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 Lowercase sigmabot III.

Seems they brought a flock of ducks. Every disruptive IPv4 at Billy the Cat (TV series) over the past two months is from Australia.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: I've blocked 49.186.0.0/17, 49.180.0.0/16, & 49.179.64.0/18 from that article. If you know of any other IP addresses that should be added that I've missed, let me know. JBW (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will let you know if I see related IPs while patrolling. Or if any of these start becoming a problem on other pages.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JB, would you mind blocking 70.62.124.152 from editing WCPE? That IP is registered to the station. There's also an IPv6 range from Indiana which has been disrupting the article but they haven't edited in a little over a month.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that caused the registered editor to come out of the woodwork.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: As you have probably seen, I've partially blocked the IP address from the article, and totally blocked the account.

24.163.117.3 has made only a couple of edits, and those aren't recent, but they look suspiciously similar to editing by the account & IP address that I've blocked, so who knows whether it may now wake up?

The IPv6 range you mention must be 2600:1700:8C28:A310:F9F8:4DBD:39CB:70DE/64, which has an extensive history of editing on numerous articles about radio stations. From a quick glance, it looks as though their editing may not be very constructive, but I haven't studied the editing history in depth, and in the small amount of checking that I did, I didn't see enough to justify taking any action. Of course, though, if you have seen more significant problems then you are welcome to give me a few diffs & I'll consider them. JBW (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll add the article to my watchlist in case 24.163.117.3 or any other problems shows up.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This is regarding my edit to your sandbox, and your revert. Your page wasn't transcluding a template as you suggested in your edit summary (though I assume you substed a template), it was directly adding the category Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. You are correct in saying that WP:USERNOCAT only applies to content categories, and I was perhaps a bit lazy in simply referncing that instead of giving a full reasoning. Regardless of the fact that the aforementioned category isn't a content category, there is no reason to have it manually added, and it simply pollutes a tracking category that should be empty. I would appreciate it if you would remove said category from the page. Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eejit43: I have carefully re-read my edit summary, and I can't understand what about it you thought "suggested" that the page was "transcluding a template"; I didn't mention transclusion. I did indeed subst a template, which produced a result which was not what I wanted. I did not know that a side effect of that would be to add the page to a clearup category; had I known that then of course I would have removed it. As I indicated in my edit summary, the whole thing came about because I was attempting to use a template in a namespace where it doesn't work; there isn't any good reason to keep the resulting unwanted message, so I will delete it. However, I offer you the following thoughts on how you have gone about achieving this outcome, and how else you might have done so.

There are several ways that it could have been dealt with, including: informing me, and asking me to make the change; making the change yourself, and immediately posting to my talk page explaining why, and perhaps acknowledging that you had presumed to edit a page in my userspace; making the change yourself, with an edit summary which acknowledged that you were editing in my user space, and briefly indicating why, perhaps then following it with a note on my talk page about it. I can also think of several better ways of phrasing your request here than "I would appreciate it if you would remove said category from the page", but never mind. As I said, I'll delete it, and there can then be smiles all round. ☺ ☺ JBW (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Apologies for informing you before making the change, I assumed it was a simple enough change to make without doing so. Have a nice rest of your day. :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JBW, I wanted to thank you first and foremost for your work in helping build up Wikipedia.

that being said, I’ve been trying to improve the Real Kakamora page since its last major edit was in February 2024—in that span, the club has completely turned around its fortunes and attained worldwide prominence due to its newfound star players and success and occasional controversy on Instagram—- simply put, the page is severely outdated and does not fulfill a Wikipedian duty to stay updated and true to current events.

placing an autoconfirmed lock on the page will prevent me from updating it to reflect the current state of the club, and I highly suggest you remove it as a result.

Thanks, @PaulFrancisEnjoyer PaulFrancisEnjoyer (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the place for "updates" and promotional editing. Please discuss content and sourcing on the article talk page. " All content must be cited from reliable, independent sources with a reputation for fact checking." Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulFrancisEnjoyer:

1. If what you say is true, then there's remarkably unfortunate timing, as you happen by an unlucky chance to have chosen to start improving the article just at the time when other people chose to start vandalising it.
2. By a truly remarkable coincidence the people doing the vandalism on that article have chosen usernames very closely related to your username.
3. A football team better known for its Instagram account than for its football would be rather remarkable. It's also strange that my searches have found quite a lot of mentions of its football, for which it is not well known, but scarcely anything about its Instagram account, for which, you tell us, it is better known.
4. Looking at your editing history, I have found not a single constructive edit. I also did find the creation of an unambiguous hoax page. That does not give me any faith in what you say. If you really have decided to do some constructive editing for a change, and just happen by an unfortunate chance to have chosen to do so just as vandalism on the article was taking place, prhaps you should consider the story of the boy who cried "wolf".
5. I have protected the article for just two days, in the hope that the vandals will have gone by then. If they have, you can then start making constructive edits to the article. Keeping some good edits waiting for a couple of days is a fairly moderate price to pay for stopping what might well have become a flood of vandalism. JBW (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @JBW: On a related not, did you get my ping? I might have mangled it. 😜-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: No, I haven't had any ping from you recently. JBW (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commens sought -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is to indef the socks and partial the master. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Deepfriedokra, as you have probably seen, Sir Sputnik has indef-blocked them all. To be honest, I can't think why on earth I didn't do that right away, when I first saw them, since, as I have now said in the SPI, it is a vandalism-only editor, quite apart from the matter of sockpuppetry. JBW (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

meh. We cannot get to everything. I should've just gone ahead and blocked after I created the SPI. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for blocking The bee goes honey honey honey. Would you mind revoking their TPA? Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kovcszaln6  Done. Knowing the history of this troll, I would have done that when I placed the block, but I forgot to. Thanks for calling it to my attention. JBW (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]