == == Partial block request ==


Hi. A quick tip: wasn't actually necessary, {{tl|Userspace draft}} automatically applies NOINDEX. Regards, ] (]) 13:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC) JB, please block from editing ]. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 14:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Skywatcher68}} {{Done}}. Looking at the other edits from that IP address, I'm not sure a total block wouldn't be better, but obviously the lion's share of the problematic editing is on that article, so we may as well just block that one article and warn about a possible block on others if necessary. Let's hope that's enough to get the message across. ] (]) 15:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


and are still doing the same thing. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 15:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== IP template at 2.220.204.70 ==
:{{ping|Skywatcher68}} I've totally blocked the account for 2 weeks, and I've added 2 months to the IP block, and made it cover editing from an account, rather than being anon-only. I'll happily extend either or both blocks if need be; this is one of the situations where collateral damage from an IP bock isn't a concern. ] (]) 16:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Another partial block request ==
The IP complained that the template implied that s/he had committed vandalism, presumably because the template says "In response to vandalism from this IP address". No such finding has occurred, AFAIK. I actually came to this page to remove it a few days ago, and saw that it had been removed. I think it is being replaced because not everyone is clear that it was originally placed in error.


Please block from editing ] and ]. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
If I've misread the situation please let me know, but can we agree to follow the WP version of the Hippocratic oath, and leave it off until there's a consensus it belongs?--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 20:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} {{Not done}}. Absolutely out of the question. The editing history of the IP range makes it abundantly clear that, although that school article is the main target, there's plenty of vandalism on other pages too, so a total block is needed. I also see that the range has previously been blocked several times for short periods, without any impact, so I've gone for two years. ] (]) 21:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:I was just informed that the template in question is one standardly used. I'm in the middle of watching the World Championships, so I can't do much more now, but I now have a better understanding of why this template was used. I'll engage in a discussion about the general use when the game is over.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 23:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::Had a feeling you would need to do that instead. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 21:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== Good article review concerns ==


== Janessian ==
I have recently finished a good article review for ] and in light of complete dissatisfaction with the article shown by ] I would like to ask you to view the review ]. Please note that this is an informal request for comment not a formal request for second opinion.<tt> </tt>] ] ] 05:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


