Jump to content

User talk:Geraldo Perez: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Awful colors: new section
Line 40: Line 40:


I am quickly going to need backup here from an edit warring IP {{IPvandal|62.1.246.47}} who is removing content repeatedly without providing an explanation even after warnings. Based on their Talk page, they are likely quickly heading for a block. Ping {{U|Amaury}} as well. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 19:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I am quickly going to need backup here from an edit warring IP {{IPvandal|62.1.246.47}} who is removing content repeatedly without providing an explanation even after warnings. Based on their Talk page, they are likely quickly heading for a block. Ping {{U|Amaury}} as well. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 19:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

== Awful colors ==

A long time ago (2019) you and I were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Pixar_films/Archive_1#Colors_2 part of a discussion] and eventually an anonymous IP editor stopped adding awful colors to the Reception tables in [[List_of_Pixar_films]] but editors have seen fit to apply this awful garish color scheme to the article again. (Also [[List_of_Blue_Sky_Studios_productions]] but I was able to fix that already[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Blue_Sky_Studios_productions&diff=1079271169&oldid=1079211938])
I would have done the work already and removed the coloring if the article wasn't locked, but I very much intend to do it soon after the lock expires. I would very much appreciate if you could again comment at [[Talk:List_of_Pixar_films#Awful_Colors]] to help discourage any editors who might actually believe adding this coloring again was a good idea. Thanks in advance. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.78.192.128|109.78.192.128]] ([[User talk:109.78.192.128|talk]]) 22:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:58, 25 March 2022


Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Geraldo, can you take a look at this article, in regards to this persistent recent edit, which is clearly out-of-WP:SCOPE, being made by several different IPs?! Page semi-protection is too "broad" a remedy, with significant collateral damage, so I'm thinking a range block is the only possibility, but I've seen at least 2 different IP ranges used, so I was hoping you could look into it. If a rangeblock won't work either, any suggestions?... Thanks. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The range is 102.159.0.0/16 based in Tunisia and the whole/16 range is assigned to that ISP. I've also seen that editor on other ranges from that region as well. See AS 37705 - actual range is 102.156.0.0/14. General strategy to get a range block is drop warnings in enough IPs in the range to establish what the range used actually is, then request a range block based on that usage. Basically watch the article and warn whenever that out-of-scope crap is added until there is enough warnings to support a block of the range. I'll watch the article as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that – left warnings at multiple IP talk pages, at least 2 or 3 of those were Level 4 warnings. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they are on the same article could get a block restricting that range from editing that specific article only. Easier to get than a general range block. They've used 102.156, 158, 159 which is larger than /16. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IJBall: Absent a semi-protect, what we are left with is watch the article and revert when the out-of-scope stuff is added. Build a case for a an article block for the IP ranges that editor uses and get assistance at WP:ANI to make it happen. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still at it, now at 41.62.227.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which I believe is the other IP range I've seen before. FTR, it looks like they're editing more than just List of American television programs currently in production and I couldn't tell you what kind of damage they are doing to these other articles. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had read about this somewhere... came across an IP doing similar editing, which looking now, is in fact in the same range as the IP mentioned above: 41.62.187.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Magitroopa (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained revert on 2011 England riots

I do not understand this reversion: [1]. I have reversed it. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweet6970: That IP is dynamic in the range and general long term abuse pattern is ignoring manual of style with respect to MOS:NOPIPE and WP:OVERLINKING. Makes changes to and adds unnecessary pipes to links without explanation. Generally disruptive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another problematic IP

Another problematic IP editor at 189.120.72.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – every edit of theirs has been reverted, and already blocked once in February. Bears watching. --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am quickly going to need backup here from an edit warring IP 62.1.246.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who is removing content repeatedly without providing an explanation even after warnings. Based on their Talk page, they are likely quickly heading for a block. Ping Amaury as well. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awful colors

A long time ago (2019) you and I were part of a discussion and eventually an anonymous IP editor stopped adding awful colors to the Reception tables in List_of_Pixar_films but editors have seen fit to apply this awful garish color scheme to the article again. (Also List_of_Blue_Sky_Studios_productions but I was able to fix that already[2]) I would have done the work already and removed the coloring if the article wasn't locked, but I very much intend to do it soon after the lock expires. I would very much appreciate if you could again comment at Talk:List_of_Pixar_films#Awful_Colors to help discourage any editors who might actually believe adding this coloring again was a good idea. Thanks in advance. -- 109.78.192.128 (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]