User talk:Bbb23/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Problem

What did I do wrong with the Shelly Capito edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marimajazz (talk • contribs) 03:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Several things: (1) the assertion was unsourced; (2) the sentence should have been put at the end of the section; (3) you shouldn't wikilink April; (4) It should be April 26, 2012 (not April 26th - don't use ordinals in dates); (5) Don't use html code inline like that except in very rare circumstances; - well I could go on, but here's what it should read (sourced):

On April 26, 2012, Capito voted in favor of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.

But even if you did all that, you still haven't established the relevance of the material. What is the point of her vote? Is there some context? Otherwise, it's just a fact without giving the reader any understanding of its importance. I hope this helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Someone mentioned you might need a drink, and since you don't really drink, you'll have to settle for the next-best thing. Peace. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 01:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for closing the topic at ANI. I decided to close the earlier one as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia doesn't drive you to drinking, nothing will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Black Swan

I saw your removal, and the reason in the editsummary. Unsourced sounds like a weak reason to remove a neutral statement. Do you or anybody else contest it, that you decided to remove it? Debresser (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone else had changed it to indicate that the filming took place in a different part of the Lincoln Center. Then another editor came along and reverted. That made me look at the assertion more closely, and I realized that although the State University filming was sourced, the other was not. I'm not sure what you mean by "neutral", but if you mean that only controversial unsourced material can be removed, I disagree. All assertions of fact must be sourced. Production sections of film articles are fertile ground for WP:OR and other unsourced material.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Here I have indeed a basically different approach to Wikipedia. I hold that only contentious material or original theories should be removed. Not a casual and factually true observation. But I understand what you mean. Debresser (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Without discussing the merits of our positions, here's a question then related to the recent Black Swan history. You have one editor who says the scenes took place at the Metropolitan Opera and Avery Fisher Hall, and you have another editor who says they took place at the David Koch Theatre. Neither has a source. Which is factually true? What do you do?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If the info is contested, discuss it. If no agreement is reached on the talkpage within some reasonable time, unsourced disputed statements should be removed. Here I agree completely. Strange though that people disagree on such simple facts. Debresser (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it strange, I find it commonplace at Wikipedia. But I'm confused with what you agree with - which position? And, out of curiosity, why?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That unsourced and disputed statements should be removed. But as long as they are undisputed (and not potentially offensive in a BLP), I see no reason to remove. As far as OR, I think that was also meant for at least potentially disputable statements or even theories (like who really was King Artur), not for simple facts (like in which building a scene was filmed, which should not be reason for dispute). Debresser (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean your Wikipedia position - I understood that. I mean you now have two editors who say the movie was filmed in different locations. Without a source, how do you decide which one is right?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If both opinions are sourced, and there is no fringe theory among them, then we should have both opinions. I only one is sourced, then the sourced one. If neither is, then talk it over and/or remove both opinions. As you did. Debresser (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Debresser.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Joan Gerber?

We haven't finished.......or goten anywhere with discussion about Joan E. Gerber, whose passing was mentioned on Rob Paulsen podcast with B. Farmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 23:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been very busy and didn't mean to ignore you. I'm not sure what it is you're proposing. Perhaps you're just expressing some frustration with the issue? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Einhorn

I agree something needs to be done about Ira Einhorn. What has been going on is clearly either socking or meatery; the accounts in question fight tooth and nail to remove accurate statements, insert editorializing, and tabloid-smelling unencyclopedic prose ("finally" in the opening paragraph). I'll support whatever admin intervention you decide is best, but I haven't had much wiki time recently. Just drop me a note if/when you decide to escalate. I'd first take it to WP:EWN because it's a long-term, concerted meat/sock effort to undermine consensus; some edit summaries even include what I'd consider personal attacks. SPI won't confirm an IP address, but they'll know if it's the same person. I'll comment in either forum if you leave me a note. JFHJr (㊟) 22:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Logan Lerman

Ah, ok. I saw this format somewhere else and I thought it looked better. Elseurbi (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I commented on your Talk page. If you have anything else you want to add, you can add it there. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Based on this post Talk:Vanessa Redgrave#inclusion of Coriolanus: an idea map I thought that I would make you aware of this conversation Talk:Ian McKellen#inclusion of Coriolanus: an idea map. Now I am not asking you to comment there but if you think that we should centralize the discussion at one of the two talk pages that I linked to please feel free to move my copy my reponse to any new discussion. Thanks you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 02:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've had a chance to look at the EL in depth I am worried that there may be a WP:COI along with other problems. Is the EL talk page the right place to ask about this? MarnetteD | Talk 03:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've left comments at Talk:Vanessa Redgrave and at Ashokapurr's Talk page (after your comment). Let's see what they do next before deciding what to do. Thanks for highlighting this for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor has had another detailed response here User talk:Old Moonraker#Coriolanus: an idea map. I think between the three of us we have covered everything and,hopefully, they will understand. Thanks again for taking the time to look at this and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Although not mentioned by name your are mentioned in this thread Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Coriolanus: an idea map so I thought that I would make you aware of it. Any input that you have to add will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 11:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me updated, Marnette, it's very kind. I've commented at WP:ELN.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sean Sherlock

Hi, Please give reasons for removing expenses and salary data from 'Deputies 2008 Salary, Allowances and expenses payments made to members 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2008' and corresponding 2007 Irish state documentation released as pubic data under Irish Freedom of Information Legislation from this article?

It is

a)Pertinent b)Sourced and verifiable

Many Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Question About Vaughn Walker Article

Hi. I am new at this and I have a question about the Vaughn Walker Article:

Under Cases, the article lists the criminal sentencing of Bernie Ward as a one of Walker's notable cases. However, in the context of his career, it is not really that notable. Who makes this decision? Do people tend to add and not take away? How would you proceed in a case like this?

I appreciate the advice--thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddb2001 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

An excellent question. In my view, whether a case is notable depends primarily on whether there are secondary sources reporting on the case and, secondarily, editorial judgment. I've removed the notable cases mentioned in the Vaughn article that were not supported by secondary sources, including the Ward case. We'll see if there's any pushback from other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for the advice. Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddb2001 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Administrators_noticeboard/Edit_warring User:Borovv

Do you mind if I add my signature and my comments regarding Borovv in the section you generated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Borovv_reported_by_User:Bbb23_.28Result:_.29

Wanted to get your permission. Borovv is accusing me of using multiple accounts, so I'd like to be as clear as possible that I'm including myself as a separate person to the incident report you have generated. I just don't see a purpose in generating an identical complaint, but if you think that'd be better, feel free to let me know. -- Jun.rhee (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jun.rhee, you've already added some comments to the edit-warring report, and you're welcome to say whatever you like. However, it's odd to change the name of the section, and I've never seen a "joint" report before. So, I'm going to change it back to a normal header, but you can, of course, still edit the body of the report itself to say anything you deem appropriate. I didn't realize you were such a new editor. Welcome!--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me. Yeah, I didn't feel comfortable changing the title as well. I was at first a bit flummoxed by Borovv's baseless accusation that I was using multiple accounts. I guess being new, I got easily riled up. I'm going to leave the Moon page for now. I agree, I see no benefit, the time I've put into wikipedia in the past four days just seems like a waste in retrospect, and that's not why I decided to start contributing. See you around. -- Jun.rhee (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for templating my plea! Chrisrus (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I think "plea" is a bit over the top, but you had to review JW's Talk page to even figure out which article you were concerned with, so I felt a template would be helpful. I also didn't get your comment "Let me know if you would like me to repeat this plea again here" but didn't say anything. Why would you want to repeat the same thing in the same forum? Just out of curiosity, what does this comment mean at JW's Talk page: "Also, you have asked me not to edit the mainspace."--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this reply. I am working on my reply to this, but have to work all day today. Be back tomorrow to reply. Chrisrus (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer your questions, I must have made a mistake and said 'here" instead of "there". I'll go back and check. Second, if you search for "NXIVM" in his archives, JW asked me not to edit it as I once called myself a "hater" and he said felt that people who hate people shouldn't be editing articles about them, generally. I protest, because if you go and see where I said that in context it's very clear that I was using it as a synonym for the opposite of the word "fan", in the context of a discussion on the roles of fans and opposite of fans on Wikipedia; how fans and "haters" are responsible for most of the content on Wikipedia, as they are motivated, and both are biased, but they can still author NPOV articles; and that indifferent people, while maybe ideal authors for articles in order to get it NPOV, are very difficult to motivate to help author articles. You being a case in point.

Also, I insist that my feelings toward him and it are not nearly as well described by the word "hate" as they are by the words "concern" or even "alarm", emotions I maintain that would happen to any person with normal human emotions who gets familiar with the WP:RSes on the topic, which in my case all stems from simply being a regular reader of the local broadsheet papers in this area. And also although my feelings might explain why I'm motivated to push for article improvement, it doesn't mean that I want anything but a NPOV WP:"Good" article there, and that it be "done right" as JW says. That's all I've ever wanted and I think an investigation of the history of that and related articles and talk pages will show my behavior to have been exemplary. I will admit, however, that the real reason I don't edit the article isn't because of what JW said that day (please also see his comment on the NXIVM talk page), but rather because they know where I live, if you know what I mean, and it's just a few miles from him and it, and that I'm just another nobody in particular who spends way too much of his life on Wikipedia; whereas they are mind-bogglingly rich, connected, and powerful people.

Again, please ignore all of that. All you should know is what you read in Forbes; that is all you should know to edit or comment on the draft slated to enter the mainspace. Thank you for your recent contributions to the article but as I was trying to tell you, that "Bromfman Insident" section is going to be deleted anyway and replaced with the final draft on the NXIVM discussion page, section "Forbes coverage", subsection "draft". So therefore there's no point in your editing that section. And also, have your read the magazine yet? That's the first step, don't you agree, before anything else? Tell me what I've got to say to you to get you to simply read this magazine.

Once again, here it is:

The cover: http://www.rickross.com/images/esp2.jpg

Art work that went with the article: http://www.rickross.com/images/esp3.jpg

Article and sidebars about other executive coaching programs: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/088.html

First follow-up: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0724/044a.html

Second follow-up: http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/03/29/the-bronfmans-and-the-cult/

Draft describing the above, for you to look at with an eye to improvement, only after you have read the above: Talk:NXIVM/Archive 1#Forbes_coverage, subsection Draft.

The point is to compare the two and get the draft to match the article, and when it's ready to replace the "Bromfman incident" section of the article NXIVM. That the draft properly describe the article you will have read by they time you look at the draft. That is all. Then maybe you should leave it alone and help me find another appropriate editor so the whole thing becomes a product of the hive mind and not them vs. you or me or any other individual, and I will ask no more of you. My goal is also to entrust it to the community and leave it alone.

Please! And Thank You! Chrisrus (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad

ditto to headline http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asma_al-Assad&curid=6049070&diff=496527693&oldid=496526097 Happy monsoon day —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for a helpful reminder! Jun.rhee (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Jun.rhee, thanks for the star, but, more important, thanks for being responsive to others' suggestions.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Zeitgeist Movement". Thank you. --IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas

I changed "grew up in" to "lived in" as he spent 12 out of his 13 years growing up in the Philippines, moving to the US as an adolescent. The page doesn't mention his growing up in the Philippines, saying he grew up in the state he moved to as an adolescent is misleading. It doesn't mention the schools he went to or the towns he lived in in the Philippines. Saying he spent his teenage years there would be more accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jose_Antonio_Vargas&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.70.200 (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point and have clarified the language in the article. See what you think.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, your edit was perfect :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.70.200 (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

I'm very happy with all your suggestions and grateful that you got involved as your contributions were helpful, neutral in tone, and fair.

Earl is continuing to claim there is consensus on the article, but please note there has not been, nor is there now, consensus on the article talk page. Several editors have expressly requested that their names not be used to imply that there is any sort of consensus on the article. The only consensus existing right now is that there is no consensus. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I placed "undue weight" tags per discussion on the talk page and discussion on DRN; Copied explanation of 'sustainable development' from WP article on same, and removed 'clarification' tag; and several minor edits. Earl has deleted my contributions. In his edit summary he wrote that my edit was "not consensus edit". I reverted his deletion. Perhaps someone should explain to him that there is no consensus, and refer him to the 'consensus' section of the talk page, where editors expressly commented that there is no consensus, before he escalates further?

Also, your comments on the DRN would be appreciated -- I revised the DRN to request discussion of only one specific dispute on the Lead section, and one specific dispute on the Criticism section. Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent edits and comments on the article and the DRN. I am very relieved that finally I have a co-editor who actually took the time to read the reliable sources. I'm not saying this in criticism of any of the other editors, because I have no doubt they are acting in good faith. As far as I know WP policies do not explicitly require editors to actually read the key sources. I feel only respect and admiration for all the editors on the article; they are motivated by a desire to improve the article. Now you can see how frustrated and upset I felt over the last two months, fruitlessly trying to reason with editors who consistently, and in good faith on their part, accused me that my edits are not supported by any reliable sources, while all my edits, without exception, were based directly on verifiable citations from reliable sources, especially the Huffington Post piece. Thanks again and regards, 16:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The following is a copy-paste from TZM's official Q&A website. Is this potential legal trouble?

---

Question (11) - Is The Zeitgeist Movement related to Peter Joseph's Film Series?

