User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 → Archive 45

Too wide a range but yet not wide enough

The block applied to 86.187.160.0/21 by you and JamesBWatson is both obstructive of users making good faith edits and fairly useless at blocking bad faith users. The reason is that these are addresses used by BT for their ADSL customers (and probably other customers too) and the BT system re-allocates IP addresses if a line is idle for a while - sometimes it seems just a few minutes is sufficient. I know: I am a BT customer and I have found myself blocked one moment and with a different IP address and unblocked shortly after.

I note that DomainTools report the entire range 86.187.0.0 - 86.187.255.255 as being allocated to BT and the line in the report "route: 86.128.0.0/10" suggests that the full range in even wider. In addition 31.48.0.0 - 31.49.255.255 and goodness knows how many other ranges are allocated to BT. So to apply an effective range block you would have to block vast ranges.

It is possible I am wrong. I note that this specific block was applied on Feb 01, Feb 04 and Apr 28 which seems to contradict what I am saying. Do you know the exact addresses blocked? It is possible that BT provide static IP addresses within this range? Certainly a three month block of a static address would be reasonable. But for BT IP addresses in general, I would say that it is pointless to apply a block for longer than 24 hours.

My IP address will probably be different very soon but I shall be watching this page to see if you reply. — 86.187.170.79 (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're having trouble with this. Unfortunately, we have a long-standing problem with a banned user who uses this IP range to evade his block. He has a particular fetish, if you will, for vandalizing and adding unsourced content to airport articles. We've had to block this range several times in the past, and we get it as narrow as possible. This block covers 2048 IP addresses, and while we know it's a dynamic range, he almost always comes from this one.
I don't know if BT allocates static IPs in that range, but my guess is that they don't. Sorry, but I'm a dumb American. ;-)
Obviously we can't block the entire BT network, and we wouldn't even if we could. To avoid problems and protect your anonymity, I suggest you register for an account. For some reason, many IP editors feel they're more anonymous editing without an account, and they couldn't be more wrong. I can geolocate you based on your IP address and discover a host of other identifying information, and I can't do that if you have a registered account. Again, I'm sorry you've experienced the fallout from our attempts to deal with this vandal. If you have more questions, I'll do my best to answer them, dumb American and all. :-) Katietalk 11:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


(edit conflict) Since I have been pinged here, I will comment, although my only contribution was to add an {{anonblock}} template to the block log, so that editors trying to edit would see some sort of explanation for the block, rather than just being unable to edit with no indication why.
There is no completely perfect way of blocking editors who edit from changing IP addresses, and block decisions in such cases are often compromises. Unfortunately they are often quite likely to both miss some edits by the editor(s) whose disruptive editing has to the block and also catch some constructive editing, and it's a question of weighing the risks of harm against the likely benefit. Personally, I never block an IP range without first carefully checking the editing history from that range over a time period longer than the time over which I am considering blocking. If all, or virtually all, of the edits are unconstructive edits, such as vandalism, then the block will stop such unconstructive editing without causing any significant collateral damage, and is therefore likely to be a good move, whether the edits are all from one person or not. If, on the other hand, a significant proportion of edits seem to be constructive edits from people other than the person whose disruptive actions are leading to the block, then I usually don't block, and on the few occasions when I do, I block for only a very short time. On this occasion, although I did not place the block, I have now checked the editing history from the IP range for the month before the block. There was extensive editing, the overwhelming majority of it clearly from one or at the most two persistently disruptive editors. This suggests to me that the "too wide" objection does not have as much force as might have been expected. I have also checked the editing history from the wider range 86.128.0.0/10 for the month following the block, and for the present month. Following the block, there were still some disruptive edits similar to those from before, but far fewer of them, suggesting that the "not wide enough" objection does have some justification, in that the block did not completely stop the disruptive editing, but in view of the considerably reduced frequency of disruptive edits it may have contributed to reducing the problem, which is often the best we can hope to achieve. None of the recent edits I saw showed the hallmarks of those disruptive editors, nor did more than a very few of them seem to be disruptive in other ways, so it is possible that the disruptive editor(s) may have given up. If so, it is impossible to know whether the block has contributed to that outcome: it is possible that an editor who finds that he/she very often can't edit, depending on his/her current IP address, my have found it sufficiently frustrating as to discourage him/her from trying. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and United Nations Women Project

Please join us...

