User talk:A. B.

 This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at

Welcome to my talk page. If you leave a message here, I will respond here to avoid fragmenting our discussion.

Thursday
20
January

A quiz:

Spammers, friends and critics can't agree -- is User:A. B.:

A. "She (because clearly she's a bitch) is just doing her thing up in New Jersey. No one likes you, mother of three. No one." [1][2]
B. "Worst of all this user is very offensive to females." [3]
C. A stalker "from birmgingham england." [5]
D. A "lesbian feminazi."[6][7] … wearing her "undies in a bunch?" [8]
E. A "robot." [9][10][11]
F. Hiding a pornographic fire-parrot in Wikipedia's sandbox.[12]
G. Living in Minnesota, USA.[13]
H. Canadian, eh? [14] Tamil, no?[15]
I. A Yankee?[16] A Tennesseean?[17] A Yankee and a "Kerry freak"?[18]
J. In the American Air Force or maybe the Navy[19]
K. Just stupid.[20]
L. A kid sitting on a bean bag chair in Mom's basement eating Cheetos
M. A mom with a kid in the basement living on Cheetos
N. All of the above.
O. None of the above.
P. Somedays one, somedays another.

You decide.

Another question:

Who edits Wikipedia?

Greatoneiv

I've given the dude due oppurtunity, as listed in the talk page. It's not a POV issue, it's being wrong but choosing to be right - the info is incorrect, and it's impossible to prove his viewpoint for his favorite. Guy's also made up false cites after I offered to provide the info to him. Papacha (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Read your point of discussion... what consensus do you wish for us to reach? What he's done is belie the article over the course of this week, it's not unlike editing the Academy Award for Best Picture this year to go to The Help over The Artist. I'm all over diplomacy, but negotiation's a little short of impossible here. Admittedly sources could be muchly improved as they're gleaned from the yearly letter, but his edits are in no way arguable. Papacha (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at:
• Wikipedia:Vandalism
• "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 03:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not applicable. A fellow with the handle of "Greatoneiv" altering articles to favor the person he's nicknamed for in repeated fashion, then ignoring an offer to verify and creating a false source in lieu of evidence is purely bad faith. Papacha (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Why not just leave a nice note on his talk page encouraging pointing him to our guidance for newcomers and telling him to take his proposed edits to the talk page? Take a look at WP:BITE. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 03:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey now, I'm neither bitey not pointy, only ornery at the moment. The last I'll say is I made an offer to intercede, guy was silent on the matter and copy/pasted a ref from '94 to source his edit in '99. I don't believe an indefinite ban was in the offing, but I feel you aver him too much credit despite proof to the contrary. Papacha (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

RadioFan would NOT make a good admin. Have a look at the number of his withdrawn deletion nominations: it's atrocious, well below 50% of his proposed AfDs when last I checked. This problem of overeager blocking of supposed vandalism is a recurrent problem. 74.109.40.124 (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Re 98.185.48.50 and the Ica Stones

The Ica Stones are a fringe topic and draws a lot of errors. The IP address was fairly close to that of another editor who had been causing continual problems with the article. As 98.185.48.50 started up shortly after 98.185.55.83, I (and I'm fairly certain Dougweller) had assumed it was the same individual on a different computer. I am aware of WP:BITE, and do not always leave warnings, as I could have here (uw-nor), or here. I avoid leaving uw-advert warnings whenever someone adds a non-notable rum producer to the List of rum producers. I appreciate your concern for the site, but 98.185.48.50 (at the time it was editing the Ica stones article) was likely a sock for a tendentious editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I see the connection -- that other IP is also a Cox Communications address in Roanoke. Sorry to bother you -- you were right and I was wrong. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 01:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries, glad to see someone WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk)

That IP sock

I just discovered that Meco reported this at WP:AIV without notifying me. Is there anyway of sorting this out - you removed it with [21] but it still says my block was unwarranted. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Should I have notified you? I would gladly have done so if I had realized that to be desired, but I wouldn't know of any guidelines that suggest or explain why that should be done. __meco (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
This all started with my mistake; I was ignorant of Special:Contributions/98.185.55.83. I've blocked the IP and made a note about the other IP address along with my block. As for the exchange of comments at WP:AIV, they've been erased, not archived on another page, so someone would have to wade through all the edit history for find that exchange. That's all I know to do at this point.
I have seen so many touchy-trigger-finger, BITEy reports at WP:AIV recently. It seems like more of a problem than it was in 2010 before I took a long Wikibreak. I guess I, in turn, had an overly touchy-trigger-finger reaction of a sort when I saw this WP:AIV report. The fact is, this IP was warned (by Ian.thomson) and blocked (by Dougweller) correctly the first time (in light of prior history with the other IP) and reported correctly to WP:AIV (by Meco) the second time.
Overall assessment: the villain in this was the IP and the chump was me.
Suggestion for the future: I have worked a lot with spammers who frequently change IPs and user names to avoid establishing an obvious pattern of multiple warnings; they get a uw-spam1 with one account, then another with a new IP, etc. Where we know this is going on, we've learned to list the other accounts as we warn the new ones so that folks can see the accumulated history. That might be useful in non-spam cases like this guy's, too.
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 14:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
For the benefit of others in tracking this person, I have left additional comments and the list of IPs at User talk:Rrrr5. This person should be blocked on sight; no additional warnings are required. Just be sure to include a note and a link to User talk:Rrrr5 when reporting an account to WP:AIV.
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 14:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

IP editor

User talk:98.223.133.112. I was going to tag this talk page again and enter it in the vandal board. It doesn't seem like vandalism but more not knowing policies such as BLP etc. They may just need an admin to leave a note on there page. I had noticed you were active on the vandal board so I thought I would mention it to you. Feel free to delete/ignore/archive this if it is trivial.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 00:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
His edits may or may not be problematic but they appear to be made in good faith and not blatantly vandalistic. We don't tag people as vandals unless it's clear that's what they really are; see WP:VANDAL for what we consider vandalism and what we don't. Likewise, that noticeboard is just for persistent clear-cut vandalism; see our Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism.
I think maybe this person just needs someone to work with them in an un-BITEy way to steer them on the right path.
I also left a note at User talk:Elizium23 asking for help (and patience).
Thanks for your help. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 00:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Poets' Corner Group

I note that my deletion edit was for advertising and lack of notability. The article was created by an editor with a spam username matching the article. I've blocked that account, although in a moment of weakness I've not blocked account creation under another name.

I accept that my tagging for notability was probably incorrect. The following options are available to us

• Restore and redelete for advertising only
• Do nothing
• If you don't agree that the article was blatantly promotional, I could restore and prod or AfD instead

Let me know your thoughts, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

My two cents:
I vote for "restore with tags for fixing".
I agree it was created for promotional purposes but if it's notable, it's content we want. It was covered by 2 big Indian newspapers and some of the participants are notable. That's why I did not delete it myself but rather made the note on the article talk page asking that it not be deleted.
The author also created an article about the group's founder which others have tagged for a BLP-Prod. I suspect he was writing about himself.
Many our best editors start out with some sort of COI, not knowing it's against our rules. They write an article about their quasi-notable uncle or correct an entry about their employer. Handled tactfully and redirected a bit, they subsequently end up adding other, more neutral and useful content. This guy's a writer -- maybe we can recruit him to add to our topics on India and/or poetry.
In any event, thanks for keeping a wary eye out for junk and spam!
--A. B. (talkcontribs)
OK, I've restored and prodded. I don't think that just tagging is sufficient, given the nature of the first paragraph Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:70.79.75.159