No. While the word "Zeitgeist" is also associated with Peter Joseph's film series, "Zeitgeist: The Movie", "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", the film series based content isn't to be confused with the tenets of "The Zeitgeist Movement" here. Rather, the films were mere inspirations for "The Zeitgeist Movement" due to their popularity and overall message of seeking truth, peace and sustainability in society.

The term "Zeitgeist" is defined as the ‘The General intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era." The Term "movement" very simply implies ‘motion" and change, Therefore The Zeitgeist Movement is thus an organization which urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.

The Movement is not about Comparative Religion, False-Flag Terrorism, Economic Hit-men, Fractional Reserve Banking or the Federal Reserve. The films are unrelated to The Movement in detail and are personal expressions of Peter Joseph. There is often some confusion in this regard and in the most extreme cases some people have the knee-jerk reaction that TZM supports forbidden "Conspiracy Theories" or is "Anti-Religious" or the like. This type or rhetoric tends to be of a pejorative/insulting nature, used in the context of dismissal of The Movement by an erroneous and "taboo" external association. The fact is, there is no direct association whatsoever.

If you are not familiar with what TZM actually is, please review our extensive literature and video/lecture materials on this website.

---

There may (or may not) be a legal issue here, as our article seems to claim things that directly contradict this official TZM statement.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

Hi, I do not want to start an edit war, but I strongly disagree with your deletion of Palazzolo’s declarations on his website in his own defense. You are perfectly aware that the neutrality of the article is disputed, and your deletion of Palazzolo’s version of the events does not help to maintain the balance. It would have been better to discuss your deletion on the talk page first and I would appreciate that you revert your edit and have a proper discussion before you unilaterally delete sensitive sections of the article. Thank you. - DonCalo (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Copied your comment and responded on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Kudos

		The BLP Barnstar
		For going the extra mile on Tommy Morrison as well as your tireless contributions at BLPN. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo, it was indeed a lot of work, but at least it was interesting, and I sincerely appreciate your support.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Scott

It would be helpful if you gently and politely just asked him a few simple questions, imo. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Before seeing this, I did ask him a few questions, although I don't know if I was gentle enough. How old is he (I didn't ask that at AN)? I'll watch the topic now, but if you think I need to do more, feel free to tell me. I'd be happy to help. I'm about to go off-wiki, though - time to eat.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

14 Years old.Scott Delaney (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, nothing is hidden at Wikipedia. Thanks for answering the question, Scott. I just felt uncomfortable asking it at AN, but given that it doesn't appear to bother you, I've "outed" your age at AN and just left a long-winded comment for you to read. I'm going off-wiki again for the evening, but I'll check it out tomorrow. Take care and leave Twinkle alone, at least while we hash all this out.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed you ask a few questions but only one gets answered, per usual. As per my previous observations, would you consider that my arguments may have greater merit now? There is a distinct lack of outside participation now, although I can't be sure why. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have left a long comment at AN and a very specific proposal, although it's a bit complicated. I'm surprised you think I thought your arguments lacked merit. Quite the contrary, I assumed they had merit. Naturally, I don't accept everything you say, but I'm generally predisposed to trust your assertions and your judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My vagueness is often intentional, and for good reason. But as you can see, this is more complicated than meets the eye, and more complicated than youth would explain. Not one to put labels on things I don't understand, but likely some labels exist. Where we are in the grey area, I don't know. You ideas sound like a reasonable way to move forward. I had ping'ed Snowolf earlier, and your ideas seem consistent with his, so this would be a good way to move forward if someone will take the reins and make the final call. I don't see a !vote as being productive. They seldom are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there's no need for a !vote. We just need an admin to endorse the plan and then hear from Scott.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Three Stooges

Watch the damn short and you may wake up and realize my edit is not vandalism. Wikipedia needs to stop letting 12-year-olds like you edit and try to pull a big boy power trip threatening other users that know what the hell they are talking about. If you had an ounce of sense, you would search the episode, but you don't.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=3+stooges+you+all+just+ejaculated+a+mouthful&oq=3+stooges+you+all+just+ejaculated+a+mouthful&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...1904.10172.0.10936.44.26.0.4.4.0.2230.10092.1j8j2j1j0j3j1j1j1j1.19.0...0.0.49d6jlRNc6I&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=4272dadaac92d973&biw=1360&bih=612 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yryriza (talk • contribs) 00:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your attitude is unaccceptable. As to the content you are trying to add, you'd have to cite to a reliable source, not all the blogs that your Google search comes up with.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My attitude is acceptable because I am talking to someone with a major attitude problem of subhuman intelligence. I watched the damn short last night, but of course little 12-year-old needs a power trip. Try getting a job or a life. Maybe you won't look quite as pathetic and obnoxious as you do now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX4KTsMT02E Watch the 1:32 minute mark, idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yryriza (talk • contribs) 00:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Calling someone an idiot is a personal attack. If you continue this behavior, you will be blocked. If is fine to disagree, it is not fine to be disagreeable to the point of being disruptive and uncivil. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is part of a pattern. I've already opened a discussion at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just blocked an IP leaving you love notes here, wonder who that was. I guess I'm just pissing off everyone this evening, aren't I? ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, thanks much for being so fast, it was Yryriza block evading. We'll see if there's more to come.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm trying to figure out why your other little friend has taken to be constantly disruptive in other venues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe it's because I'm tired, but what other little friend are you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• At RfA. This is beginning to be habitual for him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I did find it ironic that he is mad because someone said something about his question, which is exactly what he was doing to another user. He tends to treat rfa like a talk page, instead of a formal process. Clue issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Ah, too bad, I was unfamiliar with him before now. He posted a silly response to my comment. I thought of responding sarcastically, but frankly his behavior is almost troll-like, so I'll restrain myself and say nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Read this [1] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, hard to read, he keeps digging himself deeper and deeper into an abyss.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the most disruptive, argumentative, and obnoxious people on the project are those whose vanity has been wounded -- often at RFA. I could name some but I'm too kind, and your page has 102 watchers. (See number 15, though I meant that to apply principally to people who are banned.) Antandrus (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't decide if having 102 watchers is a good thing or a bad thing. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm jealous, that is 3 more than me. I just added the WP:centijimbo template to my page yesterday, by the way. Nothing I say can possibly be that interesting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You wanted proof, then you delete the proof. No wonder most people don't consider wikipedia a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yryriza (talk • contribs) 01:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You really cannot handle being wrong can you? Some people should not be allowed to edit here. You've created a problem where there was none trying to get on a power trip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yryriza (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Joe Paterno

Honestly, I don't like the paragraph myself. That section is way too long as it is and needs further editing. But I don't want to get in an edit war with that other user either, so I tried to trim it to make everybody happy. Apparently, it's not working. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL, that's very funny. It's hard to make everyone happy, isn't it, particularly at Wikipedia. I dunno. The paragraph doesn't belong. I'd self-revert if I were you, but do whatever you think best. At least now I understand what your thinking was.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

About N. R. Narayana Murthy

Hello Bbb23, please make your point of view at Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy#Full Protection 3 Days.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 11:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I commented. You really need to ratchet down your rhetoric on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

David M. Halperin article

Hello Bbb23. I see you have reverted my recent modification in David M. Halperin article. Although I did not mention it when making the change (my fault), I had opened a talk subject about the change proposal. As there were no objections, I proceeded. I would appreciate if you could place your opinion in the article talk page, so that I can answer it.--Auró (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've commented on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Troy Davis

I'm a little late on this one, but I just wanted to let you know that this was not vandalism, but merely a constructive change to an obviously incorrect date. Cheers! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That was dyslexia on my part - I read the date change backwards (from 1989 to 1899 instead of from 1899 to 1989). Fortunately, it was corrected by another IP. I've removed my warning from the Talk page of the IP I reverted with an edit summary apologizing. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Good Decision

Entirely appropriate deleting my response when deleting the comment I responded to. Feel free anytime that happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think you would mind, but I added that phrase in the edit summary to get your attention. Thanks for letting me know you were okay with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

History2007

I had to smile, as he seems to have you offguard a bit. He is a very independent fellow, which is why I like him as a candidate. He isn't a troublemaker in the least, but he has opinions and isn't afraid to politely express them. I don't see him as someone that will be another drone admin, going along with the pack, which is perfect. He has been here long enough that I kind of agree that he shouldn't have to overly explain what he knows as his work speaks for itself. Not exactly Mal, but you know how content creators are, and we certainly need more of them in the admin ranks. The last few, myself included, don't qualify as being heavy contributors really. Anyway, vote as you like of course, and it won't change the respect I have for you, but I just wanted to share my limited experience with you, that he has a lot of offer in the way of balance and actual technical skills that would be very, very handy with the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, History doesn't have me off guard - I'm just troubled by their (how do we know it's a he?) responses and trying to deal with that issue substantively, yet politely. I will, as always, take your opinion into account because I value it, although I must admit that your !vote sounded like you were describing a boy scout. --Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

He really is a trustworthy dedicated guy who has some skills that are needed. He has been here a long time with 60k edits and no trouble, you have to be a boy scout to do that. What I'm afraid of is that we keep taking about how we want RfA to be different, how broke it is, and here comes one who takes adminship in exactly the frame of mind that it was intended, and he gets blow out because he won't conform and become a drone. We say we want change, then we shun it. It is no wonder RfA is broke if we aren't willing to look at it differently. He certainly would do less damage than a number of admins I could name, surely you know that, so he could only raise the average quality. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dennis, that we have such a sharp disagreement on this issue. I'm a little lost, though, in some of your comments. Again, perhaps because I lack sufficient background, it's not clear to me how RfA is "broke". Nor is it clear what supposedly broken aspect of RfA connects to the negative comments about History in the opposers. As for other admins, I guess my response is just because there are worse admins than History doesn't mean History should become an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, never hard feelings for disagreeing. I tend to think that if an admin candidate would be better than the average current admin, then he is worth a go unless there is a problem that otherwise disqualifies. That raises the average quality, after all. Most everyone thinks RfA is broken, I'm shocked you didn't, so I guess I can't explain that part. That is why so few run anymore, which is a problem. I'm still surprised that I passed. Wikipedia needs diversity in our editors and our admins, or the project gets stale, withers and dies a slow death. I just consider him a welcomed shot in the arm. People don't "get" his attitude because they expect candidates to think being an admin is a big deal, when it really is supposed to not be. And yes, I don't trust candidates who want the admin bit badly, and prefer those who are willing and able but not so hungry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You have to understand that my first contact with RfA was yours. And that occurred at roughly the same time as Drmies and others were urging me to run (and then you added your voice to that group). I had never even looked at an RfA before that, let alone commented on one. Even before people suggested I run, I had thought about it but dismissed it as (1) not very likely I'd prevail, (2) wasn't sure whether I wanted to be one, and (3) didn't feel up to going through the process, particularly in light of #1 and #2 - heh. So, don't be shocked. :-)

It's still not clear to me why "most everyone" thinks RfA is broken, even though I believe you when you say it. For example, Kim Dent-Brown opened up a topic on the Talk page about it but simply assumed there was a consensus it was broken, and the only issue was what to do about it. I don't see how you can start from that point. You can't fix anything unless you've first diagnosed the problem.

Unless it's too much trouble, which is fine, I'd sincerely appreciate it if you would articulate what exactly about RfA is broken.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I might not know the solution, nor do I assume to know every problem as many disagree on what is the real problem is, but the symptoms are there to see. A drastic, drastic reduction in the number of people willing to go to RfA. I had serious reservations because of how ugly it can get.

RfA has two symptoms that I can identify. One: A lot of people just support without a rationale, and sometimes seemingly without any research. Since opposes basically count as 3 votes, it is worse there, where people oppose over 1 vote in an AFD (see my RfA), or over one proper comment at an ANI, or because their buddy voted that way, or for some other past transgression. If the candidate doesn't "act like an admin" at RfA, he is discounted quickly. This encourages "playing the game" in order to pass RfA, which means only people who play the game, get the bit. You really do not want to have a bunch of admins who all sound and act alike. Monocultures tend to get large, then die out, and people willing to play the game aren't necessarily the best admins. Many don't play and pass, but the system favors those that do, in my opinion.

By Jimbo's own definition, History2007 is the kind of admin you want, competent, independent, doesn't really want it that badly, but is devoted to the project and willing to. Not power hungry, just wanting to get the job done. Being an admin isn't about being "the best" or being perfect for the job, it is about caring enough to try to do the right thing every time, and being smart enough to learn along the way. I don't begrudge anyone for opposing, but I think the current system itself is more difficult and unfair to people like H2007, which is a shame since he fits the original vision of what an admin should be in so many ways. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying some symptoms. As for the first, I thought the closing bureaucrat was supposed to take into account the reasoning, not just the numbers. If that's not happening, it should. That's the way it happens everywhere else on WP. As for "acting like an admin", at least with respect to History, I don't think that's what is happening. I think prospective admins should behave like an admin at the RfA, but behaving like an admin doesn't mean everyone has to be the same. Yet, there are certain commonalities. Temperamentally, people have to be suited to be an admin. They don't all have to be super nice, but they can't be assholes. As for gaming the system, that one is more complicated. If prospective admins are saying what they think others want to hear AND being insincere/dishonest in doing so, that's a real problem, but that simply has to be ferreted out in the process. I don't know how you can eliminate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• You can't eliminate it in the current system, thus the flaw. And to act "like an admin" implies there is a specific and likely narrow definition, which there isn't. The issue isn't the closing bureaucrat. Realistically, if the vote is under 70%, you generally don't pass, if it is over 80%, you generally do pass. The only time that the comments typically matter is when it is in between those two. This is why manipulating the votes by canvassing or by causing controversy is so damaging. Doing like the first one did here, accusing him of sockpuppeting, can create FUD, and that can cause an RfA to spiral as people overreact. To me, that is disruptive, and in some cases this could be done to intentionally undermine the process, perhaps for some petty difference in the past. That RfA is this fragile is another problem. And admins aren't police, we damn sure aren't the leaders, we are the janitors and we just get cool tools. Admin or candidates don't need to look alike, or act alike. I strongly prefer they don't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• One solution to the 70-80% business is for a bureaucrat to strike those !votes before the process is complete. Two possibilities: (1) require a rationale, and if there isn't one, strike it or, stronger, (2) require a rationale and allow the bureaucrat to strike a !vote even if there is a rationale if they deem the rationale to be frivolous (the sock puppet one in History's RfA is over the top and should NOT count). If we're going to accept the conventional wisdom that when the percentage dips below 70%, the RfA is doomed (and often the candidate withdraws), then we have to make those percentages more meaningful.

