User talk:Bbb23/Archive 25

Block Amendment

Hey Bbb23 - note that I have extended the block you made on Sudhir7777 as they have been confirmed to be socking. Again. Hope you don't mind, but I did warn them in May that I would indef if they continued to evade their block(s) and I'm a woman of my word. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo, you have an ulterior motive: you wanted me to clerk the report. Of course, I don't object to your extending the block. It was obviously well deserved. I have closed the report. I added some tags, which strictly weren't necessary, and I changed some tags that weren't quite right (added by a non-admin-non-clerk - I wish they wouldn't do that), and took no action against Buddyonline7. The haven't edited in a few days, and my guess is if they persist, they may be blocked anyway for disruption. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Baron Dupotet

Thank you for your support. I don't know which name is best, my or French. I also hope that someone else will continue the article if they are inspired. User:Skoglund

• Saw your note after I got up, and yes, I can read that stuff; I'm wondering why Drmies didn't import the info about his missing thumb, for instance. I will see what I can do, but I see Drmies has already done a lot, and you made a fair start yourself. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I had a French friend who was missing part of one of his fingers. He was much better than an esoterocist; he was a great cook with a wonderful 17th century house in the Norman countryside. Drmies did his usual superlative job with the article. My role was limited to saving it from deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

NRSJPS

Why did you removed the yoga picture??--prathamprakash29 04:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)--prathamprakash29 04:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 (talk • contribs)

When are you going to reply??? I hope within a year or so.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

When are you going to learn how to WP:SIGN your posts? You issues with the article should remain on the talk page of the article, not on my talk page. That said, there are too many pictures as it is. The yoga picture just gets swallowed up with the rest and adds little value to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

User:I.Bhardwaj AN3 report

Hello Bbb23. The report that I filed was about a different article from the one already there. So please restore it as merging just makes it a TLDR. -- SMS ^Talk 08:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Smsarmad, my apologies. However, in my absence you did a very good job of combining the two, thanks. I've now closed the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You blocked Ashumech527 for editwarring, and then along comes

another editor with almost exactly the same edits[1]. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Doug, I blocked the latest editor for 72 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. I haven't extended the block of the first account yet. Instead, I started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashumech527. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised however the CU comes out on this one. I'm more used to blocking someone and then a new account coming along rather than an old account. Plus, there seems to be a lot of editors with these aggressive ethnic biases, so it's hard to say. We'll see what happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. A 3rd editor showed up who uses the same language as Bhumihar brahmin, I'ved added him to the SPI. Alexnews (the new one) is appealing his block. I notice that the possible puppetmaster has socked before. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Which shows my bad memory, I'm the one who reported him before, just noticed that! Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm glad I'm not the only one who suffers from a bad memory occasionally. We'll see what happens, either directly from a CU or if a clerk intervenes. Meat puppet issues are thorny.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I would be really grateful if you look at this matter at Talk:The Divergent Series: Insurgent because you are a experienced and fair editor.--Jockzain (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Jockzain, but I rarely get involved in content disputes - or in this case title disputes - except sometimes on the periphery, or if I am not acting as an administrator. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

AppalArts Magazine

Frankly I dont understand why you deleted the page. I followed the unbiased approach and provided references from current media to show that it is a reliable article. If you could explain as to how the "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" I would greatly appreciate it. thanks XGuyFawkes (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)XGuyFawkes

It had no references. It had nothing except the title and a non-existent logo.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Encyc deletion

The article you deleted (Encyc) was about a wiki that has been around for six years and referenced in two scholarly works, one of them published by the Stanford University Press. I agree maybe it looked a little like advertising but that could be fixed with some minor changes Please undelete. Duck of Luke (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No. In addition to the promotional problems and the dubious notability, you copied a fair amount of material from the site itself. It's not clear to me whether the licensing of the articles also applies to the descriptions of the site itself. Either way, you did a slipshod job.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Recreation

Deepak Rawal which was deleted by you yesterday and twice earlier by others has now been recreated as user page, see User:Deepakrawal5/Deepak Rawal. For your information.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit on County roads in Ramsey County, Minnesota

Hi Bbb23,

You said that a list of roads can't be A7ed. What does the A7ed mean? Robert4565 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Robert4565, you can only tag certain articles with an WP:CSD#A7, and places and roads aren't among them (look at the list).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Return to Oz

Hi: you previously locked Return to Oz due to ongoing problems with edit warring / content disputes. Unfortunately these issues have resumed now that the article lock has expired. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks, BMRR (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

BMRR, that was a few weeks ago. Can you tell me what triggered my interest in the article? There seems to be a lot of suspicious activity going on, including possible sock puppetry. It's a little tough to sort out, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I reported the edit warring on one of the notice boards. You locked it shortly after I made the report, so you must've been the first admin to see the report. Would you be willing to lock it again (and/or deal with the participants of the edit war) or do I need to file another report? Thanks, BMRR (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

BMRR, I've indefinitely blocked one of the accounts as a sock. Hopefully that will help.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Salt?

Hi Bbb23. Any chance you could salt Kunwer Azlan? See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/PakistanUnderGroundAssociation. Thank you. - MrX 01:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It's already been salted by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks.- MrX 01:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Misha B Edit Warring (2012)

Hi Bbb23.

You left a comment on my profile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikimucker) in October 2012 which was fair enough to someone coming anew to that frankly rather odd situation in October 2012.

The editor in question is no longer active on Wikipedia as of shortly afterwards see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zoeblackmore and for reasons they explain on their own page (and with which reasons I could not possibly disagree given the serial issues I had with their 'contributions') and I wonder whether you would be prepared to revist your comment on my motives and actions at the time and to modify your stance somewhat for the record..and indeed for my record.

Kind Regards Wikimucker (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh?

I edited the Jordan Belfort article, principally to remove grandiose claims that were cited only to his memoir, to add citations to more recent events, and to remove material that was future-tense when written (e.g., "in 2014 Belfort will...) and which did not come to pass.

You reverted the edit because you said it contained original research. It didn't.

I pointed that out, and you reverted the edit again. This time you didn't complain that it contained original research, but instead that it was not viewpoint neutral.

What gives?

Quite a few people have complained that the page seems to include an excessive amount of PR for a convicted fraudster. If you think my edits were either original research, or violated viewpoint neutrality, then you should identify in what respect that's the case. Reverting the entire page to restore PR material, junk claims about events that never came to pass, and the like, serves no purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access

Hi, Bebe. LardoBalsamico blanked his page and put a {{retired}} template on it. I don't think that's heinous, even if it did also involve removing the block notice. (Which is currently not even an offense; see the consensus in the latest RFC on the matter for allowing users to remove block notices; the only thing they can't remove is unblock requests. Even so, incidentally, I think he should have been warned before tpa was removed, because removing tpa is supposed to be a last-ditch action, reserved for serious abuse. Anyway, he doesn't want to request unblock, he wants to retire. (At least, today he wants to, and I think we should respect it.) Did you notice his edit summary here? I think he was trying to request his user page be deleted, but couldn't edit it, so had to put the tag on talk. And now he can't edit that either… I must say I don't like the situation I see emerging from the talkpage history. Unless you have some strong objection, I'm going to restore talkpage access. No, scrap that, I have restored it. Hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 14:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC).

I don't see any declared consensus, and I doubt there ever will be one. I don't care that much that you restored talk page access, but I'm not crazy about your basis. He was warned in an edit summary: "restore block notice and admin's comment - don't remove it again". Not a formal warning, I grant you, but good enough. In any event, it wasn't my block, so I probably should have stayed out of it unless Callanecc took the position that the notice should not be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No no, no declared consensus, quite so. 24 supports, 4 opposes (with the last oppose posted on 3 June, the same day the discussion was opened, and the supports still steadily dropping in), and the guideline has been changed accordingly, but nothing's been declared. Perhaps it should be closed as "no consensus". Bishonen | talk 22:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC).

I don't see any change to the "guideline". Looks like the disputed language is the same. My last comment on this, Bish. I'm tired and I'm not up to exchanging barbs with you. Regards (sincere).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Making no comment about the merits of removing access, but I personally see a block and then removing talk page access as separate things (unless it was initially removed with the block) so it's not messing with the block at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

So, Callanecc, if I understand you properly, even though it was "your" block, a subsequent removal of talk page access has nothing to do with you. In other words, in this instance, you're leaving me to battle with Bish all by my lonesome. I've had some experience with this. I think it's Bish whatever, me zip. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, I was just saying that I see the two as seperate things so there is no reason to check with the blocking admin before you remove tp or email access, unless the user hasn't done anything. If it's in response to further editing/emailing then I don't see a reason to check. Regarding the removal in question, I thought it was a little harsh and a very short full protection would have done the job if necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a little confused

Hello. I am a little confused about this edit summary from User:HBC AIV helperbot11. It says that you blocked the IP indef but when I look at the block log the the IP I do not see any indef or even recent blocks.

Is this some sort of auto-block side effect? Is the IP really blocked indefinitely? Perhaps the bot is confused?

I am asking because I wrote the initial incarnation of the bot and want to know if it is making mistakes. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell you how the bot works, but my guess is it's an autoblock issue. The bot's edit summary was today at 18:16. If you go to the autoblock list, there are two entries at 18:09 that may be relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, I just looked at the IP's contributions, and there are some after the bot said he was indeffed. If he was autoblocked, how would he have been able to edit? Now I'm confused, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Very odd. The bot's code has changed significantly since I last edited it so I am not sure. It does seem that the bot should not have removed that IP from AIV. I agree it is likely the side effect of an auto-block, but I don't get why the IP could edit if that was the case. I know that auto blocks of IPs are temporary but I don't think it is that short. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, as I understand the explanation at WP:ABK, the autoblock lasts at least 24 hours (unless lifted). However, each time a user (named account or IP) is autoblocked it resets to 24 hours from that point. Thus, in theory, as long as users continue to log in during the autoblock, the autoblock could continue indefinitely if the original block was indefinite (I believe the autoblocks expire after the original block expires). I'm a very literal guy, so that's my interpretation of the language but it's not as clear as I'd like it to be. All of that is interesting but doesn't resolve the problem at hand.

BTW, it's been nice "meeting" you. I first noticed you on Drmies's talk page where almost everyone goes at one time or another to discuss whatever. You're clearly someone Drmies likes, which, in my book, means something, although Drmies's tastes are more elastic than mine. He even likes me. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been away for a while and it has been really a pleasant surprise how many people are still around from the old days and still recognize me. I am a friendly guy so it is nice to meet you and consider me always open to contact from you. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 07:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor editors

Hi Bbb23,

I had to edit and subsequently request oversighting of parts of the recent discussion at WT:RFA. If an editor who's a minor reveals their age (without knowing that we routinely advise young editors not to do so in the interests of their own safety online), please don't repeat it.

Best wishes, — Scott • talk 09:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Scott, I noticed it later (by chance). I find it somewhat dissonant that we permit anyone to create an account, no matter how young they are, that they can broadcast their age, but then we're not allowed to mention it. At the same time, I didn't intentionally contravene policy when I included the age. It simply didn't occur to me, and although I think it reads better with the actual age, it's certainly not a big deal one way or the other. Thanks for the heads up, and I'll try to remember in the future. I noticed the age was oversighted on the user's user page; at least there's some consistency in the actions. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I totally didn't think that you did it on purpose. As far as I know, we always try to zap such mentions wherever they happen. It's a little awkward when it happens after the fact in a conversation, but talk pages are a bit weird more often than not. :-) — Scott • talk 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Back?