I have undone the IP's excessive plot bloat at Chinatown (1974 film) which is far excess of guidelines, is detrimental to the article and bordering on a copyright violation (which is the reason the guideline exists). The IP is edit-warring and unflinching in disregard for the opinion of others apparently so I'm not sure why you are admonishing Old Jacobite for warning him, by my look seems the IP should have been blocked by now and they have a history of such action. I'm leaving this notice to let you know I disagree with your admonishment of someone trying to maintain that article in favour of someone trying to damage it and ignore the actions of those that try to prevent such. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback.
First of all, WP:AIV is not the place for reporting edit-warring but rather blatant vandalism.
• That page has multiple statements to this effect such as:
• "This page is intended for reports about obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only. Before posting here, please read the spam and vandalism pages, as well as the AIV guide."
• "Important! Please remember the following: 1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be obvious vandalism or spam."
• The Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism covers the same stuff in more detail
TheOldJacobite has been told this before.
Second, whatever the difficulties posed by this IP's behaviour, it's not vandalism. Our Vandalism Policy explicitly addresses this type of editing as "What is not Vandalism":
• "Disruptive editing or stubbornness"
• "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. See also: Tendentious editing"
Third, we have all sorts of mediation, edit-warring board, dispute resolution processes, etc. where experienced editors can get independent, neutral editors to help them sort stuff out in a less draconian fashion. If necessary, a problematic editor may get blocked but usually that's not necessary.
I thought long and hard about how to deal with TheOldJacobite a productive editor who is nevertheless using WP:AIV inappropriately and seeming to get edgier and edgier in his dealings with others, not just IPs. That's one reason I took the time to write him a follow-up note asking for him to reconsider his approach to problem edits.
I'm an administrator that doesn't always get it right, however, so I will reflect on your comments. In the meantime, can I ask that you perhaps try to get the OldJacobite to kind of temper his actions and use other methods of resolving issues?
Thanks, --A. B. (talkcontribs) 18:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are some relevant diffs (a bit out of sequence, I'm afraid):
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 18:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Roseneath Theatre

You wrote on the talk page: "Clearly notable[22]. Please do not delete."

I deleted it as a copyvio, and also because the link you referred to turns up nothing. I have also blocked the creator as a spamusername since the username is a violation of the user name policy.

If it is indeed notable, then I have no objection if you restore it. I didn't see it though. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic, I did not realize it was a copyvio -- you did the right thing to get rid of it.
I did a Google News Archive search and came up with many news article about the theater and/or about its productions. Here's an example. So it's a notable topic if someone wants to create a new, original article.
Thanks for taking care of these things. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 22:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at TYelliot's talk page.
Message added 19:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 19:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at McDoobAU93's talk page.
Message added 22:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at Zion1985's talk page.
Message added 20:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanx for response and teaching User talk:Almightyvegeta a lesson Zion1985 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully this editor will come to his or her senses but if not, they'll just have to be blocked. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 20:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you and TYelliot are dealing with an IP, 129.15.131.141  that's making a number of edits to stadium articles you all keep reverting. I suggest you three get together and agree on how these article should look. If you 3 can't agree, then ask for some help from the appropriate Wikiproject (probably WikiProject College football). In the meantime, I see a lot of wasted effort on everyone's part. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 20:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

PS I appreciate all your work on these articles -- you've really done a lot for our NCAA football content. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 20:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work with this IP person however, looking at the way he/she has acted to other people trying to converse with them I'd be willing to guess they do not want to work with anyone. I am on thinking that this one was banded from this web site and does not want to reveal them self. I see a few of the same edits from the resent past on some of the NCAA Football. Some of the edits this one does is not bad however the part that is not wright in my mind is the way they seem to come up with old attance numbers and no sorse. The seating would not be so bad except they are the current numbers on past years not every year has the same seating, and AM PM instead of a.m. p.m. I realize this is not that bad. MDSanker 20:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 The Original Barnstar Thanks MDSanker 20:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks -- this makes my day!
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 21:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for all of your hard work, BTW. Jim1138 (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

Hello. Thank you for your message. I appreciate that some explanation is due. For months, if not years, a certain anonymous editor (with a very wide range of dynamic IP addresses at their disposal) has continually shown up in the revision histories of various Wikipedia biographies (usually about actors, most of them still living) to insert unsourced content relating to nationality, ethnicity and cultural background (and by so doing, repeatedly demonstrating a disregard for the guidelines at WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATEGRS). Alternatively, a superfluous parent category is added when a narrower and more precise subcategory is already included (for example, Category:African-American people is inserted alongside Category:African-American actors). The examples are endless, but the history of the Rick Aviles article (now semi-protected) perhaps best typifies the problem. The user is easy to identify from their editing pattern (a quick succession of edits, none of which includes an edit summary; at any rate, it is often the same set of articles every time). Such is the sustained level of disruption that, in my opinion, any assumption of good faith that may once have existed with regard to this editor has long since been exhausted. I am sure that this latest IP is simply another incarnation of the same person and that they know full well what my warnings are referring to. User:Ponyo has been instrumental in blocking (and, in some cases, range-blocking) when needed in the past and should be able to back up my statements here. SuperMarioMan 00:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for that late posting above - I was still typing after your second edit to my talk page. SuperMarioMan 01:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh just stfu! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swankymoomoo (talkcontribs) 18:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

OfficialLiamHowlett

Now socking as User:Superchops, and can we please get the ogg and jpg files he keeps spamming CSDed of Commons? MSJapan (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

and MSJapan (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been off-line for several days; I'm sorry to be slow in repsonding. I've blocked the Superchops account. It appears someone on commons deleted 5 of the files -- are there any others?
Thanks for keeping an eye on this stuff!
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 17:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I've also blocked the IP address. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 17:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't check every potential account, but I think that was all of them, as regardless of which sock it was, the uploads were all by OLH. What concerns me is that several of them had been there for weeks with obviously bad licenses. MSJapan (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The license issue is worrisome; I'm glad it seems to be taken care of now. Thanks for your work on this. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 01:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Belgian IP vandalism

Hello again. So, I've found another IP that is vandalizing the same sort of articles in the same manner again. Please check out the edits being made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.165.147.6 -- Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be slow in responding; I've been offline for a few days. Another administrator blocked that IP, but only for 48 hours (probably unaware of the history of the other IPs). I've noted the other IPs on that page. If that or a similar IP strikes again (and they probably will), please feel free to get me or another admin (if I'm unavailable) to block the account. Make sure they know this is an ongoing problem so they don't:
• Expect to see multiple, escalating new warnings before blocking, and/or
• "Under-block" any new account for too short a duration.
Thanks again for keeping an eye on this stuff!
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 17:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I've also noticed an IP who is vandalizing the same articles in the same ways as the other IPs: Special:Contributions/178.117.162.70 Thank you! --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thomas, I'm sorry to be slow in replying; I've been away. I have blocked that IP and left a note for my Dutch counterparts. So far, here's the history I've put together for this person; all these IPs are registered to the Telenet ISP in Belgium:
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 19:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, the vandal is attacking from a new IP: Special:Contributions/178.119.62.179. Thanks! --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

After warning User:24.56.44.192

You placed a warning on User talk:24.56.44.192 about uncooperative and non-consensus editing. I saw it because I placed a warning for genre warring at among other places this article against a hidden comment to specifically discuss changes on the talk page. The editor does not seem to be willing to discuss and the IP is sufficiently stable that a longer than normal anon block might be warranted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Walter, I'm sorry to be slow in responding -- I've been offline for several days. I've blocked that IP. If it or another IP strikes again, please let me or another admin know. If it's another IP or account, make sure the blocking admin knows the history of this IP so that he/she doesn't:
• Expect to see multiple, escalating new warnings before blocking, and/or
• "Under-block" any new account for too short a duration.
Thanks again for keeping an eye on this stuff!
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 18:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Too late really for a cup of coffee!

