Jump to content

User talk:Ronhjones: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 21) (bot
Line 137: Line 137:
::::::Not a valid reason for multiple accounts. Another sock blocked. '''[[User:Ronhjones|<span style="border:1px solid;color:#dfdfdf; padding:1px;background:#ffffdf"><font color="green">&nbsp;Ron<font color="red">h</font>jones&nbsp;</font></span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Ronhjones|&nbsp;(Talk)]]</sup> 17:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::Not a valid reason for multiple accounts. Another sock blocked. '''[[User:Ronhjones|<span style="border:1px solid;color:#dfdfdf; padding:1px;background:#ffffdf"><font color="green">&nbsp;Ron<font color="red">h</font>jones&nbsp;</font></span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Ronhjones|&nbsp;(Talk)]]</sup> 17:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I think it is quite clear that Still wasted is DeFacto or Lucy-Marie by another name. The edit-warring, the aggressive edit summaries and the way he sits on a page are all typical symptoms of DeFacto. Although he clearly has another account out there somewhere - there were no DeFacto socks active in November, and he has recently taken to cultivating several accounts at once, deliberately getting one blocked and then moving to one of his "clean" accounts. He now has over seventy confirmed socks and has likely had another two dozen blocked without anyone making the connection to DeFacto/Lucy-Marie (we never even established whether they were one and the same or separate editors, such was the variety of disruptive behaviors). He is perhaps Wikipedia's most prolific - and most difficult - serial sock puppeteer. There has to be something more that can be done. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 19:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I think it is quite clear that Still wasted is DeFacto or Lucy-Marie by another name. The edit-warring, the aggressive edit summaries and the way he sits on a page are all typical symptoms of DeFacto. Although he clearly has another account out there somewhere - there were no DeFacto socks active in November, and he has recently taken to cultivating several accounts at once, deliberately getting one blocked and then moving to one of his "clean" accounts. He now has over seventy confirmed socks and has likely had another two dozen blocked without anyone making the connection to DeFacto/Lucy-Marie (we never even established whether they were one and the same or separate editors, such was the variety of disruptive behaviors). He is perhaps Wikipedia's most prolific - and most difficult - serial sock puppeteer. There has to be something more that can be done. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 19:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

== Speedy deletion nomination of File:Bounouh location.png ==

Dear Ron,

Thank you for your e-mail.

For the above file, I took two file maps available in the public domain and I can provide the references for these. I added the town labels for the towns myself. I then merged the two maps for the two districts. I am happy for the generated file to be available in the public domain. To the best of my knowledge, I have not violated any copyright. However, for the sake of complying with your e-mail, I have deleted the file until I have time to find a way around the compliance.

There was also another notification about the Exhibit picture. I took a picture of the poster but the quality is not adequate for reproduction because of the sun glare. In the interim, I produced the copy and again I have deleted this for the sake of compliance until such a time when I can do something about it.

Best regards,

M'hamed Lakrimi
mlakrimi@yahoo.co.uk

Revision as of 21:06, 19 February 2014

Status: Unknown


Monday
2
September
11:43 UTC
Welcome to Ronhjones' Talk page

on English Wikipedia

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.


Note for other Admins - If you want to change any action I have done, then you may do so without having to wait for a reply from me. Your judgement at the time should be sufficient.
Note: To any interested parties. This is my main account, there are no edits under my current IP address 109.224.128.22; a few minor edits under my old static IP address 87.127.178.158, my work IP address (but that is shared, and not all the edits there are mine) 193.113.135.87 or 193.113.135.112 I also have User:Ronjones for logging in outside home.
All threads on this page will be archived after 14 days of non - activity.

