Jump to content

User talk:73.186.215.222

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


Another sock

[edit]

More block evasion by Duane E. Tressler (talk · contribs), from 169.156.21.120 (talk · contribs). Drmies, would you like the honor of blocking? Happy New Year, 73.186.215.222 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And another, Drmies: 169.156.21.98 (talk · contribs) 73.186.215.222 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another active one, Drmies: 169.156.4.36 (talk · contribs). 73.186.215.222 (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lana

[edit]

hi, is this ok for the divorce https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/10/wwe-raw-rusev-lana-divorce-11589327/ Govindaharihari (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary new incarnation

[edit]

Tagging self to keep things relatively straight. 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on this talk page. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (73.186.215.222) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 21:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Cole James article

[edit]

Hello! I was going to reply to your comment at AIV but the vandal was blocked and comments removed before I could. The initial edit that I rolled back included a racial slur against the subject, along with the modification to Krugman's description. I didn't even notice the Krugman bit, but immediately reverted based on the slur. The IP editor, rather deceptively, did not attempt to reinstate the racial slur in their second edit there but instead acted as though it was the Krugman bit that got their edit reverted. I'm actually a fan of Krugman and ok with the Nobel-winning economist description, but I agree with you that it is probably better to have just the name. Anyway, thanks, and happy editing! PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to talkback

[edit]
Hello, 73.186.215.222. You have new messages at 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63's talk page.
Message added 05:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

{{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 05:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

