Jump to content

User talk:IP4240207xx

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please leave a message after the white space.

User talk:IP4240207xx/sandbox/AOL-London
User talk:IP4240207xx/archive
User talk:IP4240207xx/HowardJohns

Persons to watch

[edit]
Possible: Lessantman (talk · contribs)

IP addresses / user names to watch

[edit]

Howard Johns

[edit]

Completed moved to User talk:IP4240207xx/HowardJohns

1569802971 = 53 > Search
156980303X = 93 > Search
1569802977 = 53 > Search
1569803035 = 93 > Search
Palm Springs Confidential: > Search
Hollywood Celebrity Playground > Search

DENIED Articles for creation/2008-04-18: Hollywood Celebrity Playground

(Dutchman_Schultz (talk · contribs))

Re: Note

[edit]

Sure, I'll help. I've taken that book out of several articles, if I correctly recall. Give me an idea of what and where. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a dumb question, but... you're taking out references to the book and self-promotion, but is there a reason to take out valid spelling corrections and wikilinks? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there shouldn't be many, then it's possible some of the IPs may not be related. I've gone through one so far and it had nothing except spelling and links edits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that how you want me to designate what I've done? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. It will have to be in Indiana, I don't drive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else that needs done on it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. I made corrections to some of the more glaring ones. I'm steady, but I can't help but stop and close those gaps, etc Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in a week or so, but I'm tied up on about 3 fronts right now on other side projects, one of which should take precedence, although it may not. For now, I'm about to head to bed. The sun will be up soon!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Johns book

[edit]

Sorry about reverting one of your deletions, I honestly thought the Howard Johns' entries were legitimate as I had seen them on the Howard Hughes article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Milton Keynes

[edit]

Milton Keynes

88.108.0.0 - 88.111.255.255

RMS125a@hotmail.com

[edit]

Comcast Cable Churchville, Maryland

HarveyCarter

[edit]

SueBrewer

[edit]

Many thanks for your diligence in reverting the numerous edits this user made today. I spent several hours yesterday evening trying to undo the changes he/she made as HowardFranklin and my heart just sank when I first checked my watchlist today. You saved me a huge headache and aggravation!! Wildhartlivie 20:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, huh? No, I know you didn't block him/her. But you did work to revert a passel of non-good faith edits by this person, who seems to have been at it again today. My thanks stand! Wildhartlivie 21:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about some of the names (HarveyCarter and the names from JohnWayneWasaNazi on to SueBrewster). I didn't know about the interim names. Thanks. This person is a real pest, quite persistent and obviously has an agenda to smear actors he/she doesn't like. It's tiresome to watch, but it's necessary, I think. Wildhartlivie 23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I see all of that. Since he/she has moved on from SueBrewster to a new name, I'm not going to sweat the one month thing. I predict there will be 4-5 more usernames before that expires. At some point, someone is going to have to do more than block the new accounts as they pop up. It's annoying as crap! Wildhartlivie 23:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Received your comment & question. To answer the overriding question, yes, I think it's possible for a person to do what you suggested, although in this particular case, I'm not convinced it's the same person. The person responding has an extensive contribution list and it doesn't surfacely appear to be a particularly controversial one. However I did tag the newest name appearing today, which I note you've caught. We'll keep trudging. I think you're spot on about there needing to be a higher intervention against a wider IP, even if it does catch the innocent, due to the extensive problem this person is. Unfortunately, AOL is a bit of a dynamic IP. Wildhartlivie 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting from Talk pages

[edit]

Please stop deleting other people's entries from talk pages like the one at Talk:Dirk Bogarde. Even if you disagree with them it's better to leave the comment there and then explain why you think they're wrong -- SteveCrook 18:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEE: Wikipedia:Banning policy
Enforcement by reverting edits
Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Other users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for that content by so doing.
IP4240207xx 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't see that they were banned users. That makes sense to remove their contributions. Shame it now means I'm arguing against nothing :) -- SteveCrook 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so it goes

[edit]

