User talk:David Tornheim/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Che Guevara

Just as an FYI, This is the blocked user in question. I try to keep an eye out for logged-out editing (which he is known to do), but I was less active until the last quarter of last year, and missed the spurt of activity under this and some related IPs. If the activity were more recent, I'd have filed at SPI and sought a rangeblock, if feasible. Grandpallama (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Thanks, when I asked about this, I wasn't questioning your judgment--I assumed you were an admin who knew what was up with the editor. But I was trying to figure out how an editor like me could find out that this came from an editor with a "bad" reputation. I looked in the usual places: (1) talk page (2) block logs. Nothing there. As a usual practice for me, when I see a new IP with no talk page, I try to have a welcome for multiple reasons: (1) To, of course, welcome them (2) Urge them to create an account, as it is so hard to track IP behavior (3) Encourage good editing and discourage bad editing (4) Provide a first warning for problematic edits (5) Keep a record for future editors as to whether the IP started off on the right or wrong foot. So, when I asked about putting a note there on the IP's talk page, it was mostly for (5). Make sense?

As a side note, how did you know it was the same editor--because it was in the same blockrange? I didn't look at any of the edits, so maybe it is obvious from the editing record. How do you know the editor won't use the IP again? Is that their M.O.? [Not asking to divulge the secrets of WP:checkuser if that was used.] --David Tornheim (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an admin--I'm sure I'd never pass any RFA! :)

Everything you say makes sense. I realized I hadn't named the editor on the talkpage, and I didn't want to seem like I was being coy, or that I'd lied and the situation wasn't as I'd described. My strikethrough had puzzled an admin, who also isn't familiar with the editor, which made me realize I should just go back and remove them altogether.

I recognize the IP as a result of previous interactions with him before his indef, when he was causing trouble by IP editing while blocked; there are also a number of behavioral and language tells to combine with the IP recognition. None of the edits I've seen are recent enough to justify taking it to SPI. Without giving too much away, I'll say he tends to post on talkpages to provoke a response, watch for someone to engage, then stir the pot; that was behind my initial inclination to strike out talkpage discussion that had served no purpose other than to create drama.

I don't know for certain that he won't have that same IP again, but it seems like they get randomly assigned to him within a small range, and I haven't yet seen it repeat. If you want more details to keep your own eye out, I'm happy to send you an e-mail through WP, but he avidly reads talkpages, so I'm loath to put too many tells on one. His usual pattern means that even if he gets that IP assigned again, and even though he might read the discussion at Che Guevara, he's unlikely to ever actually edit there again. Grandpallama (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Thanks for the explanation. No need for an email. I'll say he tends to post on talkpages to provoke a response, watch for someone to engage, then stir the pot; That's terrible. Now I understand why you struck-out the language, which I support after your explanation, especially if the goal is to protect other editors from falling into the trap of responding to the bait. If that's the case, rather than strike out the text--which, as you can see, calls more attention to it--I would be inclined to delete it or, even better, archive it. After all, experienced editors know that reporting first hand experience can be disregarded and no one but the editor who posted it is going to care if such irrelevant text is thrown in the dust bin of the talk page.

I do still think it is better to address the behavior issues on the editor's talk page, rather than on the article talk page. That's where I always look and probably that admin did too. I know how hard that is with IP jumpers, but I still think it is better, so that other editors know what is going on. At least that's what I prefer and try to do.

Do you think there is a chance that anyone else might ever use that same IP address? I don't know much about how people are able to use different IP's--I was thinking they might be at a school, university or library, and just use different computers or their friends' or family's computers. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, hatting would probably be the best solution--avoids the bother of trying to archive it. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@User:7&6=thirteen: Yum! Never heard of that. Looks delicious, like Tiramisu--the best I have ever had was at Steps of Rome in

North Beach, San Francisco, run entirely by vivacious Italians, who would often sing loudly to the Italian music and banter back and forth as the night wore on. The place was often out of control with noise and exciting energy. So sad to learn that it closed. Nothing like it anywhere I have been.  :(

And thanks for working on and calling attention to M. Emmet Walsh. I was disappointed that it was considered to be in a sad state at the time of his death. When I first saw him in Blood Simple, I was so impressed, and I'm almost certain I looked at the article. I didn't remember it being too bad at the time--it's not that much worse than a number of actors--and now I regret I didn't work on it then! I'd probably jump in the fray to help out, but it looks like there are already enough eyes on it. Hope it is finished in time to get in the news. You can keep me posted if you think more eyes are need, only if you think that would make it more likely to get "in the news". --David Tornheim (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I just watched Blood Simple That was a film that presaged later Coen Brothers. All the characters were grifters and worse. I tought Frances McDormand was under used, but Walsh was especially slimey and menacing. I've tried to update the article, and hope it will find its way to being approved. Hell, we had 300,000 views! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought Frances McDormand did pretty well. I don't know of any other films she was in before that (without looking at her entry). So I think she was new.

As for Walsh, I thought he did such a great job creating that bizarre character--so characteristic of Coen Brothers' films. Those initial scenes really impressed me. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:ITN has its own standards, and that's just what they do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@User:7&6=thirteen: Thanks. I'll take a look. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Pronouns

Hi. For the sake of simplicity and for everyone else, feel free to use he/him pronouns when referring to me. Regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a he/him. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)