User talk:Bbb23/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Liberalism

I would ask that you take the time to read the talk page. Thankyou. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop edit-warring and stay on the talk pages. I'm not going to get into the merits of content disputes. You either use the dispute resolution methods available to you, or if you believe there is editor misconduct (probably unlikely), take it to the appropriate forum. You've been warned too many times now for continuing to revert on more than one article. You're lucky I chose to warn you again instead of blocking.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

8

I see. I would appreciate it if you would recuse yourself from involvement any further. The other two editors reverted as much as me, and yet for whatever reason, you've only seen fit to "warn" and then "block" me. I am editing in line with wikipedia's policies (i.e., using reliable sources). And now you've threatened me with further blocks. Essentially, you've said I cannot edit the articles anymore. You've lost all objectivity here, and I'd say you'd be well advised to quit while you're ahead, before you jeopardize your adminship. In short: this doesn't look good for you. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:INVOLVED. My only involvement with you has been purely administrative. The problem you have is that you were blocked for edit-warring and you return to the project and continue to do so. This is usually viewed very dimly by admins, and the threshold for a reblock is generally lower than it would be for a first-time offender.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would all be true - only I am not edit-warring.

And I do think that hounding a specific editor with blocks and warnings and Talk page reverts, would amount to being "involved", yes I do. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You must read the entire policy, including: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." My only involvement with you has been and continues to be in an administrative capacity.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Administrative capacity" does not extend to hounding my Talk page, blocking me for editing (with no violation of policy), and threatening to block me if I edit again. That's harassment. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Zscout's page

I see you reverted my on Zscout's page. His notice violates UP:PROMO . When a policy is violated, whatever it was that violated that policy needs to be off the page unless consensus declares otherwise. You follow ? Yes, I did add my voice to the AN board about this, but in the meantime, since he's clearly violating UP:PROMO, how about reverting your edit until consensus is declared ? "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 19:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If you read the discussion, you'll see that there are editors who do not believe that Zscout's notice is a policy violation. Until the discussion concludes, the material can remain on Zscout's user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I know you saw the post, but the content has been removed not only from the live userpage but also from the history. Bbb23, did you get my email by any chance? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did, Zscout, thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I know my removal didn't help with the long term issue, but honestly, this is going to be an issue that will be hard to solve overnight (and with what I was told recently about going-ons with Wikimedia UK and other newly discovered paid editing) a lot of discussion will be full with anger. However, as I said, I welcome an RFC about this subject and will be happy to participate when it is up. As I told other users that came to my talk page about this, this is no hard feelings or ill wishes against anyone. Consensus has changed and went a different direction than in 2009, so I will comply. Sure I might be entrenched in a view point, but I am not stubborn. Cheers. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad there's no hard feelings as my interest in raising the issue went went beyond you. And I thought you behaved well at AN, particularly considering some of the comments. We'll see what happens going forward. Trying to change policy is always a touchy business.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Just wanted to make you aware of this [1] in case someone makes an issue of this. I can't self-revert now in any case, but no EW intended.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

ATI Automation Honors

The ATI Automation Honors, 1st Annual ATI Automation Honors, 2nd Annual ATI Automation Honors wiki pages I created were speedy deleted due to copyright questions on the image and questions about company promotion. These articles are relevant given that test automation is a huge part of the overall IT industry. There are thousands of test automation tools, and people typically have a lot of questions about where to start, or about what tools the test automation community recommends. The ATI Honors provides answers to these questions, much like the Jolt Awards which also has a wiki article and the Test_automation wiki article that lists tools for people, but the ATI Honors article does it in a much more expensive, useful way, by listing useful tools by type and technology. The ATI Honors cost no money and generates no profit. Nominations come from anyone via the internet and all the results are posted via the internet. The Automation Honors has already been quoted by other people in various existing tool related articles including the Ranorex article, TestComplete article and the SoapUI article. This is what prompted me to create the ATI Automation Honors articles that other articles could reference within wikipedia. the pictures used in the article were distributed to the community by the organization that organizes the awards. But if necessary, I can either get an email from the organization, or remove the pictures entirely. For these reasons I ask that the articles be reinstated to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkelr (talk • contribs) 20:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

ATI Automation Honors was deleted by me for two reasons, copyright infringement and promotion. 1st Annual ATI Automation Honors Awards and 2nd Annual ATI Automation Honors Awards were deleted by User:Malik Shabazz because there was no credible claim of importance of the subject. For my part, I see no basis for restoring the article I deleted. For the other two articles, you should contact Malik on his talk page. If you don't receive satisfaction from Malik, you can go to WP:DRV. If Malik decides to restore the articles, please let me know, and I may reconsider my decision as the articles are related. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't being an admin awesome? :P MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL, my poor mop is wrung out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your talk of 23:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in getting back. The purpose of the edits you questioned, as with all appropriate Wikipedia edits, is to deepen articles with valuable information. Most entries about films on Wikipedia only list a release date in the US. A link to release dates in other countries seems entirely reasonable and of great interest to the many Wikipedia users who reside in other countries. Such information is encyclopedic in nature and reasonable as an External Link since setting forth release dates for multiple countries in the article itself would be unwieldy. Thanks for your consideration and concern. The entries you refer to are by no means spam. Tuscanylight (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This is what I wrote on your talk page:

Your only purpose at Wikipedia appears to be to add external links or body cites to jabcatmovies.com. See WP:SPAMLINKS. Please explain why you are doing this and whether you have any relationship with the website, which appears to be a glorified blog. If you do not give a credible explanation, you risk being blocked for spamming.

Your response is insufficient. It is also the exact same response you wrote at User talk:Bovineboy2008, who also reverted your edits. You haven't explained your relationship to the blog or why your only purpose here seems to be adding links to the website. Putting aside everything else, your explanation about release dates in other countries is not accurate. Generally, a film's release date is dependent on where the film is produced. Thus, if it's an American film, the important release date is in the U.S. If it's a British film, the important release date is the UK - and so on. Nor is there any basis to believe that your website would be considered a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm afraid you probably leave me no choice but to block your account. I won't do it tonight in case you have something to add, but unless you have something else to offer, it will probably be soon.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

edit summary?

Re; Darrell Issa edit. User:Fred Birchmore reverted (my edit to get it to NPOV/accurate) citing "more info" (which in this case would be wikilinks) in previous version; addressed concerns of other editor by reinstating edit but with asked for wikilinks , AND refs. Not exactly misleading. Inclined to revert your revert, possibly adding another ref [[2]], asking for clarification first to avoid non-productive revert war. Will check your page.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your initial edit changed the status quo. Fred reverted you. You then edited the article again with the edit summary "fix refs and wikilinks". However, you actually added material to the article and instead of adding a real reference, you imbedded a bare URL, which is not appropriate. Putting aside the issue of your edit summary, this part of the Issa article has withstood a great deal of scrutiny and been much discussed in the past. Therefore, regardless of how you think it should read, and even assuming you fixed the bare URL issue, I strongly urge you to open a topic on the material you want to add/change on the article talk page pursuant to WP:BRD, among other reasons. Two editors have now reverted you. I wouldn't suggest continuing to battle in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, B; just FYI, was a little confused by your comment that I hadn't contributed on Talk: extensive justification is there, then reminded self that it was pre-registration. If you feel re-posting material already there under User:209.6.69.227 would be useful, OK. Also just FYI, although I participated extensively on Talk during your revert war of July, didn't actually edit Article then; the current changes were merely putting the ideas already on Talk for 3 months into Article space. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

B; you are misreading the source. There is no ambiguity that Fluke was "submitted"(that she was actually ever submitted is disputed) in time, in time meaning the previous Monday. Democrats never disputed that she was submitted late, just that Issa had the discretion to add her. They vehemently contested that she COULD not or SHOULD not be added. Every source and the transcript and video confirm this. The source in question says "Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chaired the hearing, said the minority party had submitted her name too late to be considered (Democrats contest this).", the "contest this" referring to the "to be considered", which is accurate. The WP Article takes the quote and changes it to say something that the source did not; that the Democrats "contest" the "late", not the discretionary powers of the Chair, which they do. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, B; reposted the justifications on the Talk page as you requested; have seen that you have been editing since - can I take the non-response as no response? Don't forget, the non-NPOV version of that paragraph and the rationales and justifications for improving it have been, uncontested, on the Talk page for 3 months; don't want to accept your inaction as a veto vote for inertia.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I responded just now on the talk page. As you'll be able to see, I'm a bit lost as to what it is you want and why.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain, and fix if possible. Thank you.

Hello. This is in regard to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:GeorgeLouis_reported_by_User:Rhode_Island_Red_.28Result:_Stale_.2B_note.29.

You made the statement "It looks fairly clear to me that GeorgeLouis canvassed." I am sure puzzled by this. What canvassing? The only other place I mentioned the Frank L. VanderSloot page was here, which of course is OK because Frank VanderSloot is a darling of the conservatives. And I linked to his article, not to any mention or dispute about "edit warring." Your statement is a serious slur on me as an editor and seems to be stated by you as a fact, which it is not. Can you provide any information or maybe a diff that would lead you to such a conclusion? If not, I would appreciate a retraction. Sincerely, yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I stand by my statement. I understand the part of WP:CANVASS that you're relying on, but in the context here, it would appear that your intent was to get others to support you in the dispute, not to improve the article or obtain comments from uninvolved editors. The wording of your notification was neither helpful nor neutral. The timing was suspicious. Finally, as Collect pointed out the conservativism project wasn't even listed on VanderSloot's talk page. Did you notify anyone else?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not notify anybody else. I believe my notice was very brief and very neutral. It was helpful in that it would direct people of the Conservative persuasion to go over to the article and see what was happening. Is it Canvassing to notify ONE interest group of an article that is in their bailiwick? I still don't get it: Your comment is really hurtful and damaging to me considering how long I have been editing and how careful I have been to be polite and cautious in dealing with others. Maybe you can direct me to a Policy for me to study. How can you judge my "intent"? Are you assuming Bad Faith? Thanks again. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"Finally, as Collect pointed out the conservativism project wasn't even listed on VanderSloot's talk page." I'm not sure what that has to do with anything? Why should I list that project when I am not a member of that group and have only stopped in there twice for assistance? Still really puzzled, I am, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The only relevant guideline is canvassing, which speaks of "intention". Obviously, neither I nor anyone else can know what your intention was, but one has to judge based on the circumstances. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to apply the guideline. As for Collect's point, no one says you have to list the conservatism project; rather, it would arguably make more sense to notify a project already listed. Remember, this isn't just one item on whcih I based my statement, but several items I've already listed. Finally, it was my view in closing the report, and I commented on it because it had been brought up by others. Other editors, including admins, might feel differently. I didn't sanction you for canvassing, so it remains my view and perhaps the view of others, but not necessarily a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've outlined the key details and chronology of events on the project conservatism talk page.[3] Doesn't leave much room for doubt that this was a violation of WP:CANVASS. Asking for an apology for calling a spade a spade? Very inappropriate. We could always move the discussion over to WP:AN or a user conduct RfC instead if need be. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, both of you should let this go. It's possible that GeorgeLouis did not leave the message on the project talk page with the intent to canvas. That's what he says. RIR thinks otherwise. GeorgeLouis was not sanctioned for canvassing, and it is unlikely he would be sanctioned if this were escalated. Generally, sanctions are only meted out in cases of repeated canvassing (see the section "How to respond to inappropriate canvassing" in the guideline). Do we really need to create more drama? I suggest you both move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not going to "let this go." Bbb23 was totally wrong in his or her judgment — probably the best use of a post hoc ergo propter hoc rationale that I have ever seen. Rhode Island Red has already used Bbb23's (erroneous) statement that I engaged in edit warring and in canvassing by posting a diff regarding that statement in one of his arguments on another page – thereby repeating the libel. Bbb23 made that pronouncement without ever asking me for what I had to say about the matter. This smacks a lot of the kind of "trial" one gets in North Korea. Bbb23, if you will not reverse this calumny, then I would appreciate your guidance on how to appeal your action. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:GBU.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Jerran carlin

Since you deleted the article the hoaxer who created has created a talk page Talk:Jerran carlin, can you delete it too? Thanks in advance, Heiro 15:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it and indeffed the editor. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sjones killing lawyers

Re your response to "the first thing we do is to kill all the lawyers" — in most jurisdictions, judges have to be lawyers, so we wouldn't have functioning courts. Either there wouldn't be justice, or it would be largely mob justice, or it would be dictates from on high, and none of those need lawyers :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Poor Sjones, my comment was largely tongue-in-cheek, but he felt the need to apologize. As for your comments about judges, have you ever watched The Good Wife? I don't think I've seen a legal show that pillories judges more than that show (not counting shows that are clearly intended to be satirical). Either none of the writers likes judges, or they think it sells ads, dunno.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood editor continues to revert

Please see the new reverting added to the existing complaint here. Do you a recommendation for what to do next? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed, I've commented at ANEW. If you think I'm cutting him too much slack, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Your username

What is the genesis of your username?  It's been bugging at me for a while :)  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to politely decline to answer (as they say on questionnaires) and leave it to your imagination. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 

He's a big bad bobblehead, like his 22 predecessors.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

See what one's imagination can do for one. However, I disagree, at least partly, with Anything's guess. I would like to think that I'm bigger and badder than my 22 predecessors. I've tried to learn from their mistakes. BTW, Anything, why do you have a Retired notice on your user page? You don't seem retired anymore.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's just temporary.[4]

Your bra size? :D.    little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

LACMTA page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_bus_fleet

So its says that "I" may have been involved in a editing war... Why don't you tell the other useers that edited as well, I wasn't the only one!

Also what is the point of the "Talk page" if mostly no one knows about it can you put more info about that on the page, or do something for users to know about it, because even I didn't know about it before... UNTIL now. (Jonat13 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC))

If you're referring to User:Asloge, both their conduct and yours were discussed, and Asloge was also warned, although not with a template. This all happened two weeks ago, and it looks like you haven't edited since. Asloge claims they left Wikipedia, and there's no evidence he has edited since, either.