User:MrKIA11/Archive Box

TUSC token 8fd3211ebe04214532d860745d268de2

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Brooklyn Roebuck - Deleted Page

Hello Ron! I have no idea how to use Wiki. I have tried!!! I noticed that Brooklyn Roebuck's page has been completely deleted. There are many sources and articles and videos and other pages on Wiki that can be used to help create this page. I understand that the sources were not up to standard but I would hope that the page can be recreated using other sources. Please consider recreating the page. I can be contacted at lroebuck@sixsigmacanada.net. Sincerely, Linda Roebuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.138.46 (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)If the article is restored (see WP:Requests for undeletion) it will likely wind up being deleted again soon at WP:Articles for deletion unless it is improved to the point that the person's notability is no longer in question. Some of the following references may be suitable for use in an article about this person:
In any case, people who are personally or professionally "close" to this person should be very careful editing any article about this person. In particular, they should read WP:Conflict of interest first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It won't last unless some one improves it properly or it gets userfied - but that needs someone with an account!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indef semi

Hi Ron, would you consider changing your indef semi of DevOps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to pending changes? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, managed to get a brief connection to do it. I'll be happy when I get a new ISP...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deleted articles

Hi Ron, recently you deleted a few articles, due to a misunderstanding and error in procedure these articles included, Minister of Sports (Sri Lanka) and Minister of Finance (Sri Lanka), two that should not have been deleted. Could you please restore them. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

PROD-deletion after confusing tagging

The expired-BLPPROD was based on a tag timestamp of February 5, but the tag to have been added on Feb 13. I don't see any edits on Feb 5. I have no objection to the PROD itself, just didn't want someone's vandalism to sneak through. DMacks (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that - maybe some sneaky vandal or maybe they just copied a banner from another page - we'll never know. I've restored it and adjusted the prod timestamp to the real addition, since the prod reason was quite valid.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion and COI

Gooday Ron - I hope you have fared OK with the ongoing storms. I mentioned before Xmas that I might need some advice on commercialism; I dealt with that adequately, I think, but another situation has occurred which is beyond me.

I introduced a semi-section covering the Business Improvement District (BID) in the article for the town where I live which has now been changed and largely overwritten, I suspect by the staff at the BID, the usual new-user stuff at an IP address without completing the edit summary here. I had striven to format a balanced view, but it now reads as an exhaustive advert for BID right down to the trivia such as "chewing gum removal" "generic town centre advertising" (?) and "cardboard collection"

They have also deleted two separate correctly-sourced paragraphs on criticism, which is fairly conclusive of their motivation.

Accordingly, I suspect this part-section now fails WP:PROMOTION, WP:NPOV and WP:COI at least, maybe also Primary Sources as all of the citations added are from BID's own website. I haven't checked but I would surmise that much of the description of the BID remit and capabilities is WP:OR, ie. not found elsewhere.

In first instance I alluded to at the top of this message, the contributor had already (before my involvement) had a complete article deleted under G11 (Dec 2013). I know we have to consider WP:AGF and don't bite the newbie - and for my own part WP:NOTOWN, but considering that you recommended standard messages to User talk page I did not know what would be the protocol in this instance, so I just tagged it as {{advert|section]] to make them think about it, if they are monitoring. No changes have been made since and I don't propose to wade through the prose and sources to verify on their behalf and I'm not happy to leave it as-is since much of the new prose I suspect is unacceptable. There's also now some broken markup which I left for the moment.

Once again I haven't checked (as with most things now it's the Law of Diminishing Returns just to understand) but I imagine that whilst theoretically a non-profit organisation, it's also semi-commercial in that there are salaried professionals and employees. If you would be kind enough to have a look over and take appropriate action on any issues you see, I should be obliged. Thanks, --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have added valid paragraphs with a reference then there is no reason to remove them and it's just vandalism (Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking.2C_illegitimate) without a reason. If they do remove them then they must explain why in the edit summary and possible expand on the talk pages. As they have not done so, I have restored two paragraphs and added a level one warning - level ones are very mild - sadly it's a dynamic IP, they may be a different address tomorrow. Just add them back if they go again.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Storms - no issues here. 230ft above sea level and I can see the sea from the bedroom window. No flooding here unless we get a tsunami of biblical proportions. :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Ta very much. I have restored another small section with a small ce to clarify and emphasise the chronology, fixed the code-block and sent a polite message to the talk page (without the hidden template) per your lead. I'll keep an eye out as always to see if this prompts any responses.