As for your comment about janitors with cool tools (such a lovely analogy), I think it's more than that. I think admins should be janitors AND leaders. How they lead can vary - and I agree with you that admins shouldn't be monolithic - but I think the responsibilities that come with being admin mean that they should be held to a higher standard. I kind of look at admins and non-admins in a traditional corporate setting. A peon (non-admin) can be very good at what he does. A manager (admin) may not be good at what her subordinates do, but she has to (1) have enough knowledge about what they do to understand it and (2) be able to manage her subordinates in an effective, even-handed manner. Two sets of skills. Indeed, as I've been thinking more and more about this, the fact that I, personally, haven't created as much content as some editors doesn't bother me as much as it used to with respect to my becoming an admin. I don't have to be super-skilled or super-experienced in content creation. I do have to understand how it works, how difficult it is, the talents it requires, etc., but that's enough. More important are how good my administrative skills are, including the ability to lead. Anyway, I could go on about this, but you're no doubt tired of reading by now, and I have to eat shortly after another long day at Wikipedia. As always, Dennis, best regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I will just say that I don't the admins to be the leaders, just as I don't want cops to be legislators. They are different roles, and letting the guys that carry the guns, also make the rules, is a dangerous proposition. Exhibiting leadership is ok, but the real leaders are the people with the best ideas around here. Tools aren't needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we disagree on this one. I think admins should be leaders, but that doesn't mean a non-admin can't be a leader and just as much a leader as an admin. I think people hope and expect admins to be leaders, but people follow leaders partly based on respect, which can be earned without the "status".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Bbb23, and sorry I did not manage to follow up at History2007's RFA before its closure. To be clear, my meaning was pretty much that spelled out by Keilana and Dennis. A candidate who takes a more relaxed, less intensive perspective on adminship, and RFA, is something that some editors, and I, find refreshing. Naturally, not everyone will agree and this is simply, like I said, an "alternative perspective". (PS, I think your h key is broken—or has swapped places with your x!) Regards, AGK [•] 23:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just in case you're not kidding (I suffer from literalness), I don't know History's gender, hence x. Thanks for your comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, it looks like he is going to take a very long break. :/ RfA's, even when successful, are more painful than people realize. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's really History's choice. It would be unfair to blame it on the RfA. Many editors (including me and others who opposed History), said that History should stick around based on the valuable contributions made to the project. As for the painfulness of RfAs in general - and I think you're referring to yourself here in part, Dennis - the guide warns you of the difficulties, so it shouldn't be a surprise. At the same time, I confess that one of the reasons I haven't run is fear of the process itself. A warning in the abstract can never fully prepare you for the actual pain. If it's any consolation to you, Dennis, as an admin you've confirmed the correctness of the result, and the people who matter have nothing but good things to say about you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• That is kind of you to say, and I appreciate it. I've told you before, if I made it look easy, then I'm a better liar than I thought. I wasn't as prepared as most of the candidates, the pre-RfA pushed me into running 2 months quicker than I anticipated, but my gut feeling said I needed to run then, as the feedback was strong, and two very trustworthy people volunteered to nom me. I was surprised at how stressful it was, and I'm actually a little surprised at how calm I seemed to communicate. It wasn't calm really, but patience and discipline that got me through, as well as support from a few friends. The entire week was genuinely hell, and it surprised me how much it actually affected me, and still does to this day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, all I have are probably useless platitudes. Let it go, focus on doing a good job as an admin and as an editor, recognize that we're all human and we all make mistakes, and all we can do is acknowledge them and correct them when they happen and learn something in the process. You have support here, and you no doubt have support in your personal life - just maintain a healthy perspective, and the leftover pain will fade.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Peled-Elhanan

Hi Bbb,

The Peled-Elhanan article now states twice in the "Early life and career" section that she received the Sakharov Prize, and also states that she's "an Israeli professor of language and education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem" both in the lead and in the body. Could you please remove these redundancies to clean up the page? I can't make reverts to the page for another 20 or so hours, but you still can. 19:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatan79 (talk • contribs)

I fixed the award redundancy in the section. The repeat of what she does in the lead and body is normal. In general, the lead should have nothing in it that isn't already in the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno

The Sally Jenkins addition to Paterno's article was discussed on his talkpage here User Redredryder simply removed AVR2012's trimming of the final section on April 30, 2012 ...but really Paterno's views of the scandal that brought him down should be given some airing on his wikipedia article since it comes from the Washington Post--deemed a reliable source. I removed the Yvonne Fulbright commentary since she comes from PSU and may be biased towards Paterno as some people commented. Jenkins is not. This is Paterno's final words on the subject before he died...and it may be relevant? Maybe you have read Sally Jenkins' article? I have to go now and live in the real world too. Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I saw your recent decision that you disagreed that the user was being racist. Do you have any system for second opinions, or higher-power appeals? Thanks Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would characterize my "decision" that way. The only thing I and others decided was that there was no justification for sanctions at this time. You should read WP:DR about dispute resolution in general at Wikipedia. Hopefully, that will address your questions. You should specifically read WP:BAN because of your misconceptions as to how bans are imposed and why. After educating yourself (and it's not easy, btw), if you are unclear about something, you can post here, and I'll try to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to answer this. Leaf Green Warrior, you toss around the word "racist" like it is candy. I don't see anywhere in the previous discussion that Bbb23 said he disagreed whether B-Machine was being racist. What was suggested is that you focus more on being a collaborative editor. If you could focus instead on the specific statements people make, and provide an answer that addresses the points being made, you would have a lot more productive Wikipedia career. I'm not sure if you saw it, but Editor:Dennis Brown suggested that you take the complaints you have to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. That is your option of course.

There are tons of "higher level" appeals, for things, but I can tell you now that you're not going to get anywhere with taking this up further because the bigger problem has been your willingness to attack other editors with your tone and specific choice of words. You mentioned "boomerang" in your AN/I post, and I am just providing a friendly warning here, that if you go the route you're talking about, it won't work out well. That said, you might read the page Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for options on appeals and such. -- Avanu (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It's very simple. Here's a flowchart: Was the user being racist? If you answer "no", then you disagree with my personal feeling that it was racist, and the matter is over. If you answer "yes", then sanctions would have been taken. By not taking sanctions, you disagree with my personal opinion and you believe the user is not racist. So, we won't get any further here unless you answer the core point of the ANI. Was the user being racist? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, this isn't a court of law, and you are not a lawyer cross-examining me or anyone else. It appears that you're not amenable to help (see WP:IDHT). So, I withdraw my offer to help. Perhaps you should find another avenue of expressing yourself rather than here at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet again you refuse to answer the question. In your opinion, was the user being racist? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks

Thanks for your edit to Perry v. Brown. Your phrase is more accurate. --Javaweb (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

No problem, interesting self-examination article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Jonah Lehrer

I just wanted to thank you for your intervention in the editing on this page, and particularly your advice regarding avoiding the use of legal terms and edit wars. I'm afraid I may have begun to lose my own objectivity in the heat of things. Thanks again. --Lbarquist (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It can be very frustrating sometimes and it's easy to get carried away, but, even with the best of intentions, you don't want to risk a block over a content issue like this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe

The way I approach articles on Wikipedia is this: Let's say I heard something on the news or maybe one of my friends mentioned something, but whatever the topic, it's not something that I was familiar with or following too closely. So I look it up in Wikipedia to get a good summary. That's what I'm looking for. A good summary. I've renamed the article and de-emphasized the person's name. If you want to further de-emphasize the person's name while still giving a good summary, that's fine with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Your casual, reader-oriented approach ignores, or at least distorts, Wikipedia policy. In particular, it fails to take into account that we are not a digest of the media but an encyclopedia. Therefore, everything that is reported in the news or on the Internet is not necessarily included here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a Straw man. I never said that everything that is reported in the news or on the Internet should be included here. It would be nice if you actually addressed what I said, but you didn't. To make things worse, you've brushed off what should be our number one goal: serving our readers. Hint: that's the reason why we're here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of your mantra. I stopped responding at AfD, and the discussion here is now closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Because you're a pussy! See my talk page, "Editor creating articles with Prod alread attached."

Drmies (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll put it with my collection of other stuffed animals.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say something funny but I'm watching Predator 2 and a whole bunch of aliens just walked in on Danny Glover. This isn't good. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Newbury edits

Please could you advise what the specific issues were with my changes to the pageon Matthew Newbury. The changes are factually accurate and contain references. As you appear to be a very experienced editor, perhaps you could guide me on how I can resolve the issues you raise. thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobynChallands (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll give you one example related to source-compliance: this change. You altered the text from "around" to "in excess of", yet the source says "Costs vary but his is worth around £50,000" ([2]). Why would you want to say that the cost is over 50,000?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Lowly advocate"

Well, get on it, and upgrade yourself from peon! Anyways, indef blocks are nice and simple, but we've had this discussion before, I think. In this case, the one has started a sock account which is now indef-blocked, and will probably continue that kind of behavior so an indef block is probably inevitable, and it won't be controversial. The other is just a kind of idiot edits in such a non-productive manner that they will probably be indef-blocked the moment they can get away from their talk page. ROPE sort of applies, in my opinion. As for ice cream, sure. Beer is better, cigarettes perfect (but I'll take a piece of gum). Later Bbb, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Beer and cigarettes better than ice cream? Heresy. I can be wishy-washy about some things (one in particular, as you well know), but I find my judgment in matters of human behavior to be significantly better than average, and I'm therefore more confident in my conclusions. But with power comes responsibility, and if it were my button to press, I'd probably do what you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

External link on Sun Myung Moon article

It looks like your TW script deleted my external links. This link is appropriate. Please don't remove it. Thank you.
Sun Myung Moon
Unification Church
Marknw (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle didn't remove the links. I did using Twinkle. The links are prohibited by WP:ELNO#11. The site is a personal site so that unknown people can pontificate about the church. It has no business being in the article. Before reinserting it, you can take it up on the Talk page or at WP:ELN.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Marknw (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Mervyn King

Has he not been knighted, which entitles him to such use, and therefore usage under "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person" - WP:HONORIFIC. Or is his just post-nominal initials? If it's the former, then the "Sir" should be included. --Tærkast (Discuss) 18:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I reread HONORIFICS and found it to be tortured. If you think you understand it better than I, which wouldn't be hard, do whatever you think best, and I won't change what you do. Thanks for coming here to raise it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that at all. Just seems to be my interpretation, although on the whole, it does seem the use of honorifics are all over the place on Wikipedia. --Tærkast (Discuss) 18:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that other articles are correct (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS), but if you can follow the guideline description about when to use Sir and when not to based on the phrase "honorary knights" (that's the part I can't follow), great!--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The question is then whether, based on his GBE, he is in fact entitled to use "Sir". I've been wondering this, since the article doesn't actually mention him getting "knighted", although based on this he can. Maybe it's best to leave well enough alone. It seems a bit confusing. --Tærkast (Discuss) 19:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The article says: "He was appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE) in the 2011 Birthday Honours".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it means he can use the prefix. Sorry for being so troublesome.--Tærkast (Discuss) 20:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You're not at all troublesome, it's the guideline that is. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Support for Brian Selznick category addition

The following are two citations to support Brian Selznick's category as an alumni of Andy's Summer Playhouse, edit made 07:17, 28 June 2012‎. I'm a wikipedia noob, so I appreciate your help.

Category:Andy's Summer Playhouse alumniJwfarmer10 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan, I see you actually created the category AND the article about the Playhouse. Categories should normally be self-evident. You added a description to yours, which, although not unheard of, is somewhat unusual. I guess my first question is why do you call people who have worked at the Playhouse "alumni"? Seems odd as that's normally used for people who graduate from an educational institution. As for your sources, the newspaper article doesn't support the category (putting aside my objections to the category and going with your description) as it just says that one of Selznick's works was performed there, nothing about him working at the Playhouse. The second source is problematic because someone else's CV from their own website is not really a reliable source. So, you'd have to find at least one reliable source (the newspaper article is reliable, btw) that says Selznick worked at the playhouse. Then, you'd have to work that into the Selznick article, meaning adding the material and the source. Then, you could add the category. You might want to think about renaming the category, though, and I'm not expressing an opinion at this point on whether there should even be such a category. I hope that helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This does help, and makes sense. Indeed, I did create the category and the article. I took the precedent of adding a description to the category from the "Second City alumni" category, but I definitely see the wisdom of having a more self-evident name, as you suggest. (If you think the category should be removed altogether, I will consider that as well). My objective is to create a thorough, objective, and well-referenced entry for the Playhouse.

