User talk:Bbb23/Archive 13

Bagheeraladdin

Hi,

While I have no problem taking it to an AfD, I just wanted to let you know that CSD should have applied in this case as this (and other similar articles) are Youtube videos (i.e. web-content). Travelbird (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Frederic Bourdin

Hi! It might be best if you step back from this one going forward, because his personal animosity towards you appears to be part of the problem. If he's going to end up banned, then it's best that he come to understand that it's for good cause, not because one person has it in for him (which I don't think is true of you, but he thinks it is, and that's relevant). Best to let others evaluate it independently. And save yourself the headache! :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, My latest comments at WP:ANI express my current views on the issues here. That may change if the situation changes or if more information is revealed to me, but I have to continue to act as I believe is best, not for the editor, but for the project. A lot of disruptive editors say horrible things about admins (and other editors). We can't let that sort of misplaced venom deter us from doing our "jobs". You may not agree with my views, but I hope you at least understand them. They certainly have nothing to do specifically with this editor. I don't "dislike" him any more than I dislike any editor I feel is a liability to the project because of their conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You went out of your way to make a very friendly, diplomatic request, and I don't think my response demonstrated any appreciation of that. I haven't changed my position, but the way you approached me is appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 13:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

resumption of edit war by Andrzejbanas

Andrzejbanas has resumed his edit warring at Caché (film). I believe this is the diff: Link There has been a discussion about the guidelines on the infobox talk page that pointed out to him that he was mistaken. What should be my next step? Thanks for your assistance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you on this earlier, Ring Cinema. I blocked Andrzejbanas on November 21 for 48 hours. The Blade unblocked them several hours later based on a UTRS ticket (I don't have access to UTRS) with the condition that Andrzejbanas not touch the article for the original duration of the block. Andrzejbanas abided by that condition. So, rather than a resumption of edit-warring, you pretty much start fresh. It does look like you're making some progress on the article talk page with the assistance of Betty Logan and Lugnuts. Hopefully, you'll be able to reach a consensus on the content.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. Can you please take a look at this ANI thread and offer your thoughts on this matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:Hound

Sadly I dont see any Admins reading that and understanding they are able to block for 'hound' behaviour. Consensus is good, but forcing a community-enacted restriction vote, and then choosing a yes/no question where the community find fault with either option.. Well I fear its going to be closed as no consensus for an IB despite the general consensus being that the underlying behaviour is disruptive. Someone should have blocked before it got to the vote point or it should have been a topic ban given the issues with one-way interaction bans. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it looks moot as your prediction as to the result ended up being wrong. Procedurally, I don't like the way any of this was handled, but I'm not about to raise objections. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Pleasantly surprised in part, someone actually put some thought into it for once. Disappointed because its a 1-way ban. And those really need to go (and be replaced by something better). At least with an RFC at the banning policy there is hope something productive might come out of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hard cases

Every noticeboard needs a victim diligent and fearless administrator willing to close messy cases like this one. In former days cases like this would sometimes scroll off the top without a closure. It is always good to see someone figuring them out in a reasonable manner. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Kind words, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red

Is continuing his "ownership by reversion" at Frank L. VanderSloot letting no edits go in other than his own -- which now number nigh unto 400. I think it might be worthwhile for you to look at the underlying WP:BLP issues therein, as RIR seems to think that it is not edit war if he reverts everything in sight <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You're very brave, Collect, to continue the battle about this article. I have no desire to become involved. One possibility is to bring RIR to ANI and ask for an article ban, assuming you think it's justified (I haven't looked enough). I don't know if any other editors should also be article-banned; the article is a continuing maelstrom of disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You are not the only editor that Mr. RIR has scared away. Anyway, I have sworn off editing there until after Christmas, though I will certainly reach for consensus on the Talk Page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I wouldn't say I was "scared away", but I get involved in fewer content disputes as an admin than I did when I was a non-admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:EditorInChiefSD

Hi. I'm curious as to why this editor has been blocked from editing his talk page. I'm not challenging it, just don't see the rationale. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked in part for posting messages at articles like this one. That's not even on a talk page but in the article itself. After he was blocked, he posted a similar message on his talk page. I removed it and warned him of the consequences if he restored it, which he then did.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't seen that. Please restore his talk page access and warn him on his talk page, not in an edit summary, which a newbie is likely to miss. By the way, what policy was he abusing that prompted you to remove his criticism of Wikipedia and block access to his talk page? WP:BLOCK says "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page" but that's not happening here; and Protection policy#Blocked users says it is preferred in "extreme cases of abuse" instead of page protection but, again, that's not happening here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Anthony, but I believe the revocation of talk page access was justified given all the circumstances. If you wish to restore talk page access, that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

How about answering my question? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had. My view is the repeated attempts by the user to inject his screed on his talk page was abusive. He used Wkikipedia article space as a platform for his views, and when blocked, he continued the behavior on his talk page. I have seen other admins revoke talk page access for similar behavior. It's obviously a line-drawing exercise as to whether the talk page abuse rises to the level of being sufficiently extreme, which means reasonable admin minds (to the extent anything of my admin mind is left these days :-) ) may differ on when it's warranted. Does that help explain my view, even if you disagree?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I realise others do this too but I don't see any support for it in policy in the absence of abuse. Posting criticism of Wikipedia on your talk page is not abuse. I wouldn't mind engaging with the editor, but can wait until the block expires if you'd prefer to leave it in place. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you posted, the block has been extended for another month for sock puppetry. Back to the original issue, I suppose it depends on how you define "abuse". If it were just the normal criticism of Wikipedia (you guys are unfair, your rules are absurd, etc.), I wouldn't consider that abusive. But the comment "This is evidence of Wikipedia's racist and tolerant stance of violence toward Palestinians. Any reader of Wikipedia should question its value of information" goes well beyond that. And as I've already stated, this is the same material that was part of the basis for the block. I believe the revocation is justifiable, particularly after a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

We disagree on what can and can't be said on a user talk page, but I'm OK with that; I'm sure neither of us is alone in our view. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's right, Anthony. For example, I know that some admins will allow a user to remove a current block notice, even though I and others believe that is prohibited by WP:BLANKING. I generally leave such things to the discretion of the blocking admin, although I have no problem with your raising your concerns here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested

Hello. There is a small, polite discussion (for a change) going on at Talk:Stephen H. Wendover (at the bottom of the section at Talk:Stephen H. Wendover#Infobox redux). Nikkimaria proposed a small content removal, and I diasgree with a portion of it. Another editor likely agrees based on previous posts. So that no claim can be made of not having consensus, I am asking you to look at her proposal and give your opinion.

For full disclosure, I consulted with Ms. Nikkimaria before seeking your input.

Respectfully,
Nouniquenames 06:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to decline your invitation. If I comment on the content, I become WP:INVOLVED and can no longer act administratively. I think it's better if I keep my distance.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. Another user invited with you has commented and helped to establish a more definitive consensus. For the moment, at least, all seems quiet and pleasant. --Nouniquenames 18:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Snow?

Howdy! If you have a moment, and if you are so inclined, I thought I'd ask you for your opinion regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James T. White. I've requested snow deletion. As an uninvolved admin with experience at AfD, I thought you might be good for that or some other action. Thanks in advance for any actions you'd like to take or input you feel like giving. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 05:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, John, I'd like to help, but since becoming an admin, I haven't closed a single AfD, and I prefer that my first one not be a "premature" closure.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You could always ask at WP:ANRFC under Premature close requests. --Nouniquenames 05:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A question about closing a discussion

Hi Bbb23. Sorry for the trouble but since I am not expert on closing a discussion I wanted to ask you if you can check a recent closing at BLPN in a discussion where I participated. The discussion was closed by a non-admin and also a participant involved at that discussion as shown here. The closing comments also criticised me and another of the participants by name. Is this a normal procedure for closings? I would appreciate your advice. Thank you. For full disclosure I reverted my name and of the other user a couple of times based on NPA but got reverted by an admin at first and then by the other named user and I stopped. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not reviewed the topic itself. However, I don't like this kind of closing, particularly at BLPN, where closings are rare (compared to AN and ANI). However, I don't feel it's right to remove Binksternet's comments. Therefore, I've unclosed it and moved the comments to the bottom of the topic. I suggest, though, that you exercise some care before continuing the discussion unless you feel strongly that something more needs to be said.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23. It is an acceptable solution. I will leave the topic untouched and I will not reply to the comments out of deference to you and my respect for your action. In fact after the latest ordeal at BLPN it will take some time before I return there. I simply don't like the atmosphere of the place that much any longer. IMO BLP has evolved to something I no longer support. If you care see my comments here. Therefore there is no need for me to be there. Thank you again. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bbb23. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 03:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A redundant talkback template for an extraordinary coincidence. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• (Also, it counts as an edit, to beef up my total. And so is this!)

• This one counts, too, and I'm even signing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

US Supreme Court members

Howdy. If the Executive & Legislative members can be capitalized? then so can the Judicial members. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:JOBTITLES.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and please revert the ones you changed, which are now incorrect. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The capitalizations are consistent with the former AJs, aswell as Presidents, Vice Presidents, Cabinet members, Senators, Representatives etc, etc, GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. GoodDay is advised to take his or her suggestion to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters, which is where matters like this are Decided. (In my own postings, I can use what ever capitalizations I desire, except for SHOUTING.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering which WikiProject to turn this over to :) GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Copy-paste move

Could you please fix the apparent copy paste move of short handed to short-handed (diffs of move are [1] and [2]). I've looked over the history of short-handed, and it apparently was always a redirect before the move. --Nouniquenames 05:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

On second look, this is one where I can just revert, CSD, move to fix. Thanks, though! --Nouniquenames 16:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

IP is back on it

Previously blocked IP 212.14.57.130 is back at Lech Kaczyński. Mind to take care (again)? thanks, TMCk (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of speedy deletion

A speedy deletion of Doris Fleischman you made is being discussed online. Can you restore the edits you deleted? I have concerns about the summary deletion of such a prominent woman's biography, whose accomplishments are well documented, vs. AfD. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's been recreated. The version I deleted as a G11 (and it had been speedily deleted by another admin as a G11 before me) was quite different from the current version. Good luck in making it a quality article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Shuki

Shuki had already self-reverted the change. Doesn't seem like a block is necessary. nableezy - 17:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the heads up. I have unblocked Shuki.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to Nableezy, but nonetheless the peculiar issue is Bbb23, what made you jump? Was there an AE filed? Did someone go around AE and report me directly to you? --Shuki (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Shuki, I can't be certain what triggered my looking at your edits to the article, but it was not AE, and it was not someone asking me to look at it. The article is on my watchlist as there was a certain amount of controversy about the article on the administrative noticeboards related to an additional restriction that most I-P articles don't have. So, I'm assuming that when going through my watchlist, I saw your edits and then acted. Oh, and, btw, although it may seem to you that I "jumped", I didn't. I did a fair amount of analysis before blocking you but obviously missed one important piece. I do have a suggestion, though, for the future. If you are going to self-revert, say so in your edit summary. It's like claiming an exemption in a normal edit-war. It's always best to clearly signal your intentions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I'll pass up on taking you to ANI this time. The user removed a beautiful picture of a Druze village from the article and one can only assume that moving an image (no apparent edit war at all) deserves a 1 year block. If we are passing out suggestions, then I suggest that some people brush up on their AGF, especially around this holiday time, and learn to contact fellow editors if they see something out of order. --Shuki (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd skip the veiled threats if I were you. Given your track record, AGF hardly seems in order. In any event, do not post any more messages about this issue to my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Platform Records

I suppose you could, but at this point they aren't clamoring to come back and so it's really relevant only if they request unblock. The block is the important thing. Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Consecutive reverts

Happened to notice an exchange on your page just above this. If you want to see a view of a page history that collapses consecutive reverts, try out importScript('User:Alex Smotrov/histcomb.js') in your vector.js. This can save labor when checking an edit war. For example, the history of Golan Heights looks different. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Very different. Is there any documentation for the script? If not, perhaps you know the answers to a few questions. Is there a way to disable the script easily, like a short-cut key (I know I can edit my vector.js, but something easier than that)? Taking the example of Shuki, it shows two numbers (0 and 56) to the right of the word block. On the far left it has (3), which allows you to expand the three edits he made. I assume the 56 relates to the last edit, whereas the 0 means the net result of the 3 edits was no characters added or removed. Of course, that doesn't mean he didn't change anything; it's just a strong hint that he didn't. It may take some gettting used to, but it's obviously helpful. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

See documentation at User:Alex Smotrov/histcomb. There is a large button, 'Compare selected revisions'. Just above that there is a button with both the + and - symbols on it. If you click that, it expands the history to give the conventional view. Another option that works for all Javascript tools is to temporarily disable Javascript in your browser. I find that the collapsed view provided by histcomb.js is handy because it gives you the net effect of a whole group of successive edits (when you hit 'prev'). You asked about the '0' and '56'. I'm not sure about those; I think that the script may need to be updated. But the main benefit of histcomb.js is that you don't get confused by consecutive edits when you're checking if someone violated 3RR. Miscounting consecutive edits as a 3RR violation is the main disadvantage of the nice output of Slakr's 3rr.php script which someone should probably update to deal with consecutive edits properly. User:Slakr has so far not been willing to provide the source code of his otherwise very useful script. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm actually quickly getting used to the look of the history with the script. I think ultimately I will prefer it to the standard look. I'm fairly certain that my conclusion about the 0 and 56 is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

East Germany

Could you please protect the article.I am not sure if any block are warranted but both parties have edit warred also please see [3]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Shrike, I think you should continue to contribute at ANI. If you believe the article needs to be locked (it hasn't that much activity today), you can go to WP:RFPP, or if you feel that someone has edit-warred, you can, of course, file a report at WP:ANEW, although I note that Andy self-reverted. I'll watch the article, but for the moment, I'm not inclined to take any action on my own.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

spa

What would you think about a third deletion discussion for {{spa}}. I believe it causes a number of problems in that most determinations about whether or not a user is an spa are made by a single editor. In addition, and most importantly, it doesn't add value to a discussion. If an administrator is closing a discussion correctly, they should be evaluating the comments. Whether or not someone is a single purpose account doesn't affect the validity of their comment. They might be biased, but the comment can still be evaluated in it's own right. The only "use" of the SPA tag is if the closer is only counting !votes, and closing discussions that way is more dangerous than an SPA taking part. Ryan Vesey 02:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but the last two discussions, albeit quite some time ago, were not even close. I think editors are attached to the template, although not necessarily for the right reasons. But if you want to tilt at windmills ... :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I see it misused all the time, but used properly, it provides good information for the closer of a discussion, as well as points out potential socks for us at SPI. When I see three SPAs in an AfD, for example, I investigate and half the time (or better) discover sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. The term is arguably misused less than the word "vandal". At this point, I think the usefulness outweighs the abuse. Part of the problems is that many people think that being an SPA is against policy or deserves a block, which of course is patently false. That isn't the fault of the tag, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Forsyth

Must take you up on your deletion of my extended lede for the Frederick Forsyth page.