Wikipedia and United Nations Women Project
A Women in Red worldwide, online editathon - 12 July till 12 August 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) Delivered by Rosiestep (talk) via MassMessage 04:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hello KK. I saw this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Random date insertion.2C nationality changes etc. and wanted to let you know that they have popped up at this IP 87.113.79.130 (talk · contribs). I know they've been around for awhile now but I wasn't tracking them. I don't know if Khruner has started a list so I have in my sandbox. If they continue I may move it to a LTA. In sad news the yarn shop that I have been using for over 20 years is going out of business :-( I will be there tomorrow morning to take advantage of the sale but I have met so many nice people there that it will be a wrenching loss. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 21:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Oh noes! I don't even have a LYS. I'd love to start one but I'm not sure the market is good for one here. I order from The Loopy Ewe and WEBS and sometimes Jimmy Beans Wool. As to the IPs, they geolocate to different places – the rangeblock is for a UK IP, but this guy is geolocated to the Philippines. And I think his editing pattern is a little different. I'll leave him alone for now. Just warn him and watch him. Hope you find all the yarns tomorrow! Email me if you want and we'll knit together. :-) Katietalk 22:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oops it was remiss of me to not check the geolocation. Even worse I had done that on another problem editor earlier today. Thanks for doing so and for bringing me up to date on things. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 22:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello there, the Philipino IP-range has been blocked for a while by User:Bishonen - though not before having disrupted dozens of articles - as reported on my talk page, User talk:Khruner#Range block (see here for the range contributions), so I thought listing his IPs would be redundant. Khruner (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous women & Polar women editathons

You are invited...

Indigenous women editathon & Polar women editathon
Hosted by Women in Red - August 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

The Inevitable End

Hi. Would you mind protecting The Inevitable End? That IP hopper is messing with the page again. Thanks! snαp • snαp (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@SnapSnap: Sorry I took so long to get back to you, but I wanted to watch it for a while. I put PC1 on it for three months. Hopefully he'll find a new hobby by then. :-) Katietalk 17:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and no problems. He hasn't showed up for three days, but yeah, let's hope he does find a new hobby. :) snαp • snαp (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Revdel Request

This one's pretty bad. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 01:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 01:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Susie Abromeit

I have found many WP:RS sources to create this page. Can you please unprotect it. --Rainbow Archer (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) This subject has been deleted many times after a deletion discussion. Please create it at Draft:Susie Abromeit so the draft can be checked against the version previously deleted to ensure it isn't just recreating the same material. Nthep (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree – since this was an AFD, we need to see a well-referenced draft that will survive WP:CSD#G4. Katietalk 17:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie: and @Nthep:, This is what I could manage from reliable sources:Draft:Susie Abromeit. It can be moved as a stub. Stub articles can be made if they have notability. All the sources are reliable. I am not a good content creator. Maxim (magazine) and The Washington Times has published articles on her. --Rainbow Archer (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Rainbow Archer: it's rather thin. I don't dispute the reliability of the sources like the Washington Post but saying she's best known for Jennifer Jones when she plays a supporting character who isn't covered in the Wikipedia article on the series is weak to say the least. Three of the references are to the same video interview but linked to three different sites that posted it. I did look to see if she had a notability as a tennis player but again she only played as a junior and doesn't hit the level required at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Notability. According to the ITF link you included her best world rating was #283 and that makes me suspicious about the claim that she was rated #6 in the US rankings - a suspicion backed up by [1] which has her possibly rated at #6 in the US Junior ratings. That's a very different level. As an article on her has already been deleted after AFD which decided her notability hadn't been established, I have to say that I wouldn't be very confident of this version surviving another AFD discussion. The best I could say is "Notable? Not yet" but if she gets more roles or her character in Jennifer Jones is promoted to a leading role then things can change and it can be reviewed again. Nthep (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Nthep: She is covered in List of Jessica Jones characters#Recurring characters. Also, I don't know why Yahoo, msn and USA Today published the same video. There is also another reference from Fox News Magazine. Rainbow Archer (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
"I don't know why Yahoo, msn and USA Today published the same video" - I do, lazy journalism just picking up promo pieces released by the production company and reposting it as news content. The problem with this video and the FNM piece is that they are all Susie talking about her character in Jennifer Jones, not people reporting on Susie. If you want to make an article stick what you need are the reviews of Susie, not reviews of the shows she has been in, but reviews highlighting her personal performances. She won best actress at the 2014 Beverley Hills Film Festival for her role in Diving Normal but I can't find out why. If you could find the nomination for this award and why the judges said they awarded it to her then that's the type of information that goes towards establishing notability, assuming others accept an award from the BHFF as a notable achievement. I can't fathom it out even looking at reviews of Diving Normal as none of those say much about her other than she was one of the lead roles and none of the reviews in reliable press like the SF Times say much about her. If this article were live now and was taken to AFD I can see all the points made previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Abromeit being repeated. I'm sorry if it looks like I'm taking a downer on her, I'm not, but I just don't see an article about her sticking. Nthep (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gustav Holst