As to your question about talk pages, you're supposed to familiarize yourself a little bit with Wikipedia and how it works. I understand that for a new user it can be hard, but in August a Welcome notice was posted on your own talk page. Did you look at it? The very first link under "Getting started" ia a tutorial. Did you try that? Among many other basic things, it has information about article talk pages and what they're used for.

I don't know what your objectives are now, but if you want to continue editing at Wikipedia, I suggest taking some time and reading the tutorial and some of the other links in that welcome notice. No one expects you to absorb all of it immediately, but if you go slowly and cautiously, things may work more smoothly for you. Even without knowing how Wikipedia works, you can imagine that it's not a good idea to get into a battle with another editor, and that if you do, you should probably step back and ask yourself whether there's a better way to go about improving articles here.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Scientom

It seems I'm not the only editor having issues with Scientom and BRD interpretation. [5].   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been kind of half paying attention to that discussion but chose not to inject my own views. Frankly, I'd prefer less discussion about policy and guidelines on editor talk pages (not that there's anything wrong with it per se) and more discussion about content on article talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Kellyanne Conway

You wrote: Please stop adding material to the Kellyanne Conway article that violates WP:BLP. You also need to learn how to cite properly in Wikipedia, but the biggest problem is that the material is negative and controversial in its impact on Todd Akin. I'm going to revert your edit (again). If you want to reinsert the material, or some variation of it, start a topic on the article talk page to discuss it. Don't put it back in the article unless there's a consensus that it doesn't violate policy and is otherwise appropriate for inclusion in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect,

• this page is filled with poor citations.
• I have modified my edit to address your concern re: Todd Akin by removing his identity from the page. If you are objecting to the "negative" information about Ms. Conway, I would suggest that, for example, the entire criticism section in the Wikipedia Frank Luntz article be removed.
• This information is not only germane, but was voluntarily offered in an interview in a non-hostile venue. When a political consultant compares her client to David Koresh, that is a significant fact by any biographical or professional standard. The material may reflect negatively on Ms. Conway, but it is not controversial, since there is no controversy about the actual fact of the statement.
• Furthermore, the entire article has been allowed to stand unedited until now although it was cited as being "written like an advertisement."
• Finally, with all due respect, Ms. Conway is a public figure who frequently appears in the media as a political consultant and analyst. Restraining accurate comments about a public figure is, again with respect, a form of Wiki-censorship.

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Wikipedia. My disagreement in no way suggests that your work here is not appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvcop (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

IP hopper

Thanks for this semi-protection. The article has no interest to me, but I've started keeping track of the editor, who keeps changing IPs. If they were never disruptive they wouldn't be noticed. Just the fact that they are (deliberately or not) "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors" by spreading their contribution history over numerous accounts creates a problem and violates our basic policy, which requires (with only a few exceptions) that we edit using only one account. One of the main purposes of registration is to avoid confusion, and this editor is doing creating it. Here's their sock category:

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 79.180.48.58

Brangifer (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could be of limited help. Your task is harder.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for clearing the nastiness from my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, Malik, I only hope I did it correctly - I'm not a rev/del expert by any stretch.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Acoma Magic

Not that I think it will make a difference, but you should restore his TP access in case he has calmed down.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, lgr. First, it wasn't I who revoked his talk page access (although I did recommend it), so I wouldn't restore it without consulting with the first admin who did and then the next admin who "continued" it. In any event, I don't see any basis for restoring it. Second, if he wants to appeal the last decline, he knows how to do so; the instructions are on his talk page. All that said, it may not be as obvious how to appeal once talk page access has been revoked, so I've added a notice giving him that information.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Nina Burleigh

hi, i'm new to wikipedia and i'd like to make an addition to the nina burleigh article but for some reason i can't edit. could you please help me with this? thank you Vivian Vianna (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

what i'm confused about is normally i notice that semi-protected pages have a small lock icon at the top right of the page, but this nina burleigh article has no icon. is there something else going on as to why the page can't be edited, or do i have to wait until i'm autoconfirmed to edit it? please get back to me, thanks. Vivian Vianna (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it's all been straightened out. Just so you know, it's not necessarily typical to have that large message at the top of a semi-protected page. Generally, just a small icon is all an editor would see. But there's no real rule (that I know of) on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

I just want to make it clear that the only reason that I constantly reverted DisneyGirlovestacos95 edits to List of Phineas and Ferb characters, was because I clearly explained how my actions were based in policy, and she never tried to refute that. She never made any legitimate arguments to why it should be her way, other than things like it makes more sense. It was clear from the start that she did want to have an actual discussion about it. I made it clear that if there was consensus against me or that if she found a way within policy to change it, I would not try to stop it, but she did not. JDDJS (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If her edits and behavior during the discussion are, in your view, that misguided, then you should have little trouble obtaining a consensus for doing it your way. But, despite, what you say on the talk page, this is not really a policy issue. It's not like she's vandalizing the article or violating WP:BLP, both, of course, exemptions from edit-warring. This still is just a content dispute and you have to behave appropriately. BTW, I did look at her talk page and the recent problem she had with edit-warring. And I would take that into account if I felt a block was deserved, but it's not just her, it's both of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry i put the notice and falsely accused JDDS on the Wikipidia dispute pageof doing something bad I promise I already stop once he reminded me to stop doing it and move on.DisneyGirlovestacos95 (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S I'm a guy actually.

Thanks, DisneyGir, I've closed the report at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Puig Antich... again

Hi fella, three days ago i writed a message saying "if in three days nobodys answer, i'll make the changes (with it reference, of course). The other user with whom i had a edition war doesn't appear since [almost] three weeks ago. I hope, that doesn't mean a problem --Ravave (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Greetings

I don't see anything wrong (policy-wise) with what you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Then OK, thanks for be the moderator. xD. --Ravave (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Minhas at RFPP

Thanks for what you did re: Minhas at WP:RFPP. I've left a note. Obviously, I am biased but you displayed a lot of clue, figuring out the likelihoods etc and providing a detailed rationale. It helps me because I have a better idea now of how/what/where etc should the thing kick off again. Which, alas, with my experience of these caste articles, it probably will! - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. I figure if I'm gonna go to all the trouble to analyze the thing, particularly in a subject area I'm unfamiliar with, I might as well provide you and others with an explanation of how I arrived at my conclusion. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate lots of things, and today especially the lengthy and cogent explanation for refusing to unblock StillStanding. It's a good thing, sometimes, to put one's foot down, and I can see you thought about that long and hard. Kid gloves aren't always necessary, and you chose a good moment to take them off. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Appeal from your decision . . .

Thank you for the reference at the end of this exchange: User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_12#Please_explain.2C_and_fix_if_possible._Thank_you. However, I have spent some time trying to find a simple way of appealing from your decision, but I could not do so. I would appreciate a pointer or two. Thank you.GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

(smiling) Wikipedia is not always simple, George. I'm not sure what else to tell you. I'm not going to substitute my judgment for yours as to how to appeal my actions. It feels a little like walking on the ceiling. I do recognize I have a responsiblity to explain my conduct, but I went a step further and pointed you to a page that explains what you can do if you are still unhappy. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers has something useful to add, but I don't think I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

George, if your suggestion is that this edit at WikiProject Conservatism was not canvassing, I think you're unlikely to persuade people. You were not requesting review by people who had specialist knowledge about famous conservatives, it looks like you were trying to recruit more combatants. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

My Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		For being a leader in asking for cool heads and professional decorum. Avanu (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, Avanu, especially because I don't think I'm one of your favorite people at the moment. :-) However, I gotta ask: what does this relate to? My comment at StillStanding's talk page? Something else? I'd just like to know what I did "right". Peace.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was there. I noticed you asking for people to get back to positive things, and I always appreciate at least one person keeping their head above the fray and looking out for what is best for Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

My Thanks

Ofelia M. Samar-Sy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thank you for the action taken on the Ofelia M. Samar-Sy page. I am new enough that I don't quite know where to go from here regarding "fix problems with article, tag it, or AfD it," and from looking at your Wikipedia activity, you are one busy editor. You are my kind of editor and again, thank you...Big, Beautiful Barnstar to you (still unsure of how to add one to a talk page). Judy Vorfeld — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judy Vorfeld (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think the article was a candidate for speedy deletion. However, that doesn't mean I think the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nor does it mean that I think the article is well-written. My comments in the speedy delete decline, in shorthand, noted that. The "fix the problems" relates to the overall tone and style of the article, which is not encyclopedic. The "tag it" means add tags indicating the problems with the article (notability, style, etc.). The "Afd" it means to nominate it for deletion, which is a more lengthy process than a speedy delete and involves a discussion as to whether the article subject is sufficiently notable to keep the article. I don't mean any of this unkindly, but you might want to try to work out some of these things in the article to improve it. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:EW/N notice

I placed it on Rhode's user talk page - and he removed it, showing that he did, indeed, receive the notice. At about the same time as I placed the report at EW/N as a matter of fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As he did yours instantly as well -- saying removing trumped up 3RR allegations

I think he feels policies do not mean what they say :)

Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't see your comment at ANEW or I would have responded, so thanks for alerting me to it here. I've struck my comments there and explained.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Help me

Will you please help me, take a look at my talk page and see what is happening? I haven't done anything on English Wikipedia that broke the restrictions you helped set out and I now have two users trying to indef me. All I did was make a couple edits on Commons, and now they're trying to say I broke my English Wikipedia restrictions! I've done nothing of the sort, I've barely done anything on Wikipedia for weeks, and none of it had anything to do with these two users. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please please help me. I've barely made 30 edits here in the last week, none of them have anything to do with these two users and I've been following my restrictions to the letter. 22:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As I'm sure you've already noticed, I notified Amatulic, and he and I both have commented at ANI. My suggestion to you is, no matter what anyone says, keep your cool and don't say anything even remotely impolite.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sad man.

You can not block me. "Threat of evasion"? There is no threat. It will be evaded, and there's nothing you can do about it. I know more about computers, networks, etc than you ever will in your entire life time. It was no threat, it was a fact. It will continue to be changed back, for however long I choose to keep doing so, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Block this proxy, i don't care. There are tens of thousands... no, Hundreds of thousands more. You can never block them all. On top of which, Dynamic IPs can EASILY be changed by a simple router reset, only idiots think blocking an IP makes any difference at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.157.121 (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Thank you

You actually schooled me on this sort of BLP issue some time ago, when I was still under the misapprehension that if the information was properly sourced, the names ought to be included. Very best, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well, every once in a while I can be helpful. I don't think I'm as entertaining as you, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

One does try to entertain. This summer a long piece of mine was published by the magazine to which I contribute--though of an important subject, the content was a bit more challenging than what's usually featured, and touched some middle-American nerves re: nudity, sexuality, good taste (whatever the f. that is) and censorship--in short, all the good stuff. Angry missives and threats of subscription cancellations, alongside the compliments, continue to come in. Interesting--I've written plenty of competent articles before, but it's the obvious subject that gets the reactions. By and large people don't really read to learn, but look for signposts which either confirm their preconceptions or piss them off for doing otherwise; at all costs we want nothing more than to have our righteousness recognized. Of course, we don't mind being told that we look good in denim, either. End of today's story time. By the way, you're very helpful. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Acoma Magic

Just letting you know that he's back, I believe.[6] 187.121.196.86 (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

File an SPI  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Investigating IPs, at least when it comes to confirming that an IP is tied to a registered user, usually isn't accepted in sockpuppet investigations...per the WP:CheckUser rules. 187.121.196.86 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And I don't think that other IPs can start such an investigation anyway. I'm only an IP, not a registered user, and I'm not interested in signing up with this site at this time. 187.121.196.86 (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ask someone at help desk to file the SPI. And you an file against an IP with Acroma Magic as the sockmaster.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, a case has been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I note the ip user who started this section appears to be using a proxy server.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

All this drama on my talk page. You can file a report about the IP at WP:OP - it's pretty easy to do, much easier than SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of the SPI? BTW, I'm blocking this one as an obvious duck; you can, if you like, quibble over the period (48 hours) since the IP seems static. But I'm no geek. I am an English dude/tte, of course, and I took the liberty of reverting one of their edits, about the 'scare quotes'. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Years of experience and more guts. The block may not be long enough - you never know with SPI reports, but it can always be increased. My guess is he'll be back, one way or the other. In case you hadn't noticed, he didn't like being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I read them at the time, yes. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Sun Recording Studio

you declined this for speedy delete? Why? LibStar (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note the claim about the producers having worked with famous people. It's moderately believable and might prove moderately important. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

it's an unreferenced claim. LibStar (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You know the CSD criteria: it should make a credible claim, and some, maybe many, would consider this credible. That's the admin's discretion. Mind you, I can't claim to speak for Bbb. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The main basis for my declining the speedy delete was what Drmies pointed out, that the producers had worked with notable bands, which prevented it from being speedily deleted under A7. You actually nominated it under G11, and I didn't - and don't - think that appplies, either. It wasn't any more promotional than many articles that claim the subject is notable. You should have taken it to AfD, and you have. Note the delete votes at the AfD. With the exception of one that calls it an advert, everyone else concentrated on lack of sourcing, and lack of sourcing, as you should know, is wholly irrelevant. I don't know your complete track record on CSDs, but in glancing at your recent contributions, I noticed Thomas Dam, which was declined by an admin; Global Network for Advanced Management, which was declined by a different admin (and that article wasn't deleted on AfD (no consensus)); and La Serena Song Festival, also declined by yet another admin. You should become more familiar with the criteria and what they mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha, I didn't even catch that; G11 doesn't apply either. LibStar, dear Bbb, is a certified member of those who are not in the ARS, so to speak--I'm sure they don't mind my saying so. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, now there's a characteristically amusing turn of phrase.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

rather than selectively picking, I've also had numerous articles speedily deleted for no sources at all found. that was actually my claim for speedily deletion, unreferenced, no sourcing and looking like an advert. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't selectively pick. I noticed that when you tagged an article you used a particular edit summary. I did a find in your contribution list for those words and cited the first ones I found above. I didn't find any that were speedily deleted but then intentionally didn't include them in my little list. An article should NOT be speedily deleted under A7 solely because of no sources. You'd have to give me an example, but if that was what happened, in my view, the admin was wrong. As for this article, you tagged it only as a G11, not as an A7, although you can use multiple tags. Wouldn't have mattered, though, as I would have declined either.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks, I appreciate your feedback on this. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, I hope I actually helped and wasn't too harsh.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Shopping is my cardio