The current lede seems unnecessarily brief and bare. It does not distinguish Forsyth from any other thriller-writer, whereas mine gives a short, clear positioning statement. Also long lists don't make good textual copy. (There is a full list of works supplied anyway, and very visible.) Many of those titles will mean nothing to the first-time site visitor, and the lede is essentially a summary of the main article for the benefit of the person who does not know much about the subject. You will, of course, find that everything in my version comes directly from the main article. 109.154.20.25 (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with expanding the lead, but I thought the language you included was unencyclopedic, mainly too puffed up.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Leather

Hi Bbb23,

I'm not too sure what to do, so as you were involved in resolving the problems with the Stephen Leather article in August/September and the discussions that took place, I thought I would check with you.

Since the previous problem, there has been very little activity on the article other than minor copy edits.

However, in the last couple of days, a number of changes have been made - all still related to the previous controversy.

The header of 'Controversy' has now been added - my understanding of the discussion on the talk page was for it not to appear under a separate heading?

Now a sentence has also been added to the lead. The addition, I feel, is actually inaccurate, as it states Leather used sock puppets to review his own books. In the Wiki article it states he said: "As soon as my book is out I'm on Facebook and Twitter several times a day talking about it. I'll go on to several forums, the well-known forums, and post there under my name and under various other names and various other characters. You build up this whole network of characters who talk about your books and sometimes have conversations with yourself." As far as I can tell, this is the statement supported by the references used.

As I well and truly got my fingers burnt/wrist slapped after being involved last time, I am reluctant to make any amendments to it myself.

I apologise if contacting you is not the correct method/etiquette but if so, perhaps you could advise me of what would be the best course of action?

SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed before you commented here. I've removed the Controversy section header and pared down the material in the lead. One sentence in the lead that fairly represents what is said in the body is probably acceptable. I'm not sure that my edits, though, will remain. These kinds of things tend to resurface as new editors have different opinions from the last editors who discussed the problem. My suggestion is that if the editing continues in a way that you think is inappropriate, you first raise the issues on the talk page. If that doesn't work, you could try WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that - and for your advice! SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ken Cuccinelli Page

Hello Bbb23,

Why do you keep deleting the "despite" clause on the Ken Cuccinelli page? It is cited and it is relevant as it explains the context of McDonnell's executive directive: the General Assembly had not acted on that issue. There is a strong difference between an executive directive given to enforce legislation that is being ignored versus one given to enforce a policy where the legislators fails to act. I would like to hear back from you instead of simply undoing your edit. ResidentCelt (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you could show me where the "despite" clause is supported by a secondary source.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Was the source cited not a secondary source (the Cuccinelli legal opinion)? The primary source is the legislative record of bills that failed to pass. Or does there need to be a tertiary source?ResidentCelt (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A legal opinion is a primary source. You'd need to find something in a newspaper or other reliable periodical supporting your comment. The legislative record is also a primary source.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia editing. Perhaps you can help enlighten me. Why can't an article state that the General Assembly didn't pass something when the official record for the General Assembly shows they didn't? Is there never a time on Wikipedia when an primary source, such as the vote count on a piece of legislation be used to state that the legislation was not passed? Would it be appropriate to phrase the comment, instead, as "At the time that McDonnell issued the executive order, the GA had not passed legislation stating...etc" -ResidentCelt (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not easy because sometimes the inclusion of a "fact" is still not appropriate, depending on various factors. First, generally primary sources are disfavored because they require interpretation by the Wikipedia editor. It is almost always better to let someone else in a secondary source do that interpretation. Best is then to cite to both the secondary source and the primary source. In that way, the reader understands that the material in the Wikipedia article is supported by a secondary source, rather than by the editor, but also has the primary source to read to make up his or her own mind as to what it means. Second, even though something may be a fact, the decision to include it may betray a certain bias (I'm not accusing you of bias). Therefore, one has to exercise some judgment, sometimes based on policy and sometimes not, as to what is reasonable/appropriate/justifiable to include. In the case at hand, all you have for this assertion are primary sources, so to some extent it fails even before you get to the second component. I hope that helps a little and is not too long-winded.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That is helpful, thanks. So would the ACLU list of failed bills here count? ResidentCelt (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really, you still need something to support the comment itself. Frankly, I think I'd give up on this point if I were you. It's not really necessary to a factual report of what occurred, and it will be very hard to justify.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

About Personal Information in User Page

Bbb23, please let me know if it is improper to disclose personal information or relevant external links in User page. I do not have idea about that, so I request you to let me know if it is not recommended even though not prohibited by a rule. Thank you that you went through my User page. I would really appreciate if you found anything else improper in the page and would even casually recommend something in there to be removed or changed. Thank you again. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 18:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tawsif, you should read WP:UP, in particular WP:USERBIO. You have a great deal of personal information about yourself. Some personal information is okay, and where to draw the line is not always easy, but I think I'd at least cut out the "External links" section. That, of course, is just my opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, perhaps this is exactly what I requested for. Thank you very much. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 19:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous save

I accidently saved a malformed admin notice edit [4]. I have now added the correct complaint. [5]. Feel free to delete the earlier malformed edit.Ackees (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Waiting

I am awaiting an explanation of your objections at Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion#Patience. I hope that they will be substantive, instead of bureaucratic. (Not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Michel Laurin

I don't know whether you keep track of comments posted to WP:AN3 after you have rendered a decision, but please do consider what I have added here. Peter Brown (talk)

I generally do keep track, although sometimes I miss something. I would respond to your comment at ANEW, but it was way too strident.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I do feel strongly, though. Perhaps you could post something at User talk:Michel Laurin? Peter Brown (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I sensed that. :-) I'm not sure what to post. I don't really want to delve into the content issues, but at the same time I don't want to be too harsh on Michel if he doesn't deserve it. What I noticed in the edit history of the Reptile article was that some editors were siding with Michel (you and Medeis), and one editor was against Michel (SkepticalRaptor). I have zero idea who's "right". Generally, WP:ANEW is a procedural board, and once we've established it's a content issue, we don't go too deeply (or at least many of us don't) into the content issues. Truth be told, what I said to Michel about WP:BRD I might say to any editor, expert or not. Perhaps I'm a bit biased, too, because I too often see the negative side of expert editing rather than the positive side. In any event, if you think it will help, perhaps you could post a message to Michel pointing him to our comments here. I certainly don't want to discourage an expert from editing Wikipedia within policy. Finally, as to MrOllie's alleged harassment, you really need to address that somewhere else. Obviously, I'm not powerless to sanction editors for harassment, but it's not something I would normally do via ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23,

I am puzzled by your answer. I thought that Wikipedia would welcome input by experts who sign their contribution by their real name, thus taking responsibility for their contribution, rather than favoring deletions by people who hide behind a pseudonym and whose competence about these topics is unknown at best. But if I was wrong, as your message suggests, I suppose that Wikipedia is not for me. The very indirect procedure that you indicate for restoring my contributions, by passing through talk pages, could be done punctually, but at the rate things are going, MrOllie would systematically destroy my additions, and having to deal with this systematically would take far too much time. It would divide what I can contribute to Wikipedia by five, and given how busy I am, I would simply not bother contributing anymore and restrict myself to web sites where I know my work cannot be deleted by anybody.

If you rejected my appeal, despite MrOllie's obvious hostility towards me (I was unaware the he had deleted me from Reisz' former student list on his web page, and I thank Peter for pointing that out), for purely technical reasons, I can appeal elsewhere. I would very much welcome your input about this. Where do I find this ANEW that you referred to? I am a recent, occasional contributor to Wikipedia, so I realize that there are lots of technical details that I don't know about yet. Michel Laurin (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Michel, I'm up early just before I go to my real work and won't have time to respond until later today or, at the latest, tomorrow. Please be patient. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Michel, forgive me for taking some time to respond. I just read your talk page, and I have some comments about you, experts in general, other editors, and Wikipedia. I'm not going to take the time to organize my remarks, so they may be a bit random.

• You seem to have a lot of support on your talk page from other editors, and you are also getting a lot of advice. The support is obviously good, and the advice is mixed. It's like going to two reputable doctors and getting two conflicting opinions. Then you have to decide which one is right. Some people then go to a third doctor in an effort to break the "tie"; unfortunately, that sometimes results in yet a third opinion. So, you're going to have pick your way through the advice. Some of instinctively may seem reasonable, and other advice may not. You should, of course, trust your instincts, but at the same time recognize that Wikipedia is its own little world and doesn't necessarily comport with the "real" world.
• Some of the advice I like:

1. Peter Brown's. Peter seems to understand fairly well the tension between real-life experts and Wikipedia "experts". He's said some helpful things and pointed you to some good essays. I'd add WP:EXPERT to the ones I saw. In case you don't already know, Wikipedia has all sorts of "rules". Simplistically, they are broken down into policies, guidelines, and essays. Policies are the most important. In theory, everyone has to abide by policy. In practice, there are frequently arguments about the interpretation and application of policy. Guidelines are next on the list. Generally, guidelines should be followed, but they can be overriden by WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is a big thing on Wikipedia. We work in a collaborative environment where everyone can express an opinion and discuss what should or shouldn't be done in a particular situation. This can be very frustrating for a non-Wikipedian, particularly one who comes from a more hierarchical environment. However, consensus is very important at Wikipedia. Even if you are in a minority and even if you firmly believe you're right, you may be forced to defer to the consensus of others. Essays are not binding on anyone, although some essays, just because they're cited so often, are more "important" than others. WP:BRD is an example of that kind of essay. At the same time, depending on how well an essay is written, it can often offer an overview on a particular topic and point you to the actual policies and guidelines that control. Think of Wikipedia's rules a bit like a legal system in that it's built and evolves over time. Even with the best intentions, the array of policies and guidelines can be confusing and daunting, particularly when you want to find something and can't because all the pieces of the puzzle are not in one location, and you have to jump around looking.
2. Curtis Clark's advice is excellent. It's brief but each of his bullet points is valuable.

• Nothing against Sminthopsis84, but I agree with you that using your real name is a good thing. I also like the fact that you disclose clearly who you are and how you think. I would recommend moving some of your own beliefs to your user page rather than your talk page. A talk page is for interactively communicating with other editors. Your user page should be about you. Also, stupid as it sounds, if you create a user page, your signature will be blue. Some editors are biased against editors whose signatures are red as they asssume they are newbies. Like most stereotypes, it's generally true, but there are some very experienced editors without user pages. That aside, you have something to say about yourself and the user page is where it belongs.
• Try to avoid battles like the one with MrOllie (I haven't reviewed the merits of any of that). Obviously, if MrOllie is really trailing you around and making it hard for you to edit on Wikipedia; that can be a problem. See WP:HOUNDING. At the same time, I'm not saying that Peter's advice about WP:ANI is wrong, but ANI is hands down the most dramatic, contentious forum on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure that it would be constructive for you to post there. You'd be better off getting some input from experienced editors or an admin about how to handle a problem rather than posting at ANI, which should be a last resort.
• The biggest problem I see with your remaining here is your expectations. Sometimes you can edit under the radar, and no one will challenge you, but, generally, Wikipedia's rules will trump your knowledge every time, and you have to be willing to put up with that. When you reference one of your own works, that will automatically raise a red flag with many editors. When you add information to an article that is not sourced, that will be a problem. When you insist on an edit after it is challenged, that will be a problem. I sense that you're unwilling to stay if everything becomes a hardship and if too much of your time is spent dealing with these sorts of problems. There's not much I can say about that. It can be a problem for everyone, not just you, and you have to make up your mind as to the best expenditure of your time.
• Sorry for being so long-winded, and I'm not sure how much help I'm being. If you have follow-up questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. If you still have specific issues with MrOllie, try to be very clear about what they are, and I'll at least look into it. If in the future you have problems, feel free to drop a line here and I'll try to assist you. You may not always like what I have to say, but I'm pretty straightforward and, hopefully, you'll be able to at least trust my sincerity, even if you disagree with me. There are also a lot of talk page stalkers on my talk page who may have better advice than mine, so they may jump in, which, of course, would be a plus as my opinion is, after all, just my opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Michel, I can add only that I hope you are following the discussion at WP:RS/N#How do we determine which paleontology theories to report?. Even if you leave Wikipedia, you can take satisfaction in having triggered an important discussion among experienced members of the community. Peter Brown (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

William M. Connolley WP:AN/EW

If an editor like William M. Connolley reverts rather than discusses, it's edit-warring plain and simple. Given his history of serious problems and the actions taken in the past, I don't think it's improper to point out that maybe further actions are needed. I certainly don't think it's improper to report the editor for edit-warring when he won't discuss the matter under dispute.