Nice to see people are still watching out for Harvey. :) Wildhartlivie 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne was a Nazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJuliech (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm keeping my fingers crossed!!! Wildhartlivie 09:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HarveyCarter

[edit]

HI... you mentioned in the last request that you thought there had been previous requests to CU this user, do you know any of their titles? the clerk couldn't find them. When you opened this request you used a different name, in future if you are pretty sure it is Harvey, use the same name so the requests stay together, thanks. The pages are designed to allow multiple case incidents to stack up. This makes it much easier for the CU faced with repeat checks. ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really make sense to be taking out massive chunks of talk pages like this? What you're doing is effectively making entire discussion pages useless to the point where each discussion is just going to eventually be brought back up again. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing messages of banned user

[edit]

I cannot find evidence that user:HarveyCarter is banned (although from looking at the block log and sockpuppetry, he probably has been banned by now). And if you do remove messages from sockpuppets, it is better to just remove the comments and explain in the edit summary, instead of adding a template to the talk pages you have removed them from. You may also want to correct the IP address ranges: the 92 range is only 92.0.0.0 - 92.31.255.255, of which the alleged sockpuppets of banned user are likely to be within 92.8.0.0 - 92.15.255.255, which is a smaller range within the larger range. It is also no longer AOL, as parts of AOL UK including that range have been transferred to The Carphone Warehouse. --Snigbrook (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. HarveyCarter was blocked long ago for sockpuppeteering, and that block was confirmed and reset by another admin which effectively created a community ban. Unless somone wants to welcome him back he's evading an indefinite block.
To IP4240207xx, You're welcome, I'm happy to help deal with this issue. I don't pay enough attention to the related articles that I've watchlisted to catch most transgressions. While problem users need to be dealt with firmly it's best not to make a drama out of it. A good practice is block, revert, and deny attention. The idea is that if we make it boring and pointless enough the folks will find something more interesting to do. I wish someone would do a study to determine the most effective responses to banned editors who won't go away. Anyway, thanks for your initiative on this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, which I saw late last night. I think the best we can do is as suggested above, revert, block, ignore, but at least we now know he's using Carphone Warehouse. Also as stated above, HC is effectively banned by the community and would need to apply for unblocking on that account, not any of the sockpuppets. I have several of his targets watchlisted & will block on sight. --Rodhullandemu 11:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I just thought that the message being added when IP4240207xx reverted the edits was not necessary, and had an idea that the IP range was smaller (which I checked on WHOIS) so also mentioned that. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. if a user had added the {{BannedMeansBanned}} template to my talk page, and removed edits of other users (I say that as replies to the banned user were also removed), I would probably have mistaken it for vandalism/trolling. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocks

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. It's not practical to block millions of addresses for more than a very brief time. Since the list of involved articles is finite it makes more sense to deal with the problem at that end. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only tool I know for that is WikiScanner, but it only covers edits before mid-2007. I don't think it will help much. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Ford

[edit]

What edit would you "really like [me] to change"? All I did was revert User:OettingerCroat's deletion of the category "Jewish actors", because, as you said, being Jewish is a question of ethnicity, and Ford's mother was Jewish. Are you saying that the sentence "When asked in which religion he was raised, Ford jokingly responded, "Democrat";[5] he has also said that he feels "Irish as a person but I feel Jewish as an actor".[6]" should be deleted from the article? I didn't add it, and it looks like it's been there a while. I would say keep it in the article, since it appears unclear otherwise what Ford was raised in or identifies with (in this case, both). As for what "feeling Jewish" meant, maybe this explains it: [2] ""I feel Jewish as an actor, but Irish as a person," he has said. "That means that in work I can be very intense and concentrated, but in life I take things in my stride."" All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why must the category go? Ford is an actor (in fact, that's what he's notable for, and that's what the category's name is). Ford has said a lot of things, including this:
"In "The Hanukkah Song," Adam Sandler sings that Harrison Ford is "a quarter Jewish, not too shabby." But Ford tells gossip journalist Baird Jones that he's actually "totally Jewish, at least by Jewish law" because his mother was Jewish" (from the LA Times, 12/22/99; archived at [3]) All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Tom Hanks

