User talk:Graham87/Archive 46

Sigh
I should have let someone else reblock the /32 from hell. You deserve a beer for likely having to deal with the complaints for the last 2 years... TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You have my sympathies ... trying to think of them as amusing did help a bit, though. Graham 87 15:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and created a template I can subst for the next year: User:TonyBallioni/2607:fb90::/32. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool; hopefully that'll help. Graham 87 15:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

bingo
I am hoping at some point to do a brief dive into  trove can fix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locke_Estate,_Busselton I love the holy mile bit... JarrahTree 08:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

A edit tag for WikiLoop Battlefield
Hi

Thank you for your help for WikiLoop Battlefield. I have a question for you: do you know what's the right way to apply for an tag to be created for WikiLoop Battlefield? Xinbenlv(t) please notify me with &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; 05:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I notice you've already tried at Wikipedia talk:Tags. Maybe try the edit filter noticeboard? As an admin, I could try to create the tag for you, but I have no idea what I'm doing in this area ... Graham 87 06:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you~, I also started a new thread there [] Xinbenlv(t) please notify me with &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; 06:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

RE: re-blocked
Please, if that's the issue, let me explain. I gave you only the most recent ones and the ones which contained edit summary because I thought that was the main problem. I didn't know why my IP changed; it also changed a few times when I simply turned the PC off due to there being a freezing. I didn't put the others also because I didn't remember all of them at the time and I wanted to show you the most recent one and the ones which contained always an edit summary. I used the other IPs to make bold editings (now I'm always using the edit summary and always adding WP:Be bold to show that I'm making a bold edit) and start discussions to see if I could keep up with it and being responsive; and the recent ones which always contained an edit summary. That's why I gave you first only the recent ones, but I can and planned to give you the others too.



They all go back to July, which is about one month; I thought one week only wouldn't be enough to prove I learned and at least more than four weeks was better to show consistency. I didn't know it was a problem as long as I would acknowledge them in my reply to you. I linked you only the most recent ones because these were the ones I first thought of; I would have showed you the others once I found them. I also thought it was enough to acknowledge it as I did in the talk pages I was involved, like this. I'm really sorry for creating confusion; that was exactly what I wanted to avoid. From now on, I will use the IP only to reply you here and not edit anymore. I honestly didn't know about block evasion (I didn't read about it until only now; I'm sure there're probably other things I haven't read yet, but I'm trying to learn and do my best), that's why when I wanted to edit or discuss something when I was blocked I didn't do it myself to avoid any issue, but I wanted to still contribuite in other ways (thankfully, I found one person who had my similar interests and so I suggested some edits he could do himself and I merely helped him writing in talk:pages because he doesn't talk English very well; I can now ask him to create an account as well to avoid any other issue). It was only recently that I had this idea to actually edit myself to see whether I learned and changed; and that it wouldn't have been a problem as long as I aknlowedged the ones I used, which is exactly what I did; but unfortunately I linked you only the most recent ones which contained all edit summaries for the reasons I stated above.

As I stated, I was upset when I first saw the block back then, so I just decided to quit and that's why I didn't reply back until now. However, with time and fixing my problems, I decided I wanted to see if I could be back; however, I didn't know how. I don't remember when was the last time I tried to log in, I forgot my password and even that I could actually still use the talk:page to edit (I thought I was blocked from everything, exactly like it's now; and that's why, I thought, I didn't reply you in the first place back then). It was only these days I saw I could reply you back and that's what I did it (it was also consistent with the time I gave myself to prove whether it would even be worth to talk about and show I have changed); if I didn't see that, I would have probably written you that message with the IP. If that was the only issue, it was a misunderstanding, that's why I showed you only the most recent one; I was going to show you the others too, especially if you asked, but I thought in that case it was important to show you the most recent ones, also for the reasons stated above (couldn't find/remember all of them, etc.). Please, what can I do now? Is there anything I can do about it? Thank you and apologies again for the misunderstanding.--82.49.228.114 (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Brandnewflipflops block evading?
Hi Graham, I noticed you blocked Brandnewflipflops for block evading. Is the account connected to a sockmaster?  Ss  112   09:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was TowerPizza. Also see this thread on Binksternet's talk page. Graham 87 10:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