As for your warning. I'm open to suggestions. My comments on the talk page are almost universally misrepresented. I'm continuing to analyze proposed sources. Why this is such a problem for some editors has nothing to do with me that I can see. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit here and the message I just left you on your talk page overlapped. I'm not taking any further action against William at this point. As far as I can tell, you are persisting in discussing a subject on the talk page in which no one sees any real value. I'm not going to get into the content issues themselves, but it seems unanimous, or close to unanimous, that your comments are unwelcome. At some point, such behavior becomes disruptive and subjects you to being blocked. Why don't you try a different tack and take your issue to WP:DRN or use some other dispute resolution mechanism? That would be more constructive than your current approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm using the talk page exactly as it is meant to be used. I agree - my participation is simply unwelcome. However it has absolutely nothing to do with me, my behavior, or improving Wikipedia in any manner whatsoever. Do I need to ask permission to analyze potential sources? Doesn't this seem more than a bit absurd? --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You are here to improve articles collaboratively. Given the response to your contributions to the article talk page, you're not doing so. Therefore, pick a different approach or let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that in writing. I agree, to a point. Can you point out policies and guidelines that help determine where the line is between collaboration and improving this encyclopedia? --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, but I'm not going to look. What's more important is, in my view, you've crossed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in no rush. My main solution to these problems has been to take a break from the article. Until I get better direction, that's what I'm doing. --Ronz (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you've made your actions in reponse to the EW report dependent upon these concerns, I think they need further discussion. In the meantime, I'll take a break from the article talk page for a month or two, with perhaps an exception to make it clear that I'm doing so. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

So about the use of AN/EW. Can you address my concerns that I used AN/EW properly? Forget that it was William M. Connolley. If any editor refuses to join a discussion and instead reverts further in response to attempted discussions, I think AN/EW is the proper next step. --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think you should have filed the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you made that clear. Why? Once again, I'm looking for some guidance here. Is this specifically about William M. Connolley, or about AN/EW in general? --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ronz, I don't understand why you need more. You've been here for seven years. You have over 68,000 edits. This shouldn't be that hard for you to grasp. First, it's rare to see EW reports about talk pages. Second, this is mostly about ANEW, not about William, but William figures into it because your report comes across more as an editor trying to leverage a possible technical violation into an advantage for yourself, or perhaps a bit retaliatory. As you well know, on almost all administrative noticeboards, the conduct of the OP is reviewed at the same time as the conduct of the person being reported. In this instance, you didn't come out well. That's about it. The rest of it is fairly well spelled out in WP:EW.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you finally answered it there. This is specifically about the overall behavior of both editors. Because of the problems you perceive in my conduct, I should not have reported it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ronz, have the courtesy to at least spell my name correctly; if that's too difficult for you, use WMC. Bbb23: I hope you're enjoying the kind of tendentious editing from Ronz that the rest of us have been having to put up with William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Fixed! --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Great to see someone jump-in and fix the back log at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thank you very much. Moxy (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I came here to do the same thing. Thanks for addressing the typical weekend backlogs. Vacation^nine 22:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I gotta stop now because I'm getting a bit dizzy from closing so many reports so rapidly. Besides, User:Diannaa is back from the gym, apparently (her comment at another board motivated me to step in), thank goodness.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

my talkpage

Hi I rather not get messages these days because I am busy and also because I was off for a year about from Wikipedia and I do not plan to stay long. But if I change my mind, I will ask for unlock. For now, users are welcome to write on my main page. Also I get a lot of vandalism and I have some serious notes that I have collected for users (a copy is also in another wikipedia) that took a while to collect.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for responding, but, frankly, your reasons make little sense. If anyone wants to talk to you, it should be on your talk page, not on your user page. Also, vandalism doesn't permanently remove any "notes" you've collected. Further, vandalism usually comes from IPs or newly registered accounts, and if there is persistent vandalism, the page can be semi-protected. I've therefore unlocked the page. I'll watch both your user page and talk page in the event there is any vandalism. Feel free to drop me a note if you have problems I fail to see.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

HI, Am I not allowed to have my talkpage protected? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Only if there's a compelling reason, and there is none.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a compelling reason. I have notes that may get vandalized and also what if I want to leave for a while? Not to be rude but who decides what is compelling reason?--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I already explained to you that your notes will not go away. In any event, Wikipedia is not your own personal storage space. Your user page and your talk page are given to you for purposes related to Wikipedia, not for other purposes. If you want to leave, feel free. You can add a template that says you're on a break or says you're retired if you prefer, but that is irrelevant to the issue of locking your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks my notes are for Wikipedia..but if I feel like leaving I would like the option to lock it (until I decide to comeback). Is that okay?--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, as I said, leaving is not a basis for locking the page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Do you have the policy regarding this in order so I understand it better? That is a policy that who can make such decisions? (this is for my own wiki education). Also out of curiosity did someone inform you about my lock (just wondering how you noticed it)? Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have to read WP:PP. Certain parts of it are relevant, even if they are not absolutely explicit. For example, the reasons for full protection are given; your reason isn't there. Also, it notes that user talk pages can be semi-protected but doesn't even address the improbability of fully protecting a user's talk page. It also notes that retirement is not a basis for even semi-protecting a user's talk page (see WP:UPROT). Also, see the section entitled "Protection of user pages" at WP:UP, particularly this part: "Vandalism of talk pages is less common. Usually such vandalism should merely be reverted. Blocks should be used for repeated vandalism of talk pages, where policy permits. In rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project." As for what brought me to your page, I blocked you back in August. Any editor I block goes on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion

It appears Wüstenfuchs (talk · contribs) is evading his block in order to further edit war. [6] He was already given a final warning [7] which he continues to blatantly ignore. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked the IP and reverted the three edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A q re canvassing.

I'm looking for advice. Would it be appropriate that I make a neutrally-worded posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam regarding Talk:Islamophobia#Proposal to rename article to "Anti-Islamic sentiment", or might this be taken as canvassing? It looks to me to be entirely within the remit of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The guideline permits notifying projects " directly related to the topic under discussion." The talk page of the article says it is in the scope of that project. I would follow the directions in the guideline as closely as possible. Keep your message (and section header) not only neutral but very brief. I would also post a notice to the article talk discussion that you notified the project (also advised in the guideline).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ten O'Clock Classics

Please reconsider,[8] quickly. As it's a BLP matter that the subject apparently finds troubling, this is taking too long and I probably should continue reverting until it's resolved and go to AN/I rather than letting this sit up there and get in the search engines. Contrary to your decline reason, multiple active IPs, perhaps all the same editor. [9][10][11][12] Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I see it's been done.[13] Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ip removing sources

See here: [14]. --74.96.169.227 (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do. As far as I can tell, you're editing these articles, and the other IP is reverting you. I don't know anything about the articles, but from glancing at your version and the other IP's version, theirs certainly looks better. Yours are very poorly crafted. One is almost unintelligible.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Kid Icarus BLP issue, edit war, etc

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have answered there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Global Institute of Science & Technology

This page now active new content use this page............ Global_Institute_of_Science_&_Technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psujauddin (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article will survive, but at least it's no longer a blatant copyright infringement.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ein Yaakov

I was wondering about your major edit on the page Ein Yaakov. The first paragraph can be easily verified by just reading the introduction. The first translation can be easily verified by looking at the information on this page. The second can be easily verified by looking at the information on this page. I would go and reverse it, but I thought maybe you had a reason why you did it. I did go and put in the author's name, since that's common knowledge. Ba name ba (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Rather than focusing on what you consider to be "common knowledge", you ought to focus on reliable sourcing. If you do that, perhaps you can expand the article in a way that complies with Wikipedia policy. Bear in mind that it's more important to find secondary sources than primary sources. So, citing Amazon, for example, that a book exists, is not particularly desirable, whereas finding a reliable publication that talks about what's in the book is.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That is what I normally do. However, I thought you had a reason this time because the information is so easy to find. The only thing I added based on common knowledge was a link to the page of Rabbi Jacob ibn Habib, because without that the book has no way to find out more about it. Also, why is Amazon not a reliable source that a book exists? I don't know about the policies of Amazon, but you'd think that they have some kind of verification. It even gives the ISBN number! Ba name ba (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Amazon is a reliable source for the existence of the book. That's not my point. As I said, it's more noteworthy to add material about the book, e.g., a review of the book from a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what you said at first: "Citing Amazon, for example, that a book exists, is not particularly desirable." But anyway, is there really a need to add material about a translation of a book? Compare Jean-Jacques Rousseau#Editions in English. Ba name ba (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Tjf1128

Could you please try and grab the attention of user:Tjl1128? He keeps adding unsourced data to List of countries by GDP (nominal). I've tried politely engaging him on his talk page but either he is ignoring me or doesn't realize he has messages. Thanks   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ed warned him and he self reverted his change. Nothing to do here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

LGR, are you sure this was a self-revert? The numbers shown are still different from your version, and he hasn't edited since my warning. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain he removed the unsourced information. I initially did a revert to the "right" version, then self-reverted myself because it appears he did update the information correctly from the source (kudos to him for that) but he also added SYNTH in the process. I then removed the synth, which he restored and then I tried to engage him on his talk page. It looks like he removed the synth on his own, possibly after seeing my response on his TP. It would be nice if he communicated, but so far I think everything is ok. Thanks for looking at this btw.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

proposal

Dear Bbb23, I would like to say a few things about the block you placed on me last night. I can't stress enough that my edits were in good faith and that I was under the impression that the BRD cycle was different from edit warring. I now understand, and I duly note that I cannot, under any circumstances, make more than 3 reverts in less than 24 hours. I promise not to do that again. You have my word. I ask you to please reconsider your decision to block me from the article for 7 days. It's been about 24 hours so far.

In case you didn't know, we have a major discussion going on at DRN that I myself started (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#.22Breast_Cancer_Awareness.22_article_and_talk_page), and a minor one going on at NPOVN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVN#neutrality_of_Breast_cancer_awareness).

This is very important to me and I have limited participation in a debate involving NPOV that I brought to DRN (OOA is also a concern). I believe that I am doing a good thing and helping improve wikipedia. I'm sorry if others disagree. I may not be a saint, but to be fair, they haven't been saints themselves. I ask you to please reduce the length of time that you have blocked me from the article, assuming you don't want to drop it altogether. I promise not to excessively revert or to edit war (I probably won't revert at all). I also cannot stress enough that none of my actions were vandalism and that I almost always use the edit summaries and leave thorough rationales on the talk page. Charles35 (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: is it okay for me to delete the section that Biosthmors made and/or the one that you made on my talk page? Charles35 (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles, I didn't "block" you. I offered you conditions so you could avoid a block. I'm still concerned that you don't really understand the policies well enough, both their letter and their spirit. For example, violating 3RR requires four reverts in a 24-hour period, not three. That said, if there is evidence of edit-warring, even without a violation of 3RR itself, you can be blocked. 3RR is technically a bright-line rule, which is why you merited a block, but, in practice, many admins, including me, try to look at the underlying conduct problems (not the content itself). However, I don't want to punish you; I'm trying to help you understand what you can and can't do and, ultimately, to prevent disruption to the article. Let's continue your conditions for at least two more days and then you can come back here and ask me again. You know, it's not altogether a bad thing to participate only in discussions rather than edit the article. It can be illuminating and very constructive. As for your final question, with limited exceptions (see WP:BLANKING), you can remove anything from your talk page. However, unless it's blatant vandalism, a better practice on Wikipedia is to archive things rather than remove them. If you choose to remove warnings, though, it is presumed that you have read and understood them.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about what I wrote at EWN? Another editor made 6 reverts in 17 hours. I was primarily reverting her reverts. Charles35 (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And I just wanted to let you know that with things like this, I do understand - Charles, I didn't "block" you. I offered you conditions so you could avoid a block. - I don't spend extra time and use extra words explaining all of the details, although I guess I come off ignorant because of that, so maybe I should spend the extra time. I could have said Dear Bbb23, I would like to say a few things about the informal restriction you placed on me last night that results in me effectively being blocked from the article, but I guess I just don't see those details as being very relevant and I don't see them as being worth the time it takes to explain them to somebody who already understands. That said, if there's anything you think I don't understand, I'd be glad to hear it. Charles35 (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There are many things you don't understand, and I've tried to help, mostly to little avail. However, if you wish, take a look at WhatamIdoing's talk page and the topic I started. I didn't intend the discussion to be about you, but about her, but unfortunately no one seems to listen to me. :-) In any event, one of the points she made is correct, 3 consecutive edits in a row counts as 1 revert, not 3. Also, a nit, list diffs at ANEW in chronological order, not reverse chronological order. You at least you listed the times, making it obvious, but some editors don't, and it's mildly disorienting. As for "block", precision is important on Wikipedia, especially when talking about sanctions. Block has a very specific meaning, and I didn't block you. Frankly, it would have been much easier had I done so, but I was hoping counseling would be more constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not you, they don't listen to anyone... Yes, I'm sure it would have been easier to have blocked me. Sorry to inconvenience you and take up your time, so short and sweet - you said to come back in 48 hours. Any verdict? Oh, and I do appreciate the time you take for your considerations and your willingness to do more than hand out sentences. Charles35 (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