Is there anything that should be done about the fact he has been making borderline legal threats? ] (]) 20:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== A cookie for you! ==
: {{ping|Insanityclown1}} It would be perfectly possible to block them indefinitely for that. However, I see it as just rather childish bluster, and not a serious threat, and for a new editor I think it better to not come in with the heavy guns right away. I have given them a 24 hour edit-warring block, which I regard as fairly minimal, in the hope that they will get the message. However, unfortunately I have to say "in the hope", not "in the expectation", and if they continue in the same way, I will be perfectly willing to reconsider every aspect of the case, including the possibility of a block for legal threats. ] (]) 20:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I’m inclined to agree with your statement regarding the likelihood of the legal threats being anything to be concerned about (I’m taking the bar exam later this year). Just wanted to check because I know it’s against policy and some people can get very nervous when they see threats like that. ] (]) 20:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::: {{ping|Insanityclown1}} Yes indeed: a chilling effect. I would actually take the threats much more seriously if they were addressed to inexperienced editors who might be more at risk of being intimidated, but most of the editors this person has posted to have more than enough relevant experience to know better than to worry about this. The editor who was threatened with the police, for example, has been here for over 18 years, has made tens of thousands of edits, and has to a considerable extent specialised in dealing with vandals and other unconstructive editors, so I don't think this will perturb them. Anyway, I think the most important thing is a short block as a warning, and whether the reason for the block is given as edit-warring, legal threats, harassment, or anything else you can think up, is not that big a deal. ] (]) 21:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@], @], I also received similar comments on my talk page from the same user. I was asked to apologise for making content and photos of victims without permission and he want to call the police. It is shocking to be honest. ] (]) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] I frankly don't see how @] has any claim that they can bring, much less one that relief can be granted for. ] (]) 22:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@], @], What should I do with the harassment section? I am kinda affected by this. ] (]) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@] I deleted the screed when they posted it on my page. ] (]) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Deja Vu situation btw. I was actually accused of being a anti-death penalty activist back in 2022 for publishing the execution of drug traffickers and some editor made personal attacks on the deletion nomination discussions of such articles I made. That guy also got a warning. ] (]) 22:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hope that this does not happen again by the way. @], @] ] (]) 22:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: {{ping|NelsonLee20042020}} My apoplogies. When I said above "The editor who was threatened with the police", I didn't realise that the same threat had been made to you. I now see that the editor made two posts to your talk page, but I originally noticed only one of them, which was not the one containing that threat. I am not a lawyer, so nothing I say should be taken as an authoritaive statement of the law. However, I am totally confident that the threat to involve the police is nothing to worry about. Even if it is true that using the image without permission is illegal, it is merely a matter of copyright infringement, and the copyright holder can ask for it to be taken down; it is not a criminal matter, and the police would not have any authority to take any action. I know from my own experience that such threats can be frightening, even if they are completely empty threats, as I had an unpleasant experience some years ago, but I really don't think there's any need to be worried about this. Nevertheless, if this editor makes another threat, please let me know, and I will almost certainly block indefinitely, if necessary with talk page access and email blocked too. ] (]) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::thank you for the understanding, @]. I certainly hope there is no recurrence of the same incident. Happy editing to you, and @]. ] (]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::@] I am not a lawyer yet, so the same disclaimer of I am not offering legal advice applies, but JBW is correct. Nothing pertaining to this "incident" is a criminal matter, only civil. The threat of involving the police is just that, a threat. The intent is most likely to intimidate other editors and chill speech that they don't like. ] (]) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Not exactly perturbed but it did make me want to avoid Misplaced Pages for the afternoon. :-) &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 19:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: Yes. In the "unpleasant experience" I mentioned above, the troublemaker actually got as far as getting a lawyer to send a demand to the Wikimedia Foundation to reveal the IP addresses of a number of editors, including me. I got an email from Wikimedia legal, informing me of the demand. They came as close, I think, to telling me I had nothing to worry about as they could without telling me I had nothing to worry about, because they are lawyers, and don't want to commit themselves, just in case. Anyway, maybe you can imagine how discomforting it was, getting a notification of someone taking serious steps towards legal action, not just the usual empty bluster, which very carefully stopped short of saying there was nothing to worry about. Needless to say, nothing came of it. ] (]) 20:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@], @], @]; guys, one of the pages I created where the user Janessian kinda reverted the images and personal info, he did it again. I get the questions he asked in his edit reasons about the feelings of having a family member as a murderer or victim posted on wikipedia but I found it apparently too emotional and inappropriate for him to go into such an aggressive confrontation. ] (]) 12:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::At most, if I am in his position, I would have simply just nominate the image for deletion if it concerns him so much about seeing the image could cause sadness or outrage to the family on a personal level, but it is a different story for him to consider the article as a surmised wrong version even though it was info from the cited sources, or even resort to personal questioning of the editors' morals. What is the solution though? ] (]) 12:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I reverted his edits, told him not to delete them again without consensus. If he continues, i will report him for edit warring. ] (]) 16:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::@], @]: Isabelle Belato has put a partial block on the editor; they can still edit ] but not the article itself. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 20:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm guessing that was a response to me asking for the page to be protected. ] (]) 20:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Hi, firstly, it is not a threat. A friend from Germany has alerted that certain photos have been used without consent and she urged people to make police report about it and to seek legal advice. I do not wish to do that so I deleted the pictures myself. Shockingly, every single time I deleted it, there is a group of people who reverted it. I do not understand why they are so insistent on publishing the pictures of the deceased, exposing them to a global audience. Putting copyrighted and consent issues aside, why does it bring you satisfaction and joy to publish the pictures tagged to a summarised report that is not the whole truth? Do you know that reporters sometimes get their facts wrong? Just by citing numerous reports, they felt that the story is true.
:::::::::::Stop. Think. Reflect.
:::::::::::Who is harassing who? ] (]) 04:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Guess what, German law doesn't apply. US law does. No one is taking "satisfaction" or "joy" with any of this. To answer your question, you are very clearly harassing others and frankly behaving in a manner that illustrates that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 04:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@], I received a reply from Janessian on ]. It is really serious. ] (]) 04:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I'm working on handling this. ] (]) 04:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::@] Understand. Thank you.
:::::::::::::::I did not directly confront him for his statements out of consideration that he was likely misguided in his actions, and hoped he can stop out of his own volition, and repeatedly gave him the benefit of the doubt. Plus, the reason why I joined Misplaced Pages is because of my interest in crime.
:::::::::::::::If I confront him, there will be no end to this conflict or for the dust to settle down when it should be, and I do not wish to make enemies either. For once, I must say it, he had gone out of line for attacking the others and myself, and his accusations are ironically directed at a murder victim's distant relative (I don't feel like talking about it). ] (]) 05:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::No worries. @]'s behavior is entirely unacceptable as far as i'm concerned. I'm not an admin so there isn't much I can do beyond reporting it, which I have. ] (]) 05:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::@], thank you. I hope he does not go after me, and if he uses it against me, the situation will not be pretty. ] (]) 06:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


