User talk:I B Wright

Consider the following three links:

[1]

[2]

[3] _♥

Now open your editing window and see how I made each of the links. Interesting, isn't it? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That is interesting! --70.181.68.226 (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right: so there is a secure server as well as the run of the mill one. What is the point? It's not as though I'm running any sensitive info, given that it all ends up on a Wikipedia page that the whole world can see anyway. I B Wright (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your password and which pages you read do not "end up on a Wikipedia page that the whole world can see anyway". With HTTP you are sending your password in the clear and whenever you leave Wikipedia and go to another site they are told what Wikipedia page you came from.

"Secure web servers are the equivalent of heavy armored cars. The problem is, they are being used to transfer rolls of coins and checks written in crayon by people on park benches to merchants doing business in cardboard boxes from beneath highway bridges. Further, the roads are subject to random detours, anyone with a screwdriver can control the traffic lights, and there are no police." -Gene Spafford

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Map of Kosal released by Prem Ram Dubey OK i would put up kosal khabar on internet(google books) 112.133.223.2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Almost continuous tirade of abuse and accusations. Thank you.

You are not the accused, but you are mentioned so this is just the required courtesy note. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As yet another wikipedian in conflict with this disruptive IP, and one directly involved in one of the issues there, I thought I'd bring your attention to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#76.189.109.155_and_drama. This is a courtesy notice. Toddst1 (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@I B Wright, I think it would be better if you left the IP's talk page alone. The edit war between the two of you is not achieving anything. Please let this play out at WP:AN. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already done but mainly out of 3RR concerns. I B Wright (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we agree not to edit the talk page of 76.189.109.155 until the WP:AN case is over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155blue (talk • contribs) 18:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking my opinion, I think it would be best to leave the IP's talk page alone. Whether that has to be until the discussion at AN is "complete", I don't know, but at least for the time being.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, agreed. I rather feel that this is going to run its obvious course. I B Wright (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:76.189.109.155. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, you don't get to revert one edit 3 times and then pick a new edit to revert and start the count over again.

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period."

I'm assuming they aren't counting the reverts that correctly placed the template back at the top of the page...because if they were being counted, you did pass 3RR on the IPs talk page. Just thought I'd post a quick note so you didn't try that out on an article someday. --Onorem (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are counting the edits that "correctly placed the template back at the top of the page". So 3RR not committed then. I B Wright (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you have a rationale based on policy or other good reason for your revert please comment at talk.TMCk (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the point has been settled by some one else against you. I B Wright (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am attempting to nominate articles for deletion, but I simply cannot get them to list correctly on the log page for articles for deletion. What have I done wrong? I have followed the procudure at 'articles for deletion' to the letter (I even cut and pasted the template as gived there (the afd3 one)). It is not helped where loading the log, editing the page and reloading the log takes over twenty minutes! I B Wright (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what went wrong with your attempt, but it seems to me that it would be much better to combine all these subsidiary lists into a single AfD which would look like User:JohnCD/turbines. I know that bulk AfDs are sometimes frowned on, but in this case the arguments are so similar that it seems foolish to clutter the AfD listing (and make it even slower to load) by adding twelve identical ones.

If you would like me to do that, reply below here.

Incidentally, the nominator of an AfD does not need to add a Delete !vote - the nomination is assumed to show he favours deletion. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a relative newcomer to this deletion lark. My previous atempt involved myself assisting an IP address editor to do much the same thing. On that occasion, it worked flawlessly. I do not know why this attempt failed or even how to combine them into a single AfD, but any assistance you can offer would be gratefully appreciated. I B Wright (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I have kept Switzerland separate, because it is not a German district like all the rest. I don't actually see anything wrong with what you were doing, and I suspect it was some glitch in the system, not your fault at all. I noticed that from time to time one or two extra AfDs from the list appeared properly, without any edits appearing in the history to account for it. It may be connected with the slow response time we are getting at the moment.

