User talk:72.75.70.147

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My reasons for not registering are not a topic for conversation ...

I will simply let my edits speak for themselves ... besides, registering with a username, such as The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs), will not make me any less anonymous ... so please, just cut a "recovering wikiholic" some slack, and MOVE ON.

And, yes, until the power failure a just a few minutes ago, my Verizon DSL IP address (and thus my username) was 72.75.100.232 (talk · contribs).

Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This username is an alternate account of The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome.


Contents

[edit] Watchlists and Sandboxes

My current Primary Project is helping a newbie employed by the Victoria and Albert Museum … they came to my attention when their recent contributions were being discussed at the WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (2):

We are currently being assisted by:

The gang from Hong Kong is back ...

Editors to watch (sockpuppets?):

I have migrated the rest of Watchlists and Sandboxes to my new talk page in order to avoid mistakes in updating them. —72.75.85.234 02:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good articles

I'll check the articles out in the next day or so and if they qualify, I'll nominate them. Best, --Alabamaboy 11:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of those articles are borderline good articles, so I'd like to see them improved before I nominate them. 366th Infantry Regiment (United States) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) needs inline citations and more info in the combat/WWII section. John R. Fox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) needs more info about his personal life. Best,--Alabamaboy 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thnx fer the feedback ... finding anything about Fox will be difficult ... he graduated from college with an ROTC commission, immediately went on active duty, and was killed three weeks after his 27th birthday ... he never had much of a chance to do anything except get married and father a child before he went overseas ... given the circumstances, might they cut him some slack in that regard? After all, his sole claim to WP:N is the circumstances of his death and the fact that his self-sacrifice was ignored for over 50 years due to institutional racism by the US military ... at least it's not just another article where over half of the text is a copy&paste from the subject's Medal of Honor citation.
As for the 366th article, I get your point that is should be as well cited as the Fox article ... I can probably find some places to turn a few of the current References into citations; I have two of them at my elbow even as we speak, and have been considering coming out of "retirement" briefly to create articles about them, so I'll scan them both (it's been years since I read them) for "juicy nuggets" in each that can be used in two different articles, just reworded for a slightly different spin ... I know that there is plenty of info for fleshing the combat/WWII section in the book by Hargrove, which BTW is where I first learned the circumstances surrounding my father's second Bronze Star Medal and his third Purple Heart.
I'll ping you again when they're ready for another review. —72.75.70.147 10:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earlsheaton Technology College

There's COI to a considerable at almost all school articles. So I look at the results. In this case the results are pretty awful--one of the the worst I've seen. A web site is copyright whether or not it says so, unless it specifically has a notice saying its Public Domain. There is now no requirement in either the US or UK for a notice copyright notice--just that if you have one you can collect higher damages. It is possible that the paragraphs from the inspectors report may not be copyright as public documents, but I'm not sure; I've left them for the moment. What I do about isolated copyvio sections is remove them. In this case, I'd remove them anyway as absurd. Now take a look at what's left. With the comments I think it's N, if the comments were properly sourced, without them its dubious, but the CAD/CAM facility is a little unusual at this level. If you want an interesting discussion about the copyright status,send to AfD. I have put a note on the talk page that should discourage the editor from reverting my deletions.

Thanks for showing me this one. I've done this according to my style; some would have AfD'd, some would have speedied. DGG 21:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thnx fer doing something about it ... as I'm sure you're well aware, my Evil Twin is more of a Deletionist than me, but when I found List of schools in Yorkshire and the Humber while reviewing "What links here," I realized that
  1. the author had not added the school to the list (it was already there waiting for an article), and
  2. WP:A and WP:N are generally not an issue for schools, which is why there's no longer a WP:SCHOOL (on the off-chance that there might be, I tried it, and found the deprecated guideline)
Anywho, the article that I found just DID NOT BELONG in the state that it was in, and I had neither the experience nor the inclination to fix it, so I just pinged a couple of Administrators with whom I'd had recent contact, confident in the knowledge that Some Other Editor would deal with it, and I could just MOVE ON. :-)
And belated congratulations! I recall being premature with them when a prior IP changed a month ago. —72.75.70.147 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Account

I abandoned the account since I couldn't access it because I couldn't remember the password. Pepso2 00:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you just hate it when that happens? Thnx fer initializing my User page, BTW … now I can move my intro greeting there. :-) —72.75.70.147 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment on proposed article:link list for V&A Museum

Hello ... With my assistance, VAwebteam (talk · contribs) has completed their first assignment on User:VAwebteam/To do list for the 50+ proposed article:link pairs following the reverts and the discussion at WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (2) ... I have been in contact with VAwebteam by email, and this turns out to be rather low on their list of priorities, so they'll only be working on it once or twice a week.