I did find a publication that supports his work as a set designer at the Playhouse. Can you comment on it's reliability? I'm hesitant to work the Playhouse into the Selznick article, though, so perhaps I should just let well-enough alone. I really appreciate your thorough response.Jwfarmer10 (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As for the category, it strikes me that it isn't an appropriate category for Wikipedia, but, at the same time, Wikipedia likes categories, and that's just my view. Why don't you read WP:OVERCAT, which lists all the reasons why certain kinds of categories should be avoided and see what you think? As for your newest source, I would be hesitant to use it, mainly because I think it would be a copyright violation to do so. There's legal language in the document itself, as well as more legal warnings on the website on their About page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there could be a way to use that citation without violating copyright, HOWEVER, I read over the specifications of Wikipedia categories and I agree with you that a Playhouse Alumni category is "non-defining" for Brian Selznick (so, moot issue!). Thanks for your reasonable, respectful advice on this. Jwfarmer10 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I have protected the article N. R. Narayana Murthy again, and I am attempting to mediate a resolution on the talk page of the article. Since you have been involved in editing this article, I ask you to join the discussion so that a consensus can form. I'm sending this notice to all recent editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I'll contribute (although I've already pretty much said everything you've said). I'll probably wait to see if any of the three (or someone else) responds first.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The one point was easy, consensus wasn't needed since the man himself called it "co". Reverting that back would be considered disruptive, since it is a clear case of WP:V. The awards will take consensus. Sometimes, a little formality and formatting helps keep a discussion on track, and this makes it easy for another admin to see that a consensus really does exist, due to the headers and such. A little formality is a good thing in contentious discussions, I have found. I don't see admins mediate like this, but maybe some do and I just haven't seen it. Most just deal with a single question rather than a process, or they lurk instead of "clerk" the discussion. Sometimes, you have to steer it like a ship, slow and steady. I don't know the right way, this is just how I do it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You're doing very well. We're making good progress, although the awards will be slower (I don't see any urgency, though).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A taste of your own medicine

Eh...? Two words: GA, Dylan Thomas. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, there's a bit of a difference between me and an editor who has precisely one article edit since coming on board on June 3 and yet comments at ANI. I'm not sure if I should thank you for the suggestion (that's a LONG article).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

...♫you talk to much, you worry me to death...♫ Drmies (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Clever - and you have no idea how true.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I tentatively started editing the Thomas article and was almost immediately met with pushback (pleasant edit summary, though). The article is such an indulgence in its puffery and attention to trivial detail. One more comment about his drinking and I might have started drinking. Then there's the section about his death - my god, it reads like a minute-by-minute log. If relatively small changes to the article at this early juncture is going to be that tough (some editors probably think the article sacred given the legendary nature of the subject), it ain't worth it. You got another one in mind? Remember what the objective was.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted back to your edit based on WP:COPYVIO. Seems to be copied out of a book. -- Avanu (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What book, Avanu? I wasn't editing the article to eliminate copyright violations, so I'm concerned that they may still remain. The article is full of detail.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a random bit of text out of that section and did a Google Books exact match search on it. It pulled up several hits in Google Books. -- Avanu (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hi. I have reverted this edit as you have removed a lot more text than the edit summary described. This has almost certainly also undone the edit you intended to do, so you might want to go back and try again. Just be careful next time, as you converted it into a stub that ended up getting nominated for speedy deletion LOL! Take care, Stephen! ^Coming... 22:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I did what I intended, and the edit summary represented what I intended. It wasn't my idea to speedily delete it (I didn't even nominate it for deletion), but the article had NO sources, and, therefore, I cut it back to nothing but an opening sentence, otherwise leaving in only a very remote external link. It's now been nominated for deletion with my removal undone by you, but I'm not sure what you expect me to do at this point, or perhaps what you think is appropriate for me to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. It just seemed like an awful lot of text to be removed, and deleting more than was originally intended by accident isn't unheard of. Looking back at what you removed, coupled with your comments above has had the result of an "aha!" moment from me. Still, better safe than sorry!

If you want to restub it, you're more than welcome to, although it might be best to wait till after the second AFD (assuming the decision is keep). Stephen! ^Coming... 23:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephen, I've commented at the AfD on the history, so I see no harm in leaving the unsourced material in. If, as you say, the result is keep, then the article will need to be properly sourced. Glad we sorted this out.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the report I've been target of at ANI....

Hi,

It was disconcerting to see that I've been target of an ANI discussion which's been closed so fast that I didn't get to react to it at all (the last time before I've checked things on WP were before I went to watch an evening move, and when I came back the discussion was already WAY in progress). Yet I'd like you thank you that you've at least notified me about this whole discussion, so I was at least made aware of it (despite the fact that I've only learned of it by the time everything's been decided).
I'd also like to reiterate on the fact that a banned Wikipedia editor's harassing me. For a while it was fun, but now it's starting to be much more annoying. And it's this editor who I've called a nationalist troll, because his only actions on WP consist of removing Hungarian place names from various articles (or replacing them with non-Hungarian names) AND harassing me. I've been harassed by him first via talk page posts ([3], [4] and [5]), then he went on to create a sock with the sole purpose of my harassment (User:CoolKoon jebe svoji matku=CoolKoon's fucking his mother). -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't get a chance to explain yourself fully at ANI, but I think most of what occurred (kind of complicated) was sorted out, including your defenses. Still, even when provoked and/or justified, you should try to avoid labels like "nationalist troll" - better to stick with the facts of why you think the editor is a troll but not actually call him a troll - if that makes sense to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad that it ended well, but since this was the second ANI report against me this week (usually I don't get this much in a year let alone in a week) I'm a bit edgy. And yes, I think I get it (IIRC this is the difference between libel and freedom of speech), but you'll probably agree that it's frustrating for a target of harassing to bear all the harassment without any (real) remedy at hand. -- CoolKoon (talk)

Well, you saw who filed it, and how they started rehashing something that was already handled. That sort of thing usually goes nowhere. What can you do? Be holier than the pope, so to speak, like teflon. Don't lose your patience. As you saw at ANI, malevolence often bites itself on the ass. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke

I have asked for mediation over this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/01_July_2012/Darrell_Issa Casprings (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Re. Mollymoggle defamatory vandalism

Thanks for looking over the article so quickly after my posting on the help desk, and for tidying up. You're right, others will check and correct the page. Main thing, I guess, has to be that information stays up and stays accessible.Mollymoggle (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dylan Thomas

Before you go - could you please explain why you think that is "silly". And could you also cast any light on the copyvio problem mentioned by Avanu? Was that the motive for you own edits? I applaud you for trying to make the text less cluttered and more accessible, and there is no need to "give up". I am not fighting you for the sake of it, I am just trying to retain what I see as relevant points. I'm sure you're just as nice as any other editor here. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about Thomas's trip to NYC and who "handled" him while he was there. Why does it matter that his agent couldn't do it and his assistant took care of it instead? We're reporting on what Thomas did, to the extent it's noteworthy. And your edit summary essentially said that we need to include the Brinnin part because Brinnin might have been able to control Thomas better than Reitell. That's apparently your own speculation - it's certainly unsourced - so, it strikes me as "silly" and to some extent apppears to come from someone who is too immersed in the story of Thomas's life to be objective (sort of like the director of a film who needs a forceful editor). Which brings me to the more important global point. You appear to have a particular interest in the article. Perhaps it's on your watchlist to protect the article. Maybe there's a bit too much ownership involved? I'm not saying you're doing anything nefarious. God knows I have articles on my watchlist that I feel I protect from inappropriate changes, but I think your perspective on the article and mine are in stark tension. As for niceness, I'm not sure what "any other editor here" means (heh) - there are certainly editors who are truly nasty, and I'm not that, but I do tend to be direct and not always as diplomatic as some. Your tone strikes me as more diplomatic than mine. Not a big deal.

As for the copyright issue, you'd have to ask Avanu as I know nothing more than you do. I did ask him the question myself (see above on my Talk page), but he hadn't responded last time I checked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. But please don't run away. Not on my protection list I can assure you (minimal input here). And I have never pretended to own anything in any article. You may well be right that it is conjecture that Brinnin could have saved Thomas - the pneumonia and smog were factors well outside anyone's control. As were the doctor's repeated misguided interventions. But Reital was sleeping with Thomas and seems to have been quite happy to have indulged him in whatever took his fancy. I am sorry that I do not have the time or inclination to find any other sources for this argument, but it does seem to be one of David Thomas's main themes (drawing on Brinnin's own intimate letters and journal - he says this, for instance "Despite his duty of care, Brinnin stayed away from New York. Being Dylan’s agent had become boring and interfered with his other work. Getting rid of Dylan, as he put it with chilling ambiguity, had become an obsession which he acknowledged he was never able to curb.")!! But they are just facts. They may be based on speculation, but they are still just facts. I am still agonising over the quote about his being treated like a rock star (and I don't see a problem with that if it's in quotes). Sorry to sound like a raving Thomas cultist. Yes I think our perspectives are different - but long may that continue. Thanks for your candour. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At the risk of repeating myself, you're way too nice to be a "raving" anything. I'll think a bit more about what I will do, if anything, with the article. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think my re-introduction of Brinnin initially staying away was "silly", but I have to accept that it may have been a bit simplistic. It's quite a complex and convoluted sequence of events, some of which involved Brinnin, most of which did not. I am wondering if we could use this source [6] somehow - not the full text David Thomas' book, of course, but at least a summary in his own words. Brinning gets more of the blame than most, perhaps, but I realise that's very difficult to put across in an article as short as this one. And of course it is only David Thomas' interpretation. Maybe I am just a bit dismayed that you want to make the article even shorter than it is already. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.

ANI discussion

Since you closed the first discussion, you may have valuable insight to add to its reincarnation. Toddst1 (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Todd, I don't think I have any special knowledge based on my close of the previous discussion. That was a fairly simple clerical close based on a unwarranted report that devolved into a dialogue between the two parties, ignoring questions and comments from admins. I thought it was patently silly, said so, and closed it. I may look at this new one if I have time, but it will be no different from my review of any ANI thread, meaning my insight would be as valuable or valueless as usual. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Bronwyn Wilson

It's a tricky one, I'll have a root around later today for more info/sources. Thanks for the heads up, GiantSnowman 08:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My user page

I apologise that I did not add my concern that Velikovsky or Osman's views were not accepted by mainstream Egyptologists since they wish to revise Egyptian chronology by hundreds, if not thousands of years, based on their theory that may be interpreted in differing ways. That is what I meant. Free speech is OK but it should be based on solid reasonably accepted evidence not from fringe sources that are not accepted by wikipedia or mainstream academic sources.

As for my comment about "some Left Wing or pro-Palestinian groups to ban Israeli academics from attending and lecturing at European Universities because 1) Israel has a right to defend its citizens from suicide attacks by Islamic terrorists even if it means using force and 2) Israeli academics and professors are not responsible for Israel's state policies", I'm afraid that this is quite correct. This has happenned in Canada too where I live. An Israeli professor or scholar visits a Canadian University to give a lecture only to be blocked by left wing anti-Israeli groups...but he/she has no control over Israel's state policies against Islamic suicide terrorists. So, its Ok for the US to kill terrorists in Afghanistan/Pakistan today but not for Israel to do so in Gaza or the West Bank in the past. How does this make sense? It doesn't. That is what I am saying. As far as I know, I haven't engaged in edit conflicts on Arab-Israeli Palestinian topics because I just don't edit there. Let others edit and fight there. I edit mostly in ancient history and in some more modern history like Paterno, George Vancouver, Marie Fredriksson. But not the Arab-Palestinian conflict which is a mud-pitt sadly. I equate self-censorship to burning books and people because sometimes preventing someone from speaking can be a problem. But I'll rewrite my userpage a little on Velikovsky/Osman to outline my concerns that they are fringe views. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but it's not a function of whether you think something is "quite correct" or that it in fact "happens". Your user page should be for material related to Wikipedia (although it's perfectly fine to have some background information about who you are if you choose to). Much of the information you have is about your political views. Why do you feel you even want to say that here?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I just mention it so a user knows my point of view on certain issues. I just dislike all the cluttered template boxes that some users have on their userpages...so I only have one. I've had 1-2 people compliment me on my user page but most people don't care because they don't know me since I never edit on the Arab-Palestinian conflict. As for removing the information that I added on the Joe Paterno article, if you think that's the consensus, then that's OK with me. But at least you gave a reason. Its the editors who take out large amounts of sourced information witout giving a good reason that anger other editors. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Here are some images I sourced from authors on flickr on the ancient world here and here Its not much...but its better than nothing, I suppose. At least the images are used on wikipedia. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, and I understand you sincerely think the remarks on your user page are okay, but I disagree. However, I don't want to make a big deal out of something if it doesn't warrant it, so I'll seek some guidance on the issue to see if I'm overreacting.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Interlibertarians.... again

It's returned... Would you help me to clean the mess?--Louisbeta (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Editor Retention

Your ideas there are spot on. By all means, set it up. I've got the ball rolling, but I want to be careful and not do too much, as it isn't my project, and it needs everyone to play a role. Besides, I'm not the greatest at formatting and such. I'm glad to see you there. How effective it will be and what direction it will go depends on those participating. Already, I'm just along for the ride, and look forward to just being another participant. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Dennis, I don't think I'll be able to do anything on this until the weekend. I'm feeling a tad overwhelmed. I'm trying to keep up with my real work, to which Wikipedia has to take a back seat, and at the same time fighting several WP fires (some of which I'm sure you're aware of :-) ). Besides, as usual, you are too modest. I don't know about your formatting skills, but your ability to structure and organize things is quite good (look at the Murthy Talk page). And although I understand this is not your project, no one will mind if you do more work on it - except maybe you because you too have a lot on your plate. Anyway, assuming some structuring is still needed by the weekend, I'll try to tackle it then, as well as get involved in some actual discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Some things I do better than others, but since I started this, it is important that others share the load. It is important that it doesn't look like it is MY project, because it isn't. If I do too much, that will turn people off, thinking they are being taken for a ride on my personal project, and that isn't my goal. I don't have all the answers, I just have the gumption to start a project to discuss and work on them. Sometimes I look at my contribs and think, "holy cow!", so I understand busy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is AGF?

