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.

This can't be a coincidence...

User Travekid820 and user Travekid8205555555 were both created today but only the latter has edited so far.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: As soon as I saw that somebody had posted "This can't be a coincidence..." on this page, without seeing the username, I thought of you. Somehow that wording just seemed to be your style. Agreed, it can't be a coincidence. I've posted a vandalism warning to the account that has edited. (You are evidently a nicer and friendlier person than I am, because in your edit summary you called it a test edit, not vandalism.) I think it's almost always worth posting a warning, both because it may deter them from continuing and because it's easier to take admin action against an editor who has continued after being warned than one who has never been warned. Well, actually it isn't easier to take action, as either way it's the same block button to push, but it's easier to make the block stick, and to avoid criticism. Other than that, it's worth keeping an eye on both accounts, and if one turns out to be problematic consider taking action against both. You can give a warning on use of multiple accounts if you like, but personally I wouldn't, at least as long as only one account has edited. JBW (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Being in customer service, I'm inclined to assume good faith. I would have gone direct to SPI if both had made problematic edits.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I don't know what kind of customer service you work in, but when, a very long time ago, I fairly briefly worked in a customer service job, fairly frequently at the end of what seemed like a very bad day at work I would stop and think, and realise that, although it felt as though I'd been having awkward and troublesome customers all day, in fact I had had about three awkward customers and about 200 perfectly good ones. (Also, that was on a bad day; overall statistics would be far better.) It's very easy to not notice the absence of problems when there aren't any, but of course you notice when there are problems. Yes, "AGF" was a good policy in that job, and well over 99% of the time it was justified, but it was easy to forget that at times. The same can happen with some aspects of work on Wikipedia: I occasionally have to remind myself to AGF. Unfortunately, there are too many editors who don't remind themselves. JBW (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Anna Larsdotter

For some reason Anna has 2 different types of parents that could be hers. The first one are Laurentius Mattiae (1550-1612) and an Unnamed Spouse how ever I doubt this because the last names don’t match and the other is Erik XIV and Anna Larsdotter (1530-1601). Both list her spouse as Benedictus Nicolai Cornukindius (1555-1611) but Mattiae’s lists her birth as 1570 but Larsdotters lists it as 1565. So it is hard to list a accurate citation.

Mattiae: https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/L4TK-MWD/margareta-larsdotter-1570-1652

Anna Larsdotter: https://www.geni.com/people/Anna-Larsdotter/6000000015873546707

I will try to find any other sources. MaxtheBruh47 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@MaxtheBruh47: You have hit a fairly common, and frustrating, problem with trying to establish relationships among historical people. Really prominent and significant people are usually (though not always) easy enough, but for others it can be difficult. The fact that the two sources you mention contradict one another is an illustration of the fact that they are both highly unreliable, which, unfortunately, is true of close to all of these websites which claim to provide information about ancestry, genealogy, etc. You really need reliable published scholarly sources, but finding ones which are available online is likely to be difficult, if it is possible at all. I will have a brief look for information about Anna Larsdotter, but more in hope than in expectation of finding anything useful. JBW (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@MaxtheBruh47: Well, the results of my search were even worse than I expected: Loads of genealogy and ancestry sites, which sometimes contradict one another, but nothing that came even near to being a reliable source. Good luck if you choose to put more work into trying to sort this out, but I'm afraid that it looks to me as though doing so may turn out to be just a waste of your time. JBW (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok MaxtheBruh47 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Old account

Hi. Left a reply on my user page. Anyways, can you delete the userpage of my old account, "User: Doctor Papa Jones". I tried editing it myself to add the "Db-userreq", but coudn't. Thanks in advance. DocPapaJones (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #96597

Help me Obi Wan Kenobi. You are my only hope Seriously though. Can you make any sense of this? Is there any way you could recommend restoring TPA and carrying to WP:AN. Blocked in 2013. Too many UTRS tickets to count. SMDH. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

About "Laurenherring"

If you haven't done so already, Google the name + "Hunter Bell" and see what comes up. :-)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Yes, I did a Google search for two names together. What I found was pretty well what I had guessed I might find. I'll keep a watch. JBW (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Partial block request

Hey, can you block 193.60.0.0/16 from editing Critical Ops? They continually try to add unsourced content.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Well, I certainly agree with a partial block, but a /16 range is much wider than can be justified. The IP addresses come from Greenwich University, which has the range 193.60.64.0/20, and I wouldn't even consider blocking more than that. In fact all the editing from that range on Critical Ops has come from the much smaller range 193.60.79.158/29, but years of experience have taught me that partial blocks on just the minimal range are all too often followed by edits just outside that range, so I've compromised on the /24 range. (For a full block I wouldn't have done that, but the likelihood of someone else from that range just happening to want to edit that article just now, never having done so before, is negligible.) As always, though, if you do notice other IP addresses in that area taking over editing that article, let me know & I'll reconsider. JBW (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, and will do. That article has been on my watch list since the NPOV edits last month.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hobbs v. Fogg

Thanks for your comments, and especially pointing out that text from an 1837 legal decision is not copyrighted.

As to the existing reference, the commentary on that website surrounding Gibson's letter to Jefferson (not the letter itself) is the source of Gibson "maintaining a generally restrictive view of judicial authority".

There are few if any published articles about this case. That's why there aren't more citations. I didn't want to pull in tangential references. It is a significant one of Gibson's opinions, I think, but if you still think it should be deleted, then I won't contest it.

AnEaragail (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@AnEaragail:

1. I don't think the draft should be deleted; bear in mind that I declined a deletion nomination for it. As far as I am concerned, I see no reason why the draft shouldn't be accepted if the lack of sourcing can be dealt with.
2. Yes, I understand that the letter from Gibson is a reference for his view of judicial authority, rather than for the particular case, but we do also need citations to sources about the case itself.
3. Although Wikipedia's notability requirements are based on good principles, I am not a great fan of the some of the ways they work in practice. It seems to me that this is a significant and interesting case, and it would be reasonable to have an article about it. However, Wikipedia's notability guidelines require substantial coverage in reluable published sources. Your statement "There are few if any published articles about this case" suggests that there may not be much coverage, in which case the case may not satisfy those guidelines. However, you must have got the information from somewhere, so can you say where? Wherever it was, it is at least one source that can be cited, assuming that it's a reliable source. JBW (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

   I will do some more in-depth searching in the legal literature for references to the case. Thanks again for your comments. If I can find useful references I will add them and hit the resubmit button. AnEaragail (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I resubmitted the draft with whatever additional support I could find. There are articles citing the case out there, but not much analysis of the case, and it doesn't make sense to me simply to reference an article that passively cites the case.

AnEaragail (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

A recent IP block

Hi. You recently blocked this IP. It looks very much like this IP is a prolific LTA whose original account is thought to be Fourlaxers. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: You may be right, but I can't see any evidence clear enough to confirm it. Can you give specific reasons for thinking so? That IP address geolocates to Italy, whereas the IP addresses which have in the past been thought to be Fourlaxers have all geolocated to the USA, most of them to New Jersey. (At least all the ones I know of.) That obviously doesn't prove that it isn't Fourlaxers, but it means that we need pretty unambiguous evidence to conclude that it is. JBW (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't actually find the link to the sock contributions, but I'm pretty sure family guy/cartoons/kids TV is a big thing, and the habits and summaries near identical. Anyway I just thought I'd suggest it, but understand it's probably not a useful way to spend our time. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)