2400:4053:95a0:5e00::/64
Hi. I'm not sure exactly why you've emailed me. Reducing the block length on Special:Contributions/2400:4053:95a0:5e00::/64 wasn't a checkuser action, so there are no privacy issues involved. I did this because: In short, there is nothing that I see that calls for a range block for two years. That will likely affect multiple people in the future who are randomly allocated this IP range. I'm pretty harsh about doing range blocks, but even I think a multi-year range block with TPA revoked should be reserved for the worst long-term vandals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) the IP range only has logged activity going back to January 2019, which is about seven months ago, yet the block was for two years
 * 2) as far as I can tell, there were no previous range blocks for this IP range, and the only one active block for any of the IP addresses on this range is for only 3 days
 * 3) extending a 72 hour block to two years is absurd, but going to a week or two is within discretion
 * 4) some of the most recent edits look like they're indiscriminately reverting edits and wikihounding someone, but some of the older ones do not seem especially disruptive
 * 5) the range block disabled talk page access, making an appeal virtually impossible unless whomever was assigned this IP range two years later could figure out how to use UTRS
 * I emailed you because I couldn't find you saying anything onwiki about this block, so I thought there might've been private info involved with it. I guess if there was you would've said so in the block reason. (I did check UTRS, for instance). To respond to your points in turn:
 * When I find a disruptive IP editor (see below), I like to reduce the chance they'll return again by blocking them for *at least* as long as the length of time they've been active. Two years was a bit overboard, probably.
 * I didn't take into account the 72-hour block, but that's a fair point.
 * Ditto.
 * I've been going through this user's edits, generally reverting them, and they're mostly adding pointlessly obscure categories about ethnic groups/nationalities to generally very obscure pages, along with adding obscure ancestry info using sources like Geni.com. I take a very dim view of users, especially unregistered ones, doing this kind of editing (I view nationalists on here with about the same respect as I do spammers), but your mileage may vary.
 * I only revoked talk page access because of the wikihounding especially because, as it's a /64 range, they have a potentially huge number of talk pages to play around on.

At this point I'll just monitor the range and find out what happens ... if they return to a similar editing pattern (and especially if they go back to hounding), I think another block is in order. But maybe with not such a long duration and with talk page access enabled, just in case. Graham 87 12:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Large Export
Hello Graham87, is there a way to export more than 1000 revisions for Special Export? — xaosflux  Talk 19:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, or there used to be, but it's not always reliable. (Not sure with the recent restrictions WMF placed.) You could also try dumpgenerator.py with a manually generated title list, some people do that. Nemo 19:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about any of this. Graham 87 01:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked user who claimed to be BLP subject
Graham, this is old news, but in April 2018 you blocked this user for two edits to this article, both removing a high school; in the edit summary of the second she wrote "I did not go to this school", so she was claiming to be the BLP subject herself. Between the two edits you added the school to the article text with a ref; another source has since been added with a different school. I'm considering taking the article to the BLP noticeboard over the name and the raising of issues over it on the article talk page (being intentionally vague here, but you were urging reticence there, so you may well remember the situation), and ran across the block. According to the official Australian Paralympic site, this is someone with cognitive impairment, and you did not post a block template instructing her how to request unblock, so she instead apparently made 2 unsuccessful applications via UTRS. Of course, she may have also socked or had friends meatpuppet for her, I don't know; but I feel kind of bad for her. She doesn't have an e-mail link, but I wonder if you would consider putting a note on her talk page after the fact, following up on that by Deepfriedokra? I think you may have failed to note she was the person the article was about, and anyone can find our ways of doing things confusing. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message; I'm curious about how you found out about this situation. Please don't open that can of worms again; there's too much private info involved. I'm not sure if you saw this but, at around the same time as the Mandy96 block, there was also activity at User talk:138.217.33.33 which leads me to believe that wasn't actually Amanda herself. The person behind the Mandy96 account almost certainly edited as Coolpanda1234 (see that talk page for more craziness) and sock-puppeted. UTRS was exactly the right place for the Mandy96 unblock requests to end up due to privacy concerns. The user did get a full hearing there; Yamla and Cordless Larry are the most active admins who commented on that account's second unblock request. Also, re her name, there's this recent article in her local newspaper which uses both of her surnames. Thanks for This edit to the Amanda Fowler disambiguation page; I've put it on my watchlist, just in case something like that happens again. Graham 87 03:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So there was socking as well; and since I don't have UTRS access (or I wouldn't have asked) I hadn't known there was reason to doubt Mandy96 was who she claimed to be. If the BLP subject did edit Wikipedia, I hope she was treated synpathetically. I obviously don't need to know what the privacy concern is, but we have a dilemma here since by not mentioning her former name, we're doing our readers a disservice and puzzling any who notice the titles of two of the refs (and especially since there is that source you just linked to, using both names); and she's undoubtedly notable, so we can't do what has been suggested and seek to delete the article as a courtesy. OK, I'll drop it, but I feel bad about our article. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You know ... maybe it'd be alright to mention her former name now. I've just reached out by email to Tony Naar, who might be able to give me a definitive answer one way or the other. I'll let him know about this thread. Graham 87 05:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've received a response ... Amanda's currently competing, so neither her nor her inner circle can be reached at the moment. But I've been advised that it's probably a good idea to keep things the way they are, until (or if) I hear otherwise. Graham 87 07:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Excessive range block targeting individual company
Attempting to edit from mobile devices where I'm not logged in for security reasons, I encounter: That's quite a wide range, and includes all of my internet service provider (CenturyLink) allocated IP addresses. Additionally, all or substantially all, allocated addresses in this range belong to CenturyLink. So you have effectively targeted an entire regional company. CenturyLink can't give me another IP address, because they don't have any outside the blocked range. CenturyLink has an exclusive cable franchise in my area, so I could not get service from another provider even if I wanted. I think this is unreasonable, and I've not encountered in all my experience, another rangeblock in wikipedia this wide.
 * Editing from 97.120.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Graham87‬ for the following reason(s):

