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 .

Attempt to use Wikipedia to publicise a paper

I read your comments. I have not made any edits concerning the conjecture. I asked Eppstein what method he wanted me to use where he might consider changing his decision if presented with facts. Plus, I am not promoting anything. I am challenging the decision to exclude any information from any paper published by TMA. No content has been edited into a page or removed from a page concerning the conjecture. Everybody has the right to challenge a decision by an editor by using the dispute resolution methods outlined by Wikipedia. ISTCC (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ISTCC: You have said "I have been working on the Collatz Conjecture for about 3 years. After I got my work published in a peer-reviewed journal, I wanted my findings included in the wiki page. I did not have an account and did not want to get that involved in the process. I had read that before making any major edits, it was best to post them on the“talk” page and get a consensus. I posted my proposed edits on the talk page and asked for comments both pro and con. I gave the information to download the paper so everybody could read it before discussing the exact wording of the edits." That is an unambiguous statement that you are trying to use Wikipedia to publicise your "proof". To claim otherwise is disingenuous. Your attempt to get the journal in which you have published it accepted as a reliable source is intended to enable you to use it to justify posting mention of it in a Wikipedia article. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. You also posted an extensive amount of text to Talk:Collatz conjecture advocating for including content about your paper in the article. Your editing history is visible to amyone who chooses to look at it, and "No content has been edited into a page or removed from a page concerning the conjecture" is visibly not true. As for your comment about having "the right to challenge a decision by an editor", I have no idea why you mentioned that, since nothing I wrote to you has anything to do with that. JBW (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani IPs disrupting animation articles

Hi, JB; please find a range which covers these v4s and block them.

–Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68:

Done, though at first I thought it wouldn't be possible, as the range required is 182.178.0.0/17, which is usually too big to block because of the amount of collateral damage. However, when I checked the editing history, I was astonished. I have rarely seen so large an IP range full of so much unconstructive editing and so little constructive editing, so I decided blocking was reasonable. JBW (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I think I found the reason for the low ratio. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that school, listed as no longer being active, but perhaps other schools. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Yes, of course. I should have thought of that. Instead of "I have rarely seen so large an IP range full of so much unconstructive editing and so little constructive editing" I should have said "I have rarely seen so large an IP range full of so much unconstructive editing and so little constructive editing unless it's a school range". In some countries it's easy to determine that a whole IP range is allocated to a school system, but in other countries they just show up under the ISP which supplies them to the school district, and this is probably an example of that. JBW (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I came across another low ratio school range

66.186.96.0/20 has hardly any edits for the typical summer vacation months of July & August with plenty of disruption the rest of the year. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Hmm. 🤔 That's not the way it looks to me. In the 346 days so far in 2024 there have been 31 edits, which works out as an average of 2.7 per month. In August there were 2 edits, which is not significantly different from that average. In 2023 there were actually more edits in August (13) than any other month except March (19), and almost twice as many as the average per month (6.7). JBW (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, when I wrote that I forgot to check July as well as August. July does look rather different, with respectively 0, 1, 2, & 0 edits in July 2024, 2023, 2022, & 2021, so you may have a point there, but the statistics on August editing must cast some doubt on it. Can you say more precisely when school summer vacations typically run in the USA? In England they cover the whole of August but only part of July, so one would expect more editing from a school in July than in August, which is the opposite to what has happened here. JBW (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Varies depending on the school district. Used to be mid-June to Labor Day but there are now some which start mid-August instead and there are certain schools open limited hours for summer education. That would be for students looking for a head start on the next year or to make up for a failing grade during the previous year. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: OK, thanks. That makes it seem plausible that it might be just in July when there would be virtually no editing. What I saw looking at the editing history did look consistent with school editing. However, averaging out at just a few edits per month probably doesn't justify a long term block, especially since there have been some constructive edits. (I've just noticed that above I said that August 2024 had 2 edits, which was not significantly different from the average of 2.7 edits per day for the year to date, but I meant 2.7 per month. Obviously 2 in a month would have been very significantly different from an average of 2.7 per day.) I think I'll put a short block on just the single IP address responsible for the latest editing. JBW (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Sockpuppet Tag

I was looking at information relating to the banned LTA User:Royer2356 and I saw that you tagged User:JarIaxleArtemis as this user. Considering that account dates from 2005 and seemed to be a legitimate (albeit blocked) doppleganger used by User:JarlaxleArtemis before he went rogue, I was wondering how you came to that conclusion. Royer2356 did not start vandalizing until 2012, which was 7 years after the fact. I was thinking of removing the tag, but wanted to solicit feedback/perspective from you before doing so just in case there was some other reasoning I wasn't aware about. --Thebirdlover (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebirdlover: After 6 years I have no memory of why I did that, and looking over the history of the various accounts I can't find any good reason, so I have blanked the page. JBW (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing so. --Thebirdlover (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested

Hopping all over the place with MOS violations isn't vandalism? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Yes, HJ Mitchell is perfectly right; I see no reason to doubt that the editor believes that what they have been doing is improving articles, so it is not vandalism. However, vandalism or not, the editing is unacceptable, so I have blocked the /64 range. I find cases like this frustrating, because what we are dealing with is an editor who would long ago have been blocked, very likely indefinitely, had they been using an account, but because they are using IP editing, and especially because they are using an IPv6 range, they get away with it for years on end. It happens all the time. (The first warnings to this IP range were in July 2021.) JBW (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is a blocked account somewhere and this is a drawer of LOUTSOCKs. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Could be. JBW (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I considered a disruptive editing block but I went back to September and couldn't find any evidence that anyone had actually explained what the problem is. That should always, always be the first step. And @Skywatcher68 no, MoS violations are not vandalism. I strongly suggest you read WP:NOTVAND before you make any more AIV reports. You'll find experienced editors who don't lnow about MOS:DATE so why would an IP? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Pakistani IP apparently hopped ranges

175.107.216.70 is exhibiting the same behavior. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: This is one of those really kind and helpful block-evading editors, who do their best to make what they are doing as blindingly obvious as they can, by various clever little tricks such as making every one of their edits on pages previously edited by the blocked editor (apart from one talk page edit back in July). If I were evading a block I don't think I would do that. JBW (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]