Jump to content

User talk:ScrapIronIV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lenore (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 3 December 2015 (→Better source: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DYK for Fiat 130 HP

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your diverse, interesting and consistently good contributions thus far. Often, this kind of work goes unnoticed, until now! Cheers. CassiantoTalk 18:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks! Kyle121101 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for the help on the Royal Malaysian Air Force article, and keeping right, much appreciated - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much - I could use it. That one keeps coming back again, and again. Scr★pIronIV 20:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For noticing and proactively addressing potential COI-issues editors. LavaBaron (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z147

Notice

Hello ScrapIronIV. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right
Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Pending changes reviewer user right
The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 21:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I'm just now seeing all of the fallout of the sockpuppet activity on Universe Sandbox ². Great to know you had it under control! Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't even put a bet on that!

At 20:15 on 30 October 2015 you completed an edit on Peppa Pig. A minute later, on the same day, you edited John Wayne. Just how does your mind work? CassiantoTalk 09:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some who would claim it doesn't :-) it was probably me just monitoring my watch list, which is an eclectic mess... Scr★pIronIV 14:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I don't give a shit Brainiac15 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, or you would provide sources. Scr★pIronIV 18:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal at 72.29.33.232 etc

Following our conversation at User talk:72.29.33.232, I have done some more searching, and found dozens more IP addresses used by the vandal, some of them in IP ranges other than the ones mentioned on that talk page. I don't like blocking an IP range without first checking all recent contributions from the range, to make sure that there won't be excessive collateral damage on innocent editors, but unfortunately the Wikimedia labs tool for checking range contributions is not working just now. I have searched for talk page messages to IP talk pages in the range, and all messages posted this year that I saw are for this vandal, but of course that is far from 100% reliable, as there may be constructive editors who have not received any messages. Nevertheless, if there were many editors in the range there would almost certainly be at least a few messages to them. For now, I have compromised by placing 3-day blocks on four new ranges, and also on an extended version of one of the existing blocked ranges. I hope that before the 3 days are up I will be able to check the range contributions, and decide whether longer blocks will be suitable.

Please do feel completely welcome to contact me on my talk page if you see more from the same vandal. (If you do so, unless it's within a few days, I suggest linking to this message. Quite often in a situation like this an editor contacts me after several months, assuming I will know what he or she is referring to, but by then I have made thousands more edits, and don't remember the particular case in question.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • In case it is of any interest to you, the new ranges I have blocked are 38.66.208.0/20 72.29.39.0/25 72.29.32.0/24 and 74.127.86.0/23, and I have also blocked 207.171.196.0/23, which is an extension of 207.171.197.0/24. I don't know whether you know how IP ranges work, but in case you don't, that means I have blocked all IP addresses in the ranges 38.66.208.0-38.66.223.255, 72.29.39.0-72.29.39.127, 72.29.32.0-72.29.32.255, 74.127.86.0-74.127.87.255 & 207.171.196.0-207.171.197.255. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for looking into this, and doing so much work on it. That should ease the maintenance load quite a bit! Hopefully they will give up, but they have been quite tenacious :-) Scr★pIronIV 17:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The range contributions tool is working again, and I have checked all edits this year from the new ranges I found. Altogether there were 961 edits, almost all of which were on this vandal's usual topics, and I looked carefully at each of the few edits that weren't. Some of those edits were still vandalism, even if not by this person. That left a total of 9 edits which seemed to be good-faith edits by other people. That means that range blocks are likely to produce a collateral damage rate of less than 1%. Obviously, any collateral damage is undesirable, but I think that level can be accepted as the necessary cost of stopping a persistent vandal, so I shall go ahead and increase the length of the range blocks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hi, I would appreciate it if you could comment here. Counsel2 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I not remember who you are, your claim of support from me is questionable at best. Perhaps we agreed once on some article somewhere, but I don't remember it. I also don't play with puppets. Scr★pIronIV 14:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MINREF

Many tags are expressions of an editor's POV of how WP should be, not universal or binding on the editors or articles.

