User talk:JBW

Hi, can you delete User:Fcom1212/mbta-styles.css and User:Fcom1212/sandbox.css. Both of these were used for testing user scripts and I have no use for these anymore. Thank's ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 23:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fcom1212:  Done JBW (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

happy Pi Day. -- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Well, will you believe I'd never heard of it? It took me a minute to realise what the point was, but maybe I'd have got it at once if I'd been born in that part of the world where dates are given in that strange inconsistent format: medium, small, big, rather than a more natural order such as small, medium, big. Anyway, thanks for the friendly greeting, which also had the side effect of educating me about a notable festival. JBW (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: The 22nd of July not only follows a more logical date format, but also has the advantage of being closer to pi. What better reason could there be to campaign for calendar reform? JBW (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi JBW, I saw you blocked ~2026-33986-4 for block evasion. A conversation regarding that user is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#All of articles created by RandomMe98; another TA, ~2026-16424-76, is also involved in the discussion. Thank you for your time and attention. Thanks, Wracking ^talk! 20:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wracking: Well, I found this quite difficult. Those two temporary accounts clearly have some features in common, but they haven't used the same IP addresses, and it wasn't immediately obvious whether they really were connected. However, after investigating for some time, I found enough evidence to convince me that the new one is evading blocks, so I have blocked it. Unfortunately, though, they have access to a number of IP address ranges, and I can't block them all, because there would be too much collateral damage, so I'm afraid they will probably be back. JBW (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your work on this! I'll keep an eye out. Wracking ^talk! 22:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, back in January, the creator of the draft for Areaware left a message on my talk page asking for assistance. From a quick search, it appears the company meets notability guidelines. Could you please restore the draft and I'll see what I can do to improve it? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, could you delete this page per G5? It was created by Alabamanian, whose other creation Michael Perry v. American International Industries you just deleted. The tag was removed by a TA, and the page was previously deleted at AfD. I don't think there is a need for another one. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kelob2678: I was actually checking Jiani Zeng to see if it should be deleted when you posted this message here, and I decided to delete it. JBW (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Masthishka Maranam · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This is a popular Malayalam language film released in India and in some other contries. The article was good enough to have a wikipedia article. Please restore it. —Ranjithsiji (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ranjithsiji: I should think the film is likely to be easily notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If so then you are perfectly free to create one. However, I am not going to restore an article which has been repeatedly created by a block-evading editor using successive sockpuppets; doing so would convey completely the wrong message to that person. JBW (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that one of the many redirects created by Good actions only, Norway–Venezuela relations, was previously deleted as G5 by you due to an SPI on this user: 태현 정. There are a ton of new bilateral relations redirects (and some articles) from this fairly new user. Is this worth investigating under a similar SPI? -- Reconrabbit 21:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: I absolutely do not believe that Good actions only is a new editor. They made just over 10 fairly trivial edits to get autoconfirmed, and then started creating articles. They have created 822 pages, 562 of them redirects, in 6 weeks. Those are not the kind of things that new editors do. However, it isn't at all clear that it's 태현 정. They share an interest in relations between pairs of countries, but, as you have pointed out, the new account mainly implements that interest by creating redirects, with a few articles, whereas 태현 정 aka XOGUS99 mostly created categories, but also some articles. There are also differences in use of English, most noticeable being that Good actions only consistently writes the word "I" as "i", whereas both 태현 정 and XOGUS99 both did it properly. Of course they could be deliberately faking differences to hide what they are doing, and if you can find any more evidence of a connection then taking it back to SPI might be a good idea, but on the basis of what I have seen I can't see any justification for doing any more than watching the account to see what they do. Well, one more thing, actually: I have posted a question about other accounts on the new account's talk page. The likelihood of that producing any useful information is low, but it sometimes helps. JBW (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll keep watching their talk page. Thank you for these insights. If their edits get problematic (expanding beyond just writing on relations - there is a talk page section about their editing to Nick Fuentes, but no CTOP warning) or I notice more coming through the NPP feed I will request an addition to that SPI. -- Reconrabbit 23:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)