User talk:JBW

If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and drop me a brief note here to let me know you have done so. (You may do this by posting {{Talkback|your username}} on this page, or by writing your own note.) (I make only limited use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.)
If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page.
Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked.

Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message.

After a section has not been edited for a week it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

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 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Mark H. Moore

Hello, I challenged your PROD on Mark H. Moore - this person may have some notability and would be better discussed at AfD.

Improper behavior/comments

Hi JamesBWatson. I've came here for a different concern this time. I see that Retrolord has got into arguments with editors and admins in the recent past. As far as I'm concerned, I posted a comment at their talk page that was closed just after they were somewhat modified, bolding a portion of it. I did take no action there, nor here, as this last post at my talk page was immediately withdrawn. A case that warrants tracking this user's contributions? If not, sorry for bothering you. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think it's fairly accurate to say that there is already a certain number of experienced editors, including several admins, who are keeping a watchful eye over Retrolord's edits, and who are ready to intervene and offer him any help to avoid contentious issues between the knights in shining armour of Wikipedia. May he be spared a meteor shower on his castle! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite note down the bottom that I did manage to stumble across this discussion, but thank all involved parties retrospectively for notfying me of it. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 14:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did get a good chuckle out of Kudpung's post though. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero requirement to advise you of this discussion - this is not a formal noticeboard, and if 2 (or more) editors wish to discuss your edits, they may do so freely. Echo might advise you of it ... or you may stumble on it ... but they're not required to tell you about it. Indeed, one might learn more by watching without commenting (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a good idea Bwilkins, Thankyou. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 16:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're back

Maybe an indef and page salt? :) Dusti^*poke* 16:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The account had already been indef-blocked long before I got there. Page salting yes, if it is re-created, but past performance suggests that it will be a brand new page that will be created next, in which case salting the old one will be pointless. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning the IP

Thanks for warning 115.147.70.46, I forgot about the policy on indeffing IP's. As I noted, this case is unusual in that it features systematic vandalism of the captions of theatrical release posters of movies, all from 2007-2008. I noticed that the edits stopped as soon as I posted my own Talk page warning. This type of vandalism is mild but fairly insidious, and I reverted all 16 of the movie article edits. There are other edits to a TV news show in the Philippines where the IP edits from, and I will take a look at them tomorrow if no one else does first. You said he has edited elsewhere under another IP number? Mind-numbing. Jus da fax 11:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still investigating, but so far I have found the following 7 IP addresses that have been used by this editor: 115.147.64.142, 115.147.67.112, 115.147.68.4, 115.147.70.46, 115.147.70.133, 115.147.71.138, 115.147.71.145, with the earliest edits that I have found dating from April of this year, and he/she has removed references to theatrical release posters from a huge number of articles. There may well be many more. Unfortunately, this sort of case is difficult to deal with. Blocking individual IP addresses will have limited effect on an editor who frequently changes IP address. Unfortunately the range covered by the IP addresses used also includes edits which don't seem to be by this editor, and some of which may be considered vaguely constructive, so that a range block for anything but a very short time is unattractive. I can and will block any IP address that I know continues to do this, now that unequivocal warning has been given, and I am willing to consider short-term range blocks too. Sometimes, a few IP blocks, making the editor have to keep finding new IP addresses frequently, will inconvenience a disruptive editor enough to discourage them, and if they find that every edit they make is quickly reverted that can help to discourage them too. However, I'm afraid all too often they just keep on IP-hopping. In any case, if you see any more of the same thing, please revert and also let me know, so that at least I can try. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no attachment to the captions, as they seem an almost gratuitous addition, but possibly helpful to some readers who are unfamiliar with the nature of official promotional film posters. I confess a larger interest in the psychology behind the massive effort that goes into such vandalism. Some years ago I ran across a dedicated effort to slightly change sports stats and album chart positions. It was ongoing, and partly hidden by some useful edits. It was eventually dealt with after a great deal of editor time was sucked up. This appears to be something similar. I will continue to look into this case as well but now have a sinking feeling about it. Thanks for your own time on this. Jus da fax 11:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found that this goes back at least as far as February: that is as far as I have checked. See Special:Contributions/115.147.64.36. However, more interesting is the fact that I have found edits from the same IP range early in the year that were adding the caption "Theatrical release poster" to articles. See, for example, this edit, this one ,this one and this one. This makes me wonder if it is an editor who added those captions, has now changed his or her mind, and is simply reverting his/her own edits. If so, if only he/she had taken the trouble to say so in a brief edit summary, it would have saved you and me time and trouble. Anyway, for now I have spent enough time on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too but I'll take another look tomorrow. Adding the captions, ugh. As you may recall I used to be a lot more active in anti-vandalism. After a while the deeply weird ones, like this case, got to me. Jus da fax 12:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported

I don't appreciate your maliciousness in blocking me. I have taken my complaint about you further up the food chain so we can sort this mess out. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you didn't alter my contributions. --GrantMcLMcLachlan (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never blocked the account GrantMcLMcLachlan, so it looked on the face of it as though you may be stating that you are evading a block on another account. It took just a minute of checking to confirm that that is indeed the case, so I will now block your account.
I have never blocked any account out of malice. Indeed, I even took some time and trouble writing a detailed explanation of the reason for the block, in the hope that it would help you to avoid repeating the problems which led to the block. I would not have spent my time doing that had I been acting out of malice: I would have just spent a few seconds posting a standard ready-made block notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI user is now blocked. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 16:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had, in fact, just discovered that, and was coming back here to say "One small correction to the above: I will not now block your account, as someone else beat me to it." JamesBWatson (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment before I log off. The answer to "I would appreciate if you didn't alter my contributions" is that every time you edit a Wikipedia article you are confronted by a notice that says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". If you are not willing to accept that condition then you should not edit Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WorldTraveller101

Hi James. I was wondering if you were aware WorldTraveller's page is currently fully protected? The idea was that people would stop contacting him, so that he would stop editing here. Worm^TT(talk) 12:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't realise, but with hindsight I should have realised, as the editing area was pink when I edited, but I didn't stop to think about it. Thanks for letting me know. Anyway, I will leave my message there, because it is a useful record for the future. JamesBWatson (talk)

On second thoughts, I have reverted my edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyddedddki

lkjhli klk. 76.226.76.230 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]