I see you are back on-wiki, and active in the 3RR board. Would you mind reviewing the report I filed with regard to Sepsis II? Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was actually looking at the report when you posted this message, but I have an appointment and must leave for a while. I may be able to revisit it later if another administrator has not already done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

ok, thx. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

AmosAce Bangla

Hi! You blocked some socks and reverted some sock edits at AmosAce Bangla. There seems to be a new one there, who removed the speedy deletion tag that, rightly or wrongly, I had placed on the article since it was sockpuppetry right from the start. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, I can see why you're suspicious, but I don't feel there's as much for me to go on as with the other three blocked accounts. The new account also branched out into areas never touched by the other three. My suggestion is that you open an SPI and ask for a CU. If you do, let me know, and I'll endorse the CU as a clerk. Make sure you put in as much evidence as possible. Just because I know the history doesn't mean others looking at the report will. Don't know if you've ever opened an SPI before, but if you need help, let me know. Meanwhile, two more things. First, if the user becomes disruptive, either on the Bangla article or anywhere else, let me know. He doesn't have to be a sock to be sanctioned, although generally he should be warned. Second, take the article to AfD and avoid the whole speedy delete problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23, sound advice all of it. Yes, I've started a number of SPIs; I just don't know the history here, so may let this one ride, given that you are not yourself convinced. AfD it is for the page. Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(Sticking my nose in where it may not belong) Mon.mukherjee is a  Confirmed sock and has been blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo, you are welcome to stick your nose into anything at all. I can't think of an instance where it doesn't belong. Thanks much; saves everyone a lot of trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I saw that, Ponyo; many thanks to you and to Bbb23 too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd hate to see a sock account be given a free pass due to SPI being a notoriously painful process for most editors. Sometimes it's easier just to look the other way, we all do it at one time or another! I'm happy to step in and help. Oh, and Bbb23, with it being the end of the work day and tomorrow being a holiday, I look forward to sticking my nose in a beer in the next hour or so. Cheers,--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't get a holiday until July 4. Lucky you and enjoy!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Men's rights sanctions

Hi Bbb23, we have a problem related to men's rights at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force. This was set up last year as a gender gap task force. A couple of accounts have recently joined who are arguing that "systemic gender bias" on Wikipedia applies to men too. There is therefore an RM discussion about moving the page to "gender gap task force" to clarify the scope.

I'm not familiar with the men's rights controversy, but I see you were an active admin in that area, specifically regarding the sanctions. Would you mind keeping an eye on that page and applying warnings or sanctions if appropriate? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Madison McKinley

Bbb23 & DangerousPanda - It looks like it is happening again with a SPA. Someone really wants this article to remain as is despite the obvious problems with it. I discussed the issues on the Article's Talk Page. It's still poor with new problems added now: "Her popular film role"!? Non-references used as references. Can you please take a look? Based on a Google search and the references cited I'm not sure the subject even meets WP:ENT. Thanks. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Jersey92, I took the liberty of moving your comment from AN3. You can't keep going back there with reports of possible new socks. There are some significant differences between User:Cristine nickol and the blocked socks. She's been around for a while, and she at least appears to have gone about this in a methodical way. She also left a message on the talk page, and your response wasn't particularly helpful as it didn't elaborate on the problems in the new iteration. I'm not as familiar with the article as you are, but in looking at Cristine's changes, the main issue that stood out was her use of unreliable sources, namely McKinley's website, and some website that I have no idea what it is that has short blurbs about movies. She also used a website that is clearly a tabloid as a source. I can't see my way to blocking her at this point as a sock, even though her editing is bad. I'll continue to watch the page (I noticed her edits before).--Bbb23 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Incorrectly tagged socks of User:HoshiNoKaabii2000

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but could you please change the tags listed under TDFan2006 and Nick UK took a falldown in 2005 to HoshiNoKaabii2000? Both of those "sockmasters" were both confirmed to be sockpuppets of HoshiNoKaabii2000, which means that the accounts listed in the links that I provided above were labeled incorrectly thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The accounts are tagged properly by Callanecc. I have no idea what else you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, can you please block User:TDFan2007 indefinitely? Even if it isn't a sock of HoshiNoKaabii2000 (which is rather likely because of the naming similarities and the mobile edit/web tags), it is still an obvious impersonation attempt of another user, as well as a VOA account. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, and, btw, you should not be altering tags on your own. Doing so and then coming here after the fact isn't good enough. God knows you've been warned often enough. You're just lucky I'm not in a blocking mood at the moment. Can't you control yourself?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

AmirSurfLera

This: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AmirSurfLera was closed prematurely, I believe. Please see related discussion here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_Huldra and the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#IP_area_still_being_swamped_by_sock. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not reopening it. I'll let WP:ARE take its course as to any sanctions that should be imposed on any editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Shrian Samuel

You deleted this as promotional, but there are 3 references at the bottom demonstrating notability, so in response to a plea on IRC I've restored it and moved it to Draft:Shrian Samuel.

By the way I finally had time to muck about with Baron du Potet yesterday. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

I responded on my talk page but you never replied so I'm posting the question here:

I have no idea how the text "walking with another man" is controversial in any way, or WP:COATRACK (I checked COATRACK and based off those rules there doesn't seem to be an issue with that particular phrase being in the article). Maybe you can enlighten me where I'm wrong here, thanks.

Also is the NY Post considered a reliable source on Wikipedia? Ifinteger (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

To your second question, the answer is, not for material about living people, no.

To your first question... why would you want to put that material in the article anyway? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, I left a much less concise answer on the user's talk page. Thanks for chipping in.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw that just after I posted the above. Reassuring that the answers overlapped somewhat on the key points :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 I'd like your response to recent comments on the Richard Quest talk page. Removal of that phrase probably falls under WP:CENSOR since it would not be equally applied if Quest was with a female. I believe users would not be removing that text if that was the case. Ifinteger (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll let others respond to your points on the talk page. My only recommendation to you is that you behave. Perhaps you should edit another article that causes you less grief.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 it doesn't cause me any "grief". I'm just trying to prove a double-standard that by repeatedly removing text which is not controversial or UNDUE you are only confirming. Quest is now openly gay (which is why the text is not UNDUE) and if it was a heterosexual couple you wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it. I also responded to Collect on the Quest talk page, take care. Ifinteger (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Levitt Robinson Solicitors page

Hi,

Please advise why this was deleted. You did not provide an explanation and I cannot see how the two categories for speedy deletion which you cited would apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKVIII (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Quite possibly the most promotional article about one of the least notable law firms I've ever come across myself. Two individual admins thought so after 2 non-admin editors noticed. Please don't create it again the panda ₯’ 23:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about reverts

Hi, I have a couple of quick questions about reverts and 1RR: 1) Is all deletion of material considered a revert? 2) Is making small NPOV changes to language considered a revert? 3) Is it acceptable to add information to the article even if I've already made a revert? Thanks. Wikieditorpro (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You should read the definition of a revert in the policy. Assuming no exemption, deletion of material would be a revert, small changes would be a revert, but adding information that has never before existed in the article would not be a revert. That said, administrators have the discretion not to count a technical revert depending on its nature. The most obvious example is if you fix a typo or you delete a word that shouldn't be there, like deleting "is" from "The time is is now". In the controversial area you edit in, I'd err on the side of caution.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for that. Wikieditorpro (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Namrata Sapkota

Hi!

Last month, I created an article Namrata Sapkota who is an actress of Nepal. But, you deleted for A7. Actresses are notable, aren't they? Also, I think I had added well references showing significance of the subject. I wanted to create the article again but the sources are limited with those which were added initially. Can you please provide good suggestions on this matter on my talk page? — Ascii002 ^{Let's talk!} 02:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ascii002, actors aren't automatically notable. As for recreating the article, I suggest you use WP:AFC. In that way, you'll get feedback from experienced editors about any problems with the article. Also, although I did not delete it per WP:CSD#G11 (promotional), try to keep the promotion in the article down. Sentences like "Namrata Sapkota is a new beautiful actress in Nepali movie industry" are not encyclopedic. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Question on deletion of Bass, Berry & Sims

Hi. As a new editor, I'm trying to understand why the article on Bass, Berry & Sims was deleted, or more specifically why it met the criteria for speedy deletion. I thought that the article and topic met all of the criteria under WP:GNG and the article was specifically requested by Wikiproject Tennessee. It was certainly incomplete and needed further content, but, from WP:Notability:

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

Would it be more appropriate to write the full content before posting? If so, what is the purpose of creating and marking an article as a stub? --Xpctr8 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The best approach is to create the article in your user space and then submit it to WP:AFC. In that way, you'll get feedback from more experienced editors as to whether the article can be moved to main space and, if not, why not. Stub categories are used for all sorts of articles, anything from one-line articles to ones with several paragraphs. Being labeled a stub doesn't necessarily prevent an article from being deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Request

I requested full-page protection several times this week, but they have not stopped edit-warring on 2001 Bangladeshi-Indian border skirmish. Please have a look that who is on 3RR, and whether protection is needed or not. Regards. Faizan 17:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Faizan, I blocked both users for 72 hours and disposed of your request at WP:RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sock

I was wondering why you were so generous, but now I understand your hesitation. Had I not already voted, I would have taken some action myself. I had checked all their contribs, which were very, very obvious trolling to me. Because it is a close RFA, I understand the hesitation, but that is also why it is tempting for socks, as one trolling might make a difference in the outcome, and they score a victory for vandalism. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

In anything but an RfA, I would have removed it (I haven't voted, either), but there's such controversy surrounding RfAs, I figured commenting was better for the nonce. I may still be able to strike it, but I'm waiting. The percentage of the RfA is at 82, which isn't all that close these days, and if it does become close in the next few hours (seems unlikely), I'm sure the crat will give the vote no weight.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are showing reasonable prudence here. Actually, this is one of the closer ones as of late, which have been 90+ or WP:NOTNOW. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Declined

I just gave you a click thank you for a recent decline for a 3RR, - I guess I better explain that it was not so much for the decline as for the line "This is all an incredible waste of both of your skills as experienced editors, not to mention administrators." Full support. Look at Komm, Heiliger Geist, Herre Gott and Symphony No. 8, to mention just two of all too many examples. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda, I'm glad you came here because I turned off those thank things so I'm not notified. If I could, I'd remove them from my interface, but, so far, the powers that be have dictated that I have to live with them. I made a few copy edits to Bruckner's 8th. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean the Bruckner talk and the discussion between Nikki and you about the infobox? If so, now I have.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I see no reason, no reason, for celebrating Canada Day by changing information which was in the article for seven years, which follows the example in the template documentation exactly - no reason other than keeping me busy. I let many things go as if I didn't notice, but a major symphony: I had to react. I won't revert. The term boomerang was just mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

see also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment there myself, I reached the limit of two comments per infobox discussion which the wise arbitrators imposed, - a blessing most of the time. Grammar question: should it be "my alleged long history" or "allegedly long history" as an infobox warrior? - See also Sparrow Mass where it started (the battle that darkened Easter 2013 for me, page protection and all). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Unequivocal and Chris Crocker

Are you an administrator? This user keeps making mass changes to Chris Crocker without any sources. Unsubstantiated claims were reverted by two different editors. Block him and requesting temporary protection for Chris Crocker. Backendgaming (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've commented on the matter here and here; the Chris Crocker article is certainly an article to keep an eye on. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

An awful lot of admins involved in this problem. I'm a bit more concerned with the socking issue, although I'm unfamiliar with Benjiboi. There was a similar edit by one of his socks on March 13, 2014 (removed "one-time" as it wasn't "former" at that point, although he left in the internal comment). Alison has the power to take action on that if she chooses, although anyone could reopen the SPI. Backendgaming, you might want to fix the report at WP:AN3 (did you look at it after you created it?). You've provided no diffs or comments for administrators. Finally, Flyer22 has requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP, so something should be popping soon. I'll watch it a bit - not sure if I'll take action or not. I wish users like this one would talk (not counting edit summaries).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

I left you a message on the Administrator's noticeboard asking you to retract your claim that a report that I filed concerning a 1RR violation was "obviously retaliatory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dlv999_reported_by_User:Wikieditorpro_.28Result:_Declined.29 Wikieditorpro (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis II