Two lines of washing out today....Oo-er, missus... 8¬) Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, Ron. That page was left over from when we were considering taking Lucy-Marie/DeFacto to WP:LONGTERM. Ultimately, we did not do it, and the page fell into disuse. I should have blanked it months ago. But I find it suspicious that somebody found it at all - it does not link to much, if anything (a security measure to keep it away from Lucy-Marie/DeFacto), and you have to really know what you are looking for to find it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a "new" editor to boot...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A "new" editor showing an extraordinary knowledge of Wikipedia policy has always been a tell-tale sign of DeFacto. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that I'm not a new editor, and I have never claimed to be. I am a long-time editor of good-standing, with a string of FAa and GAs to my name, and with two more GAs in the pipeline. Each time I encounter flagrant anti-Wikipedia content such as that, I create an account to deal with it. This thread and the attitudes displayed make the reasons for that very clear. I have had several such pages speedied over the years, and this is only the second time I have encountered such disgraceful opposition, the other being when I targeted a similar page created by an administrator. I smell a deep desire for revenge here against another editor, so go ahead, pick a former adversary and pin this as a "sock" account to it, and let Wikipedia policies go take a jump. Still wasted (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is confusing is how you found that page it all. It was very deliberately kept separate from other articles because the user who is the subject of it is highly disruptive and would only have caused trouble (and curiously enough, it is *precisely* the kind of trouble you are causing now), so you really had to go looking for it, assuming you knew it existed in the first place. I also suggest you read long term abuse where similar profiles of disruptive editors are kept. This article was intended to go there before the idea was shelved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain for you. I came across some of your work, and some of your treatment of other editors, back in Novemeber last year, and I was disturbed as to how you got away with it. From previous experience, I know that editors like you often bear grudges, and often record their version of the truth on subpages. So I listed your contributions, went to "subpages" at the bottom, and sure enough, found one such page. As with others I've found elsewhere, I created an account and used it to tag the attack page for speedy deletion. For an undisclosed reason though, the visiting admin didn't agree, and reverted me. Then yesterday I was doing the rounds again, and decided to have a second attempt to remove your hate page, and here we are. That you characterise my actions here as "trouble", makes me even more suspicious about your motives there, and even less confident that your opinions of others are valid. Your account there, that Lucy-Marie is "highly disruptive", for example, is likely a figment of your imagination I would say, and thus ill-founded. The page is nothing more than unsupported speculation and a sad attempt to convince yourself of your own wisdom. Have you read WP:POLEMIC? How do you excuse your restoration of that page now? Still wasted (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason for multiple accounts. Another sock blocked.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is quite clear that Still wasted is DeFacto or Lucy-Marie by another name. The edit-warring, the aggressive edit summaries and the way he sits on a page are all typical symptoms of DeFacto. Although he clearly has another account out there somewhere - there were no DeFacto socks active in November, and he has recently taken to cultivating several accounts at once, deliberately getting one blocked and then moving to one of his "clean" accounts. He now has over seventy confirmed socks and has likely had another two dozen blocked without anyone making the connection to DeFacto/Lucy-Marie (we never even established whether they were one and the same or separate editors, such was the variety of disruptive behaviors). He is perhaps Wikipedia's most prolific - and most difficult - serial sock puppeteer. There has to be something more that can be done. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Bounouh location.png

Dear Ron,

Thank you for your e-mail.

For the above file, I took two file maps available in the public domain and I can provide the references for these. I added the town labels for the towns myself. I then merged the two maps for the two districts. I am happy for the generated file to be available in the public domain. To the best of my knowledge, I have not violated any copyright. However, for the sake of complying with your e-mail, I have deleted the file until I have time to find a way around the compliance.

There was also another notification about the Exhibit picture. I took a picture of the poster but the quality is not adequate for reproduction because of the sun glare. In the interim, I produced the copy and again I have deleted this for the sake of compliance until such a time when I can do something about it.

Best regards,

M'hamed Lakrimi mlakrimi@yahoo.co.uk

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones&oldid=596238870"