(←) You repeatedly made an edit that was disallowed by an edit filter, trying to "categorize" an ongoing SPI, which is bizarre and suspicious in its own right. These actions were automatically flagged by a bot, which is how I found out about them. If you don't want to be immediately flagged as a potential sock, perhaps don't repeatedly trigger an edit filter on an active SPI investigation in which a random, uninvolved person would most likely have no business trying to intervene in. That aside, the attempted categorization in itself was also disruptive, as Category:Pages for discussion is merely a container category that should not be added to individual pages. Even if you had nothing to do with the SPI, there is no reasonable explanation for your edits. Feel free to appeal as you see fit. Regards, ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm, it took me a while to understand this too, and I had to look again after your block to finally get it – they attempted to revert the sock. See the edit summary of the filter entries. Their edits are even covered by the edit warring policy and rollbackuse exemptions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were trying to revert this edit. Swarm, will you unblock? I could ask for your OK and then do it, but I really need to go make some coffee. Thanks, and thanks ToBeFree, Drmies (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ToBeFree and Drmies. Am holding, or biting, my tongue for the moment. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that it was the sock who had added the category in the first place, so Swarm does have a point, but not to the level of blocking. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree, I wasn't aware of that, nor of the transgression I was undertaking--I saw the removal and thought it vandalism by the disruptive account. But consider me more than a little surprised to be blocked hours later, without warning or explanation. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And for what it's worth, bots frequently disallow good edits because I'm an IP. This seemed to me another such instance. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, no, the facts of this situation are still unclear. There would have been no logical reason to add the "Pages under discussion" category, period. It's a container category, nothing short of nonsensical to add to an SPI page. It was initially added by the reported sock themselves. It was also removed by the reported sock themselves. There is no straightforward explanation as to why a random IP would feel the need to revert the correct self-reversion of an inappropriate categorization by a reported sock, in other words agreeing with the sock's original adding of the category. There is much less any argument that their doing so was seemingly productive, especially after being repeatedly blocked from doing so by an existing edit filter. The duck rule would seem to imply that this was either the sock fucking around, or a typical "false flag" reproduction of sock behavior, which is in itself a well-known LTA sock behavior. I would very much like to see an actual reasonable explanation for this bizarre and inappropriate behavior, but I cannot think of one. It is bizarre to me that you're jumping straight to this being a bad block because the IP "reverted a sock". In doing so, they restored a sock's edit. Come on guys. It wasn't a "good edit" that got wrongfully flagged. At the very best, a very convincing explanation is needed here before an unblock should be even considered. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've explained my actions in their full extent. Swarm is intent on seeing something nefarious in my actions. I was indeed determined to revert a disruptive account. That was my intent, period. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The actual explanation can sometimes be surprisingly simple – 73.186.215.222 is a vandal fighter, stumbled upon the sock, reverted the sock's weird attempt to mess around with their own SPI using HotCat, not noticing that the sock had made two edits. End of story, I guess. I'm too involved to take any administrative action, and I didn't understand what has happened until a few minutes ago, or I would probably have added a comment instead of leaving an administrative landmine at AIV sitting around until it was triggered in Special:Diff/949876957. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is a misunderstanding, that's all well and good, I'd be happy to unblock the IP, though their involvement in the SPI, their notion that the removal of the category was "vandalism", or their repeated insistence on doing so in contravention of an edit filter remains unaccounted for. I am simply looking for a reasonable explanation prior to unblocking them. Once that has been provided, you may unblock them yourself. I do not wish to railroad a good faith IP over a misunderstanding. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've explained my actions already twice. If that's insufficient, so be it. But if Swarm can not, or will not, take that at face value, the problem is not mine. What I will ask, ToBeFree and Drmies, is the best way to proceed with a complaint. I can wait until next week and go through ANI, but I'm also willing to seek another channel, if one is available during a block. In more than 15 years, I've never had to ask that question. But this is, to my eye, a phenomenal example of bad faith, one that will be addressed. Thanks, 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a sufficient explanation that satisfies the specific questions that I have specifically asked. The best way of resolving this would simply be to answer my questions. As I said, I have no desire to harm a good faith user who has done nothing wrong, I'm simply confused as to what the specific situation was that led us to this incident, if it was not as I have interpreted it. I would be happy to unblock you without any delay whatsoever if you will simply explain what is going on. If you are simply an innocent victim of my false assumptions, then surely you would be more than willing to simply explain the situation that led me to mistakenly block you. If you were to make a formal complaint about the block in any forum, you would have to explain the situation anyways. I don't see why you would possibly want to refuse to rectify my lack of clarity as to what is going on, when I have stated that I am happy to unblock you if I am in the wrong. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, ToBeFree's interpretation was on point, and I elaborated above at 2:02 and 2:04. What I do not understand is why that's still opaque. Look, I am going to file a complaint, whether the block is lifted or not. There's an unwillingness to accept my explanation from the get go, and a determination to block without warning. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will go back and look at the situation.... 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think the following points might be relevant:
