User talk:SparklingPessimist

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SparklingPessimist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. Accessing Wikipedia by using mobile data. Haven't done anything wrong. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are editing freely as of now, so you are obviously not blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Could you confirm the IP address you're connecting from? http://www.whatsmyip.org/ is probably the simplest way of obtaining your IP -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

173.46.77.154 ThatGirlTayler (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Just removed some information above - I can't see any blocks which would be affecting Special:Contributions/173.46.77.154. When you try to edit the sandbox what message do you get? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It's so weird, because the IP was blocked, but now it's not ThatGirlTayler (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

|} reference: log

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from 216.4.56.160/27 has been blocked (disabled) by Bbb23 for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open or anonymizing proxy. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

If you are using an open proxy you will need to turn it off to edit Wikipedia. If you believe you are not running an open proxy, the most likely cause is that another customer using your IP address who was previously assigned this IP address was running an open proxy. You may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy.Place any further information here.~~~~}}. If you are using a Wikipedia account and wish to keep your IP address private you can email the functionaries team. More rarely, your network equipment or that of your service provider may be misconfigured or compromised by malicious software (such as a virus). For more information, see the WikiProject on Open Proxies.

This block has been set to expire: 20:03, June 3, 2017. Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators. |}

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Username policy ·   Appealing blocks: policy and guide If the block notice is unclear, or it does not appear to relate to your actions, please ask for assistance as described at Help:I have been blocked.

ThatGirlTayler (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a bit complicated. I often use the template for confirmed proxy servers, not just open proxies, which is what I did here. Perhaps I should stop doing that (not sure if other CheckUsers do it, too), but it wouldn't have changed the problem - you wouldn't have gotten that message, but you still would have been blocked. The only IPs you use (this and other ranges) are proxy servers. You may have a perfectly valid reason for doing that, but the only way you will be able to edit successfully without intermittent blocks is if you get an IP block exemption. Although your behavior does not match the sock master's behavior (this was all related to an SPI), because of the newness of your account, I'm uncomfortable doing so. Any administrator can do so, though, if they trust you. I'll keep your Talk page on my watchlist in case you have questions for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what a proxy is and I seem to only have this problem when I am not connected to wi-fi. If I am using my mobile data, my IP address changes randomnly, I have no idea what a proxy server is or even how to set one up. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't set one up. They already exist. They come in different flavors. Some are innocuous, but others are more problematic. The proxy servers you are using are problematic because they aren't intended to be used by ordinary people but by businesses or government institutions. They are not like "regular" Internet service providers. Now some people use proxy servers intentionally to hide where they're editing from, and sometimes the reasons for doing that are legitimate. If I understand you properly, you're not intentionally doing anything - it's just happening. I'm not questioning your integrity, but that strikes me as odd.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I'm using a proxy in fact I just checked the website Am I behind a proxy? And I got:

Your IP address:	73.95.107.220
Proxyserver:	No proxyserver detected.
You do not have a proxy server or internet filtering activated.

ThatGirlTayler (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The 73. IP does not belong to a proxy server. However, you have never used that IP before on Wikipedia until now.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@ThatGirlTayler: Are you still blocked when using a mobile data connection? If so could you again paste just the "IP Address" from https://www.iplocation.net/find-ip-address ? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: No, I am not blocked now.

• @Bbb23: What's going on here? The user says that when she goes to amibehindaproxy.com, her IP is reported as 73.95.107.220 (previously she said 173.46.77.154), but when she edits Wikipedia, the IP is then 216.4.56.160/27. Is it possible that the proxy turns on only when on Wikipedia.com. I have Hola installed and it works exactly like that: it turns on only on certain pages you choose. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Vanjagenije: I've tried to make this clear (repeatedly). She's using many IPs on Wikipedia. Up until the last one (Comcast) she mentioned, they were all proxy servers. Some of them were blocked, and some are not. I have no clue why she uses the different IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Vanjagenije: @Bbb23: I don't know where you are getting this IP information from, my IP address seems to only change when I switch to mobile data. I did have a mobile Tor browser for two weeks, but it has since been removed as I didn't find it useful and I never used it to access Wikipedia. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• As a CheckUser, I have access to your IP information. Vanja does not.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• As I said repeatedly, my IP address seems to only change when I switch to mobile data and I have no clue why. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian

RFD was the correct venue for Hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian. Please stop... well, everything else. It will be taken care of at RFD. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, Doubtful. Considering the huge backlog, there. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I am renominating it for speedy deletion under G8 per "#7 If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first."

The problem is, it's not technically broken. It's a soft redirect to wikt:hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian. It's not the end of the world if it sits around for a week or two longer. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Whatever you say, you're the adminstrator. But, that backlog needs attention, some of those nominations have been sitting there for more than two weeks. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Re:Ryan Raburn

Just wanted to give you heads up that I've removed your warning on the IP's talk page because the edit wasn't actually vandalism. I did some checking and was able to verify that the player has in fact been released. Lepricavark (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: A citation needs to be added then or else it looks like vandalism. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree and I added the need sources. In the future it might be advisable to do a quick Google search to try to verify the change before marking such edits as vandalism. I'm not necessarily saying you did anything wrong in this instance; you were simply playing it safe. My main reason for contacting you was that I thought it might come across as rude to simply remove your warning and not say anything to you about it. Lepricavark (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not have the time to verify every recent change made, as there are hundreds of recent changes that are made. Next time please add a citation. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I did add a citation. I'm not the person who originally added the content that you removed, so I don't understand why you are taking that tone. I'm not asking you to verify every recent change made. I'm simply saying it is a good idea to check in the case of an edit that isn't obvious vandalism. It is not fair to the IP to label a non-vandalism edit as vandalism. And no, the edit in question was not clearly vandalism. Lepricavark (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, but it was unreferencrd and looked like vandalism. Thank you for correcting my mistake and bringing it to my attention. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: You've got messages!