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gustav Holst. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hamilton the musical & cast semi-protection request

Hi Katie, Thanks for the partial semi-protect of some of the articles I requested. However, I don't think a week does much to fix the issues as this has gone on for months now. We'll likely just be revisiting all of these a week from now. In addition, Jasmine Cephas Jones has already been IP vandalized twice since you declined IP protection because you didn't see sufficient cause. Perhaps you'd be willing to revisit that one as well now? X4n6 (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@X4n6: I'm still going to hold off, and here's why:
  • The Jones article hadn't been edited since July 17. The two IP vandals today have been blocked.
  • The Odom article hasn't been edited since July 20.
  • The Jackson article has been edited once since July 17.
  • The Goldsberry article is on the edge, but I think those are good faith edits and I don't want to bite new editors.
I don't mind revisiting next week if that's necessary, and it very well may be. Things change. I'm on vacation right now, so if there's significant disruption – and I mean more than two edits in 24 hours – you know the way to RFPP. :-) Katietalk 19:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Many thanks for your explanation. I can certainly respect your rationale. I also appreciate your IP blocks. And you're right, I can always re-file if/when necessary. Meanwhile, enjoy your vacay! Cheers! :) X4n6 (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte Newhouse

Hi Katie, you blocked an IP address a little while ago for BLP violations on this article, but another IP has come straight back and restored them. One of the references cited is a tweet from the subject of the article saying "Whoever wrote my wikipedia article YESSS". So I'm wondering whether page protection is a better way to go than (or as well as?) blocking the new IP? Thanks, Melcous (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Melcous: Sorry I was out and missed this, but it looks like it's been handled. Katietalk 00:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
No worries, after posting this I saw your on holiday message so requested PP and all sorted. Hope you had a good break, Melcous (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help with Iași. I think you have done the right thing. LynwoodF (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You've Got Mail

Hello, KrakatoaKatie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks.TH1980 (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Thank you for protecting Jay Bruce. Would you please consider also protecting Brandon Nimmo, Rich Hill (pitcher), and Josh Reddick? All are experiencing the same levels of unsourced additions, mostly from IP editors. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Trut-h-urts man: Sure. The Bruce thing is being held up by medicals, apparently, and the Reddick/Hill thing is closer, but I'll lock all three until after the deadline. Katietalk 17:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
...and the Dodgers have announced, so Reddick and Hill are on their way. Katietalk 18:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hate to bother you again, but if you're still online would you have a look at protecting Francisco Liriano and Drew Hutchison? Lots of unsourced editing going on. Thanks Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Scratch that, its official. Thank you for your help today. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. That Liriano thing came out of nowhere, didn't it? Salary dump. Katietalk 22:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Poke, poke! I think it's time... :-)

Hello, KrakatoaKatie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I included you in a message at both of the email addresses you provided to me. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

List of political parties in India

Hi. The IP has once again returned to edit warring with us after the protection that you applied expired. I first RPPed it because of the addition of non-free logos and refusal to discuss. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Indian political party/doc

Hi KrakatoaKatie. Thanks for protecting Template:Infobox Indian political party and List of political parties in India. I'm wondering if Template:Infobox Indian political party/doc also needs to be protected since the same IP hopper has been active there as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I looked at the documentation at the time, but it's not quite there yet. We might be able to rangeblock him if he gives himself enough rope. I locked the main template because it has enough transclusions to be highly visible, so he'll have to find another target. Katietalk 01:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
No worries. FWIW, changing the documentation may be annoying, but it seems to be a futile gesture if the template cannot be changed as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Frankie Macdonald

Your recent edit of this page should include

"Frankie Macdonald is the official weatherman of the Gary and Dino show."

He is the Official Weatherman for that show giving current weather patterns and forecasts for the Los Angeles area for which the podcast is based in. Segments also include "ask Frankie" in which Frankie Macdonald participates in a question and answer forum. This is not mockery or satire, this is fact and Frankie himself does participate in the show via Skype live from Sydney Nova Scotia.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankie_MacDonald


2607:FB90:663:C03D:356B:CD7C:F76D:3D17 (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Michael Beltran

This Month in GLAM: July 2016



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

This Month in GLAM: July 2016



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive_41&oldid=1145992859"