Please review the WP policies before reverting good faith edits. Only four conditions require the inclusion of inlne references. See WP:MINREF Excessive posting of tags is disruptive to the WP process and denegrates the credibility of the project. I only remove tags which are stale and defacto expired as nobody has chosen to act upon them for over a year or more. Tags are meant to be infomative to other editors but not permanent features of our articles.

It also appears that you may be following my edits from article to article which is prohibited under the WP:HOUND section of the Harassment guidelines. I'll assume good faith, but further edits in reversion of my work at WP will be reported on the Admin Noticeboard. Thank you for your understanding. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to report me; your edits are problematic, and need some oversight. You may have been here for years, but apparently you haven't learned much. Scr★pIronIV 22:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've asked an Admin to look at this situation, as posted on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I have been here for many years and have in the past been heavilly involved in designing some of the core policies. We may have some differences of opinion and I can respect that but please follow policy, including civility. Best regards. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ALL HAIL THE DESIGNER OF FLAWED POLICIES! Shall I kiss your feet now, or later? Your outdated interpretations don't work in the new world. Civil is as civil does; accusing someone of hounding when they have corrected two (now three) of your incorrect edits is, in itself, uncivil.
Oh, and perhaps you need to spend some time and brush up on your image copyright work. Now aren't you just... special. Scr★pIronIV 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes reverted

Hello, You reverted the changes made by me on Accenture's page.It does not matter whether who updates the page as the one who has correct information can do it .But could you please tell me from where have you taken that figure(revenue) as the citation which I provided had clearly mentioned statistics and I updated it that only.I am unable to find these figures provided by you anywhere.so please either provide a correct source or kindly revert back the changes.Please respond to it soon. Dpshmrt (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just provide a source (not a WP:PRIMARY one) for the updated figures. Thank you for discussing it. Scr★pIronIV 14:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the citation provided by you is similar to the one which I provided and it also contains the same figure for revenue which is $31 billion for FY 2015 instead of the one you have written i.e. $32.914 billion.So please revert the changes back. By Dpshmrt

HMMWV numbers

Hello ScrapIronIV,

Note you've just reverted my HMMWV number edit. I'm going to revert it back to the figure I used (with an enhancement) as the figure I use is correct. I'm quite new to Wiki but have quickly learned that Talk is good, so FYI my update was sourced from the latest HMMWV update to the Jane's entry online, probably a better source than the original which to me looks like an overall production total. Give me a few minutes to action the change back, but to further support my figures I'm going to add a further link, and one to an AM General press release of 8th Sept which included the following words: “We are pleased to continue to support the active and future use of the more than 160,000 HMMWV’s currently in service as part of U.S. Army, Marine Corps, Reserves and National Guard fleets,” said Chris Vanslager, AM General Vice President, Programs and Business Development. http://www.amgeneral.com/corporate/news/amg-secures-six-year-contact-to-provide-army-with-m997a3-hmmwv-configured-ambulances I recall from a conversation I had a few months back with the JLTV team that the Army actually had somewhere between 100,000 and 110,000 HMMWVs, and that ties in with JLTV replacing around 50% of the fleet with current numbers touted. For now I can't actually track down the 100,000 figure anywhere citeableUndateableOne (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

All you need to do is provide a citation when you make the change. You have plenty of time, and thank you for talking about it. Scr★pIronIV 14:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About The Same

I can't figure out what is the difference between what you do and what I have done: "All you need to do is provide a citation when you make the change. You have plenty of time, and thank you for talking about it." Did you read muy comments? Did you read the user's comments back? Would appreciate an explanation to your comments on my reverts. Historiador (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I say I am done with it, and not to ping me anymore, so you bring it to my page? Really, the fact that you keep on and on about it does nothing for you. Let it go, and apologize for the mistake. Don't revert without reading sources. If I make a mistake, I admit it and move on. Do the same. Scr★pIronIV 21:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better source

Please specify why CNN is a good source and RT is a bad one, thanks. Lenore (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScrapIronIV&oldid=693645736"