Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
Your IP address, 192.76.8.74, is registered to University of Oxford and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.
If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia'sXFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.
Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using {{School block}}.
In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Educational institution staff and network administrators wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
May 2017
Hello, I'm Valenciano. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so it has been removed it for now. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Valenciano (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Gaia Octavia Agrippa. I noticed that you recently removed content from Birke Häcker without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk00:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Ubiquity. I noticed that you recently removed content from Young India Foundation without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Robert Tjian has been reverted. Your edit here to Robert Tjian was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.chemistry-blog.com/tag/robert-tjian/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by 94rain were:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Oxford University Hong Kong Society, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, 192.76.8.74!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 94rainTalk02:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Oxford University Hong Kong Society, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi, since I am the nominator for both the request for peer review and Rfc I am pretty sure I am able to close it (i.e. I am withdrawing the question). See: WP:RFC#Ending RfCs.
For peer reviews: "If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active."
Hello, 192.76.8.74. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Message added 19:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I have also put all the discussion after your complaint so that no one is confused. Those vandalism causing account are only here for some kind of fun or agenda. I was doing some project work with help of Wikipedia, and suddenly saw that Sangbad Pratidin has vanished and is a draft now. Thanks for lending a helping hand. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GarlicChill: What on earth are you talking about? Did you even bother looking at the edit you reverted? How on earth is retargeting the redirect "Galwegian language" to the article on Galwegian languages unconstructive? I'm cleaning up a mess left over from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Helivelto Who vandalised all the Gaelic language redirects to point at scots gaelic last november, which has just been noticed because someone brought one to RFD. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.
I'm going to unblock you, but please, that kind of edit summary, especially dozens of times in a row, is really unclear, esp. since we're talking about edits that were made a long time ago and, in many cases, were followed by other edits including by bots. Write one good edit summary that makes this clear, and then copy and paste it? Drmies (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: The most recent edits I can find from them are from Special:Contributions/186.193.54.109 in march. They've been editing from a few ranges, an IP6 and an 3 IP4s. All from Rio de Janeiro. I don't know enough about IP's to determine the range, but they've been active on what seems to be 4 ranges:
Thanks, this is useful. If you don't mind I am going to drop some notes here. 186.193.48.0/20 shows no accounts; last edits are from March 2021. There's nothing on 186.192.187.0/24, no accounts or recent edits; same with 191.243.115.0/25. 2804:1054:3016:4D60:3173:DF1E:D88F:A395/44 is very active, as I'm sure you've seen, but there are no accounts--but here's the thing: the edits from that IPv6 range, the ones I looked at, aren't bad. I'm really wondering if maybe someone grew up. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: looking through the IPv6's contributions there were a couple of bizarre retargetings that I've reverted, like retargeting a "(disambiguation)" redirect not to point at a disambiguation page [1], and I'm not sure why this is a better target than the article that specifically covers the term [2], but on the whole I agree that most of their retargeting edits look decent enough. Of course all the redirects they were interested in vandalising and generally being disruptive with have spent the last year or so pointing to the wrong place, it'll probably be worth keeping an eye on some of the Gaelic related redirect to see if someone tries to retarget them again. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There's no doubt it's them (one doesn't need CU evidence for that), and I find it hard to figure out what to do. It's socking, but if they improved, then blocking may not be the best solution. Just to be clear, the example you gave and the other things you pointed out, I fully agree with you and I appreciate your explanations and the work you did to collect those IPs. If they hadn't changed the quality of their edits, I'd have blocked that range immediately, and for a long time. What you could do is write this up again in the SPI (that is, start a new report, which will then be added to the old report--I don't know how much experience you have with SPI), and then these ranges/edits will be part of a paper trail, so to speak, and an SPI clerk/admin can make a decision on whether to block or not. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Will do, I have a fair amount of experience at SPI, I've probably filed 30 or 40 of them at this point. Having remembered that you can filter contributions by tags though I'd like to retract my statement that their recent retargeting's are less disruptive. This batch of retargeting things to point at Hispanic American from August 2021 are all wrong and in many cases appear to be little more than vandalism - I can't see anyone retargeting a history redirect to an article on an ethnic group without either severe WP:CIR issues or bad intent. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Favonian, help us out here--I'm pinging you because of this. So we have an IP range from which a known sock (mind you, this is not CU-confirmed) is operating; their redirects last year all suffered from serious incompetence, but they picked up their game on this IPv6 range a bit--and yet here's a batch from last month that are just bad. What would you do? Drmies (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK IP, the last two diffs that you just added, they clinch it. Like this, we cannot have that: it is totally ignorant and incompetent. Sorry for pinging you, Favonian; I dropped a six-month block. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP! I have a feeling you're the same person who I asked this a long time ago (as in several months) but you've made plenty of helpful contributions and I wanted to ask you if you ever considered creating an account, and if you don't want to I want to know what the reasoning is (as long as it's not too personal). ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback: you've got messages!
Hello, 192.76.8.74. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Message added 10:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, I'm Firestar464. I noticed that you recently removed content from David Duguid (politician) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Firestar464 (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