The first assignment was to recover the links and create a subsection for each proposed article:link pair, to make it easier to evaluate and comment on each one ... I have archived the version of the project page as of yesterday on the talk page for the project, so that the second assignment has a clean slate without the clutter of previous comments.

The second assignment is to examine both the article and the V&A page to make a decision, as described in the introduction to the list ... with the help of other experienced editors, 14 of them have already been dealt with, either as rejected, or as acceptable and integrated into the article, either as a citation or in the External link(s) section of the article.

While VAwebteam works from the top down, I have been working from the bottom up, and suggest that you do the same ... the project page User:VAwebteam/To do list now has two sections:

  • Second assignment for VAwebteam - these 45 are the the ones that need to be evaluated ... the ones that have the article linked in the section header still contain the "raw" link, i.e, the {{cite web}} boilerplate has not been applied yet, and that is part of VAwebteam's second assignment ... when you have time, please work from the bottom up in this section and add your comments.
  • Reviewed article:link proposals - these 14 have been dealt with already, with a "†" to indicate "integrated", and "‡" to indicate rejected ... you may review them, but I don't think that you'll need to make any comments ... when consensus is reached on an article:link proposal from the previous section, I will move it to this section with the appropriate dagger to flag it.

Thanks in advance for your help ... Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 09:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V&A

You're doing a great job, and have everything under control where it should be. I'm afraid my time right now is very limited, so I won't be participating much. If you need any admin backup (which I don't think you do), let me know. Tyrenius 02:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments on protocols and templates for proposed and speedy deletions

I have moved the request and replies to my new talk page ... please respond there if you have not already. —72.75.85.234 02:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brooke Hogan

It does seem they are using a dynamic IP, so it is very difficult to curtail them (such a long range cannot be blocked without huge collateral damage!), so the best thing would be to semi protect the article, but that would lock even you out. Still, I am doing it, if you wish to make any edits while its protected, just let me know. I will temporarily unprotect it to let you make the edits. --soum talk 09:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! … I thought that we could simply block the 256 IP addresses in the the subrange of 61.5.92.xxx, not the 65,536 in 61.5.xxx.xxx, but I guess the available tools just aren't flexible enough. <Sigh!>
Actually, I'm not so concerned about this one article as I am about their future damage to other articles (and the wasted time by myself and others who must then clean up after them), so I thought that a 48 hour block might at least get their attention. —72.75.70.147 10:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok, even if the 256 IPs are blocked, (assuming there are not more than 6 vandals in the range), still 250 more addresses will be victim of collateral damage. A short block of an hour or two may be acceptable, but not 48 hours. Anyways, if you see this range blocking multiple article, could you please report it ASAP, with reference to this discussion. I will have to take that unpleasant step of blocking an entire range to at least get their attention. --soum talk 10:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
That was the whole point of my bringing it up in the first places ... see the edit histories of
and you'll see multiple articles that I've reverted for WP:CRYSTAL additions, with Brooke Hogan simply being an overlap because they were restoring what was removed by my previous revert!! And I doubt that 250 other users in some internet cafe or using dial-up modems from Jakarta will be editing English Wikipedia articles so frequently that they will be negatively impacted ... blocking a university library would be a Bad Idea, of course, but that would be a more stable range of address. (BTW, sorry about the cloned post on your talk page ... didn't know how closely you would be monitoring mine ... I'll UNDO it, unless you zap it first. :-) —72.75.70.147 10:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocked em for a short time. Hopefully that will catch their attention. And yeah, I have your talk page watchlisted. I watchlist every user I communicate with, at least for as long as the dialogue continues. :) --soum talk 10:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thnx! FYI, I've just done reverts on a new IP in that same range, 61.5.92.103, since we began this conversation ... and would you please semi-protect 2007 in music and 2008 in music? (I just noticed the latter was touched by 61.5.92.30 a bit earlier) I was just about to suggest that it seems to be a good place to focus getting their attention (with a "See talk page" intro and appropriate message) if blocking was not a viable alternative.
I've also notified Lincalinca (talk · contribs), who has reverted their contributions to 2008 in music on several occasions, but I'm through with doing reverts and leaving warnings for things this anon. IP did more than 24 hours ago, because that's work better suited to a bot than wetware like me ... I have other projects (like the V&A Museum newbie project and my drafts for proposed/speedy deletion warnings) to waste any more time with this one right now, so if you'll excuse me, I think that I can now leave it in your more than capable hands and MOVE ON. :-) —72.75.70.147 11:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just posted a bunch more of the sockpuppets of that same IP in WP:AIV, Soum, would you mind having alook over them? They're doing 2008 in music (with some junk about Brooke Hogan). --lincalinca 11:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Damn, that spans the entire 61.xxx.xxx.xxx range - more than a million addresses. --soum talk 11:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, PT Telekom Indonesia uses a lot of fragmented ranges, like 61.5.92.0 - 61.5.95.255, 61.94.192.0 - 61.94.193.255, among others. We need to find out the entire set of ranges before we can even think of monitoring changes. I have already blocked the first range, and am doing the other now. But it will be a short block (2-3 hours max). And the service provider has to be notified. --soum talk 11:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
From a few key clues in the edits, I suspect more than one adolescents in the Jakarta metro area ... one is using 61.5.92.xxx and the other(s) using 61.94.xxx.xxx ... they're probably not in the same physical location, but are probably classmates who keep in touch through IM or text-messaging, but with the time-stamps we have, Telkom Indonesia should be able to narrow their focus. —72.75.70.147 12:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So surreal...