Hi Bbb23, after reviewing the article, I realized that this version of the article didn't contain the link to [7] which the past deleted version did (which I also tagged as G11). As it doesn't technically meet the criteria for G11, I will go ahead and PROD it. Thanks, LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Was there another article? Must've been created by someone else because I looked at the deleted contributions of the user who created this one and didn't see anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

From my CSD log:

1. Shopping is my cardio: CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified Lindasimmie (talk · contribs) 23:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Shopping is my cardio: CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified Lc247star (talk · contribs) 00:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, those links go back to the current article. However, I figured out how to find it by viewing deleted edits. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

New events at edit war with Reiniger321

No one saw it? Lguipontes (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You did. :-) I've commented at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Chuck Norris and Glenn Beck

I was not being Flagrant. I provided my source on the Chuck Norrris article(his own words) from a townhall.com article. http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2008/04/22/win_ben_steins_monkey Also, I used a source on the Glenn Beck aricle Fast Happy was being a troublemaker.--Michaelt54 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to block Fat&Happy he is continuing to edit war and not listening to the rules--Michaelt54 (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Fat&Happy continues to disrupt and cause trouble by edit warring which you warned him not to he needs to be blocked--Michaelt54 (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Where? Please provide a diff that supports your accusation.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Go to the Robert De Niro page Fat&Happy continues to disregard what you said by edit warring--Michaelt54 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, Check out the Rudy Giuliani Page--Michaelt54 (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The Initial D Character and Teams page

I'm TakumiFuji01 for real. I swear, I'm not Carguy1701. I was adding few more facts and re-typing the last of name of Joshima because it was spelt as "Johjima". What do you mean by abusing multiple accounts? Carguy1701 abusing or me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TakumiFuji01 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 October 2012‎

I don't think you're Carguy. I think you're using User:70.55.29.243 to edit, in addition to edits you make while logged in. If you want to explain yourself, go here. Until the SPI report is resolved, though, which may take some time, I strongly urge you to leave the List of Initial D characters and teams article alone. I'm going to revert your latest change based on the report I filed. In the meantime, you're welcome to discuss any changes you wish to make to the article on its talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

About the IP too

I was using my dad's PC(he was using mine for Skype) so the IP addresses were different. Sorry if I cause trouble, didn't mean to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakumiFuji01 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what IP address you use when you log in. If you're saying that you and User:70.55.29.243 are the same person, then I think you should admit that at the SPI report, and it makes it more important, though, that you stay away from the article because of the content dispute and your editing with different accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Joan Juliet Buck article

I edited your and Dechrwr's new addition. I thought we were trying to keep this section short? Dechrwr exaggerated when he says "pj" is as important a news blog as NPR or CNN's and it is completely partisan. Read it some more. (If not, why. for example, do we have no idea what "PJ" stands for on its splash page? Let's think about this.)--Aichikawa (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I commented at the talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Stubborn Heart

Can you help me understand why you removed the {{db-band}} at Stubborn Heart? You didn't give a reason, and personally, I don't see any claim to importance or significance. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

They claim to be a band with a style similar to notable bands/musicians, and they claim to have an album and two singles. It ain't much, but enough to withstand a speedy delete. You could always take it to AfD if you think they fail notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those claim importance or significance; just existence. Lots of unimportant/insignificant bands sound like other bands, and have issued unimportant/insignificant albums. Would you be willing to reconsider this one? Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No, but you're welcome to ask another admin and let that admin know that they don't need to consult with me if they wish to delete it. Also, one of my talk page stalking admins is welcome to take a look.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I've done the former. Any of the latter wish to judge it themselves? Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Retagging it wasn't what I had in mind, but whatever.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Albums are a dime a dozen these days, I guess. Still, retagging does not strike me as appropriate either. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Scientom (again)

I'm finding this user to be a little worrisome. The continuous POV edits are getting frustrating, as are accusations of stalking/vandalism. Short of getting into an edit war with this POV warrior, I don't know what to do. Suggestions?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, don't get into an edit-war. If you have content disputes with Scientiom, then you need to work them out unless Scientiom is clearly violating policy, in which case you can take the matter to the appropriate noticeboard. I assume you're talking about your latest disagreement at Sexual orientation and gender identity at the United Nations. Other than one edit summary in which Scientiom accuses you of vandalism and stalking, the only thing I see wrong is that neither of you has discussed your dispute on the article talk page. Forget about the edit summary - it's not worth making a fuss over. Open a topic on the talk page and invite Scientiom and other editors to discuss the best way to approach that one small part of the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's not stalking then what is it - you've followed me to pages that you've never edited before - this is the definition of WP:WIKIHOUND. Only once I edit them do you come along simply for the purpose of warring with me. This time, I reverted an IP's vandalism on this article, and then you reverted me! You're the one pushing POV when even common knowledge indicates that there is no problem with the phrase in the article. Bbb23, I've been purposely trying to edit articles away from contentious areas so I can get away from LGR, but this editor keeps on following me around - can you please ask them to stop hounding me please? All this is making me stressed out and uncomfortable on Wikipedia. I mean, I try and keep away from LGR, but they keep on following me about. This is really too much. --Scientiom (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, Scientiom, for an accusation of wikihounding to stand up, you have to demonstrate not only that the other editor is following you around but that their reverts or changes to your edits are unsubstantiated, or at leasst picayune. That's not clear here. Which IP vandalism are you referring to in the article (a diff)? I haven't done a review of all of your or lgr's edits, but you appear to edit similar articles, so it's not surprising that you are going to bump into each other. (As an aside, lgr has only 235 article edits on their account, so they haven't edited that many articles, or at least not made that many edits. You have only 383 article edits.) In addition, some editors feel it's perfectly okay to follow the edits of another editor they feel is not editing properly. Mind you, I'm not accusing you of not editing properly, just trying to get you to see things in a different way. I'm also not saying that lgr is not hounding you. I really don't know and am not going to probe into it on my own. You'd have to take it to a place like WP:ANI, but keep in mind that (1) wikihounding is hard to prove and (2) your conduct will probably be scrutinized as much as lgr's at ANI because that's how ANI is. My advice to both of you is to bury the hatchet and try to get along, but I know that's not always possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Bbb23. There doesn't seem to be a clear pattern of wikihounding here. On the other hand, if the trend in recent days were to continue, a pattern may emerge. I would caution LGR to raise disputes on the talk page earlier, rather than engaging in multiple reverts, especially having just been to AN3 recently. Also, terms like 'POV editing', 'stalking' and 'vandalism' are really not very helpful toward actually improving the encyclopedia. I would advise more dulcet words. – MrX 14:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look at the link you posted MrX, it would seem that the stalking has happened within 2 hours (and sometimes only minutes or seconds) on about 5 articles thus far. It seems like quite a lot to me. All I want to is to edit in peace without LGR following me about to every article. I've gone out of my way to try and stay away from LGR on Wikipedia (even to the extent of not editing articles which may normally interest me, just because LGR has been on them). I mean, there's little else I can do - I just want to be able to contribute in peace. Thank you to you and Bbb23 regardless of your views for your responses, which I will take note of well. But I feel I'm being pushed into a corner here - I really don't know what else to do, having gone out of my way to avoid a conflict. Oh, and here's a diff for the IP vandalism as you requested Bbb23: [8]. --Scientiom (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, that is not vandalism. You may disagree with the removal of the parenthetical, but I wouldn't be so quick to label it vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor removing information from the article without an explanation - how is that not vandalism? --Scientiom (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my, if every edit by an IP - or even a registered account - that removed material from an article w/o an edit summary were vandalism, the word would lose all of its meaning. You can't generalize in that way. Each edit has to be evaluated on its merits. This edit was not vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

An edit removing sourced content from an article without explanation or follow-up explanation can't be anything but vandalism. Explain? --Scientiom (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

>Anyhow, regardless of our views over this - this is no longer my main point of contention: It's about my ability to contribute to Wikipedia in peace - please see my main comment above (especially considering what the tool which MrX linked to appears to show - an emerging pattern). --Scientiom (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:VAN carefully. In this specific instance, the only source for the parenthetical is an article by a single author that doesn't appear to be a scientific journal. Even if the source were 100% reliable, the assertion in the parenthetical is far broader than even the source states. I would never assert that "all major psychological and scientific institutions have rejected such a link". Sounds completely over the top without even looking at the source. A better edit, of course, would have been to modify the parenthetical rather than remove it entirely, but removing an assertion that isn't fully supported simply cannot be labeled vandalism. As for your other comment, I haven't been able to get the damned toolserver to respond (this intermittently happens).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The edit you referenced constituted removing sourced content without an edit summary, and falls short of vandalism, unless the editor continues to do it while refusing to explain why. To your second point: I feel your pain having had many of my contributions similarly rent from the encyclopedia shortly after I make them. Nonetheless, this is a collaborative editing environment. If you edit articles which are controversial, you can expect controversy, and then you have to engage the other editor(s) in reaching a suitable compromise. WP:BRD provides some useful guidelines for how to do this. If that doesn't work, you can use the RfC or dispute resolution processes to get outside help on content disputes. If there is clearly an issue with an editor's behavior, then ANI/AN3 offers a potential path to resolution. – MrX 15:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If Scientom wants me and other editors to stop reverting her, then the solution is quite simple. Stop making poor quality edits. Many of her edits mischaracterize what the sources say in a fashion to push a certain POV. We see this all the time (for many editors), no matter what POV is being pushed. When I see anyone make a bold statement made in Wikipedia's voice, I am going to check the source for verification. Editors that have a recent history of making such statements get extra scrutiny. In the past I have fact-checked MrX edits, and sometimes (rarely) have reverted them. My personal conclusion is that the majority of his edits show high fidelity to the sources. Scientom, not so much. The only thing I can suggest to her is to examine the statement she is adding to Wikipedia and compare it back to the source again. Pay particular attention to adverbs and other qulaifiers.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you look at a editors history?

Got a newer account publishing Coatrack articles, copying and pasting articles and sections into others, a few copyright vios and edit warring. User:Hamish2011 Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked. At this point, they are perilously close to sanctions but haven't quite gotten there. If you feel more strongly, you're welcome to take the matter to WP:ANI. I will continue to watch, but also feel free to come back here if I fail to notice something you think needs administrative attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No I think you did a splendid job, didn't really fit anyone notice board and it is a new editor so I'm sure some of the kinks can be worked out if they talk it through. Thanks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

mellotrons

Hi Bbb23, just to draw to your attention that, despite your warning to them on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:221.160.109.38 , the editor in question re-applied their edits to mellotron (with a different IP address, naturally). Oh, the incorrigable recidivism of it all! :-D --feline1 (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I blocked 221 for one week for abusing multiple accounts. 221 is apparently a static IP from Seoul. The IP (58) who made the recent edit is a dynamic IP from Seoul. My assumption is they are the same person. The edit by 58 has been reverted, but it's possible there will be more. If so, I will consider semi-protection of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Yes, it appears to be someone in Korea. They have been pushing the same material into the mellotron article for about half a decade, always just as an IP number - I randomly selected one of the edits from 2009, and that IP came up as Korean too. At least this gives ample scope of 'Hot Lips' Hoolahan jokes etc etc.--feline1 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Minhas

You've deleted that Minhas article, even I have added references from Google books and some other sources. Now tell me what was the reason for deleting that article? And Last warning for what? Minhas 12:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Fragments of Jade sockpuppet on the loose

Hi. I was wondering if you could weigh in on this matter: Zhoban (talk · contribs) appears to be what I suspect to be the banned vandal Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not only did she have the same habit of blanking her talk page, she also called me a fruitcake (a derogatory term for a homosexual) and removed the sockpuppeteer notice. Judging by the same editing style, same interests, same attitude, same incivility, same blanking of personal talk pages, same internet provider (Comcast) and the same geographical location (New Jersey) as last time, it appears to be the same user who abused me and Hula Hup (talk · contribs). Can you please block this user? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on User:Kww's talk page. Kevin was the last admin to block Zhoban, and he did it for abusing multiple accounts, so he would be a better person to decide what is appropriate to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Had to dig through a lot on that one, because I hadn't made the connection to Fragments of Jade. I was 80% there, but got to 100% when if found this one telling slip. Blocked indef as a sock of Fragments of Jade.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin, I'm sure Sjones appreciates the quick action.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

We're talking about you behind your back! See Talk:Zero_Dark_Thirty#Weasel_words_versus_accurate_descriptions. Okay, so it's not really an ominous event, but your name, edits and intentions have been raised in passing during a discussion there, so I thought I would give you a heads-up. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, I just removed Zero Dark Thirty from my watchlist, I think yesterday. Nice to know that people talk about me even when I'm not "watching" or maybe because I'm not watching.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Carol

Appreciate if you stop undoing my changes.... I have all the documents to prove what is written. If needed I could send them to you in a way or another for documentation.

Thank you, Nicholas Benesch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.36.9.2 (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with your editing the article because of your conflict, but I will leave in your changes, anyway. However, two things. First, I made stylistic changes to comply with Wikipedia guidelines - please leave those alone. Second, this sentence makes no sense: "Benesch received by decree of King Carol I of Romania, the Romanian citizenship being waved of the stage." I left it in for the moment, but please explain what you mean by it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about a "conflict" since this article it's not about me...It's about one of my ancestors. More over Carol Benesch is referred in other numerous links/webpages, created by other authors.

Explanation of the phrase "Benesch received by decree of King Carol I of Romania, the Romanian citizenship being waved of the stage.":

Carol Benesch was born in the Austro-Hungarian empire, being a Silezian/Czech citizen. He did not go to Romania on his own. He was asked by a Romanian prince to come to work and live in Romania. At those times to obtain the Romanian citizenship as a foreigner was a difficult and lengthy process requiring among other things a "stage"(period of time) of a certain number of years. As a recognition of Carol Benesch contributions to the Romanian architecture, king Carol 1st offers him the Romanian citizenship in a decree and waves him of this stage.(This was then considered a high honor)

I can provide a copy of this decree with the King's signature, if needed.

