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 02:42, 25 May 2018 editSpringee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,472 edits →Incivility again← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:54, 11 January 2025 edit undoJBW (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators196,029 edits →Partial block request: blocks extended 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:

<div style="background-color: yellow; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #0000FA;"><big><center>
<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>
: .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
For personal reasons I will be doing far less editing in the near future than I have done in the past, which may result in messages here receiving less attention than I would normally have given them, or possibly even not being answered at all. I am not able to say when, if ever, I shall return to more frequent editing.
<br>
<br></big>
: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------
: .
</center></div>


{{Clear}} {{Clear}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 300K
|counter = 72 |counter = 84
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(10d)
|archive = User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:JBW/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}

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


== AfD == == Trinetix draft ==

Thank you for reviewing our draft. Could you please clarify which sections or elements need improvement to align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines? We’re committed to ensuring the content is neutral, verifiable, and meets Misplaced Pages’s standards.

Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ] (]) 13:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{tpw}} {{yo| LemmaMe}} I'm afraid accounts are not to be shared. Please see ]. Thanks, ] (]) 14:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm guessing "we" is their company, they declared a COI(though not PAID as they probably need to). ] (]) 14:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for noticing. It's my own account and I revealed a conflict of interests in my account, it's a routine habit to use "we" at work, so sorry for the typo. ] (]) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

: {{ping|LemmaMe}} It's not a question of some "sections or elements", it's a question of the whole tone and character of the draft, from start to finish. In this situation I used to try to pick out a few examples of promotional phrasing, to illustrate the point, but I found that never worked, as the person in question always took the examples I quoted as being the bits which needed changing, not as illustrative examples of the general character of the writing. Eventually, following discussions with some relevant people, I came to realise that people who work in marketing/advertising/PR get so used to reading and writing promotional material day after day, year after year, that they become desensitised to it, and honestly cannot see the promotional tone in writing which looks promotional to other people. I suggest that you reread what you wrote, looking for anything in the wording which might look like marketing language. If you can see it, great, but if you can't, then I honestly don't think that I can convey it to you. ] (]) 20:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hi! Thank you for the reply. I understand you and will prepare a new draft in a neutral tone. Appreciate your help. ] (]) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==

] from the past month (December 2024).

<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">

] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}

] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]

</div>
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]

] '''Oversight changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]

</div>
</div>

] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

] '''Arbitration'''
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.

] '''Miscellaneous'''
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->

== Likely back again ==

] is acting like ] ] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
#I think it is irregular to close an AfD that has been open for 3 days as a G5 without indicating anywhere who the article creator was a sock of — usually there is a note for future reference of those who work at NPP or AfC and it is unhelpful when there is no such note)
:: {{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)
#In this case it is not even indicated as a G5 in the log, the only link is to the AfD discussion- this misrepresents to any editor who might want to recreate the article, such as myself, that this close reflects a community consensus about notability. Please be clear about this - if you are saying in the close that you are deleting this as a G5 then indicate that in the summary as well.
:::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)
#My understanding is that editors had worked on it since the nomination/creation and it was in substantially different from when it was created- were these edits made by the same editor or had multiple editors worked on the article? Is there anyway to view the history and confirm this? ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:57, 19 April 2018 (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? ==
: {{Ping|Seraphim System}} First of all, my apologies for the long wait for an answer. For personal reasons I have not been able to edit recently. however, here at last are some answers to what you have said. I hope they are helpful to you.
* I have tended to work on the basis that if a page is deleted while a deletion discussion is in progress then a link to that discussion, and a mention on the discussion page about the speedy deletion reason, gives anyone who sees that the page has been deleted and wants to know why the opportunity to see both the speedy deletion reason and also whatever was said in the deletion discussion, which is likely to be more helpful than just the speedy deletion reason. However, you are right to point out that an editor who sees that a page has been deleted at XfD might not look at the discussion and see the speedy deletion reason. I shall re-delete the article mentioning both the AfD and the speedy deletion criterion, to make it clearer. Thank you for drawing my attention to this. (Obviously it is just as true that an editor who chooses not to look at the deletion discussion page will not be aware of why the page has been deleted under other circumstances, meaning that he or she will not know whether it will be suitable to re-create the article or not, but there is no harm in making the information easier to find in this case.)
* You are right to point out that I should have said what sockpuppet it was. I shall also add that to the deletion log.
* There was only one edit to the article by anyone other than its creator, and that edit merely added the AfD notice to the page.