  • To me, there is no indication of bad faith from either side; assuming it for the opposing party doesn't help anyone, not even when accused of bad faith editing oneself. It is incredibly unlikely that Swarm is acting in bad faith; the latest messages are rather relieving than upsetting.
  • If I see correctly, there is currently no direct explanation how you have noticed the sock in the first place. There are plenty of possible valid reasons; credibly describing the actual one is probably already all that's needed for an unblock to happen.
  • If the week has expired due to a mere refusal to answer this question, action is unlikely to happen at ANI. If answering all questions, on the other hand, does not lead to an unblock, there may be reason enough for a discussion. Refusing to answer the question(s) for a week would thus be a bad strategy leading to a week of frustration and a discussion without result.
  • Shit happens. It just does.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm sure some of the confusion is because my IP switched in midstream, and it's just occurred to me now. I originally filed this report at ANI [1]. Then I followed the edits of RheieWater2005 (talk · contribs). That's where my unsuccessful attempts to revert at the SPI came from. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, TBF's statements do not address my specific questions that resulted in the block. To reiterate: removing the category was not vandalism, nor was there any reason to think that it was; and, secondly, a random IP's presence in an esoteric, behind-the-scenes SPI case is unusual and suspicious, as should be obvious, whether you're innocent or not. That is my line of thinking, mistaken as it may be. So, the explanations I am looking for are simple: why were you present in this SPI page, and why did you revert the removal of an incorrect categorization as "vandalism"? This is all I'm unclear on. Should be pretty simple to explain your thought process if it was indeed reasonable. You say you were tracking the edits of the user, but that doesn't mesh with the narrative that you were some anti-vandalism patroller who came across apparent vandalism and didn't see that it was the same user who came across an edit and mistook it for vandalism. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, I will note to @ToBeFree:, a newer admin, that being an anti-vandalism IP and being an illegitimate sock are not mutually exclusive. So I'm not convinced this blind defense based on "anti-vandalism" are mutually exclusive. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat my explanation above: I originally filed this report at ANI [2]. Then I followed the edits of RheieWater2005 (talk · contribs). That's where my unsuccessful attempts to revert at the SPI came from. I considered the account disruptive, and attempted to restore a category to the SPI whose removal I misconstrued as vandalism. I still don't understand why I'm blocked for a week without warning, nor how I've failed to address my rationale. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And if you're implying that I am acting as an 'illegitimate sock,' then I'm wasting my time here. None of the hoops I'm trying to navigate offer the proper resolution. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Swarm, short of lifting the block, please don't correspond here anymore. Thank you. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a mistake; unfairness doesn't solve unfairness. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To close the circle, I think you'll need to explain how you found the reason for the ANI report in the first place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ANI issue had nothing to do with the SPI in question. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (←) To clarify further, I don't see it explained how and why you ended up at the SPI in question. I also don't see it explained why you reverted the removal of the category as "vandalism". It was not vandalism, nor would there ever have possibly been any reason to revert it as such. If you are a "vandalism patroller", you are expected to be able to screen edits that are not vandalism. This was not vandalism. At this point you're simply being held to the basic standard of any anti-vandalism patroller. You're not being singled out in any way. I'm literally just asking for a rational explanation of events, and I don't understand why it's like pulling teeth. It's your freedom to edit that's at stake. I'm not sure why you'd be as obstructive as possible in clarifying the issues at hand so that you can be unblocked. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree, I saw the contentious editing on Hellickhook (talk · contribs)' s talk page, via the recent changes page, and discerned pretty quickly that both parties were disruptive. After a minute or two I reported at ANI. But look, I'm exasperated. I'm not accustomed to being treated as an offender, and unjustly so. This has been going on more than an hour, and at this point one is inclined to accept the block and be done with this. Swarm is not going to accept that I followed a user's edits from one page to another. There has not been anything I can do to penetrate that distrust. Swarm, I'd asked you not to comment here again. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. To me personally, that's the link we have been looking for, between the confirmation of my interpretation, and yours. Between recent changes and the SPI. If I may make one last request in this matter, despite all the understandable stress and reasonable unwillingness to respond to these questions further, please add {{unblock|reason=see above ~~~~}} below. I can't do that for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) You're not being treated as an "offender", you were blocked based on what you claim was an incorrect misunderstanding, and I am fully appreciating that response, asserting that I will gladly unblock you if I was wrong. I'm merely asking you for your explanation to my specific questions regarding the specific concerns that led to the block. I literally cannot deduce any reason that you cannot or will not answer my questions as to what thought process, exactly, led to the edits that I have misunderstood. If you would just explain your line of thinking, I could understand how my perception was wrong. Even if you made judgment calls that were in the wrong, that's fine, I could understand that, and I wouldn't hold that against you. The only thing I can't understand is your refusal to answer my questions. I blocked you. I was wrong? Fine, how was I wrong? Just explain it. Just answer my confusion. I cannot possibly comprehend why an innocent user would refuse to explain the logical chain of events that led to an admin incorrectly blocking them. It doesn't make sense to me. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, I literally do not understand what question I'm apparently evading. I've explained the context for ANI--I saw the edits transpiring at a user's talk page, something looked fishy, and I did a quick read--and then following the disruptive account's edits afterwards. Maybe I'm missing something very clear, and if so, it's possible that I plain resent being accused--no, not accused, blindsided with a block. Under the circumstances, I've no intention to request an unblock. And I can't comprehend why Swarm continues here--I've asked you twice not to comment, as that's clearly not working. Allow me to correspond with ToBeFree. This is beyond anything I've encountered here before. The presumption of guilt is something I cannot comprehend. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have specifically articulated my specific questions above: "So, the explanations I am looking for are simple: why were you present in this SPI page, and why did you revert the removal of an incorrect categorization as "vandalism"? This is all I'm unclear on. Should be pretty simple to explain your thought process if it was indeed reasonable." Surely these questions are easy to answer? It's unclear to me why, when the blocking admin is holding up your "righteous" unblock on these simple points, you would refuse to directly respond to them, "ban" them from commenting on your page, declare your intention not to challenge the block, and address your comments to a third party. It's not as if I'm your enemy, I have repeatedly declared my willingness to repent for what you claim was my "error". I'm only asking for a simple clarification as to why I was in the wrong, and you're becoming completely hostile rather than simply working with me. Like I said, I can't understand it. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine I saw the mud throwing happening around this point [3], took a look at the talk page and thought it ought to get shut down. What I can't fathom is that an admin would look at my attempted edits at the SPI and make the conclusion that I was associated with one of the blocked accounts--I'm assuming that's what's going on here, though nobody has actually said that. How many times can I explain the attempts to revert the incorrect categorization? I did not know it was incorrect, and misconstrued it as vandalism by the soon-to be-blocked account, whom I followed after the ANI. I don't understand why that explanation isn't being heard. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a stop to the blocking admin's commenting here, because after a certain amount of time, it is clear that this is going nowhere. I can not edit outside of this page, but request assistance from an uninvolved administrator, please. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this is still ongoing? 😐 The easiest way to request an independent review is the code I've mentioned above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I have no intent to edit at my usual place of business, as 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk · contribs), nor at my old registered account, which Drmies knows. Nor do I have the stomach to return to the site in the near future. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: PMJI, but while I can't answer all of your questions I may be able to add a little clarity. I have a considerable amount of knowledge accrued and recorded by many present and past anti-vandalism IP editors at my fingertips, many of whom I am personally responsible for training. Triggering the edit filter is quite common and can happen for a variety of perfectly legitimate reasons, this very IP has been reported by bots for triggering the edit filter on AIV on multiple occasions, most recently for reverting image vandalism, luckily without thus far being blocked. I can go into more detail with you on this issue if you are curious however a short peruse of the edits from this address to the false positives page would be a lengthy read by itself. Coming back to the main topic, experienced vandals apply a variety of different tactics to disrupt RCP efforts. I won't go into much detail on-wiki for obvious reasons, but a common tactic is for socks to make a bad edit and then later revert it once people begin to follow them around and revert all their edits, thus reinstating the original vandalism, but now with a trusted username behind it. This is particularly common with experienced date/number changing vandals who will often create an account that does mostly good edits combined with subtle vandalism, and then creates an obvious vandal account later that changes those back en masse without edit summaries, those edits are then reverted by experienced and trusted users thus ensuring the edit sticks for a very long time. In any case, the vandal made a self-revert in an effort to sow confusion and succeeded as 73.186.215.222 missed the vandals use of that tactic, this happens all the time even to experienced vandalism fighters. So while I won't speak for them, I would ask that you consider the larger context and treat them just as you would a registered user. I am also willing to answer any further questions you have, either here or wherever else you prefer. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

