User talk:JBW: Difference between revisions

Line 110: Line 110:

: {{ping|Skywatcher68|label=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. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW#top|talk]]) 19:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

::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. [[Special:Contributions/2604:9D80:A100:2BC4:A1AB:18F2:3BD0:6DB5|2604:9D80:A100:2BC4:A1AB:18F2:3BD0:6DB5]] ([[User talk:2604:9D80:A100:2BC4:A1AB:18F2:3BD0:6DB5|talk]]) 19:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

::: 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 ~~couple of questions~~ 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. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW#top|talk]]) 19:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

::: 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 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. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW#top|talk]]) 19:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

:::And I have better things to do than getting into a debate with a block-evading POV-pusher.   –[[User:Skywatcher68|Skywatcher68]] ([[User talk:Skywatcher68|talk]]) 20:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

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.

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, 85

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I want to know when my account is ready to publish live article. I want to add a biography of my Boss Shehulhadii (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was tinkering with userboxes and (long story short) discovered Category:Neurodivergent Wikipedians had previously existed, but was deleted by you after a short discussion a decade ago with DexDor, Johnpacklambert, Marcocapelle and VegaDark. I am glad to say that attitudes to neuro-and-general-diversity have changed significantly since 2014, and I’d like to revive the category for general use, including via userboxes. I am starting here, since causing a fuss elsewhere before getting your (and the deletion discussion participants) input first just seems to me like the wrong course of action. Thoughts? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand my views that we should not have this category and I still do not think it would fit the very narrow reasons why we allow categories. I still think it has no collaborative value.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A userbox is fine, but it escapes me what sort of usage a category would have. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems certain that my only reason for becoming involved was that an editor made a non-admin closure as “delete”, and then tagged the page for speedy deletion; presumably I picked it up in the course of reviewing speedy deletion nominations, which is one of the tasks I regularly perform (reviewing CfD discussions isn’t). I took no part in the discussion, but looking at it now, all of the reasons given for deletion seem to me to be valid. Perhaps the biggest reason is that I can’t see that the category is likely to “assist collaboration between users”, which is what Wikipedia:Categorization says user categories are for. Fred Gandt says “I’d like to revive the category for general use”, but he doesn’t say anything about why he would like to. Re-creating something which doesn’t seem to comply with guidelines or policies just because someone “would like to” do so seems questionable, to see the least. Fred, can you say why you think this category would be useful? JBW (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This category should remain deleted, as the reasons for deletion haven’t changed – the category cannot help foster collaboration simply by grouping Wikipedians who happen to be neurodivergent and therefore violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having read your council, and related policies and guides, especially WP:USERCATYES and WP:USERCATNO, I have to agree and do so without a struggle. Thank you for your time; I had no intention to waste it. Be aware that there are a large number of similar violations apparent, which may take your interest. I just found one userpage that may actually have all the violations neatly collected: TonicBoomerKewl. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Guideline and policy news

An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

Arbitration

The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

I would like to bring attention to this diff [1] and this one [2], where User:BihariEditor added promotional links (such as YouTube) and other unreliable details. I have reverted these edits for now. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 16:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment