This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 44 |
I noticed you recently protected Brittany Byrnes based upon the edits of 70.212.44.85 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and other non-registered users. 70.212.44.85 has also edited Heather O'Rourke, which has also seen recent IP vandalism/unhelpful edits. I compared the edits of other similar editors and found a list of IP accounts that have edited at least two (some more) of the following articles: Judith Barsi, Heather O'Rourke, Nancy Allen, Babe (film) and Mary Kay Bergman. In addition to the one linked above, here are the other IP users:
There are multiple similar edits to Judith Barsi by other IP users beginning with the 2600 prefix, and several edits by other IPs with the 70 prefix are made on the other linked articles. I recently requested protection on Judith Barsi, but (at no fault of the closing admin) based upon evidence presented at that time during the request, no action was taken.
Can you please take a look at the edit histories of the linked IP users above as well as the articles? There is an uncanny coincidence of edit histories as well as styles of editing (adding days of week to dates, changing cause of death in infoboxes to "Complications from...", wikilinking common words, adding trivial details to infoboxes and article spaces, etc.). Also, since the IP users are editing at least two or more of the articles linked above with the same styles, they are likely the same person.
Not sure what appropriate next steps should be, but I would be interested in your feedback on these issues. Thanks— AldezD ( talk) 04:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Even better, this editor—who must be one and the same—has several times changed Cause of death from "[X]" to "Complications from [X] causing death", and re-added "Cremated" to the parameter despite several reminders pointing to the RfC. On a few occasions, "[X] was born on [day], [date], [year], to [his/her] expecting parents ..." has been added. Jack Albertson, Mabel Albertson, Madge Sinclair and Christine Cavanaugh, among others, are also targets. 🖖 ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 04:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Here are all the IP users I could find. For those who are only editing one of the articles listed, I included the IP because edits matched those of other similar IP addresses in the table below. The five in the bulleted list from my original comment are included in the table below.
There are likely other articles involved and possibly more IPs. Let me know your thoughts. AldezD ( talk) 17:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Add to the list at least two new attempts by 2600:100E:B122:1D33:41E6:D08F:E255:A105 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's as if this person is paid by the word ... 🖖 ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 02:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Mind taking a look at it? Do you have any suggestions for improvement? I'm sure there should be some. I want to make it a featured list so I can make their studio albums a good topic. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 19:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I work on convert as well as date modules and I gather from our recent discussions that you are active in astronomy. I'm hoping you would be able to sort something out for me. A recent request asked for a new "solar radius" unit for convert. It currently does this:
{{convert|2.5|solar radius}}
→ 2.5 solar radii (1,700,000 km){{convert|2.5|solar radius|abbr=on}}
→ 2.5 R☉ (1,700,000 km)The plural "solar radiuses" has been questioned at Template talk:Convert#Solar radiuses? with the statement that it should be "solar radii". I have no opinion on that but I would like the unit fixed. However, I don't want to act without some confirmation that others agree. Would you mind replying here with your view on what the plural should be? If there is any uncertainty ( WP:ENGVAR?) would a discussion at WT:ASTRONOMY be appropriate? Johnuniq ( talk) 00:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you delete this redirect page? I'm going to create a short article for this community. BrineStans ( talk) 17:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Huntster: IF Possible - my newly created template => " Template:Human timeline", transcluded on over 30 pages at the moment, may require some protection - somewhat in advance of possibly likely vandalism? - perhaps similar to that performed on " Template:Life timeline" and " Template:Nature timeline" not too long ago? - in any case - Thanks, at least, for considering the issue - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 20:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Huntster: Seems the " {{Human timeline}}" page, transcluded on over 94 pages at the moment, has been recently vandalized ( "unexplained page blanking") by ip 117.197.24.160 - perhaps time for page protection? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Then if you're going to revert me then please do me a favor and fix up that poorly written sentence. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 17:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I should tell you about this on the bottom? I don't know if you care, but I don't want to be hiding anything. Sammy D III ( talk) 17:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi~ I was looking at recent edits and happened to notice Special:Diff/731804171. I'm confused by the revert reason in the edit summary because I thought the added link was mostly okay according to Wikipedia:Further_reading#Relation_to_reference_sections and Wikipedia:General_references#General_references. I thought maybe that editor or someone would have fixed the formatting/placement/use eventually? (By the way, I'm not the one who made the edits and I'm not suggesting anything should/shouldn't be done. I just felt confused and am asking out of curiosity since I'm not very experienced in editing.) Sorry if I misunderstood or asked a silly question. Zeniff ( talk) 12:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 44 |
I noticed you recently protected Brittany Byrnes based upon the edits of 70.212.44.85 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and other non-registered users. 70.212.44.85 has also edited Heather O'Rourke, which has also seen recent IP vandalism/unhelpful edits. I compared the edits of other similar editors and found a list of IP accounts that have edited at least two (some more) of the following articles: Judith Barsi, Heather O'Rourke, Nancy Allen, Babe (film) and Mary Kay Bergman. In addition to the one linked above, here are the other IP users:
There are multiple similar edits to Judith Barsi by other IP users beginning with the 2600 prefix, and several edits by other IPs with the 70 prefix are made on the other linked articles. I recently requested protection on Judith Barsi, but (at no fault of the closing admin) based upon evidence presented at that time during the request, no action was taken.
