User talk:BU Rob13

Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.

New message on User talk:109.155.83.184

Hello, BU Rob13. You have new messages at 109.155.83.184's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hollyweed

You and I must have seen that hollyweed image at exactly the same time. Small world. But yeh, that's definitely an image of a computer monitor. If only they knew how to screenshot. Lizard (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If only! But then we'd just catch them with a reverse Google search. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The Catch

I was about to ask you to look into File:The Catch Dwight Clark 1982.jpg because it seemed too good to be true. I was gonna ask "what's the catch?" (sorry not sorry). Then I noticed the original SI photographer himself uploaded it to Flickr with a useable license. I wish more artists were willing to do that but I can totally understand why they don't. Lizard (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: Actually, that Flickr account is some guy named Cliff, and his home town on his profile doesn't match that of Walter Iooss. What led you to believe this is the original photographer? Seems like flickr washing to me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought maybe the "author" was simply the author of the SI story that it was published for... but that was probably a dumb assessment on my part. Indeed, since this is one of the most famous images in American football history, I can't imagine we'd get away with using it illegitimately for very long. What do you suggest? Lizard (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Welp. Lizard (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You can rest easy knowing you've spawned a lot of work. Turns out this Flickr account is loaded with license laundering, and over 6,000 of his images have made their way to Commons. Fantastic! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh my. The sarcasm is palpable. Lizard (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just one of those really annoying things like an out-of-process move of a huge category. Takes forever to fix, but I'd rather find it than not, I suppose. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You may want to talk to the guy who uploaded it. A few months ago I asked him how he knew that File:1961 Topps 40 Paul Hornung.jpg was PD, and he said that he wasn't sure, he just found it on another language wiki. Because I've never seen any proof that any Topps cards are PD. I'd been staying silent on this though, because the card from the same series I'm using on Tittle's page accentuates his baldness nicely. Lizard (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked into that specific image, and the claim of no renewal appears valid. I don't see any copyright renewal for Topps football cards in 1961 within the US Copyright Office's searchable database, so you should be good to use any cards from that year. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That's the best news I've heard all day. Thanks Bobby. Lizard (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Prov bank.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Prov bank.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 2.27.81.240 (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you opened a deletion review before talking to me at all about the close? In any event, it doesn't appear the review has been successfully opened. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No reason, sorry. I thought I was following the correct procedure. 2.27.81.240 (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes.

You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Workshop.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive case notifications for this case you can remove yourself from the notifications list here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Recent Orchomen case

Hi, Rob! Hope you don't mind me coming here with a question. :)

Now, here you said that you didn't see enough behavioral traits to that of Orchomen to make a block yet, but that there was merit to the report, and to report again if further behavioral traits to that of Orchomen emerged. What is it that you're looking for, exactly, or, to put it another way, what is missing to really drive it home? Caedite eos just returned today after being gone for a few days and resumed editing on only articles that either I'm watching or someone else in our small group is watching. I already mentioned this in the report, but the articles that they're editing already raises red flags. Then you have them making edit summaries—when they bother to provide edit summaries—and comments that are pretty much similar in tone to that of Orchomen which also raises red flags. And if you checked IJBall's talk page from the link in the report, you saw that I stated that the fact that Caedite eos made a comment on their SPI report without even being notified of it raises even more red flags, and it can't just be a coincidence. They either stalked me or knew they would be reported and kept checking that page until a report was made so they could try to make a bunch of excuses. Or a combination of both. And to me, the comment at the SPI is extremely similar in tone to that of Orchomen.

I look forward to hearing back, and I hope your holidays were fantastic! I also hope I'm not being a bother, haha! :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Caedite eos is pretty clearly contribution stalking my edits late today, so I'm now about 100% convinced that it's Orchomen again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As per WP:BEANS, I don't want to lay out exactly how I look for Orchomen socks. The contribution stalking is a substantial behavioral characteristic, though. I'm now on vacation, so I won't be able to investigate thoroughly for around a week. You might want to file an SPI report again if he's now stalking your contributions, IJBall. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, right. Oops. I also didn't even notice that you were on vacation, Rob, haha! Thank you, and I hope you have an excellent vacation! Hopefully KrakatoaKatie isn't on vacation. IJBall, creating a report sounds like a fine idea, and you can probably word yours stronger than I can. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:Convert/old while in use