There are other problems, too. In some cases, I can edit an article, but not its talk page when not logged in. When not logged in, I can't edit my own user or talk page, or anyone else's talk page (like yours).

Not all of CenturyLink's users can be abusers on wikipedia. I don't have administrator access to that information, but I bet that only a handful of IP addresses, possibly corresponding to a high school or other institution, are the problem. Can this rangeblock be modified to make sense? I think CenturyLink would be dismayed to know wikipedia is excluding them. Sbalfour (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, that rangeblock was installed in 2018, to last until 2022, 4 years?!? That may as well be forever. Before that kind of duration, I'd have expected a progressive series of individual blocks and/or narrow range blocks starting out at 24 hours, then a few days, then a month, then a few months, then a year, etc. Rangeblocks exceeding a year are just dubious. You've probably disenfranchised several hundred thousand CenturyLink users in Oregon and beyond. Sbalfour (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: Eblackadder3 - it looks like you have a rattlesnake by the tail, but the only previous block I can find was for 48 hours, so the time limit jumped from 2 days to 4 years in a single bound? I'm ok with that because it looks like this user is not here to build the encyclopedia.  He does what he does and he knows what that is.  However, it appears you extrapolated a 16-bit rangeblock from two IPs he used anonymously: 97.120.192.42 and 97.120.132.77. Wouldn't a pair of 8-bit rangeblocks 97.120.192.xx and 97.120.132.xx have solved the immediate problem?  If he uses another address in another range, add another narrow rangeblock.  2^16 is cutting off 65,000 users.  It's probable that he has access to two computers on different networks, possibly at home and work, or home and school.  He may not have more (at least more on disjoint networks). Just a thought... Sbalfour (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not create an alternate account that you use only for insecure situations, and with a password that is different from your normal password? Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can certainly do as you suggest for my mobile devices which make use of wifi in remote locations to connect. I'm thinking in the round here, it's not just about me.  If you're on CenturyLink, you're toast.  I'm referring to administrative policies which are geared to generally doing the minimum until it's demonstrated that the minimum isn't good enough. Sbalfour (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought I saw IP addresses all over the place in that range, but I can't find them now. I've done more rattlesnake-catching. I would loosen the blocks a bit but it's very hard to monitor, let alone clean up after, that user ... do you actually know that subnets are allocated to Century Link customers that way? Or is it an educated guess? I've expanded on my malformed message from earlierGraham 87 14:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

mail
mail JarrahTree 05:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it. Graham 87 06:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

DIFC Courts Page
Hi Graham,

I am Ajaz from DIFC Courts IT, we are trying to update our DIFC Courts page but every time someone reverts this back. The information is very old we need to update this page can you please help me to do so.

Thanks Ajaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajazwanii (talk • contribs) 05:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Graham, I understand you delete promotional text but still i have some text in SCT section, Pro Bono Section where we talk about how many people are registered with us that is not promotional text. Is there a way you can help me to upload my article with reverting back.

Thanks Ajaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajazwanii (talk • contribs) 08:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

restoring deleted revision (edit) histories
Two admins deleted edit histories from List of compositions by Johannes Brahms by opus number & List of compositions by Johannes Brahms. They both did improper page moves. The result is the page data was obliterated, and can't be restored (undo) from a previous version because the indexes to the old revisions have been deleted (nothing shows in edit history or contribution history), so no one can find an "old id". Nobody should be deleting edit histories en masse like this, after blanking the page. It wasn't intentional: they were just not paying attention, and were doing a move.