Can you please take a look at the edit histories of the linked IP users above as well as the articles? There is an uncanny coincidence of edit histories as well as styles of editing (adding days of week to dates, changing cause of death in infoboxes to "Complications from...", wikilinking common words, adding trivial details to infoboxes and article spaces, etc.). Also, since the IP users are editing at least two or more of the articles linked above with the same styles, they are likely the same person.
Not sure what appropriate next steps should be, but I would be interested in your feedback on these issues. Thanks— AldezD ( talk) 04:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Even better, this editor—who must be one and the same—has several times changed Cause of death from "[X]" to "Complications from [X] causing death", and re-added "Cremated" to the parameter despite several reminders pointing to the RfC. On a few occasions, "[X] was born on [day], [date], [year], to [his/her] expecting parents ..." has been added. Jack Albertson, Mabel Albertson, Madge Sinclair and Christine Cavanaugh, among others, are also targets. 🖖 ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 04:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Here are all the IP users I could find. For those who are only editing one of the articles listed, I included the IP because edits matched those of other similar IP addresses in the table below. The five in the bulleted list from my original comment are included in the table below.
There are likely other articles involved and possibly more IPs. Let me know your thoughts. AldezD ( talk) 17:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Add to the list at least two new attempts by 2600:100E:B122:1D33:41E6:D08F:E255:A105 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's as if this person is paid by the word ... 🖖 ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 02:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Mind taking a look at it? Do you have any suggestions for improvement? I'm sure there should be some. I want to make it a featured list so I can make their studio albums a good topic. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 19:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I work on convert as well as date modules and I gather from our recent discussions that you are active in astronomy. I'm hoping you would be able to sort something out for me. A recent request asked for a new "solar radius" unit for convert. It currently does this:
{{convert|2.5|solar radius}}
→ 2.5 solar radii (1,700,000 km){{convert|2.5|solar radius|abbr=on}}
→ 2.5 R☉ (1,700,000 km)The plural "solar radiuses" has been questioned at Template talk:Convert#Solar radiuses? with the statement that it should be "solar radii". I have no opinion on that but I would like the unit fixed. However, I don't want to act without some confirmation that others agree. Would you mind replying here with your view on what the plural should be? If there is any uncertainty ( WP:ENGVAR?) would a discussion at WT:ASTRONOMY be appropriate? Johnuniq ( talk) 00:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you delete this redirect page? I'm going to create a short article for this community. BrineStans ( talk) 17:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Huntster: IF Possible - my newly created template => " Template:Human timeline", transcluded on over 30 pages at the moment, may require some protection - somewhat in advance of possibly likely vandalism? - perhaps similar to that performed on " Template:Life timeline" and " Template:Nature timeline" not too long ago? - in any case - Thanks, at least, for considering the issue - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 20:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Huntster: Seems the " {{Human timeline}}" page, transcluded on over 94 pages at the moment, has been recently vandalized ( "unexplained page blanking") by ip 117.197.24.160 - perhaps time for page protection? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Then if you're going to revert me then please do me a favor and fix up that poorly written sentence. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 17:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I should tell you about this on the bottom? I don't know if you care, but I don't want to be hiding anything. Sammy D III ( talk) 17:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi~ I was looking at recent edits and happened to notice Special:Diff/731804171. I'm confused by the revert reason in the edit summary because I thought the added link was mostly okay according to Wikipedia:Further_reading#Relation_to_reference_sections and Wikipedia:General_references#General_references. I thought maybe that editor or someone would have fixed the formatting/placement/use eventually? (By the way, I'm not the one who made the edits and I'm not suggesting anything should/shouldn't be done. I just felt confused and am asking out of curiosity since I'm not very experienced in editing.) Sorry if I misunderstood or asked a silly question. Zeniff ( talk) 12:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)