: {{ping|Insanityclown1|NelsonLee20042020|Skywatcher68}} I was going to put a total indef bock on the account, but I got called away. I see no prospect of the editor doing any constructive editing, and although the problems centre on editing the article, as discussed above there are some really objectionable talk page edits too. However, maybe ] is right; I suppose it makes sense to give the editor another chance to start discussing. Well, we'll see... ] (]) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
::I accept the reasons for such a block. If worse comes to worse, then we will have no choice but to use the ultimate solution, so as to fulfil the need for deterrence. ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
::@], @], @], but still, what if he went to other articles to do similar stuff? ] (]) 22:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | :D ] (]) 17:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
::: Then, unless there were specific reasons not to, I would put an indef total block on the account. ] (]) 22:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
|}
::::@], noted, I understand. I believe no one would really go that far but let's be cautious regardless. ] (]) 00:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
== Talkback ==


:::@], @], @]. Thank you for the help, guys. ] (]) 22:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{talkback|Bsadowski1|Unblock on hold|ts=20:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)}}
]]] 20:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


: Incidentally, I don't think page protection would have been a reasonable option, since only one editor was concerned; if we were going to take action only in relation to the one page, then it had to be Isabelle's method of partially blocking the account. ] (]) 20:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== Vandalism at the ] article ==
::fair enough. ] (]) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


@], @], @], what can be the best way to respond to his messages on ]? , , , , I can see the reasons for him wanting the pictures taken down, but I had a bad feeling about the message itself. Plus, all crime wiki articles often use news reports apart from court sources or books to support the information published on the article. I find that he did not comprehend or understand that part, and some of his parts about working with the police to write crime on wikipedia is a bit hard considering that we are not working in that field. He also said he will refer to crime report in this case. ] (]) 12:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi there. You semi-protected the ] article, which is good, however you left the of the vandalising IP editor on the same page. S/he adamantly writes nonsense into the image caption field of the infobox: "''Seal with Rich Alderwick in Frankfurt, Germany (2006), performing at the "concert against Amsaim"."'' Concert against Amsaim? What kind of nonsense is that? This is not edit warring/content dispute but blatant vandalism. I have thusly removed this disruptive edit. Thank you. ] (]) 10:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
:You are quite right. I didn't notice that the name "Amsaim" in the edits was the same as the name of another editor who had edited the article. Thanks for pointing it out. ] (]) 10:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


:@], @], @], for now, is it possible for the images to be nominated for deletion? ] (]) 12:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi James - ] is on my watchlist and I just noticed the same vandalism there and just for the record - I am the photographer who took the Lionel Richie image and updated his info box with a 2011 picture of Lionel. I was present at this live performance - I do not know who Rich Alderwick is, but he was never on stage with Lionel Richie.
:@], @], @], his subsequent replies inside his talk page , , . I read through it, and I do not feel good about this. His stance is clear here. ] (]) 14:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== Revdel request ==
Cheers
Di --] (]) 07:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


Hey, JB, would you mind deleting these? <br>
==Voice actor IP vandal is back==
:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Life_on_Mars_(song)&diff=prev&oldid=1269624464<br>
...using ] ] (]) 16:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Life_on_Mars_(song)&diff=prev&oldid=1269626849<br>
Dunno what's up with that editor but they've been blocked indefinitely. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 19:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} {{Done}}, & the other edits from the same account, too. Totally fucking crazy. ] (]) 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


