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.
Hi, JB. Looks like I found another block evader with the help of DNSlytics: 38.20.133.160 & 216.73.64.155 are both from The Pas, Manitoba, and have a history virtually identical edits. The latter is on a ten-year block and the former just resumed the same behavior which prompted a two-week block last month. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe 38.20 can be partially blocked from pages related to Pirates of the Caribbean? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with a partial block is that it isn't possible to block more than 10 pages, and there are more than that involved. In any case, the very few non-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-related edits aren't particularly constructive, so there doesn't seem any reason not to give a full block, which I have done. I also discovered that 216.73.64.155 is one of a range of school IP addresses, with an extensive history of vandalism and blocks on particular IP addresses or subranges, so I have consolidated that into one long and wide range block. As always, thanks for letting me know. 😉 JBW (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same block evader, I'm guessing: 2605:B100:1140:EAC:95E:B59F:8E40:D800.
Similar edits came from 2605:B100:1118:1F2D:4DB5:22BA:C110:F0FD, 2605:B100:1113:DDE1:1902:802C:EE84:1519, and 2605:B100:1113:DDE1:9C75:B8E9:B40A:E613. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Skywatcher68: I've blocked the IP range 2605:b100:1140:eac::/64, but history suggests they will just come back on another range. There's no question of blocking a range big enough to cover all of the IP addresses you have listed. I suppose it just might be possible to put a fairly large number of partial blocks each covering up to 10 articles on subranges of all the IP ranges used, but it would be a very time-consuming task, and even then it would remain to be seen how effective it would be. If you feel like putting in the work of compiling a list of the articles involved, and as many as possible of the IP addresses involved, I will look at it and see whether it seems feasible. Other than that, it's just a question of blocking each new IP address or range when it comes up. JBW (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a feeling that putting pending changes protection on the pages for character-related articles, as it already is at Jack Sparrow, would be more beneficial if the IP-hopper keeps returning. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Skywatcher68: Do you know, I hadn't thought of pending changes protection, but it may well be the best option, under the circumstances. JBW (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, the poor guy must be terribly confused and I just wanted to make things easier on him. The pages have already been deleted so the notifications are no longer needed.
Here is a summary of this whole mess:
- He wants to change his username to the name of another existing account, which is not his. He tried to do this by moving his userpage. It seems you've already undone this bit.
- He wants to create a userpage for himself but the ones he's created have been speedied as promotional. He also made a mainspace page for himself, which I think you've already speedied.
- He's trying to get an article through AfC (separate from his autobiography) for which he has an improperly disclosed COI.
- He's made a few good faith but terrible edits to random mainspace articles. I was going to talk to him about this but I didn't want to introduce yet another subject when we're already dealing with all of the above.
I would suggest blocking him and solving one thing at a time. Too many things to keep up with at the same time. Un assiolo (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Un assiolo: OK, I think you are right about most things, and I have undone my reverting of your removal, thanks for explaining your reason. Unfortunately I don't have any more time for this now, but maybe I'll come back to it when I have. JBW (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self-admitted TROLL wants to know what they did wrong. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, trolling about their trolling. JBW (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Just saw the deletion of the list of boomer slang. I never saw that page (and don't keep up with the dozens or hundreds of Wikipedia's daily deletion noms), can I have a copy in my user space? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After you topic-banned this user yesterday, that's how they retaliated. Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fylindfotberserk: On the user talk page you will see my response. It is a toned-down version of my first draft message to post there. JBW (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Saw that. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed you deleted 2025 Shropshire Council election under CSD A11. The subject of the article is a future election (mentioned on 2025_United_Kingdom_local_elections#Unitary_authorities); it can be argued that the creation of an article is too early, but I'm not sure how CSD A11 ("This applies to any article that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone the creator personally knows, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant.") is at all relevant? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chessrat: The article was created by User:Iseethesea123, and nominated for speedy deletion, as made up, by MrBauer24. The only substantive content of the article was a map of election results, which obviously couldn't be authentic, and so I deleted it. In fact the map shows the results of the 2021 election, and it's likely that it was intended as a first draft for a 2025 article, with the map to be replaced. It was certainly not at all suitable to create it as an article in that state, but I have restored it and moved it to Draft:2025 Shropshire Council election, where you may like to work on it. JBW (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that's reasonable. I'll get to work on the draft. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 12:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear friend JBW. Please remove the red label from article Rakan Daqar. And tell me how can I create article? ZzFra (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ZzFra: What red label? The notice on the article calling attention to the deletion discussion, or the notice when you try to edit telling you that only confirmed editors can edit? The notice of a deletion discussion will be gone when the deletion discussion is over, which will be in a couple of days. The editing restriction is currently set to expire on 23 July, but I will be happy to remove it once the deletion discussion is over, if the outcome of that discussion is to keep the article. As for re-creating the article, assuming that is what you mean, if the article is kept at the end of the discussion then you won't need to create it, and you will be welcome to edit the existing article; if, on the other hand, the article is deleted as the outcome of the discussion, then you won't be able to re-create it, as doing so would violate the decision at the discussion. You are, however, welcome to contribute to the discussion. If you do so, you should first look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines, since the reason put forward for deletion is lack of evidence of satisfying those guidelines. JBW (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I know this writer well and I researched about him in Iran. I hope you don't delete his article. ZzFra (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ZzFra: If you meant "I know this writer well personally" (rather than "I know this writer's material well but have no personal relationship with them") then you shouldn't be working on an article about them anyway, per the WP:COI policy. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no relationship with this author, I just researched him and he can have Wikipedia and all his sources are valid. ZzFra (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please undel the old Adryenn Ashley to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Adryenn Ashley? I s'pect this person is WP:Notable now (for a feature-length documentary film, and a 3-year bestselling book). I'm not sure how much of the original piece is salvageable at all, but would rather not have to start totally from scratch. If it turns out to be utter trash, I'll just speedy it back away. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @SMcCandlish:
Done. I think this could well be the first time I've had such a request for a page I deleted over 8 years ago; in fact only a few months short of 8 years. JBW (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks. Some of it actually looks usable and is stuff I might not have dug up on my own, though the establishment of clear notability may be a challenge. I have a few other writers on non-mainstream subjects I've been looking at (as well as a writers' association and conference) with a similar issue. As with academics, it's easy for them to be influential and even award-winning within a niche without generating a lot of press outside the niche. Same with musicians. Like, I know a guy (and him being a friend, I shouldn't write an article on him) who's been a member (official or live-touring) of every other gothic-industrial band one could think of, but who has no article despite his influence level within the genre. Quite a few academics I read, too, who are clearly leading lights in their subfields, but who don't seem to generate more than passing mention outside academic publications in their subject. Meanwhile any academic who transitions instead to doing things like being a pop-sci editor at a magazine or a TV documentary presenter becomes insta-notable because the entertainment press will profile them repeatedly despite them maybe no longer actually being productively relevant within their original field of study. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @SMcCandlish: Yes. This is, I think, a major defect in the way that Wikipedia's notability standards operate. JBW (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a bone to pick about this for a long time. Virtually all bit-part actors with more than one credit in the history of Western cinema and television have articles, but the vast majority of academic experts, across all topics, do not, except where they have somehow come to the notice of either the entertainment or the political press. But I don't know how, exactly, to fix it. Trying to propose changes to the notability system is subject to even more resistance than changing the adminship system. Collectively, WP at this point is utterly terrified of meaningful change. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think this could well be the first time I've had such a request for a page I deleted over 8 years ago; in fact only a few months short of 8 years. JBW (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)