... Charles35 (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Charles, for not getting back to you earlier; it's been a trying day. You can consider the editing restriction lifted. I strongly urge you, though, to be careful editing the article itself. Continued discussion at WP:DRN and on the article talk page would be best.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Page move request

Not wanting to screw around with an arcane set of templates and unnecessary debate, I have an uncontroversial page move request that I'm bringing to you as a random administrator picked from the sky. Somebody moved Charles H. Kerr Publishing Company to Charles H. Kerr Company Publishers — which is nonsensical — and for some reason the move back is locked out. Would you be so kind as to make this uncontroversial move? The original name of the firm was Charles H. Kerr & Co., which would also be a satisfactory name for our purposes. The firm is still extant, see LINK. Thanks for your attention. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It had to be moved over the redirect, which is why you couldn't do it. Please make sure it looks okay; I don't do this too often.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Pional

Hey there, thanks for the help with Pional. You mentioned that you don't see a connection between the IP and Pionalmusic, and so I just wanted to see if you just didn't see what I see or if you just don't interpret it the same way: both accounts started editing at the same time and both have only ever edited Pional; and while many of their edits seem very similar to me (in both substance and form), two pairs in particular (these two and these two) jumped out at me as demonstrating a very similar editing pattern. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw the two diffs you highlight when I reviewed the history, but they didn't stand out for me. That doesn't mean you're wrong, and you might find another experienced editor or admin who would agree with you. Maybe I'm not cynical enough about sock puppetry. God knows I'm cynical about other things. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks, -- Irn (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops

Actually, an IP has pointed out at WP:ERRORS that you did make a small mistake (and I compounded the problem by not catching it). The article needed quotes and bolding, not quotes instead of bolding. No worries, fixed now, and I'm embarrassed I didn't catch this when I reviewed what you'd done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would have figured that out on my own as I don't really look at the main page. Now I see that all the articles in the In the news section are bolded. Thank goodness for IPs. Well, most people's first sexual main page errors experience probably isn't perfect. Thanks for letting me know (I missed seeing the update and fix on Errors as I was doing something else, and my watchlist is way too busy, anyway). Oh, yeah, what makes me feel even stupider is I didn't think I was changing it from bold to quotes; I thought I was changing it from italics to quotes (even though, now I can visualize that it had three apostrophes, not two, sigh).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit war followup

Hi, Bbb. You were the administrator who responded to my Edit war report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive202#User:190.45.215.88 reported by User:Wikipedical (Result: 31 hours). The IP user who you had blocked has since continued to re-add unsourced upcoming episode info to the Saturday Night Live (season 38) page, though the user has begun using hidden text. See these three edits [15], [16], and [17]. I really don't want to keep edit warring and reverting these edits, so I'd like to ask you as an admin how best to proceed here, particularly since the user leaves no edit summaries and does not reply to talk page/user talk page messages. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've blocked the IP for 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete request

Could you delete User:Jatomes/Layal Najib under the same G6 Housekeeping tag as I will use this content in another semester? Crtew (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That one is a bit different because it's not an AFC submission but a subpage in the editor's user space (it would have to be a U1). It won't prevent you from creating the article later. I'd prefer to leave it, at least for now. If you want to alert me again if the article goes live, that would probably be okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced negative personal information from a BLP is never, ever, ever, ever edit warring.

This guidance has been made very clear. You should remove your warning. In this case, pretending that an actor is inactive, who is not working at the moment, for whatever reason, but is pursuing roles... is foolish. Posting that up on WP endangers the project.User talk:Unfriend12 15:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A2 milk-Edit war

My answers can be seen at User:Srisharmaa reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: )Srisharmaa (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Srisharmaa (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23. If it were up to me, I would be inclined to close the AN3 with a warning to Srisharmaa not to make any edits on the topic of A2 milk for the next two weeks unless they are supported by a talk page consensus. There is a clear enough pattern of long-term edit warring, including removal of negative evidence from an article which is subject to WP:MEDRS. The only reason not to block immediately, in my view, is to allow a chance for the editor to agree to a change. If there is no agreement, I'd go with the two-week warning. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I followed everything you said until the end. I offer Srisharmaa the opportunity to agree to a topic restriction for two weeks to avoid a block. But then you say if he doesn't agree, you'd go with a two-week warning. If I get the agreement, the idea is that a breach of the agreement is enforceable by a block. If I don't get the agreement and I warn him, then a "breach" of my warning would be enforceable by a block. Wouldn't it make more sense to seek an agreement but then block him if he refuses? Perhaps I'm missing something, or perhaps you see more of a distinction between a voluntary agreement and an involuntary "agreement".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your plan is to block if he doesn't take the two-week agreement. That sounds appropriate to me as well. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Message left on his talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfriend12

Just a FYI Unfriend12 left a a comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Unfriend12_reported_by_User:Sonic2030_.28Result:_Declined.3B_Unfriend12_warned.29 --Sonic2030 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for some advice

Hello bbb23, may I ask for an advice? Since Drmargi isn't responding anymore, is it a bad idea if the this edit I made for Person of Interest (season 1) will be moved to an Article Incubator (like in The Hobbit discussion) or some sort of a Article Rescue perhaps? I mean, I still think that the edits receive enough significant coverage with reliable sources just be just reverted per WP:BRD and WP:SIZERULE? Also, am I allowed to go to the the talk page discussion while I'm still in the noticeboard? Thanks. Chihciboy (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're worried about losing it, even though it's in the history, I'd put it in your sandbox. You are not only "allowed" to go back to the talk page discussion, I encourage you to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	"I started seeing pink". Well said. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

People are gonna wonder what this means.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Earth100

While earth is entitled to display what he wants on his talkpage, i do not feel that the removal of warnings when the problem still applies is appropriate, especially with comments like "don't forget it-it's the past!". I also note that i have been informed in the past that warnings are meant to stay until the problem has been fixed when it clearly hasnt in this case.Jason Rees (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who informed you or precisely what they said, but see WP:BLANKING. Any further reverts of Earth100's talk page edits by you would be considered disruptive. I might also add that in this particular instance User:Qwyrxian is quite capable of handling the situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As i said i still feel that it is wrong for the removal of warnings when the problem clearly still applies is appropriate, especially with comments like "don't forget it-it's the past!" and "Nope you dono what's going on", however i wont be RVing his talkpage again.Jason Rees (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Final Page

Thanks for your help and your comment on User talk:99.192.87.126. I have, in fact, been editing here for years. Many times editors have suggested that I use a registered account, but I like it better this way. Maybe I just have a Jack Reacher/Littlest Hobo complex :-) 99.192.87.126 (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Two complexes for the price of one. I kinda figured you didn't want to register, but it never hurts to nudge a bit. If we ever cross paths again - that's assuming we haven't in the past - remind me who you are if you don't mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Pipeline Pilot

Edits by User:78.105.23.3 came up in my watchlist. The user has made links to Pipeline pilot, which is a redirect to Pipeline Pilot, which has a recent deletion notice with your name. There isn't sufficient information on what was going on there for me to judge the IP user's edits, so I'm passing the info to you in case there is sockpuppetry or other forms of naughtiness here. Krushia (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've deleted the redirect, reverted the additions by the IP, and left a message on the IP's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nelson Barbour

You blocked further edits to the Nelson H. Barbour article, calling me a “meat puppet.” I didn’t even know what a meat puppet was until I looked it up. I was asked to contribute by the article’s primary article. Almost all of the content is taken from my biography of Barbour.

Jeff objected strongly to the change from “Homer” as a middle name back to “Horatio,” the original. Jeff filed a sock puppet report because I share the home and ip of the original author and supported him.

We presented as evidence an original document in Barbour’s own hand, subsequently printed in a book published in his lifetime and cemetery records. Jeff’s evidence is a Library of Congress card cat entry made years after Barbour’s death. The information on the card entry was furnished by Leonidis B. King. Barbour’s will (which supports the name Horatio, but is not easily obtainable) stipulated that someone edit and republish some of Barbour’s magazine articles in book form. He left four thousand dollars for that purpose. The resulting book, Washed in His Blood, is the only one of Barbour’s works ever copyrighted. It was published some years after his death. The copyright information conflicts with Barbour’s statements to British authorities. A document in Barbour’s own hand trumps information provided second hand some years after his death.

It is irrational and abusive of editorial privilege to revert to a name original documents do not support. If I abused the system, it was unknowingly. Jeff’s vendetta is part of a pattern of behavior you can document through his talk pages.

This is my sole experience with Wikipedia. My books are reference or used as footnote material in several articles. An article by my writing partner and myself and our biography of Barbour are almost the sole authorities for this article. All the footnotes are taken from our book. A link to the Barbour Biography Project has been featured at the bottom of that article for several years. That link takes you to our public history blog. (We maintain a more detailed invitation only blog for credentialed researchers pursing similar subjects.) I would like the references to my book, article, and website removed from the page.

I do not intend to support a project open to irrational and personal attacks. The historical evidence speaks for itself. As I said, an original document provided by Mr. Barbour trumps material supplied by another after his death.

The real issue here is abuse by someone who does not like his work criticized and who has a history of responding abusively. He is set against someone (me) who has no Wikipedia experience. This seems wrong.RMdeVienne (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've read most of this at the SPI page. I don't really need it repeated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you intend to remove the material I've listed above? If not, do I wait until the block expires and remove it myself?RMdeVienne (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought your comments about Wikipedia meant you were going to stop editing here; guess not. If you want to discuss the content issues in the article, then do so on the article talk page. Removal without discussion and consensus is not the way Wikipedia works. BTW, it's not a block; it limits who can edit the article (see WP:PP). You can discuss the content on the article talk page now. You don't have to wait until the protection expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not interested in protracted discussion. I simply want the references to my work deleted. HOw best can I do that. I haven't been rude to you, but you seem very rude to me. I tried to be helpful. I'll certainly be gone when the references to my writing and the link to our history blog are deleted. Again, how best can I see that done?RMdeVienne (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Generally, you can't control who references your work, at least not at Wikipedia. It would be like someone wrote a journal article and cited your work, but you didn't like the article. I suppose you could object to the author and to the publisher, but it would be difficult to force either of them to change the article. I haven't looked closely at the basis(es) for your objection because I was - and am - much more focused on procedure and Wikipedia policies. That said, you could look at WP:OTRS and follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Contact us. Somone there might be able to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I delete the references myself, stating my reasons in "talk," with the expectation someone might revert at a later time? I doubt, given the nature of this controversy, that anyone will object. But I understand that an edit can be undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMdeVienne (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't do anything now to the article because it is protected. However, even later, I think it would be better to suggest it on the talk page rather than to just do it. You have a conflict given that it's your work, whether you add it to an article or delete it from an article. Proposing it on the talk page with reasons why would be more in compliance with Wikipedia policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll do it that way. This has been a very disappointing experience. I'll add a section to talk sometime tomorrow proposing the deletion. I am determined to see it gone if at all possible. I feel the article, while generally accurate, misuses my book and abuses my good humour. Additionally, the COGGC article is dated and does not represent currently available research.RMdeVienne (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be difficult at times. Sometimes policy trumps reality. I'll try to keep track of your proposal to see if I can help as I appreciate your willingness to cooperate.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and posted my Talk comment tonight. Thanks again for your helpRMdeVienne (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that Jeff can still edit the article, but I cannot? He's as much to blame for the contoversy as I am, more in my view?50.106.8.144 (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I could say what my mother used to tell me: "Life isn't fair." But that probably wouldn't satisfy you. :-) Jeff has made only one relatively minor change to the article and agreed to stay away from it for a while. What would be best would be to sort things out regarding your nephew's wishes so the article can be stabilized. I see you and Jeff are still arguing about Barbour's middle name, but I'm going to ask Jeff to respond to your nephew's post.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, it's not nephew. R. M. is Rachael Michelle. :PRMdeVienne (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked to be "vanished" after the references to my work are deleted from the Barbour article. This was denied because of the sock puppet accusation. Can you reverse that? I am rapidly moving from frustration to real anger. I want references to book and article and blog deleted. I don't want meaningless comments added to the request by Jeff or for that matter my uncle. I'm trying to follow your instructions, but I'm growing more and more unhappy.RMdeVienne (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC) (originally posted by 50.106.8.144 and then the signature changed)

(Brady) Bunch

Moments after I clicked "delete" on what I thought was about 25 redirects, I got a Wikimedia server error ... did I delete lots? After all, my wife still thinks "a bunch" is a small number - at least as it refers to women I had dated before I met her ;-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Or at least the ones you told her about. Perhaps I should have a talk with your wife ... --Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Back to the substantive issues. Are you saying you did a delete of multiple pages with one click? How do you do that?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, first I deleted by hand a bunch of the obvious ones. I then pulled up Special:Nuke - I had hand-selected another 20 or so (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Never even knew it existed. You'd think it would be somewhere in one of the deletion policy/guideline pages in one of the administrator sections. Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for some advice

Hi Bbb23... I noticed that you are an admin who has posted extensively at WP:BLPN and that you are also interested in LGBT issues, so I'm hoping you can offer me some advice. I created the article Brittany CoxXx, a trans woman who has had a career in both gay and trans porn. As Stonie (pre-transition), she appeared in the Borat movie in a cameo. The article has two images of Brittany but the image of Stonie has been removed. In this edit the image was removed with the summary "removed pre transition photo. generally offensive to show pre transition photos". It was re-added by an IP and re-removed with no edit summary. I haven't been around editing for quite a while, and am unsure what (if anything) to do, especially as I have little experience with trans issues. I don't want to create a BLP issue nor upset anyone, but I don't understand why an image of Stonie is inappropriate. Stonie appeared in lots of gay porn films and with full frontal nudity in the Borat movie. The photos were all released for use by Brittany's manager (OTRS confirmed) and so presumably Brittany does not object to their use. Stonie was arguably notable even prior to transition, and illustrating her pre-transition appearance seems appropriate to me in this case. Am I missing somethinh? Should I just re-add the image? Post for other views at WP:BLPN or WT:LGBT? Start an RfC? Drop it and leave the image off the page? Something else? Your advice would be appreciated. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I don't know the answer or if there is even an answer. Two editors removed the photo. The first was subsequently indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. The second is part of the LGBT project and was recently blocked for a short period for sock puppetry, but as far as I can tell, edits in good standing. I doubt there is any specific policy or guideline on this issue, but there may be some sort of conventional approach. At the same time, I don't know how frequently it comes up considering what a small population there is of transsexuals and therefore articles about them. Because no one has demonstrated that there is anything inappropriate about putting in the image, I would assume going forward that the use of the image is subject to the usual guidelines of relevance. With images, the best general guideline is at WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE and the sections beneath it.

