User talk:JBW

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.

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 .

Old account

Hi. Left a reply on my user page. Anyways, can you delete the userpage of my old account, "User: Doctor Papa Jones". I tried editing it myself to add the "Db-userreq", but coudn't. Thanks in advance. DocPapaJones (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #96597

Help me Obi Wan Kenobi. You are my only hope Seriously though. Can you make any sense of this? Is there any way you could recommend restoring TPA and carrying to WP:AN. Blocked in 2013. Too many UTRS tickets to count. SMDH. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

About "Laurenherring"

If you haven't done so already, Google the name + "Hunter Bell" and see what comes up. :-) –Skywatcher68 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Yes, I did a Google search for two names together. What I found was pretty well what I had guessed I might find. I'll keep a watch. JBW (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block request

Hey, can you block 193.60.0.0/16 from editing Critical Ops? They continually try to add unsourced content. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Well, I certainly agree with a partial block, but a /16 range is much wider than can be justified. The IP addresses come from Greenwich University, which has the range 193.60.64.0/20, and I wouldn't even consider blocking more than that. In fact all the editing from that range on Critical Ops has come from the much smaller range 193.60.79.158/29, but years of experience have taught me that partial blocks on just the minimal range are all too often followed by edits just outside that range, so I've compromised on the /24 range. (For a full block I wouldn't have done that, but the likelihood of someone else from that range just happening to want to edit that article just now, never having done so before, is negligible.) As always, though, if you do notice other IP addresses in that area taking over editing that article, let me know & I'll reconsider. JBW (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, and will do. That article has been on my watch list since the NPOV edits last month. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbs v. Fogg

Thanks for your comments, and especially pointing out that text from an 1837 legal decision is not copyrighted.

As to the existing reference, the commentary on that website surrounding Gibson's letter to Jefferson (not the letter itself) is the source of Gibson "maintaining a generally restrictive view of judicial authority".

There are few if any published articles about this case. That's why there aren't more citations. I didn't want to pull in tangential references. It is a significant one of Gibson's opinions, I think, but if you still think it should be deleted, then I won't contest it.

AnEaragail (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AnEaragail:

I don't think the draft should be deleted; bear in mind that I declined a deletion nomination for it. As far as I am concerned, I see no reason why the draft shouldn't be accepted if the lack of sourcing can be dealt with.
Yes, I understand that the letter from Gibson is a reference for his view of judicial authority, rather than for the particular case, but we do also need citations to sources about the case itself.
Although Wikipedia's notability requirements are based on good principles, I am not a great fan of the some of the ways they work in practice. It seems to me that this is a significant and interesting case, and it would be reasonable to have an article about it. However, Wikipedia's notability guidelines require substantial coverage in reluable published sources. Your statement "There are few if any published articles about this case" suggests that there may not be much coverage, in which case the case may not satisfy those guidelines. However, you must have got the information from somewhere, so can you say where? Wherever it was, it is at least one source that can be cited, assuming that it's a reliable source. JBW (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will do some more in-depth searching in the legal literature for references to the case. Thanks again for your comments. If I can find useful references I will add them and hit the resubmit button. AnEaragail (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I resubmitted the draft with additional support. The article has been beefed up, so I hope you will find it acceptable to publish now. Thanks JBW.

AnEaragail (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A recent IP block

Hi. You recently blocked this IP. It looks very much like this IP is a prolific LTA whose original account is thought to be Fourlaxers. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NEDOCHAN: You may be right, but I can't see any evidence clear enough to confirm it. Can you give specific reasons for thinking so? That IP address geolocates to Italy, whereas the IP addresses which have in the past been thought to be Fourlaxers have all geolocated to the USA, most of them to New Jersey. (At least all the ones I know of.) That obviously doesn't prove that it isn't Fourlaxers, but it means that we need pretty unambiguous evidence to conclude that it is. JBW (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't actually find the link to the sock contributions, but I'm pretty sure family guy/cartoons/kids TV is a big thing, and the habits and summaries near identical. Anyway I just thought I'd suggest it, but understand it's probably not a useful way to spend our time. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Agapitov moved to draftspace

Heyy! I moved the Aleksandr Agapitov article back to draft per the talk. Notifying with a message as a courtesy as you tagged this article for PROD deletion. This can go through AfC again, and I guess it resets the PROD counter as to not appear as a way to 'bypass' the deletion process. Any issues let me know! -OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OXYLYPSE: I think under the circumstances what you did was the best thing to do. I see that the creator of the article has contested the PROD, and so, even though she was reluctant to remove the PROD notice herself, I don't think a PROD deletion would have been right. Well, if the sourcing is improved, I'll be happy to see the article rescued, though I'm afraid I don't think that's likely to happen. Thanks for letting me know what you've done. JBW (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]