On another issue: There are Vatican documents with Carol Benesch awarded with the Order of St. Gregory the Great. I can provide them as well.

For now, I am OK with the article. If anything else is needed please let me know. Thank you, Nicholas Benesch12.36.9.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now that I understand what you meant, I reworded it. "Wave" in English is like waving your hand at someone. "Waive" means to eliminate a requirement. Also, "stage" isn't the right word in English.

As for your conflict, the most obvious conflict a person can have when editing an article about a human being is when the editor IS that person. However, you can still have a conflict when you have a relationship with that person. Your conflict is more remote than, say, someone's spouse, but it's still a conflict. Having said that, a conflict in and of itself doesn't prevent you from editing the article, provided you comply with Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines. What often happens, though, is an editor with a conflict can get annoyed by some of Wikipedia's requirements and that causes problems. Let's take the example of the king's decree. You have a copy of it. That's great, but it has to be accessible to a reader. It doesn't have to be easily accessible, but it has to be verifiable somehow. So, is the decree you have the original? Is it a copy? Besides it being in your possession, is it available at some library, in a book, somewhere?

Here's the policy: "Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable." (see WP:SOURCES) So, if the decree isn't available to the public, we can't say that's what happened in the article, even if it's true. Moreover, a decree is what's called a primary source, which is often unreliable in the technical Wikipedia sense. The problem with primary sources is they require interpretation as to what they mean. I don't know what the decree actually says, but I imagine it's unlikely that it says anything about waiving the usual requirements for a foreigner to obtain Romanian citizenship. Therefore, that part of the sentence in the article is your knowledge of how it worked back then, which constitutes WP:OR, also not permissible at Wikipedia. As you can see, it gets complicated. This is a long explanation is why I undid a lot of your edits, as the sources for some of the material were either non-existent (not cited in the article) or unreliable.

For the moment, I'm going to put in some tags in the article indicating that sources are needed - rather than just removing the material as I did before. Hopefully, we can work this out to your and to Wikipedia's satisfaction, but it might take some work, and you may have to compromise a bit if your views conflict with Wikipedia's.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael

Ok, I'm sorry, I didn't know that was against the rules, but I don't want that material on there anymore though I want a clean start.--Michaelt54 (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Michaelt54

"...I will check contribs from time to time and will report to you any prohibited edits...."

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Anna, it's kind of you to help. I will check when I'm on-wiki as well, but, frankly, I'm not at all sure I know what will happen next.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome. And yes, this fellow is a bit unpredictable. We shall see. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Operation Wetback

I hope you will excuse me for being so bold; I noticed that on 24 April 2012 you undid a revision applied by an unregistered user (76.194.229.1) to the Operation Wetback article found @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback; I recently re-visited this article in the course of other research and checked the 4th ref., for the last sentence in the article's section "Civil rights violations". Reading the actual text of the book referenced @ the link provided (http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=3uD6PKXl3q4C&pg=PA603#v=onepage&q&f=false) reveals that the sentence from the "Encyclopedia of Latin Popular Culture", p. 603, does not actually refer to Operation Wetback, but rather to a similar operation conducted by the Chandler, Arizona Police Department in the summer of 1997. For this reason, I submit that neither the sentence, nor the reference, is applicable, and should indeed be removed on the grounds that the sourced material does not refer to Operation Wetback itself. I have taken the liberty of removing said sentence & reference rather than simply changing reference to a "cite needed" template, and await word on whether or not you concur. Thanks for your time in investigating this issue.Tech77 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your actions look reasonable to me, although I'm not sure how helpful it is to include the book as an EL.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Joaquin Farias

While this article does seem to be a copyright violation and at the very least had no secondary references (and I couldn't find any, which is why I marked it for speedy), the site "cognarius" seems to be reflecting any Wikipedia page at all and adding its own copyright. Weird, huh? heather walls (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that cognarius is a Wikipedia mirror. I have therefore restored the article, leaving in place your spam tag, recorded the deletion history on the article talk page, and am leaving it for another admin to evaluate whether it should be speedily deleted. Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Olivier Manitara

I was just starting this page and you have deleted faster than I could put more information on the guy and the importance to include this article. This person is known in the french community, less known in the english. The Importance to include this article is to provide objective information for people on Olivier Manitara and his movement. It is not to promote him not to discredit him. He is the author of many books, founder of the new Essene school community and lecturer. You can see him at youtube. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you recreate the article in your sandbox and then move it to article space once you feel it will survive speedy delete and any other deletion process. Hopefully, that way you'll avoid the problem of a "premature" delete.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your question

Regarding User talk:EdJohnston#Arthur Rubin, I'm afraid my response may have been terse. What was the 'previous brouhaha regarding Arthur?' The closure seemed to fit the report which was vague and contained ad-hominems, so I didn't look into any history. Your closures are generally so exact that I just skip over them when reviewing the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the issue of blocking admins, which, if you recall, involved Arthur. There was no direct relationship between the recent report and that issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

OK then. I completely forgot the brouhaha, in which I had commented myself, so I guess that's a good sign :-). I usually agree with your closures except for that one case where an admin needed to be blocked. I now feel that admins should be promptly blocked since there was the regrettable case of someone who got desysopped and Arbcom said that edit-warring was part of the reason. Had blocks been handed out earlier, it's conceivably (though not certain) that this outcome might have been avoided. I played a small role in closing some EW cases without a block involving that person. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only person who forgets things. :-) Good thing was I learned from the discussion of that mistake that my understanding of how this works was incorrect.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

help

Hi - I saw your warning, and appreciate the warning instead of a more serious sanction. I am still having trouble understanding what I did wrong. My understanding is that you need to revert twice in order to go over the 1RR limitation - but I only reverted once. The first diff that Huldra listed ( 1st revert: [9]) is not a revert of any other editor - it is the first edit I made to that page. Who did I revert? Dixy flyer (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the key language from the policy: "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." In your first edit you removed material from the article. That's "undoing" another editor in the sense that the material you removed had to have been added sometime in the past by another editor or editors. Therefore, it counts as a revert.

There are times when the first edit you make to an article will not be counted as a revert, but that's usually at the discretion of the admin reviewing the complaint. For example, if you had added material to the article, some admins wouldn't count that because you haven't "undone" anything. Or if you make an innocuous change to the article, like correcting a spelling error, that really has nothing to do with edit-warring, it probably wouldn't be counted.

That said, you can't rely on the policy being interpreted in that way by all admins. And, particularly, in articles that have a special 1RR rule, you have almost no leeway for error. In any event, in your case, I suspect most admins, including this one, would call the first edit a revert for the purpose of the rule.

In the future, the best thing is to err on the side of caution. If you're not sure, rather than revert, ask an admin in advance whether they think what you want to do is acceptable. Remember, most edits at Wikipedia are not urgent. You don't have to rush.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for that, I did not reliaze, and was in the state of undoing it myself. — M.Mario (T/C) 22:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries, things are a bit heated and moving too fast. Thanks for coming here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

to Bbb23 tricia walsh smith WP:BLP

I do not understand why this violates WP:BLP. T he links are relevant links and the subject matter is on other wiki pages. its as relevant as walsh smnith's divorce. if you think not then the info about her divorce violates WP:BLP and falls into the same category as "tabloid" as the upcoming 8-10 week trial in the crown court of giovanni di stefano 82.45.198.131 (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:COATRACK. This material is about Di Stefano much more than it is about Walsh-Smith, and it doesn't belong in her article. I also note you're having problems on the Di Stefano article as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

RFPP archive bot

FYI - I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Bot archiving that you might be interested in contributing to. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:EverlastingGaze

Hiya! I noticed User talk:EverlastingGaze at CAT:RFU. I'm thinking perhaps he should have just been blocked for edit warring, since that was the only thing he did wrong. He obviously was not trying to conceal that he was the same editor as the IP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

My initial inclination was to block both the IP (EG reported to ANEW as an IP) and Cwmacdougall because both had been edit-warring. However, when I saw EG edit the article after the IP had reported Cwmacdougall for edit-warring, I changed my mind. It seemed to me like he was gaming the system. It also tends to support the notion that at that point he was trying to conceal who he was. Perhaps one solution is to unblock him if he agrees not to resume the edit-war on the article. In any event, I think you now have all the relevant facts on which to make a decision. I don't object to your doing whatever you think is best.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request of EverlastingGaze

Hello Bbb23. EverlastingGaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, De728631 (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, BWilkins has now declined it. De728631 (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Nernst (talk · contribs) and User_Talk:Nernst

Hi Bbb23, you blocked Nernst (talk · contribs) this morning for a 3RR and socking. He seems to be having trouble understanding what to do with his extant talk-page editing abilities. Can you check out what he's been doing? Thanks. Zad68 17:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've restored the talk page and left a comment for Nernst.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

SarahNicole accounts

I have to agree with Nobody Ent on ANI that no apologies are necessary. I think my comment was a bit harsh and I would feel bad if you stopped contributing to ANI discussions in future because of this. Yeah, the blocks were probably a bit premature, but lord knows I've done that before too. I'm more annoyed with the whole sequence of events rather than any particular person's action. As for the unblocks - it seemed to me that we couldn't have two near-identical variants of SarahNicoleTaylor editing, so I left -3 blocked, but the usernames SarahNC and SarahNicoleTaylor were probably different enough to satisfy the policy. Why they chose these usernames in the first place is still a mystery...
Thanks. – Steel 19:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, but I do feel bad about what happened. I left one more comment at ANI just now, sort of summing up my perspective in the matter. My recollection is that school projects often cause problems, and that they are sometimes dealt with poorly, mainly because it's not clear it's a school project. I also was very tired (not an excuse, just some background) and about to go off-wiki just before I saw the topic at ANI. I should know better than to take such extensive action in those circumstances. But don't worry about discouraging me. Just a learning experience, although I regret all the commotion I caused. Thanks again for taking the time to come here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Moved to User talk:Nernst

 – Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

re: User:Nernst

Hi, as a heads' up, the user blanked their talk page despite your warning. SassyLilNugget (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, more than once and even once without logging in. Thanks for helping out, but they seem to have come around in the end and left in the block notice, request, and decline, so I'm going to hope they've finally seen the light and will leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A dispute

I was going to ask Dennis to take care of this, but then I saw the same thing you saw and as you had responded there, you were the easiest one to ask: As you can see here, a user has been going through and undoing another user's edits. Further he has labeled them as vandalism. However, I'm not sure which user is actually causing more disruption, and I'd like for an admin to take a look. AutomaticStrikeout 00:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So Dennis gets to take a break and I get to do more work? Heh. It looks like no one is behaving well in a mess I don't really follow. Nonetheless, I've left some comments on the two editors' talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. That's how it works. If you'd like, I can find more. Seriously though, thanks for stepping in and trying to resolve it. AutomaticStrikeout 01:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't want you to go to any extra trouble. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. ;-) AutomaticStrikeout 01:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

My explanation is here. Short form of Levdr1's actions on a radio chat board site are also here for you to view, which leads to my internal judgement that Levdr1's actions are personally motivated and intended not just as vandalism, but also aimed as personal attacks at someone. Thanks. Nathan Obral (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No apologies necessary

Re: [10]. You made a decision that was reasonable at the time. In 20/20 hindsight you coulda shoulda woulda done something different. You do what you can; with admin backlogs all over the place (last I knew) we don't (or shouldn't) expect perfection or that you spend hours analyzing every situation before taking action. Ya'll have to triage situations for the overall benefit of Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 02:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Nobody, here and at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't fret. You're a stand up editor, even if you have a bra size for a username :D  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Manila Channel Info

How we can be permanent in Wiki, we are going to publish as a new company name as manila channel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_Channel like the inquirer did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Daily_Inquirer , manila bulletin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_Bulletin Sulit.com.ph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulit.com.ph . How we can contribute about manila channel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoscane (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Who is "we"? You are not allowed to use an account on behalf of a company or a group. You obviously have a conflict of interest. The article you created doesn't look remotely like Manila Bulletin, not that the Bulletin article is all that well done, either. Your article didn't have a single secondary source. Read up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines to help you understand (a) whether an article about the Manila Channel would be notable and, if so, how it should be created. At the point I deleted the article, it was nothing more than an advertising blurb with unencyclopedic material.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Misha B

Hi I seem to have got into an edit war with Wikimucker (talk can you help?

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As you no doubt noticed, I locked the article and left a comment on the talk page. BTW, accusing Wikimucker of "vandalism" will not help matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes sorry, I am afraid tiredness and a couple of other earlier disputes with editors on the same page that have gone to the BLPN and the dispute resolution board may have made me accuse too quickly. However he also removed the following sentence which was a positive review by the telegraph...this made me sure it was not done with good intention. A break will be good for me. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Breaks are like chocolate; they're almost always good for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yum :)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hiya...if you can and think it is right to do so please could unblock the Misha B page we would be grateful...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The lock expired a bit ago, and without realizing it, I left some comments, which still hold true as far as the consensus is concerned.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Richmond College (Sri Lanka)

Predictably enough, I see that as soon as the page protection of this problematic article ended, the usual problem of yet more unsourced material being added has recurred - with no signs whatsoever that the fundamental issues of sourcing being addressed at all. At this point, I'm inclined to think that the only way to get the message across will be to reduce the article to a stub, and then fully protect it again until we can get some sort of two-way communication going. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Before becoming an admin, I used to stub unsourced articles. I took a lot of heat for it at my RfA and am therefore much more cautious about doing it now. Perhaps you could remove material in a more selective way. It does have one source, the school's own website (I haven't looked at it). Assuming the material isn't self-serving, you could keep in the material that is supported by the website. In addition, you could keep in material for people who have articles as long as the person article supports the material in the school article AND is sourced in the person article. That might be a compromise. Whatever you decide is appropriate, I'd post a message on the talk page explaining what you're doing and why. I'm also assuming that if you remove significant amounts of material, editors will try to add it back, in which case the article may need to be protected, semi-protection if it's non-auto-confirmed accounts; however, if the editors are auto-confirmed, you may find admins reluctant to impose another full-blown lock on the article. There are no easy answers to these kinds of articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The website linked [11] is actually the 'Official website of Richmond College & Richmond College Old Boys’ Association - not even the schools' own, apparently. Regarding your suggestion re former pupils, our article for Mahinda Rajapaksa, the current Sri Lankan president, cites his education to a dead link, whereas former prime minister Wijeyananda Dahanayake's article provides no source whatsoever - I suspect that if sourcing even such prominent individuals is going to be problematic, there is little hope for the remainder. I understand your point re stubbing though - maybe a more subtle approach might be for the best. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

...And as soon I start to look for sources, I begin to suspect that there may be more to this than meets the eye - looking for references to president Rajapaksa's education, I discover that this seems to have been somewhat controversial - to the extent that it (or possibly the lack of it) gets mention in a a cable apparently released by WikiLeaks: [12] Quite possibly just run-of-the-mill political shenanigans, but perhaps sufficient reason for a little scepticism regarding the level of esteem this school is held in? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's commendable of you to do the extra research/work.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Frank_L._VanderSloot, where all discussion should take place.