 Another blasted (edit conflict) ! So I thought you may not have noticed my closing post. Ha ha! so am I. Post Script. It is the same with both IPs (not just the one, as you write above) and the warning process with STiki is automatic providing I have it checked "on". The developer, Andrew West, is working on revising this aspect. I understand he aims to give us more control. Thank you for being so concerned for me and being so charming. Good night. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the nice note! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC) You earned and deserve it. Thank you! Sincerely -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Block Request

Hey AB, 173.81.186.166 is an IP hopper who has been previously blocked at 173.81.190.232 and 173.81.182.46. The former had a block last of 3 months, the latter was 6 months. All trace back to Suddenlink Communications in the Point Pleasant/Gallipolis, Ohio area. All edit television station pages exclusively and only their digital television sections. Could you please block 173.81.186.166 and do a range block on all the ranges of the IPs listed, please? - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked that one IP. I'm taking your word for it that all the IP's edits were vandalism even though it doesn't look like anybody was sufficiently troubled by them before to warn this person. I'm basing this in part on the history of the two other IPs.
I'm discinclined to block every cable TV subscriber in the greater Point Pleasant, WV area -- that's an area with a population over 50,000. Blocking them all seems like a draconian approach to the issue. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 04:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks on the single block, much appreciated. :) I figured the rangeblock would be out, but it doesn't hurt to check. Seems rangeblocks are hit and miss anymore and not a very effective way to block problem editors. Anywho, thanks again for your help. :) Take Care....NeutralhomerTalk • 05:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dan James Pantone

Hi, A.B., if this article is not already on your watchlist, please look at the recent history, including the speedy delete, which I declined. My two biggest concerns are the conduct of the requester and whether any BLP violations exist in the article as restored to its state just before the requester blanked the article. The editing history of the requester (who was the original author of the article in 2006) is troubling. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been away; I apologize for being slow in replying. I left a lengthy comment at:
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 19:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, A.B., I commented at BLPN specifically on the issue of WP:BLPCRIME.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Expressionism spam

Dealt with via the spam blacklist. Seemed easiest. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 23:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

RE: Carmelo Caruana

I believe the AfD is irrelevant as CSD applies (in my opinion). I did not realize you had already declined the speedy. Contested, sure - by the creator? There isn't any reason it can't be worked on in the userspace. This is a fairly common practice, no? Rjd0060 (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't read Maltese and don't know how to search the Maltese language press. My next steps were going to be:
I would not take these extra steps if I wasn't >80% confident that with a little Maltese language help, good references would be found.
This was a contested deletion. By my understanding of our processes, that means it's not a candidate for speedy deletion. See:
I do not understand what your urgency was in violating our own rules so rapidly. I would understand if there were a WP:BLP concern but to my knowledge "WP:BDP" is not a valid excuse for speedily deleting.
I spent probably 30-60 minutes researching and documenting this article and the best way to handle it. I take our content seriously, so I am frustrated that someone would so cavalierly overlook my edit summaries, my talk page comments, my AfD comments and Wikipedia's rules.
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 13:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
You're free to restore it, of course... I'll just be blunt and say I just hope this doesn't turn into yet another "placeholder" until somebody comes along in 4 years to fix it up. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I have taken the next steps that I was going to take before you deleted the article:
If any of these bear fruit, I will restore the article.
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 05:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Luke Collins

Please see [23]. WWGB (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected!
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 13:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

76.29.246.204

It looks like they're warring without addressing the problems anyways so I probably won't need AIV in the end after all; I just hate seeing all of these vandals tearing up articles knowing only a few check them (Chloe's Closet is a low-watched show in the first place, thus the lack of eyes on the articles to catch sneaky vandalism). Nate (chatter) 01:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Warned at 23:49 (UTC), blocked by 01:00 -- that didn't last long. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 01:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

> Hello, I'm A. B.. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the >page Spam in blogs, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I >made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or >take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:35, 9 >September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Not wanting to disagree with you, but can you explain to me what is the difference between the linksleeve link and the mt-blacklist link and the one i posted (comment spam wiper)? I'm failing to see the difference. And maybe if you can explain it to me I can make the modifications to get my link approved.

Thank you, Alex Alextrout (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at Itemirus's talk page.
Message added 19:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Itemirus (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you a bot?

If you aren't don't be offended. I'd just like to learn why did you put the shared IP template at my talk page in the first place.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, but if I was one, would I be sufficiently self-aware to realize it?
To your other question: I was reviewing talk pages of anonymous IPs who had recently received warnings looking for certain patterns involving vandalism from schools. I ran whois and geolocates on the IPs, then tagged the pages to identify the origins of the IPs. This is useful information for administrators since it can affect how they handle problems with anonymous users. Some schools are sources of nothing but childish vandalism ("Billie is gay", "Mary is a poop head", etc.); if they require blocking, their IP addresses are likely to be blocked for longer periods of time. Your shared IP tag was a byproduct of this effort.
Since you are editing Wikipedia from Greece, the cradle of philosophy, perhaps you can consider the question of self-awareness in bots while my masters put me in standby mode.
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 11:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I live alone :(--94.65.32.228 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Being nosy...

Why did you post 'domain tracking data' on User talk:Dennis291? I've not seen anyone do that before. Peridon (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

We sometimes do that with people that add spam. Spammers often use multiple user names or IP addresses, making it hard to know who's a repeat offender. By doing this, if Dennis291 tries to add that link again with a different account, as simple linksearch will reveal the earlier history at User talk:Dennis291. Dennis doesn't look like the hard-core spammer type, but as long as I was already looking at his page, I stuck that on there.
If you encounter spam in the future, I encourage you to do the same:
Those templates also provide links to some specialized search and information resources.
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 20:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
PS, You're not related to a brilliant Dutch lawyer also named Peridon are you?
I encounter spam every day - it's my main area of operations... Only related to one lawyer that I know of, and she's in Scotland. Only alleged relation from the Low Countries was a Flemish riding school master (apparently in North Wales), but my grandmother could never give the exact relationship or dates. (She couldn't give details of the Black Stewarts of Paisley who weren't hung for sheep stealing, either. I've never found a trace of them.) I won't give the source of my 'Peridon' as I try to maintain anonymity here. It's not medicine or booze linked, though. Back to the spam - I don't block the IP if it looks like a one off in house job. If I suspect a commercial spamming operation, I do block the IP. Very few of my blocks seem to appeal. One at the moment is waxing indignant. I'm off to bed. I'll look at your thingy tomorrow. Peridon (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I almost never block spammers. They just shift IPs or accounts, making them harder to find. So I actually prefer not to block them.
What sometimes slows them down and more often stops them altogether is blacklisting their web site domains at WP:SBL. That's what I do with spammers. Any spamming that's bad enough to justify blocking is bad enough to blacklist. Spammers hate it, too. In some cases, it can also cause off-Wikipedia consequences (search engines sometimes look at our blacklists when doing their own linkspam investigations), so we don't do it at the drop of a hat. As a blacklisting administrator, I want the spammer to have seen at least 3-4 warnings before I do this to him. At that point, it's time to blacklist.
I used to be very involved with spam mitigation myself from about 2005 to 2010; I've cut way back on Wikipedia (and Meta) work since then. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 23:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Online?

Are you still online? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, dealt with now. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

More eyes needed...

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Joseph Berrios, once again. --Orlady (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look in the next day or two. Thanks for all your work on this. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 03:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at Amsaim's talk page.
Message added 08:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amsaim (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reconsider notability issue