I am notifying you that the Template:Convert/old (with related subtemplates) was still in use when you erroneously decided the related TfD (at "Convert template subpages") as "Delete" (as unused) when I clearly explained the logical consensus was "Keep" for use in comparing results side-by-side when debugging the known precision errors in the Lua script version, Module:Convert. I am asking you to reconsider your wp:DE disruptive closure of that TfD, as a formality, before I take the matter to wp:Deletion Review. Thank you. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wikid77: My closure didn't have anything to do with the template being unused, actually. I stated that the templates in the list should be orphaned and deleted, as per the consensus there. I really see no grounds to reconsider. You were the only editor wishing to keep these templates, even if you did so loudly. Many other editors agreed there was no need to keep them, and that what yo perceive as a bug in the Lua module isn't a bug at all. It's just a difference in rounding. You're welcome to take this to deletion review, of course. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that if there were still transclusions, those should have been removed before deletion. I didn't actually press the delete button on these, as mentioned in my close. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There were no main-space transclusions. --Izno (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-mainspace transclusions should still be commented out, removed, or replaced though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexGerrard77

I have to object your closure of this sockpuppet investigation. I can understand your reticence to act here, given that the evidence is maybe not quite so obvious to someone unfamiliar with the subject, but simply put there is no way this isn't sockpuppetry. Let me make my case in a little more detail.

You're involved enough at SPI that I'm sure you know this, but first edits are important when dealing sockpuppetry as they often reveal the editor's motivations for editing Wikipedia in the first place. AlexGerrard's second ever edit was to create the article on Unirea Ion Roată. Wanting to create this article is almost certainly the reason he registered his account in the first place. In the year and a half since the article has existed, no other editor has created new content in this article. (Note: the 92.80.x.x ip range is AlexGerrard) Other editors, myself included, have engaged in routine maintenance and cleanup, but any substantive change to the article was made by its author. Consequently, the fact that the changes made to this article are different from previously reverted sockpuppetry is not all that important, because simply editing this page this much is indicative of sockpuppetry.

I also think you've underestimated just how obscure this football club actually is. It may not even be notable. To illustrate this I randomly selected five other football clubs that play in the same league, and counted the number of edits since August 2015 (i.e. since the article on Unirea Ion Roată was created). The results were CSM Moinești 12 edits by 4 users. ACS Sticla Arieșul Turda 29 edits by 3 users. CS Hunedoara 44 edits by 7 users. AS Minerul Cavnic 5 edits by 2 users. FC Olt Scornicești 18 edits by 6 users. Compare that to the 400 edits mostly by AlexGerrard to Unirea Ion Roată over the same period. Sure this is not exactly scientific, but it makes the point nicely: It's already very unlikely for there to be even one editor with this degree interest in a football club playing at this level, let alone a second editor that is independent of the first.

Then there's the suspicious edit to Marius Alexe. Again, I think this is much more indicative of sockpuppetry than you're giving it credit for. When AlexGerrard first added the unsourced content, I did a check for sources to see if I could confirm the change, and could not find any. This is not just a matter of the editors involved not being bothered to look up sources. That being said, based on AlexGerrard's comment here, I do think the unsourced content added is true. I have no reason to think he's lying to me. So we've got two editors claiming to know, despite it not being a matter of public record, that Marius Alexe played for this little known football club when he was less than 10 years old. Once again, this something that's unlikely to happen even once.

Finally, I'd like address your remarks regarding "broken English", because I honestly don't understand where you're getting this impression from. AlexGerrard's language skill made very clear that he is not a native English speaker, but it was generally quite easy to understand what he was trying to say. With sentences like Honestly not, because personally I didn't see but this doesn't mean cause is not for real (see diff) or In the summer 2016 it appeared another theam from Urziceni with the support of Răzvan Farmache (see diff) I'd classify StevenBoy's English in the same range. In context, the meaning of both of these sentences is pretty clear, but both were clearly written by someone whose first language is not English.

I trust I've provided you with enough context to understand why the evidence I presented at SPI is damning. I'd appreciate it if you'd block the new sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll take another look at this when I return from my vacation in around a week. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Fleets

Hi. Regarding your closure at User_talk:Fleets: the information is unfortunately quite de-centralized, perhaps due to a lack of housekeeping following closure of the previous cases? Anyway, I just wanted to check that you saw the following, as they're all related to the one individual:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fronsdorf
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Londo06/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fleets/Archive
• User_talk:JamesBWatson/Archive_68#Sockpuppet

I also don't think it's a coincidence that User:Theanonymousentry immediately ceased all activity once the latest SPI was opened, then later, while User:Feets was blocked, he/she suddenly reappears and continues editing. Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Autoassess redirects

Do you know whether there is a bot that patrols articles and reassesses WikiProject banners when an article has been redirected? I saw your autoassess bot and thought you might know czar 04:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: To my knowledge, no. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)