I would like to ask you to reopen the [Sepsis II] matter. As a 1RR under Discretionary sanctions I think the Administrators Noticeboard/3RR was the wrong location. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement being the appropriate location in my view. I feel that ARE might have actually put the situation under further scrutiny. I'm not sure but I do question if posting this there and then contacting you stacked the deck for a predetermined outcome. I wonder if perhaps if this was raised at wp:are if it would been questioned if this was perhaps vexatious. A question I'm not sure would have been asked in AN/3RR. There can be a penalty for this at WP:ARE. It may have still resulted in a block for sepsis II but it also may have resulted in a ban for Kipa as well. It may have also resulted simply in a warning for Sepsis II.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not sure but it actually may have resulted in a longer block for Sepsis II.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to take this up at WP:ARE, that's up to you. I have no intention of "reopening" the matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought it would be polite to ask first. I'll do that. Thanks.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies

I missed the section at the top of AN/3RR that said 1RR can be put there. I missed that. WP:ARE wouldn't I don't think be the appropriate place to go. I certainly apologize for the misunderstanding.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland:

@AE, been kinda following it, here it is know of Sean, once we butted heads and not in a good way. I have however seen since then the guy, twat that he is, is a pure solid NPOV guy, he is to the IP area, as I am to the one I can`t mention. The guy is a solid editor, and needed in the topic area, do the right thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask Goldwater and Carter what that is.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Indore Sanwer railway station

Hi Bbb23, i tagged this article for CSD as no such station exists in Indian Railways. You may kindly cross check at http://www.indianrail.gov.in/index.html or at http://enquiry.indianrail.gov.in/ntes/ and other sources. If i had placed CSD tag improperly, please enlighten me. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 23:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Balablitz, thanks for explaining why you placed the tag. The second of the two refs above isn't very friendly - couldn't figure out how to make it work, but I believe the first says no such station exists. The problem is that to delete an article per WP:CSD#G3, it has to be blatant, meaning no room for doubt. I don't normally check those kinds of sources. Doing a simple Google search, I found some evidence that it might exist. Now maybe what I found wasn't reliable, don't know, but, generally, for a blatant hoax, I either find absolutely nothing on a search or just a few hits that are clearly stupid. Even then, I am reluctant to delete a page if I have any doubt in my mind. For example, articles about subjects that are not modern or articles about foreign subjects where I may have to know how to translate to do the search. It's better to err on the side of caution. I hope that helps a bit. I suggest you take it to AfD or even prod it if you wish rather than going the speedy delete route.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that I look at it again, the best thing for you to do is to prod it for a reliable source. You'll have to wait, but you'd probably have to wait for a closure of an AfD as well, and at the moment, there is no source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, thanks for a brief explanation and suggestion. The fact is that Sawer or "Sanwer" is a town and an assembly constituency within Indore district and no railway line near this place. See 1, 2, 3. Also the station code, SWR, in that page belongs to Sonua railway station in Sonua, Jharkhand under the administration of Chakradharpur railway division of South Eastern Railway zone. A station code is 2–4 letter code used by Indian Railways to identify an station, to avoid confusion when two stations having similar names. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 07:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You obviously know more about this than I do, which isn't tough. I see you nominated it for deletion. Maybe you'll luck out and an admin with more knowledge about Indian railway stations will close it with a speedy delete. Worst case, you'll have to wait out the seven days or so. Best of luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, many thanks for your timely suggestion for a prompt action. Lets wait for the outcome. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 12:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

edit warring

You can see there is a discussion in the talk page of Economy of Pakistan to seek a dispute resolution, but even after your full protection on Economy of Pakistan and Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction some sock IPs have continued to edit war in those articles and they won't listen to any dispute resolution. Is it possible to semi protect these two articles? This would lessen the possibility of edit war. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I semi-protected Economy of Pakistan for two weeks. However, there's been only one edit to the other article, which is not sufficient to justify protection. Let me know if things get worse.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

James McAvoy edits

Hello Bbb23, regarding the James McAvoy page on wikipedia, my last edit has absolutely nothing promoting my page, I added one information to his page and the reference of this information which links to the youtube video where he said what I quoted there. The information is relevant and after I understood wikipedia wouldn't allow to say the name of the source inside the information, I re-edited without the name of the source/page. Please let me understand why is this last editing being considered disruptive editing and how could I include this information according to wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you very much.

P.S - the editing I'm talking about is "(alternative edit in order to add information without company info)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBackstage (talk • contribs) 01:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edit still pointed to your video and, as I recall, your subscription. It's still promoting your journalism or reporting or whatever is your occupation. However, even putting that aside, the material has no business being in the article. It was a bit hard to follow because I couldn't always hear him, and I don't speak your language, but I couldn't even figure out where he said anything about the "bulge", although I did hear him talking about arousal, etc., and it may have been in response to something you asked. In any event, it's simply not noteworthy. It's trivia. Him joking backstage and about what? It doesn't belong in his encyclopedia article, maybe on a fansite, but not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

________

Ok, let's do it in parts so I can understand this.

1) About relevance: There's a trivia that says "McAvoy has stated that The Goonies (1985) is his favorite film" - So, his idea of what mutant powers he wished he had, is just as a trivia as his favorite movie. Therefore, it's possible to conclude my "trivia" is just as relevant as his favorite movie.

2) About source: The reference points to the video as source, because as far as I understand, you must cite the source of your informations on wikipedia, right? He said that to our media, how could I point the reference of this information not pointing to the video?

3) About content: He says absolutely nothing about "bulges", he simply said he wished his mutant power was to make people around him horny - at 1:48minute of the video ([click to watch]) Also, the video has english subtitles, to everyone that wishes to understand what is he saying during the whole interview.

Bbb23, I hope I enlightened the relevance of this. I don't wish to promote the website or anything, but I do wish to put this information on his page, and since wikipedia demands the source, I'm trying to understand how to put the reference without linking to the video. Please let me know how to do it. Thank you --MissBackstage (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

_________________

Why do you want to put this material in the article? You create an account on Wikipedia, and the only interest you have is to add material that is cited to your "interview". I don't have much patience with editors like that because they're not interested in improving Wikipedia. They just swoop in, get their own piece in, and they're done, unless perhaps you've done interviews of other people with articles here.

I don't know where bulge came from. I must be thinking of some other article, although for the life of me I can't remember which one. Sorry about that.

I didn't know I could turn on subtitles; that helped, although that was the silliness I remember him saying, just couldn't understand the question. Now I do.

Other trivia in the article or in any other article is not relevant to your piece of trivia. We usually cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for that proposition. That means that even if there is something that violates policy or guidelines somewhere else, that doesn't mean you can.

If what he said is that important, it would have been carried by secondary sources that are perhaps better known than yours. Do you have any?

You've said nothing to convince me that the material belongs in the article. You have been very civil, though, which is the only reason I'm taking this much time with you. But you're also pretty stubborn. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

____________________________

I must thank you for your patience Bbb23, and I'll justify my stubbornness, I promise :) I'm editor chief at Miss Backstage, and we have several interviews, but so far I had nothing relevant to add into a wikipedia page from our material. As a journalist and as a fan, I can tell you the James McAvoy detail I added is extremely relevant to his fans. Just as an example: If you were an X-Men fan, and had an idol playing some character on a X-Men movie, for sure you'd like to know what mutant power he would like to have in real life. So yes, I'm stubborn into thinking that yes, this is relevant to his page, just as the goonies being said as his favorite movie (which is wrong, by the way, it's star trek). It's our first contribution to Wikipedia, yes, because so far we had nothing actually relevant to place in here, and we really would like to do it the right way in terms of wikipedia conditions, but the relevance in this case is something we have no doubt about. This is why I'm being stubborn, I think we have genuine right to add this information, not like adding something stupid like if I had asked what is his favorite color.

About secondary sources echoing our interview, I don't think it's fair to say that, considering we have the proof in video. It's not like we have to prove Miss Backstage is "more famous" on the web to serve as source. It's mere reference, we just have to prove he actually said that, which is in the video. Also, the interview is very fresh, may take a while to echo around the web since it comes from a brazilian channel.

I thank you once more for your patience and I do hope I made myself clear, Bbb23. If you need any more information about our website or myself, I'll be more than glad to email you. Let me know how can we work this out. Thank you once more. --MissBackstage (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason for having another source is not because I'm claiming he didn't say what the material says he said. Rather, a more traditional source (a reputable newspaper, magazine, etc.) would tend to support your opinion that the material is noteworthy. BTW, noteworthiness of material at wikipedia is not measured by what a "fan" wants to read. Again, that's for a fansite, not for an encyclopedia. Fans want to read all sort of things, rumors, trivia, salacious silliness, etc.

You have a few ways in which you can go at this point. The normal way is to go to the McAvoy talk page and explain what you want to add and why and ask for other editors' input. Your objective is to obtain a WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion of the material. If you find you are unable to obtain a consensus there, you can then use one of the dispute resolution mechanisms available for content disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

-------------

Hello Bbb23, thank you very much. Can you tell me if I posted the request for WP:CONSENSUS correctly? Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBackstage (talk • contribs) 19:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

New sock

Remember this? They're back. [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Certainly has a unique style. Indeffed and both accounts now tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop harrassing me

Why do you keep deleting my edits to my talk page? Why won't you explain? Are you going to block me for asking like you did last time? Sepsis II (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you not want people to know that I am harrassed by socks? Is that why you keep deleting their edits off my page? I want them to stay, it is my talk page? How come you never discuss issues with me only revert and yell at me? Sepsis II (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It is your talk page but only within certain limits. The problem is not that I won't explain or discuss issues. Nor do I recall ever yelling at you. Your idea of discussion makes it almost impossible to talk to you reasonably. You're so full of self-righteous anger you can't see straight. You rarely answer a direct question with a direct answer. Your comments are laced with attacks and inflammatory rhetoric. If you don't let go and try to behave in a more cooperative manner, you'll end up being sanctioned yet again. How will that accomplish any of your objectives? You've had a week to calm down, and you haven't managed to do that. Perhaps you should take a voluntary break to gain some perspective.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yelling, blocks and threats, same thing. So, can you answer my question, explain the threat you left on my page, why can't I restore my edits on my talk page? What exactly is wrong with the edits? Please stop assuming bad faith. Sepsis II (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The majority of the edits (the sock stuff) was put there by a blocked proxy sock. They were removed by Mike V. You apparently want them to remain to make some sort of WP:POINT. The edits were disruptive and they shouldn't remain just because you want them to be broadcast to anyone who looks at your talk page. Apart from that, why would you want this gem to remain: "You're such a fucking snitch. You don't need to go tattling on admins because of my userpage. Dick." I didn't even look at the history to see how or who placed that on your talk page. Unfortunately, you're acting in bad faith; I'm not assuming anything, and yelling, blocks, and warnings are not the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If my page is covered in attacks from socks I would then hope that my SPI reports would be taken more seriously and that if a sock was to file a report against me on a board the admin would take a look at my page, realize the new account making the report was a sock and would dismiss the case. Sepsis II (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your hope makes little sense. You edit very quickly, so although you're welcome to continue this discussion if you wish, I won't be able to reply tonight. I'm going to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this polemic? Did I really make posts similar to that? Sepsis II (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That's quite something, Sepsis II. They even have subpages devoted to their views. I'm not sure what to make of it, honestly. I'm going to have to think a bit about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't expect anything done about it; I've brought it to the attention of admins before. An IP topic banned editor posting hateful, ignorant, anti-Palestine messages, that's what wikipedia is for. Sepsis II (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

To whom did you bring it up before, Sepsis?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARE and other places, but it's been a year so I forget, let the polemic stay, I'm about to be banned for calling a blocked sock a sock, I'm sure you'll be happy, one less editor, have the lines of decreasing editors and increasing socks/coi accounts crossed yet? Sepsis II (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, I may be misunderstanding this complaint or dispute, but I would ask this. If I added a note on my talk page that I preferred vandalism not to be removed from it; and if I then reverted edits made in defiance of this request, then, excepting certain obvious exceptions (BLP violations etc), would my reverts really be vandalism?