== Haven't followed up on Poledlimps' talk page ==
==User:TheTakeover Sockpuppet blocking==
The user behind TheTakeover (user2005) appealed to another administrator that he is familiar with and had this block overturned, both on his main account and on the two sockpuppets. This is what the administrator said as evidence for overturning the block "There may be MEAT, there may be tag-team behaviour, but abuse of multiple accounts it is not. –xenotalk 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)"


I am 2601:589:4e00:5dd0:71e8:c982:8a25:8b3e and 69.160.112.226, and I have followed up on Poledlimps' talk page, this time with a registered account, and I do not plan to revert my edit(s) this time. Please respond. ] (]) 22:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
It is my understanding that whether it was a meat or sock puppet isn't relevant and this admin seems to agree with the fact that it was at minimum a meetpuppet but alludes to some 'technical evidence' as a reason for the unblocking. You can read more about this at the or at the . ] (]) 12:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
: I don't really know what it is that you are asking for. Can you clarify your request? Are you the person who used the account "Poledlimps"? ] (]) 22:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:37, 17 January 2025

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84


This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Likely back again

user:Dudsboer is acting like User:Prince Of Roblox ChaseKiwi (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Have not notified as some of recent edits outside regional context and perhaps in area of another terminology disagreement that I am certainly not going to be involved in but rest of pattern similar. ChaseKiwi (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@ChaseKiwi: Thanks for drawing my attention to this. See my comment at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince Of Roblox. As for notifying the editor, I think it's likely to be better not to. JBW (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Ta, but why once confirmed did you not totally revert on principle the edits to Scotch-Irish Americans. As said, not an area I will get involved in, due to minor PoV, but the truly constructive editing was in my view, which I do not wish to impose on others, limited. ChaseKiwi (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@ChaseKiwi: I thought I had done that, but evidently I edited the wrong version from the history of the article. I've done it now. JBW (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Another helpful block evader?

Grahamcrackers 2.0 – is there a 1.0 somewhere?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: As you can see here and here, there are many accounts with names beginning with "Grahamcracker" or variations on it. Most of them are old accounts created years ago which have never edited, and as far as I saw this was the only edit more recent than 2018, until Grahamcrackers 2.0 came along. I don't see any reason to connect any of them to the new account. JBW (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
...and here are a couple more. JBW (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Partial block request

JB, please block 45.183.73.43 from editing 2002 Tampa Cessna 172 crash.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68:  Done. Looking at the other edits from that IP address, I'm not sure a total block wouldn't be better, but obviously the lion's share of the problematic editing is on that article, so we may as well just block that one article and warn about a possible block on others if necessary. Let's hope that's enough to get the message across. JBW (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems they've registered and are still doing the same thing.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I've totally blocked the account for 2 weeks, and I've added 2 months to the IP block, and made it cover editing from an account, rather than being anon-only. I'll happily extend either or both blocks if need be; this is one of the situations where collateral damage from an IP bock isn't a concern. JBW (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Another partial block request

Please block 2A02:C7C:D941:5A00:0:0:0:0/64 from editing Studio West (school) and Kenton School.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68:  Not done. Absolutely out of the question. The editing history of the IP range makes it abundantly clear that, although that school article is the main target, there's plenty of vandalism on other pages too, so a total block is needed. I also see that the range has previously been blocked several times for short periods, without any impact, so I've gone for two years. JBW (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Had a feeling you would need to do that instead.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Janessian