Hello, SparklingPessimist. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Hattiesburg, Mississippi

Just wanted to let you know I reverted your assessment on the above article. It was reassessed per the request in February by a much more experienced editor than yourself and I agree completely with his assessment. There are way too many unreferenced items in the article to be above a C, along with a few issues regarding guidelines (both WP:MOS and the applicable content guideline, WP:USCITY).

Neither you nor Coffee, the editor that assessed it in February marked the request at the WikiProject United States as completed. If you're going to assess articles, please remember to do that. It would have saved us having this conversation if he would have. There's lots of work to do at WikiProject Schools if you ever get bored. Just drop me a note and I'll point you to some. Sorry.....probably shouldn't be so blatantly begging for help. John from Idegon (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm.....that's very strange. The request is marked done when viewed in edit mode. I'll leave a note on the project talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Oh, good. The request was still open and I marked it as done at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Assessment/Requests ThatGirlTayler (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Your RfA Edit

Was this an oops? You seem to have deleted a large chunk of an ongoing RfA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what happened there, sorry. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries Tavix fixed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I edit-conflicted by doing the same. Still, I've seen worse Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha, that's actually kind of hilarious. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SparklingPessimist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy Wi-fi is going to be out for a few weeks, so I am relying on mobile data would really appreciate it if this IP address: 216.4.56.160/27 was unblocked. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Closing per DoRD's comment below. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Tayler, you are not blocked. The IP your mobile data carrier uses is, and that is not terribly uncommon. Perhaps an admin could issue you the IP block exemption permission. I just asked an admin I work with regularly when I needed it, but details on how to request it can be found at WP:PERM. John from Idegon (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You have edited extensively since this unblock request was made, so apparently, the block is not currently affecting you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Please refrain from repeatedly posting gigantic images on other's talk pages. Your edits appear to constitute an annoyance and have been removed. You may also want to review guidance at WP:DTTR. Posting canned warning templates on the talk pages of people who have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, is generally considered to be in bad form, as is reposting comments on other's talk pages once they have been removed. TimothyJosephWood 16:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Your reverts on Dana Schutz

One issue was already on the talk page, the other was explained in the last edit's subject line. You are editorializing without explaining.--173.56.236.146 (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

And you are edit warring, if you have an edit dispute you need to take it to the article talk page. Thank you. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

On the talk page the same anon asks for an explanation of the term "editorializing" - if an ignorance of its meaning was genuine you would think they would refrain from using it themselves? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Thanks for reversing 👍 2600:1001:B010:543A:A1E6:B57C:C58:5A05 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for promoting Rishabhanatha to GA. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) ThatGirlTayler (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism warning at User talk:Dr Thaane Wala

Can you explain what vandalism you were warning this new user about? It is very WP:BITE-y to post such a warning without giving some indication of what behavior you are warning about and where. If it was intended to be in connection to Draft:Shahzadpur, that article is in draftspace and vandalism warnings would not usually apply unless for blatant bad-faith edits. I see nothing in the user's edits on that page that would apply, only the normal attempts by a new user to start a geographical article. If it was for earlier edits (such as Sex-linked barring or Julie Ordon), then those were a day ago and not the type of ongoing vandalism the template is generally used for. I may have missed the edit that sparked your concern, so I look forward to your response. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I just used the warn template, which can seem cold and robotic, but that's all I had time to do at that moment. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that you mean using Template:Uw-vandalism1. That template is, I agree, kind of non-informative. There is a parameter available to specify what page you mean to refer to. If you are posting manually, then you can use {{subst:Uw-vandalism1|article}}. If you are using Twinkle, then you can use the "Linked Article" box and even the "Optional Message" box to make it more clear what you are concerned about.

That said, can you point me to the page that provoked the warning? I am engage with this user on their talk page, and I would like to be able to help integrate them into the project, which would be easier if I knew where the were making errors. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I mistook an edit on his own talk page as vandalism because I just looked at the difs and it looked like vandalism. Sorry about that.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not only did you not relate your canned warning to a particular page, but you also jumped to a Level 3 warning. If you do not have time to warn other editors appropriately, you should do nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC) :::::@Bbb23: I mistook an edit on his own talk page as vandalism because I just looked at the difs and it looked like vandalism. Sorry about that. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Look auntie, I did not do wrong anything i am not vandalize wikipedia please say sorry to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Thaane Wala (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi SparklingPessimist. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 00:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!! :) SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 03:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump

Girlly Girl, you need to use facts, not spin. Trump wanted a temporary block on immigration from SEVEN failed STATES--POLITIES WITHOUT A FUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT that could reliably vett police records and such documents as are checked for anyone and everyone. SO learn to take in information from both sides so you can see the liars applying the spin... not single sources with agenda's pushing their own twist. When you repeat such, you are as bad, and imho, worse, if you are someone with the capacity to think for yourself and gather information. And... IF YOU EDIT HERE, I'd consider you can do that as a minimum or DON'T WANT YOU editing here at all. Work too hard for verifiability to put up with garbage thinkers. Best wishes, FrankB 18:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)