The first move deleted the edit history of the already-existing target page as well as its talk page. The source edit history should have remained or moved to merge with the target page's history. The second admin did the move again, apparently not realizing it had already been made. The first admin had failed to remove my move request from the technical moves queue. The second move obliterated the article: the source contained only a redirect as it should, the target contained the full article after the first move. In the second move, the source was copied over the target. The target now has the redirect to itself (circular). I could undo this if the edit histories were intact, but they're gone. The source page's edit history is gone and the target page's NEW edit history (supposedly copied from the source in the first move) is also now gone, because the source was copied to the target and in the second move the source history was already blanked from the first move.

I know this sounds confusing - it confuses the hell out of me - but basically here's a briefer summary, stating what was done wrong:

First admin move obliterated target page's edit history and talk page. Page already existed; he should have seen this and merged not obliterated. The target article itself had no content, so no problem there.

Second admin move obliterated target page's edit history (but not talk page this time). Again, page already existed; he should have merged not obliterated. The target article itself was obliterated by copying the source article, which was nothing but a redirect to the target from the first move; he should have noticed this and intuited that the move had already been done.

The target page now has the circular redirect, and the article can't be restored because there's no edit history index, and I don't have a complete backup. I can partially reconstruct it, but it'll take a lot of work - I already put so much work into revising it in the first place. Can you restore the edit histories of both those pages? That way I can just hit UNDO. The edit history for the source page begins in 2011 and runs to yesterday. The edit history for the source page runs from 2011 BACK before it to like 2004 or something, but nothing more recent except for the copied edit history from the source page of course, IF that was even copied by the first move at all.

Chuckstreet (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
... and every day that I see you at work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks! Graham 87 16:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nice Work If You Can Get It (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jimmy Jones ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Nice_Work_If_You_Can_Get_It_%28song%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Nice_Work_If_You_Can_Get_It_%28song%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Links to sections
Your feedback would be appreciated about phab:T18691; the latest comments have indicated doubt as to how/if these should appear from an accessibility standpoint. You can either comment directly there or I'm happy to copy your comment there if you're unfamiliar with phab. --Izno (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note ... I'm subscribed to that ticket since I commented waaaaaaaaay back, and was about to put in my piece anyway, but have now done so. Graham 87 03:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Kupelwieser
I have no idea how to solve the following strange history:
 * In March, LouisAlain created the article, which was put to draft space, Draft:Joseph Kupelwieser.
 * In September, WQUlrich created a new article.
 * I added to both, first improving the draft, then adding some of the draft features to the article, and adding more to it.

If we do nothing, the draft will get too old and be deleted. How about that part of history? Ideas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like there's something obvious I'm missing ... but wouldn't turning it into a redirect to the main article solve all the issues? Redirects are exempt from G13, after all. Graham 87 03:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean, turn the draft to a redirect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. Graham 87 07:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Polydivisible number for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Polydivisible number is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Polydivisible number until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Prova-nome (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wattle Grove, Western Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wattle ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Wattle_Grove%2C_Western_Australia check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Wattle_Grove%2C_Western_Australia?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please adjust page protection
Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).


 * Template:Year article header‎

Thank you. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Graham 87 16:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Buffs (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Australian place
I just thought I'd let you know that I've seen a few instances lately where you've been adding the parameter "area  _footnotes" instead of "area_footnotes", which puts articles into. See the edit for example. Cheers. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ooooops, thanks for letting me know. Graham 87 01:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. :) -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Your archives
I've changed the format of your Archives list from the gray box to a navigation box. I think it looks better and makes archive entries easier to find. But I have made it easy to revert if you don't like it. Your old box is still there, just diked out. To restore, delete my box and the line starting with
 * &lt;!--

and below your box delete the line ending with
 * --&gt;

which will restore it back. Or just revert this page to before this edit. I think it looks better and I hope you like it. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much; sounds good to me. I've removed my old archive box. Good to find out you're still editing here! Graham 87 15:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You've seen my work before. I'm the person who wrote and designed Template:Year_article_header including generating the year in Roman numerals and creating a called template to compute Zeller's congruence to compute what day of the week the year starts on and whether it's a leap year. (And yes, it "knows" that 2000 was a leap year but 1900 wasn't and 2100 won't be.) I was originally going to contact you about that (I'll explain that issue separately), but I saw your "God awful" looking archives box and couldn't let it stand. Since I had used the Navbox when I designed Template:Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States, I figured a cut-down, simplified one would work here. And it turned out perfectly. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, wow ... have I locked you out of the template you've created though, per the thread a couple of sections above this one? I can give you template editor rights to alleviate that, if you like. I recall your username from way earlier ... your 2005 RFA. Graham 87 04:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

your hahaha
says it all, hahah JarrahTree 10:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * yup - you had to check yourself with an 'oops' as well, but the article is much better than it was before - well done! JarrahTree 10:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)