Perhaps someone is being mis-represented here, but to me there does seem to be a problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This is signicantly more complicated than just removing comments from a talk page, but without going into all the details, which I'd rather not do, there's a difference between reverting vandalism and reverting the edits of a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Corso socks

Just FYI, Mei09494049300909 is not the master sockpuppeteer. Looking at this article's history reveals many more throwaway accounts. And searching for "Lee Corso" revealed this vandalism done last year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think he was, but at that point I just wanted to block the accounts and tag them based on what I knew at the time. I've since found out (with some help) who the master is and will be retagging the accounts tomorrow. Gotta go to bed. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Jorge Elorza Copywrite infringement

I didn't think information from this person's own website would count as copywrite infringement. Can I delete the relevant copywritten material instead of rewriting the entire thing? It couldn't be more than a couple sentences and deletion of Elorzasomething.com as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncataldo (talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The person who wrote the material owns the copyright. My recollection is it would require more than just deleting "a couple of sentences". If you want to recreate the article, I suggest you write the whole thing in your own words. I also urge you to submit it to WP:AFC so you can get feedback from more experienced editors about the quality of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I can rewrite it. It wasn't much right? I figured other people would fill in after I got the basics. Thanks for the heads up. I don't want to be sued or anything if they try to make it themselves and see that someone else used their own website as a source. I'll submit it again when finished and I'll certainly check out "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFC".

I have one question about WP:AFC though. I thought I had to submit it there in the first place when I made the thing. Is there something else on that page that could link me with proofreaders or something? I think that'd be a lot better for me instead of sending it off and crossing my fingers like this first one I made. It's not as easy as finding sources and making edits but now that I've started I need to be good enough to finish. Thanks for the feedback and for any response in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncataldo (talk • contribs) 02:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The idea is you submit it to AFC, and if the reviewer points out problems, you try to fix them, and then resubmit it. It's an iterative process. If you conduct yourself responsibly and respectfully, I imagine editors who patrol AFC will be more than happy to help you with any questions you may have.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Desibabe and vandalism to Dan nainan page

I want to thank you for blocking User:DesiBabe from edit the Dan nainan page. If you see he has used the talk page to communicate his thoughts on his edits me and other wiki writers disagreed with his argument.

He also copied and paste the text of the statement stating that he blocked onto my talk page.

What can be done about desibabe, for I fear that when he is unblocked he will continue trolling. more so he has created the account for the sole purpose of vandalism the dan nainan page, please check his contributions.

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week for resuming their past behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 Isla Vista Killings

Hi Bbb23, I asked earlier today on gender bias task force page, if an ongoing dispute on the 2014 Isla Vista Killings article might be covered by MRM sanctions, and apparently, the page was completely locked down today by an admin, due to edit warring regarding the category "violence against men". This edit war has recurred multiple times, and the category itself (and some of the comments on the talk page} seem connected to MRM, so was wondering if you thought the current dispute was a case where sanctions might apply or if warnings of possible sanctions might help resolve the situation. When you get a chance, could you take a look? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it but no promises. I'm kinda tired of MRM at the moment; it's exhausting.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand. The talk page discussion is very long and exhausting as well. There seems to be no end to the content dispute regarding category "violence against men" for this article. In past, one or two editors have been highly involved in the ongoing edit war, and particularly disruptive, but now, the edit war is spread out over so many different editors, and no one editor seems particularly disruptive, so I'm not sure sanctions would even apply to anyone right now anyway. If they would apply in the future, it seems possible warnings might help prevent future edit wars regarding this category though. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Question of A7 revert on "A Conspiracy on Jekyll Island"

Hi, a quick question. I've been trying to patrol new articles and want to understand what the correct procedure is. You reverted a speedy tag for "no indication of importance" on this film. Per your note, I see that film is not specifically listed in the A7 criteria, but it also seems to me that this article clearly fails WP:NF. Would it, in your opinion, be eligible for a 7 day non-controversial deletion? Would it need to go through a full AfD discussion? What is the correct action here? Thanks, -Xpctr8 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think it doesn't meet notability guidelines, Xpctr8, the best process for this kind of article would be AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Doug Lehmann

Hi, I don't think this was an "implausible" redirect given this. GiantSnowman 18:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, GS, I take the view that if the name (Doug Lehmann) isn't mentioned on the destination page, it's not particularly helpful. If the reader typed in that name and was redirected to that article, how would that be helpful?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

True, but it isn't very hard to add a mention to Doug Lehmann on the Peter Lehmann page, is it? Admittedly I should have done so when I created the redirect... GiantSnowman 11:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we're talking at cross purposes. When I deleted the redirect, it was pointing to Deaths in 2014. There's no mention of either Lehmann on that page. I'm assuming you're talking about your destination page, Peter Lehmann (winemaker), which is how you created it. There is a mention of Doug on Peter's page (brief, but it's there). It looks to me, in hindsight, that User:The Drover's Wife's change to the Deaths article was either misguided or disruptive as their edit summary makes no sense. Would you like me to recreate the redirect as it was when you created it? Feel free to do so yourself if you wish; now that I think (smile) I understand it, I have no objection.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised the redirect had been changed! Yes, please restore it, I will update the Peter Lehmann article. GiantSnowman 11:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Just checked - I created the redirect on 30 June; at that time 'Doug Lehmann' was already mentioned on the destination page! @The Drover's Wife:, please can you explain your actions here? GiantSnowman 11:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

At the time I created the redirect, the Deaths in 2014 page contained information about who Doug Lehmann was and how he died with sources. The Peter Lehmann page didn't mention him at all. Mentioning the words "Doug Lehmann" on the Peter Lehmann page still makes that page more useless than a redirect to the Deaths in June 2014 page unless it at least contains that much information on him. If the article being redirected to were one on the wine company, or if the Peter Lehmann article at least had the most bare bones of useful information, I'd be fine with that. I'd also be fine with speedy deletion. However, if an intentionally useless redirect is reinstated, I will revert it to one that at least contains useful information on the subject. I don't believe in intentionally spiting our readers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"The Peter Lehmann page didn't mention him at all" simply is not true, as my diff above shows... GiantSnowman 12:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I read through the article and missed it - it was that tangential. It still contained less information than the page I re-redirected it to. If the dude isn't notable enough for an article, that's fine, but I have a real bugbear about people creating intentionally useless redirects. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Drover, if you were going to change the redirect, you should have done it to Deaths in June 2014, and that article does have Doug listed, but the entry makes no sense (it appears to say that Doug is Peter). For the moment at least I've recreated the redirect with Peter as the destination. That can be changed, but I would recommend discussing it on the redirect talk page, not doing it in the page itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the original redirect and updated the Peter Lehmann article. GiantSnowman 12:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Much better. If we're going to make redirects, we should be providing helpful information, not going "I see a red link so I'm going to redirect it to something that looks vaguely similar to the actual subject" - and now we do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad everyone's happy now, but in the future, Drover, at least make your edit summaries accurate. I misread the entry in the June article. It doesn't say that Doug is Peter, just says he was a vintner at the winery.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary was accurate as I then read the article. Forgive me for missing the incredibly tangential reference in the article at the time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, by the very limited power vested in me as an administrator, I hereby forgive you. You may celebrate your act of redemption with a glass of wine.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this polemic?

Hey, Bbb23! I came across a recently-resolved content dispute, when I was led to this. That counts as polemic content, does it not? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

In my book, yes, but others may feel differently. Some give editors a lot of leeway to air their gripes. I think it's a waste of resources. There's nothing constructive on that page, at least not that I can see (I couldn't bring myself to read every word).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy

I realize that there is much heat regarding I/P issues but I am truly not trying to edit war over whether Amos Schocken has used the analogy. I read his recent op/ed piece in Haaretz and thought it was interesting that he had and thought it was worth noting. Both my subsequent edits have been attempts to answer the concerns expressed in the edit summaries. Best to all involved. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Abuse of "cannot edit own talk page". Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Saladin1987

Hello, I noticed that you blocked Saladin1987 (talk · contribs) before and it looks like he didn't learn his lesson because he's vandalizing and falsifying pages with unsourced POVs. [3] [4] I believe that Saladin1987 is used as a sockpuppet by a racist Pakistani editor living in Australia. He's on a campaign to remove "Afghan" from as many places as possible [5] without getting his main account involved.--39.47.119.158 (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That was quite some time ago. If you believe his conduct is disruptive, you should take it to the appropriate noticeboard. If you believe that the account is a sock of some other named account, then you need to take that to WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all the terms that i removed were not supported by any sources. Afghan is a nationality not ethnicity ,, no PAshtun is pakistan refers to himself as Afghan apart of refugees so please keep your complaints out of it. using Afghan word instead of Pashtun makes other people think that the article is about all afghan citizens. i didnt remove the afghan word where source was provided but people need more clarification in regards to ethnicity..also regards to Saif Ali Khan article , the source that you have provided is written by an afghan like you who has made every khan and afghan,. i can name millions of Khan who are not even Pashtun so Afghan is a very stupid term to use against them , You want to associate PAkistani PAshtuns with Afghanistan but i think most of the PAshtuns dont want to be associated with Afghan word as it depicts Refugees. So first bring proper reliable sources to back up your claims please or else just accept the fact that according to you Afghan= Pashtun but pashtun is more clearer and understandable.. IF you wana show that saif ali khan is Afghan then that claim is not supported . Also salman is not even a pathan but due to his khan surname i have placed pashtun descent but he is not of afghan ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 July 2014‎

Victor Krylov

A rather intemperate review by him here. I think the C Jones referred to is CJC Jones. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI

By the way, 204.116.63.229 (talk · contribs) has started a thread about you: it can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bbb23. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• I closed it already, you aren't missing anything if you skip it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Zarine

Dear User:Bbb23, hello! I hope this message finds you doing well. I wanted to inform you that User:Saladin1987, who you blocked three times for POV pushing, has resumed the same behavior at Zarine Khan (see diffs). User:Saladin1987 also is making similair edits on a series of other articles, such as this one, which have caused him to edit war and enter disputes with other editors. Although I restored the material, I thought I would inform you, since you have interacted with this user before. Thank you for taking the time to read this message. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of notices by blocked users

Recently you undid User:Bishonen's July 2nd change to WP:User pages, on the grounds that someone who participated in the discussion should not have closed. Your action was on 14 July. However, the discussion was actually reclosed by User:Bellerophon on July 12. Can you clarify whether you accept Bellerophon's closure? If so, should Bishonen's update of WP:User pages be restored? Don't rely on me for any of the details, I just noticed the entry at WP:AN/RFC and the apparent contradiction there. Bellerophon is not an admin. Personally, I usually accept closures by non-admins at AN/RFC as valid except in case of ban or block discussions about individual users. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If you look at Bellerophron's closure, it was based on Bishonen's "closure". Take a look at the link. I don't see that as a closure. Indeed, Bellerophon's archival took place 10 days after Bishonen actually changed the policy based on her "declared consensus." And although I don't necessarily have grounds to object to a non-administrative closure, given the issues involved and the fact that this pertains to the use of administrative tools, I think it would be more appropriate for an uninvolved administrator to close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, it's completely obscure to me why you don't even post on the talkpage to point out that you have reverted me, after those months of discussion, and that you don't accept the close (not mine, not Bellerophon's) of the thread? Just to let people know that there's an issue. As nobody else has registered any objection to my close on July 2, some people might think it was done and dusted, and be interested to know that you don't consider it so. If you're again too tired to answer me, that's fine, don't bother. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC).

