User talk:ToBeFree

Please click here to add a new message!

^{To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.}

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

Archives
[megabytes]

1, 2, 3, 4

Someone no longer needs their TPA

Good morning ToBeFree. I noticed you're online. Could you have a look at Special:Contributions/2001:44C8:424D:47C1:70BE:C258:6C33:E44C? After being blocked yesterday, they seem to no longer need access to their talk page.. – NJD-DE (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Njd-de, thank you very much for the notification. I have removed the burden of talk page access from their shoulders as requested. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: 2601:409:8400:cfd0:202a:2e1a:421f:17ff

2601:409:8400:cfd0:202a:2e1a:421f:17ff (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I don't think the user should be blocked; with further investigation the user's edits were correct. I was going to self-revert my reversion of the IP's edits, when the IP went back and added a more reliable source. Best, Spencer^T•C 21:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spencer, all right, thank you for verifying this – I have replaced the edit warring and copyright violation block by a copyright warning and a welcome message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted again. I'm out.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I think everyone's wrong, I found the "official source" (Disney Plus) that says 81 minutes so I will go with that and start a discussion on the talk page. Spencer^T•C 22:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:219.76.15.133

I noticed you blocked this IP as a sock of User:42.98.100.27- while they do share an ISP (NETVIGATOR) and did show signs of WP:LTA/HKGW editing, (see:Tsuen Wan line immersed tube), the latter's editing in December does not seem to fit the MO of the HKGW, as they rarely edit-war outside of articles directly related to Hong Kong. The former is likely a HKGW sock though. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 04:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Padgriffin, thanks for the analysis – I'm unsure. If you compare the revision history of 116.92.226.237's talk page and 42.98.100.27's talk page, you'll see a very similar response (multi-edit denial of editing in the topic area) from an IP address that is probably part of the case and the edit warrior. Either way, if I understand correctly, the block isn't being questioned, just the provided reason could perhaps be improved. That's okay. I'll keep in mind that there may be no connection between the two IP addresses, and that we may be dealing with two separate editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, we tag LTA IPs based on their behavior and editing pattern. The latter IP edit warred on articles about subjects completely unrelated to Hong Kong or typhoons, which leads me to believe that the offending editor is not the same person as the LTA. But no, I'm not disputing a EW block- but this range has a lot of collateral, which includes other editors who would choose to ignore Wikipedia policy. I'm just noting that unless there's behavioral evidence proving a solid link between the offending IP and the LTA it shouldn't be used as a reason for reverting. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, true. That's why 42.98.100.27's block is about edit warring only. It was reported as part of the LTA case, but I chose to ignore that allegation and just blocked for the edit warring. I have now fixed 219.76.15.133's block reason and the message at User talk:219.76.15.133. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LTA @ AIV

Thanks for this edit. You are, of course, perfectly right, and I'm a little ashamed 😳 of myself for not having checked more thoroughly. I'm afraid I fell for one of the oldest tricks in the book: burying the real change under a gigantic pile of seemingly innocent stuff, in the hope that some simple minded dupe such as myself won't see what's going on. Luckily you weren't so simple minded. 😁 JBW (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JBW, no worries!

I didn't notice by scrolling down, I just curiously checked what the filter was about, raised an eyebrow and did what the filter does. Then I saw it. A strange LTA, this is. Persistent in a weird way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antibody-dependent_enhancement&action=edit

Dear ToBeFree, I would like to suggest that a native English speaker edits the section "Technical description" of the article Antibody-dependent_enhancement. Best wishes, Niko --N1K0W1N (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey N1K0W1N, Thank you very much for the request. Is this because the section contains grammatical errors, or is it because the correct English sentences are way too complex and need to be simplified by a native speaker? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in the RFA RFC, and supported the creation of the new board, right?

Then why are you uninvolved to close the MFD? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Floquenbeam, do you disagree that the venue is completely inappropriate? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do disagree. As I said at the MFD itself, the MFD isn't trying to overturn the results of the RFC, so much as attempting to overturn this specific version of the board, created by a small subset of editors, without ever getting consensus that this is the version of the board people at the RFA RFC wanted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Then feel free to undo the closure, pointing to the diff of this message here, where I point out that:

I'm fine with you reverting the closure, and any truly uninvolved user reverting your revert, at which point you can choose to run a deletion review or accept the situation
Three users have thanked me for the closure
I personally believe that you misunderstand MfD's purpose as described at WP:MfD in the "Policies, guidelines and process pages" table row.
The closure was considerably less pointy than the nomination.

Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where "pointy" comes into it - I didn't say anything like that - nor do I think that the number of "keep" voters who thanked you for closing it the way they wanted you to is a measure of anything. But you know what, nevermind. That MFD is not likely going to result in a consensus for anything, so although I theoretically object to your at least semi-involved closure, in practice I don't think it's in your, or my, our our, best interests to discuss/argue/disagree about a theoretical issue. If someone else wants to object, they're probably right (IMHO), but I don't want to be the person who does it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The closure coming across as "pointy" was my main concern, so I thought I should point that out as well. Hm hm.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure either. I was probably the wrong person to make the decision. I just saw the ping, had a look, thought "definitely not via a deletion discussion", had a look at WP:MfD again, was convinced that this could not lead anywhere and closed it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]