I'm reporting a legit problem. I feel that blocks are issued without a solid grounding in policy at times. Your comments about me being a "pro-abusive editor and anti-admin" are out of line in the discussion, and frankly, I'm not even sure what you mean by 'pro-abusive'. We've had 4 incidents in as many days now where this idea has arisen that standing up for editors is somehow a bad thing. In most, I've been super polite and tried to be thoughtful. (And yes, Sarek was the exception, but I've since given him my apology and he's accepted it.) I suggest that we stay on track, follow the guidelines of dealing with a problem raised at AN/I and don't engage in the all-too-often-used tactic of attacking the messenger. Feel free to completely disagree with me, but don't stoop to attacking me. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought about it before I posted that comment, but that was quite honestly what I believe, it was supported by your activity, and it was germane to the discussion. I dunno about the Sarek incident, but, generally, even when I think you're way off base, you are at the same time quite civil, and I was careful to say that your intentions were "misguided" because I believe you are sincere. At the same time, your recent unilateral changes (not the clerical one which was fine) to WP:BLOCK, which triggered reversions from me and others, are not good examples of collaboration or respect for existing policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I tend to like Bold, revert, delete. Being bold is one of the virtues held up by our core policies. Not sure if you see it, but sometimes it takes us for...ev...er to get anything decided. I made a joke to Jimbo earlier about whether it was easier to herd cats or Wikipedia editors. Point being, sometimes a change sticks, and often it doesn't. A simple revert established that people didn't think my change was good enough, and so we're talking about a better change now. No harm done. And if nothing changes ever, well that's that. But I believe in at least trying. I don't think incivility is a good thing, and I normally try extremely hard to be positive. But I'm human too. Thanks for the reply. -- Avanu (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'd recommend being a little less bold on changing policies - not the same as changing articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

One of my frustrations that applies here is that I know that change takes a long time, and I try to start the wheels in motion, but sometimes get tripped up by people who are impatient, and they accidentally undermine my efforts. (no one on this page thus far) Real change requires planning, consensus, and patience. And often, compromise. We have to be careful to not shoot ourselves in the foot while trying to help institute change. And I'm pretty sure I've never been so bold as to just change a policy page :-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 03:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Closing comment

I added a link to your closing at ANI [7]. Since I put the link within your comment I thought I should notify you. If you take issue with that let me know, I'll move the link somewhere else. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:24, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Your scrupulousness is appreciated. The link was a good idea. Cheers.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your censorship of the Malleus discussion on ANI

As you closed the discussion at ANI preventing me from commenting on the appaling behaviour of admins in supporting disruptive behaviour and persistant personal attacks, I will post here what I tried to post to ANI

Well as the admin corps appears to be so completely corrupt that no-one dare take any action against editors like Malleus and Br'er Rabbit, no matter how many people they attack or how much they disrupt any attempts to enforce any sort of civility, then there is no point in trying to discuss anything here. Really the behaviour of certain admins here who enable this sort of abuse is disgusting, and they should seriously consider handing in their mops.

Because of your role in supressing discussion it is clear that you support the abusive behaviour of editors like Malleus and Br'er and you, along with other enablers should consider resigning your admin tools.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My, my, Nigel, you should really calm down. Posting your comments about MF here won't do you a bit of good except maybe as therapy. Why don't you post your comments at Arbcom where the discussion is ongoing? As for "resigning", you should do your homework.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you closing discussions without being an admin? You should re-open the thread rather than censor it.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nigel, your goal apparently is to be heard on MF's behavior. So, why don't you do that at Arbcom rather than carrying on here? I'm not trying to be dismissive, I sincerely think that would be the most effective thing you could do, even if the ANI discussion weren't closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My main point was NOT about Malleus - it was about the behaviour of admins such as User:Drmies, User:John, User:Sphilbrick and User:Black Kite and others who enable this continual atmosphere of abuse. It therefore belongs at ANI not at Arbcom, where the discussion is meant to be tightly focussed on behavior at RFA.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That kind of complaint is going to go absolutely nowhere and is a waste of your and everyone else's time. You have your view about Malleus, and they have theirs. You want to sanction them for their views? That's like posting a topic at ANI called "Life is unfair".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Nigel, if you really had a leg to stand on you'd do something about it, but someone I don't see an ANI notification in my near future. Bbb, thank you for closing that thread, and you obviously had the support of a significant part of the community. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Nigel, I am sorry you feel that way. I'd encourage you in the future if you any qualms with any of my actions to address them directly to me at my talk where I am guaranteed to see them, rather than to a user talk I was not previously watching, where I might not have. I always find the use of the term "censorship" on Wikipedia to be a bit of a damp squib, like "admin abuse" and "enablers"; these terms do not generally mean to experienced Wikipedians what the user probably intended but are usually used in an ironic sense. In this instance, it seemed to me that continuing the discussion at AN/I once it was obvious that no admin action would be taken or needed to be taken in the short term, was merely adding to the drama to nobody's benefit. I am sorry you didn't agree with this take, and I do respect your disagreement. Bbb23, I was charmed by your comment and I am glad you appreciated my joke. --John (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for the quick revert. I did see the block notice and had just figured out what happened when you reverted. Appreciate it. Regards, --Manway 22:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was just looking at the editor's "contributions" because of similar vandalism to Drmies's Talk page and saw yours. I figured it was only a matter of seconds or minutes before the editor would be blocked, and he has.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy

I removed the redundant ones. I thought the format was pretty clear, each possible award is bulleted, and the notes under each one is just my notes. For example:

• University of South Florida Global Leadership and Free Enterprise awards

WP:RS for notability searched for but not found, please provide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fortune's 12 Greatest Entrepreneurs of our Time

WP:RS for notability searched for but not found, please provide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So, for those awards to be considered, there has to be a RS source to show it is notable, ie: it is worthy of an article even if we don't have one. I did a cursory search on those and added the notes, giving direction to the other user. If he wants anyone to consider them, he needs to show they are 1. notable, and 2. that he man actually received the award. Seemed straight forward to me, but maybe my formatting isn't good. Part of the issue was that he didn't just add awards, he put all the awards, which is a bit sloppy. That and it was really late at night and I'm really overtiming at WP as it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, keep in mind, we have to consider these one at a time, thus the bulleted list so each can be addressed independently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• I've reformatted a bit and left a note on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether it was clear before, it's clear now, thanks for changing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is what happens when I sacrifice too much sleep to keep working here. I need to take it slow a few days, too many irons in the fire and I don't want to burn out. But watching this is no problem. The ball is in his court to show notability. If he persists, I would have get another admin to come in and view it since I'm involved, but we have a clear good faith effort to resolve any dispute demonstrated in plain english here. And if he can source them right, of course, we should include them to be fair. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Just curious

Have you ever sought adminship? I ask with mixed feelings: I wouldn't wish the torture of running the RfA gauntlet on my worst enemy, but I think we could use more admins who are as even-tempered and fair-minded as you are. Cresix (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Several people have been urging me to run, but thus far they haven't succeeded. Be careful about the implication of your comments, though. Lots of people watch this page, and next thing you know we'll have all those foul-tempered, biased admins (and you know who you are) descend on us. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't blame you for your hesitation because, even if you survive RfA, it can be a thankless job. But if you ever decide to do so, let me know. Cresix (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, even being just a plain old editor can be a thankless job, but supportive comments like yours help.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to run for a long time, but finally Kat Walsh browbeat me enough on IRC to give it a go. 2005 was a totally different environment, though. "Friendly" and "collegial" are a couple words that come to mind. I'd rather swim in nitric acid than run the current RFA gauntlet, -- but if you can steel yourself for the inevitable nasties -- those who deliberately say things to elevate themselves, and put you down -- it's always an option. You'd be good. Antandrus (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The good news is the current situation is the only one I know firsthand, not having been here during the "friendly" times. Thanks for the support.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I also think you'd be good. Let me know if you ever want to run. --John (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, John, at the moment I'm too busy torturing Drmies, which by anyone's standard is more fun than an RfA, although I think he's torture-proof.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alvin Chea - Content Removal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am new to Wikipedia and was unaware how easy it was to violate one of the many requirements of acceptable content. Alvin Chea has a successful career as a voice over artist apart from his work with Take 6. His voice is the most sampled, and he is the voice behind the iconic Chili's "I want my baby baby back ribs" campaign. He is also a session singer and provides the ambient music that the Fox show Glee is known for.

I'm going to edit the content and resubmit. If you are willing, I would like to submit my content to you before I post. I don't want to keep going through this post-delete merry-go-round. If you're willing, I can post the content in a sandbox for your review. If it it acceptable, I'll post it to the page. I will provide my email if you're willing to help me comply.

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by So-elle-a (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand who you are and how many accounts or IP addresses you may be editing from. This message was posted at JFHJr's Talk page just a few minutes ago. Yet another account attempted to add this material to the article yesterday. A few months ago User:So-jasmine and User:Jasmine Carmelle were blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I suspect you are all the same person. If so, I am not going to help a sock puppet do anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm new, as I mentioned. I am not trying to sock puppet - I didn't even know what that meant until I was blocked. My ignorance is the issue.

I created an account a long time ago and promptly lost the log in information so I had to create a new account to play around in the Wikipedia sandbox. I'd never used Wikipedia as an editor, so I didn't know creating a second account would ring alarm. My other two accounts are blocked so I created this one so I could ask questions to the moderators (yourself and JFHJr).

I am not user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alvin_Chea&diff=500868432&oldid=500021111

I have no malicious intentions. I'm not trying to sock-puppet, and I am not trying to skirt around any rules. I didn't know what I was doing. I'm just trying to do this correctly. Again my ignorance was an issue. I want to create this page in the right way, with the right guidelines. I just need help. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by So-elle-a (talk • contribs) 19:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm posting here in response to an unsigned IP posting at my talk page. (Sorry, Bbb23! Just trying to keep it all in one place!) First, I'd like to clear up that nobody involved up to now is an administrator. We're just editors. Second, if you get blocked — not once but twice — with instructions on how to request an unblock, you'd be expected to follow those instructions instead of repeating your edits or registering another account. You've skirted that rule, and I'm unconvinced you were unaware that getting blocked was not an invitation to make a new account. Twice is just too hard to believe, but whatever. Third, if you need to work slowly on a draft, you can create the page in your user draft space take it live whenever it's ready. Pick an account of yours, any account, and make a subpage using a slash: for example User:So-elle-a/Draft. You can work there relatively undisturbed until the article is ready. Fourth, I will decline your request to close the deletion discussion: only notable musicians have encyclopedia biographies, and I don't think this individual is notable outside a single ensemble. See WP:BLP for general rules on writing about living persons; see WP:RS about reliable sourcing; see also WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO for notability criteria — none of these are optional. Perhaps you might find writing about fictional, non-living, or non-human subjects easier in the beginning, since there are necessarily a bunch of rules about living people. JFHJr (㊟) 21:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, I wasn't blocked twice. I was blocked once. If it happened more than once I am not aware and I wouldn't even know how to find out.

Alvin Chea's entire voice over career, outside of his work with Take 6, is absolutely notable. I am unconvinced that you're actually reading the content. His voice is heard is many iconic commercials and films. Not as a member of Take 6, but as an individual.

Question: If I edited the original content, applied proper sources, removed the Take 6 content, and followed the rules I believed I was in violation of and the content was removed in less than 2 minutes how can I be confidence my edits were properly considered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by So-elle-a (talk • contribs) 23:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I just went ot the link you provided re: unblock. I never saw this page. Thanks for the link. I'll reply and follow the provided instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by So-elle-a (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You said you would put any proposed content in a sandbox. Instead, you directly edited the article. I glanced at the material before reverting, enough to satisfy myself that it was no good. This whole thing is headed nowhere positive, either for you or for the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You never responded to that request. You have been quick to remove, but I didn't see anything in your previous response that let me know you'd be willing to look at what I had. I would like it to head somewhere. I'm asking for help. Both of your comments have questioned my intentions but you have not told me what to do.