I would re-add the image back to the section. At the same time, I would start a topic on the article talk page explaining what you're doing and why. Be clear, but there's no need to be defensive, i.e., assume that you have to defend your viewpoint. To some extent, WP's philosophy is that content is "good" unless there's a policy or guideline that prohibits it. It's not a philosophy I always agree with, but you might as well take advantage of it. :-)

If nothing happens, you're okay. If editors object to the image, you should discuss the issue(s). If someone removes the image, don't reinsert it. Given the history, it's not clear whose burden it is per WP:BRD, but arguing it's the remover's burden would probably be contentious. Whatever you do, don't edit-war over it. If you're having trouble because not enough editors are participating in the discussion, I would leave a very neutral message at the LGBT project asking editors to weigh in. If that doesn't get you very far, my next forum would be BLPN.

I think that's enough to start with. I'll watch the article and be here if you want to talk.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I think I will re-add the image and start a talk page discussion, and include a link to this discussion. I appreciate the friendly reminder, but I assure you that I am not the edit-warring type.  :) Regards, EdChem (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have a spare moment

Hi, I've only peripherally noticed this user before. Perhaps, as you've had interaction and warned him before, you'd at your leisure take a quick 3rd party view of [18]. I'm not going to edit war with him as I only started this geo stub for disambiguation purposes, and am not remotely invested in Turkish/Armenian subjects but seems to be a lot of noise/reaction which isn't condusive to improving the stub. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page and left a message on the editor's talk page to look at my comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Which Turkish-Armenian subject? Are not we talking about a neighborhood in Istanbul? Or Pangaltı is an occupied Azerbaijani territory? Are you trying to imply ARBAA sanctions with that? On what basis? Also explain me how you decide the name of a neighborhood in 21st Century from a travel book of an Italian from more than a century ago? Since when De Amicis's Italian toponyms are 21st Century English common names? Which reliable sources you used to make that stub? You can answer me anywhere you wish; I will find and read. Why did you come here instead of challenging me on the article's TP? (Why and how do you know BBB23 warned me before? Which of the two you are following and why? Because you know they warned me before means you find it easier to hit me in the wound than discuss like two regular Wikipedians?) I have more questions but forget it. Sorry to occupy your page, BBB23. Merry Xmas. --E4024 (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

E4024, since you ask if you want to know I came here because your editing style had "check my block log" written all over it, and I wanted a third opinion. I would very much welcome calm collected contributions and your local expertise to make the stub representative of both modern Pangaltı and its apparently diverse and interesting history.

Bbb23. As I said I'm not super interested in the subject, but two other editors have been encouraging, and the stub has a stub on tr.wp, so have added further (mainly retrospective) sources about the history of the 19th Century quarter. Cheers. Shouldn't need to contact you again. Merry Festive Season. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your consideration regarding the 3RR report that I filed. I ended up taking a much longer break than 24 hours. It seems to have done me some good. We'll see how it goes. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad. Sometimes I think we should all be required to take occasional breaks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

please explain...

...how 'conflict of interest scandals' is a ridiculous section heading? if you prefer 'controversy' that is fine, that is the header used on her husband's page. please do not revert edits that you don't like. I was not aware that I needed consensus to add factually accurate, unbiased, well-sourced, notable information. ||||Tonight, you sleep with the fishes|Talk|| 22:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

We'll put aside your assumption ("edits that you don't like"). You do not need to obtain consensus to add (skipped your other assumptions) material to an article. However, once you are reverted, as I did, you should not re-add the material without obtaining consensus per WP:BRD. That you haven't done. I suggest you self-revert your re-addition and discuss it on the article talk page (in a bit greater depth than "we need a controversy section", which already has a non-neutral sound to it).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You said the section title was ridiculous, and that was why you removed the section. Editor gave it a different title, which should be alright, as the same title is used on the same section with the same information on the article for her husband. This tells users the information is important enough to belong on wikipedia. So yes, it was readded, because it is important information. Editor also cleared up the wording and added more citations, so there should be no reason to exclude this information, other than not liking it. Also please explain how 'factually accurate, unbiased, well-sourced, notable' is assumptions - she DID get her husband those contracts, undisputed. Facts are not biased, therefor it is unbiased information. Editor used news sources, multiple news sources, therefor it is well-sourced, and this was a scandal, therefor it is notable. Deal with it. 108.246.242.125 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The section header was a giveaway, but it wasn't the only reason for the reversion. Please log in when you edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an account, I understand that you think registering to edit should be a requirement, but it is not, so please enforce only the rules that exist and not the rules you desire. 108.246.242.125 (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I assumed you were the editor who added the material, an understandable assumption. However, I didn't notice your first outrageous edit before you toned it down in which you said you weren't that editor. Assuming you are not the editor, which I do in good faith, I apologize to the registered account, but not to you. There are many editors who edit here without registration. Nothing wrong with that. OTOH, there is something wrong with your attitude, and my guess is it would be the same whether or not you registered. Anyway, no more posting here on my talk page. If you have something you wish to say, you can do so on the article talk page or at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting that. Seeing only 9 bytes of change in the second revision, I (stupidly) assumed that the changes were only cosmetic, and failed to notice that 108.246 removed his lengthy rant against you. But I really should've checked the second diff; with Popups I have no excuse. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Meh, the first edit was pretty bad. It's nice to know that people are looking out for my well-being.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I definitely don't think you need to be looked after. I see language like that and I see red, more or less. Anyways, I'll let you go back to whatever hot-button issue prompted this post. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: ANEW

I just wanted to make sure you knew I appreciated your attention and no hard feelings - my response on the page was mostly a rant on Wikipedia's sometimes too complex or arbitrary processes. DR04 (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I left you a comment at ANEW (our posts overlapped here and there); I hope you find it helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for minimizing that discussion. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was in complete agreement with your last comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Narayana Murthy

Hi Bbb23, I have been trying to edit Narayana Murthy for six months now. You were involved in the talk page for this article in the past. I have been repeatedly trying to discuss the list of awards on the talk page and without engaging on the talk page Kkm010 constantly unrolls the changes and refuses to discuss why he/she objects. Instead, he/she constantly just undoes the changes. While I have provided my reasons for why I think a certain way, he/she provides none. This is now very frustrating. What is also frustrating is that the same user constantly edits articles of other contemporaries of Narayana Murthy who all have spurious awards from unknown sources listed and yet kkm010 makes no effort to enforce some standard there. Can you please help in any way? --- Tib42 (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Tib42, I understand your frustration. At the same time, I'm not keen on reinvolving myself on the content issues. I've left a message on Ryan's talk page based on his post to the article talk page earlier this month. As you probably know, Ryan has limited time because of outside responsibilities, and the holidays, of course, only limit his time that much more. Try to be patient (I know you have been patient). Let's see what Ryan says before we proceed to the next step.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23. I shall do as you suggest and wait for Ryan to respond. Thank you for your help. I am quite new to wikipedia and I find my first set of edits themselves have been rather frustrating. I will wait for Ryan and you to decide on how we should take this further. Thanks and happy holidays! --- Tib42 (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I have one more suggestion, which you don't have to take. When you get frustrated, try editing other articles, even if it's just making small changes. Remember, Wikipedia has tons of articles, not just the Murthy article. Happy holidays to you, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The happiness of this season to you!

	Winter solstice 2012–2013
	— GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, GerorgeLouis, here's to a new year of peace and tranquility on Wikipedia. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitation enforcement blocks

Certainly you have, at present, the ability to overturn an arbitaration enforcement block. May I point you to Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." which seems to me to apply? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course if you feel happy then go ahead; I looked at this block and decided not to go near it! I am not sure that hte link you posted to me applies specifically.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The unblocking restrictions established in the ArbCom motion make clear that they only apply to reversing an action taken by another admin. Ankh.Morpork 22:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I, of course, have read the language at WP:AEBLOCK (although not the underlying decision), but I'm one of those people who finds clarity in something like, "The blocking administrator may overturn the sanction." The joy of being literal and the fear of being desysopped. :-) Anthony, I'm not sure which link you mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This

Hi, Anthony, I know another admin may not unblock the editor without following very specific procedures, but I'm assuming I can unblock him if I choose to do so, right? WP:AEBLOCK doesn't explicitly address the issue, but it seems to me that its silence on the issue implies that it's okay.--Bbb23

This (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC) is what you said. What you do is entirely for you to decide.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. I didn't really think I was all that patient with it actually. I think I could do better. Thanks anyway. :) Merry Christmas.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic now created, you may wish to comment. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you consider re-blocking Zaalbar for an additional 48 hours? A little more than just an hour after coming off of his 24 hour block for edit warring on same sex marriage, he returned to edit warring on Matthew Shepard. This kind of deliberate disruption coming right after his block expires pretty much demonstrates that Zaalbar isn't serious about editing Wikipedia. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I'd rather let the SPI run its course. Zaalbar has reverted twice at Shepard and hasn't insisted since Black Kite reverted, many hours ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued Block Evasion by User:Dannyboy1209

Hello Bbb23, just came by to tell you about this incident Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued Block Evasion by User:Dannyboy1209 of an Confirmed IP Sock (User:92.0.110.196)of Dannyboy1209 which you had blocked earlier. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh

Thanks... That's a bit more clear. :) Kuru (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Can you semi protect Operation Pillar of Defense which is proving irresistible to a blocked user? Ankh.Morpork 22:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I semi'ed another article that the socks were attacking, and I blocked the IP at Operation Pillar, along with another IP, complained about at SPI by Marokwitz. It look quiet for now at Operation Pillar (at least quiet for that article). I'm trying to act quickly but no more than necessary. If there's more disruption, I'll reconsider. Obviously, if I'm off-wiki, you can ask another admin or go to RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Ankh.Morpork 23:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a sock of Dalai lama ding dong. Can you semi protect the articles he is editing? Ankh.Morpork 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I blocked that IP and another rather than semi-protecting. I'm choosing one week for these blocks, but I'm not sure if it's long enough. I suppose I can always extend it. If there's further disruption after the blocks expire, it will be a LOT longer than a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Block

Hi, Thanks for dealing with my unblock request I sent you over the Email, the process was getting a little over complicated. However, honestly, I highly doubt that knowing what you now, you would have given my edit a second glance on that history page list. So I can't respect your decision to stick with the block and let me stew through the process.--Mor2 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

On topic of edit warring on that article. I would point out this recent accumulated revert [19] and the following revert cycle. The revert undid my edit [20] due to "shamelessly blatant propagandizing"?! and at least two other edits, reinstating 'BilalSaleh' removal of sourced content. Disregarding my request to tag issues and the recent activity in the section that led to blocks. Removing my entry with less than informational edit summary, no attempt to discuss, just a righteous blunt revert.--Mor2 (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There was some unusual activity on the article today. The first edit, the one that, among other things, undid your edit, was that editor's first revert of the day and therefore did not violate 1RR. There then followed a series of reverts, but they all related to Carvotta being declared a sock, and your edit got swallowed up in that. Reverting an indefinitely blocked sock is an exemption to 1RR. In any event, that article is a relentless pressure cooker. You kind of have to expect that if you want to edit it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

All I know that he reverted two edits [21] and [22](included mine), both of which are already undid something(stated in the edit summary). If you are saying that it's ok to do multiple reverts of content that is already a subject of controversy, as long as you do it in one cumulative edit, then... respect to the technicalities? I assumed that if I revert his edit and ask him kindly to make multiple edits with consecutive edit summaries or take it to the talk page, I'll be in violation of at least one rule. NM forget it, have a good day. --Mor2 (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying anything about what you call "cumulative" edits, if I understand you properly. In my view, Sepsis II reverted twice. The only issue was whether the second revert was exempt because it was reverting a sock, and although there may be a fine timing issue, I think most would find that it was exempt. As for the substance of Sepsis's edits, you're absolutely welcome to discuss that on the article talk page. BTW, there's nothing wrong with discussing these kinds of issues with admins so you avoid violating policy. Most editors don't do it, but it can be very useful. I personally don't mind discussing these questions with you, but I also know you're unhappy with me, so you could always raise them on another admin's talk page. Entirely up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit War

My favourite edit war warrior admin (you blocked me twice :-) I hope you had a beautiful Christmas. Wish you a very happy New Year. Users RS4815, VecihiHürkuş and Dr.K. seem to be in a fierce edit war over Turkey. FYI. --E4024 (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The war appears to be over as Vecihi Hürkuş has been blocked. Before being blocked, though, they came up with a doozy of an edit summary ("Stop using Wikipedia for pathetic irredentist masturbations"). I wish you a happy blockless new year with nothing but polite, clear edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I had not seen that that user was blocked but I doubt the war has ended or that they were the only warrior. BTW thanks for your good wishes. I have always known to be a very polite person, although since I began editing WP I have had some difficulty biting my tongue. (Please don't ask me why. :-) All the same your words come just after I have given a clue of repentance. Peace. --E4024 (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Offense / Offence

Not sure about American spelling, but according to Wikipedia: Offence (law), a violation of the penal law Offense (sports), the action of engaging an opposing team with the objective of scoring Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just the vagaries of problematic articles created by geocentric editors. Just look it up in the dictionary. I assure you that "offense" is the correct spelling in the modern American legal system.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Now I just need to make some shanges to the page on Aluminium! (jk) Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think offense (regardless of spelling) is the wrong word here. According to , an offense appears to relate more to a misdemeanor. Money laundering seems pretty clear that it is a crime, not an offence. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In modern American federal law, the word offense is generic and doesn't just relate to misdemeanors. However, if you wish to replace "offenses" with "crimes", that would be acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Will do, and will add a reference on the talk page.Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. What kind of reference, and why would you add it to the talk page? Do you mean just an explanation of the change?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an explanation of the change on the talk page - is that not right? Wanted to maintain transparency. Was that redundant?Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I see what you did - no problem at all, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank You For The Advice!

