User:Girth Summit/sandbox

Useful links and wotnot
Girth Summit  (blether) 11:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC) - Anworth Kirkyard info

? this JimmySanchez01 MIAAccount BCMBCBOP Louvain-la-Neuve

Tfxl

बिक्रम राई?

Asema1957 Larry Gooce?

Tiprenfersa

Rangeblocks
Hi - thanks for the link you provided at the ANI thread. To be honest, I'm not much the wiser - I guess I'm asking whether there's a useful go-to guide where I could learn about what an IP range actually is. I've looked at WP:RANGE and this page, but I think I need a more basic guide to understand it. I've got a vaguely functional brain, and a bit of time on my hands (!), so reading up on how IPs and IP ranges work might be a useful thing to do. Please feel free to say 'Sorry, there's a certain level of technical knowledge you need before considering anything like this' if that's what you feel - I'm looking to become more useful as an admin, not more dangerous as an idiot!


 * OK, basically you need to know that CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing) is a notation that shows ranges of IP addresses. It's in the form IP-address/bits, for example 192.168.0.0/24, and all you need to know here is that the larger the number after the slash, the fewer IP addresses it represents.  For example, 192.168.0.0/24 is the range from 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.0.255 (i.e. 256 addresses).  Every time you subtract one from the number after the slash, it doubles the number of IP addresses.
 * 192.168.0.0/24 = 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.0.255 (256 addresses)
 * 192.168.0.0/23 = 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.1.255 (512 addresses)
 * 192.168.0.0/22 = 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.3.255 (1024 addresses)
 * 192.168.0.0/21 = 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.7.255 (2048 addresses)

and so on
 * 192.168.0.0/16 = 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (65536 addresses).


 * So for example if you've got a vandal that is operating from all over the 192.168.x.x range, you'd probably need that 192.168.0.0/16 rangeblock to cover them all. However, if they were operating between 192.168.0.0 and 192.168.7.x, you'd just need that /21.   On Wikipedia, for IPv4 addresses, we can't for technical reasons block anything bigger than a /16.  So for example, when I needed to block 37.160.0.0 to 37.161.255.255 the other day, I needed two separate blocks (37.160.0.0/16 and 37.161.0.0/16).


 * IPv6 is a bit more complex, but basically works in the same way. The complicating factor is that a single user generally doesn't edit from a single IPv6, they usually are allocated a /64 all to themselves (which is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 different addresses, but hey), which is why you regularly see blocks like the ones today.  The /64 block isn't really a rangeblock, it's targeting a single user.  This means that even though an IPv6 is something like 2001:1111:2222:3333:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd, you only need to block the /64 which is represented by the first 16 characters.  So the /64 block is 2001:1111:2222:3333::/64.  Reducing the number after the slash again doubles the number of addresses you're blocking.
 * 2001:1111:2222:0000::/64 = 2001:1111:2222:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:1111:2222:0000:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
 * 2001:1111:2222:0000::/63 = 2001:1111:2222:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:1111:2222:0001:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
 * 2001:1111:2222:0000::/62 = 2001:1111:2222:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:1111:2222:0003:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
 * 2001:1111:2222:0000::/61 = 2001:1111:2222:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:1111:2222:0007:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
 * 2001:1111:2222:0000::/60 = 2001:1111:2222:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:1111:2222:000f:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff


 * and so on.

Creffett offered to help

Geograph photos this link

Johnby: Taylor Joynby: Brown

Spam site question
Hi - coming to you as I see you handling requests at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, an area I haven't been involved in before. was adding content to numerous articles, always citing https://english.gnptimes.in - a news blog with two authors, one of whom was behind the account. I asked them to stop, and had a bit of back-and-forth with them on their talk page and on mine, but in this this edit they threatened that if they were blocked they would sock in order to continue citing their blog. I blocked, and as far as I can tell they haven't started doing that yet - are preemptively blacklistings a thing, or do we need to wait for them to make good on their threat? Girth Summit  (blether) 11:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A good argument could be made for blacklisting preemptively it based on the threats; if someone did that, I wouldn't object to it. Personally, I loosely use a "three-strike" rule before I'll report/add to the blacklist. It's a little more work on my side (it means checking that link periodically for further abuse), but it gives someone a chance to rethink their actions and stop before we blacklist their site.  I've added that link to my list of monitored sites and put a "tracking" link on the talk page. (In this particular case, given the aggressiveness/threats, I think two strikes would suffice for me) OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - just for my own education, how do you monitor the addition of sites like that - is there a link you can point me to so I can see how you're doing it? (I've also fixed the link in my previous post, which I see I somehow managed to balls up). Girth Summit  (blether)  15:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I make a subpage in my userspace (i.e., you could create something like this) and add links to using this template: * ; additionally, I tag any spammer talk pages with a link like this:
 * That renders like this:
 * Next to "Linksearch", you'll want to click both "en" and "(https)" to check for new spam (one for http links, one for https). A little bit of a pain, admittedly. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Brilliant thank I'll have a play around with that. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Tower Houses
Sorry it's taken so long to get back on this. I've got some suggestions, via one of my contacts. A couple of them include things mentioned above, and I've include a couple of notes below. Richard Oram's works came especially recommended, and as they're recent they should help balance out some of the older sources. Also possibly of interest:
 * — Mentioned above. The person I contacted wasn't certain about the quality since it's a long time since she read it.
 * — Mentioned above, and possibly a bit dated
 * — Possibly a bit dated
 * — Mentioned above, and possibly a bit dated
 * — Possibly a bit dated
 * — Mentioned above