I'm sure your intentions are good. I'm asking for assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by So-elle-a (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a collaborative site and as an editor I am looking to you for assistance and direction (besides "this is going nowhere positive). I am a newcomer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by So-elle-a (talk • contribs) 00:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think it's possible for you to edit the article constructively, and I don't feel like wasting my time with it. If you want to post content to a sandbox and ask me or JFHJr to look at it, I won't promise to do so, but I may. You are not adding just a small amount of content. To go through it carefully and critique it is time-consuming, and skimming it makes it clear it is unacceptable. A more constructive use of your time would be to learn more about Wikipedia, its policies and guidelines, and to edit other articles, not Chea's.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have read and reviewed the specific notifications regarding this article's violations. I have applied the changes. What I requested of you -- since you are the one removing the content -- was to consider the updates. I did not ask you to scour the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by So-elle-a (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Instead of working with me constructively to make the post legitimate and verifiable, the feedback has been obstructive. Editing is not just deleting everything because you don't have time to read it. I'm not trying to be arguementative, but I am trying to work towards a solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.38.77 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Before you get blocked a third time, why don't you take a moment to learn on your own? You'll get further at WP:HELP than bothering random editors. You know, there are volunteers and project pages that are out to help people who want it, but this isn't where they are. You've confused a user talkpage and live article with a tutorial, and you're running out of good faith: you haven't read any of the content policies linked above (WP:RS, WP:BLP). Had you actually read, you wouldn't have tried to cite Wikipedia and low quality websites. And yes, I've looked over each of your posts, live and reverted. Currently, you're a single purpose account, which doesn't help anything. And your additions do require scouring. I took the time to do so, and found that perhaps two of your cites are to reliable sources; few are to anything giving the subject substantial coverage. You shouldn't be editing BLPs until you understand WP:BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 00:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You're not random editors. You're 1) the editor removing the content and 2) the editor who recommended the deletion. I am trying to find a solution. Banning a user for attempting to discuss the issue is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.38.77 (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If simply shoving poorly sourced content back into a BLP after repeatedly being told not to do so is a "discussion" to you, you have a serious case of WP:IDHT. You won't be banned for trying to discuss: you'll be banned for abusing multiple accounts and disregarding Wiki policy on BLPs. Goodbye :) JFHJr (㊟) 00:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Userbox issue

Hello.

When I made the edit to your userbox in attempt to fix it, I was attempting to repair the issue where it linked to the page legal articles, which does not exist. Since that does not exist, I was assuming that it was supposed to link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. The template did not allow for users to use a custom link title, therefore, my edit did not work. I had requested assistance on my talk page, and the request was answered. The template has been repaired and you can now change the “legal articles” link to point to the correct location, unless there was a different reason, which is why I am asking you first. Thanks. 69.155.132.121 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

First, I always assumed you were trying to help. Second, the template has in fact been changed, although I thought it was because of the post I made at the Help desk. This is all getting very confusing. In any event, as I said at Help, I still can't get it to work the way I want it to. I was better off when I thought it was working even though it wasn't. Ignorance is bliss.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that you knew that I was intending to help. I have never made any bad faith edits to Wikipedia. Just do know that the template will now allow you to format it as {{User:UBX/interest|Box name|Link|Link title}}. Thanks. 69.155.132.121 (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't want the first thing to be a link, just a word.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What about the box I posted at the help desk? Is that more like what you are looking for? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 23:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I just commented at Help. Briefly, yes, but it's not as pretty as the current userbox. Also, you're going to way too much trouble on my account. I thought this might be relatively easy, just a simple change to the template or something I was doing wrong with the parameters, but I feel that people are spending far too much time on my account for such a small problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have just made two edits to repair the problem. See diff 1 and diff 2. I hope that this is satisfactory, so that we can stop worrying about this. Thanks. 69.155.132.121 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't comment on the first diff, but the display of the userbox on my user page is now better than it was before this little brouhaha started - thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Well done, here and elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's still a work in progress. The article does have neutrality issues, and I'm trying to sort them through now that I've collected most of the sources (without yet looking for more). I won't touch the lead until I finish with the body (that's my usual method for this sort of thing). It's going to be a bit slow-going as I had another bout of insomnia last night and am tired.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Mandarax has insomnia too. His remedy, I believe, is to refuse to watch good movies. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds much better than my "solution", which is to get up and edit here. That distracts me from thinking about the stuff that's keeping me up, but it also wires me and occasionally (last night and even now) stresses me out. So many gratuitously mean, pompous people here. It's a good thing there's a bunch of nice ones, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it

Here. Thanks as always! Did you give the article a read? Click any links? It's pretty amazing stuff. JFHJr (㊟) 00:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL, now I have. I just reverted based on the headline. You're right, though, it's, uh, entertaining. Who reads this stuff? I suppose the editor who added it, heh.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Darcy Burner revisions

I'm a Seattle Times reporter covering the Washington 1st Congressional District campaign. I'm curious about your revisions to Darcy Burner's page. Why did you edit her page to remove employment and political activity, and reference to her house fire? (Redacted). Thanks - Jonathan Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.219.11 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jonathan, it's late and I'm too tired to respond to your very civil request. As far as I can tell, though, the information has been put back in. If I have time, I'll try to respond more clearly later. I've removed your phone number and e-mail address - it's generally not a good idea to include them in posts here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Small ambox

Following from the brief discussion on the village pump last month I wanted to inform you about a proposal I have made. Although not all participants of that discussion were fans of the small format, one of the main criticisms put forward was the lack of consistency in current usage. My proposal may help improve this. We could also continue discussion on adjusting the styling of these boxes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Martin, I've commented at your proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

3RR report mentions an article where you have been active

Hello Bbb23. Please see WP:AN3#User:Robert32439 reported by User:Hello71 (Result: ). Though the 3RR report does not mention your name, it is possible you might want to comment on the editing issues at Brad Birkenfeld. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much, Ed. I've commented there.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for the protection. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno

The critics of Paterno were right after all. The guy was a total liar. I gave him the benefit of the doubt but I was wrong. Even Sally Jenkins admits this now here: Joe Paterno, at the end, showed more interest in his legacy than Sandusky’s victims, The Washington Post, July 12, 2012.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt but unfortunately he engaged in too many coverups on the Sandusky allegations. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

On an unrelated topic, forgive me for not getting back to you about your user page. I did consult with another editor, and we decided to let it be. Thanks for stopping by.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's OK. Unfortunately, today, I feel like a sucker. Sadly a lot more Penn State grads must be feeling the same way for trusting in Paterno. Kind Regards from BC, Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Kentucky, in general

MUCH appreciated you undoing your initial edit. MANY of these places NEED to be totally redone. SO, I am trying at this point to add some references. Some of the articles literally have zero references, and I am trying, I mean really trying. Coal town guy (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Place articles are a real problem at Wikipedia; yet, there are a ton of them. I think it's great that you are making an effort to source them.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It strange really. ALOT of these places were very real, then time goes by. LOTS of well intentioned folks, and in some instances, very cool local history. BUT, its hard to have in any encyclopedia if there are zero references. EGAD. My states are WV and KY. Guess you probably had a hunch with my user name . ANYWAY, I will strive to get this things somewhat up to date. Coal town guy (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Done with my bit

Go for it! LadyofShalott 22:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing and thanks for the comments!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.

I broke mine, too. Pedro fixed it for me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I was in the process of fixing it per the instructions when you did it. It's not showing up yet in the little box. Is that just because it's in lag or is there still something wrong with it? BTW, your mentee is - well you take a look at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Box is working now - must've been in lag.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Presuming its the topic of this thread, I fixed up some errors in the subst: that resulted from starting it in your userspace. Monty₈₄₅ 23:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to thank you - thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I received a message from you

that i removed some stuff from article. I just got here and I don't even have an account here yet. Please be careful next time when addressing someone because you obviously have the wrong person> I didn't edit anything and I don't want to be banned or whatever for something I didn't do (178.222.131.153 (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC))

The message I left was from a year ago. Different individuals can edit with the same IP address. If you want to avoid this problem, you can always create an account.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation

Hi Bbb23, firstly thank you for answering my question (and fixing up the formatting :)). Secondly instead of scouring through the contribs, have you done any work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation? Won't affect my vote (unless of course you've done something absolutely crazy very recently) I'm just interested? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 03:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Haven't done anything there, so haven't had an opportunity to do anything wild or crazy. :-) Good thing you didn't try formatting your question properly. It was a royal pain. You had an = in the question, and the template didn't like it one bit. As I'm not an expert at wikicode, it took me some time to figure it out, but stubbornness won out. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well stubbornness (the "...to cause" variety) is not such a bad thing in an admin :). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to make your user page look better?

Do you want to make your user page look better? I can help you with that and make it look like this here. Tonymax469 (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Contested PROD

Hi Bbb23, I've asked a question regarding the PROD which you removed. I'm hoping that if you answer with a good and reasonable response it won't be a problem for your RfA. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, Callanecc.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, to be clear my vote won't change I'm just trying to ask question people might just oppose instead of asking. I'm going to ask a follow-up but that can wait till morning (enjoy your night). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

SUL creation

Hello Bbb23. First, good luck on your RfA, it's gaining many positive opinions. Hope you will be admin next week. Despite not a requirement, it would be greate if you create a global account on WMF (preference -> manage your global account) to prevent the creation of your account in other projects. That's just my idea--Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. I vaguely recollect looking at this once before but didn't do it (I can't remember why). In any event, I just now unified my accounts before I responded. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just did the same thing. I had no idea I had an account on Wikiquote, haha. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

RFA

Hey there! I just wanted to touch bases with you. I don't think we've ever crossed paths before. Since you transcluded your RFA, I've spent some time going over your contributions and find myself impressed. I also appreciate your well thought out answers to the questions presented. When Worm presented for RFA, I had some background working with him and found myself highly confident that he would make an excellent administrator. While I haven't worked with you, I find myself equally as confident. Your work is appreciated. Thanks for stepping up to the plate! I look forward to working with you in the future. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me)

Hi, Cindy, thanks very much for your kind words and for your support. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, LadyofShalott and I get along famously but seldom completely agree on any one thing, but we do here. We wouldn't recommend just anyone for the mop, and certainly not in such harmony. I'm glad you came to the same conclusion that we did Cindy, that Bbb23 will be an even greater asset with the extra tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey now, I thought we did agree on everything. Bbb, your RfA is getting a little boring. Can you please screw up somewhere, or lose your patience and tell someone how you really feel? Drmies (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't knock boring. Just because you have a globe-trotting, exciting life doesn't mean that there aren't some of us who just sit, twiddle, and ponder. Besides, you're the one who spent only a few days in DC and wanted to go home to see Mrs. Drmies and kiddies. Talk about boring. I'll try to screw up tomorrow if I can get just one good night's sleep.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, Bbb has already tried (the PROD), but it didn't work :). But your welcome to try something else (good luck). Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Mark Phillips (Producer) Biography

What are the exact issues with this age? We've tried editing it many times in order to make it accurate and every time we put it up, in plain English, it gets taken down. It's very annoying. Please explain to me why there is a problem and what we can do to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.95.80.247 (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Your saying "we've tried editing it" gives me some pause. Who is "we"? Are you affiliated with Phillips? If so, you need to disclose that per WP:COI. Putting that aside for the moment, though, the article, without your changes, has zero sources, but at least it doesn't say much and is implicitly sourced by references to other articles on Wikipedia (not great, but ...). Your changes include very specific facts about Phillips's background and his career, but you've not supported any of that material with reliable sources. Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable and cited. Your knowing something is true is not sufficient. I hope that helps, but if you have more questions or if you wish to run a possible sccenario by me, please do.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Myself and a friend tried posting the article on two separate computers because I thought there was an issue with my IP address. That's the "we". We do know Phillips, but we're just trying to get information up. We posted part of the article when we had time and were planning to source as we continued. The Wikipedia sources were simply an attempt to appease the moderators by saying "we know this isn't an outside reference, but we can't just spend all day on Wikipedia editing this thing." Since we know Phillips, but are not close friends with him, do we still need to disclose to the COI? And if so, how do we satiate this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.92.44 (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the work a la Aaron Gwyn. I wasn't sure about this, who can delete an AfD after the time has elapsed and it has been endorsed by other editors? Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

An admin. See WP:PROD.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an admin, User:Explicit, decided it should not be deleted based on Gwynn's unexplained protest.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks. Not sure if or what should happen, but I was under the impression a consensus needs to be reached. Seems like another editor agreed with the AfD. Shockingly, the subject of the article didn't want his article to be deleted. So, since you have more proficiency in these areas, is there a place where a full-fledged discussion should take place? The WP:PROD? Thanks!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:PROD is what you did (you're mistakenly calling it an AfD). As you can see from Explicit's edit summary (something like "consider AfD"), if you believe Gwyn is not notable, you can nominate the article for deletion. See WP:AFD. An AfD discussion usually lasts about 7 days, although it can be extended if there is insufficient comment. Based on a very cursory review, I think Gwyn's notability as an author is borderline. There's a notability guideline on authors, but it's not particularly helpful for fiction writers. See WP:AUTHOR. That would mean you would fall back on more general notability guidelines like WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, maybe WP:ANYBIO. I doubt he satisfies notability guidelines as an academic. See WP:ACADEMIC, but you'd have to do more research to make that determination. One more thing, not that I want to discourage you from nominating the article for deletion if that's what you think is correct, an AfD discussion is not always friendly, depending on who comes out of the woodwork, particularly if an editor thinks you didn't do enough WP:BEFORE.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. Live and learn.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for clearing up the language and protocol for the AfD. Seems I mucked it up. That being said the AfD is up for Gwyn, and I took yoru advice and looked for guidelines for WP:ACADEMIC and he fails the professor test. In terms of WP:AUTHOR, he is on his way, but certainly doesn't meet the notability guidelines yet. Anywho, your comments on the discussion would be appreciated.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OT at your RFA

