User talk:JBW

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I am 2601:589:4e00:5dd0:71e8:c982:8a25:8b3e and 69.160.112.226, and I have followed up on Poledlimps' talk page, this time with a registered account, and I do not plan to revert my edit(s) this time. Please respond. Redappleone2 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what it is that you are asking for. Can you clarify your request? Are you the person who used the account "Poledlimps"? JBW (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I was the person that used the account! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Poledlimps is the link to the account's talk page, and in one of your replies, you said, "In view in what I have seen that seems improbable, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now." I was confused by that response because I didn't know what you saw that made it seem improbable. Redappleone2 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you would choose to come along and tell me that this is yet another of your block-evading sockpuppets, unless it's a kind of trolling, but so be it. I also note your gaming of autoconfirmed status. JBW (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, JBW. I just want to mention it wasn't for blocking Allenogs1 that I "thanked" you (thanking people for blocks would be kind of crass) — but for the good way you put it. I wanted to block them myself, but couldn't figure what to say. Bishonen | tålk 16:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: What??? What??? Bishonen at a loss for words??? Surely not! Actually it's good to see someone who actually thinks it's worth considering what to put in a message to an editor; there are far too many editors including many, perhaps most, administrators who just slap some templated message on the user's talk page, and if there isn't a suitable one then they just use a totally unsuitable one. Sigh... 😕 JBW (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, good Sir! (Bishonen perhaps give too many of her words to her eloquent Zilla.) bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 17:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Appears to be a disruptive editor using the name of a studio in an attempt to seem legitimate. Your thoughts, JB?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68:

1. Using what at least looks like the name of a studio in an attempt to seem legitimate; yes. (It always amuses me to see new editors doing that, because (a) if they knew about the conflict of interest guideline they would realise that it does the opposite of making them seem legitimate, and (b) it calls attention to them, so they are more likely to be subject to scrutiny.)
2. "Appears to be a disruptive editor"; hmm. Certainly their editing so far has not been constructive, but I'm not sure whether its mainly a matter of a good faith new editor who just needs a little experience and some advice, or whether there are bigger problems. One to watch, I think, and for now I've given them a note sbout unsourced editing. JBW (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to User talk:Allenogs1.

Can you consider nuking the pages that were created by this user? I see one inappropriate use of a template sandbox (G3), and two U5 creations. I am not sure if this is some sort of AI bot or what. It could be a spammer, idk. Awesome Aasim 19:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Allenogs1: I really didn't know what to make of this when I saw it, but having thought sbout it and checked the editing history again, I think it looks like SEO. I hadn't thought of it being some kind of AI bot, but now you've suggested it, I think it could well be. As for deleting the pages, I wasn't going to bother, because they seemed trivial and harmless. However, prompted by your message I've had another look. I see that there is spam-like content not visible in the current versions of the pages, either because it was posted in the original version of the page and then removed or because it was just in an edit summary, not in the page content. Experience has taught me that those are two tricks commonly used by spammers, probably because, not knowing enough about how Wikipedia works, they mistakenly think it will achieve SEO. In view of that, I've deleted the pages. JBW (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBW, thanks for your review of my draft Brian Solis. Unfortunately there's no way for me to improve it if nobody is willing to help and explain what makes it an advertisement or provide any examples from the draft. I spent hours on this and I don't know what to change exactly. Most of my sources are from academic journals, authoritative writers (Chris Brogan / Andrew Keen / Keith A. Quesenberry) or known newspapers and sites (Los Angeles Times / Financial Times / El Comerico Peru / Atlanta) I'm simply saying what they are saying in different words. I'd be very thankful for some more detailed feedback and help. Thank you JJelax (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying you as you are the first recently active admin I could spot on the list of admins willing to handle revdel requests. Diff has been reverted, but [1] should be nuked. Weirdguyz (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Weirdguyz:  Done. Also IP address blocked, as the rest of its editing history is similar. JBW (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[2] [3] And another... Weirdguyz (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked that one, but it was just run of the mill vandalism, not needing revision deletion. JBW (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously still new, but I would have thought the content would be Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. Always lots to learn, of course. Weirdguyz (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Weirdguyz: If a remark like that were addressed to a particular person or group of people (such as being posted on a Wikipedia editor's talk page, for example) then I would certainly regard it as worthy of revision deletion. However, just throwing it out in an apparently random place in an article to me just seems like silly childish vandalism, of the kind that happens all the time. JBW (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair, that makes sense hey. I've removed the material from my earlier comment as well on second thought (even if it wasn't revdellable, still not a good look even in context...) Of course, thanks for the swift action! Weirdguyz (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi JBW. I've come to you to ask you about a question I have.

Recently Colchester Zoo rebranded itself to Colchester Zoological Society and some changes can be seen on the current wiki page for the zoo however I feel it would made sense for the page contents to move to Colchester Zoological Society and to leave a redirect however I am not sure if this woud be a requested move or if a user can simply move the page and keave behind a redirect.

I dont wanna mess up wikipedia to tge fact that the Colchester Zoo article dissappear.

Lmk what you think.

Thanks

JoBo Gamer (contribs) 20:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoBoGamer: The zoo was previously privately owned, but is now owned by a charity bamed "Colchester Zoological Society". However, the actual place full of animals, which is owned by the Colchester Zoological Society, is still named "Colchester Zoo", and is consistently called that on the Colchester Zoological Society's web site. That is so for example at https://www.colchesterzoologicalsociety.com/about-us/colchester-zoological-society/ where, referring to the change of ownership, it says "This change will ensure that Colchester Zoo remains a key destination in Colchester", and at https://www.colchesterzoologicalsociety.com/book-your-tickets/ which says "... to purchase admission tickets to visit Colchester Zoo". (My emphasis in both cases.) Since the Wikipedia article is about the zoo itself, not about the organisation which owns the zoo, I think that renaming it would be a mistake. If, despite those considerations, you still think it should be renamed, that would certainly not be an uncontroversial move, so it really should be approached via a requested move. JBW (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks JBW

JoBo Gamer (contribs) 23:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK to unblock Theditorial2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I had been considering unblocking, despite still having doubts, but it had slipped of the edge of my consciousness. Prompted by your message here, I've now lifted the block. JBW (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sundanceromance (talk · contribs) has been moving articles to namespace without them being accepted through AFC. I have reverted their edits. Any action needed? — Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 03:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, You blocked the IP User:80.7.0.250 on 31 July 2024, and they have recently become an active editor again - a lot of unsourced and table-breaking edits to List of Pakistani films of 1984, etc. Was it just a 6 months block? Does the sockpuppetry continue? PamD 09:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Thanks for pointing this out to me. I've block the IP address again, this time for 3 years. JBW (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]