One thing I noticed was that your "comment" tags in the AfD listing page were the wrong way round, --> comment <-- instead of <!-- comment -->, and I thought that might be "commenting out" some of the items in the list; but I tried correcting them, and it wasn't that. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. I too had noticed that the list was slowly turning into the intended result, so maybe you are right: that the server is just having an off-day (some days I can sympathise!!). My note was not intended to be a comment but to draw any one who could help's attention that there was a problem than needed expert attention, though that does not now seem to be the case. Anyway, once again thank you for your assitance. I B Wright (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the now-obsolete individual AfD pages (but can undelete them if for some reason people won't accept the combined one). In combining WP:Articles for deletion/List of wind turbines in Thuringia, the extra remark you added each time below the main nomination has been omitted - feel free, obviously, to add it back or make any other changes to the nomination. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh: I think you have done an absolutely grand job. I only wish I could have done this from the start. Once agian: my sincerest gratitude for your assistance in this matter. It was never clear whether you agreed with me, but I await how it pans out. This started out with me supporting some one else. It's good to see that we support each other. I B Wright (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found what the problem was with those AfDs. At step II, when you set up the discussion page, you simply entered the reason, like this; but you should have wrapped it in an afd2 template like

{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~

which would have added all the header and red-tape information to make it look like this.

The reason that entries began, one by one, to appear correctly in the log was that another user, Huon (talk), was helpfully adding in the headers, but had not got round to explaining to you.

In fact, I find the simplest way to do an AfD is, after adding the {{afd1}} template to the article, to click on the link "Preloaded debate" which more or less walks you through the process.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. What makes it more inexcusable, is that I successfully created a nomination earlier (though it was on behalf of someone else) so I had followed the proceedure at least once before. I B Wright (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lithium-ion battery may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mains electricity by country is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mains electricity by country until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 31.52.11.70 (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have set an RM instead at Talk:Northeast blackout of 2003#Requested moves Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years 19:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry for trying to fix the mess. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years

Hi, this may seem a rather belated query nearly 7 years after the edit, but you edited my article on the Charing Cross tube crash and added some interesting details about its effect on signalling practice. Unfortunately my article was referring to the other 1938 Charing Cross crash on the District Line (I was actually unaware of this separate accident - they are a remarkable coincidence), but that has now been sorted out and disambiguated. Anyway, can you provide some details/references of the two final paragraphs about the engineer's defence and subsequent changes in practice? It's clearly of interest, but I couldn't see anything to that effect in the text of the accident report and am not sure what the enquiry was that you refer to. Thanks. Hyperman 42 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you do not mind, but I have quoted a recent post by you on WP:ANI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK i would put up kosal khabar on internet(google books) 112.133.223.2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Can someone please advise me how to change the language of the Wikipedia editor's unhelpful spelling checker? It is flagging my correctly spelt English words and trying to substitute foreign American words. I B Wright (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have an integral spellcheck; it's more likely to be your browser (in which case you should be able to change the dictionary in your browser settings). If you're using a spellcheck script, check with the editor who created it; they may be able to resolve it for you. However, I'd say it's far more likely that you have one of those nasty American internet browsers (mine does the exact same thing). Yunshui ^雲_水 12:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: Thanks for your reply. If it is Internet Explorer 11 as you suggest, I can find no way of changing the language or even of turning it off. Do you have any pointers?

Your edit to "Prime meridian (Greenwich)" is contradictory. After your edit, part of the section reads

The error does become important in surveying where features require accurate placement on maps. Satellite based navigation, such as GPS and in-car satnav is not affected because these will work correctly with the meridian where it is as the Navstar system on which they rely was created using the displaced meridian.

But the passage uses the present tense, and no modern maps or surveying is based on the reference meridian that passes through the Airy transit. Most of them use one of several meridians that differ only slightly, such as International Terrestrial Reference Frame or WGS-84. The rest some other explicit or implied reference meridian, such as NAD-27. So first the passage says the error is important for GPS (which is based on WGS-84) and then the passage says GPS is not affected.

The point of the paragraph is that a 102-metre longitude error was not important for the way longitude was used in the late 19th century, but sometimes is important today. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc3s5h: I think the whole section has become fragmented and a bit of a mish mash what with multiple editing over the last few days. I intend to do a copy-edit to present the ideas in a more cogent and folowable order. See what you think after I have had a go. I B Wright (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prime meridian (Greenwich), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal Observatory. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Scope image.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned personal photo with no foreseeable use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]