73.186.215.222 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked without notice, and have explained the circumstances multiple times: I attempted to restore a categorization at an SPI page, not realizing it was an erroneous let alone a blockable action. Editing as an IP, constructive edits are sometimes blocked by a bot, as when I attempt to remove large swaths of vandalism or copyright violation content--I thought this was a similar situation. My rationale, as also explained above, was to revert what I believed were the disruptive edits of someone involved in the SPI. Previously, I opened an ANI report regarding that account. It seems there's a determination to suspect that I'm associated with the blocked accounts, or have some other underhanded motive. That's not the case, nor has it ever been during my years of editing. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

It is possible to think that the IP should not have reverted the editor at the SPI. I, for one, am convinced they attempted those edits not out of malice, but thought that the edit was legitimate, especially given their body of work. Drmies (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Kirkpatrick

[edit]

At any rate, I was in the process of starting a COI when blocked. Feel free to have a look, and open this for me, if so inclined. Thanks. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Kirkpatrick article appears to be an autobiography, tended over the years by the three Rocket accounts and one or more IPs; the earlier two registered accounts appear to be defunct. Related articles refer to Mr. Kirkpatrick's book, an associated publisher, and a sampling of the many articles spammed by Redrocket--some of the external links and self-mentions have survived for more than a decade, but there are more articles than those listed here, and which will be found in Redrocket's edit history. All articles would benefit from de-puffing. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time for this one right now, will review and file within the next few days if you are not unblocked. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@73.186.215.222:I don't see what the issues are with this entry? It reads like a reference entry. (I've worked on dozens of encyclopediae.) The tone of the entry is factual and objective, not promotional, and any assessments or judgments assertions are presented directly from citations or quotes from significant newspapers and other periodicals and online sources. (The content, format, and length of the entry are comparable to the entry for another industry editor and writer, David Hirshey.) The subject of this entry has created works both on his own and in conjunction with many other significant figures who are newsworthy enough to have their own entries, and responsible cross-links are offered IMO. (Even the subject’s marriage seems relevant to the entry as it was to another author and recorded in the New York Times, which provides other biographical information for the entry.) There’s a note here saying it requires “additional citations” but the entry offers 23 citations and 13 external sources. I see the subject’s connection to the David Wax Museum entry has been questioned but if you look at the band’s own web site, the band itself makes a point to link to the subject's review, so it seems noteworthy. The only question I might raise is if the subject’s 1969 book needs the separate entry. It was a bestseller and has been cited by a couple of noteworthy authors, but perhaps it can be combined with the subject’s entry? I don’t have strong feelings on this. Also, perhaps the citation to the subject’s corresponding entry on IMDB could be included? The entry's Filmography matches up with the one for “Rob Kirkpatrick (III)” on IMDB. If others see ways to improve this entry, that is great.

Realgonerocket88 (talk)Realgonerocket88 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your response, Realgonerocket88. I'm not going to go very far into this here or now for several reasons. For one thing, last night's festivities at this talk page have taken the wind out of my sails, and for the moment I want very little to do with Wikipedia. I'd planned on making this report at the conflict of interest noticeboard when things went south, and that will be the most appropriate place for a discussion--another editor is welcome to look this over and open a report there. Lastly, for now, I have little desire to go over the concerns with an editor who's not forthcoming. You've been contributing, with a narrow focus and multiple accounts, for a decade or longer, without ever divulging your conflict, and you apparently don't feel the need to do so here. To cite one edit randomly--and there are many such--here's a typical example from 2012 [4]. A report and oversight of hundreds of edits are way overdue. Until a COI report, thank you. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@73.186.215.222: With all due respect, I’m not going to get into a back and forth with someone who was apparently upset about being blocked for reasons unrelated to me. Sorry if you find the focus of my edits too “narrow.” Ironically, I hadn’t done any editing in many months and just made updates to an entry--one that, by the way, had been left sadly out of date by everyone else on here for several years, and which also read like a press release written by an employee--and that required an update due to recent, widely reported industry news. Yes, I used to have previous usernames connected to defunct email addresses that I could no longer access; that’s the Pynchonian plot you’ve uncovered. (And, by the way, can I point out that I obviously wasn't trying to hide that as the usernames are all variations on the same theme?) Like you, I now want very little to do with Wikipedia now, as I’m sorry to say that the vibe for/from editors on Wikipedia has gotten needlessly polarized and downright hostile from militant keyboard warriors. (For example, last time I signed on to make edits many months ago, I tried to make a simple and newsworthy update to an entry, one that the majority of respondents in Talk agreed with, yet one editor kept deleting it based upon a claim of a supposed “consensus” that he or she was unable to demonstrate, accompanied by threats of blocking me.) So I think I’m done with all this. I daresay I probably have more professional reference experience than 90% of the editors on here, and I’ve always aimed for proper standards of tone, content, scope, and format for the end user. I have made objective, factual updates based on citations and a common threshold of newsworthiness. But as I said, if you or anyone can make improvements according to these same standards, by all means please go for it. I think I’ll focus on my paying job from now on. Thanks.Realgonerocket88 (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not soliciting empathy. Nothing nefarious about the multiple accounts. But you can't edit articles about yourself, your business and related entities for ten years and not divulge conflict of interest; in fact, you can't do it for a day, but with something over six or seven million articles on English Wikipedia, such things slip through the cracks too often. So please don't spin this as an unfair attack. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The return of Duane E. Tressler (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Drmies, our old friend returned at this IP in February. Feel free to revert his usual work. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

