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 11:03, 14 April 2015 editAditya Kabir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,908 edits →Help needed: added← 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:

{{pp-sock|expiry=9 April 2015|small=yes}}
<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 = 200K |maxarchivesize = 300K
|counter = 62 |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-->

* '''If I left you a message on your talk page:''' please answer on your talk page, and let me know, by pinging me there, or if you prefer by dropping a note on this page. (I make scarcely any use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.)
* '''If you leave me a message here:''' I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will ping you to let you know.
*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.
:{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{hidenew}}} }}|yes||{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{runon}}} }}|yes||}}<SPAN CLASS="plainlinks">''''''</SPAN>}}
:
*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 }}


== Glossaries == == Likely back again ==

Do we have them as articles? I can only think of Lists. This is to do with something at ]. I did ping Melanie, but she hasn't responded. If you get a moment, I'd appreciate you having a look. ] (]) 16:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Peridon}} Sorry it's taken me a few days to respond, but I've not had much time available for Misplaced Pages recently. My thoughts on this matter are as follows.
# I don't think that we normally have glossaries of this kind. I certainly can't think of any.
# To me, the page seems to run totally against the spirit of ], even if nothing in there explicitly refers to glossaries.
# Does the topic satisfy Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines? Bearing in mind that we already have an article ], does specifically the glossary of terms related to pewter have sufficient coverage ''in its own right'' to have a separate article? Looking at ] I doubt it.
# I wonder about the copyright status. Do individual editors of pages at governmentauctionsuk.com have the authority to over-ride the general copyright provisions of the site as a whole? I cannot find anything saying so, and the statements not only at the bottom of the page but also at http://governmentauctionsuk.com/page/terms-of-service are certainly not compatible with the CCNA. Of course, it is entirely possible that the copyright owner is allowed to post the content at governmentauctionsuk.com while still retaining the right to license it under freer terms than the strictly controlled access at that website, but I would be much happier if I could see a statement from that website explicitly saying so. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 18:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
:He's certainly able to edit that site, or get edits done very quickly - he was getting CC licensing up on it. I don't know if it's still there, as I suggested he was getting a bit ahead of things by doing that before we knew if it was going to be needed. It is gone - but the 'LEARN MORE' buttons are still out of the box, which they weren't when I first saw that page. I have a feeling he is GAUK, or at least a webmaster with no worries about changing things in a quite major way.. The membership mentioned looks to provide info not available to the non-member rather than having your own page there - things like the prices achieved in the auctions. ] (]) 20:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Peridon}} Yes, but I have known cases where someone such as a webmaster, or a teacher designated to keep the school web site in order, has been under the mistaken impression that being in that position gives them unlimited authority to post anything about the organisation they work for, whereas someone in a more senior position has taken the view that they do not have the right to release content subject to copyright. However, in this case I don't really regard that as a major issue, and very probably this editor does have the necessary authority to release the copyright, as far as that site is concerned. On the other hand there is the complication that the text was first attributed to http://www.pewtersociety.org/resources/glossary, which also claims copyright: can we be sure that is not the original source? I think of my four points above, I would attach least weight to number 4, and most to number 2, but I am still distinctly unsure about the copyright situation. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 13:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Peridon}} By the way, what 'LEARN MORE' buttons, and out of what box? I don't see anything saying 'LEARN MORE' anywhere. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 13:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
:::At the bottom of the http://governmentauctionsuk.com/antique-auction-guides/pewter#8 page - but I've just noticed the CC licensing bit is still there on the white part just above. That's what I was saying to him about contradiction. I've not heard anything from him for about a week, but he could just be waiting patiently for a reply. (''Unusual that, here...'') Would you have a word with him? Your explanations look clearer than my thoughts... ] (]) 13:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Hold the presses! Being interested in pewter (and possessing a few tankards which are very nice with some good ale in them...), I was reading the rest of the GAUK page. I suspect there's a copyvio there, indicated in the 'How it's made' section by "As with most hand-crafted work, our pewter pieces may vary slightly in shape", which is obviously a statement by a manufacturer rather than an auction site. If that's copyvio, the rest probably is too. ] (]) 14:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{Ping|Peridon}} Well spotted. That seems to come from http://www.woodburypewter.com/history_care.asp, as does a large chunk of the text at the governmentauctionsuk.com page. Prompted by that, I have searched for a few more quotes from that page, and unfortunately what I have found is the all too common situation where text appears all over the internet, making it difficult to track down the original source. (It amazes me how many people honestly think that anything posted anywhere on the internet can legitimately be copied and reused anywhere, copyright for some reason not applying.) However, even without knowing which sources are original and which are copies, it looks as if the page at governmentauctionsuk.com has been entirely assembled from bits and pieces copied from various other web pages, making it virtually certain that the whole thing is a copyright infringement, and the claim to have the right to release it under a Creative Commons license is probably completely spurious. I will drop a note to the talk page of the editor in question. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 14:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

