User talk:JBW: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 79: Line 79:

By all means, go ahead. — [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead. — [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

: {{ping|Asilvering}} Well, that didn’t last long. I restored TPA, but I have now reversed that reverse of your revoke, because it turns out that the request was made dishonestly (like most stuff from that person). They have continued to use multiple sockpuppets, right up to after I restored TPA. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW#top|talk]]) 08:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

== Repeated removal of controversial info at [[O. P. Jindal Global University]] ==

== Repeated removal of controversial info at [[O. P. Jindal Global University]] ==

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don’t, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Hi, JB. Please keep 162.250.205.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) away from The Love Boat for a while.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skywatcher68 Since there’s been no constructive editing on any page, and blocking them from that article would be very likely to just move them onto other pages to vandalise, I’ve blocked totally rather than partially. JBW (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI you’ve been mentioned by the appellant at utrs:106319. Enjoy, I guess… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you draftified the article in connection with the AfD I initiated a few months ago. At that time, most of the coverage available for the film was promotional, and my intention behind the AfD was mainly to avoid a potential WP:MOVE conflict. However, since then, Raktabeej 2 has received significant coverage from reliable sources in line with WP:ICTFSOURCES, which I believe now establishes clear notability under WP:NFILMS. Therefore, I think the article is ready to be restored to the mainspace. BengalMC (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BengalMC: OK, I understand your point, and I’ll return it to mainspace. JBW (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You may want to RevDelete the edit summaries of the recent edits by 92.40.212.156, per RD3. Purely disruptive material. There’s no personal information or anything so it’s not urgent. Thank you. Sophocrat (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sophocrat: Thank you for telling me. I have revision deleted both the edit summaries and the edit content. Also, I found a similar edit from another closely related IP address, so I have blocked a range covering them both. Please feel very welcome to tell me if you see any more of the same. JBW (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JB, somebody from Kansas clearly has a bugaboo regarding the comparisons between Mark Ruffalo’s character and Donald Trump. Page has been protected twice since August and there’s a third pending at RfPP. One IP range (2600:8803:3e01:1f30::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) already has a full block and I’ve already added the most recent (2604:9d80:a100:2bc4:a1ab:18f2:3bd0:6db5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) to AIV on the suspicion of being the same editor. 2604:9D80:A200:2CE8:35B9:4E16:32A1:EE0F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) & 2604:9D80:A200:70E5:E8EE:5267:2594:A2FB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed the same content as well.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SW: I’ve partially blocked ranges covering those IP addresses from that article. If you see them come back on another range, let me know, and I’ll consider whether semi-protection will be a good idea. JBW (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason that neither of you join the Mickey 17 Talk discussion on this subject while also actively protecting biased grammar on Wikipedia? One might almost be led to believe you have a higher vested interest in maintaining the bias than removing it. 2604:9D80:A100:2BC4:A1AB:18F2:3BD0:6DB5 (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there’s a reason. I was asked to consider taking action as an administrator; doing so would be inconsistent with taking part in the controversy myself. Now here’s a question for you. What on earth has grammar to do with this? The disagreement is about whether particular content should be included or not; it isn’t about the grammar used to express that content. JBW (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the exact meaning of this sentence. This isn’t a quotation of someone from outside the article. This is the exact text as written in the article from the perspective of tge article itself.
( 2604:9D80:A100:2BC4:A1AB:18F2:3BD0:6DB5 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Marshall, the spaceship captain and politician played by Mark Ruffalo, has been interpreted by some critics as a caricature of authoritarian leaders. 2604:9D80:A100:2BC4:A1AB:18F2:3BD0:6DB5 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I have better things to do than getting into a debate with a block-evading POV-pusher.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rafaelthegreat2&oldid=1311115201. I never knew about trolling and I won’t do that again. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something I noticed while patrolling recent changes. Mind stopping by the page when you get a chance?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: I’ve blocked both editors from that article for a while. That’s not an entirely satisfactory way of dealing with the situation, but it seems to me to be the least bad one. I’m not going to toy around with nice little edit-warring warnings, because one of them has previously been blocked for edit-warring, and the other one has been warned about edit-warring several times; they both know well enough. JBW (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, all SUVs as (Nammi 06 and SAIC H5) have been reverted back from SUVs to crossover SUVs due to Infinty 0 plans to change the Chinese concept to crossover SUVs to SUVs. Krzys123456 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the crossover and SUV concept, it has already been discussed by the WikiProject Automobiles community and a consensus has been reached by most editors involved.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#c-Andra Febrian-20250713025200-“Crossover SUV” vs “SUV” Infinty 0 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JBW! Am I allowed to remove the template on my userpage? Thanks. XxwvwxX (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XxwvwxX: Yes, go ahead. Even if it’s true, after more than a decade I don’t think we need to care about it. JBW (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@XxwvwxX: On second thoughts, I’ll remove it. That will make it clear to anyone looking at the editing history of the page that the removal was approved. JBW (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! XxwvwxX (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She has made the reply I expected. Awaiting further discussion. Thanks — Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Answered there. JBW (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JB, I’ve already tried AIV; can something be done about 2600:1700:9900:4AB0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? They’ve been editing since July and virtually all of it has been disruptive in one way or another. Two relatively short blocks haven’t helped.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: When I started checking this person’s editing history, I thought I was going to pass on it. Most of the editing seemed to me to be unhelpful, but probably done in good faith, and it seemed very likely that they honestly didn’t realise what was wrong with what they were doing. Checking the talk pages for IP addresses in the range, I found that there were numerous examples of editors who can’t be bothered to explain what was wrong with the editing, and instead post the stupidest of all the prewritten templated messages: the one which says that your editing has been reverted because it “didn’t seem constructive”, with no attempt at all to explain why it didn’t. Why would anyone ever think that might be a helpful message to send to a new editor? I find it difficult to imagine a situation when I would block on the basis of such stupid warning messages. However, looking further, I found there have also been a significant number of warnings on unsourced editing, and a few on lack of edit summaries, which have been ignored, so I blocked on that basis.
Sorry to impose that on you, which you didn’t want and probably didn’t need, but the persistent use of that message, without even bothering to add a few words of explanation to it, is one of the things which really irritate me, and I just felt compelled to mention it. JBW (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely understandable. Having received a complaint regarding a boilerplate message with no details a few months back, I try to ensure there’s at least something in the Optional box when using Twinkle.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, go ahead. — asilvering (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Well, that didn’t last long. I restored TPA, but I have now reversed that reverse of your revoke, because it turns out that the request was made dishonestly (like most stuff from that person). They have continued to use multiple sockpuppets, right up to after I restored TPA. JBW (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an Irish IP (176.61.10.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) be so invested in keeping controversies off an article about a university in India?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: A very good question. It may be some kind of proxy or VPN, but I can’t find any evidence that it is. Maybe it’s someone connected to the university who is visiting Ireland, though it would seem a little surprising to start this editing campaign when one is on a foreign visit. Who knows? Anyway, I see you’ve given an edit-warring warning, and it will be worth watching. JBW (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top