arrow Reverted otherwise this is stale. Please note, some of the home-brewed tools we use for this sort of complex revert can be a bit buggy, I double checked to make sure the revert looked good, but an additional set of eyes wouldn't hurt. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, pity we didn't see this as it was happening. Thanks. IP 2604, your signature is giving me a headache and I bet it does not comply with MOS:COLOR. Drmies (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Sorry, I just saw this. It looks like you are correct recommended contrast is >500 and pure red, green, or blue on black is only 255. Doing pure spectral colors on white would be marginally compliant instead at 510. I've just added that as a drop-down option, and I'll sign with it at the end of this post. If that works for you I can make the change easily, if it doesn't I'll just go with what I have unless someone else comes up with an alternative, as owing to the short remaining lifespan for this IP address the effort put into coming up with something else may well exceed the value derived from the change over the course of no more than a few dozen remaining signatures. I will keep this in mind in the future if I make a new signature for a differrent address. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent problematic/promotional edits

[edit]

See most recent at Stew Leonard's. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal

[edit]

Nobody else has followed up on this WP:NOTHERE account. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

104.128.197.136 has self-reverted, given that actions are too stale to warn for at present, nothing more to do here for the time being. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Moore (American football)

[edit]

Another I can't revert. Persistent promotional and/or poorly sourced content. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

arrow Reverted Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spam account

[edit]

Hey, these are all accounts and articles I'm following up on from my earlier involvements. Maybe someone else will. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

arrow Reverted, warned, and spam blanked. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Directorate General of Civil Aviation (India)

[edit]

Persistent vandalism, block evasion to mess with names in infobox. Aniket Dey is resolute to include their name. Page lock may be necessary. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

arrow Reverted, however I did not file a request at RFPP because the vandalism does not appear frequent enough for it to be granted. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you, Drmies; I greatly appreciate your assistance.

And thank you, 2604:2000:8fc0:4:68ba:3b32:8613:8b6d, for taking time to look into the various concerns above. No major felonies, perhaps, but it's always good to get more eyes, rather than go it alone. If there's ever anything I can do, drop a line. Hopefully I'll revert back to the usual 2601 IP soon. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's always a pleasure to help. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm unlikely to be able to offer you the opportunity to return the favor directly. This IP address will go dark permanently within a matter of weeks, I probably won't be editing here myself past the 21st although my exact time of departure is contingent on multiple factors. I will be back on Wikipedia eventually but it may not be for a while could be a year maybe two, and even when I do come back I will not connect myself to this old IP unless I can verify through the functionaries because that is the only way to avoid being impersonated by LTAs. What you can do for me is just keep going what your doing and try to help other IP users get fair treatment, there's a lot of bias and prejudice against us out there, and it helps to have a respected voice reminding everyone that there is a human being behind the string of numbers just as much as there is behind every username however silly. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether I'll stick around much longer, 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D. Most likely what's needed is a break. I'd submit that a few administrators--none, mind you, with whom I regularly correspond--could stand to read, or reread, WP:HUMAN. Best regards wherever your travels take you, and I hope to encounter you here again in the future. Cheers, 73.186.215.222 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, welcome back – I've just seen the unblock and was relieved. I'm not saying a break is a bad idea, but that's entirely unrelated to the block discussion: You have been working hard for Wikipedia, and earned any break pretty well. I wish you both all the best, and thank Drmies very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and be well, ToBeFree. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stan VanderWerf - Wikipedia Page

[edit]

Hi! I introduced the VanderWerf page in an attempt to begin recognizing Combat Veterans who went on to make notable contributions to society. I heard about his story and the various Medals of Honor he received as a Combat Veteran and War Hero and I was inspired to start with him since his accomplishments appeared very notable.

The information I used to create the page looked like solid biographical data, though it was definitely riddled with PR. I tried to remove any PR verbiage I found and many other wiki contributors have helped to clean this up. My goal was to show this Veteran's accomplishments and begin highlighting other Veterans who have contributed in such a positive way to the United States.