Hello, A. B. Do you think you might reconsider the "notability" banner that you placed on the article Jonathan Peizer? I have beefed up the article substantially with sources like Wired, Fast Company, and one especially you might wish look at -- First Monday, which is a lengthy one-on-one interview with Peizer, by Geert Lovink. I'm worried that if we reject documentation of the earliest Internet pioneers, an important era in history -- indeed, even in Wikipedia's history, as the Open Society Institute funded the Wikimedia Foundation -- will be buried. Nutson11 (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Mr. Peizer’s notability his marginal. If the article went to an Articles for Deletion discussion, the decision to delete this article could go either way. Looking at your references (the links associated with this list can be found at the end of the article):
• Net puts Mongolia in touch with rest of world , The San Diego Union-Tribune, 19 August 2000
• I don’t know what this says. Is it about Peizer?
• Wikis Go Printable, Wikimedia Foundation press release, 13 December 2007
• Doesn’t mention Peizer. Press release.
• An Interview with Allen Gunn of Social Source Commons, NetSquared.org
• Makes brief mention of Peizer.
• Social Source Commons: History and Appreciations, SocialSourceCommons.org
• Just one paragraph on Peizer. I don’t think the source is the type that’s used to establish notability anyway.
• Philanthropy, Grants, and Fund Raising Resources, University of Pittsburgh library guides ("Capaciteria")
• One paragraph description of Peizer’s web site
• Careful, you're contagious, Times Higher Education, 31 October 2003, Martin Ince
• Very reliable source (for notability purposes) — but just a passing mention at the end.
• Important Book on Technology in the Social Sector], Beneblog: Technology Meets Society, Jim Fruchterman, 10 May 2006
• Pluses: long enough article. Fruchterman himself is notable. Minuses: It’s from a blog. It’s a review of Peizer’s book, not about him.
• Book reviews: The Dynamics of Technology for Social Change - Jonathan Peizer, Alliance magazine, Oliver Denton, 1 March 2007
• Pluses: long enough article.Minuses: It’s a review of Peizer’s book, not about him. The magazine doesn’t seem notable: Alliance (disambiguation)
• Sysop for Soros, Wired (magazine), Ben Greenman, June 2006
• Pluses: Wired is a very reliable source. Minuses: The piece is brief. The piece is not about him. Plus: at least they’re interested enough to briefly interview him
• My Favorite Bookmarks - Jonathan Peizer, Fast Company, Lisa Chadderdon, 31 December 1997
• Pluses: Fast Company is a very reliable source. Minuses: The piece is tiny. The piece is not about him. Plus: at least they’re interested enough to ask him for several favorite links
• FM Interviews: Jonathan Peizer, First Monday, Volume 4, Number 2, Geert Lovink, 1 February 1999
• This may be your best shot. Reliable source. Long. On the other hand, it’s an interview, not about him. But then again, they’re interested in interviewing him. They’re not interested in interviewing me.
• Adapt These Eight Resources for Your Next Foundation Grant Proposal, GuideStar, August 2011
• Not much there — someone at Guidestar devotes a sentence to linking to his 20 tips.
At an AfD discussion a couple of intangible factors might bias some people even they shouldn't. First Mr. Peizer had an article previously deleted and the comments were pretty adverse: a “vanity article” with attempted sockpuppetry. Wikipedia editors viscerally dislike that sort of thing. They’re also wary of paid editors writing pieces for people and I think your newness here may raise suspicions that you’re working for Mr. Peizer; sorry to be blunt but you need to be ready for this. This is one reason I left those comments on the article talk page; while flagging the article’s issues, I didn’t want people to knee-jerk react to the article’s background and delete it as a non-notable, possible autobiography until you had more chance to work on it.
These are just my opinions; I strongly encourage you to raise these questions at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. You might reference this discussion so people can look at my bulleted list above and critique my points.
Finally, consider whether Mr. Peizer even wants an article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Peizer had to have been a painful experience for him. Would he want you to potentially expose him to a repeat? Also, Wikipedia articles do get vandalized and otherwise turn into embarrassments; see:
After working on this project for 7 years, I’m not sure I would want an article!
A. B. (talkcontribs) 23:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and initiated a discussion at:
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 23:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
You've certainly thoroughly combed through the article's references, and that's appreciated, although I might disagree with a couple of your conclusions (e.g., "The piece is not about him"). I decided to let the Noticeboard discussion run its course without my input, and I see that after nearly a month, it gained no traction at all. I was fine with the "notability" flag on the article, but after logging in this morning, I found that two more (false!) tags had been placed on the article -- a warning about autobiography, and one about "original research". That irked me enough to respond in detail to that editor. I hope that Wikipedia's culture generally is not as hostile to new contributors as it has relatively been toward me. Nutson11 (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment to MrFiveThirty

Agreed. I believe his idiocy should be kept off Wikipedia due to its own ridiculousness. It's not helping matters to make this at all "personal". Should I delete the message, or is the damage done and I just avoid that sort of thing in the future? Thanks for the heads-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoletsi (talkcontribs) 12:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: don't just walk away and don't erase your message either. Strike through what you already wrote and write in whatever you think is more appropriate now. You can use the bracketted s code to do this:
<s>example</s> produces example
That's been the best way I've seen people walk back comments they wished to retract.
That's my two cents. It's just so much easier for me to speak intemperately online than it is in person. I've never regretted retracting or apologizing for my comments around here when I've felt I spoke wrongly. I have, however, come to regret sticking to my guns out of pride even when I realized I was wrong.

Reliable sources

Hi A.B.

This is my first time using the Talk page, so hope I'm doing it right!

Thanks for the warm welcome to Wikipedia. Apologies about "undoing" the Ghostwriter wiki page about the citations/references...

I looked at the links that you added to my Talk page. So, am I misreading this part...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I wondered if that applies to those parts that I "undid"?? As all of those prices are examples of costs for ghostwriters and readers won't have to "google" for this info?

Also I figured that it was better to have a citation to back it up (as I think all of them linked back to a page with the specific quotation? If not, that does sound unduly self-serving!)

Curious to hear your thoughts and look forward to seeing you around!

J.D.F. Jdf1984 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The guidance you quote above applies to people that are subjects of articles. So Mitt Romney's article can cite Mitt Romney as a source in asserting that blue is his favourite colour. Barack Obama's article can cite him as a source in asserting that his favourite colour is red. Obama's article might need further backing than just his own word in asserting that he was born in Hawaii since that is, in many eyes, a controversial claim. This also applies to organizations; we'll use Ford's reported sales from their audited financial statements since it's not an exceptional claim. I have never seen SELFSOURCE applied to a class of people. Romney can speak for Romney, Obama for Obama and Ford for Ford, but individual welders can't speak for welders or welding.
That's my take. I don't think I'm wrong but you might get another opinion by raising this question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 22:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, A.B.! I agree and think that I totally misunderstood the selfsource guidance, but now I get it. My learning curve is practically vertical at this point!

I just wanted to figure out a way to fix all those "citation needed" on the article page, by linking back to the original quote/information...

Anyways, I will rest my case and definitely chalk this up to learning the ropes! This Wiki stuff is trickier than I first thought, but I did join the Journalism group on Wiki today to help on a few other pages. (I'm a Journalism grad!)

Talk soon Jdf1984 (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

64.251.55.162 block

Hi, Denimadept. Thanks for asking. 64.251.55.162  (Cromwell Public Schools) is one of a bunch of vandalism-only K-12 school accounts that have been on my watchlist for a number of years. I didn't block that IP so much for that one edit but because it's a chronic source of nothing but trouble for Wikipedia, our readers and our editors:
• Since 2005
• 12 blocks starting with a 24 hour block and escalating eventually to 3 one-year blocks then my two-year block
• 248 total edits, virtually all vandalistic and requiring someone revert them
• 70 warnings (approximate -- includes warnings previously deleted)
• Since the last block expired:
• 37 of 39 edits were tests or downright vandalism
• 1 was perhaps slightly unhelpful but minor and in good faith.
• 10 ignored warnings
• 26 abuse filter actions since the last block expired.
• When it worked, the abuse filter caught some egregiously bad stuff.
• Of the 39 most recent edits, most vandalism was typically reverted within 20 minutes but some wasn't:
• 16 BLP violations since the last block expired.
• Typically they were schoolkid-type stuff involving either named classsmates or disliked celebrities:
• Many of these edits look more silly than libelous in my eyes, but not necessarily in the eyes of their subjects.
• Even if subsequently reverted on Wikipedia, these edits get propagated and perpetuated across the Internet by the hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors that don't continuously update their scraped Wikipedia content
• 21 edits on other Wikimedia projects, while not covered by this block, have mostly been just as unhelpful:
As I said, I didn't so much block this account for what it had just done but more for what it would continue doing.
This is a soft block, so registered users can still edit from this IP by logging into their account. Juvenile editors are an important source of both good content and cleanup on Wikipedia; some are admins. At schools like this though, unsupervised computers are like holes in our hull that anonymously leak content out and garbage in.
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 20:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
PS Other than kiddie vandalism-only school accounts, I'm probably more cautious about blocking people than most administrators working on complaints at WP:AIV.
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 21:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the extensive answer. I've been reverting vandals for years, and I've no idea how you're managing this, but more power to you!! My basic concept is that children should not be on the adult internet unsupervised, but I don't limit that to legal minors. Not all of them are idiots, and not all adults are mature enough to deal with this kind of freedom well. - Denimadept (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Chloe's Closet Season 2