Hi, Bbb23. Please note that my comment[8] on GabeMc's oppose neutral was made in appreciation of his indirect satirical point about admins in general, and not of his description of your demeanour in the contretemps between the two of you. (I have just supported your candidacy.) Bishonen | talk 14:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for clarifying that, Bishonen, and thanks for your support.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes

• Not for your RfA - that will clear the desk easily - but for your future term as an administrator. Privileged to have you in the team. Drop in for any assistance. Best regards. Wifione ^Message 03:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Your support and your generosity mean a great deal to me. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Good luck from me too. I even forgave you for just getting three nominators :) Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Pedro, your comments supporting me were balanced and nuanced, thanks. I'm very grateful to have the three nominators I have. The process, as I'm sure you know, is not an easy one, and having that quality support is a big help. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Short of getting about 20 more opposes (with no additional supports), you should pass with no problem. So, just don't do anything stupid for the next 30 hours. -Scottywong| spout _ 16:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(smiling) Good advice, Scotty.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Dan Butler

So is this one enough to put back the fact that he is openly gay? http://www.oasisjournals.com/Issues/9811/cover.html Just doing a google search shows that he is gay, out and with a partner. \ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.166.225 (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe so. The material you added needs some work to comply with Wikipedia style guidelines, and not everything you added is in the two sources you've provided, but I don't have time tonight to work on it. If no one else has cleaned it up, I'll try to fix it all tomorrow. Thanks for the sources and stopping by to alert me (although the article is still on my watchlist). Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your RFA

I'm so glad to see that you ran! I'm confident that it will be successful and I hope to see you at AN/I in the future. Cheers! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Electriccatfish, and thanks for your support. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• I too am glad that you ran. It's a devastating nom and seems to be going well. I was even slightly charmed that you ignored my request to let me know if you were running; that shows real confidence and I am sure that confidence is well-placed. --John (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks so much, John, I did intentionally ignore your request (along with a few others), not because of confidence, but because even though it's not WP:CANVASSING ("or who have asked to be kept informed"), I nonetheless felt slightly uncomfortable doing so - and then if it was remarked upon, I'd have to explain, etc. But you noticed, anyway. :-) Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The participation at your RfA shows how many people think that you will be a great admin in a few hours. Also, the first person to oppose you is currently at AN/I and several admins and I have supported an indefinite block of him for persistent personal attacks. Best, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC).

Congrats

It's a bit early, but with 6 hours on the clock, 130+ support, and 89% approval, I feel safe in congratulating you.--v/r - TP 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Me too! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on passing, now it's official :-) Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 23:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Steven!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

And belated thanks to TP and Electriccatfish. I'm glad you were both right in your forecasts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Regarding the discussion of removal of unreferenced material in your RfA, I still have a question to ask you. Why didn't you—given that Wikipedia is writen as a collaborative effort—ask another editor to assist you in finding appropriate references before removing the material? —Ruud 22:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hoi Ruud--a couple of things, if you don't mind. I think that a lot (too much) has been made at Bbb's RfA about this one article, this one edit, but that's beside the point, I guess. As to your remark, he had a few options. One, leave a note on the talk page--which hasn't been visited since 2009. Two, parse the history, where one would have found Qsebas (talk · contribs), who had made one single edit since 2009. Third, while this isn't a BLP, the very language of the article makes it very difficult to detect if anything fishy has been going on (though in this case the history is simple, I'll grant you that. The RfA has made it clear that there is a division here among editors; this particular one strikes me as uncontroversial, though I may be wrong about that. So he chose option four, which was to remove the unverified content--and in doing so, he was in perfect keeping with one of the statements in WP:V, "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." So he did. This is the kind of material that requires a citation, if only because of the very language. Anyway, the RfA is over, and Bbb will, no doubt, prove to be a trustworthy admin who will not make administrative decisions affected by this stance on WP:V that could be considered controversial. Groeten uit Alabama, Drmies (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  Hoi. I asked this question on his talk page—instead of at the RfA—because I'm asking him as an editor to another editor, not as an administrator to another administrator. I'm also asking because I'm genuinely interested why some editors prefer a solitary and "destructive" option over a collaborative and "constructive" one. Is it merely that the latter requires spending more energy or is something else involved?

  At the risk of distracting from my actual question, I would like to comment on the "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." defence. Firstly, one should note the use of "may" instead of "should". Secondly, it is being taken out of its historical context here. This was introduced as a method of settling disputes between editors: the one who could provide a reference to a reliable source won the argument. It also prevented editorial opinions from creeping into articles. References were beneficial to readers as well, so the scope of "WP:V" soon grew. It is important to note that WP:V does not in anyway reflect how articles—or at least those on topic in the hard sciences—are actually written in practice: references are almost always added over time and as an afterthought. Substituting a "should" for the "may" in that sentence would mean we should remove three quarters of our articles on mathematics and computer science. Finally, one should note that the references I added to the Simple precedence parser article do not make it more easy to verify the information in that article in any practical sense. The books are out-of-print and one would need to have taken at least an undergraduate class in Formal Languages, Automata Theory or Compiler Constructing for them to be anything more than abstract nonsense. Food for thought. —Ruud 00:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• On your references, sure, they may not be of much immediate practical help--but with the help of a library one could try. I was actually tempted to tag your new and improved article with "nofootnotes". Replacing "may" with "should" is the last thing I want, but as it is, the sentence is there. I know how you science people write articles and I don't approve--I've seen too much of Ucucha's work--but inline citations are the way to go (I know, that's opinion), especially given the way a multiplicity of editors can work (and vandalize) incrementally. Abstract nonsense...tsk tsk! Drmies (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, it is done: congrats Bbb. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, it was a cakewalk, right, Drmies?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Will, you may be sorry you said that, I tend to ask a lot of questions. I'll try to keep it to a very small stream.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

D'you know, now that I think about it, I don't think anyone has ever actually gotten in touch on my talkpage with questions (despite well over a hundred promoted users to whom I left similar messages). Would be a nice surprise to actually be asked something! ;-) WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

My heartfelt congratulations to you! I'm sure you'll make a good admin, and I look forward to adding you to my list of people to pester when I need admin-help watching you do your work from afar. ;) OohBunnies! (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much - not too far I hope.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been telling you for months that it was overdue, and I'm glad to see the rest of the community recognizes this as well. My ear is always open, friend. Congrats, go drink a beer and get the first full night of sleep in a week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations Bbb23, you've done very well at RfA and I have no doubt that you will continue to do well serving the community. Rest easy tonight. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've updated WP:100 and you managed to get ONE more support than I did. Don't let it go to your head ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, you know how I feel. Berean, thanks, and you're fortunate to have Dennis as a co-nominator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion!

I hope you will enjoy using the mop around here. I look forward to your continued excellent service. Elizium23 (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Elyzium, I'm a bit disoriented at the moment. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

New tools

	New tools
	Congratulations! You are now the proud owner of your very own mop. Once you feel comfortable with the tools, please go ahead and block all of ArbCom some vandals and delete today's featured article some attack pages. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, that little Block user link on the left is making me very nervous. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Come mop my floors :p

Seriously, congrats. Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't even mop my own floors. :-) Thanks, Fasttimes.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Mops are so outdated. Admins would do a much more effective job cleaning up using Swiffer mops and dusters. :D—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Congrats on becoming an admin. I opposed you. —cyberpower ChatOnline 00:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You did, but I prevailed despite your efforts. RfAs could do with some humor, thanks, Cyberpower.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I always try to put some humor into an RfA. I thought you were an admin already (before the RfA).—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I meant to write a longer support rationale but never got around to it. You'll be a great admin! Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan, you did just fine at the RfA, which is no surprise to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll add my congrats. Very well deserved. Cresix (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And mine. Well done! --j⚛e decker^talk 23:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Cresix and Joe. I feel like I'm writing thank you notes after opening up wedding gifts - I'm just not sure who I got married to whom I married.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Lady, I know it's whom (putting the preposition issue aside). I just wanted to give you something to correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

heheh. Well, grammar violations aside, I trust you'll use the tools well. Congratulations, and if I can help as you learn to use the new buttons, please don't hesitate to ask me! LadyofShalott 00:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Lady, for everything. I've fixed the grammar so you don't have to look at it next time you visit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the actual event, but congrats from me too! --Slp1 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Slp, it's nice to have you here on my Talk page instead of me on yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

congrats ...

You had one hell of a group of folks speaking up for you .. that says a lot. Best of luck, don't let 'em down. (yea, Drmies and I go back a long ways ... ya ain't gonna find much better folk than that) Chedzilla (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wazzzzuuuup Chedzillaaaa! Thanks, that's nice of you. Bbb will do just fine. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ched, I'm still a bit dazed. As I write this, I'm staring at these two red links above the upper righthand corner of this edit window (Group notice and Page notice). I have no idea what they mean. I need to do some reading.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me piggyback my warm congrats as well! Collect (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Collect, a fellow BLPNer, thanks. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats from me too! ^^ Siawase (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Siawase. I actually performed an administrative function today, and so far no one has requested my head. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Off to a good start then. ;) Siawase (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I also offer my congrats on a relatively easy Rfa. May your tools serve you well! Jusdafax 06:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Easy for you maybe. :-) Thanks, Jusdafax.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

Hallo Bbb23, I see you are interested in an article Zac Efron, But I have a note of the article. Where the rest of the awards and nominations at Zac Efron. Has a lot of awards and nominations. see here. Also noticed in this version where some of the awards and nominations. Why not write all the awards and nominations. --M.Sunshine (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, M.Sunshine, the awards and noms are listed in the filmography. Then, those awards that aren't particular to a given work are listed in a separate small table. Back in 2011, there were edits made to the article to reorganize how the awards were done, and they were taken out of a separate table and merged with the filmography. I don't know that there's any one right way of doing this as long as the information isn't repeated. You might take a look at the Actors and Filmmakers project to see if they have any preferred way of doing this. If not, you could also ask the question on the project's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23, I'm sorry, I did not notice that the awards and nominations, written in filmography. The article also Robert Pattinson Written the same way. But there is no problem in this topic, To write awards and nominations in filmography. Thank you for the talk. Best Regards. --M.Sunshine (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, anytime.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

lisa nowak attorney edit

Hi. Thank you for informing me, I was truly unaware that there was a popular protocol to use. I appreciate you not taking offense and being aware that due to lack of experience I likely did not mean to be disruptive. That is very gracious of you. I would like to concede that in keeping with the way the article has been written so far, it would not be very relevant to include the notability of her attorney or the case which made him notable but has so far escaped its own page on wikipedia imo due to the fact that the media firestorm from that case was in the early 90s. Wikepedia was not made until a decade later. I believe that the case of ed humphrey would have surely been included in great detail on wikipedia had it happened after 2001. Lisa's article does mention the names of her parents, husband, victim, an air force officer, a navy officer, two nasa staff members, and the former lover. I would assert that the name of her attorney would be more important than the name of every one of them except her husband, her victim, and her former lover. Only two people were quoted in the whole article, a nasa staffer who was named, and lisas attorney who was not named. If the man warrants quoting than surely his name warrants mentioning. For these reasons I would like to include his name in the article. The last request I would like to make would be to specify the Attorneys location as Orlando. I believe this fits with the format of the article because Orlando was cited as the location of the airport, the city she was arrested in, the location of a judge who made a ruling, and the location of the arresting police. I humbly hope you will approve of these small additions to the article and await your response. Once again thank you for helping me get acquainted with the inner workings of the edit process! Smoaktim (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoaktim (talk • contribs) 23:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Smoaktim, thanks for coming here to discuss the issue of the attorney. As I understand it, you now want to add the name of the attorney and his physical location but eliminate the rest. Assuming that's true, I'm afraid I still disagree with you. An attorney is acting as an agent for his client. To some extent, he merges with the client. He generally has no independent noteworthiness with respect to the client's case. It is natural for Nowak's family and the people involved in her problems to be mentioned in the article. The attorney simply isn't important.