I needed to start somewhere and this biography seemed like as good a place as any. Thank you, for your insight on this! It's much appreciated and helped me with the learning process of making a solid living biography! Thanks, again! Have a great day! PeytonRose (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi PeytonRose, so far as I can tell, this came with at least two major problems. The first is that you relied upon the subject's political campaign page for 'solid biographical data,' and the second is that you appear to have copied much of it verbatim. The website was not a very WP:RELIABLE source, given its strongly promotional bent, and your post was a copyright violation. You responded to my question in several places, but you haven't acknowledged the appearance of plagiarism. Thank you, 73.186.215.222 (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell High School

[edit]

Hello,

I updated data for CHS according to NCES. The source remains the same, however, the info is updated. I believe it was mistakenly reverted to older data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahb1996 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berrell Jensen

[edit]

Hi 73.186.215.222, you mentioned on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard the issue of including on the Berrell Jensen page a list of non notable commercial gallery exhibits, and I took the lists down. However I notice on the South African sculptor Deborah Bell's page a similar list. Perhaps you can help me understand why it is okay on the one page but not on the other? Much appreciated,--SandAJ (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Jay

[edit]

Hi Drmies and Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), is Realgood3000 (talk · contribs) a block evasion account? See history of Tony Jay, for example. Thanks and cheers from 99. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, though I can't nail them to any earlier accounts, I'm afraid. They're doing the same shit as User:Happy go luky papa, and no doubt there's more. SuperMarioMan, I have some CU information that links them to that account, but not directly enough for a CU block. If you know of more accounts it might be worth filing an SPI. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies, thank you. In another vein, we have JCWestland (talk · contribs), a scholar who thus far is interested solely in adding his own published work. This raises self-spamming issues even when the content isn't copied directly from his book. Thoughts welcome. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to look less critically on people who cite their own work if that work is academic. Springer is an academic enough publication, and if the citations are decent and relevant, and not undue, I will let that slide. Of course if that is all the editor does it's a different matter. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had two of my edits now that have been removed because 'they promote my own published work'. Fair enough, but where else have you provided material on the origin of double-entry in the 8th century (not the 14th) with the algebra of al-Khwarizmi, and the dissemination of double-entry throughout Asia via the Tang dynasty. Wikipedia's coverage of accounting history is largely incomplete (with multiple questions about the originality of Pacioli's work, and use of double-entry in medieval Korea as unsubstantiated. As it stands now, Wikipedia's history of accounting is more or less fiction. Do you plan to keep it this way? JCWestland — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCWestland (talk • contribs) 06:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • JCWestland, your edits were reverted because they added content that had been copied and pasted verbatim from their source, something which I believe you did again after you received a warning on the matter re: copyright violation. Wikipedia articles are always open to improvement. The suggestion from these quarters is simple: please update content, and do so using mostly references to scholarship that was written by others, keeping WP:SELFCITEing to a minimum. There are, at a glance, many books written on the subject, and I'm guessing a few of them are acceptable as WP:RELIABLE sources. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. My second update should have been original, since I rewrote it from the original material. I'll check it this time through ithenticate. I would disagree that there are many books written on this subject, though there is source material that I have used, and which I should have referenced (I was being lazy). I will contribute another update with your guidance in mind. JCWestland

  • JCWestland, to diminish any confusion, I'm the same user as 73.186.215.222. I like the transparency of the discussion, because I welcome other experienced editors and administrators to add their thoughts. Though I'm referring to guidelines, my interpretation re: using one's published content as source material here is not intended to be authoritative. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Groucho Marx

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  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 and 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. Samsara 04:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm just wondering what you were expecting would happen. The content that was added did not violate any guidelines as far as I can see, and neither side initiated a discussion towards a consensus. I can't block a user for putting something in slightly the wrong section (unless it's clear they're doing it in a disruptive way), and I have to allow a little leeway for someone that might be a newcomer. I really don't want to reprimand you for bringing a potentially problematic situation to admin attention, so please don't take it in that way. But the bottom line is that if you had initiated communication with the other user, we would very likely now have clear evidence of how they want to play, rather than having to guess whether they've reached full competence in the dark arts of edit summaries. Samsara 05:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one time--and I hope it's an anomaly--when I have no good answer. I overreacted to a minor addition that struck me as out of place, and dug in on it. A discussion would have been wiser, but there's some terrain I travel on instinct and experience and expect that to be enough. I know better, and have no problem with being warned of 3rr. I was wrong. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:73.186.215.222&oldid=997144947"