Go To http://www.moonscoop.com/files/FREE/Chloes%20Closet%20MIPTV%202012.pdf and go down until you see Season 2 Now In Production. and go down again until you see Carys Mozart. its True 76.29.246.204 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I blocked you previously not for lying but for disruptive editing and failure to cooperate and communicate with other editors. There were other editors and administrators that wanted to just block you away for a long time but as a compromise, instead of that, I gave you some special instructions on your talk page -- twice. Please follow these instructions carefully: make no edits to any articles without first getting consensus from established editors on that article's talk page. Otherwise, I will have to block you a second time -- and for a longer period.
As for the link you provided above, take it up with the other editors on the talk page for the article and discuss it with them. I'm not an active follower of this program.
Thanks, --A. B. (talkcontribs) 01:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A plan

this user BencherliteTalk once was on my section called

Thomas Weinandy

Here, too, I'm not sure what your rationale was to rollback my edit [37], and to issue a vandalism warning [38]. An apparently COI account twice copied and pasted a curriculum vitae into the article, which is considered disruptive for several reasons, per WP:RESUME. I've again reverted to the non-resume version. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm with the IP on this one, for what it's worth. The CV version of the article was entirely inappropriate, the IP correctly removed it and you should not have restored the CV or warned the IP. Regards, BencherliteTalk 19:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do smell a rat who does want me out of Wikipedia less than a year eventually, bu I do value Wikipedia enough not to quit.--GoShow (............................) 21:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm just reviewing, but what I'm saying is I have had users back in the days who tried IP accounts to test myself and hopefully to be blocked from editing, and I hope there is some answer to protect my user page and any files to not come into conflict with many IP users who have probably do have a confirmed account, although won't say it, if not thanks anyway.--GoShow (............................) 21:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying that either administrator Bencherlite or myself are socks who have a long term agenda to discredit you? To be clear, I first ran across GoShow's edits on the reversion to Thomas Weinandy. I see a WP:Boomerang. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't apply among you or the other user, if your stalking me, I'm applying to others from last contributions and don't think all users have been considered under the law policy as well.- 'by GoShow--74.34.71.66 (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

12.153.112.21

Dude, open your eyes! The user is reverting, continously, back to information from 2007. The user has repeatedly said they they are aware they are adding inaccurate information (ie: vandalism) and they are just following the sources (sources from 2007). They have not looked for new sources, just reverted to 2007 information, network names, company names, etc. Nothing in admittedly adding inaccurate information and not looking for new sources is in "good faith" as they claim. This isn't something DisRes is going to help with, this is vandalism pure and simple. - NeutralhomerTalk • 03:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude, my eyes are open!
Dude, here are the instructions:
I didn't write them, I just follow them:
• "AIV deals mainly with obviously malicious edits that require no discussion; complex cases should usually be referred to other boards"
• "Report only clear violations that do not require discussion or detailed explanations. If there is a reasonable chance that something may not be vandalism, it probably should be reported elsewhere, or not at all."
Here's what I wrote in response to your complaint and the IP's comment:
• "Whatever the pros and cons of these edits, they're not the kind of obvious vandalism we deal with on this noticeboard."
I suggest you raise this at WP:ANI. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 03:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
To sum up, if an admin has to investigate an issue, go through a bunch of diffs, try to figure out who's right and who's wrong, maybe check him/herself for some refs online to figure out what the article facts should say ... well, in that case, don't take it to WP:AIV. There's no shortage of administrators and administrator hopefuls that watch WP:ANI and enjoy sinking their teeth and time into something tricky. WP:AIV is for stuff an admin (who knows nothing about a so-called "List of AT&T U-verse channels") can figure out and deal with in 90 seconds or less. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 04:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
First, I owe you an apology. I was on a 3-day sabbatical (for lack of a better word). No internet, phone, TV, nada. It was pretty cool. I had hoped that once I came back this whole thing with the anon would be over with. I was hoping that the AIV post today would be a short and sweet option with the continued vandalism. After dealing with this for a week prior to my sabbatical and today, I got pissed when a block wasn't issued and I took that out on you. I shouldn't have and I apologize.
I really didn't want to go to ANI (waaaay too much drama there), but if I have to, I will. Hope your post on the "List of AT&T U-verse channels" talk page and the user's talk page will keep this from continuing. If not, I will go to ANI. Thanks...NeutralhomerTalk • 04:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel the need to bring this to your attention. Particularly the line that states if indefinite semi-protection was enacted on the List of AT&T U-verse channels page, the user would "would merely get an account to ensure that the source is respected and other sources are added". It is quite clear from that the user is stating they would create an account and continue to edit disruptively regardless of page protection. Hence I am requesting a block on the IP account, block on creating accounts and a range block (shouldn't take up too many people as it is a company IP). - NeutralhomerTalk • 06:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

<A.B., I apologize for contributing to your exasperation. I appreciate your referrals to us both, but I wanted to ensure you understood that I was simply matching article information to the source provided. I had presumed my fellow editors were competent enough to recognize that the article should conform to the source provided, that it should not rely on dynamic sources but static sources, and that unsourced assertions should be sourced. It appears that you and Masem have uncovered a nest of poor articles defended primarily by editors who want to use WP as a convenience link to their zipcode's provider offerings. While the article I have in mind may not arise anytime soon, I trust you recognize my intent to stay within WP web-building policy. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I think maintaining an article like that is like keeping a sand castle in the tidal zone: it invites dispute, provides readers with stale incorrect information and soaks up a lot of editorial time. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 14:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
What you say is agreeable and worthy of reflection. Wikipedia is itself a sandcastle. We in the tidal vanguard are merely enjoying in microcosm the probable eventual fate of the whole edifice based on slightly higher ground. I am a sandcastle. I am a mudpie. It is in fact the human conception of Wikipedia, rather than the collection of megabits themselves, that serves as the ultimate bedrock. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD of the U-verse article

Would have perfered you waited to AfD that as I had just added 4 confirming references this morning since the anon was clearly not. From what I read above, still was not going to. Oh well. I understand why you did. If it is deleted, could you save the article after deletion and move it to my userspace or send it to me via email? Thanks...NeutralhomerTalk • 22:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not AfD the article, although as I wrote in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, the thought had just crossed my mind as I signed off yesterday. Someone else beat me to it.
I'd be happy to save a copy if needed.
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 22:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, my goof. That's what I get for editing when I first wake up. Things blend into each other. Anywho, I figure it will be deleted and as I said on the AfD, I won't be upset if it is. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks A. B. for noticing. User:The Bushranger has userfied the article now but not the talk and is currently out. Could you please also userfy the deleted Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels to User talk:IP 12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels? It is relevant to the content dispute. The username has now been approved for and requested for move to the "good guy" so will be moved there after userfication. Thanks in advance. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Done. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 18:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

72.186.48.128

is at it again here. Eric444 (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Be on the lookout for sockpuppets. I tried to set the block as long as I could without forcing him into sockpuppetry. In my experience, it's better to keep blocking the same IP for short periods than to have all kinds of socks hitting you by surprise. 2 weeks is about the outer limit of the typical edit warrior's patience. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 00:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you keep an eye out for new IPs from the Tampa, Florida area doing the same stuff; if so, report them to me or another administrator, being sure to include a link to this IP's talk page (that way you won't have to jump through hoops first giving multiple warnings, etc).
Thanks for watching over our content. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 00:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
from the Tampa, Florida area made a similar edit to Jack Ingram's article here and also vandalised Trisha Yearwood's article here. Eric444 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
OK. I just blocked it. Let me know the next IP when it appears. If I'm offline, feel free to get another admin to block; make sure they know the histories of 24.160.92.209 and 72.186.48.128.
Thanks for your work on this!. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 18:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