[edit]

I'm sorry I missed reverting a vandal edit, but I can't catch 'em all. When I'm making a couple hundred reverts, a few are bound to slip through the cracks. I commend you for your good catch, though. Useight (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User talk:SpecialRightTriangle‎ (attack warning)

[edit]

The attack was in the page Mr parsons which was deleted; once a page has been deleted, edits to it no longer appear in the user contribution record, though admins can still see them. JohnCD (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney

[edit]

You're performing some great editing on the Walt Disney article right now. :) Keep up the great work! Tiggerjay (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Pages

[edit]

Are you tired? Running a 40 watt bulb on a 20 watt generator? You put a category on a redirect page, Biscochito. Please don't do that silly pilly. Pay more attention and take better care in adding the categories. I have reverted your edit. IP4240207xx (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a category to a redirect page is the common way to add an alternate name to a category. See Bouteloua gracilis for example. --Buaidh (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you link to Bouteloua gracilis, the top of the new page should say:
Blue grama
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Bouteloua gracilis)
Click on the link labelled Bouteloua gracilis to return to the redirect page. Take a look at Category:Redirects from scientific names, Category:Symbols of Colorado, or Category:Symbols of New Mexico. --Buaidh (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't use categories to locate articles, there is no advantage in them. For those of us who do, there is great advantage. Please don't revert categories. Thanks, Buaidh (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: note

[edit]

Of course you're right. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Rdrgz93

[edit]

I dont know if there is, when i first looked at the picture it looked fine to me, but onced i uploded it it became blury. so yea ill try to find a better one and than. Rdrgz93 (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion Requests

[edit]

Hi. I've been declining a number of your speedy request recently. Please remember that not being notable is not for certain a sufficent reason to speedy delete an article on its own. An assertion of notability means, for example, WP:CSD#A7 will not apply - [4] and [5] are good examples. Id recommend WP:AFD iuf you have notability concerns about an article, and a good read of WP:CSD to refresh yourself on policies. Many thanks for you help, but please try to be as accurate and within policy as possible. If you've got any queries feel free to ask on my talk page. Ta! Pedro :  Chat  20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've seen more it appears you have nominated a substantial number of articles all of which were started by User:Hashmi, Usman. I am not the only admin to decline these requests - which appear to have been made in bad faith. I'm sorry but this is editing in violation of WP:POINT. If you continue you will be blocked for disruption. Please don't let it come to that. Pedro :  Chat  20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also seen this. You have put CSD tags on articles saying that they have no context, whereas they have plenty. Please be more careful in the future. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hashmi, Usman and Good Faith

[edit]

Honestly, I find your comments at WP:ANI, quite troubling, to say the least. This user has done little or nothing wrong, he is just a new user that is writing articles with questionable notability. This does Not warrant a Checkuser, or block, or IP block. I would like to remind you to Assume Good Faith. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 01:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SP: Solitaryxchild (talk · contribs)

Yr Gibson/Carrier remark

[edit]

If you get a kick from trying to belittle colleagues in that way, you'll want to drill to the point where you can explain

Time flies like an arrow.

when "Time" is an attributive noun, and when it's an imperative-mode verb.
Oh, sorry (he lied) -- that's a riddle, isn't it?
--Jerzy•t 19:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Importance

[edit]

>>I think you need to site who says that they are some of the most important films in cinema history.<<

Good point, and I knew it at the moment but was out of time. Preliminary references are added. There are better and more thorough critiques available in print than AFI or IMBD afford, but those two are online and will do for the moment until I can marshal a few more noteworthy refs. Lawrence needs absolutely no reference in this regard beyond the general and commendable Wiki policy or providing reference; though the film has its critics, its importance and influence on subsequent generations of filmmakers is a matter of public record. Zapata has received rather more acclaim in print than online, and in a few days I should be able to provide suitable references from Richard Schickel and others regarding this. Sensei48 (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


And thanks for your response on my Talk page. To return the favor -
...he was a massive presence in the films he made.

