User talk:WJBscribe

16:47, Saturday 30 November 2024

User:WJBscribe	User talk:WJBscribe	User:WJBscribe/Gallery	User:WJBscribe/Barnstars	User:WJBscribe/Drafts
Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you...

Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself.

Will

142.227.188.60 long term blocking?

Hello. I was wondering if a longer term block for ip 142.227.188.60 would be in order. Looking at their history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:142.227.188.60 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A142.227.188.60 It seems that they will not stop being disruptive. Being a student of this school I do find it somewhat annoying to have to login to edit the pages, but i understand it is necissary to keep the quality of the encyclopedia. All I am saying is that there is allways going to be be some jerk wanting to mess with a page and 6 months or a year ban will fail to set them straight, and even if it does there will always be another jerk to replace them. If they are serious about improving the quality of wikipedia they can make an accoutn and use it to edit pages. That being said I do think that account creation should still be blocked or students will just make spam account (we have too much free time) Sorry for the lack of flow in this post but its still early and I havent woken up fully yet. --Devin122 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in minds that IP can sometimes be reallocated to someone different by the ISP. That IP many not always be one your school's IPs. Similarly, an IP that used to represent a computer anyone could use may due to a reorganisation in the school in question, become the IP of a computer in the staff room. Because we can't be sure an IP will always be the source of vandalism, indefblocks of IPs are discouraged. Usually 6 months - 1 year is seen as the maximum time IPs should be blocked for. WJBscribe (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off the ip in question is in a block controlled by the school board and if moved is likely to be moved to a diffrent school. It also seems to me that the ip address is also fairly static as I have special firewall rules to allow ftp and ssh acces to my server at home and have not needed to change the ip address since implementing it. Secondly what would the real damage be in blocking off say, a staff room? How many legitimate edits come from within the ip address/block in question. Even so it is of litte effort to create an account and do your edits that way. That being said however I fully understand your points. Devin122 (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalisim Experiment

Me again! I have tired very much after hearing people criticize the accuracy of wikipedia. To be able to finally quiet these people I was planning on doing some studies including comparing the accuracy of some of the articles to other sources. One of the more involved tests I was planning on was editing several pages (falsely) and cheking the time that it takes for the article to be corrected. If the article remained uncorrected in a certain amout of time i would change it back. However, not wanting the community to hate me I was wonderig if it would be permissible for this experiment to take place and if so if I could get a 'get out of jail free card' to avoid the enevitable ban resulting from the edits. I would fully understand if it were not possible, however I would like to see the results. Once again sorry for any disjointedness in this post as I'm still half asleep. Thanks in advance.--Devin122 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imo, this is not right and should not happen. Vandalizing articles is completely unacceptable in all cases. It just shouldn't happen. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think deliberately adding vandalism/false information is a good idea. You never know how many people might read if before it is corrected. There should be plenty of vandalism that happens anyway for someone to conduct such a study. WJBscribe (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully see your point and suppose I will have to settle with studying pre-existing vandalisim. Devin122 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup photo

One of you (Image:CambridgeMeetup01b.JPG) came out best, IMO. It's in the gallery at Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 1. Nice to see you there. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sharp sweater-vest, nice pic. MBisanz ^talk 08:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outings

Hi there, it seems that our identities have been outed by some group called "wikipedia watch". What's up with that? Bearian (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BN case

Do you recall this case: Wikipedia:BN#Unusual_problem_with_a_usurpation_.28has_dissapeared.29. I do not see why he had to usurp Rtg to get RTG, for one thing. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be rude, it is my request for the name above, just throwing in that it makes sense to me on Rleves point, so as to prevent mixups with stuff like: LUnatICfRiNGe with LuNAtIcFRiNGe which are subtly different and just the type of thing to make reference difficult. This could make sense with numbered and symbol only id as well 89.204.249.248 (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on the thread on the noticeboard. WJBscribe (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You are now an administrator

Hi WJBscribe and thanks for the closure! I will make sure to check out those links and will try to ease into the administrative duties by reading and analyzing, instead of agressively jumping on them :) Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I am canvassing a few bureaucrats about an issue. My personal ID now appears on a certain "watch" site. I have been outed, to put it bluntly. I'm actually not sure why I am considered a "leader" of "the hive." Should I go ahead and post my real name on my user page? My real concern is for family members' privacy. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry - I seem to have missed your earlier post to me on this issue while I was taking a short break. I will email you later today. WJBscribe (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Can u\you userpt me...I think you omitted me by mistake filed under 29 october....

Raunak777 → Raunak

Current username: Raunak777 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
Target username: Raunak (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
Datestamp: 16:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
For bureaucrat use: Email target username   (1)  (2)
 Raunak777 (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Note:
  The target username meets the requirements for usurpation.
 The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.
 User has 0 undeleted edits, 0 deleted edits, and 0 total edits.  Requesting user has 12 edits. ClueBot VI (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified him Raunak777 (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Raunak777 (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I figure I might as well thank you for taking the time out and making the username change. You must do it often, but a "thank you" couldn't hurt, right? Much appreciated. Molerner (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]