I might be able to help get hold of the three papers with DOIs, the rest could be a bit trickier. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Andy Beshear

Cullen House
Garden contents

PhD thesis - need access

Contents sale

SoldiersOfMosses ? HandkercheifCode

Husond

Racecourse comments

 * "Fleetwood Park was a 19th-century harness racing (trotting) track..." Why is 'trotting' in parentheses? Unfamiliar as I am with horsey things in general, I first assumed that it was an alternative name for harness racing, but clicking on that article I see it is a type of harness racing. I wonder if this would be clearer to say something like 'harness racing track for trotting events' or some similar formulation? (Disregard this is that's how sources routinely refer to tracks like this - I may just be showing my ignorance.)
 * "The most convenient way to get to the track..." - 'convenient' seems an odd word to use, there will inevitably have been some people who found other ways more convenient. I'd suggest either changing 'convenient' to 'common', or qualifying in some way ('The most convenient way for most visitors to get to the track...')
 * "An 1897 New York City ordinance forbid the discharge of firearms..." I would use 'forbade' for past tense. Is that a AmEng versus BrEng thing?
 * "In 1895, the Harlem Railroad Company was also using the name Fleetwood in reference to a new rail station they were considering building in the area." This assertion seems to be supported by a citation to an 1855 publication; is it a typo in the date?
 * I'm a bit confused about the references in the history section to 'Mount Vernon'. The second paragraph of 'Prior to Fleetwood Park' gives me that there was a single area that was renamed a few times, including at one point 'Mount Vernon'. However, in the first paragraph of 'Post closure', it says that they considered opening a new track close to Mount Vernon, which makes me think that it's a different place. Could this apparent contradiction be clarified in some way for the benefit of readers who (like me) are almost completely unfamiliar with the local geography and history?
 * Should the quote by Cordova have a full stop/period at the end of it?
 * Can I suggest that there should be a paragraph break after "...the Empire City Trotting Club began operations at Yonkers Raceway." and before "Within a few years of Fleetwood closing..."? We seem to be shifting topic from the creation of a replacement track to the eventual fate of the old track.
 * Is there anything we can link 'Sun's Guide to New York' to, to let the reader know what this publication is? If not, a few words after its first mention might be useful - was it a general travel guide, a horse-racing publication, or whatever?
 * Is the stuff about how much Robert Bonner paid for various horses telling us anything about this racetrack?
 * What are 'transfer members'?
 * I'm not a chemist, but I don't think that 'highly flammable' an accurate descriptor for nitroglycerin. It doesn't burn (react with oxygen in the air, producing flames), it's a contact explosive.

Reply
Hi - I'm replying here, rather than over email, because I don't know you at all, and I don't get involved in email correspondence with editors whom I am unfamiliar with. I will be brief, and I will not refer to any of the specifics of your email, but I will observe that I didn't understand a lot of it - there seemed to be a lot of context that you missed out. If the people who you believe are targeting you are monitoring your talk page, I hope that they will not see this message.

Working SPI, I come across a lot of different kinds of abuse of the system. People accused of sockpuppetry almost always deny it, sometimes convincingly, and I have grown to distrust unevidenced assertions. Unfortunately, a positive track record of contributions, and even a positive track record of working to combat sockpuppetry, is not an argument against an account actually being operated by a blocked user. Sockpuppeteers who know how to evade blocks are often quite good at spotting other people doing similar things. I learned that the hard way - I actually once nominated an editor for adminship on the grounds of their positive track record at SPI, only for them to be unveiled as a sock of a globally banned abuser during the RfA. So, yeah - pointing to your positive contributions history is not, in and of itself, going to shield you from an accusation of socking.

With that being said, I am not persuaded by the evidence that you are indeed socking - and given that the TechnicianGB account hasn't edited for 18 months, it's not even clear to me that it would be a violation of policy if you had moved over to another account. What I wrote at the SPI was true: your IP's geolocation is very close to that of one of the reported accounts, but that is the only similarity I saw. Bbb23 has closed the case without action, so as far as we're concerned the case is closed, and you are welcome to resume editing under your account, to create a new account to edit with (provided you comply with the guidance at WP:CLEANSTART), or to continue to stay off the site. I think that's all I want to say here; you may email me again if you wish, but if you want me to take any action I need specific evidence to work with. Girth Summit  (blether) 21:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)