User talk:ScrapIronIV: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:17, 30 November 2015

DYK for Fiat 130 HP

On 27 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fiat 130 HP, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1907 Fiat 130 HP racer had wooden wheels? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fiat 130 HP. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—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. Cassianto^Talk 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★pIron^IV 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:

Rollback should never be used to edit war.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

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:

Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing.
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

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? Cassianto^Talk 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★pIron^IV 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★pIron^IV 18:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Quezon City Science High School

Hello! I am making an edit to the page as it needs updating for teachers, students (current and prospective) and other researchers of the institution for our Action Research. This is not an act of vandalizing or promoting the page. Please uphold my revision. Thank you.

P.S. The references to the information I added will be uploaded in 24 hours. I am just consolidating my reference list. Thank you. 49.144.245.144 (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have also edited this page, and have removed a number of items which would require sources to add back in. Please read the guidelines in my edit summaries, and read WP:CHALLENGE. items removed because they are unsourced will require sources to be restored. Scr★pIron^IV 19:19, 20 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★pIron^IV 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★pIron^IV 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★pIron^IV 22:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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★pIron^IV 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 116: / Line 116: @@
 ::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. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 22:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
+:::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 [[WP:HOUND|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. '''[[User:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#306b1e">Scr<span style="background:#0404B4;border-radius:7px;color:#FFFFFF">★</span>pIron</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#6E6E6E">IV</span>]]</sup>''' 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)