Bbb23,

I'm sorry about all that. I realized that I skipped the help pages on Wikipedia. From now on, if you guys give me the chance, I'll try to improve. I did not mean to send in all that. Since I was not familiar with Wikipedia, I thought it was the right thing to save often. I have read Wikipedia's help pages and will try to follow it. Thank you guys for giving me the chance!

Chipuchu (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about correct application of BADEMPHASIS?

If you have a minute, I'd like you to join this discussion: User_talk:Belchfire#Confusion_about_correct_application_of_BADEMPHASIS.3F

It concerns this edit of yours: [23]

Belchfire-TALK 02:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in joining the discussion. I suggest you skip the crap about banned editors, allegedly pointy edits, etc., and just focus on the content.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

gen+gen : of+possessive

Could you explain your rationale for preserving the possessive marker ('s) after the genitive indicator "of", specifically in the clause "he compared the comedian's rise to that of Adolf Hitler's"? Typically the double genitive is used when the plain "of" might change the meaning inappropriately (as in the different meanings of the phrases "a picture of Hitler"/"a picture of Hitler's"), and in specifically idiomatic phrases. There are several "of N's" phrases that are specifically ungrammatical, not only in formal written English, but even in conversational English (with, of course, some variation).

As opposed to a phrase like "friends of Hitler's" (which I judge as grammatical), the phrase "that of Hitler's" does strike me as one of these ungrammatical phrases. There are several such phrases that are discussed in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language as fitting into "Alternating patterns of complementation", perhaps most broadly showing a pattern of ungrammaticality when the the noun preceding "of" is not one that is materially owned, and is more in a relationship of association with the following noun, if it is a single quality or relationship that is being identified.

Let me add, however, that if the phrase were referring to accomplishments and it referred one among several accomplishments, I would hear "an accomplishment of Hitler's" as a grammatical construction.

Do you stand by your edit? I stand by mine, but would like to hear your case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.242.34 (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's an impressive post. I'll consult with someone else and get back to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Bwilkins changed the text back to your version. I've now reread it and decided I was wrong in the first instance. Happy editing!--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of quotes on conversion therapy

Rather than edit warring, let's take this quote dispute to the article talk page. I started a section at Talk:Conversion therapy to discuss this, please discuss there before further reverts. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look a couple of sections up, you'll see that I have no plans to become involved in the content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Userpage Shield
		For meritorious defense of my userpage from vandalism by means of Speedy deletion tagging on 23 December, 2012. Many thanks!. Cdtew (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could help, Clark.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Maybe before you advise me to use the talk page, you should check the last post on the talk page. I had already commented, HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR WIKIPEDIA HARD. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Captricity page

Hi, I created a page on Captricity that was deleted by you. I would like to make a page that better conforms to the standards and is allowed to remain. I did read the style guides and it seemed to conform, but I must have missed something. Could you possibly provide me with more feedback on why the page was removed so that I can improve and avoid the same mistakes again? As you can see, I'm new to Wikipedia, though I have experience with other wiki-based encyclopedias in the past. Any advice you can give would be great appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and help. AMS135246 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It was a combination of two things. First and foremost, it read like an advertisement. The Phrase "quickly and cheaply" and the "while often compared" sentence in the lead don't bode well for the rest of the article. The History section was way too personal from Chen's point of view, reads like a fansite. It was also part of the second reason, which was copyright infringement - you either copied or closely paraphrased text from the company's website, which is not permissible. The Products section also reads like an ad of the various "features" of the products, again with phrases like "currently available for free". It doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, but more like an extension of the company's website.

You need far more secondary sourcing. Of all the sources you had, the best was the launch award. I have no idea whether it was a notable award, but looking at the award's website, it looked reasonably reliable. In contrast, the pandodaily looks more like a personal blog and therefore not reliable. The remainder of the sources were all self-published and add very little, if any, value.

So, if you want to continue trying - and I don't want to discourage you - keep any new articles as detached and neutral as possible; dry may not be interesting, but at least it will get past the speedy deletion stage. Stick to facts. Don't even think about copying from websites or anywhere else. Concentrate on secondary, reliable sources, references that comment on the subject, rather than the subject commenting on itself. The more prominent the source the better.

I hope that helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Human rights abuses in Kashmir

Half of the page Human rights abuses in Kashmir was deleted by User:Darkness_Shines before you marked it as protected. The user deleted it as copy pasted but failed to prove from where it was copy pasted. You had to check the edit summary but you didnt rather you destroyed the work of others. I‘m requesting please see the edit summary and the talk page and act as it desires. Thank you. MehrajMir (Talk) 17:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's a policy issue, locking an article does not endorse a particular version sought by one of the editors. The material that DS removed was recently added by you. If there's a clear consensus to re-add some or all of it, that can, of course, be done after the lock expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well the page is going to unlock today. I‘ve proved all the accusations as baseless, answered all their questions, fighting it at my own I still haven‘t any support. I request you please judge the content on the bases of neutrality, relevance and sources so that my hard work is not going to waste. Thank you. Happy new year.  MehrajMir (Talk) 09:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hey Bbb23 - Happy Holidays! There is an unblock request up at UTRS where User:Pathologyresident5 has agreed to no longer link to any of their research and instead work on various medical articles. Would you be ok if I were to unblock and monitor them? I would of course make it a bright line requirement that any future promotion or linking to their work or clinic would lead to an immediate re-block of their account. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, thanks for checking. Have a safe and happy new year!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring: Løverne

The creator of this article, Biker No 1 is avoiding SD tags and deletion s by continually recreating this page, along with MC Lions. Thought I'd bring it to your attention. Cdtew (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Acroterion seems to be dealing with the situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Iranian Space Agency

God only knows why but an IP posted on my talk page to look into a content dispute here. Looking over the page history Scythian77 has been reverting IP's at will for over a year. Since 24 April 2011 he has reverted this edit 28 times, and these reverts are his only edits to the article[24] He calls the IP's vandals and sockpuppets. The content is sourced and a quick Google shows plenty of sources to back the edit. What is the best course of action? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You left a note on Scythian's talk page, which was a good idea. According to one of the edit summaries, the issue was discussed a couple of years ago, but, even if true, that doesn't justify reverting these recent edits that are sourced to 2012 references. Frankly, Scythian should discuss the content on the article talk page rather than reverting, but the IP is also in danger of breaching 3RR. If you like, you can point Scythian to this discusion. They should know better than to toss terms like vandal and sock around without strong evidence, which appears to be lacking here, certainly on the issue of vandalism. The IP is now using the vandalism label as well, no doubt defensively.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I also posted on the article talk page, and let the IP know about 3RR. I will let Scythian know about this post as well. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I appreciate that you are trying to reduce drama, but the boomerang proposal had garnered no opposition, so at this point the consensus is actually in favor of a block. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If another admin disagrees with me, fine; otherwise, a punitive block is not going to happen. No more opening cans of worms. Please spend your time doing something else (no implication of bad faith, btw).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Why did Automatic Strikeout accuse me of trolling regarding cancer? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Block of Drmies

Well, I disagree with it. This was a bad move to make without discussion first, Bbb. I'm not going to reblock, because I'd consider myself involved with respect to Drmies, but I'd strongly urge you to reverse your action. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Bbb23; it wasn't a punitive block. It was a "I can see where this is going, knock it the hell off" block. If you can't distinguish between the two - or understand why unblocking your admin nominator is potentially a problem - I have some serious concerns. Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ironholds, does that mean that any admin who considers themselves a friend of Drmies is involved? I apologize for not discussing this with you first, but there's been so much stuff flying about today, it takes my breath away. And blocks of admins in heated discussions. What is the purpose? Really? I know you can't see me, but I'm just sitting here shaking my head in wonderment at the whole thing. But I suppose that's just the way it is here sometimes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The purpose of the blocks? Because they were uncivil. And that's it. We, as administrators, have a duty to enforce policy and maintain Wikipedia - and one of the policies and things necessary for its maintenance is the construction of a collaborative rather than combative atmosphere. This is utterly impossible to maintain if "but mummy, the other boy started with the nasty words" is a legitimate excuse. And in regards to Drmies: how on earth could you have passed RfA and not at any point picked up WP:INVOLVED? Would you be comfortable with a judge passing sentence on his golfing buddy? Ironholds (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• But we don't normally issue civility blocks based on that kind of stuff without any warning. Why should Drmies be treated differently? As for being involved, as I indicated before, Drmies has an awful lot of buddies. In any event, on the involved issue, do you want me to reblock Drmies? Is that your preference?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

And I think it's swell that he has so many friends, and if any of them had unblocked him instead of you I'd be sticking precisely the same messages on their talkpages. Unless he has 700 odd friends, all, coincidentally, admins, there were other people who could've handled it - and forgive me if I don't take advice on when we do and do not issue civility blocks from an administrator who self-admittedly thinks they can unblock their friends. Frankly, at this point I'd advise you to leave it alone. No unblocks. No reblocks. Learn when to take action and when not to for future disputes. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Then that's what I'll do; I'll leave it alone. I'll also take to heart (seriously) your advice. Hopefully, it'll never come up - it certainly never has before. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Bbb, I appreciate you sticking your neck out. I only have one quibble: I think you should have unblocked Scotty also. Neither of us should have been blocked, of course, no matter what Ironholds might think he was preventing. If I had been online when all this was happening, unblocking Scotty (if I could at that time) was the first thing I would have done. Why this wasn't preceded by a warning is a mystery to me. Words first, Ironholds, then blocks, in any dispute which is obviously not threatening the project or a BLP but is nothing but a disagreement between grown-ups. Yes, in the real world people call each other names--it's in primary school where schoolmasters have to step in, not here. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• As I said at AN, when I could get a word in edgewise, I did not know Scotty had been blocked until after he had been unblocked by Floq. Scotty is not on my watchllist, and despite someone (don't remember who) saying I should have "researched" it, I think that's frankly silly. Am I supposed to assume that Ironholds blocked other persons and check his contributions? What about other admins blocking/unblocking at the same time? I didn't know that YRC was blocked, either, until after the fact.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know, Bbb--hindsight is 20/20. Don't sweat it. On another note, I think the INVOLVED angle is played up too much, too easily. I would never have blocked Scotty for what he said, and if he got blocked for it, I'd undo it. I'd do the same for anyone. Way I see it we should have at least a modicum of reason (periodic outbursts notwithstanding, haha) and we should be trusted to use it. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hindsight is 20/20; but foresight is 20/14. Surely I'm not the only person who saw something like this happening as things brewed over the past 3 days or so. I wish it didn't set us apart as adversaries, as it seems. For everything Wikipedia does very well, our worst attribute as a community is that we are sorry about our manner of disagreeing. I just want you, and everyone, to know, I do not mean to disrespect you, or wish negativity for you, if we disagree on some topic. I am sincere. --My76Strat (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

[25] Seriously? You expect consensus in order to undo your actions when you failed to obtain consensus to before hand? Are you trying to get de-sysopped? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually Bbb23 there says, rather puzzlingly, "administrative consensus", not "consensus". I'm not sure why administrators' opinions are now more important than the community, though.