The questions are:

1. Based on the claim of Synthesis, should the original version or the revised version of the LGBT Section be used in the article from henceforth—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
2. Because the original "LGBT issues" Section adversely comments on a Living Person, should that section be immediately replaced with the revised section—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
3. Should the Sources identified as faulty or not germane be eliminated from the list of References?
   GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Onlyonerooney

Thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I left a note at the SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Corey Cole

Corey Cole shouldn't have been speedy deleted by reason of duplicating an existing topic. Corey Cole is notable on his own, as shown in the article I created. Corey and Lori Ann Cole's contributions to the video game world are not the same. They usually make games together, but not always. Corey Cole designed and directed Castle of Dr. Brain on his own, and this game recieved multiple reviews from press at the time of it's release (in Dragon's April 1992 issue, the February 1992 issue of Computer Gaming World) (and The Castle of Dr. Brain was licensed for use in Children's Television Workshop programming), so that should make him meet WP:Bio criteria #3 (The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews) independently of his wife. JenniBees (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The Corey article was so similar to the Lori Ann Cole article as to be dizzying. The leads were identical. Significant chunks of each article were identical. Maybe you ought to start an article called The Coles and get rid of the Lori article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I did get lazy by copy+pasting, but I could just rewrite those parts of the Corey Cole article. Like I said, their contributions to the video game industry are different. The Ludography sections would be overwhelming if I combined the two articles, since they did much independent of each other at Sierra. They both are notable on their own (Corey independently designing and directing Castle of Dr. Brain and porting the SCI engine to Atari ST, and Lori independently designing Mixed-Up Fairy Tales and Quest for Glory V: Dragon Fire). The article needed work, I admit that, but that's not a reason to delete it. JenniBees (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll ask another admin to review it, and if they want it restored, fine. That will save you the trouble of going to WP:DRV, assuming you're so inclined. Obviously, if the other admin agrees with me, you can still go to DRV. Be a little patient, though, as it may take a bit of time, although there's always the possibility that one of my page stalkers will step in.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for doing that. No problem about the wait, I completely understand. JenniBees (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin... I haven't sold my soul and first born just yet. Bbb23 does make a compelling argument for just one article called "Corey and Ann Cole". Have a redirect for both "Corey Cole" and "Ann Cole" point towards "Corey and Ann Cole". If somebody is searching for "Corey Cole" they get redirected to the main article. It kills two birds as both Cole's careers overlap... instead of just getting Corey's info if you search for "Corey Cole", you get more information on both of them. It is a win, win. I don't think The Castle of Dr. Brain is enough to meet WP:Bio criteria #3. It is a game, but not one of the very elite. Couldn't find anything that went into any detail about Corey Cole and The Castle of Dr. Brain other than he was the designer. Corey Cole's article (via Google cache) and Lori Cole's article has no reliable, independent refs. The Quest for Glory franchise is biggie that may meet WP:Bio criteria #3, but it was done by the both of them. Bgwhite (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I think I agree with Bgwhite. (Who, BTW, has no soul.) Both articles are extremely meager in terms of reliable sources. Now, Ludography was a new word for me, and I don't know how overwhelming such a list would be--I hate reading those articles (like for those anime voices) that are nothing but long lists. OK, I'll restore the article and make it a redirect. Can we get back to pumpkin carving now? Drmies (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Pumpkin carving is a redirect to the Jack-o'-lantern article, which has lots of pretty pictures (and one not so pretty that I removed), but, frankly, you can get back to it. To mix metaphors, I'm a Halloween scrooge. I didn't like reading the Lori Ann Cole article as I thought it was very poorly written (in addition to the sourcing problems). Having to read the mirrored Corey article kind of tipped me over the edge. It wasn't even tagged with the criterion I used for deletion. I think you should redirect the Corey article to the pumpkin article. Forgive the banter, Jenni, Drmies brings out the worst in me.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Bbb, what are you doing out of bed anyway? Are you still up, high on PCP and playing video games like a true Californian? We haven't even had breakfast in our time zone. I left you note just now, you and that other abusive admin Krit Weeper. Also, I love you like a brother, so you should be nicer to me. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

All those California stereotypes. It's all crap. No one takes drugs out here anymore - everything is natural. And video games are passe, replaced by those social media, interactive, everyone-kills-everyone-else Internet games with superb graphics and no substance. Nah, I just have my usual sleeping problems. What are you having for breakfast, if and when you get around to it? Grits and red wine? And I wouldn't use that love-you-like-a-brother line too much - you should see how I treat my own brother, and I love him like a brother. Ha.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Red wine? You mean Red-eye gravy? No, we had steel-cut oat meal and boiled eggs. Very healthy. Have you met Mandarax yet? You two can discuss sleep. I love sleep--I did it again last night. I can do it two, three times a day. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant red wine. Assuming you mean that Mandarax also has sleeping problems (no, I've not met him), at least he has something to show for it. As Amahl's mother said, "All those edits!" I once taught a class. One of the students kept putting his arms on his desk and laying his head inside his arms. After a couple of days of that, he asked me a question. I responded that he would know the answer if he hadn't been sleeping in class. He said he wouldn't have been sleeping if I'd said anything interesting.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it sucks when they're right. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Something for your attention

As per what was discussed earlier in User talk:Wanderer602 I'm bringing this matter to your attention, see page histories Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive and Continuation War - possible offenders (IP editors): Special:Contributions/178.176.179.207 and Special:Contributions/95.220.23.170 (similar seemingly continuous edits from two separate IP addresses).

IP editor seems unwilling to discuss the matter on talk page, despite of a request to do so. Since i have no interest getting entangled into another edit-war could you please advice what would be the proper approach for this kind of issue (or take action if you deem it necessary)? - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get a chance to get to this yesterday, but it seems like it's been resolved by semi-protection. Let me know if you have any additional concerns.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, semi-protection probably solves the issue for the time being. I posted a note regarding the issue to WP:AIV where i was told to consider putting it forward to WP:AN/I. But i suppose that is no longer relevant as the semi-protection is in effect. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Tib42

He has been warned plenty, and I've given him yet another final warning. If he reverts back, I would imagine you could feel comfortable in blocking him for whatever period of time you deemed necessary in order to prevent further disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Request

Could one of you two good admins could kindly also block Inspectortr (redlink) and its IP Ducks? Please, I am not so young, getting tired of reverting 100 times... You can find them -now- at Recep Tayyip Erdoğan both in the article and its TP. Their main activity area is Cyprus though, together with 23x2 (around 50) other users they are obsessed with the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. They are naughty kids, who are here to disperse hate, not to make encyclopedia... --E4024 (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I do see the overlap, but from my limited perspective, you're going to have to follow the usual procedures with these kinds of allegations. I noticed that you made a quick checkuser request at SPI (not sure if you did it right). Dennis is more experienced (and more confident) at spotting socks than I, so he may or may not wish to take action.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Block

You declined to block me for vandalism as you determined it was a content dispute, however I don't believe it to be a content dispute. The other user who reported me is entering information from a silly top 100 list into music articles under the guise it is some type of "award" or "achievement" for the article topic. However the author of the list states that the list was chosen arbitrarily and with bias. The other user has been informed of this but simply ignores the edit summary explanations, and blanks their talk page to remove any personal mention of it, while continuing to revert that information back into the articles (around 100 different articles)

As a result I don't believe this to be a content dispute. I took this issue to the reliable references board to try and get some help but there was no one available to review it as the reference is written in Japanese (but I made it easy to cross check without knowing Japanese) The Rolling Stone magazine in question is viewable here http://www.amazon.co.jp/Rolling-Stone-ローリング・ストーン-2007年-09月号/dp/B000UCGUXY/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt and on the cover of the magazine where it says "BEST 100" in English, above that is the following sentence 独断と偏見で選んだ written in green just below the purple line as a disclaimer. A google translate will show it means "chosen arbitrarily and with prejudice", and it is also written in the description section on the product page. How is this acceptable for the wikipedia? 27.33.143.93 (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As shown at Amazon, the Rolling Stone cover is (unsurprisingly) so small that the text within it is completely undecipherable. The largest reproduction I've yet found is here. It's still too small for the text to be decipherable for me. But I showed it to Mrs Hoary (native speaker of Japanese); and without any prompting from me she said that yes, it almost certainly says 独断と偏見で選んだ. And yes, this does mean that it's a personal, opinionated choice. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The source in support of the list is reliable. Your connecting of the dots is not only hard to follow but requires a fair amount of WP:OR. It also doesn't make sense. Are you saying the magazine published the list as a spoof? I've poked around the web, and that's not what I read at various sites (I don't know how reliable these sites are, though). Here's a couple: [13] and [14]. Frankly, I don't see any support for your position, but I'm not arbiting the content dispute. You got no traction at WP:RSN. You apparently got nowhere at WP:DRN. If I were you, I'd let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

@Hoary, if you look at the two sources I cite, they don't really contradict Mrs Hoary's translation. The RS editor apparently explained why he ran the list.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was self explanatory, I guess not. It is not a spoof, it is a freelance article filler for the issue but not taken seriously and the list was not created by a noted music critic or someone of note in the music industry (in Japan this would be someone like Masanori Ito. and the magazine even makes sure to mention it is biased and arbitrary (they even made note of that on the cover) and again my point is, how is this acceptable for the wikipedia? I can't even believe I need to ask that, should VH1 top 10 lists of the "greatest rock songs of all time" etc be listed in the relevant wiki articles as an "award" or "achievement" as well? That is neither an award or achievement. Apart from that, it provides no information to the articles! It is fancruft nonsense. My question was, how is it acceptable for the wikipedia, and especially given the fact it is biased and randomly put together?27.33.143.93 (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you going a bit overboard here? A list of personal choices that doesn't represent the opinion (if any) of the magazine in which it's published needn't be either fancruft or nonsense. (Indeed, as I look at the list [in English translation] I see a range of choices that you or I may or may not agree with but that do not look mindless.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

and Horay, I thank you for finding someone else who speaks Japanese that can actually read what the magazine says. Also Bbb23, I don't agree that it required original research, I believe it to be checking referenced material, as only because something comes from a generally respectable source doesn't make it reliable.27.33.143.93 (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I knew nothing about the dispute till I happened to notice the message at the top of this very thread. But now that I do see it: Yes, it's fair to say that there was "no traction" at WP:RSN. Nobody agreed. But also nobody disagreed. (Here is the non-discussion.) Perhaps nobody was interested, or nobody who might have been interested saw it. ¶ Let's look at the two sources you (Bbb23) give. The one at "japanator.com" merely rebroadcasts and comments on the one at "neojaponisme.com": there's no indication that the writer of the former has seen the RS article or would understand it if he did see it. The latter is hugely more interesting. It starts In the September 2007 issue of Rolling Stone Japan, contributing editor and Beikoku Ongaku founder Kawasaki Daisuke offered something brand new for Japan: a list of the 100 Greatest Japanese Rock Albums of All Time. This might mean that it's Kawasaki's personal list or (I think less likely) that it's a list created by a team of people coordinated by Kawasaki, or anything between these extremes. Without seeing the actual article or a separate, objective description of it, I wouldn't know. One thing's for sure: the cover of the magazine neither gives the list top billing -- it's below a multipart feature on "rock meets eco[logy]" and also below something on Bob Dylan -- nor presents it as the magazine's view (or [of course a silly idea] a "definitive" view). Clearly the writer at "neojaponisme.com" is excited by it, and he may have good reason for this; but the significance of the list isn't obvious. ¶ Of course an indisputably personal list can be significant if the lister is somebody whose opinions are of note: For movies, people might want to know Pauline Kael's top 100, and most likely because of rather than despite her strong tastes. Kawasaki, I don't know. He doesn't have an article here; he's not mentioned within the ja:WP article on RS, and he doesn't seem to have an article within ja:WP (as inferred from the lack of any hit for either of the two likeliest characters for kawa within the list of articles linking to the ja:WP article on RS. Although as we all know, plenty of significant people never get articles at WP. -- Hoary (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your points echo mine very closely Hoary. The person who wrote the article Daisuke Kawasaki is not a noted music critic or industry person, he owned a small fanzine called Beikoku Ongaku (which is linked in Bbb24's source) and published it with his wife, but it is now defunct. If you look at their companies website http://www.beikoku-ongaku.com/ they are now selling "Collagen Beauty Drinks", whatever that is.