208.67.34.233

I don't know, maybe it's because I've seen good edits come from some schools and school districts (including my alma mater), but I just don't understand why sysops these days drop 1 year blocks on schools and even colleges after single incidents of recent vandalism. Personally, I think it's a violation of the blocking policy, since I don't think the user at 208.67.34.233 had been adequately warned before it was blocked; although there are oodles of prior warnings, this is a shared IP and prior edits, good or bad, quite possibly could have come from a different person. Maybe it's just me, but if I were you, I would lift that block, or at least shorten it. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This issue was discussed extensively a few months ago in the thread you started at:
The alternative to blocking the virtually vandalism-only school accounts is to use WP:ABUSE. You're welcome to try this but I have several reservations:
• School staff are already stretched thin. Keeping an eye on every computer screen all the time is probably unreasonable.
• For IT staff that do want to be responsive to WP:ABUSE, the easiest way to stop vandalism is to block Wikipedia. It's much trickier for them to figure out how to allow access to read but not edit Wikipedia. It's still more work for them to allow reading and editing by registered accounts.
• "Successful" WP:ABUSE actions may do much more collateral damage (blocking all site access and or editing by registered users) than simple IP soft-blocks
We have many excellent editors and some admins under the age of 18 with registered accounts. These school IP blocks don't hinder their ability to edit Wikipedia.
As a general rule, I am more cautious about blocking registered users and non-school IPs than the average admin. I take a more proactive stance towards primary and secondary school IPs -- most of them are nothing but sources of trouble. I'm glad you say your school wasn't.
Before blocking any IP, if the source is not already identified, I'll check whois, run 2 different geolocates, and sometimes a traceroute. I do this to determine if it's a school, library, hot spot, hotel or university. Libraries, hotels and hot spots I block for very short times (<24 hours). For primary and secondary schools, I'll escalate from the last block. For universities, it depends: some colleges' students edit like children. In other cases, whois shows the IP registered to the state university system while traceroute indicates a high school using the state university system for access. (Example, the University of Missouri's statewide MOREnet]
If you look at my edit history, you'll see that I have spent a lot of time tagging IPs with shared IP templates of various sorts based on investigating who's really at the other end of the modem. Before I block anyone, I'll look at the edit history (not just the warnings) and spot check 5 to 10 (unless I've dealt with that account before).
In a gray area are all the many school IPs that aren't explicitly identified as such but are instead listed as institutional customers of ISPs (examples: Comcast Business Communications (USA), TPG Internode (Australia), Cogent Communications (USA/Canada -- especially Ontario)). In these cases, I look at still more edits. I check the dates and times against the academic year for that country. I look at the quality of the vandalism; disaffected adults working for Air Canada and using a Cogent IP vandalize employer or politicians' pages with embittered comments; they seldom work "poop", "penis" or "gay" into their edits. Their kids, editing from a Cogent IP at a Toronto area school, like those dirty words and they attack video games and celebrities most adults never heard of.
So whether you agree with my philosophy or not, you have to admit I do put a lot of thought and care into it.
Now let's look at that IP of yours, 208.67.34.233 . When I blocked it, I had looked at the IP before and put it on my watchlist, I saw it vandalizing again, spot-checked its recent edit history and abuse filter and blocked it again. I might spend several minutes sizing up an IP like that before blocking it and I'd base a lot on spot-checking. Let's see how my decision stacks up against a detailed analysis of that IP's history:
• 33 ignored warnings
• 42 additional abuse filter warnings
• 5 escalating blocks to no effect
• the last was one year
I could have let this IP accumulate 3 to 4 more warnings, then blocked it again. But it's a chronic vandalism account and WP:BLOCK allows blocking sooner. Blocking it now gave our readers more reliable content and our editors a little more time to actually edit rather than revert and warn. We have a problem with editor burnout and vandalism is usually one of the top reasons editors (not admins) cite for giving up.
At your request, I have reduced the block length -- from 2 years to 1 year. Understand, though, that based on past history, you can expect the following in one year, going through the sequence of escalating warnings, etc. that I sense you prefer:
• On the plus side for our readers and editors:
• maybe one good-faith edit of a sentence in length
• 1 to 2 minor, good-faith edits
• On the negative side:
• 5 to 6 ignored warnings before an actual block
• 7 attempted edits triggering the abuse filter and generating ignored notices
• 13 vandalistic edits
• 9 will get fixed within 3 minutes
• 4 will take much longer to get spotted and fixed
The ball's in your court now -- please put this IP on your watchlist and make sure you catch it before it does too much damage in 365 days.
Thanks,
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 03:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute -- your alma mater is Port Charlotte High School, right? Check these out:
As you said, there may be some good edits coming from those IPs but I see many more that have created headaches for other editors and reduced reliability for our readers.
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 03:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm very well aware of those CCPS IPs, which represent over 15,000 users. As you said, there's a lot of vandalism from schools and shared IPs in general. My beef isn't with that, it's the fact that every written policy here says to assume good faith with everyone, only block after issuing four warnings, and don't bite the newbie editors. While many of these IPs have many warnings, they often represent thousands of users, and yesterday's vandalism could quite possibly been someone entirely different, and today's contributor may have not even seen any of those warnings, yet the IP gets blocked. Worse yet, I see too many admins take the same mentality of treating shared IPs as one person and applying it to universities, corporations, and military installations which have a much higher good faith percentage than K-12s. Furthermore, while we have the form to request an account, it's often times impossible to access an email account from these places due to the webfilter blocking it (my school USED to block all of Wikipedia even; from 2006 to 2012 only the real nerds that knew about the secure server could get access). While the newbie editor might go home and log into his/her account, (s)he might also just forget about editing Wikipedia.
If we're going to treat shared IPs as a single long term abuser why do we even bother with the shared templates? Shouldn't the WHOIS template be enough? If we're going to blow these IPs out of the water every chance we get, why do we even monkey around with the one year blocks; why don't we just soft block them all indef and say it's because we get too much abuse from them? Wouldn't that make more sense? Better yet, why not require everyone to create an account, and change the autoblocks to a softblock that prevents account creation from the IP that the abusive account came from but allows already established editors to edit? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 14:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I don't entirely disagree with your ideas, I just think it clashes with Wikipedia's philosophy of welcoming everyone. One of these days maybe enough people will figure out that it's just better for registration to be required. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 14:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

DiveReport.com

Dear A.B,

You have blacklisted DiveReport.com from Wikipedia Details the site provides information regarding diving to see seasonal animals and as such is valuable and useful information for divers specifically. Typically visitors from wikipedia viewed 10+ pages and spent an average of 2min 20seconds on the website indicating that it is indeed information that Adds value.

Of course you can quote sales pitches from our Advertising page, most commerical website have a requirement to make money somehow - the issue really is weather the links were, or were not spam. In this case - the external links were placed on pages where DiveReport.com adds real value to visitors and is not information that can be got from anywhere else, even nearly as easily, online. The data is provided by local and highly authoritive experts at each location.

I strongly feel that these links were not spam, they impact our SEO in no-way what-so-ever as all links are no-follow from Wikipedia (which makes the section you quoted from our site irellevant).

I would kindly ask if they could be restored and DiveReport.com be removed from the Block list. Page editors from the 15 or so page which the external link was added to clearly saw the benefits of the information provided.

Best,

Catherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.162.92 (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Catherine, I blacklisted your site because you kept adding links even as different editors left you messages not to do this. You can request a review of my decision at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals but I wouldn't get your hopes up -- I think others will take the same approach. First you may want to go back to those messages we left you at the various IPs you used and read the material they link -- I think that may help you understand the issues that will come into play when your links are reviewed. Be sure to read:
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 21:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

latestmoviez.com spam

A quick reminder of this. You now have a very good reason to examine those domains; they're evading the blacklist yet again:

MER-C 11:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

MER-C, I'm sorry I was away. It looks like Hu12 blacklisted the new domains. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 19:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Numerous Problems with User:12.153.112.21. Thank you. NeutralhomerTalk • 19:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 19:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned you by name, hence the notification. - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 19:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.
Message added 17:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your help with this. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

My Section

Ma'am, I read your message and clearly understandble and gladly respectfully to you ma'am, I understood the guidelines, and yes it was just a mistake, possibly the user might have edited back on, or I might have put it back on to complete the sentence, other than this subject ma'am no problem, and keep on the counter-vandalism ma'am.--GoShow (............................) 19:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a note

I just wanted to drop you a note that I do appreciate your comments but the fact is that in addition to article creation and improvement I deal a lot in administrative related areas, partially because there aren't enough active admins and these tasks would likely not get done otherwise. So I hope you'll understand that it annoys me greatly that so many editors think I can't be trusted. This has also significantly contributed to my feelings that the RFA process is a failure and that unbundling the tools is necessary for the long term health of the project. Admins will still be needed to give permissions, would still have the full set of tools and would still be there to mediate but more people would have the tools they need for their niche tasks rather than submit an RFA just so they can block vandals, edit a protected page or be able to pull in more than 25, 000 pages to AWB. Kumioko (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Wtshymanski

Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at Wtshymanski's talk page.
Message added 11:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