If you still disagree, with your permission, I'd like to move this discussion to the article Talk page to permit other editors to comment on your points to see if we can obtain a consensus going forward. I'll wait to hear from you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Protection declined

I think that editor was confused. The page Talk:2012 Aurora shooting may only need temporary semi-protection. I don't know if you have time to read over the huge history though, I haven't. Violation of WP policy by IPs that don't know the rules has been mentioned though. Could we open the request again and change it to temp-semi in case another admin may wish to look it over? I left a note there as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Canoe, I responded to your comment at RFPP. I already expressly gave permission to any other admin to override my decline. I don't think you want to make another request in these circumstances, but that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Carol Benesch page

I undo your edits as I personally have all the documents to prove what I wrote in the page. I stand behind thosae edits Please contact me before editing any furthur. It's a waste of time for both of us to do and undo articles

Thank you

Nicholas Benesch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicubenesch (talk • contribs) 05:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "documents". If the documents are citable (see WP:Citing sources), then you should cite to them in the article for any material they support. Unsourced material, particularly about what Benesch accomplished (honors, achievements), must be sourced to a reliable source. Two more things: you shouldn't remove maintenance templates from an article without an explanation or an obvious remediation of the problem (you did neither when you removed the references tag), and you should be careful when editing an article where you have an obvious conflict of interest (you also created the article). For now, I have restored the article to before your edits, even though that version is also lacking in sources. I suggest you take your issues to the article Talk page, declare your conflict, and explain how you think the article should be changed and why.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Stranded Pirate

I'm glad to see him go, myself. I thought it was a bit ironic that I was the one that indefed the master account but didn't recognize the new sock. He learned just enough to walk about 2 microns away my blocking threshold.—Kww(talk) 08:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was also involved in the master's history but didn't see the connection (I'm not that good yet at spotting socks). I wonder how he'll come back.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

On behalf of the Wikipedia community, I would like to welcome you as an Admin to the English Wikipedia.--Anderson - what's up? 01:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

On behalf of little ole me, thanks. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well done old bean from me too! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 14:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Brookie.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna

Hi, First of all thnks for protecting this page.Actually i'm pretty sure that page will gonna demand indefinite semi-protection,because if you look on edit history,you will find that more of edit has been done by IP users.I'm agree with you "there hasn't been a lot of disruptive activity since expiration of the last semi-protection" but some of the controversial editing has been done.More important Even india media is very confused regarding his death(they unaware of his actual death).On their website they publish he'd a cancer but on television they show he's been died cos of long illness.There's no more any official announcement has came from his family members.these are the some of points.But leave all this, page is now just got secured for 4 days. Thank You -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 16:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. If after protection is lifted, you believe protection is again warranted, you are of course welcome to make another request. Don't forget, though, that the disruption has to be significant. Good luck with the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your help in protecting my talk page from the banned user Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Keep up the good work! Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you had to endure that kind of abuse. I notice the new account has been indeffed and you left a warning on the IP's Talk page. I've put the IP on my watchlist in case there's any further abuse. Feel free to come here if you need something. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No hard feelings. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Flexing the bit

I forgot to warn you that now that you have the admin bit, your talk page requests will increase exponentially. I sometimes have 40 or 50 threads open for less than a week, and as many as 80 once. I might just redirect my talk page here for a few days to see if we can bump the number of threads into triple digits, so I can edit articles and you can play with the shiny, new admin buttons ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 18:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I'll just agree with everyone who criticizes you and disagree with anyone foolish enough to praise you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@Bbb23, good luck in your new role, beware the dark side of the force, and don't let Dennis con you into too much work. -- Avanu (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Avanu, I can take care of Dennis. Poof - he's blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

This user keeps reverting the James Holmes article this is his 7th revert now this is just getting disruptive and I ask for help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see latest at Marco Rubio, and at the NPOV/N and BLP/N locations, and advise.

The need is to identify a single location for this content issue adjudication, given a read of the roles of the current referees of the content, Nomo.. and Rrius, and a seeming inability at that talk page for there to be constructive change to the text. See in particular, the carte blanche rejections and demeaning tone of Rrius in review of the proposed changes, and the same, earlier by Nomo.... Thank you. Meduban (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to stick to content and not label other editors' comments "demeaning". The article Talk page is the normal place to discuss changes to the article. There are other forums if you choose to escalate the issue, but I suspect the editors at the Talk page will contribute in those forums as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Revdel ping

Ping ping. See [9]. Best, The Interior (Talk) 06:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Interior, User:Materialscientist blocked the IP and did not revdel the text changes to the article. After talking to him on his Talk page, which you can take a look at, I tend to agree that revdels are not warranted. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I can see what MS is saying. He really is the authority on crappy vandalism, boggles the mind how much work he does. The Interior (Talk) 04:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Winchetan message

What is wrong with my submission to Tim Cook article.I have given proper links and it's verified press release. No one can claim against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchetan (talk • contribs) 03:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea is it belongs in the Apple article more than in Cook's. Perhaps you could discuss it on the Cook Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have shared it on Tim Cook's talk page and also on my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Winchetan#Editing_Tim_Cook.27s_biography . Need suggestion of other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchetan (talk • contribs) 04:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Steaua

Persistent vandalism – Liviu Marius Dobrea don't respect Wikipedia policy, including Wikipedia:MOSDASH. Please block him and protect Steaua page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmihai (talk • contribs) 07:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Gratz!

Heh, now I have to behave since you know where my talk page is. Actually, I would like to offer very sincere congratulations for your promotion since you are someone who has actually been walking-the-walk for a long time. I hope your tour is rewarding and that you'll still have time to do things you've enjoyed here. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Veriss1, nice to hear from you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Start U.S. magistrateship

Template:Start U.S. magistrateship has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

I hope you had a good vacation! Ryan Vesey 13:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's so nice of you to notice and to post here, Ryan. Vacation was great. I even forced myself not to pay any attention to Wikipedia the entire time. Now I'm playing catch-up (slowly). Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Bbb. Remember me? You don't bring me flowers anymore... Drmies (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

At least I've heard of Neil Diamond. Things seemed more convivial pre-adminship.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it getting to you already? ;) Hope you had a nice vacation! It's almost over here: classes start next week. Drmies (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember Bbb23, now that you are an admin, you are one of the bad buys. You did go out and buy a black hat, right? Makes it easier for the contrarians to spot you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you supposed to wear black before or after Labor Day? Fashion, just like most popular music, eludes me. Yeah, I'm now "vile" (see below). Drmies, I had a great vacation.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Black Swan (film) as GA

Nominating I'm nominating Black Swan (film) for GA and since there are four contributors with 50 or more edits in the history (User:Koavf, User:Bbb23, User:Fsm83, and User:Erik), I figured I would give a generic heads-up on these talk pages to let you know. I don't necessarily know how nominating and apportioning responsibility goes out for these sorts of things, but for what it's worth, I'll follow the review and make any amendments that the reviewer finds necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that it's up to me to tell you this

This behavior of yours towards Joan Gerber's memory is insulting and vile. You ask for better sources, do you even think about the possibility that this is an insult to her family. It is of no importance whether you suffer from some mental illness, which causes you to insist that those who have passed away are alive, it is untrue, i have talked about it with Rob Paulsen, Tress MacNeille, Frank Welker, Dave Sebastian Williams, Beau Weaver, Mark Evanier and a relative of hers, all of whom knew her very well and they have confirmed this.

Sorry that it's up to me to tell you this but do not vandalise her page anymore.

By the way, you insist on a better source to confirm her death, well let's first have a better source to confirm she is alive! (Did you hear that? That was your jaw hitting the floor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, no one is claiming someone is alive if the delete the date of death without proper sourcing. If anything, claiming someone has died without sourcing is incredibly damaging if they haven't died, as distant friends may get the wrong information. You have it backwards here. Unless there is a source to demonstrate a person has died, most people would think it is morally wrong to add that information. That you know is meaningless here, as we have no idea who you are. You could be someone who is trying to harm them by making a false claim, and we would have no idea. I doubt this is the case and trust your faith here, but similar things have happened with biographies here before and the fact remains we can't take your word for it. Read WP:OR for the reasons. The requirement to provide sources for a death is designed solely to protect the individual, a fact that seems lost on you. Bbb23 acted 100% properly when he reverted the date of death out of the article because it was not sourced, and policy is clear on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What Bbb23 did was remove a source of her death which was accurate (tributes.com - born July 29, 1935 in Detroit Michigan, not Joan Gerber?) and lead her distant friends to again receive wrong information. The fact that you do not even bother to question, but insist that yours truly wants to harm her is harsh, but of no importance. Your argument simply does not work. If you want an article from the la times, you have a long time to wait, Gerber was a terrific person and one heck of an actress, but not that known outside of the animation industry. If you want a more reliable source; listen to Rob Paulsen's podcast with Bill Farmer at the 18.00 min. he mentions this.

The fact, that you think that want to mislead people and do not consider that you are misleading them, shows exactly how much you want to protect this individual. This will be given as an example of Wikipedia's incompetence one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• You might actually persuade someone if you weren't under some false sense of superiority. You want to come here and try to bully a bunch of volunteers, which makes it pretty laughable, since we try to treat everyone as equals here, so you get judged by your deeds and attitude here. If you had tried a different tact, perhaps other would be more inclined to go out of there way to assist you. I'm sure that attitude works great for you in the real world, too. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• How are you so sure you are correct? What makes you think that an anonymous person at Tributes.com has correctly identified this person as deceased? Tributes.com claims it obtained this information from the Social Security Death Index. Yet there is no information about the death of Joan Gerber born 1935 in the online Index either by last name or birth date. You should never run the risk of prematurely declaring someone dead without checking and cross-checking any death-related information especially if the person is relatively obscure and information about her is hard to find. In fact contrary to your assertion that This will be given as an example of Wikipedia's incompetence one day., this is exactly an example of due care and diligence that any organisation dealing with information is supposed to exercise, especially prior to declaring someone dead. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated." --Mark Twain

Radiohist, we do not want Joan Gerber or anyone else to have exaggerated rumors of death propagated by Wikipedia. That is why our policies require proper sourcing before we say anyone has died. LadyofShalott 00:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologise for showing any sense of superiority whatsoever and have never wanted to bully anybody. Think we should end this discussion for good, as this was not a good idea. Wow, Denis you sure can make someone feel as guilty as Hitler. Dr. K, try Joanelllen and by the way made a mistake, on the Talkin Toons podcast with Bill Farmer, Rob Paulsen mentions it exactly at the 16.31 min. Forgive me. Realise that this makes me look in your eyes as an immoral monster, but give you my word (which is worth very little right now) am not such a person. Thought that i knew what was best, but did not do what was best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I did unsuccessfully try a search using the string "Joanellen", but really the safest bet is to search by the last name "Gerber". There are multiple hits for "Gerber, Joan" but none fits the birthday of the Wikipedia entry. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Giovanni Cernogoraz

For the last time: Giovanni has Italian & croatian citizenships. It is unfair (and not "wikipedian") not to pinpoint this reality in the initial information about this shooter, who is an ethnic Italian of Istria. Anyway, do as you want. I will not go against your decision in future with my IP. But I am going to be one more of those who think that wikipedia is in the hands of nationalistic & political groups, like this croatian group.......groups that are slowly damaging the credibility & impartiality of this encyclopedia.John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.105.216 (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your avoiding a block for edit-warring has simply caused me to semi-protect the article. I suggest you learn to edit here properly or take your agenda somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Liz & Dick

I just took a quick look a while back, but it seems like it was expanded quite a bit since then. I see some WP:WEIGHT issues and probably some WP:RS as well. I'll take a closer look. Siawase (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick removal of some of the most blatant stuff, but I think it needs a more thorough cleanup/copyediting. Siawase (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a good start, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Teachingyeshua

I have registered a mild disagreement with your decision at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Teachingyeshua reported by User:Evanh2008 (Result:Indefinite ). I was about to decline it block for a short period, actually. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right.

It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Hughes

Dont blindly revert. Te summary talk of reverting the lead the rst was not mentioend why. At any rate per LEAD the lead should reflect the content of the article and if the allegation are mentioned that should be too. (note- i dont know about the issue, just reflecting the article)Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I did not "blindly revert". Please read WP:BLPCRIME about the issues with the Hughes article generally.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at

This. Not many participating, trying to get a user to understand that being rude isn't justifiable under any circumstance, but he is getting worse and perhaps needs a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at it tomorrow. I'm already late for a dinner engagement and am going to get yelled at.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I will just ask another. Have fun. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Got to it faster than I thought I would as I was up in the middle of the night unable to sleep. No rest for the wicked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

A heads-up in case you haven't seen this post. Tvoz/talk 06:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Tvoz, I've commented at BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Good summary of the issues there. Hope it's enough. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 23:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your warning

Hello, your warning is noted, but may I asked where I focused on the contributor and not the contribution? I wasn't aware I had done so, and it would be useful if it was pointed out where I did. Thanks, CMD (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, CMD, my comment was somewhat generic and forward-going. I see no instance of your being disrespectful on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Cheers, CMD (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

banner

hi i want to remind you about the proposal of a banner on the article, despite you didn't disapprove it, my edit was reversed when i added the picture along with its reference by saying absolutely no approval on talk page, maybe because you said I'll let others comment on the proposal before editing the article, since then no one has objected to it. Can it be added now along with the references? Kingroyos (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the consensus was against inclusion of the banner, and nothing has changed since. The statement you are referring to has to do with the wording of the section, not whether to include the banner.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Ok then Kingroyos (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion started

Discussion started at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education document and Preston University. --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

I noticed you've been dealing with "Triomio reported by Martinvl" and now also with "Martinvl reported by IP". I'm currently monitoring Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto that also involves Triomio and Martinvl. so I wasn't really surprised to see IP 82.132.249.192 defend Triomio yesterday and now a similar IP 82.132.249.199 pops up to report Martinvl in return. IP range and geolocation suggest that these IPs are almost certainly the same user so I'm tempted to add them to the list of possible socks in that SPI. What do you think? De728631 (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have little doubt that the two IPs are the same individual; who that individual is I have no idea. If you believe the individual is connected to the SPI report, then by all means add them. I don't know anything about DeFacto or Canepa, but you might want to take a look at the Triomio's English (on his Talk page) and the IPs' English (less to go on with them). There may not be enough to draw any conclusions, but I suspect English is not Trimoio's maternal language, whereas it is for the IPs. Not a strong suspicion, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll add the IPs to the report, after all Triomio has been actively editing that IBAN page so there is a common denominator. De728631 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)