:* FYI, glossaries are explicitly allowed by ]: "''Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field;''" and we have many of them – see ]. ] (]) 13:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

== Cal Wells ==

I think the dab page should be deleted. The hatnote (itself irregular) in ] should suffice to distinguish the two people. ] (]) 19:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
:{{Reply to|Clarityfiend}} I fully understand your point, but it seems to me that, in view of the potential damage to a living person, it is better that anyone looking for Cal Wells the financial investment executive on Misplaced Pages should see a page where it is made ''abundantly'' unambiguous that the person covered is a different Cal Wells. It is very easy to just launch into reading the text without reading little things like an italic note at the top of the page saying that there is another person of the same name, whereas if the search leads in the first instance to a page where the '''only''' information given is that there are two different people of that name, the risk of misunderstanding is far less. I clearly remember a time many years ago when a businessman called John Le Mesurier was much in the news in Britain, because he had been involved in serious illegal activities. At that time the actor ] was still alive, and very famous in Britain. Television and radio news reporting about the crooked businessman '''always''' said "the businessman John Le Mesurier", evidently in order to avoid confusion with the actor John Le Mesurier, but even with that disambiguation, I knew people who were convinced that it was the actor who was in trouble, and that "the businessman John Le Mesurier" was just a journalists' way of referring to him. When it comes to protecting the reputation of innocent people, I really think we should err on the side of providing more disambiguation than might seem to be needed needed, rather than risking providing too little. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 13:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

::Unfortunately, that's not what a dab page is for. It's for navigation to existing articles. There isn't one for the other Wells, nor do I see any notoriety that might be affixed to the wrong person, as in the Le Mesurier example. Time for an ]? ] (]) 01:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

:::I know full well that "that's not what a dab page is for". I was, in fact, assuming you would have read my comment at ], which begins "I am well aware that this page does not comply with the guidelines for disambiguation pages", but presumably you hadn't, since if you had you would see the potential for "notoriety that might be affixed to the wrong person". Do you have a suggestion for a better way of dealing with the problem, or do you think that we should just ignore it, and leave Cal Wells the financial investment executive to suffer? When he asked for help on this issue, this was the best solution I could think of. If you can think of a better solution, then that will be great, but unless and until a better solution is produced I think the policy ] should take precedence over the guideline ]. If you strongly disagree then of course you are free to start a deletion discussion, but if so then please let me know, so that I can explain my reasons. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 10:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

::::Where does it say that Wells "bankrupted his team"? I don't see it in the history anywhere. Seems to me somebody would have to dig deep outside of Misplaced Pages to make that connection, and even there I only find it mentioned in one forum. Therefore I will go ahead with the Afd. ] (]) 09:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