I am tired, even more so than before, but I think your point about mentioning my revert on the talk page is a good one. The simple answer is it didn't occur to me. That's my fault. If you think it would be helpful for me to do so now, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your reversion to Wikipedia:User pages. The consensus is abundantly clear, but if you'd like to revert the closure, I'd be happy to re-close the discussion with the same conclusion - I haven't voted, so you wouldn't have the problem noted in your edit summary (this is a biased closure by someone who voted). Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid procedure for procedure's sake, you could just let it go. --RexxS (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

RexxS, I just left a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I pinged you, so you should be aware of it, but just in case.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23 - can I just call you BB? You can call me Rexx. I saw it. I didn't intend to load anything but I was hoping that you might prefer to just let the situation lie. In full disclosure, I'm a friend of 'Shonen and have been keeping an eye on her talk page and contributions while she has been on a bit of a break for personal reasons. If you really think we have to have an admin close an RfC about user pages, then I'd be happy to ping Harry Mitchell who's very experienced in closing discussions. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Rexx, I'm probably a little touchier than usual at the moment. No worries about being a friend of Bishonen. Many of my best friends on Wikipedia are friends of Bishonen; I even like her in a less unqualified way. I think we just get on each other's nerves once in a while. I'd kinda like some input on the issue of administrative closures, not just for this RfC but for other complex RfCs like this one where administrative actions are at play. We can wait a bit longer. After all, you already reverted me anyway. If you want to shorten my user name, my preference is Bbb, but it's of no great importance.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb it is then. There's no rush, revert or not. Whatever state it's in, it will still be there tomorrow (and tomorrow ...). Given my extreme age and experience of life both on- and off-wiki, I'd be interested to hear why somebody wouldn't think me capable of adequately summarising a discussion (apart from the possible onset of senility, of course). I use admin tools elsewhere, and I can read, so I'm not sure the issue of understanding administrative actions would present an insuperable bar. We can wait and see what folks think anyway. In the meantime, Dougweller has raised the issue of school-blocks which makes me think we're going to have to tweak the wording in the guideline anyway. --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Rexx, I've always found that age, like money, is a fairly subjective matter. I won't ask how old you are, but I remember this one fellow I knew quite some time ago who had a $2M home and made about $400K per year and didn't think he had much money. There are younguns who think being 30 is old. I have no idea whether you're capable of doing a good closure of an RfC (some are quite hard, actually) as I don't know you. Until today I think your user name was just vaguely familiar to me, although I must say that chatting with you has been a pleasure and a nice break from the underlying battle. You say you can read, but at the same time you are apparently British or some variant thereof, so such a claim is dubious at best. There's been one response to my post at the AN/closure request board, and I don't think it's likely I'm going to get much more, so go ahead and close it. I would appreciate it if you would formally re-close it. Given how, uh, blazingly obvious it is, it shouldn't be that much of a burden and it may help keep dementia at bay.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

My age is a matter of record and you can see what I've been up to for the past 65,000,062 years by glancing at my user page. As a dinosaur, I am actually a native of Laurasia, but you can be forgiven for thinking me to be British or some variant thereof. I've now had a stab at re-closing that RfC in the most unobtrusive manner that I could - I hope that meets your expectation, if not your approval. Cheers --T-RexxS (rawr) 19:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a source for your age. I suppose I'll have to accept your word for it. Still, you're not even 65 yet. I thought I had looked at your user page, but maybe I just didn't get past the dinosaur part. "Brilliant" is a word Brits use, at least the way you used it, anyway. I have English cousins, much younger than your advanced age. They use it a great deal. I don't even know what Americans use anymore. I think cool is back in. I can live with that, although I hate "dude". I'm rambling. Your close is fine. I'm not sure what my expectations were, so I can't tell you if they were met. Thanks for being accommodating.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that Bbb23's reading of my remarks is correct. It was my intent to archive the discussion, for the reasons I explained there, based on Bishonen's close. However, I do personally believe Bishonen's close was appropriate for the following reasons: 1) The discussion had reached its natural conclusion. 2) The comments made in the preceding threaded discussion did not, in my humble opinion, rebut or outweigh the results of the !vote. 3) Obvious consensus is obvious and WP:ANRFC opines that in such cases closure by an involved party should not, in and of itself, be problematic. I will take no issue with anyone who wishes to revert my archival and nominate the discussion for re-closure by an uninvolved admin. As a non-admin, I only close discussions upon request at ANRFC because there is a backlog there. My policy in this regard is to step back if the issues becomes contentious. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 19:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Very sane attitude, Bellerophon.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Arb12345

Hi there. It appears that [Arb12345] is breaching his 1 month block, imposed as a result of sockpuppeting, per [this spi]. In fact he reveals his identity in this edit summary: [[6]] (mention of Panagiotis Kone where he edit-warred with his blocked account & right now he is into stubborn edit warring in Theodoros Kolokotronis).Alexikoua (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a month and increased the block of the master to indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The Deletion of The Creatures (Youtube Channel)

I would like to request that the page "The Creatures (YouTube Channel)" be allowed, and to be created under a new name, The Creatures (Gaming Group). I believe that the group is of important significance in the gaming community, having influenced and affected a number of popular people and games. The group's total subscribers at 8,900,000. I have a vast knowledge of the group, and can contact them if needed. The new article would include information about the group, both in and out of their YouTube. I believe that creating such a page would be fairly helpful to many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnof (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page

Dear Bbb23:

You recently deleted my efforts regarding "WORKSHOPS FOR CAREERS IN THE ARTS". I have no issue with that. I'll try again at a later date with more reference information. I'm still learning this process. However, the fact that you deleted it has been "PUBLISHED TO THE WEB" in search engines for anybody to see! I surely didn't expect nor wanted "that" to happen! If at all possible, could you somehow make "that" go away ASAP! I have no idea how long something like that could stay on the web. Its rather embarrassing to say the least. My/our Alma Mater is an historic situation. I want to be neat regarding its display.

Have a great Day!

MARLOWEMARLOWE (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again ...

Quack, quack. --McDoobAU93 13:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my, I should have looked. My bad. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, Bbb. I had not seen edits from ShamuAquariums before, and when I saw it was a new user that somehow knew of Wickedangry, that's when the quacking started. :) --McDoobAU93 13:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Santosh Chakraborty

I had put up an information about Santosh Chakraborty which you deleted. This was my first attempt in creating a page on wikipedia. The link to the page which you had deleted is this [7] . It would be really very helpful if you could tell me why you deleted the page and point out my mistakes for me make a better page in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnjishnuMondal (talk • contribs) 13:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking bluntly, the article was a complete mess. Perhaps some of it is attributable to the language barrier in addition to the lack of knowledge of Wikipedia. In the future, I suggest you use WP:AFC if you want to create an article here. Editors there will try to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Help me understand categories

Can you please help me understand why you undid the categorization I added to the Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons page?

As far as I can see it's a valid category. I've read through the Wikipedia:Categorization topic, Help:Category topic, and the Category:Sex crime trials page. Not sure where the "article is not supporting the category".

17:39, 13 July 2014‎ Bbb23 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,100 bytes) (-37)‎ . . (Undid revision 616808435 by Soelas (talk) - unsupported cat - must be supported in article, not elsewhere) (undo | thank)

It's a basic rule at Wikipedia that categories must be supported by material in the article. In the first link in your list of reading it says: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." You've provided sources on the talk page, which is not the same thing. What you need to do is develop noteworthy material for the article supported by reliable sources and then you can categorize it. It looked to me like the sources you provided on the talk page were reliable, but I'm not sure that the material is noteworthy for this article as it's really a tangent. Thus, even if you do add material, you may be reverted. It might be best to propose language you wish to add to the article on the talk page and get input from other editors as to whether it warrants inclusion. Getting back to cats, though, the idea is we don't label something without support for the label, and just as with everything else, we can't assume it exists; it has to be obvious from the article that the label is appropriate. I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense now that I look at the title of the article "Suicide of Rehteah Parsons". I should probably see if there's an article related to the ongoing court case and suggest that gets a similar category. Really, what I was trying to do it create an "easy" way of searching for sex crime related events. I think I'll just do it the old fashioned way. This "being bold" looks like it'll take more time than it's worth to accomplish the result. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soelas (talk • contribs) 22:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel: Zionist State vs Jewish State vs State

Recently, you reverted a change on the Denzel Washington page that was intended to use a more politically neutral reference to the state of Israel. Politically, Israel is a Zionist state, so referring to it as either a "state" or a "Zionist state" is factual, unambiguous, and does not reflect a POV. However, calling Israel a "Jewish state" reflects the Zionist POV that equates Zionist politics with the Jewish identity, and with the political aspirations of all its nationals and citizens. This is not the case, as approximately 30% of its population is not Jewish. In a purely demographic sense, if the term "Jewish" is taken to allude to the ethnicity of its inhabitants, calling Israel a "Jewish state" is roughly equivalent to calling the United States a "white state" (when Hispanics are categorized as "white"). My note of explanation was not intended as political commentary, but rather to be clear as possible on this sensitive topic, and explain the logic behind my edit in some detail.

For these reasons, I'd like to see a more NPOV reference to Israel on this page like "Zionist state" or simply "state". This is supposed to be a page about an actor, not platform for Zionist identity politics. A generic person (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Puting aside your more complex reasoning, I agree that the word Jewish doesn't belong, either, and have removed it. I had no objection to your edit summary itself; at least you explained what you were doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How could I have done it better? Suggestions welcome. A generic person (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, you're saying that it is a "fact" that Israel is a "Zionist state". Based on our article, that's not how Israel legally defines itself. In fact, again per our article calling it a "Jewish state" is more consistent with their legal definition, particularly because the Democratic part was not in the definition at the time Israel was created. Regardless of all that, it sounds to me like your statement is both overly simplistic and an opinion rather than a "fact". Essentially, though, I wanted to avoid the whole issue by using the most neutral term possible, and, certainly, in an article about Denzel Washington, we don't have to get into a debate about Israel and Zionism.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I need help

How do I respond to this? Any suggestions? Sorry for bothering you, I clicked on the first experienced editor I saw that was online. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 05:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, but refer the user to me as I deleted the article. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding deletion

Hello. Please undelete Janhit Morcha, which clearly should not have been a candidate for speedy deletion (political party led by a former minister). Deleting the article within 24 minutes (!) after the creator was notified is not ok in these cases, it gives no opportunity at all for reply (I don't spend 24 h/day online on Wikipedia). Such quick deletions should be reserved for blabant hoaxes, test pages and blabant attack pages. --Soman (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletions are meant to be speedy, and there's no time frame for how long an administrator has to wait (there is a time frame for tagging articles with A1 or A3, but that's not applicable here). You have a couple of choices at this point. You can go to WP:DRV and challenge the deletion. Or if you want to improve the article, I'd be happy to WP:USERFY it for you. Putting aside that the article has existed for a very long time (10 years?) with no sources as that technically is not a basis for speedy deletion, one sentence in the very short article that troubled me was: "It is unclear whether the party still exists or if it has reunified with BJP." It's an odd thing to say, particularly unsourced, but it diminishes any claim of significance the article has. Let me know if you want me to put it in your user space so you can expand it and hopefully add some sources to it as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ceiling fan vandal

More of the same from Special:Contributions/Doon_Mayfleet.

Thanks for blocking that last one. When's the last time I said I really appreciate you being here? Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My gosh, he's relentless. Actually, I think you had similar kind words for me recently, but it's still nice to hear. Thanks for your vigilance.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

He's back this morning: Special:Contributions/Hemdrj. I have requested semi-protection for the four targeted articles. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

God, there's been even more since you left this message, but they've all been blocked by other admins and, with one exception, tagged properly, too. I tagged the one someone forgot.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

This is an hour or so before the expiration of my 48 self-sanction for that judgement on my 'edit-warring' (ugly hyperbole for what happened in my view) but it is meant to help me understand that rule, which, if I understand it in its present application means one cannot alter the given text at different points of a page under ARBPIA sanctions twice within 24 hours? It's no excuse for me that that particular page Opertion Defence Edge, is rife with technical infractions of the rule, thus understood. But I now see a further report is being made against Al-Andalous on the edit-warring page. What is disconcerting to me is that where many editors from its inception have quietly edited without reporting what are obvious technical infractions by colleagues who are building a fast-developing page, 2 editors not contributing to the page have twice stepped in and the reports are 'sided', i.e. partisan. If the rule is as I think you state it is, then, to cite just one of many examples in the page history, for today.

• (1) 15:49, 16 July 2014 updates the figures for Israel’s reserves (just as I did, I.e. changes outdated figures, which you took to be a revert)

• (2) 13:03, 17 July 2014‎ this reverts this edit made by someone else

Two reverts of prior text within 24 hours, both impeccably warranted.

• (3) 13:07, 17 July 2014‎ this edit restores that information with a different source, but it rewords the original edit he reverted.

• (4) 19:22, 17 July 2014 rewords an edit made by 18:16, 17 July 2014 made by Strygalldwir.

