Jump to content

User talk:A. B./July 2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a Wikipedia user talkpage.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs (and the users whose comments appear on it) may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. You can leave me a message here. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B./July_2012.


Archive This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:A. B. for the month of July 2012. Exchanges spilling over into early August may have been retained elsewhere to avoid breaking their continuity.

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form.

Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the User talk:A. B. page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the user talk:A. B. page and then add your comments there.


Indianetzone.com: blacklisted

[edit]

Hi A.B. the following URL has been blacklisted [here]. I would like to use the content here for a few of my articles like Pushkar Bhan & others. Can we discuss on how this can be moved to the whitelist. -Ambar wiki (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask an administrator "whitelist" specific links by posting your request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
Here's some relevant history:
I also suspect that you may find the original content that indiazone.net scraped with some further web-searching.
I prefer another administrator decide this issue since I was the original blacklisting administrator. Please reference this discussion if you decide to make a whitelisting request.
Thanks for adding content to our articles -- it's what makes Wikipedia such a great resource!
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

108.196.86.132

[edit]

Well, he made another edit without using the talk page. What now? - Areaseven (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same person has used the IP address 108.196.86.132, Cflores29 (now indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing), and 68.4.7.52. I have blocked the 2 IP addresses for one week. If the same person reappears under a new account name or IP, you can report it immediately to the vandalism noticeboard and he or she will be blocked if you also reference these 3 accounts. That prior history gives the noticeboard administrator grounds to immediately block the account as opposed to having to give them more chances, trying to explain things, etc.
Thanks for your patience, persistence and caring! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's at it again. This time, he's 68.4.6.107. - Areaseven (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see another administrator has blocked this IP; I'm sorry I wasn't online yesterday to help you. Thanks for continue watching for this guy. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at Freshh's talk page.
Message added 19 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

J (t) Freshh (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 66.25.135.33

[edit]

Thank you for your helpful message on my talk page. I have replied there. Mea culpa. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for refactoring my AIV edit. I was stuck in a loop of edit conflicts when my browser froze before I could I could fix the post myself. Meters (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I appreciate your reporting the problem IP. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danman80 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Sorry - I guess I was blocking at the same time and didn't notice you already had. If you think a week is more appropriate you can go ahead and reduce it but based on the short contribs list, I indef'd. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite works for me. I was sitting on the fence indefinite vs. one week. I prefer indefinite but I wasn't sure it wasn't more politically correct to give this person more chances, etc, etc.
Frankly, I don't see anything good coming out of that account. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at RadioFan's talk page.
Message added 01:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

RadioFan (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greatoneiv

[edit]

I've given the dude due oppurtunity, as listed in the talk page. It's not a POV issue, it's being wrong but choosing to be right - the info is incorrect, and it's impossible to prove his viewpoint for his favorite. Guy's also made up false cites after I offered to provide the info to him. Papacha (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read your point of discussion... what consensus do you wish for us to reach? What he's done is belie the article over the course of this week, it's not unlike editing the Academy Award for Best Picture this year to go to The Help over The Artist. I'm all over diplomacy, but negotiation's a little short of impossible here. Admittedly sources could be muchly improved as they're gleaned from the yearly letter, but his edits are in no way arguable. Papacha (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at:
  • Wikipedia:Vandalism
    • "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not applicable. A fellow with the handle of "Greatoneiv" altering articles to favor the person he's nicknamed for in repeated fashion, then ignoring an offer to verify and creating a false source in lieu of evidence is purely bad faith. Papacha (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just leave a nice note on his talk page encouraging pointing him to our guidance for newcomers and telling him to take his proposed edits to the talk page? Take a look at WP:BITE. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now, I'm neither bitey not pointy, only ornery at the moment. The last I'll say is I made an offer to intercede, guy was silent on the matter and copy/pasted a ref from '94 to source his edit in '99. I don't believe an indefinite ban was in the offing, but I feel you aver him too much credit despite proof to the contrary. Papacha (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RadioFan

[edit]

RadioFan would NOT make a good admin. Have a look at the number of his withdrawn deletion nominations: it's atrocious, well below 50% of his proposed AfDs when last I checked. This problem of overeager blocking of supposed vandalism is a recurrent problem. 74.109.40.124 (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re 98.185.48.50 and the Ica Stones

[edit]

The Ica Stones are a fringe topic and draws a lot of errors. The IP address was fairly close to that of another editor who had been causing continual problems with the article. As 98.185.48.50 started up shortly after 98.185.55.83, I (and I'm fairly certain Dougweller) had assumed it was the same individual on a different computer. I am aware of WP:BITE, and do not always leave warnings, as I could have here (uw-nor), or here. I avoid leaving uw-advert warnings whenever someone adds a non-notable rum producer to the List of rum producers. I appreciate your concern for the site, but 98.185.48.50 (at the time it was editing the Ica stones article) was likely a sock for a tendentious editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I see the connection -- that other IP is also a Cox Communications address in Roanoke. Sorry to bother you -- you were right and I was wrong. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, glad to see someone WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk)

That IP sock

[edit]

I just discovered that Meco reported this at WP:AIV without notifying me. Is there anyway of sorting this out - you removed it with [1] but it still says my block was unwarranted. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I have notified you? I would gladly have done so if I had realized that to be desired, but I wouldn't know of any guidelines that suggest or explain why that should be done. __meco (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This all started with my mistake; I was ignorant of Special:Contributions/98.185.55.83. I've blocked the IP and made a note about the other IP address along with my block. As for the exchange of comments at WP:AIV, they've been erased, not archived on another page, so someone would have to wade through all the edit history for find that exchange. That's all I know to do at this point.
I have seen so many touchy-trigger-finger, BITEy reports at WP:AIV recently. It seems like more of a problem than it was in 2010 before I took a long Wikibreak. I guess I, in turn, had an overly touchy-trigger-finger reaction of a sort when I saw this WP:AIV report. The fact is, this IP was warned (by Ian.thomson) and blocked (by Dougweller) correctly the first time (in light of prior history with the other IP) and reported correctly to WP:AIV (by Meco) the second time.
Overall assessment: the villain in this was the IP and the chump was me.
Suggestion for the future: I have worked a lot with spammers who frequently change IPs and user names to avoid establishing an obvious pattern of multiple warnings; they get a uw-spam1 with one account, then another with a new IP, etc. Where we know this is going on, we've learned to list the other accounts as we warn the new ones so that folks can see the accumulated history. That might be useful in non-spam cases like this guy's, too.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of others in tracking this person, I have left additional comments and the list of IPs at User talk:Rrrr5. This person should be blocked on sight; no additional warnings are required. Just be sure to include a note and a link to User talk:Rrrr5 when reporting an account to WP:AIV.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor

[edit]

User talk:98.223.133.112. I was going to tag this talk page again and enter it in the vandal board. It doesn't seem like vandalism but more not knowing policies such as BLP etc. They may just need an admin to leave a note on there page. I had noticed you were active on the vandal board so I thought I would mention it to you. Feel free to delete/ignore/archive this if it is trivial.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take a look. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His edits may or may not be problematic but they appear to be made in good faith and not blatantly vandalistic. We don't tag people as vandals unless it's clear that's what they really are; see WP:VANDAL for what we consider vandalism and what we don't. Likewise, that noticeboard is just for persistent clear-cut vandalism; see our Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism.
I think maybe this person just needs someone to work with them in an un-BITEy way to steer them on the right path.
I also left a note at User talk:Elizium23 asking for help (and patience).
Thanks for your help. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B./July_2012&oldid=1154326954"