Misplaced Pages

User talk:JBW: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:29, 7 August 2011 editDianeSunshineCoast (talk | contribs)586 edits Vandalism at the Seal (musician) article← Previous edit Revision as of 12:24, 7 August 2011 edit undoDegenFarang (talk | contribs)2,116 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 107: Line 107:
==Voice actor IP vandal is back== ==Voice actor IP vandal is back==
...using ] ] (]) 16:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC) ...using ] ] (]) 16:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

==User:TheTakeover Sockpuppet blocking==
The user behind TheTakeover (user2005) appealed to another administrator that he is familiar with and had this block overturned, both on his main account and on the two sockpuppets. This is what the administrator said as evidence for overturning the block "There may be MEAT, there may be tag-team behaviour, but abuse of multiple accounts it is not. –xenotalk 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)"

It is my understanding that whether it was a meat or sock puppet isn't relevant and this admin seems to agree with the fact that it was at minimum a meetpuppet but alludes to some 'technical evidence' as a reason for the unblocking. You can read more about this at the or at the . ] (]) 12:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:24, 7 August 2011


User talk
  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, unless you request otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.
Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked.


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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84



This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Srinimisha

Thanks for your handling this. The user has now returned with a sock, User talk:Koustubh Kshatriya. I started an SPI, but since this is such an obvious WP:DUCK I thought you might be willing to take quicker action. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)  Done A duck indeed. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, he didn't get the hint. --Muhandes (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete Insurance (disambiguation)?

You deleted the page as an implausible redirect but it wasn't a redirect at all. I tried to look for a cached version on Google but could only get the tiny blurb you see in the search menu. All I could notice was that the article was PRODed. In the instance of a PROD it shouldn't have been deleted until the 4th and the other problem was that the author was never notified. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was a redirect, left over after the original article had been moved to List of insurance topics. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I just found it and came to tell you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe someday they will make it so you can still view edit summary information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is often inconvenient not being able to see what the history of an article was before its deletion. However, if you look here you will see two log entries: the second one is my deletion, and the first one tells you about the earlier move of the article. So the information is available, even though not very obvious. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, I should've checked. I think I cam here as soon as I saw that it was deleted as a redirect. Logic should have told me that the article had been previously moved. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

List of insurance topics

Hi. Please tell me why you deleted List of insurance topics. Thanks, An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Can this even be speedy deleted since it is a contested PROD? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I deleted it, as the deletion log showed, because it duplicated an existing topic. There is already a much more complete list of insurance topics in another article. Contested PROD? Well, the PROD reason was that it was an unnecessary disambig page, but the reason given for removing the PROD was "removing PROD, this is now a list not a disambiguation page". My reading of that is that the PROD was removed because it did not apply to the current version of the page {in effect it was a deletion proposal for a different article) rather than that you thought the version of the page which was current when you removed the PROD should not be deleted. If you do want to contest the deletion then let me know, and I will undelete the article. However, I will then immediately take it to AfD, as it is clearly totally redundant as a duplication of an existing topic. My opinion is that leaving it as it is will save time and trouble and almost certainly produce the same end result. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Grandmaster Caz

I was surprised to learn you cited notability concerns as a reason to delete the Grandmaster Cas page. Please take a look at the page I am developing. Please note that it establishes his notability through reference to articles published online, published books, and interviews with rappers who cite him as an influence on their careers.

Please verify that your notability and verifiability concerns have been addressed. If I should promote the page to full status before you have had a chance to review and verify, please do me the courtesy of contacting me with any concerns before deleting the page again.

Thank you.

Holzman-Tweed (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't cite notability concerns: Tracer9999, who proposed the deletion, did so. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the deleted article did not establish notability, lacking any references at all to reliable independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Userspace drafts

Hi. A quick tip: this wasn't actually necessary, {{Userspace draft}} automatically applies NOINDEX. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

IP template at 2.220.204.70

The IP complained that the template implied that s/he had committed vandalism, presumably because the template says "In response to vandalism from this IP address". No such finding has occurred, AFAIK. I actually came to this page to remove it a few days ago, and saw that it had been removed. I think it is being replaced because not everyone is clear that it was originally placed in error.

If I've misread the situation please let me know, but can we agree to follow the WP version of the Hippocratic oath, and leave it off until there's a consensus it belongs?--SPhilbrickT 20:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just informed that the template in question is one standardly used. I'm in the middle of watching the World Championships, so I can't do much more now, but I now have a better understanding of why this template was used. I'll engage in a discussion about the general use when the game is over.--SPhilbrickT 23:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Good article review concerns

I have recently finished a good article review for Tim Pawlenty and in light of complete dissatisfaction with the article shown by User:Wasted Time R I would like to ask you to view the review here. Please note that this is an informal request for comment not a formal request for second opinion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

:D LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Bsadowski1's talk page.
Message added 20:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bsadowski1 20:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism at the Seal (musician) article

Hi there. You semi-protected the Seal (musician) article, which is good, however you left the obvious vandalism of the vandalising IP editor on the same page. S/he adamantly writes nonsense into the image caption field of the infobox: "Seal with Rich Alderwick in Frankfurt, Germany (2006), performing at the "concert against Amsaim"." Concert against Amsaim? What kind of nonsense is that? This is not edit warring/content dispute but blatant vandalism. I have thusly removed this disruptive edit. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right. I didn't notice that the name "Amsaim" in the edits was the same as the name of another editor who had edited the article. Thanks for pointing it out. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi James - Lionel Richie is on my watchlist and I just noticed the same vandalism there and just for the record - I am the photographer who took the Lionel Richie image and updated his info box with a 2011 picture of Lionel. I was present at this live performance - I do not know who Rich Alderwick is, but he was never on stage with Lionel Richie.

Cheers Di --Diane (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Voice actor IP vandal is back

...using User:166.137.136.207 Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:TheTakeover Sockpuppet blocking

The user behind TheTakeover (user2005) appealed to another administrator that he is familiar with and had this block overturned, both on his main account and on the two sockpuppets. This is what the administrator said as evidence for overturning the block "There may be MEAT, there may be tag-team behaviour, but abuse of multiple accounts it is not. –xenotalk 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)"

It is my understanding that whether it was a meat or sock puppet isn't relevant and this admin seems to agree with the fact that it was at minimum a meetpuppet but alludes to some 'technical evidence' as a reason for the unblocking. You can read more about this at the ANI here or at the sockpuppet investigation. DegenFarang (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)