Again the changes to text are excellent improvements.

1 and 2 are 2 reverts of text written by others in twenty four hours, just as 2 and 4 are two reverts of text given by others in twenty four hours. Perhaps I'm still misreading this rule, but it seems to me that the two selective reports are indicative more of editor-warring calculations, rather than the interests of the encyclopedia, here. The on-page editors aren’t warring, but external reporters are checking what they think are one’s side’s editors to take them to arbitration. I'd appreciate if you could check if my reading is correct of the diffs above, in any case. The editor concerned has done excellent work there, and I'm not reporting him, but asking for clarification on the rule. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Absolutely no desire to report the editor in question. It's both the reading of the rule, and the behaviour of two editors with a substantial history of edit-warring making these two reports that interests me (you need not comment on the latter of course).Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I commented on the latest report as I did on the previous report. That's all I'm prepared to do there or here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Iman sen

Hey, I notice that you recently deleted this page. I was just wondering if you could also salt the title, to stop repeated recreation? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Benboy00, I feel a little uncomfortable doing so as I just tagged another promotional article the user created. Let another admin do it if it's recreated. You might consider filing a report at WP:SPI regarding User:Sahojroy. The account was created shortly after User:Imansen. It's possible they're not the same person but related to each musically so to speak. It might also be hard because you can't see deleted contributions. Shojroy's only edits were to the now deleted article. Sorry I can't be of more help. If it is recreated again, though, and the deleting admin doesn't salt it, I'd be willing to do so at that point. Let me know if that happens. As an aside, I'm not crazy about your user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I will probably change that at some point, it's just that I had a rather unsettling confrontation with a "seasoned" editor who made some pretty inappropriate remarks, one of which being that he was my "enemy" (their words, not mine). Benboy00 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally, putting that sort of thing on your user page just allows stuff lke that to fester. Better for you and for Wikipedia just to let it go. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axelle Despiegelaere

Hey, would you mind closing this AfD? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi Bbb23, thanks for your immense contributions to wikipedia.I demand an explaination on why you rollback the page Olaide Olaogun,I tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of COI policy violation and insignificance of the article. Why not provide an edit summary after the changes?(Wikicology (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC))

Don't come to my talk page and "demand" anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 is right (from my pov) to ask you not to do this, but I'm a little confused because it seems he did give an edit summary? (which also contained a valid reason) Also, he didn't WP:ROLLBACK your edits, he just undid the last one. Benboy00 (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, Kindly accept my sincere and unreserved apology if you find the word demand offensive. I will always visit your talk page for a request and not for a demand(Wikicology (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC))

Sure. As Ben said, I didn't rollback your tag, I undid it with an explanation. Tagging an article for speedy deletion based on an alleged COI is not a valid reason. As for the subject's "insignificance", I think there's enough claim of significance to withstand an A7. That doesn't necessarily mean the article is notable per our guidelines, and you're welcome to nominate it for deletion so editors can discuss its notability. I agree that the article is very poorly drafted, and the COI is obvious, but that doesn't necessarily make it un-notable as the article could always be improved. Before nominating it, I suggest you do your own research per WP:BEFORE. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of article Vulcan Tire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Tire
Hello, it looks like you deleted this article a few months back citing A7 as the reason.
This business is significant because:
It is one of the first online tire retailers having started selling online in 1997.
The first tire retailer in the world to accept bitcoin. http://gettoknowbitcoin.com/vulcantire-com-accepts-bitcoin/
Has received industry awards,
http://www.bizrateinsights.com/blog/2013/09/24/2013-bizrate-circle-of-excellence-winners-announced/
http://www.bizrate.com/boutique/2013circleofexcellence.html
Thanks for your time. Tireguy (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Looking at the old deleted article, I would say that Bbb23 made the right call. Websites like facebook, bizrate and such are not adequate to demonstrate that a business meets our criteria at WP:CORP. For the most part, they aren't even acceptable for sourcing facts. Being the first to accept Bitcoin, for instance, is an interesting factoid, but by itself doesn't make it "notable". You should read the link I provided and become more familiar with that criteria. If it does meet it, you can create the article in user space, then ask Bbb23 to review that new article. He is pretty flexible that way, as long as the article does indeed pass that criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that simply being listed on www.bizrate.com is not notable. However being selected as by Bizrate as a Circle of Excellence Award winner is notable. The 2013 Bizrate Circle of Excellence Award was earned by only 133 online retailers, representing the top 2.6% of the Bizrate Insights North American Network. Tireguy (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "only 133 online retailers"???? "Only 133"? It is to laugh. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

my page deleted

	my page deleted
	Hi there I have created my page today. I have involved in political activities in Azerbaijan. My readers wanted to see my wiki page. I would like to add more information about me . Best Regards, Ashum Ashumov Nashcapitola (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not the way it works at Wikipedia. If your "readers" want to read about you, create our own website or blog or whatever.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Short semi-protection?

Hello. It seems your most recent fan has an unlimited number of IPs over a wide subnet. What do you think about me putting a semi-protect on your talk page for a few days?

If you think this will disrupt your work with new users then we can just keep blocking the ips. Chillum 18:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It look like you were two steps ahead of me. Chillum 18:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, only in terms of semi-protection. Thanks for being so vigilant. (I just semi-protected Siddheart's talk page.)--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Harmony944

Hello. I am not sure what to make of Nyttend's position. Regardless I was wondering what you thought about me unblocking Harmony944?

It seems odd to me that a long term editor who should know better is unblocked when a newer user who perhaps did not fully comprehend the policy remains blocked.

I will make it clear that the unblock does not validate the actions that led to it or invalidate the reasons for the block. I will watch over the user's talk page and respond to further trouble.

If you think this is not a good idea then I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Chillum 22:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have mixed thoughts, Chillum. There's a fair amount of irony here because I should have blocked Ryulong for longer because of his block log but chose to make the blocks precisely equal. At the same time, Harmony's post-block behavior was beyond the pale, even though, as I stated at AN, that technically has nothing to do with the block itself. Also, I think it will inflame Nyttend to unblock Harmony. I suppose I shouldn't let that bother me (I don't believe I've ever been that aggressive before when speaking to a fellow admin), I hate creating drama unless it serves a constructive purpose. So, I suppose the question is if unblocking him based on fairness outweighs all the other considerations, and I don't know if there is a right answer to this. My guess is he's going to get himself in trouble at whatever point he can edit again, but that's my usual cynicism rearing its ugly head. You know, Drmies once said at AN3 that a decision I made was painfully fair. I try very hard to be neutral in all the things I do, although I will often not extend good faith when others do.

I know I'm rambling a bit but hopefully you can make some sense of the jumble. I think we should at least talk about it a bit more before you decide what you think is right. Obviously, you don't have to do what I think. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it is you had 3 choices. Block nobody and let the edit war continue, block one editor and not the other when both were engaging in edit warring or to do what you did. The other two options simply did not make sense. This was a content dispute where both sides lost their cool and earned themselves a block.

FFS it was an edit war on if there should be a meaningless section break in a heated discussion about if the page name should have a colon. I don't know if there is a place keeping track of the lamest edit wars but this one has to be a contender.

So far as I know Nyttend had a strong opinion about Ryulong's block but decided not to act in this case due to lack of evidence. It is not something I am concerned about. If Nyttend decides he wants to start discussing these things I am all ears.

I am glad that you mentioned Harmony944's post block behavior. This is certainly a factor worth considering. Given that there is not much remaining time on the block and the fact that we had to gag his talk page I think we can just leave it to expire on its own. Chillum 23:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is always choice #4, "let another admin handle this" but if all the good admins did that the hardest choices would be made by our worse admins. Good work on taking on a difficult case. Chillum 23:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to be clear, my calculation at AN as to how much time remained on the block was incorrect, and I've stricken it. There's about a day left. If that's what you mean by "not much remaining time" - and even if it's not - I'm happy to defer to your "uninvolved" good sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I looked it up when I saw your error, before I could mention it you had fixed it. A day is not that long. Chillum 23:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well. I see Ryulong is unblocked. If anyone knows how to get sucked into an edit war with an ___ editor like Harmony, it's Ryulong. Now, Ryulong did not get much more obnoxious than they usually are in such situations, so I suppose the unblock is OK--Harmony certainly kicked it up a notch. See, Bbb, that's why we pay you the big bucks. Chillum, what'd you wanna come back for? :) Drmies (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I missed the intelligent discourse. Chillum 23:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(giggle) I didn't know you when you were here before, but I'm glad you're alive and kicking now.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Block of User:AdmiralMeow

Thanks for handling this. I totally whiffed the notification. I appreciate you pointing that out, and I'll take care not to make that mistake again.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Catherine Curran

The are additional problems with this user:she marks her edit as minor and she tries to promote herself [8](the article as far as can see is not authored by her)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

She doesn't say she's the author; she says she is the work, which makes no sense. Is this a one-time thing or something she does frequently? Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding of the template, but it is odd. Odder still is her editing history. If you want to start someplace, begin with her user page and look at each inistance of it from a long time ago until it was blanked by an IP. Her interest in P-I articles appears to be very recent. I believe the "minor" business, which is unfortunate but not uncommon among some editors, also goes back to pre-P-I days. And she doesn't mark all her edits as minor, although clearly she misuses the tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Indian Christians

People - anons in particular - keep adding huge numbers of BLP violations to List of Indian Christians. That list is subject to PC1 but, amazingly, reviewers are accepting the violations even when they include mirrors, circular refs etc. What the heck can I do about a situation such as this? We have incompetent contributors and incompetent reviewers, so PC isn't working as it should! - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, one of the miserable things about PC changes. I've removed PC changes and semi-protected the article for a month. It's hard to tell how long it should be protected.

While I have you here, if you were to rank Indian sources for reliability, what would be the top three and where does India Times fit into the ranking? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. If we're moving back to semi-protection, we probably need indef because the violations have been going on for years and too few knowledgable people seem to have the thing on their watchlist and/or understand how BLP treats religious belief. Anons etc can always propose additions on the talk page.

Do you mean The Times of India? I've never even heard of India Times. And do you mean news sources rather than any sources? - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As for the protection, the article has never been semi-protected before, only the PC 1 added in 2013. I'm not comfortable putting in indefinite semi-protection. How about we wait until the month expires and see what happens. You're probably right and I'll have to re-protect it and for longer, but at least we'll have a log record of escalating durations.

You're right, Times of India, that's what I meant. Do the ranking in news sources and then perhaps explain a little more about "other" sources so I get a feel for it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The most reliable English language daily news source is without question The Hindu, while The Times of India is sometimes referred to as the Toiletpaper of India because of the drop in standards that has gone on there - it is becoming more and more like a British tabloid in nature, if not necessarily in format: concentrating on sensationalism, gossip, showbiz etc and often neither checking stories properly nor reporting them in intelligible English. (As a minimum, the degree of ambiguity that they often show makes deciphering things a nightmare). A bit of a shame, but there you go. Alas, other than The Hindu, the same applies to most other Indian newspapers and they all regularly recycle each other's content, without acknowledgement and without any attempt to check it for accuracy. I don't mean syndication or agency releases here, I mean plagiarism.

The Hindu, ToI, India Today, Daily News and Analysis, Hindustan Times and NDTV are probably the most widely cited Indian news sources on WP, with Tehelka often used for muckraking exposes etc. Business Standard and Economic Times also pop up quite a lot but are subsidiary publications of the first two mentioned. For serious stuff, rather than fluff articles about actors etc, I'm never very happy if The Hindu haven't reported it and I think you'll find that many other experienced contributors in the subject area also harbour similar reservations about the relative reliability.

I'll get back to you about other sources - I've lost my mouse pointer for some reason while typing this and need to reboot. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, your computer takes an awfully long time to reboot. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I kept meaning to return here and didn't. WMF should develop a simple reminder extension but they should test it fully before deployment and make it opt-in rather than opt-out.