86.159.159.194 (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the emphasis on your comment on the above user's talk page - it won't happen again. My intention was not to undermine the importance of your comment for Andy Dingley, but to emphasise it for Wtshymanski. I have come to know both editors very well and I know that Andy will take the point on board without any extra emphasis or repetition. However, Wtshymanski had since demonstrated his usual reluctance to take any notice.
The Wtshymanski editing issue has been dragging on for years, including an RfC on his controversial editing, the admin decision from which he ignored, even after a subsequent block. You might also notice from his sarcastic comments and edit summaries that he disapproves of editors with IP addresses, such as myself even being allowed to edit articles. A frequent edit summary for reverting an edit (and not just from me) is, "rv edit by anon" or even, "rv v by anon" ("v" is his abbreviation for 'vandalism' even though it is a good faith edit) with no futher justification for the reversion. Wtshymanski cannot seem to get to grips with the idea he does not dictate Wikipedia policy. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I see Wtshymanski as a talented, prolific contributor -- and stubborn. I first became aware of him when I saw what he'd done to one of our technical articles, went to praise him and saw all the stuff about the RfC. My goal is to keep him happily doing what he does best with the least disruption possible. Some of his work is problematic but it looks to me like it only gets more problematic when others get in his face. Plus, some of his critics' behaviour has been unconscionable. Most other admins would probably have immediately blocked the editor that posted that stuff about him on your user talk page.
He's also not the only content-builder involved, however, so I walk a line trying not to discourage others such as Andy or yourself.
Some people say admins are cops. Others say we're janitors with mops. Maybe sometimes we're cops beating people with mop-handles. As for me, I value our content-creators (more than admins) and want them to get along and keep enjoying what they're doing, so mostly I just stick to waving the wet, nasty but soft end of the mop at them.
I've told Wtshymanski to stop merging articles and I do expect him to stop.
Maybe I'm too nice. Perhaps I should go turn the mop around and whack someone. Probably not. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 15:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
A not so hypothetical question has reared its head. Regarding the comment posted to my talk page by DieSwartzPunkt that you deleted. You stated on DieSwartzPunkt's talk page regarding writing such information, that, "Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous". Fair comment, I have no problem with that. (Yes, there is a 'but' comming.)
But (told you!) Wtshymanski himself has posted a direct link to the very post that you deleted on DieSwartzPunkt's talk page here. Does that now nean that Wtshymanski himself has decided that he does not wish to remain so anonymous and that the material can now be used (not that I was planning to)? 86.159.159.194 (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
To answer your question, no it does not mean that. See WP:OUTING. We bend over backwards in these cases. It's also not clear he's confirming anything -- just sticking it to DieSwartzPunkt sarcastically (and under the circumstances, with some justification). --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 15:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I have now deleted that material. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 16:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Probably a good move. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's too bad some of these people aren't air traffic controllers or homicide detectives - hypervigilance has its uses. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an even better thing that I'm not in a control tower!
--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 18:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In spite of your instruction to Wtshymanski, he has resorted to merging articles again. And also resorted to not merging them properly leaving the editing history of the source articles unlinked. Recent merges include [[39]] and [[40]] 86.159.159.194 (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 22:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio at Alex Ward

Hello! Alex Ward is comprised almost entirely of a copy/paste from IMDb. The original contributor, Producerwardy (talk · contribs), has an obvious COI and has been warned/helped/scolded/etc several times. The article should be CSD-G12, but now other editors are removing the CSD so I have replaced it with {{Copyvio}}. Could you take a look and (hopefully) speedy it? Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 The Admin's Barnstar For the best administrator ever! (: VJ.West (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. This is quite a surprise! --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 22:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Telogis spamvertising on Wikipedia.

I hope it's okay posting this on your talk page. The Telogis page is spamvertising on Wikipedia. The same spamvertising they're doing on Glassdoor and paid-for news sites like businesswire, prweb and prnewswire. I request that the Telogis page be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckingNorris (talkcontribs) 18:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sky AfD

For your information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky has been modified to include an expanded list of directly related articles. I'm just letting you know that this has happened so you may add or amend your comments in response. Many thanks, doktorb wordsdeeds 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your prompt attention to and blocking of vandal users, in particular the recent block of an IP user whose vandal edit I recently reverted. I'd have given a barnstar, but you've received one of those recently, and the kitten was far cuter ;)

Besieged (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Channel lineups AFD

Hello, A. B. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky. I have just created another AfD, which also looks at articles with lists of channels. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wtshymanski and unrestricted article merging

In spite of your instruction to Wtshymanski not to merge any more articles, he is nevertheless back to his mass merging of articles ways. It started as one or two here and there (presumably to see if you were watching), and is now back to its original flow rate. This is of particular concern because Wtshymanski is now back to merging articles where there is either no justification or support, but also where the consencus is not to merge. I believe he is just getting the mergers from the backlog list but is not bothering to check the relevant talk page (though there is evidence that this is happening in a few cases - I suspect that it depends on whether Wtshymanski himself believes the article should be merged).

The main point of concern is that Wtshymanski still refuses to tidy up the merge by including the {{Mergedfrom...}} and {{Mergedto...}} tags in the respective talk pages so that the contribution and discussion history is preserved. Wtshymanski's approach is to refer the reader in the edit summary, but this is unacceptable as the edit summary soon disappears down the list and is lost in the noise. I note that at least 3 editors other than myself have complained at some time or other recently on Wtshymanski's talk page on this very point (discussion attempt is always deleted without response - standard procedure at any attempt at engaging Wtshymanski in meaningful discussion). I would have attached a list of diffs for the merges, but I figured that you are as capable of getting them from Wtshymanski's contributions history as I am. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:199.182.67.130 block notice

Hi, you marked User talk:199.182.67.130 with a block notice [41], but the IP is not blocked [42]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ooops!
Thanks for catching that. Now blocked. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 18:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 The Admin's Barnstar For all your hard work, contributions and administration of the Wikipedia project in the MediaWiki namespace. Cheers. --Hu12 (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
It's been a really trying day and this is such a pleasant surprise -- thank you!
--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 02:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:173.59.238.107

Hi, this is a dynamic IP allocated to Verizon. I was wondering how you established that this is an Education IP, please? TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right -- it's not a school. I made a mistake. I've been trying to identify IP ranges for problematic school systems and I was going through yesterday's blocked IPs. If an IP I looked at was not a school IP, I still tagged it with a shared IP tag anyway since I'd already dug up the ISP info anyway.
In this case, I just plain made a mistake using Twinkle's shared IP tagging feature.
173.59.238.107 is technically "dynamic" since the IP address is not permanently assigned. At the same time, from our point of view as administrators in assessing IP editing patterns, it's more like a static IP. (See Dynamic IP#Sticky dynamic IP address). For a DSL, FIOS or cable modem, I normally tag them just as "shared IPs", neither "dynamic" or "static". If the whois or traceroute data indicates a static IP, I use the static IP tag. If it says it's a dial-up modem pool, I use the dynamic IP tag; dial-up modems get new IPs every session.
Thanks for catching my mistake!
--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 17:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for that helpful explanation. Best, TerriersFan (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;" |- | style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
• It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
• It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
• It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
• It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
• It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
• Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
• Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
• Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
• If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Links to subsequent and/or concurrent discussions:
Prior relevant discussion with links to other previous discussions:
--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 20:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Non Notable People