== Open proxies ==

There are a large number of IP addresses accessible through a VPN application called Cyberghost which haven't been blocked on Misplaced Pages. I can send you a list; would you be willing to take a look at and potentially block them? ] (]) 18:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
:{{Reply to|Conifer}} I saw this message about a day after you posted it, by which time at least one of the IP addresses had already been blocked, and since I was short of time I left it at that, assuming someone else had dealt with it. However, if you know that some of the IP addresses are still not blocked, please do send me a list. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 13:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
::{{You've got mail}} ] (]) 00:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
::*I know I've accidentally edited Misplaced Pages in the past whilst forgetting that I had CyberGhost enabled. ] ] 14:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
:::So, remember to disable it? Not sure if this is a problem. ] (]) 22:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


] is acting like ] ] (]) 08:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


: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)
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
:: {{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? ==
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 09:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


&ndash; is there a 1.0 somewhere? &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 19:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== Fishy articles ==


: {{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)
"James", there are a number of articles being produced about various fish, which purport to come from a number of different editors. You have removed linkspam from one or two. The articles are all in the same format - an infobox ,and a small number of paragraphs, each of only a few words, giving the common name of the fish, distribution, etc. The article titles are the latin taxonomic names of the fish. This must surely all be the work of one editor. Calling it sockpuppetry is only marginally correct, as the articles are edited only by one editor and, apart from being excessively short, are not controversial. Some have been CSD labeled, which is not an accurate connotation. Any thoughts? --<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 18:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Anthony Bradbury}} I agree that the word "sockpuppet" is questionable, though at least one of the accounts was created while another one was blocked, no doubt to evade the block, so I suppose that one at least is a sockpuppet. Also, whether intentionally or not, an effect of using so many accounts is to evade scrutiny, as editors seeing the unhelpful editing of one account and not seeing all the messages sent to the other accounts treat it as a new editor who does not know how Misplaced Pages works, rather than as a persistent disruptive editor who is ignoring numerous messages about the problems with his or her editing. The ] (no context) speedy deletions (at least the ones I have seen) are not really valid, as it is clear what the articles are about: namely particular species of fish. The creator of the articles has explicitly described his or her intention as "to bring up publicity through wikipedia", so there is no doubt that the purpose is spamming. Apart from the spam links, though, the articles, although very poorly written, do no harm, and to have an article giving a few bare facts such as the Latin taxonomical name is perhaps more useful than not having an article at all, so I'm not inclined to delete them. Now that I have blocked a couple of the accounts indefinitely, though, if any more are created it will be block-evasion, and I will be willing to consider deleting them. There are still 114 articles with links to the spammed site (down from 533 when I checked yesterday), and I think all 114 of them should be removed; the only reason I haven't done them is that there is a limit to the time I am willing to spend on it in a day. Also, if any more links to the same site appear, then it should go on the spam blacklist. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


: ...and are a couple more. ] (]) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks for ploughing through this lot - I wasn't sure what was to happen with these over-headlined stubs. If they are to be kept (minus BEDO link), I can make a start on condensing them into one para (by rolling up the blocked editor's contrib list from the bottom). ] (]) 21:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Elmidae}} If you are willing to put the work in, that will be very helpful. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
::::OK, will get on it (tomorrow - yawn :) --] (]) 21:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


== Partial block request ==
::Well, a link search now shows the spam link on 218 pages, instead of 114. However, I have looked at a substantial sample of the pages, and none of them has had the link added since I checked and found 114. Linksearch sometimes seems to miss a lot of pages, for no obvious reason. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 09:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


JB, please block from editing ]. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 14:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== about deleting sollie ephraim page ==
:{{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)
hey, please i need help i want to create a page for a local modeler on wikipedia page please gelp me on what to do please!
:::{{ping|Jodyegenasis}} I suggest a first step is to look at Misplaced Pages's ] to see whether she is suitable to be the subject of a Misplaced Pages article. I will try and give you more help when I can, but now I am out of time. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC) :{{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 ==
== notability ==


Please block from editing ] and ]. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
okay thank you for the respond. but what do i write first before i beging the page? like
: {{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)
::Had a feeling you would need to do that instead. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 21:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Janessian ==
{{notability} }
{{model } }
| name =
|birth_name etc ???