Regarding other Indian sources, what you have to watch out for is oodles of bias masquerading as reliability, even among academia. For example, many universities in Orissa, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu are publishing/employing people who are basically out to promote claims of glory relating to their states. Accreditation seems to be relatively easy to obtain and there are numerous private universities of dubious merit, not to mention a burgeoning industry in faking degrees etc. Equally, many works written by Brahmins are distinctly reactionary and promoting theories accepted only by themselves. Analogous issues arises with Dalit writers and, of course, there are huge problems with Hindu vs Muslim. In addition, India has a vibrant Communist/Marxist community and has attracted people of a similar bent from around the world. While some proponents might be considered reasonably mainstream (eg: Gail Omvedt and Kathleen Gough are non-Indian Marxists who have specialised in the region and have garnered respect), many are not.

Generally speaking, I don't think that the academic standards in India are anything like as rigorous as can be found elsewhere, one obvious example being the extent to which plagiarism and outright copyright violation is tolerated. Of course, not everything is bad but sorting out the wheat from the chaff can be a nightmare. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I'm going to have save your points somewhere. I'll never remember them otherwise, and they are invaluable. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Re-reading what I said above, it might appear that I am very dismissive of Indian sources in toto but that was not my intent. The very worst sources for Indian stuff are those produced by the Brits prior to 1947, and the Brahmins whom they indulged. It is, however, generally a more tricky area than might usually be found when things are referred to WP:RSN. IIRC, Talk:Adi Shankara had quite a discussion about how Orissa-based sources were skewing things - but it is late and I need my sleep. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy adminship anniversary!!!

Wishing Bbb23 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Anastasia (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleting Emmy Collins

Hi, I am going to restart at "Special:Mypage/Emmy Collins. [to]develop the article with less risk of deletion." And, as I spent an hour creating the article, can I get that deleted info back?

05:20, 22 July 2014 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Emmy Collins (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event))

Thanks Neillien (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Neillien, I put it at User:Neillien/Emmy Collins. I took the liberty of making some minor copy edits to the article. Once you have improved the article, I strongly urge you to submit it through WP:AFC rather than just take it live on your own.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible sock

Don't think Siggasonswein has ever signed his posts and now we have [9]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, I can't block based on one edit that isn't more obvious than this one. New editors often don't sign their posts. I'll try to watch, though. Let me know if you see anything more. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, not asking for a block, just a head's up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. But then again I appreciate your consistent and constructive hard work here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's his sister. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh lord, I wonder how big a family he has, and are they all like him? She hasn't done much yet, though. I think I'm going to wash my hands of the whole thing at this point, Neil. There are so many capable people advising him, including you. I'm going to hope they'll keep him in check. He appears to be on an editing binge in many, many articles. If you ever think administrative action is justified, let me know. Otherwise, I'm just not up to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't resist. I just looked at the Wentbridge article, and it looks to me like he's getting almost everything he wants. The article reads like an essay on Robin Hood with some tangents about the place. Frankly, I don't understand with everyone watching him that he's able to continue his agenda, but I'll still stay out of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As with many things on Wikipedia, the "Hey, wait a minute..." phase may take a while to kick in (as it has done now). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit cryptic for me. The only things I noticed this morning - and I didn't look much - were that Scott complained at Yngvadottir's talk page, that Yngvadottir is still being way too nice to Scott (from my perspective), and that the "sister" is now editing in tandem with Scott. That sister story, btw, is very convenient. The oft-used denial from socks is "my brother did it". Here we have a preemptive "my sister did it". My guess is if a CU were done it would confirm the technical relationship, but then we would be told that they (1) live together AND (2) they share the same interest in Robin Hood. Gimme a break. The only thing in Scott's favor is I'm not sure why he would need another account to be disruptive when he seems to do so well all by himself and with no shame, just occasionally a little lip service cooperation to demonstrate "good faith".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to your comment about him able to continue his agenda. Sometimes it takes a while for interested editors to respond to changes. There's now activity on both the article and talk page. My guess is that the current content will eventually be significantly trimmed back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Bennett S. LeBow

I have noted your comments with regard to edit waring on the bennett lebow page. I need clarification on the issue of whether the first third of the article needs proper citation. There are roughly 3 paragraphs of material without any citation whatsoever. Should this material be removed as being unicted?

Thank you.Algyx0262 (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You should bring it up at the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Shaul Aaron

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shaul Aaron. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PatGallacher (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I wish to object to the speedy deletion of Shaul Aaron. This was a misuse of criterion A7, when the article clearly did contain an assertion of significance. I think this is not the first case I have dealt with recently, where admins have misused criterion A7. PatGallacher (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if the article were expanded to something more than one sentence about a solider being captured, it might not have been deleted. Of course, that would have required just a bit more work from you. Other than that, your objection and accusations are noted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

An article consisting of only one sentence is not grounds for deletion under A7, if it contains a credible assertion of notability. PatGallacher (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, it could also have been deleted per WP:CSD#A10 as there is a sentence about Aaron (or Aron - sources spell his name differently) at Operation Protective Edge. Your article included no new information about him or his capture. I wouldn't object to a redirect if you wished.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Broken Crown Games, LLC

Hi Bbb23, the page for 'Broken Crown Games, LLC' was deleted under the A7 tag, with additional notes from your account stating "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: some G12 (http://www.brokencrowngames.com/_about.php)". Could you shoot me a message with more specific corrections / why the page was additionally marked with the G11 designation? The page is actually modeled from other game developer pages (in particular, "Big Fish Games") to PREVENT any possible interpretation of the page being "promotional" - and the page I submitted was strictly informational (no sales links, or anything of that sort). The only link the went to their site was a reference link to their "About Us" page to support the information being stated - and that link was for some reason was marked as "G12" - but I'm not sure how when writing about a company and including a reference to that company could be considered "copyright infringement"? Could I get a bit of feedback on the original article text or at least have the original article text returned to my drafts so I can somehow rework the page for submission? Thanks! --TYohe 17:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As the supposed founder of the studio, you have an obvious conflict of interest. It's highly discouraged for people affiliated with a subject to create articles about them. You'll have to read more about WP:COPYRIGHT infringement, but it's obvious infringement to copy and paste from a website into a Wikipedia article.

As for promotional material, here are some examples:

• This hard sci-fi universe is the original brain-child of studio founder, Tyler Yohe
• The studio's humble origins trace back all the way to a simple, turn-based video game prototype
• Eventually, the Broken Crown Universe was born
• Eventually, with the team now too large to consider this a hobby project, Tyler and Chris decided to make things official by registering the studio as an limited liability company in January of 2013.

The kind of material in the article is hardly encyclopedic. It's more like a colloquial history of your and your partner's experience. That kind of stuff belongs on a website about the studio or even on a fansite but not in an article here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey again Bbb23! Appreciate the speedy response. To avoid the conflict of interest I'll reach out to fans on Twitter that have asked about why we're not on Wiki and just ask them to either make an article request / put together an article themselves.

I see what you're saying with reference to the "that should go on a website" - and in fact that was my next goal for the content I drafted specifically for that wiki page (some of it was going to go onto our website later). However, now with the page deleted I don't have access to what I wrote (something I put hours into). Is there any way for me to retrieve the original page submission's text? Appreciate any help you can offer! Thanks. --Tyohe 16:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Eshwar.om

I just wonder how long we put up with this. Now he's starting to remove talk page comments by Redtigerxyz [10] and his edit summaries keep attacking him.[11] [12] [13]. He also went to WP:RPP for protection, clearly to stop Redtigerxyz from editing. I'm too involved to deal with it. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

He's been taken to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Content on Dr.Ambedkar's page,

Hi User: Bbb23. How are you? I am Akhil. I recently reverted your edit on B. R. Ambedkar page. If you think I did a mistake, please let me know about it. With best regards, Akhil Bharathan (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pitot.io

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pitot.io. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 122.108.244.173 (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fanfare eh?

Withdrawn with great fanfare by the OP and the promise to take her complaint to a page with arguably even more drama than this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I must admit, I found it funny. Cute comment. :-P --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

AN3#17

I would lean towards a block at section seventeen over at AN3, but I will leave it to your discretion whatever comes out of that discussion. (just a heads up that you will not be stepping on my toes whatever you do over there - the page is all caught up again). - 2/0 (cont.) 16:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Which section do you mean exactly? #17 right now is the Aleko Rubin section. You're not involved in that one, are you?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That is the one. I was running down the list of other open reports and did not want to run into a situation where we were both waiting for the other to do something. I guess I have a setting somewhere that gives the number for the section but not everyone has it enabled - sorry. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries, the number of the section is in the TOC, but my experience is people list a diff of the section. Is there some way I would even know you were involved in it, though? Regardless, do you think I'm being too, I dunno, patient with the user? Sometimes, when you get immersed in this kind of dicussion with the offending user, it's tough to get out of it and go into block mode, but the user has no incentive here because their version is current. They're clearly too focused on what they think is "right".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have wasted enough time on edit conflicts on that page over the years that now I reflexively check to see if someone is working through the list before I dig in. Honestly I only gave that section a cursory examination since you have been observed to be generally sensible and seemed to be on top of things. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I get it (finally). It's your other edits to other reports, not to this report in particular. Thanks for clarifying.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy Kindler

Thanks! I reverted some but not enough. Thanks for finishing it up right! Jacona (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we overlapped, I was in the middle of reverting both IPs' edits, and you reverted the latest just before I comleted my restore. Unfortunately, it happens that one piece of vandalism will mask another just before it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Small question

Why is it that administrators (like yourself) when someone advises you to remove their account not refer them to WP:VANISH? Is it due to the implication that they might be returning as a sock? Or that they don't want their account removed and will be back? Did you not know about the procedure? I'm just wondering, as it's happened on multiple occasions. Tutelary (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't usually refer disruptive editors to WP:VANISH as it's generally not permitted to vanish unless you are in "good standing". It's not a right; it's a privilege (courtesy).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Query

Hi ... quick question. You blocked an editor today for edit-warring on an article. Just over an hour later, two IPs (who both geolocate to the same general location) picked up making the blocked editor's arguments on the same lightly-trafficked talk page of that article (until yesterday, the talk page had gone over a year and a half with zero posts). With their first edits ever (as those IP addresses).

Is it in your opinion worth filing a sock investigation report, for a behavioral and circumstantial Duck review? --Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've taken care of all of it. Everything has been done for one week: (1) blocked each of the IPs; (2) semi-protected the talk page; and (3) increased the block of Atlas-Maker. The only thing I find surprising is there've been no edits to the article, which is not protected. If that becomes a problem, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

First United Church deletion

i wish to contest the deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_United_Church_(Vancouver). This church has existed for over 125 years and is an important part of its community. The impetus for creating the page was that the page about its community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Eastside mentioned it. I realize the page was short, but I thought it was fair and factual. I also think it was of comparative quality and significance to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Gospel_Mission which is for an organization of similiar significance to that of First United Church working i nthe same area. I also intended to expand on it. Please reinstate it so that I can do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.1.10 (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to log in and make any requests before I consider them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

deleted page Stephen Midwinter for Vandalism

I decided to add some of my personal history to a new page This history is a true explanation of my efforts of invention and innovation which is absolutely true and genuine. I do not understand the terminology used for removal and deletion of "vandalism" as I have no wish or intention to negatively affect Wikipedia in any way. Please will you consider re-instating this page. Many tanks Steve Midwinter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.192.103 (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to log in to your named account before I'll respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How is Wikiproject Countering Systematic Bias part of MRM sanctions?