Hi A.B. Could you please help. Two users by the names of TheOriginalSoni, and Bhockey10 keep re-adding a list of non-notable people to the ACHA (hockey) page. I have made them aware of the policy, (a min of a 100 games played at the ECHL or higher), but they both claim that policy does not apply. I fail to see how it does not apply, as wiki's standards in this case are clear. Can you look into this. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. I quickly skimmed your exchanges and I have these suggestions:
• Get some additional, knowledgeable editors to weigh in and help. I suggest you post a neutral request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey asking for some others to take a look. I'm not aware of any guidelines on notability based on the number of hockey games played but the Ice Hockey WikiProject editors will. They'll also have much more credibility than I would in this case. Our general guidelines on notability can be found at WP:NOTE and WP:BIO
• See our policy, "Assume Good Faith". These two editors look like they're trying to improve Wikipedia just like yourself. Lighten up a little bit. While your comments are within the broad bounds of our Civility Policy, even I'm a little intimidated by your tone and I'm not involved in your dispute. Things work much more smoothly if folks use "cheerful" and "friendly" as their standards rather just settling for cold civility.
• I encourage you to register and get a user name. In theory, anonymous editors using just an IP address have just as much clout in an editorial dispute as an editor in long-standing. In reality, anonymous editors unfortunately don't get the credibility they should. Also, since other people may be using the same IP address, your reputation can get tarred by the poor edits made by others. That's not the way things are supposed to work, but that's the actual dynamic I see everyday.
• For what it's worth, we have dozens of policies and hundreds of guidelines. I don't know all of them and I doubt anyone else does either.
I hope this helps. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 02:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi A.B., hate to bother you but it seems like you've dealt with user 198.84.241.55 as well. After awhile away from editing, it seems the user is back. He continues to pick apart notability guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and apply the pieces to a cited list. The edits and reverts are boarding on an edit-war and the user has had the corrections explained to him/her by myself and other editors. The list is question is hockey players, the remaining players on the list either meet notability for a stand-alone article or are close to meeting it. They have played either 100+ games at the ECHL (mid-minor pro level) or in the case of Nick Pappas, played in the ECHL's predecessor league. Other players have played in the highest level of hockey in respective European countries in leagues such as the Austrian Hockey League... The user's edits and inability to grasp editing concepts and etiquette that has been explained before, is becoming unconstructive and at times boarding vandalism. Thanks for your help in the matter. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi A.B., the above post is not exactly correct. Bhockey fails to mention that the three people I have removed played in either Turkey, Poland, or the AAHL. While Bhockey is correct that they have played in the highest level in the nation, it is diffently not notable, nor does it meet guildlines. As for the AAHL, this league is far below the ECHL. Furthermore, one player who I have never removed from the list, hockeydb has him as the only player on his club team in the 80's well before the ACHL came into being. This is a clear mistake, and one that needs to be corrected. Like I said to bhockey, don't shoot the messenger. If he does not like the 100 ECHL game standard, then he should try to change the policy. If not, then he should try to edit within policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sir!

sir i have a problem, this user is doing Edit war, I sent to him two warning messages about that, but not paying attention. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cinema_of_the_United_States&action=history

greetings MervinVillarreal (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been away several weeks; I'm sorry to be slow in responding.
It looks like another admin subsequently blocked this person.
--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 22:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

67.218.53.224

I have yet another IP user who refuses to post edits in proper English. 67.218.53.224 has been posting mostly gibberish over the past three months to the point of vandalizing. Unfortunately, ARV has done absolutely nothing about the user.

Furthermore, the IP user is related to users DharakJoo and Dharakjoo1 and marked all three on sockpuppetry. Unfortunately, the case was closed for supposed lack of evidence.

What would be your advice on this situation? - Areaseven (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked several recent edits and didn't see problems -- the English was good and they weren't gibberish. I'd say you have an editorial dispute and this is not vandalism.
I'm sorry to be slow in responding; I've been offline several weeks.
--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 22:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure about his English? Check out these edits here, here and here and tell me why his grammar is good. - Areaseven (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:A. B./UserSummary

Hi there! I thought I should let you know that I escaped the category at User:A. B./UserSummary per the protected edit request here. Feel free to reinstate it if you think that's not a good idea. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That same question for User:A. B./IPwhois. Could you take a look? -DePiep (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What I don't like about what you did with 64.56.87.247

Yes, I know you probably think I'm a pain questioning what you do with IPs, but I know you do things like this a lot. In this case, you wrote "this IP probably belongs to the affiliated high school", which, based on the edits, was probably an accurate assumption. However, it was not a necessary assumption; the IP was already tagged as belonging to SCF, which was really close enough don't you think? I won't lie, when something is tagged with something like "BOCES Unit 20" or "Florida Information Resource Network" and I can narrow it down to something more specific I do it, but I don't think its a good idea to guesstimate when we don't have to. Case in point: a couple of years ago, there was an IP address belonging to Verizon Business (UUNet) vandalizing articles, but based on the edits, I "guesstimated" that it belonged to Winn-Dixie Stores (a company that hires kids as young as 15 by the way), though a few years later I ended up working for that company and learned that all of their IPs are through an AT&T connection at the corporate headquarters in Jacksonville. When I learned this, I tracked down that IP and switched it to an ISP shared template with Verizon Business as the owner. Now the important lesson in this is that if something controversial would have come from that IP and it made the news as being an IP registered to some company that it's actually not, Wikipedia (and myself for that matter) could have been in legal trouble. Additionally, I don't think it would be a good thing if (for example) the news was reporting that something that actually belonged to a shopping mall's wi-fi network (and I think we both know what demographic likes to hang out at the mall) was instead an "educational institution IP address." It is for these reasons that I try to avoid guesstimating. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 16:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

SPI

I just blocked two editors, and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billsilver1984. Maybe you want to weigh in, as you have been active in reverting these editors as well. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing?

Hello A.B.
I noticed that you have not edited since 28 February 2013. Hope all is well with you and you will return when able. If I do not hear from you, or anyone else can fill me in on your current status I will likely add you to the Missing Wikipedians page. Regards --220 of Borg 13:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm still around -- just not as often as I'd like. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 13:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

HELP

Hi. I'm new user of Mediaviki. I created some page that used Mediawiki. Can You help me with some thing or show me somebody who can do it? I need some help with upgrading Mediawiki and set option. Thank You.--TraaBBIT (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)--TraaBBIT (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)--TraaBBIT (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Block referenced on Village Pump

A. B., I would like to let you know, as a courtesy, that I have referenced one of your past blocks on a Village Pump proposal to block school IPs on sight. Perhaps, since perform a lot of schoolblocks, you would like to input your opinion into the discussion? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I just left a response. Hopefully others will comment also.
-A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 23:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, glad you were able to contribute to the discussion (I see you haven't been around as much lately). PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 14:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Agora

Dear A. You've worked on this back in 2008, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Oct_2#Agora_Publishing_spam_on_Wikipedia, there are now two (legitimate) whitelisting requests for links related to Agora Inc., which prompted me to look around. I see e.g. Special:Contributions/Glycerrnin, and there seem to be more (still unsure). Mind refreshing this? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've pinged MER-C as well .. see User_talk:MER-C#Agora .. they are definitely still at it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Agora_Publishing_spam_on_Wikipedia_-_2 for a report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr A. B.,

Feel free to voice your opinion regarding this proposal here. --Philippe Jackson (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Acalamari 11:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Subpages

Hi A. B., I know you are on a long wikibreak but in case you visit you might like to know that there is a discussion about clearing up Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded at its talk. One minor issue concerns these pages which are in that category because of the large number of templates:

Am I right in thinking those pages could be blanked? I'll ping Beetstra in case he wants to comment. I might blank the pages if it's not a problem. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Why blank them - are they any issue to the reader? Just edit the section and it transcludes. They don't eat server time, they are just not readable (which they are not really supposed to be anyway). I can see that exceeded template include size is a problem in mainspace, but it should not be outside of that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
They are open proxies from a decade ago. Yes it is true that you can edit a section, and press preview. But to get there you first need to know which page and section to edit - assuming you are even aware of these pages. If you are interested in 88.212.223.233 for example you would need to trawl through all the pages in edit mode until you find it, make a note of the section number, display the page, edit the section and press preview.
Not very user friendly, even compared with simply typing {{IP summary|xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx}}.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC).
I have added a comment at Category_talk:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded#What_are_the_targets_.3F. The key problem is not that using too much space on the servers will result into a melt down of the polar bears, but that ${\displaystyle 12000-\varepsilon }$ IP are tagged "IPVandals" as a result of an undocumented process that happened nine years ago and was stopped after only one per cent completion. I have summarized the informative part of this huge list into User:A._B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia_open_proxies_commented. It contains only 123 items! And obviously, nine years later, most of the IP have been reassigned. Using "IPVandals" for not guilty people rise a BLP concern, doesn't it ? Pldx1 (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am inactive to the point of almost but not quite gone. I am not using these pages -- I suggest just getting rid of them if nobody else is using them. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count)

Many thanks, I will tag them {{G7}}. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC).
I deleted them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

AN/I

FYI, I referenced a talk page comment you made a few years ago regarding school blocks over at AN/I. Just thought I'd let you know. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 20:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Western Governors University

 As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know that I've started WikiProject Western Governors University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of WGU. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Paul Smith111977 (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, A. B.. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, A. B.. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jclapham/draft article

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Jclapham/draft article, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. creffett (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)