I'd just like to point out that while it may seem trivial to argue about, people use the wikipedia for information and silly claims like this spin out of control and escalate into utter nonsense. Journalists, researchers etc do use the wikipedia to get a lot of their information quickly. The articles are making it sound like an achievement or hallmark in Japanese popular music, when it is not. Lists by the British Film Institute etc are different as they are made via a consensus with the worlds leading critics and industry persons and an explanation is provided as to why each film was chosen etc. What is being contested by me is just a random list that is noted by the publisher as being biased and arbitrary (which means chosen randomly with no reasoning) This is like a TV network saying the views of such and such do not reflect those of the station. It's pretty bad when the publisher prints a disclaimer on the cover next to what it's advertising. Also there is no explanation as to why they were chosen, it's just a numerical list of albums, no different to a VH1 top 10 list etc.27.33.143.93 (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but lists by organizations as respected (or anyway as entrenched) as the BFI manage to shower praise on such piles of steaming ordure as Forrest Gump. I don't know much about Japanese rock and therefore don't know most of what Kawasaki lists; but among what I do know I see nothing that rivals Forrest Gump for horribleness. Further, your wording biased and arbitrary (which means chosen randomly with no reasoning) seems a particularly negative interpretation of the wording that was actually used. All in all I think you go overboard. Which is unnecessary, as you go in the right direction (if I'm not mixing metaphors). I've written a comment here on the talk page for Bow Wow. (Another band I don't know. I'll skip Bow Wow, Vow Wow, and Bow Wow Wow, thanks, and instead go for the Bonzo Dog Band.) Perhaps discussion should continue there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe you missed my point, I don't believe any "top 100 list" is an achievement as I've stated numerous times, although those by note worthy critics (from which the BFI does get consensus from) is minor noteworthy, although perhaps not even suitable for the wikipedia. In this case, it is not acceptable at all, as it is an opinionated article with no explanation.27.33.143.93 (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I see no reason to prolong the discussion here on Bbb23's talk page. (Instead, Talk:Bow Wow (band).) -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Confusion over Categorys

Hi Bbb23

If I could give you an example which I think differentiates categories of From and Associated with. Vicente Juan Segura is the current Archbishop of Ibiza. This gives him an association with Ibiza, but he was not born on Ibiza and has only had an association with the island since he was made the Bishop in 2005. I think this is where the distinction lies. Some one who is described as from Ibiza I would think would either have needed to be born on the island or to have spent a large percentage of there life living there. Having said that,I have found no rule of thumb as far as the latter is concerned, and this could well be intuprated by some as having only an association with the place. Hope this helps your assessment in some way.Stavros1 (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm sure you mean well, I really think you should post any comments you have about the category on the deletion page rather than here. The problem with associated with is cats are supposed to be obvious, and associated with is far too vague.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Matt Bomer Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Your opinion is requested in this discussion.

If you're in an area that was affected by Hurricane Sandy, and are unable to reply, I hope that you have not suffered too greatly, and my best wishes go out to you. Nightscream (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'm in So. Calif. but thanks for your concern - we're still waiting for the big one.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I hear Otisburg is an itty bitty place, but nice.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Template deletion

Thanks for deleting the nonsense template. Please see the report I posted on the Vandalism noticeboard as this user appears to be a habitual offender. Midhart90 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted all of the crap they created (there was quite a bit) and indefinitely blocked them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious IP

Since you've been involved a bit with the Hurricane Sandy article, perhaps you can help. IP 216.254.157.149 has been commenting only on Talk:Hurricane Sandy, but he's signing his comments not as his IP, but as "Tenebris". It's a bit confusing, so I was wondering if 1) that was allowed; 2) should something be done about it, or is it cool to just let it go? Inks.LWC (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not really a good idea for the IP to do that. It wouldn't be so bad if they included the IP address + tenebris, but it's misleading as it stands. There's no Wikipedia user called tenebris. I think it means darkness in Latin, but that's based on a quick search on the web, and I'm hardly a Latin scholar. Why don't you just ask the IP on their talk page why they're doing it?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

After I posted that, the user's IP address changed to 216.254.156.17, and he's been doing the same thing. I've posted on the new talk page asking him/her why.

It's obvious they are the same person. They didn't respond to my question, and I doubt they'll respond to yours, either. I didn't review their contributions (they seem to post only to the talk page of Hurricane Sandy). Putting aside the Tenebris thing, are they doing anything disruptive in your view?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, they're only posting on the talk page of Hurricane Sandy, which seems weird in of itself. I'm not sure if it's a sock of another account who's signing out to make the edits or what. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, they can't edit the article itself as it's semi-protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Bidgee

I see you have blocked this user for edit warring, can you explain why you would not warn him first or even ask for more information. I've just gone thru the issues and the other user is an IP address which has the appearance of being a sockpuppet. Your block was 2 hours after the edit to the article by Bidgee making your block more punative than preventative, I ask you reconsider your actions. Gnangarra 06:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Also, why did you only block Bidgee (a long-established editor with an excellent contribution history), and not the IP who was also edit warring? If I wasn't involved (tangentially, through having met Bidgee in person), I'd lift this block as it is clearly unfair. I hope that you reconsider. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've responded at probably greater length than I should have on Bidgee's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at what was really going on before blocking me. Of course I'm an experienced user (I make no effort to hide it), but I'm absolutely no sock puppet. I prefer to edit as an IP because it keeps me mindful of the golden rule. My IP number changes every time I restart my phone, but I've never ever broken any of Wikipedia's policies. It seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle, although I noted it on my EWN report, that I was not able to notify Bidgee on his talk page because it's semi-protected. I did warn him on one of the article talk pages. Anyway, thanks again for your willingness to look at the situation fairly. 208.54.4.203 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean considering whether to block you as no one actually blocked you. You did note that you couldn't notify Bidgee in the ANEW report. I've mentioned that in response to Gnangarra at Bidgee's talk page. As for the accusations of sock puppetry, I don't have much to say about it. Some think it's obvious. Others (like me) don't, but unless there's an actual investigation with a determination, it's hard to say who's right. Good luck, and stay out of trouble; I came close to blocking both of you (not for the sock thing, just for edit-warring).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• The block, even if a tad late, was fine. Subsequent administrative actions on the article were not. I left a comment on the unblocking admin's talk page. I'm going to unblock that page right now. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• The article is unprotected: I can see no possible justification for infinite protection anyway. There isn't anything remotely like a history of edit-warring in the article. IP, as far as I'm concerned you may edit to your heart's content. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• PS: BBL = Be back later. This is 2013, Bbb; step up! Drmies (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

block of User:207.225.131.141

You recently did a block and unblock of this IP. The IP was unblocked because it is coming from a library. Once the IP was unblocked, they went back to their "abusive" ways. You left a message to visit WP:ABUSE the next time abuse happened, but the abuse doesn't meet their requirements. Do you know what to do next? Bgwhite (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You know, it really ticked me off. I watched the IP after I unblocked it waiting to see all these library users who supposedly desperately needed to use the address, but they never appeared. I left it alone because there also wasn't a resumption of the disruptive editing. In any event, I've blocked the IP for 2 weeks. As for WP:ABUSE, I don't recall leaving any message about it (where do you see it?); as you say, it doesn't apply. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The WP:ABUSE message is at the top of their talk page. Looks like it was added before the blocks. Oh joy. Bgwhite (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Followup - one more page needing protection, account needs attention

Hi Bbb23, thanks for handling my edit-warring report. There's one more page that needs semi, take a look at Template:Violence against men. Also, what should happen with Faulknerck2 (talk · contribs)? I'd think he quite duckily needs an indef-block for abusing multiple accounts. He's done some valuable work in other areas but he needs to recognize what he's been doing in this area is disruptive. Cheers... Zad68 14:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the template based on the one edit by the same individual (different IP adddress but from same place). I wouldn't normally semi-protect anything based on that little, but given all the circumstances, it seems warranted to me. As for Faulknerck2, they still have not edited, at least not logged in. I have to give it some more thought, and I don't have time right now. You could file an SPI report (I'd name all three IPs). The IPs are obvious, but I don't know what they'll do based on non-technical evidence, and they are generally reluctant "to link an IP to a named account" (WP:CHK). According to Geolocate, these are static IPs, so I don't know if that makes any difference. I'm hardly an SPI expert, and the stuff can be complicated.

I'll check in again later, but I have to go to (real) work now.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I'd think the semi on the template to be irreproachable. I didn't think opening an SPI request would be productive, not just for the reason you mentioned--that SPI doesn't normally connect named accounts and IPs--but also the edits are really too ducky to even warrant the expenditure of SPI resources. From what I've seen, SPI really only gets involved in the hard-to-call cases in the middle. If it's obviously no or obviously yes (which I think this case is), they'll decline as unnecessary. It's more than suspicious that the named account stopped editing just after the WP:ANEW report was opened. I'd think the fact that the named account hasn't made edits, but three co-geolocating static IPs have been used to continue the same edits with the same prose style as the named account, would be enough per common-sense to determine that the named account is abusing multiple accounts to evade scrutiny and continue edit-warring. This is why I'd think an indef is warranted. As they say, indef isn't infinite--as soon as the individual recognizes how the edits have been unproductive, and commits to discontinue, they can go back to productive editing. Zad68 15:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand all of your points, and I don't necessarily disagree that the evidence is reasonably strong. That said, I laid all of this out at ANEW, and no admin took any action based on sock puppetry, including Ed Johnston, who obviously looked at the issues. Also, I don't think an SPI report would be declined as "unnecessary" just because it may be "obvious". They'll express a view and take appropriate action. In addition, even assuming that Faulknerck2 is a sock master, they either have to come back to edit and answer for themselves or they can't edit at all, at which point blocking them (btw, it wouldn't normally be an indef of the master on the first go) would no longer be as compelling - and at some point becomes unnecessary. At this juncture, I've taken many remedial measures to prevent further disruption, and I suggest we wait to see if anything happens. I also have talk page stalkers who might express a view on the sock puppet issues. I'll close the report at ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, fine with me, it's always a learning experience here. The point is that the disruptive editing appears to have stopped, and if the named account comes back and goes back to productive editing, well maybe he "got away" with a little bit of something but whatever. If he comes back and continues the disruption, we can deal with that then. Cheers.... Zad68 01:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I will continue to watch, but feel free to drop me a note here if you think something is amiss.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Russia Today

I understand that you are the administrator who blocked me twice in regards to my edits on RT. While I still disagree with the second block, I'm willing to let it go. In the interest of consensus-building, I am also respectfully asking for your observations in regards to the proposed changes to the RT article I am going to make in response to an edit an involved user made. I understand that there will always be mistrust between us, but I am hoping that my request for your opinions on this matter will go some way to removing that mistrust. Festermunk (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just coming by to tell you about this WP:ANI report he links to above, which seems to be just another example of Festermunk not understanding edit warring, battleground behavior or collaboration. See he got here first. He needs some serious mentoring, as I said there. Sigh.... CarolMooreDC 20:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. It has to do with content, but more specifically it has to do with your disruptive editing given how you not only deleted but did not restore content that was already accepted via consensus. That much should've been obvious to anybody who read the original post. Festermunk (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk, I just closed that ANI thread. Please consider this a warning: if you continue to engage in battlegroundish behavior you will be blocked indefinitely. Talk it out, like an adult, or at least try to. No need to respond. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies, that saves me some trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

how did you do that?

Hi I was also trying to revert some changes at H Sandy.... only I do not know how to revert two in one fell swoop like you did. Please teach me! I thought the subsequent edit forced us to revert older ones manually? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

When you have the edit history up, click on the radio button next to the version you want to go back to and then click on "Compare selected versions" (this assumes the most current version has its radio button already selected). On the next screen, you should have a link on the upper left "restore this version"; click on that, and it will give you an edit box to give a reason for the reversion. Your reason should account for as much as possible of what you are effectively reverting. I might add that for this article, things don't work well. I assume it's because the article is bloated, but it appears to be worse than for other bloated articles. I sometimes get errors saying that the "restore" timed out. When I get those messages, sometimes the restore didn't work, but other times it did. Very frustrating.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I use compare version all the time.... when you said On the next screen, you should have a link on the upper left "restore this version" could that be one of those extras some editors who are not admin can ask for? I never see that link and am thinking this might be sort of like rollbacker rights (which I have).NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm an admin and I don't have that link either. It might be a matter of the skin you're using for Wikipedia. I'm using the old MonoBook and all I get when comparing revisions is an "edit" link for both sides of the window. So you just click that "edit" on the left side and then save the old revision with a remark in the edit summary. De728631 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It might also be Twinkle (I use Twinkle). Honestly, I get a little lost in all this stuff with everyone having different things. The admin/non-admin stuff I get, but the rest ...--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In light of your mentoring relationship with Drmies, please allow an uninvolved admin to deal with the issue

In light of your mentoring relationship with Drmies, please allow an uninvolved admin to close complaints about him. -Fjozk (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not nonsense at all in light of the amount of group bullying, badgering, and harassing that goes on on en.wiki. Drmies inflamed the situation by egging on Niteshift for his drive-by comment at AN/I. At some point, you all ought to stop supporting each other and start editing content. Someone could have just told Niteshift to stop posting on my talk page. Instead, you go to Drmie's talk page, and gather an inflammatory quote by Niteshift to share with me. So, not nonsense. And, yes. -Fjozk (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Invoooolved, Bbb. That's the fun of Wikipedia. Someone has a legitimate complaint about someone else, and an admin helps out. But that person phrases their request in a most...immature manner, full of assumptions and accusations, and gets called on it. Next thing you know, this. I wonder if that whale watcher wasn't on to something, what that conflict was about. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify (I like things spelled out), Drmies, are you saying you believe I am involved or you're just spoofing? Frankly, I don't see it. If I'm involved, then anytime an editor complains about Admin A, every other admin who is a "friend" with Admin A would be involved. That can't be right.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify: when I say "invooooolved" I mean there's someone claiming, in a whiney voice, that there is no justice to be had because "the admin is involved". Like, I nominated you and therefore you'll say exactly what I want you to. Like I approved you, and the 100+ editors who weighed in on that discussion--wait, they're probably also involved. It's a giant conspiracy. That's what I mean with "invooolved". Does that help? Of course Dennis is involved too, and Crisco (cause we wrote articles together), and Niteshift (we go back years, we were here when the rhododendron wasn't yet invented), and all the rest of them. Don't you love it when everybody is wrong except for some anointed one? Drmies (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot: I was going to let you know about something I wrote up a long time ago with ChildofMidnight, with a California link: Bruce's Beach. There must be a thousand more of those topics. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting little piece of So. Calif. history. I believe the demographics of MH now are somewhat ironic - mostly upper-upper-middle class but quite a few wealthy blacks (sports figures). I made a few copy edits (always brings out the gnome in me).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Saraiki Language page protection requested