Supportable from critics, but of course virtually any statement about a film can be.

''Tom Cruise's box office receipts flyweight??? Compare his receipts as a percentage against production cost of the film, and as a percentage of that years gross, versus Cooper.

The clear sense of my rewrite and comments are about the artistry of the actor, not about the receipts s/he generates. Surely you are being disingenuous on this point. I know of neither any major serious critic nor any reputable film historian who takes Cruise seriously as anything other than a pretty boy movie star; Cooper, Gable, Tracy, Fonda, Stewart and a few others are iconic figures in American film acting - for a citation- http://www.filmsite.org/afilegends1.html

The bottom line what is "hip" at the moment will get the most "ink" (then) / "webspace" (now). It is called Pop Culture.

My point exactly. And there is nothing more fundamentally antithetical to the nature of an encyclopedia than that. There are plenty of editors out there in hosts of articles who are striving to make Wikipedia something more than a message board for pop culture - or pop perception. Sensei48 (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points

[edit]

Hi IP4 -

I just checked back in to my talk page and saw that you had edited out some of your initial responses to my Anthony Quinn edits. I'm kind of sorry because i found your challenges to my tatements stimulating and constructive - and justified. My response back to you above was intended the same way.

My concern now would be to prove to you from reputable sources that Zapata also belongs on the short list of acclaimed movies as Lawrence and Zorba do. We likely won't agree on Cruise vs. Cooper, but I don't figure on venting about that anywhere except on Talk pages. But your essential challenge to me to source my statements is a good one. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I put here is still here, plus I added the Ebert link/reference to LofA. The other comments are on the AQ talk page.
Ah, thanks for explaining! It's pretty late out here and I'm confusing myself as to where I'm responding. And thanks for the Ebert reference. I'm sure there are many more available for Lawrence - Zapata I'll get to. Sensei48 (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off Kilter

[edit]

Thanks for the guidance. I'm still learning the finer points here. "Spouting" may have been a bit harsh, though. Dewelar (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf?!

[edit]

Vandalism? how do you figure i did that to the article George Peter Nanos? I put a useful infobox thats not being distructive you need'a chill dont go all off especially wehn i did nothing wrong! ThomasSalazar Chat?! 6:46 NM (MT), 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What? thats way not the same why would you compare it to a wall or street signs? haha ThomasSalazar Chat?! 10:57 NM (MT), 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Redrocket

[edit]

In regarding your message to him, bluntly, it is wrong. He was reverting vandalism, if you check the history of the article you noted, you can see this.— DædαlusT@lk / Improve\ Contribs 20:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I clicked the wrong contributor by accident, one-off, it was meant for Mishabot (talk · contribs). Thanks for catching that. Say, you wouldn't want to follow me around and.....no, never mind. IP4240207xx (talk)

re: editing

[edit]

It's basic wiki-etiquette not to alter other editors' comments on talk pages. Yes, adding the template is defined as an alteration. See WP:TALK: Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. If I had wanted a {{done}} template, I would have added one myself. I understand your reasoning for adding them, but also keep in mind that not everyone is a fan of adding unnecessary images to pages that will potentially load slower as a result. María (habla conmigo) 20:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

You are my hero. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at User:Wildhartlivie/Sandbox and User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy for some evidence that will help. There is a checkuser request outcome, some dispute mediation material, and a sockpuppet case from November. I think they might all speak for themselves. You're still my hero. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is some fairly incriminating evidence included on my User:Wildhartlivie/Sandbox page, which ties Nyannrunning and Debbiesvoucher together on the Kim Cattrall page, and a complete admission that the IP is Nyannrunning on the Richard Calvin Cox history page. It's nice to have someone else see this besides Pinkadelica and myself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is the RMS125a@hotmail.com, if that links back to Comcast Cable Churchville, Maryland, as the traceroute I ran on the 69.234.176.245 traces back to Irvine, California, which is consistent with the locations of the other IPs this person has used interchangeably with the other two usernames. The editing during the winter was mostly from UCLA, LAX, the LA County Library and one or two internet cafe type addresses. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