&ndash; is there a 1.0 somewhere? &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 19:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: One more small point perhaps worth mentioning is that it is usually better to mention what page you are referring to in this kind of situation. This time it was very easy to find it, as it was the last AfD that I had edited, but in the past I have sometimes had to spend considerable time searching through editing histories in order to find what page has been referred to. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 15:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
::Thanks for changing the summary especially, so it doesn't create the impression of misconduct by recreating an article after an AfD I was involved in closed delete.] <sup>(])</sup> 16:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


: {{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)
== Return of blocked User:Mou3awiya Rafi3i, yet again ==


: ...and are a couple more. ] (]) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Our old friend is back, this time as ], who barely let the paint dry on your announcement of reduced activity to do all the old edits again (). Since I saw you did an administrative action earlier today, I am raising the issue here first since you are already familiar with the scenario - if you have the time and inclination and you agree it is a sock, then if you flag the account I will take care of all the reverts. Otherwise, I will proceed to the more formal SPI process for a determination. ] (]) 14:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
:{{done}}. {{U|Agricolae}} you can do the reverts. ] (]) 15:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
::and ''done''. ] (]) 04:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


== Partial block request ==
==Newsies sockpuppet==
Hello. Is for User:Roosterknees? -- ] (]) 05:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
:Maybe, maybe not, but an indef for 'vansalism only' puts an end to this one. ] (]) 07:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


JB, please block from editing ]. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 14:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== Incivility again ==
:{{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)
JBW, a few months back I asked you about issues with editor civility ]. After the editor didn't get the message you implemented a block (which was then reversed). The editor and I have largely not crossed paths in the mean time but recently the uncivil have returned. Here is an accusation of whitewashing ], the exact accusation from last time. There is also this MfD an accusation of POV pushing against two unnamed editors (almost certainly myself given previous comments) ]. Do you have suggestions for dealing with this? Thanks. ] (]) 23:04, 21 May 2018 (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)
:{{Ping|Springee}} Unfortunately, the short answer is "no". I thought some of the comments in the discussion of my block were ridiculous, such as the claim that I had blocked the editor for one edit, whereas anyone who took the trouble to look at the relevant history would have seen that i blocked because of a history of numerous unacceptable edits. At least part of the problem is the perennial moronic view that someone who makes a lot of good edits should be allowed to get away with being uncivil and making numerous personal attacks, unlike new editors who should get blocked for '''far''' smaller numbers of uncivil comments. I have no idea why that view is so common, but it is, and it makes it virtually impossible to take any effective action against such editors. As far as I personally am concerned, for personal reasons I am restricted to a far lower rate of editing than I have done for many years past, so I am afraid I don't think I can get involved again. I am really sorry to be so negative and unhelpful about this, bu I'm afraid that is how it is, from my perspective. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (])
::JBW, thanks for the reply. I recall that unblock discussion and I sadly I think LP came away feeling like they did anything but wrong. At least NeilN showed their typical good sense and offered some level of warning. Hopefully LP and I simply won't cross many paths and it just won't be an issue. Take care! ] (]) 02:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


== Another partial block request ==
== Obvious spammer, not here to contribute. ==


Having trouble posting to the vandalism noticeboard so trying here instead. User Deworucijo is obviously ]. &ndash;] (]) 19:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Please block from editing ] and ]. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (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)
:{{tpw}} Another admin blocked the account, and I did away the copyright violations. ​—] (])​ 20:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
::Had a feeling you would need to do that instead. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 21:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:54, 11 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.

Trinetix draft

Thank you for reviewing our draft. Could you please clarify which sections or elements need improvement to align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines? We’re committed to ensuring the content is neutral, verifiable, and meets Misplaced Pages’s standards.

Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. LemmaMe (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @LemmaMe: I'm afraid accounts are not to be shared. Please see WP:NOSHARE. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm guessing "we" is their company, they declared a COI(though not PAID as they probably need to). 331dot (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing. It's my own account and I revealed a conflict of interests in my account, it's a routine habit to use "we" at work, so sorry for the typo. LemmaMe (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@LemmaMe: It's not a question of some "sections or elements", it's a question of the whole tone and character of the draft, from start to finish. In this situation I used to try to pick out a few examples of promotional phrasing, to illustrate the point, but I found that never worked, as the person in question always took the examples I quoted as being the bits which needed changing, not as illustrative examples of the general character of the writing. Eventually, following discussions with some relevant people, I came to realise that people who work in marketing/advertising/PR get so used to reading and writing promotional material day after day, year after year, that they become desensitised to it, and honestly cannot see the promotional tone in writing which looks promotional to other people. I suggest that you reread what you wrote, looking for anything in the wording which might look like marketing language. If you can see it, great, but if you can't, then I honestly don't think that I can convey it to you. JBW (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for the reply. I understand you and will prepare a new draft in a neutral tone. Appreciate your help. LemmaMe (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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)