Incidentally, but on a related note, I've undone your "admin only" close of the other thread on that page. In that case too, individual administrators do not get to override community consensus. --Demiurge1000 (talk)

Dropping by

Just an oldtimer dropping by. While everyone can have Wikifriends and Wikienemies, certain people are just too close to an administrator for that administrator to take controversial actions with regard to. Spouses or siblings who edit are one category. RFA nominators are another. I passed RFA in February 2008 and have had very little to do with two of my RFA nominators since then and I still consider myself precluded from taking action with respect to them. I know you're new and people can disagree on involved status, but I figured my experience might be helpful. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Matthew, would that others would criticize with such grace.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I also have the same thoughts about my nominator, now User:Secret - even though it's been seven years this month and he got desysopped and is no longer an admin, I will continue to root for him. --Rschen7754 04:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Let the water roll off your back. No harm, no foul   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  02:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, lgr, I'll take all the sympathy I can get. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

heck, you blocked me with what I thought was an itchy trigger finger (never saw the point about whining about that) but with all the crap that comes across your way you are entitled to screw up every now and then. I'm not saying you did screw up in this instance (not going to bother reading all of the background), but even if you did, don't lose any sleep over this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Santa Muerte

Another content dispute with User:Rachesnut. Again he makes changes to content without sources and when I call him on it, he keeps citing (no page numbers) what he claims to be his own book. The book exists but I dont have access. Id love to assume good faith but that is very difficult. I thought citing your own work was frowned upon. His claim of a "Santa Muerte" rosary is dubious. He gave me an Internet page but the "rosary" is really a service that includes the rosary which is mostly intact.Suggestions?Thelmadatter (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello Bbb23: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, Greg, best wishes to you as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

User:JGVR

I'm sure you have him on your watch list, but in case you don't, I just thought I would give you a heads up since you are the blocking admin that I've declined his latest unblock request and I've also revoked his talk page access for the extent of his block. If you feel that this was excessive, feel free to undo. Oh, and Happy New Year! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 06:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have him on my watchlist, but I've been sleeping while you've been working. I assumed his talk page acceess would be revoked based on his history, so it comes as no surprise. Thanks for taking care of it. Happy New Year to you, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your indiscriminate attacks on civilians vandals and POV pushers from both sides in the Operation Pillar of Defense article and talk page. Inkbug (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Inkbug, happy new year.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

How is this going to fly?

When the lock comes of Conversion Therapy, are you going to keep an eye on things? I'm afraid the edit war has been a case of "I don't like it" followed by less then good faith attempts by some editors gaming the system instead of discussing on the talk page. Thanks.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer your question. Sarek protected the article, and Sarek asked for a decision about placing the article under discretionary sanctions. That's now been done (by me). I do have the article on my watchlist (along with 185 other editors), so I will see anything that happens to the article when I'm on-wiki. I can't speculate about what I might do before it's happened, but it will be easier for admins to take administrative action because of the sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of (and agree with) the sanctions. Thanks for watchlisting. Hopefully my prediction of trouble will be incorrect. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

History of trouting (ANI thread)

"Trouting" predates Wikipedia by at least a decade. I think it comes from IRC, but I'm not sure. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Origin, and The Documentary. And /slap command Dreadstar ☥ 03:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Since this comes up so often, we really should document it somewhere. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah, it looks like we do have something on it: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout. Dreadstar ☥ 03:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the education, everyone, but I actually knew that Wikipedia did not invent the notion of trouting (I believe I used the word "adoption" at ANI but haven't gone back to look). I just think that Wikipedians have incorporated it into the culture with a certain amount of gusto. Probably those damned British editors' fault. :-) Or perhaps it's because I'm an ignorant American that I'd never heard of it before editing here. Or perhaps, more specifically, it's because I'm not a big Monty Python fan (that admission will no doubt get me shot). I do enjoy eating trout, just not getting "whacked" by one. As for the documentation (the essay), it was initially created in 2006 with just a picture of a trout and "Whack!". It grew - as those things tend to do - over time as editors, uh, improved it. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring by someone who received a final warning from you

You told him "If you resume the war on the article, even one battling edit, you may be blocked without any further notice.-". He reinserted his edits a few days later[26] and he has been edit-warring in solitary to keep them into the article:

• 28 November
• 9 December
• 22 December
• 25 December
• 03:56, 29 December 2012
• 04:48, 29 December 2012‎
• 04:52, 29 December 2012‎
• 01:13, 01 January 2013
• 11:43, 01 January 2013
• 14:36, 02 January 2013

--Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this, see a notice which I left at User talk:Santos30#Possible indefinite block of your account. Bbb23, consider adding your own comment for Santos30, if you have an opinion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no references or citation to put in template as date end 1715 (nor english or spanish). None. You threaten me with a indefinite block and the lobby users Enric-Durero-Trasamundo-Escarlati impose this 1715 by pressure, not with bibliography or argumentation. I will put POV-template.--Santos30 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston seems you think "User:Enric Naval who know anything about Spanish topics". But he needs references too.--Santos30 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of reverting, Santos30 has added text where he re-inserts the same POV claims in a different format.... --Enric Naval (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, OK, he is already blocked. It's very late here, I'll look at the edits tomorrow. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Breyer

Stephen Breyer, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

N. R. Narayana Murthy

Hi Bbb23, just to note that discussion is removed from WP:AN without formal closing. Do we need one here and/or should involved editors be informed? Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 10:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, but things have been a bit weird around here lately. I've restored the Murthy thread from the archive so hopefully more discussion and voting can take place.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. The discussion is again removed; this time by ClueBot. Is no formal closing needed? SchreyP ^(messages) 08:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No bother. This is the normal automatic archiving. The result is no result. Unless someone wants to resurrect the issue (and I don't mean unarchive it again), there will be no ban. I, of course, couldn't close the discussion, but my opinion is there wasn't enough to declare a consensus. All that can be done now is to watch the article and see if the editors will behave more reasonably in reaching a consensus and putting the issues behind them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the update

China Zorrilla

Hi, I added to the China Zorrilla page some rectifications, for instance, "Theater Director" and you erased, Zorrilla directed more than 20 plays and won several awards. Also, you erased her new biography by Diego Fischer released in December 2012. It's an important document. I understand the "Genealogy" could be of no importance for you, in spite that traces her origins in one of the most important Patrician families in the area, but why you erased all? Please, reinstate the changes I would appreciate it, thanks for your attention and kindness.--DEDB (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for coming here to discuss the issues. This gets a little complicated. The article is very poorly sourced. It has been tagged since September 2011. There is a good case for removing material from the article unless it's sourced. I've resisted doing that, though. The best thing you could do to maintain the integrity of the article is to add inline sources to the article, not add new material. I've added the Fischer bio into the article as an external link, even though it's contrary to WP:NONENGEL (that was the reason I removed the external links you added). If the book that supports material in the article, you could then put footnotes in the article sourcing to the book. You can source material to a foreign source, but generally external links need to be in English. Nonetheless, I put it in as kind of a place holder in the hopes that you can use it for inline sourcing. If you do that, you should then remove it from the external links. However, just sticking it in the reference section, although permissible, is not helpful as it isn't clear what material is sourced to it.

I didn't put Theater Director back in. There is material in the article that supports her being labeled a theater director, but the material itself is unsourced. If you can add sources in support of that material, then you can dd the label into the infobox if you wish.

Feel free to come back here if you have questions on any of this. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Agostinelli and User:Spacevezon

Hello, I see you semi-protected the Robert Agostinelli article without imposing any block or restrictions on the primary offender, User:Spacevezon, who is an employee of Bell Pottinger (worth a read given its extensive history with scrubbing Wikipedia bios on behalf of its clients) and he has now set about scrubbing all mention of his firm's role in the Robert Agostinelli article, as well as attempting to re-insert outlier sources discredited and removed by consensus. This is a paid editor and advocate in violation of Wikipedia policy and I just wanted to write to you to remedy the situation as it is getting out of hand. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have evidence that Spacevezon is violating policy, take it to WP:ANI. I'd be careful because no doubt someone will want to know who you are.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks. What does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your assistance with the closing of the "Tailsman" stuff. I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry I couldn't take care of it last night, but I needed to review the history more before implementing the ban, and I wanted to make sure it was as well documented as it could be considering the lack of an account. I've updated the ban list (pretty much the way TP did his) and the material on the Salvidrim page. I'll replace links to the AN discussion in both places once the topic is archived.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, not a problem, what's one more night, when the discussion had been going on for over a week, and he's been an issue for over a year? I'm just glad you closed it before it started to go farther off topic into a more general discussion of the plausibility of "bans", instead of discussing the actual user at hand. So yeah, thanks again. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Arin_Paul#Major_copyedit.21

I ma little bit surprised to see your reversion and edit summary and re-inclusion of problematic portions which I tried to remove, I have not reverted the edit. I have started a post at talk here: Talk:Arin_Paul#Major_copyedit.21 --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've apologized and commented on the talk page. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, I have made few changes and replied at talk page. New section below. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sonali Mukherjee

But, there is an little bit much more important issue where I need some suggestion. In Wikipedia we have an article on a poor girl, an acid attack victim. I am bit caring towards this article because of misfortune of this girl (see this Dailymail article very pathetic, request of euthanasia etc.)
Now, we have got someone (I reverted his first unsourced edit) who is saying we don't have correct information there and our information is hurting her reputation and marriage proposal! I have removed few words from that article on request which was supported by RS, though I knew it is not a common practice in Wikipedia. They told they are also talking to the news media to change the information and asked some time. Any suggestion? Feel free to revert my edit there. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Hello,

I am a first time Wikipedia author and I look forward to contributing in the future. However, I was doing some research on this new innovator to the club scene from Europe who created a significant buzz throughout Europe, Alexandr Kostya. He accomplished the Insanity Party and successfuly mastered the art of transplant raging- his crowds walk into one venue, but while inside they feel, smell, hear, and truly believe they are somewhere else. This is a truly magnificent and amazing experience, and people need to know about this. In my research I found he did not have a Wikipedia page, however other club promoters and club DJ's do, including people like David Guetta. Why? Because David Guetta has a published song? I do not see the difference. Alexandr Kostya changed peoples lives and atmosphere. David Guetta plays with mp3 files on a computer and makes billions of dollars. I know this topic/genre is not for everyone, but people who appreciate this culture deserve to read and study about people like Alexandr Kostya. Please re-instate and republish the article you deleted that I wrote about Alexandr; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandr_Kostya. If things need to be changed on the article, I will change it, just please tell me what needs to be done. Thank you in advance.

-PS Wiki pages like the fake church called the Flying Spaghetti Monster are approved but mine about an innovator to the club scene is deleted?? REALLY?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClubHistory (talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

-ClubHistory — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClubHistory (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The article read like a social media page, not an encyclopedia article. There's no credible claim of importance in the article. I still wonder if the person even exists as described. There's nothing you can do to resurrect it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wheres the credible claim of importance in a made up church that praises a bowl of spaghetti??? There's a Kim Kardashian page, what has she done besides make a sex tape?? Wikipedia also hosts a whole slew of conspiracy theories, some that hold no grounds in reality, they are still given credence. This seems like you just don't like this genre or topic. Please provide me with the information that needs to be in this article for it not to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClubHistory (talk • contribs) 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you wish, you can take the issue to WP:DRV.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: User:Lukabeograd

The discussion got archived out to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#User:Lukabeograd. I concur with your assessment that an indefinite block might be the only thing that prompts this person to actually start talking. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Joy, thanks for reminding me about this topic. My energies have been diverted elsewhere in the last few days, and I've let several things slip through the cracks as a result. Do you think we need further discussion, or do you believe I can just act? I don't have a problem with acting without further discussion, but I value your input on this.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's entirely within the individual administrator's prerogative. It was on AN/I, and no one had brought forward any sort of a complaint, so silence procedure also applies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 6 months and logged the sanction.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion before I do this please...

Hi Bbb23, thanks for all the help and advice you gave me over my little difficulty just now. Sorry to trouble you further, but I couldn't help noticing though that User:Martinvl had made an unblock request too. His though contains comments about me, including one which is completely false (that I hadn't warned him about the 3rr report - it's there just above his unblock request!), and one which implies that I had failed to notify him about another action - an action which neither mentioned him nor inferred him at all (the coi one).

Do you think it would be advisable for me to leave a message on his page pointing this out, particularly while he remains blocked? I'm reluctant to leave it stand unchallenged as I think he is making far too many false claims about my actions and behaviour, and in numerous places. Casual observers may take these allegations at face value, or even use them against me.

What do you think? MeasureIT (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd let it go. First, the admin who declined the unblock request obviously didn't think much of it, which kind of speaks to the reasons he enumerated in the request. Second, the phrase he used was odd ("MeasureIT failed to give me advance warning that he was placing a 3RR notice"); I'm not even sure what that means, so why refute something that isn't completely intelligible? It'll just start a needless dispute. Focus on more positive things you can do.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll let it go then, and try not to let him wind me up. Thanks again. MeasureIT (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Orlando Figes EW Block Evasion

See this. Buggie111 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a week. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) lock

Should have expired yesterday but has not? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, and as soon as I post it unlocks. Sorry about that. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

MeasureIT and Martinvl

Maybe you've seen this [27], but I'm not getting directly involved. A gross violation of WP:AGF and, given the history between the two of them, this is incredibly disruptive. How can this be constructive? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've commented at Martinvl's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

edit warring IP

Dear Bbb23,

Can you please do something about this IP. Deli nk reverted his original research, and then the IP came along and reverted it right back. He never agreed to your terms and he didn't self revert. Can you please do something about this? Could you maybe semi-protect the page at least? Charles35 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Done and closed at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks bbb23, I appreciate it! Charles35 (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking Croonerman

I'm giving it some serious thought - what with his agreement to use AFC for article creation and the prospect of HellInABucket keeping him on track, I see no reason to maintain the block. I'm not going to lift it without hearing your take first, though; let me know what you think. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, JBW already set him loose. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I was in the middle of responding to you when James unblocked. As I noted on Croonerman's talk page, I said I would not object to an unblock if all of the reasons for the block were taken into consideration. However, I seriously doubt good things will come of this as I don't believe this is only about a newbie who doesn't know the ropes. Hopefully, I'm wrong. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, fingers crossed for a happy resolution - and the blockhammer's still in the toolbox in case there isn't one... Yunshui 雲‍水 12:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I took your remarks on Croonerman's talk page and on Seraphimblade's talk page into account. If you had not already expressed a willingness for another admin to unblock in those places, I would have waited for comment from you before acting. You may well be right to be doubtful about the likely outcome, but I agree with Seraphimblade about giving rope. Nine times out of ten doing so just postpones the inevitable indef block by a day or two, but at times I have known it result in an unpromising editor coming back and becoming a first class contributor to Wikipedia. The gain from those few far outweighs the trivial loss from all the failures, since failures are normally blocked again before they have had time to do any significant damage, while successes go on to make useful contributions for years to come. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand completely and have no problem with what you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I created a stub on Brian Evans. it can be found here Brian Evans (Singer) I believe that as a stub form it meets notability guidelines but just barely. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. How's the mentoring going?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Levity Entertainment Group

Hi,

I would like to begin rebuilding the page for Levity Entertainment Group which you deleted for Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Do you have the pre-existing Wikipedia article which I could use as a framework and then add verification where possible? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levity_Entertainment_Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulyg314 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, the article is so bad that I don't think the framework will help you much. That said, I might still do what you ask but I can't make the decision right now as I'm ill and really have to get off Wikipedia. If a passing admin thinks it's okay to do what you ask, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Alex Jones

I removed content from Alex Jones (radio host) because the exact same five sentences were already in another part of the article (in my opinion, a more appropriate part). dirtylemons (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Next time it would really be helpful if you would include an edit summary. The duplication is because the material is both in the body and the lead. It's not unusual for information from the body to be repeated in the lead, but the duplication with the sources is not appropriate. Any chance you want to work on revising the lead to just summarize the body material? Also, there's no reason to cite sources in the lead when the material is sourced in the body. I'd work on this myself, but I'm not feeling particularly well, and I shouldn't even be on Wikipedia. :-) My apologies for not understanding what you were doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

My reply

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

---

With reference to this comment of yours, addressed to me.