[edit]

Something needs to be done about this person (from above). See the Jim Morrison history. Today, the User:Debbiesvoucher came in and re-added the same material that Nyannrunning first added, then the anonymous IP returned. WHY is nothing being done about this? The last 2 days of this should be enough for an indefinite block. I have no idea WHY adminstrators won't move on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socks revisited

[edit]

I've made a new sock puppet case regarding all of this. It would be great if you could comment or endorse what I've added. It is here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd). Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to alert you to the results of the 2nd sock case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd)‎, which was a ban on all the identities. Thanks again for your help! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User stats

[edit]

I've looked a bit at the outcome from that tool on some users, but it's usually to confirm what I already know. The sock puppet issue from the weekend is one person who I came across first with Gilda Radner and Janis Joplin. When we had problems with the Joplin article, I started finding similar um.. stuff.. and spread out from there. To be honest, it should never have taken so long to get admins to accept that this was a nasty sock, but I think it had some to do with it being relatively obscure articles, and my tendency to get snippy with her.

lol... spending too much time on crime is probably related to my interest in forensics, the classes I took in my psych degree, like criminal sociology and deviancy. That's where my interest in Manson and some of the others came from. And those articles, for the most part, were really in need of clean up, and you wouldn't believe how many of those edits were removing vandalism. Kupcinet and Kilgallen were among the articles I came across with the sock, as well as Johnnie Ray, who used to be on the list. The Columbine thing is what first brought me to Wikipedia. I can proudly say, though, that of the 15, one of them is now a Good Article. If you want a really good look at the lesser articles that I've worked on that isn't on the list, run Dooyar and Debbiesvoucher through the tool (and a few of those early anonymous IPS)!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, I did a little clean up on M. Night Shyamalan this weekend, and look here, I've been working hard on the assessment drive by WP Biography. Then there's Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography tables, and consider that there were approximately 73 different recipients in each of the four categories, and what there is left, I've done a BUNDLE of filmographies. I don't recall doing any flowers or puppies, but I did flesh out the Sunflower starfish article last winter...

As for tracking, I just add new pages to my userspace. If you'll look at the very top of my userpage, there are a series of symbols and odd letters. That's how I find my extra pages without making them too obvious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just imagine if there wasn't any vandalism?
Two songs come to mind:
"And I think to myself, what a wonderful world..." and "Imagine all the people..." Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Courage

[edit]

How do you decide which sources are reliable for Alexander Courage? I thought the blog site for Courage was 'interesting' but I can't say if it was reliable. Some youtube links can be very good if they show the author's actions or activities in a film or historical event. I'm just asking for guidance. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I guess one may have to be a 'Wikilawyer' to keep up with all the legal issues. I agree that blogs are certainly not a reliable source and that some youtube links do violate the author's copyright. I know that its not always easy to upload images onto Wikicommons because some European countries have different copyright laws compared to the US or Canada. I suppose everything depends on the context. But thanks for the heads up! Regards from Canada. Leoboudv (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to humbly apologize for the recent edits I have made including this one on Alexander Courage. I in no shape or form meant to appear as vandalism, but rather lending to the source. Current TV is a reliable news source, and the Memorium they presented is credible source of information. Regardless, I am deeply sorry, and did not intend to break terms of agreement. I would thoroughly appreciate an explanation as to why/how my edit to this page was not credible. Thanks, Littlesparrowp (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC) contribs) 01:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Stewart (actor)

[edit]

