| Revision as of 23:10, 3 January 2025 editToBeFree (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators127,924 edits →Rollbacks don't count as edits?: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:36, 10 January 2025 edit undoCodeTalker (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers35,079 edits →Advice on disruptive editor: new topicTag: CDNext edit → | ||
| (29 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| {{TOC limit|2}} | {{TOC limit|2}} | ||
| == Feedback request: Misplaced Pages proposals request for comment == | |||
| == Rollbacks don't count as edits? == | |||
| ]Your feedback is requested  at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) | Is this wrong? Contact ]. | Sent at 11:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Since I gotten rollback, I've noticed that every revert I did earlier counted as 2 edits (revert+warn) but now it counts as 1. Does it have something to do with rollback being used? If so, wouldn't not counting it provide an inaccurate edit count figure? Thanks! <span style="padding:5px; font-family:Century Gothic; background:linear-gradient(90deg,#00555A,rgba(0,85,90,0.83),rgba(255,0,0,0)); text-shadow:1px 1px #717171;">] </span> 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Italian IP-hopper removing details regarding celebrities' deaths == | |||
| :Hi {{u|Randomdude121}}, where exactly are you checking the edit count? At ], ] or using an external tool? Because these edit counts will differ for many reasons, some of which are explainable and some of which seem pretty random. Rollback <em>may</em> actually make a difference, deleted contributions may too, page protections do to my knowledge, page moves are probably counted differently too. Everything else than a normal edit may end up being filtered by one or another tool or counting method. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I usually check at ]. Just tried with another rollback and warn, the count still incremented by 1, making it 848 while it should have been 849. Perhaps it takes a few hours to count that edit because of its "special" nature? <span style="padding:5px; font-family:Century Gothic; background:linear-gradient(90deg,#00555A,rgba(0,85,90,0.83),rgba(255,0,0,0)); text-shadow:1px 1px #717171;">] </span> 04:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll test this now. 127,703 + this one. ] (]) 23:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::127,704 + this one, at ] and ]. ] (]) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::127,714 + this one, after 9 edits and one rollback. ] (]) 23:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This has been going on for a long time from several IPs in Italy; I just reverted another of their edits. I reported them to AIV last month but one responding admin requested more details then a second responding admin thought I was requesting a rangeblock. Can ''anything'' be done about this? Some of the involved IPs: | |||
| == Request for Assistance == | |||
| <br> | |||
| You are an experienced administrator that I respect, @]. If possible, I would value your contribution to the ]. It would mean a lot to have your third-party, neutral, and experienced perspective. ] (]) 19:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| ⚫ | : –] (]) 23:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :Hi {{u|Skywatcher68}}, the large range could be made one of the conditions of an edit filter (]). I have blocked the most recently used address for now, but a filter could prevent the edits or allow them to be found more quickly/easily. ] (]) 08:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi {{u|Firecat93}}, this invitation is an honor I am very thankful for. | |||
| ::Thanks! Given that this has been going on for over a year, I followed the suggestion regarding LTA edits and sent an email. –] (]) 21:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Merges are normally proposed using the process described at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Merging#Proposing_a_merge}}, and deletion nominations that don't argue for deletion may be closed as ] ({{tqq|perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or <mark>merging</mark>}}). | |||
| :I have protected the deletion discussion (and ]) to enforce the ] in this topic area, but I have no opinion on whether the articles should be merged or not, and if I had an opinion, I'd still prefer to avoid getting involved. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :Best regards,<br>] (]) 00:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for the information, @]. I will be sure to properly follow the merger proposal process next time. | |||
| Magst du bitte einmal über die Beiträge drüberschauen und VLs durchführen? Danke dir, ] 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| == Advice on disruptive editor == | |||
| Hi! I wanted to ask your advice on how to handle {{User links|150.195.180.35}}. For over a year, this editor has been making the same edits to one particular article (]). All their edits involved changing the OriginalAirDate parameter in an {{tl|Episode list}} template to add a date for a second country. My reading of the documentation for this template is that this is incorrect; this parameter should have only one date in it, the date of it's actual first airing. Several editors (mostly me but also others) have reverted these edits and I have added quite a few warnings on their talk page, but they have not responded and continue to persistently make these changes every few weeks or so (lately more frequently). I have also explained my reversions in each of my edit summaries but the editor has never used an edit summary. | |||
| This is a pretty minor point and I don't think it rises to the level of vandalism, so I don't think it's proper to bring it to AIV or ANI, and they are not breaking 3RR so AN3 isn't appropriate either. Is there a place that would be appropriate to discuss this? Or perhaps I am in the wrong and should just drop this? Thanks for any advice or help that you can offer. ] (]) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:36, 10 January 2025
Please click here to add a new message!
Please note that you are currently not logged in.
This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance. 
 Archives |
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
Feedback request: Misplaced Pages proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections on a "Misplaced Pages proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Italian IP-hopper removing details regarding celebrities' deaths
This has been going on for a long time from several IPs in Italy; I just reverted another of their edits. I reported them to AIV last month but one responding admin requested more details then a second responding admin thought I was requesting a rangeblock. Can anything be done about this? Some of the involved IPs:
151.19.58.228
151.57.143.115
151.35.164.166
151.37.208.134
151.37.140.41
151.47.227.167
151.37.133.229
151.37.130.52
151.57.9.61
151.47.19.185
151.37.230.153
151.57.154.248
151.19.154.35
151.46.183.124
151.43.217.155
- Hi Skywatcher68, the large range could be made one of the conditions of an edit filter (WP:EFR). I have blocked the most recently used address for now, but a filter could prevent the edits or allow them to be found more quickly/easily. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Given that this has been going on for over a year, I followed the suggestion regarding LTA edits and sent an email. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Robiran_56
Magst du bitte einmal über die Beiträge drüberschauen und VLs durchführen? Danke dir, TenWhile6 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Advice on disruptive editor
Hi! I wanted to ask your advice on how to handle 150.195.180.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). For over a year, this editor has been making the same edits to one particular article (List of Rolie Polie Olie episodes). All their edits involved changing the OriginalAirDate parameter in an {{Episode list}} template to add a date for a second country. My reading of the documentation for this template is that this is incorrect; this parameter should have only one date in it, the date of it's actual first airing. Several editors (mostly me but also others) have reverted these edits and I have added quite a few warnings on their talk page, but they have not responded and continue to persistently make these changes every few weeks or so (lately more frequently). I have also explained my reversions in each of my edit summaries but the editor has never used an edit summary.
This is a pretty minor point and I don't think it rises to the level of vandalism, so I don't think it's proper to bring it to AIV or ANI, and they are not breaking 3RR so AN3 isn't appropriate either. Is there a place that would be appropriate to discuss this? Or perhaps I am in the wrong and should just drop this? Thanks for any advice or help that you can offer. CodeTalker (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)