Saraiki page 3 month protection requested againts persistent vandalism Saraikistan (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You can always go to WP:RFPP, but if I were the reviewing admin, I'd decline a protection request as there hasn't been enough recent activity to justify it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The RŌBLOX Lua Scripting Book

I see that you keep changing the page The RŌBLOX Lua Scripting Book to a redirect that leads to RŌBLOX. I'm trying to give people a RŌBLOX Lua scripting book to help them improve with their skills and you keep changing the page! What's the deal??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEpicQ (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think that this article is suitable for Wikipedia? Wikipedia isn't your personal website to play games. I'll discuss the issue with another admin to see if the article can be speedily deleted (my first choice) or nominated for deletion. Your reversion, by the way, was ill-considered.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I AfD'ed it, so the ball is rolling regardless, likely just a question of how much discussion winds up happening first. DMacks (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed, thanks, I've commented at the AfD page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your efforts at WP:AN/EW. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sjones, I have faith in you, and the IP appeared to be reasonable. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all, Bbb23. By the way, since I am trying to avoid edit warring on Princess Mononoke's plot section, I am thinking about expanding and improving the article outside of the plot section. As for the plot section itself, I think we should come up with a reasonable compromise for the plot section that will satisfy all editors. Would that be helpful in this case? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know, but the IP started an almost identical discussion at WP:ANI. I commented and closed. Also interesting, Elen didn't think anyone was edit-warring, even though you and I both do. :-) As for your suggestion, I think it would be fine to work on the talk page to resolve the plot section issues, but then my recommendation is if you think you've reached a consensus, you let someone else implement it. I always find that safer in case someone comes along and says that no consensus was reached (happens all the time, unfortunately).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I was aware that the IP started an identical discussion at ANI. Thanks for your comments on the situation. :-) By the way, as I am working on Princess Mononoke in my sandbox, can you please give some helpful advice on how to improve it so we can get it up to FA status? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If I have time, which seems unlikely; also, I don't necessarily think I'm the best choice for that sort of task. I'm sure you know others who are more typically involved with achieving FA status. Not exactly my area of expertise.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then. Thanks. :-) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Saw you removed the footnote I added to WP:LEAD: agree 100% that the wording/phrasing could have been better, but don't you think the point still need to be made? And does it really matter in a footnote? UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the footnote, even if better worded, is unnecessary and misleading. It goes into different exceptions for different kinds of articles, and I don't even know if your list is exhaustive. At least some of what you list is already covered. For example, the point about birth and death dates is covered in WP:OPENPARA, which is referenced in WP:LEAD. And just because it's in a footnote doesn't mean it doesn't matter. My suggestion is if you want to change the opening of WP:LEAD, you raise it on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. So raised. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wendover

Would it be okay to revert to this version pending discussion? In addition to the infobox issue, the edit also restored some original research in the text/footnotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. If you wish to point out explicitly which part(s) of Ricahrd's change injected WP:OR into the article, I'll take a look, but unless there is an obvious policy violation, I think you should take this as an opportunity to contribute more to the discussion on the talk page and leave the article alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Allen Leech early life

So, I overhauled the early life and education section of Allen Leech. I fear I may have gotten a over-sentimental (if that's the right word) and I have a hard time restraining myself when adding things, so would you mind looking over the section? I would like a second opinion to make sure everything looks fine (at the moment, anyways). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I made a few small copy edits. I didn't compare your version to the previous version, but in glancing at it, it did seem occasionally unencyclopedic (read dry), but I don't know if you introduced that or it was already there. I was happy you fixed some of the refs and removed the silly stuff about his nephew. If I have time, I'll look at it some more, but that's a big if. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! Yea, it's not my best prose, but I was more worried about adding really trivial and silly things in my ardor. And thanks for any help you can spare. At the moment, you're the only active editor I can associate with the article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Moni Aizik

You commented on this at BLPN once, I'm not sure if it's still on your watchlist but I've just reverted some promotional edits/BLP violations there (called reverting vandlism) and something similar at Commando Krav Maga which the editor attempted to turn into a 2nd bio on Aizik. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It was no longer on my watchlist, but it now is. I restored the redirect on Commando Krav Maga; is there some reason for it to remain as a standalone article?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Australian Christian Lobby

Would you keep the Australian Christian Lobby protection-block, which you have set up, in place until a consensus has been reached. Also it would be appreciated if a consensus is not reached, if you could adjudicate and/or suggest a way forward. Thanking you. Sam56mas (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The lock has not yet expired. I can't extend it as that would be a preemptive protection, which is frowned upon. I'd also rather avoid "adjudicating" the content dispute as that would prevent me from taking administrative action in the future if needed. Hope you understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine - thank you. Sam56mas (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete

Re AN note -- you forgot to mention the part where you make a reasonable ANI comment and some asshole who can't tell the diff between a User and User Talk page goes all snarky on you... Sorry about that. What's really annoying is I was thinking to myself WTF? Bra size is usually much more Zen than this! I should've listened to the little voice and double-checked what I was seeing. NE Ent 16:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on being the first editor to cause me to completely lose my cool (although at least I didn't descend to personal attacks), and congratulations for your sincere apology. And as long as you're here, two questions, if you feel like answering: (1) why did you change your user name? (2) what does "NE" mean (can't mean Nobody Ent)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What has happened to you, Bbb23? You don't seem to be the same editor I happily supported for adminship. I realize this whole incident had you quite pissed off for some reason, but reverting the page to your preferred verison and threatening to use your admin tools to lock the page if anyone changed it from the version you wanted? Particularly troubling was your complaint about "the lack of deference to Ed", as if his admin status entitles him to preferential treatment. You're becoming one of them and it makes me sad. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

blocking admin discretion is pretty much what the docs on {{blocked user}} say. We do need a standard policy on user page labeling, but I haven't had wiki time to put together an RFC yet (and who knows if an RFC would get enough traction to stick?) NE Ent 02:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, I haven't changed. I was disturbed by people jumping on admins well before I was an admin. Obviously, admins make mistakes, but that doesn't mean they should be attacked. And many times I saw admins being raked over the coals when they hadn't really done anything wrong. Generally, with obvious exceptions, I think all editors are entitled to respect for their decisions. It seemed - and seems - to me that admins are sometimes singled out and targeted for abuse. Ed made an administrative decision. He didn't use his tools, but his decision was still in his capacity as an administrator, not as an editor. Non-admins can't reverse administrative decisions that are made with administrative tools. In the same vein, they shouldn't reverse administrative decisions even when they "can". If someone has a problem with an administrative action, they should approach the admin on the admin's talk page and discuss it. If they are dissatisfied with the result of the discussion, they can, of course, then take the admin to ANI and ask that the administrative action be reviewed. Finally, it would truly be more constructive if you didn't see Wikipedia as us vs. them. That only refinforces any perceived divisive view you have of admins and is not conducive to a collaborative environment.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

NE Ent is recursive acronym. NE Ent 02:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That answers question #2. I'm going to assume that the answer to question #1 is that you wanted to be able to use the term "recursive acronym". :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page I created?

Why did you delete the page I created about the Imagine Peace Institute? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_Institute Not only that, you deleted the talk page so I can't see your reasoning or your response. I made a request that you not delete this page and made a reasonable argument as to why: I explained that this organization is significant and important because it contributes to society by directly impacting children who are devastated by war. You did not notify me, or bother to answer my request for non-speedy deletion, or treat me with even the least politeness. What in heck is going on Bbb23? Over the years, I've created many Wikipedia pages. I have never been treated so rudely. I believe your rude treatment of me reflects poorly on Wikipedia and is an impediment to any writers who wish to contribute in the future.

Here again is my case: I have carefully read the Wikipedia page on Criteria for speedy deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, and my article does not qualify for speedy deletion. In fact, the reverse is clearly true. At very least, my article qualifies as a very short article (Stub) vis a vis the Wikipedia quidelines on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:STUB

Also, Wikipedia guidelines on Criteria for speedy deletion say that you should notify me of the deletion and your reason. I quote from the Wikipedia page on Criteria for speedy deletion: Procedure for administrators

See also: Wikipedia:Deletion process

"Make sure to specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary. Also, in general the article's creator and major contributors should have been notified."

Since you have removed the TALK page, you and I cannot even have a dialog on this topic.

Respectfully, I request that you restore my article immediately. Thank you. scubeesnax (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed it for the reason specified, that there was no indication that the organization is important or significant. Deleleting the talk page of a deleted article is standard procedure. You were notified of the speedy deletion. I am not required to notify you that it has been deleted or why. You can see that for yourself based on the criterion specified.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents-Discussion

Hi, I saw the noticeboard and can say that I was not involved in any of the incidents. What specific section of the page is the discussion you mentioned may pertain to me in?--Wikiz876 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, that was from November 3, and it was archived a while ago. You can find it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw the discussion and my username. My account was up for sock puppet investigations a while ago and at the time I only had one account. I have two accounts actually, Wikiz876, and Wikiz768 (I have to chose a different name) from my mobile. If that's sock puppetry, you can close the one account just to solve the issue. Beyond that I haven't edited much recently.Wikiz876 (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

White Terror (Russia)

Thank you for undoing EverlastingGaze's revision. I despair over how to handle this extremely biased and stubborn editor who feels he owns the article. I tried various appeals, to the NPOV group, the Russia Group, and to Dispute Resolution, but have been unable to interest an administrator. I fear it will be difficult for me to avoid edit warring myself... Any suggestions welcome. cwmacdougall 0:52, 17 November 2012

Yes, don't edit-war, no matter how frustrated you become, unless there is a clear exemption like obvious vandalism, which I don't think is present here. I am watching the article and the editor and will try to help if I can, but I can't get involved in the content dispute and still act administratively. Have you tried an RfC?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't know; when does repeated use of biased sources become vandalism? I haven't even begun to look at the more difficult to consider sources like Litvin, just obviously wrong ones like Serge. Anyway, RfC looks like an interesting place to try. Which section? cwmacdougall 1:20, 17 November 2012

this section.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A heads up

Concerning the page at Stephen H. Wendover, I feel you should know that I have requested page protection at WP:RFPP. It's an unpleasant solution to an unpleasant problem, but it may, by forcing demonstration of consensus for any changes, be the most productive way to end the war there. I do apologise if my actions there have made your job more difficult.

If you disagree strongly with the logic of my request or its likely outcome if granted, feel free to decline or remove it from RFPP. --Nouniquenames 06:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads up and the apology at the Wendover talk page. Per your authorization, I've removed the RFPP report. My general belief is that full locks on articles are warranted when it's clear there is an intractable content dispute and multiple editors are battling. Here, although there are some sporadic edits by other users, the battle is principally between two users. I don't like to "punish" other users when the dispute is better resolved through warnings and/or sanctions of the involved users. Locking the article would probably make my job easier, but, at least at this point, it seems the wrong way to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your actions and threats are harmful and of course unfair !

A sockpuppet has nothing to do with me, I have all right like you do to modify an article if it is correctly quoted, you are threatening for totally invalid reasons, and again I ask you to stop. So yes I will modify again this article because it's true what is posted and correctly quoted ! Your actions in the Bourdin's article have been harmful for the article's credibility. So block me if you like but it's my belief that you have no right to do so since I have done nothing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.94.23.111 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Frederic Bourdin' article

Are you inventing new rules for Wikipedia ? Are you going to block everyone that don't agree with you ? I don't see why you keep cancelling changes when the modification are fair and verified. In that same article, Bourdin is quoted by the New yorker, you did not undo that part, why ? Bourdin's grandfather wanted his daughter to abort and it's a well known fact ! It's both in the film the imposter, in the telegraph as well as many other media. This information was in in his grandfather notebook. I don't know what your problem is but you are wrong on this all the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.14.80 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Was I edit warring at Australian Christian Lobby?

Hi Bbb23

I noticed you locked down Australian Christian Lobby in the midst of one my edits. Do you believe I was edit warring? I rearranged some content so that it would be less disjointed. I also did some minor rewording and the small amount of content that I removed was archived on the talk page, with source intact and with an explanation of why I removed it.

If this article is constantly protected, I'm not sure how it will ever get to a point where it can be improved to the satisfaction of consensus. I wonder if there might be better way forward. - MrX 15:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This article has a contentious history, and I'm not going to get into the content disputes. Since the last lock expired, too many editors have battled in the article. Whether your edits in particular are disputed/controversial would require me to analyze every edit (some are obvious). Don't think of my comments or the lock as an accusation against you personally. Think of it as an opportunity to work out ALL content issues on the talk page and not to resume editing the article after the lock expires without discussion and consensus on the talk page. When the lock expires, think at least three times before editing the article as the risk of blocks remains.