Is there anything that should be done about the fact he has been making borderline legal threats? Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Insanityclown1: It would be perfectly possible to block them indefinitely for that. However, I see it as just rather childish bluster, and not a serious threat, and for a new editor I think it better to not come in with the heavy guns right away. I have given them a 24 hour edit-warring block, which I regard as fairly minimal, in the hope that they will get the message. However, unfortunately I have to say "in the hope", not "in the expectation", and if they continue in the same way, I will be perfectly willing to reconsider every aspect of the case, including the possibility of a block for legal threats. JBW (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I’m inclined to agree with your statement regarding the likelihood of the legal threats being anything to be concerned about (I’m taking the bar exam later this year). Just wanted to check because I know it’s against policy and some people can get very nervous when they see threats like that. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Insanityclown1: Yes indeed: a chilling effect. I would actually take the threats much more seriously if they were addressed to inexperienced editors who might be more at risk of being intimidated, but most of the editors this person has posted to have more than enough relevant experience to know better than to worry about this. The editor who was threatened with the police, for example, has been here for over 18 years, has made tens of thousands of edits, and has to a considerable extent specialised in dealing with vandals and other unconstructive editors, so I don't think this will perturb them. Anyway, I think the most important thing is a short block as a warning, and whether the reason for the block is given as edit-warring, legal threats, harassment, or anything else you can think up, is not that big a deal. JBW (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Insanityclown1, @JBW, I also received similar comments on my talk page from the same user. I was asked to apologise for making content and photos of victims without permission and he want to call the police. It is shocking to be honest. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@NelsonLee20042020 I frankly don't see how @Janessian has any claim that they can bring, much less one that relief can be granted for. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Insanityclown1, @JBW, What should I do with the harassment section? I am kinda affected by this. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@NelsonLee20042020 I deleted the screed when they posted it on my page. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Deja Vu situation btw. I was actually accused of being a anti-death penalty activist back in 2022 for publishing the execution of drug traffickers and some editor made personal attacks on the deletion nomination discussions of such articles I made. That guy also got a warning. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Hope that this does not happen again by the way. @Insanityclown1, @JBW NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@NelsonLee20042020: My apoplogies. When I said above "The editor who was threatened with the police", I didn't realise that the same threat had been made to you. I now see that the editor made two posts to your talk page, but I originally noticed only one of them, which was not the one containing that threat. I am not a lawyer, so nothing I say should be taken as an authoritaive statement of the law. However, I am totally confident that the threat to involve the police is nothing to worry about. Even if it is true that using the image without permission is illegal, it is merely a matter of copyright infringement, and the copyright holder can ask for it to be taken down; it is not a criminal matter, and the police would not have any authority to take any action. I know from my own experience that such threats can be frightening, even if they are completely empty threats, as I had an unpleasant experience some years ago, but I really don't think there's any need to be worried about this. Nevertheless, if this editor makes another threat, please let me know, and I will almost certainly block indefinitely, if necessary with talk page access and email blocked too. JBW (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
thank you for the understanding, @JBW. I certainly hope there is no recurrence of the same incident. Happy editing to you, and @Insanityclown1. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@NelsonLee20042020 I am not a lawyer yet, so the same disclaimer of I am not offering legal advice applies, but JBW is correct. Nothing pertaining to this "incident" is a criminal matter, only civil. The threat of involving the police is just that, a threat. The intent is most likely to intimidate other editors and chill speech that they don't like. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Not exactly perturbed but it did make me want to avoid Misplaced Pages for the afternoon. :-)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes. In the "unpleasant experience" I mentioned above, the troublemaker actually got as far as getting a lawyer to send a demand to the Wikimedia Foundation to reveal the IP addresses of a number of editors, including me. I got an email from Wikimedia legal, informing me of the demand. They came as close, I think, to telling me I had nothing to worry about as they could without telling me I had nothing to worry about, because they are lawyers, and don't want to commit themselves, just in case. Anyway, maybe you can imagine how discomforting it was, getting a notification of someone taking serious steps towards legal action, not just the usual empty bluster, which very carefully stopped short of saying there was nothing to worry about. Needless to say, nothing came of it. JBW (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@JBW, @Insanityclown1, @Skywatcher68; guys, one of the pages I created where the user Janessian kinda reverted the images and personal info, he did it again. I get the questions he asked in his edit reasons about the feelings of having a family member as a murderer or victim posted on wikipedia but I found it apparently too emotional and inappropriate for him to go into such an aggressive confrontation. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