Is there anything that should be done about the fact he has been making borderline legal threats? ] (]) 20:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
: {{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)
confused
::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)
::@], @], @], but still, what if he went to other articles to do similar stuff? ] (]) 22:38, 16 January 2025 (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)


:::@], @], @]. Thank you for the help, guys. ] (]) 22:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
==Range block==


: 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)
Would you discuss about the possibility of a range block? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 09:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
::fair enough. ] (]) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|OccultZone}} I will certainly discuss it if you let me know what range, and why it should be blocked. However, right now I am out of time, so I will not be able to follow this up at least for several hours, and perhaps not until tomorrow. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 09:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
::A week ago, I happened to discover the real master of 3 suspected socks that are now blocked by Elockid. Upon my findings, I have realized that there is problem with the IP addresses. You sure remember , Gilliam had blocked one of these for 1 year with the summary <nowiki>{{blocked proxy}}</nowiki>. 216.81.81/94 is the particular extension that is abused by this editor. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 09:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|OccultZone}} You seriously overestimate my memory if you can write "You sure remember.." and link to blocks I made nearly three years ago. No, I don't remember them at all. However, I have spent some time looking at the history of the range you mention, and have come to the following conclusions.


@], @], @], 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)
::: The IP range is allocated to the United States Department Of Homeland Security. I can find no evidence that any IP address in the range is hosting an open proxy: if one was in January 2014, at the time of Gilliam's block, then it does not seem to be still doing so now. The smallest blockable IP range that covers all the IP addresses you mention would be 216.81.64.0/19 (i.e. everything from 216.81.64.0 to 216.81.95.127). Since the beginning of 2014, that range has produced 1357 edits, at an average rate of 88 per month. I have checked a fairly substantial sample of recent edits, and a smaller sample of older ones. A few of the edits I checked were unconstructive in one way or another (as for example sequence of three vandalism edits) but the substantial majority were perfectly constructive. Also, none of the few unconstructive edits I saw were very recent, and there is no point in blocking because of past problems which are not continuing. I did not see any recent edits which in any way resembled the editing which led to the blocks you mentioned three years ago, so those are irrelevant as far as considering any new block is concerned. The Sockpuppet investigation you link to has links to edits from this IP range, but those edits date back to 2012. The overall conclusion of all that is that I don't see any grounds at all for any block now. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 20:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
::::And you can block the individual IPs that are used by this editor? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 04:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


:@], @], @], for now, is it possible for the images to be nominated for deletion? ] (]) 12:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
== Help needed ==
:@], @], @], 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 ==
] made his first Misplaced Pages edit a couple of months back by stating in his userpage - "My Username is LoverBoyInGarden . I don't remember my password and i didn't register anu E-Mail so i am unable to access . I had no other choice . So I created a new account] (]) 04:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)" (). A sock of ] took over the account ] for short while. ] made a total of 4 edits, though his talk page and user page was regularly edited by CosmicEmperor.


Hey, JB, would you mind deleting these? <br>
The CosmicEmperor's userpage was repeatedly vandalized by another sock of Undertrialryryr - like ] () - and a number of IPs. I met him on ] where he behaved most erratically, probably charged with emotions. He did not like my stand and my rebuke, but was unable to take strong stand. So, he created yet another account - ], and came to on my talk page. Even in the discussion on Bengali people talk page another sock of Undertrialryryr - ] - made an appearance.
:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Life_on_Mars_(song)&diff=prev&oldid=1269624464<br>
: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 ==
I am sorry to be slightly uncomfortable at this bizarre story. I really couldn't help noticing that the socks listed on ] have modus operandi similar to CE. And, I was also not very surprised to notice the similarities between names like CosmicEmperor and Universal tiger. I hope this is not some kind of juvenile game. Can you give me any advise? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 10:41, 14 April 2015 (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)
::<small></small> BTW, this looks like another attempt to discredit CosmicEmperor. ] has been blocked. If he needs guidance, please intervene. My level of patience is totally useless for this kind of stuff. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 11:03, 14 April 2015 (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