While I would agree that edits by a banned editor should normally be reverted, that is not always the case. I see little connection between this IP's edits and those of Harvey Carter, but if you want to give me diffs, fine. As regards the content he added, I have expressed an opinion on that in a new section on the talk page. I don't want to get involved in a content dispute as I have better things to do, and it's not an Admin's job to do that; it should be up to the editors to reach consensus, even if that means going to a third opinion or dispute resolution. The IP range you quoted to me is over half a million users, so to assume that just because this poster is within that range he is therefore Harvey Carter is weak. I'd leave his edits that actually improve the encyclopedia (isn't that what we're here for?), revert the unsourced, and move on. This IP is getting close to WP:3RR anyway. I will keep an eye on things. --Rodhullandemu 17:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare me John Wayne, I may not live that long! Currently I've blocked the latest IP for 31 hours but he is playing wordgames with me, and I've left him to use {{unblock}} for now. Meanwhile, I'm considering reprotecting James Stewart to let things settle down. However, some of his edits earlier today had some merit, and my concern must be for the benefit of the encyclopedia as a whole. --Rodhullandemu 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:92.12.169.253, given what you've told me I doubt he will use {{unblock}} but if he does (since he claims never to have heard of Harvey Carter), I'd rather the conversation was fully visible to the unblocking admin. Just a personal preference and protecting my backside. --Rodhullandemu 23:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

[edit]

ummm... what is this for? Do you need help reverting some edits or something? Thingg⊕⊗ 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I'll do that. But, I can't block him because I'm not an admin. :( Thanks for the tip. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP range checker

[edit]

User:Franamax has written a tool that you may find useful, anonEdits. He describes it on his user page. If you email him he'll send it to you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive, & Gibson template

[edit]

As to the archive, i think abt it every now and then, but more often recently, taking note of advice abt botting the task. For me that sounds like a doable project, but still a project, and it will wait until the disaster of my pending Unified Login is resolved. But the nudge is valuable and welcome, so thanks.

As to the template, sorry abt the EdConf; no harm done, i hope, tho that certainly can be stressful for the one who gets that msg (not me this time!). I was prepared to accept the qualification "Main" as justifying omission of "Tim" (tho it's what caught my attention, and i was only concerned in the end abt the hard-to-spot template problem. AFAI can see, you've got it in good shape. Thanks for the conscientious note!
--Jerzy•t 03:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scenes à faire

[edit]

At the time when added the reference, it was more of a definitional one, to demonstrate the term's existence. Given the current state of the article, it can probably be removed now. Circeus (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely neutral on the title. I have no actual experience with the term, just stumbled across the page, possibly while doing some special:Random prowling. Circeus (talk)

Socks galore

[edit]

I replied to your comment. Has a checkuser been requested? APK yada yada 05:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...

[edit]

I didn't have the incoming e-mail enabled. All set now. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I only had experience with the one sock, not realizing that it was a sock in the first place. I'll be glad to leave a comment. I hope it helps. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Warner

[edit]

I'msorry, but I'm just not keyed-in enough to spot this guy's work. Is the editing objectionable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you meant he was Harvey Carter. (You're going to have to be more explicit in your messages.) Yes, that user is probably GordonUS. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your detective work, Sherlock, could help. I'd earlier labelled user:75.37.206.111 as a sock of Jerry Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), though I can't recall exactly why. I see overlaps in editing Ku Klux Klan, Henry Ford, Pat Buchanan, and Charles Lindbergh. Minor overlappng occurs at George Wallace and Miscegenation, If we can find more overlapping edits between GordonUS/75.37.206.111 and Jerry Jones, or other hard evidence, then we can block the account. PS: see also This page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that JJ was partial to editing lists of people by national-origin. The IP has edited List of French Americans and List of Czech Americans. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page history statistics ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may also find this useful, though it only shows the top ten pages in each space. Wannabe Kate ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Compare this [6] (for example) with this [7]. One from the Goebbels archive and the other from Goering archive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PoliticianTexas

[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I added a section on PoliticianTexas to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Diamond Joe Quimby. It might be worth your time to check it out. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nyannrunning revisited

[edit]

Just wanted to alert you to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd) and hoped you might have a fruitful comment or two, although I think I covered it fairly well. It's a "nip it in the bud" kind of thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Scott A. Spencer

[edit]
Notice

The article Scott A. Spencer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability for this artist. Source is his own profile and a BEFORE shows no indication of other notable work.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StarM 18:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IP4240207xx&oldid=1143056318"