I made no accusation, I posed my suspicion and invited a response.

Long before the SPI appeared, I was trying to discretely ask on the COI noticeboard about how to best handle a suspicion that I had about another (no not the one whose talk page that was on) editor here: [28].

But then when the editor now in question had put himself into the frame, and I had made some investigations, as I explain here: [29], I decided to, as discretely as I could, and following the guidance in WP:COI and the advice I had received from the COI noticeboard, place a delicately worded invitation on his talkpage to ask him for comment. That was when you stepped in. But I note too that he didn't deny it, he quickly erased it without even an edit summary.

And yes I do have more, a lot more, evidence than that. It is a mixture of Wikipedia content and non-Wikipedia content. Shall I email it all to you and let you decide how to handle it - or what? By the way, User:OlYeller21 offered help too, at the COI noticeboard.

Note too that it was while I was discussing the COI at the noticeboard that I was made aware (by OlYeller21 there actually) that, "coincidentally" an SPI had mysteriously appeared, sponsored by an editor (User:NebY) who I had never had any previous interaction with, and who has now vanished into semi-retirement, but shortly followed by Martinvl (within 13 minutes of its creation) and then (a couple of days later) by another editor I hadn't encountered: User:Bretonbanquet. It all seems very contrived to me.

Please advise.

MeasureIT (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to bring my name into your COI fantasy world, you'd better be extremely sure you can back it up, which of course you can't. I suggest you leave my name out of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor currently operating as MeasureIT is lying to you. S/he did not ask the question on the COI noticeboard [30] "long before", she asked it an hour and twenty-six minutes after I raised the SPI [31], and fifty-five minutes after Martinvl had commented on it on my talk page [32]. I am assuming that Martinvl noticed it because he had contributed to earlier SPIs on DeFacto, so Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto was automatically watchlisted, and that MeasureIT/DeFacto, having resumed her pursuit of Martinvl, observes his contributions. I see no reason to believe that she had any editor but Martinvl in mind at any point. NebY (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Lying - no. But I should have qualified my statement this way: "Long before I was made aware of the SPI". I wasn't informed about it, and only found out about it here: [33] (22 hours after I started the COI thread here: [34]). Apologies for not making that clear enough for everyone. MeasureIT (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• A lot of drama. @MeasureIT, as I said on Martin's talk page, I don't buy your story that you were not accusing Martin of anything. And now you're making additional accusations against just about everyone. Martin's talk page and my talk page are not the place for this kind of stuff. Either go to WP:ANI or stop. If you want to e-mail me "evidence", feel free, but I don't promise that I will respond or take any action at all, depending on my own judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not made any "additional accusations", I've tried to describe a sequence of events that I think may need further investigation and at least explanation, given the seriousness of my plight as a result of them. How can I get hold of an e-mail address for you please? MeasureIT (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Yoani Sánchez and ANEW

Can I make new changes? Like adding totally different and new information?--Huysmanii (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have preferred keeping this conversation in one place, but the answer is no. You'll just have to stay away from the article for a week. However, if you want to propose new material on the talk page and other editors agree with your proposal, they can add the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

deltasim and the BLP vio

sup man, I never used this before so bear with me ok? I am a friend of realfatrabbit and he got blocked and asked me to let you know that deltasim didn't like the result of the edit war between him and relafatrabbit that you decided. It was about a BLP vio. deltasim I guess went to another admin called jamesbwatson and had realfatrabbit blocked. the admin called jamesbwatson then added back the stuff deltasim added that was the BLP vio which realfatrabbit kept removing and caused the edit war. anyways, thats that, he just wanted me to tell you. thanks man

This is the page about the war that deltasim went to another admin called jamesbwatson to add back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive202#User:Deltasim_and_User:ArealFatRabbit_reported_by_Mephistophelian_.28Result:_Declined.29

oh yeah and the BLP vio and edit war was on kid icarus page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.159.130 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

IP sock of blocked IP

Hello Bbb23. Yesterday you blocked 177.43.87.117 for violating the ARBPIA 1RR. Today that person is evading that block by using the IP 201.88.27.57. Could you take care of that please, or is there somewhere else I should go? nableezy - 17:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like User:Malik Shabazz dealt with it in my absence.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Stephen M. Cohen

Hello Bbb23 Tonight, I reversed your reversal of my contribution to the Stephen M. Cohen article. The source I used is the most recognized source for United States Federal Court Opinions used by every valid news source worldwide. Furthermore this article is directly on point in reference to the Cohen article.

Second, it is a very important case as it gives substantial rights to a third party of which a judgment creditor has tried to take an unlawful advantage as Kremen did in this specific case by going after Cohen's cousin Michael Joseph Cohen. Once the court issued its Summary Judgment is also granted the defendant the right to file a malicious Prosecution action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is the first case granting third party rights against a judgment creditor who filed a fraudulent complaint without any legal merit against an innocent third party.

With all due respect, why would you remove my contribution? If Wikipedia does not want editors that provide valid information then we as editors need to know so. Vanessamx (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Generally court documents are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)‎

Done, I hope your happy with the result. I will restore the rewrite later, perhaps instead of being outraged you ought to compare them, I acted in good faith here and asked the other guy to expand the sections he is most interested in, of course that was not good enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't "outraged". You know I can't take a position on the content issues without losing my ability to act administratively. I'm simply trying to be fair. Thank you for self-reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair? An editor makes how many reverts which include BLP and linkvios and I am the one getting bollocked. The rewrite was a massive improvement. I broke no policy's and told you I was rewriting it and would not touch the article for a while, which is what I did. All you have done here is enable the other guy. Very bad call. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call hours "a while", but if you disagree with me, you're welcome to ask another admin their view.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with everyone, it's one of my personality flaws I have now noticed you are getting a lot of shite over the unblock, so sorry for having dropped more in your lap. Personally I think your doing OK, have a good new year. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, saying it's been a bad day would be an understatement. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly our fellow wikipedian, DS, ended up disregarding your recommendation in the end. A few hours ago, he reinstated his edit unilaterally [35]. His edit summary, "to hell with this" doesn't inspire much confidence in his seriousness in trying to build consensus. Neither does this [36], though it's less relevant to the issue at hand. Still, I feel it illustrates that an otherwise energetic editor can have some issues. Aminul802 (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, DS is sadly back with a vengeance. He's effectively done another unilateral rewrite of the LEDE and much of the article. User:Dreambeaver had commented that we should undertake controversial changes on the talk page, and proceed from there. DS has gone it alone. I left this comment on Dreambeaver's talk page [37]. I think the best way to proceed would be to ask DS to undo all his changes, and return to the talk page to make his case for them. I think there is much room for improvement in the article. At the moment, he's made matters worse with respect to coming to a useful resolution to things. Aminul802 (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I will not revert the improvements I am making to the article. I am acting in accordance with NPOV & WP:LEDE. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, do not stalk my edits again. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, folks, just a heads up that the earliest I'm going to be able to look into this will be tomorrow late afternoon my time. So, you'll have to work it out yourselves (best), find someone else to help, or be patient.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries B, after reverting BLP violations back into the article three times, even though I told him there were BLP vios in editsummarys, his talk page and the article talk page (which he is unable to find) the article is again back at his preferred version. I told you it was a mistake to enable him, he will never allow the article to be neutral. Over to you as I am just going to lose all patience. If I need to seek his permission to edit that article and try to bring it to a NPOV version then he needs to do the same, any edit he makes henceforth will be reverted until he makes his case on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)That sounds like WP:BATTLEGROUND be careful as this could violate WP:3RR. maybe take it to the edit war notice page? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not mean right now, I mean in the future. All this guy does is add as much criticism he can find and dumping it in the lede, if he gets reverted he reverts you and calls it vandalism and says take it to talk, of course it never works the other way at all. B already knows about this guys edit warring, he let him off a week ago for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha, and he does another copyvio,[38] Darkness Shines (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Since my last comment above, I have not been paying attention to this thread, partly because I've been sick (better now). In any event, User:KTC has locked the article. I sure hope the parties can figure this out before the lock expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, Sorry to hear you've been unwell. I'm glad to hear you're back on your feet! I too hope the lock is long enough to resolve some of the issues. I actually think it may not be. As for DS, it's unfortunate that one can be spoken ill of in one's absence without the opportunity to defend oneself. I always try to notify DS when I complain about him. Bbb23 is familiar with our past. I don't think DS' one-sided characterizations are at all fair, or his own suggestions are NPOV by any means. Still, I return here to request related input from another wikipedian with whom I'm having trouble agreeing. User:Freemesm. I was wondering if you could comment here: [39]. Aminul802 (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

In the event this is still on your radar

Hi, Bbb23. I am contemplating unblock here based on this. If you have thoughts or opinions on the unblock or its conditions, please let me know. Thanks Tiderolls 14:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Tide rolls, I believe Kezollinger has agreed to all of Hersfold's conditions, so it would be unfair not to unblock him. If K breaches the terms, the sanctions can be reimposed, but at this point he should be given another chance. I think you have done everything you could to ensure the greatest possibiility of success. Hopefully, it will work out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Another block evader

I'm sure [40] is User talk:Huysmanii evading his block. He's also posted this. Can you change his block to indef? Dreadstar ☥ 19:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite a range of IPs for this one, yet another. Dreadstar ☥

184.174.173.93 and 83.249.210.240 both show as proxy servers, so I've blocked them for one year. 128.68.97.56 shows up as a static IP from Moscow. I was going to block it as a puppet/block evasion anyway, but there's something weird about it when I start the block process, so I'm going to need to ask someone about that before proceeding further. As for extending Huysmanii's block, let me think a bit about what's best.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. 128.68.97.56 is a strange one, I see it on a TOR node list and a few blacklists. I'll leave Huysmanii's fate in your capable hands. Dreadstar ☥ 03:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Isreal-Palistine

I'm coming to you became I don't know where I'm supposed to go with this, and I saw that you're were very active at Wikipedia:ARBPIA so I'm comming to you, I hope you don't mind. He decided to remove {{History of the Palestinian territories}} from Judea twice because, apparently "This is an article about Judea, not a non-existant country." and "The infobox refers to a *non-existent country*. Palestine" is not a country. The removal is entirely legitimate." even tough the navbox clearly covers Judea. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also apparently the correct word for "Palestinians" is "Arabs", for "West Bank" "Judea and Samaria", and for "Israeli settlement", "Israeli town". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Z554 for 48 hours for violating WP:1RR. Next time, I would prefer you file a report at WP:ANEW or WP:AE.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Seqqis user talk

When I say we, I mean me and my friends. We perfer to share a wikipedia account, rather than having seperate ones.Seqqis(Talk) 20:56, 15 January 2013

You may prefer it, but it isn't a good idea and is generally prohibited. See WP:ROLE.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright You convinced me, I will kick off my friends from my account.Thanks Seqqis(Talk) 21:10, 15 January 2013

Okay (smiling), good idea, but they are welcome to create their own accounts; it's not that hard.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you intend to tell Youreallycan who accused me of POV-pushing?

I will gladly stop. I'm angry that he has accused me of POV-pushing with zero evidence, I asked that he provide evidence or rescind the accusation. Look at Youreallycan's remarks on the AN/I and my talk page. What do you intend to tell him?--R-41 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

YRC could have chosen his words more carefully, but it's simply not that big a deal. I'm sorry you're angry, and I believe you're sincere, but discussions at Wikipedia cannot always unfold precisely the way you - or anyone else - think they should. Step back. Take a deep breath. Take a break or edit something less controversial. Later you may still feel it's unfair, but, hopefully, you'll at least be able to let it go and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you believe he should have chosen his words carefully, then why not tell him so, rather than indicating that I am the only one in the wrong. And particularly, to ask Youreallycan to reconsider his accusation that I was POV-pushing.--R-41 (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, R-41, I thought I responded to this question, but I guess not. I didn't think it necessary to tell YRC that. As an administrator, my leaving such a message would come across as a warning, and I didn't think his comments justified a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)