As for a "better way", what would you suggest?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but as per my comment on the article talk page, I think the protection is preventing a breakthrough. I say this based on my involvement with other controversial articles. Eventually, compromises are reached and the article is improved and becomes stable. My suggestion is to semi-protect it for two weeks and enforce 3RR. BTW, I agree that more/better discussion is needed on the talk page, although there is some filibustering which is not so helpful. - MrX 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I commented on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edit on my talk page

Do you post this template to everyone who is editing on articles on the conflict in the middle east, or do you have some issue with my attempts to get articles to adhere to wikipedia standards? PerDaniel (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I was notifying those who have recently been editing Operation Pillar of Cloud. The effort, which, frankly, is a tedious one, was not necessarily directed at any particular editor (I was picking them off in reverse chronological order). However, I did notice your comment on your talk page about "truth" and "neutral[ity]]". That, coupled with your comment here, gives me some cause for concern. The 1RR restriction, just like the normal 3RR restriction, with limited exceptions, is not concerned with your concept of truth or your concept of neutrality, so I'd tread cautiously.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So you are simply trying to bully me from contributing. Thanks for beeing so frank. PerDaniel (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you're welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Your note on my page

You should take note of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alohamesamis#November_2012 this, before jumping to false conclusions. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Post script: You will need to look at the history because, as before, they have just removed the post. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see the history, and it's not pretty. Stop playing policeperson on their talk page. If the user wants to remove your templates, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. For you to insist is inappropriate and can lead to sanctions if you persist.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand fully. However it is not acceptable to read an edit summary calling another editor *a cunt* -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Now you're getting into a different issue from your behavior on the talk page. If you want to take Alohamesamis to WP:ANI based on incivility, that's your prerogative, but I have two comments. First, they were reacting to the "get bent" edit summary by John C. (don't know why it took so long for them to react - it was 10 days prior). Second, requests for civility blocks at ANI generally involve more noise than signal, so be prepared for a lot of pushback and very little satisfaction.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure! It's not worthy of the time and effort. Thank you for your good advice. I appreciate it. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. User:7&6=thirteen has reported Alohamesamis at WP:AIV for incivility. In my view, it should be declined, but you never know. BTW, just so it's clear, I'm not condoning the comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry for the edit conflicts. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh, at least we were on the same wavelength. I removed your notice from his talk page, although I kinda liked the color of yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That '70s Show

Can you elaborate on your concerns about "copyright issues" in the external link removed from the That '70s Show article?--RadioFan (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the same as linking to YouTube or some other site that has video that may be a copyright violation. There's no indication on the Flickr link that the images are free. In fact, it appears they are not. The first picture in the stream (I didn't bother looking at the rest) says "All Rights Reserved".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Supposedly someone here claims to work for the "telenovela" industry (even if it's a blatant lie), would that fall under "Conflict of interest"?? Platinum Star (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You're going to have to give me a little more information than that. I don't know what editor you're talking about or what article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to this editor. I've warned him several times for posting unsourced info, yet his comments (on the edit summary) seem to imply that his info is always right. Also, his userpage says he "work in telenovela business" and his edits are mainly from telenovela articles. Platinum Star (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because the editor works for a particular industry does not mean they have a conflict when editing articles related to the industry. Obviously, someone can work in the film industry and edit film articles. Conflicts have to be more direct than that. For example, an editor would have a conflict if they edit an article about a film studio and they work for the studio itself. What all this means is you're going to have to work out any content disputes you have with the editor on a case-by-case basis unless you can establish a clear pattern of misbehavior. Obviously, material added to articles here generally must be sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

hello

admin attention needed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Gilabrand_reported_by_User:Supreme_Deliciousness_.28Result:_.29 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I've commented at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Have replied there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

have replied, --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearing things up with Frederic Bourdin

Hi, Bbb. I'm trying to sort out a rather complicated situation here, and could use your help. The user who got into a whole hissyfit with you over Frederic Bourdin, and who got blocked for repeating a potentially libelous claim that you'd removed about Bourdin's grandfather, calling you an idiot, and making legal threats, has asked several editors, including Jimbo (most notably) and me (most relevantly) to help him. I don't know if this came up before, but he claims to be Bourdin himself, and a geolocation check on the IP he used to use indicates that this is quite likely the case (see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 120#Frederic Bourdin's article for my explanation). To me, it looks like he didn't know about several relevant policies, and while I support the idea of WP:CIR, he seems to get what I'm explaining to him, and I think this might be a case where the best course of action is to give him enough rope.

Obviously he has a major COI, so I've advised him to file a COI edit request, which he appears willing to do. Now, of course, you (or an uninvolved admin, at least) have grounds for a new indefblock and an autoblock in that he's socking, but if he's going to not violate any policies this time around (and I'll gladly take him to ANV if he does), I think this is a solid IAR case, since he could stand to benefit the encyclopedia if he can provide documentation for the assertions he wants to put into the article. At the moment, I'm not sure how to proceed, and as any effective route would require an admin's involvement (either to unblock his old account completely, unblock his old account's access to its talk page so he can file a request, give this new account the go-ahead if it complies with policy, etc.), I was wondering what you'd advise. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no sympathy for the individual. If you look back at the original problem, he made a legal threat and was blocked for that (and, yes, he claimed to be Bourdin). As far as I know, he has never retracted that threat and on that basis alone should not be permitted to edit here. Since that time, he has repeatedly evaded the block and is apparently doing so again. You might discuss the issues with User:Dennis Brown as Dennis, I believe, took the last administrative actions against him, and Dennis is not involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Dennis appears to be away for Thanksgiving. Any advice on who I should take it to instead? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Smart Dennis. Why don't you give me a bit more information (I'm sure I could figure it out if I were less lazy). What account or IP is raising the current ruckus?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Idontfeelthesame. As I've said, I'd report him for block evasion if I didn't think he had a point. I'm no huge fan of his, and he doesn't exactly have nice things to say about you (I've given him the WP:CIV/WP:AGF speech), but what he says is that the information he wanted to add is true, and verified by reliable sources. And since any editing he'd do now, he'd have to do via {{request edit}}, I think that covers the content side. On the policy side, he said on Jimbo's page that he didn't know about the lawyering rule, and he clearly doesn't know socking policy either, otherwise he wouldn't be, you know, admitting to socking. I've explained COI to him, I can explain WP:SOCK to him for future reference, and content guidelines would come up on the article's talk page. The way I see it, this is an editor who broke policy due to incompetence and clearly only has a single (morally dubious) purpose, but if he'll agree to typical unblocking requirements (reading certain policies, no COI editing, etc.), I don't think he's done anything that warrants continuing the indefblock.

That's just my two cents. I could be overlooking a policy here, or just being too lenient in my assessment. As for involved-admin status, I don't think there's any rule against your unblocking him, since, even if you weren't the blocking admin, you definitely were in favor of it, and since Dennis is away, an unblocking admin wouldn't be able to ask his opinion regardless; involvement would only be an issue if you were going to deny, in which case I'd find an uninvolved admin who's good at French (so I don't have to re-explain this every time) - any recommendations? I know that Kudpung's fluent, and Drmies might be able to understand it. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 00:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, nothing you've said convinces me that this person should be permitted to edit here. I don't believe this is an issue of incompetence but pure disruption. And it doesn't require an uninvolved admin who's fluent in French, either. If this were a case where there is something in a bio that is harmful to the subject, that would be a different story, but this is all about him wanting to add the stuff about his grandfather. Utter garbage; even if it's true, how the hell is it relevant? Nor do I understand why he's contacting all these different editors with the same diatribe. If you want to go to another admin who's good with socking, you can try User:Berean Hunter; he's also very level-headed. In the meanwhile, I will file an SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm no huge fan of his, so I may decline to proceed on his behalf... we'll see. SPI-wise, do you even need to file a report when he's confessed to it? Here's a diff of him saying it. Since it's in French, the relevant parts are: "je suis bloqué" ("I am blocked") and "Alors a moins que vous preniez sur vous de me débloquer (ce que j'apprecierai vraiment), je veux dire mon vrai profil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Francparler" ("So that, at the very least, you can take it upon yourself to unblock me [he appears to not understand quite how blocking and unblocking work], I'll tell you my real profile: User:Francparler.") — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable blocking him. He should be blocked. Hence, the SPI report - also to document the new puppet. BTW, I'm reasonably fluent in French, although I appreciate the extra efforts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

You are receiving this message because you have submitted at least one edit to the Frank_L._VanderSloot article during the past thirty days. Your attention is called to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Get stuffed

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A big thank you from me to you.   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  05:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, lgr, happy holidays!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Block change

Hey Bbb23 - I extended your block of Factcolony to indefinite as they claim via UTRS that their account was compromised (by their brother). I noted as such on the talk page. Happy Thanksgiving! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Don't I get the day off? Looks like you "worked" on your Thanksgiving. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Banana Fingers

Hi there BBB, i am retired as of the 20th of this month, but could not resist to drop by and leave you this message and/or headsup,

Finally this person got what he deserved, i have been on the receiving end of his antics, calling me a SMART ASS and a WANKER for a minor difference of opinion. This is the comment on the punishment, the headsup: don't know if he has others, but he has also contributed (and shouted at me!) with this IP (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.243.15.177). One also has to "admire" the first message of this archive, titled "Sad man" (the vandal has the guts to call YOU the sad one?!)...

Keep up the good work, glad to (have) be(en) of help --AL (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I confess to being a bit lost as to how you figure into all of this, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• By "how you figure into all of this" you mean "how did you discover the situation"? I hope so, i hope it does not mean "this is none of your business" or i would be deeply sad after only wanting to congratulate you on blocking this person who resorts to picking on/insulting others in summaries or messages, never seen him had a kind word to anyone (as little as "hello" or similar). In case your words mean "how did you find out", it's easy: i checked Banana Fingers' contributions after eyeing an article he/i edited for several months going for the last time, then clicked on his talkpage and discovered he had been blocked by you, so i came here to congratulate on doing what should have been done a long time ago, and to warn you about this other IP Banana has (don't know if he has a static or a dynamic one, if it's static it's pretty obvious he will use it to avoid scrutiny as his account will be "out of order" for 30 days), simple as that; another reason for my message was, i repeat, my direct involvement with this guy in the past, with him insulting me as he has several other users.

In case your words meant "this discussion does not concern you at all, butt out", well excuse me. Reply please as to if your sentiment is A or B. Thanks. --AL (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant absolutely nothing negative about you. As you said, I just didn't understand how you came into the picture. Thanks for explaining it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Many many thanks for the quick reply! As i said before keep up the good work(s), and sorry for any misunderstanding on my part due to my message. I will return as an editor most likely (the site is more "good" than it is "bad"), but i will go now on a long wikibreak nonetheless. --AL (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Enjoy your break.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

?

Bbb23, the discussion at AN clearly shows that the rules are valid, and I showed at the report that Gilabrand personally received a warning about the rules, and an admin already notified her about the report I filed: [15], so why havent you taken action against her ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing compels me take action. If you wish, you could update the report at WP:ANEW pointing to the discussion at WP:AN and see if another admin is more receptive to the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Great job! --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised and puzzled. I thought you'd be unhappy with my response. What'd I do right? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		ViperSnake151  Talk  03:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, ViperSnake, there appears to still be disruption on the article. I'll keep it on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Minnesota Family Council

Thanks for the note on my talk page. This was a tricky situation, because the IP editor was obviously acting in good faith. In fact, this comment you made was not quite fair, since they had added not only content, but references. It did seem, however, that they didn't understand much about Wikipedia - it was possible that they didn't know why their edits weren't "sticking". As to my part in this, I have commented on the noticeboard, for wha it's worth. But thanks for your help. StAnselm (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented at the IP's talk page, and I've responded to your comment at WP:ANEW. I'd appreciate it if you would continue the dialog at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I will say something more here, since you had used the word "gently". The wording and the picture of the dove didn't do very much for me, because of the bad blood that has existed between MrX and myself in recent months. Anyway, I thought I was being careful, and was very surprised this morning to find that I had been reported. At this point in time, I find it hard to accept on face value MrX's comment that he would "hate to see anyone blocked". StAnselm (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that comment was an edit conflict - I didn't see the "continue the dialog at WP:ANEW" bit. StAnselm (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Zakir Naik Religion?

Hello, Several Wikipedians doubted about his school of teachings and that's why I changed it to Muslim. He never uttered Salafi as his belief. Even the reference attached with his belief is totally irrelevant.I urge you to discuss this matter with me. Shah-E-Zaman (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGzsWRLYf9M

Your Removal of CSD A7 Tag

Hi! I'm wondering why you removed the A7 CSD tag at GU Energy. I think DragonflySixtyseven might have accidently removed the tag looking at their edit summary. Also, the article obviously qualifies under A7. Could you please re-examine this? Thank you! Vacation^nine 03:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be right about the history, but I suggest you contact DragonflySixtyseven.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method and 3RR

Thank you for your attention to this, but I think my messed up edit drew you into a misinterpretation. Could I ask you tolook again? Thanks. Kevin McE (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I did and commented there.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

PaM has recently displayed a rather problematic history regarding not only his or her topic of most long-standing interest, but also religious and ethnicity topics. Personally, I think the situation with this editor has rather seriously gotten out of hand. In previous discussion earlier this year, for instance, PaM indicated a lack of familiarity or possibly even awareness of WP:RS, and despite having been advised by someone trying to be helpful, Adjwilley, has said when first advised to provide edit summaries responded something to the effect "I have always edited this way" and even now provides only the most cursory descriptions of edits generally. I have been contacted regarding the possibility of starting an RfC/U on this editor, but, personally, given the noticeboard history of the editor and the fairly consistent behavior which some might call arrogance and disregard of at least good practices, and possibly/probably conduct policies and guidelines, I wonder whether taking the matter to ArbCom might not be more appropriate. Given your own recent review of the editor, I would appreciate any input you might have. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, John, I didn't go very far back in the editor's history, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to express an opinion in the matter. Even though I know it's permissible to remove warning notices from one's talk page, I don't approve of the practice, particularly with experienced editors. I am also bothered by the fact that PaM twice tried to remove the block notice, which is not permissible, despite my clear warning the first time. I, too, have a sense of arrogance in PaM's edits, but it isn't based on robust research. To their credit, they do appear willing to discuss issues on article talk pages, although, at the same time, they appear to think that the mere fact they discuss some means they can then do what they want, which, of course, is not true.

I'm not as familiar with ArbCom procedures as many more experienced admins (and even some non-admins), but, I think it depends a bit on what you are requesting - a block? a ban? what kind of ban? From my limited observations of ArbCom, they appear to prefer that these things be worked up more before making a request, either through discussions at WP:AN or WP:ANI specific to the ArbCom request, or through an RfC/U. In other words, the community is supposed to handle it first and fail. Heh.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If one editor has a problematic history over a long period of time, opening an WP:RFC/U will cause less waste of time than a request for arbitration. Eventually the same evidence will have to be gathered anyway. Once the evidence is clear and presented in a coherent way, admins should be able to take action, or dismiss the matter as not being important enough. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but two editors have to, basically, agree to open the case. One can begin and the other can come in later, within 48 hours. Gather the most important diffs, and remember to keep your diffs focused on the editor's conduct, not on the actual article content .

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem.

I have found this page helpful: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Archive. Try Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Assistance, although I have never used it. RFC/U is not designed to block or ban the user, but to reach a resolution that he or she will accept. It's a tall order, but, as was mentioned before, it all helps if an appeal is taken up the line. Good luck. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)