The Surreal Barnstar
Haven't seen you around much till now, but looking at your contributions page, you more than deserve this. Keep it up. lincalinca

Thnx, but I only did what any Recent changes patroller should have done ... BTW, I'm purposely anonymous in part because I don't really care about things like barnstars and edit count awards (codependent enabler, remember?) ... this IP vandal from Jakarta was just a non-welcome distraction for a few hours, so I'd rather just forget about it and MOVE ON ... besides, the next time we get a severe thunderstorm in my area, or a squirrel chews on the phone line down the block, I'll get a new IP account, and this kind of recognition will evaporate. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 11:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware (though not specifically about your reasons for wanting to be anonymous, but honestly, I don't care), but your work here is useful and appreciated. Just thought I'd let you know. --lincalinca 12:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Uh, sorry ... my evil twin doesn't respond well to praise ... not quite sure just when he took control of the keyboard, but that kind of bulldog tenacity is one of the reasons why I tolerate him ... on a "better" day, I'd have just done a revert or two, maybe left a warning, and then returned to working on VAwebteam/To do list, which was my scheduled activity until I noticed the edit to Vanessa L. Williams and wasted six hours sitting at here wearing a "Cloak of Righteous Indignation" before posting the final hand-off to Soumyasch (talk · contribs) above.
Now that I've "consumed mass quantities" of caffeine & nicotine, and spent the better part of an hour cleaning the top of the stove (cooked liver & onions two nights in a row, but the last time I cleaned the area around the burners was around Xmas, so I decided to put the ifrit to Good Use before stuffing it back in its bottle), I think I'll crash for a few hours, and then get back to evaluating the 40+ links that the nugget from the Victoria and Albert Museum added only to have them reverted when they were dragged through a Conflict of interest/Noticeboard review last month ... now that's an on-going endeavor in which I take a lot of pride, BTW, but only because it was an "outside the box" solution to a dilemma that should yield long term benefits for Wikipedia, even though only a half-dozen contributors will probably ever be aware of it. —72.75.70.147 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There must be another five who'll notice it, because I had noticed it. I'm observant of a lot more than I contribute to, but much of what's out there I either can't be bothered fixing or can't be bothered looking for things to fix. Generally my intent is to expand, but am aware of the need to contract and moderate. I play well with others, so to speak. --lincalinca 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 in music

Done, page protected for five days. Let me know if you want it unprotected early. Btw you really should create an account, otherwise a semi-protection like this may prevent a nice editor like you from editing. The only trouble of registering, as usual, is that you must think of a username :) Have a wonderful day, see you. Peacent 08:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have temporarily blocked 61.5.92.xxx and 61.94.19x.xxx temporarily. I have contacted the ISP, but till they act, I am thinking of a cascading semi protection on both articles (2007/8 in music), that would sprotect all the articles linked from them, as the anons are vandalizing not just those two articles but individual artist articles as well. --soum talk 08:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Peacent has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Cheers and happy editing!

[edit] New IP address

There was a brief (10-15 second) power failure @ 6:02, 24 June 2007 (EDT), so I have a new IP address again … see y'all at my new talk page. :-)

Happy Editing! —72.75.85.234 (talk · contribs) 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)