At most, if I am in his position, I would have simply just nominate the image for deletion if it concerns him so much about seeing the image could cause sadness or outrage to the family on a personal level, but it is a different story for him to consider the article as a surmised wrong version even though it was info from the cited sources, or even resort to personal questioning of the editors' morals. What is the solution though? NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I reverted his edits, told him not to delete them again without consensus. If he continues, i will report him for edit warring. Insanityclown1 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@Insanityclown1, @NelsonLee20042020: Isabelle Belato has put a partial block on the editor; they can still edit the Talk page but not the article itself.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm guessing that was a response to me asking for the page to be protected. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, firstly, it is not a threat. A friend from Germany has alerted that certain photos have been used without consent and she urged people to make police report about it and to seek legal advice. I do not wish to do that so I deleted the pictures myself. Shockingly, every single time I deleted it, there is a group of people who reverted it. I do not understand why they are so insistent on publishing the pictures of the deceased, exposing them to a global audience. Putting copyrighted and consent issues aside, why does it bring you satisfaction and joy to publish the pictures tagged to a summarised report that is not the whole truth? Do you know that reporters sometimes get their facts wrong? Just by citing numerous reports, they felt that the story is true.
Stop. Think. Reflect.
Who is harassing who? Janessian (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Guess what, German law doesn't apply. US law does. No one is taking "satisfaction" or "joy" with any of this. To answer your question, you are very clearly harassing others and frankly behaving in a manner that illustrates that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Insanityclown1 (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Insanityclown1, I received a reply from Janessian on User talk:PhilKnight#About Janessian. It is really serious. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm working on handling this. Insanityclown1 (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Insanityclown1 Understand. Thank you.
I did not directly confront him for his statements out of consideration that he was likely misguided in his actions, and hoped he can stop out of his own volition, and repeatedly gave him the benefit of the doubt. Plus, the reason why I joined Misplaced Pages is because of my interest in crime.
If I confront him, there will be no end to this conflict or for the dust to settle down when it should be, and I do not wish to make enemies either. For once, I must say it, he had gone out of line for attacking the others and myself, and his accusations are ironically directed at a murder victim's distant relative (I don't feel like talking about it). NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
No worries. @Janessian's behavior is entirely unacceptable as far as i'm concerned. I'm not an admin so there isn't much I can do beyond reporting it, which I have. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Insanityclown1, thank you. I hope he does not go after me, and if he uses it against me, the situation will not be pretty. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Insanityclown1, NelsonLee20042020, and Skywatcher68: I was going to put a total indef bock on the account, but I got called away. I see no prospect of the editor doing any constructive editing, and although the problems centre on editing the article, as discussed above there are some really objectionable talk page edits too. However, maybe Isabelle is right; I suppose it makes sense to give the editor another chance to start discussing. Well, we'll see... JBW (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I accept the reasons for such a block. If worse comes to worse, then we will have no choice but to use the ultimate solution, so as to fulfil the need for deterrence. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@Insanityclown1, @JBW, @Skywatcher68, but still, what if he went to other articles to do similar stuff? NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Then, unless there were specific reasons not to, I would put an indef total block on the account. JBW (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@JBW, noted, I understand. I believe no one would really go that far but let's be cautious regardless. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Insanityclown1, @JBW, @Skywatcher68. Thank you for the help, guys. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Incidentally, I don't think page protection would have been a reasonable option, since only one editor was concerned; if we were going to take action only in relation to the one page, then it had to be Isabelle's method of partially blocking the account. JBW (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
fair enough. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Insanityclown1, @JBW, @Skywatcher68, what can be the best way to respond to his messages on Talk:Killing of Wong Chik Yeok? , , , , I can see the reasons for him wanting the pictures taken down, but I had a bad feeling about the message itself. Plus, all crime wiki articles often use news reports apart from court sources or books to support the information published on the article. I find that he did not comprehend or understand that part, and some of his parts about working with the police to write crime on wikipedia is a bit hard considering that we are not working in that field. He also said he will refer to crime report in this case. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Insanityclown1, @JBW, @Skywatcher68, for now, is it possible for the images to be nominated for deletion? NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Insanityclown1, @JBW, @Skywatcher68, his subsequent replies inside his talk page , , . I read through it, and I do not feel good about this. His stance is clear here. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hey, JB, would you mind deleting these?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Life_on_Mars_(song)&diff=prev&oldid=1269624464
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Life_on_Mars_(song)&diff=prev&oldid=1269626849

Dunno what's up with that editor but they've been blocked indefinitely.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68:  Done, & the other edits from the same account, too. Totally fucking crazy. JBW (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Haven't followed up on Poledlimps' talk page

I am 2601:589:4e00:5dd0:71e8:c982:8a25:8b3e and 69.160.112.226, and I have followed up on Poledlimps' talk page, this time with a registered account, and I do not plan to revert my edit(s) this time. Please respond. Redappleone2 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't really know what it is that you are asking for. Can you clarify your request? Are you the person who used the account "Poledlimps"? JBW (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:JBW: Difference between revisions Add topic