The sanctions apply to "Men's Rights" (broadly construed), but even with the statement of 'broadly construed', how could you possibly attribute this sanction to apply here under any level? You indicated it here; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECIFICO&diff=615112982&oldid=614550816 Tutelary (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to go back and look at the discussion history on that call. I'm not going to dredge it up.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my question, then. How is that page 'broadly construed' related to Men's Rights? Tutelary (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here, but I don't think the page is related to men's rights. That looks like the MRM notification template, and my guess is that Specifico got templated based off of something said on that page, or in a discussion on talk page. Or it could just be pointing to the wrong page in the template. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it was the right link. An entire page may be subject to the sanctions, or sections of a page may be subject to sanctions, or even discussions on a page may be subject to the sanctions. That's what "broadly construed" means. Because it's not always obvious, I prefer to officially warn someone before taking any action because I don't think an editor should be blocked if they truly didn't know that what they were doing was sanctionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems at Gender Gap taskforce

Not specifically Men's Rights, but certainly in that vein and very disruptive. At this thread. And a few of us have complained. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I kinda glanced at it. If it's not a MRM issue - and it doesn't appear to be - I have no special expertise in resolving the back-and-forth. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually you should look at this...[[14]] and this thread [[15]] there are ALOT more. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The first diff is wrong; the second is not. Generally, anything on Drmies's talk page can be taken care of without my help. God knows there are enough admins there to deal with whatever. As for the issue more globally, I've tried very hard to stay away from the outrageous drama that has been created by a number of editors, and I have not analyzed who are the worst offenders. In my jaded view, it's the kind of thing that Wikipedia tolerates more than it should, but it'll take more than my view to do anything about it, and I don't feel like spinning wheels.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the first diff is the connecting factor with the first link and the last commentator and the 10 or so pages after that where it continued. I get your point though. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is individual guys with beefs with two women now are "joining" with questionable motives. And a bunch of other guys with motives unknown are disrupting the purpose of the project. I did just make these proposals: Archiving and behavior guidelines. Disrupting the purpose of a project, whatever it might be, obviously is a no no. We are barely getting going and too much time has been spent dealing with nonsense that has discouraged people from participating. Do we have to ask for Arbitration to say that people disrupting Wikiprojects can be page banned by admins or what? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Decided to go to the larger Wikiproject for help. Maybe that will work. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Have Nots (group)

Hey Bbb23. The AfD template on The Have Nots (group) is actually for The Killjoy Club (group) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Killjoy Club (group)). Any chance you'd reconsider? Ishdarian 05:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh. It was put there during creation. I didn't even notice the names were different. One band is just like another. :-) Wonder what the author was thinking or how that happened. Anyway, yeah, I've deleted it. Thanks for pointing it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Eh, it really falls on me. I should have removed it when I threw up the CSD, but I got lazy. Thanks for rechecking! Ishdarian 05:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

IP sock

Hi! Thank you for dealing with the socks of THENEWYORKER. There seems to be another at Paul Warner (director). Should I re-open the SPI, or may I ask you to deal with that one too? Might that article perhaps be a candidate for pending changes? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 173.52.246.69 (talk · contribs · count) for three months for block evasion. Not enough at this point to justify protection. If it persists, I'll reconsider.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Why alabama fans are the worst

Very funny, sports fan. I'm going to pay a CU to smoke all your stinking socks out, you PAC-12 jerk. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, what do you want from me? I'm not a CU or a football fan. Are we talking about athletic socks?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171's request for unblock

@Mrm7171: Hi Bbb23. Here's some information about Mrm7171's claim that they have had no problems outside of the OHP article since the voluntary ban. Here’s what Atama told them in March in order to avoid being banned:

“If you are satisfied with Richard taking over the efforts to institute balance at the article, and plan to step away from the article and from interacting with either Iss246 or Psych12 (which I think is better for everyone) then I don't see any need for administrative action against anyone, yourself included. Maybe this can get settled amicably after all. -- Atama頭 00:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC) [[16]]

After this, Mrm7171 did not stop interacting with me. I ran into problems with them with the Musculoskeletal Disorder and Organizational Behavior articles. They started editing these articles where I was actively engaged and they were not, starting arguments over small details, deleting my work, etc. Likely there would have been more, but I decided to take a break from editing for a while as I got tired of the constant conflict over articles. Psyc12 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Page Frank DeRemer

I'm rather convinced that Frank DeRemer deserves an article, since he was one of the pioneers in compiler construction. In 1980 I sent him my own PhD thesis dealing with LALR/SLR/LR parser generators. So I would like to get an idea what the article which you deleted on 2014-07-11 did contain, and how the article could be resurrected with proper references to the work of that scientist. In the German WP, he would qualify as an academic professor, and because of the importance of his publications. --Gfis (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Gfis, there were a couple of problems with the article. First, as one purported claim of significance, it focused on his Ph.D dissertation. It didn't even say it was published. Second, it said that "one of his papers" - and based on the one citation I think they meant again his thesis - was selected as one of the 50 most influential papers during a 20-year period. That might fly if it said selected by whom. As phrased, it was more puffery than substance. Still, if you think you can salvage the article, I'd be happy to WP:USERFY it for you. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23, than you for your quick response. Yes, please WP:USERFY that article in the Gfis namespace such that I can see what substance might be reusable. I will enhance it there, and in the end I might ask you to look over it again and tell me whether you think it will be relevant. Regards --Gfis (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Gfis, the page is now at User:Gfis/Frank DeRemer. You're welcome to consult with me again. Another option is to submit it through WP:AFC and get other editors' input.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23, thank you again. That article was really less than a stub. I may take me some time, but I'm rather sure that I can represent it in a better shape. Regards --Gfis (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

hey

Hey. I saw you blocked Writers Media socks. There's another new user doing the same stuff on Ashok Chauhan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Akshwjas.

Can you check him out? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.31.115 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, blocked and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Block, followed by IP socks

Thank you for blocking User:SimMoonXP yesterday for edit warring on Palomar College. Within hours of the block starting, the same material was being reverted by 3 newly established, "different" users: User:2600:1012:B106:17BD:906A:C257:60BD:67FB, User:2600:1012:B11B:76D9:2432:B80D:4C61:9CD5, and User:2600:1012:B123:698D:9CA4:4A65:5236:44C1, whose only edits thus far have been reverts on the Palomar College page. Then, another reversion by User:66.27.52.166 who, like SimMoonXP, erased the section in the Article Talk page devoted to the disputed material. It looks like a sockfarm is at work. I don't have the knowledge of which Wikipedia channels and processes to follow to address this disruptive behavior. From what I've observed, you do; would you kindly follow-up and put an end to this nonsense? Thank you. Contributor321 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I blocked all the IPs and semi-protected the article for 10 days. I'll wait on the talk page as I don't like to protect talk pages. I increased the block duration of SimMonnXP to two weeks. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll keep an eye on Palomar College after the blocks end and let you know if the foolishness resumes. Contributor321 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of u5cms

Dear Bbb23, you have deleted the article u5cms. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G11 this was not promotional: "Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." The u5cms article (about a Content Management System) is the same style and category as many others in Wikipedia, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TangoCMS. The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems gives an overview concerning these systems with Links to the respective Wikipedia-Articles.

The subject "CMS" is present in Wikipedia and for a encyclopaedia it is important to be complete. If you think the u5cms article does not meet the standards, please let me know how to make it better (please do not delete it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stemind (talk • contribs) 11:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Daman Hongren

Hi Bbb23, can you help me out here at the User Talk of Daman Hongren. Extending too much good faith, after DH was blocked, I offered what I thought was sincere helpful advice regarding the block and how to proceed with an unblock. For my troubles I got an unhelpful reply. I decided to remove my advice from their User Talk. DH proceed to revert my removal of the advice I left (edit summary "Revokation of advice not accepted if I ever need to be rescued, per WP:TPG") and replied to it ("Advice Accepted"). I won't make that mistake again. I think I'd be justified in removing my comment and then revoking talk page access because DH's comment indicates they do not intend to actually use page for requesting an unblock, but wanted to check to see if that'd be OK (or if you'd do it). Cheers... Zad68 18:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)``

Hi, Zad68, I've revoked talk page access because of the continued trolling/nonsense. Unfortunately, as far as I know, policy doesn't cover the restoration of another editor's comment who removed it, although common sense (something we're often in short supply of) would not permit it. I haven't removed your comment. However, nothing stops you from commenting about your comment or anything else on his talk page, and there's not much he can do about it at this point. I wouldn't remove it again, though. You could also let it go. I'll leave that to you. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was annoying for a moment, but already I don't care any more. Thanks! Zad68 20:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

your edit

I have edited the I/P area for about 9 years, so may I ask you why you put the ARBIA on my talk page just now? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I would especially like to see any diffs of my edits which you consider disruptive on the 2014 Israel raids on UNRWA schools article, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on the revised discretionary sanctions, the alert I placed on your talk page is not considered a warning or a sanction. Thus, I don't need a reason in the sense you're using it to place it on your talk page. It is, however, a necessary step to sanction a user per standard discretionary sanctions (not the 1RR restriction, though). That said, I put it on your page because you filed the report at WP:AN3. As for your second question, you posted it also at AN3. If I answer it at all, it will be there. Remember, I took no action against you. I didn't even mention you by name except for the alert business.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hiya Bbb23, Thanks for dealing with this - Very much appreciated :), Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Page deletion - Timeless Journey (Musician)

Hello, I was given warning that a page I was editing could be liable for deletion as the person cited was of no importance. I wrote in response to give reasons why this page was indeed important as it contains a musician that it linked to several other pages, and yet it appears to have been deleted anyway without any response to my reply, and was actually deleted while I was in the process of editing and adding references. I believe that a page based on pop culture (specifically a music act that has music commercially for sale) should not be withdrawn unless it contains inaccuracies. Can you please explain? And seeing as this page is linked to from other pages that Wikipedia DOES deem important, why is the page I am currently editing not worthy of the same view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creaturefromthehauntedsea (talk • contribs) 20:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It was speedy deleted. I don't wait for users to "finish" writing the article. If you take an article live to article space, it must be able to withstand a speedy delete per almost any criterion. Otherwise, you should keep it in your user space until it's ready. I saw no significant credible claim of significance in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

So has it been deleted then because it was not finished correctly or that the subject matter is not deemed worthy. If it is the former, could you please explain how it is done? And if it is the latter, just what is deemed credible? It seems as though you are saying that the subject matter is not famous enough and therefore does not warrant inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creaturefromthehauntedsea (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think you have more to add to the article that might make it keepable, I can WP:USERFY it. If you wish that, I strongly urge you to take it through WP:AFC so more experienced editors can give you feedback as to whether it's ready to go live.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, if you could do that it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creaturefromthehauntedsea (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's done: User:Creaturefromthehauntedsea/Timeless Journey (Musician).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please Accept That My Edits To The Kennedy Assassination Are Indeed Reliable

The HSCA alleged in 1979 that a Dictabelt proved there were four gunshots. An analysis of the dictabelt proved that it was recorded approximately one minute after the assassination took place. I used to be a conspiracy theorist myself, but I have since learned to accept the truth about the Kennedy assassination.184.97.234.40 (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Can you help me

Some users are deleting my work Hiberno Irish and hiding everything so it cant be reviewed, and they are accusing me of being a sockpuppit, can you help me retrive my work so it can be reviewed properly, or at least i can put it in my sand box

Thank you--Twominds (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Also user Mury1975 removed my references from Hiberno Irish and them tagged it, unreferenced,,should he not be blocked for doing things like that--Twominds (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

User:DEPPLOVE23

Based on this user's creations of articles about Calvin and Hobbes The Animated Cartoon Series, which appear to exist only in a Wikia page created by a user there named "Dude899 AKA ToonBoyDan", I believe this user is just the latest in a long line of socks of ToonBoyDan. Should that SPI page be updated to include this new sock (so that any future investigations can include this current behavior for comparison, and so that all of this user's contributions can be deleted under WP:CSD#G5)? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but the connection is too tenous for me to label him a puppet. Other than the Wikia page, there's very little that connects DEPPLOVE23 and the ToonBoyDan's socks. DEPPLOVE23 could have just picked it up from there on his own. TBD is transparent. He always talks about himself here, very pleased with himself. His writing style is also different. I can't do it. BTW, a CU would not work because the accounts are stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

elector SPI

Out of curiosity, what were you going to say in that "Elector" SPI before the CU dropped their results?Gaijin42 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, obviously I was going to post it publicly, but now it's no longer needed, I'd rather keep it to myself. I've saved my notes. I will say I was going to endorse the CU (heh).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies and thanks

Sorry it's a bank holiday weekend over here, I saw the ping yesterday and was going to do it this evening as there are multiple similarties. I was only on breifly this morning, and when I returned to the SPI was closed, by yourself. Sorry once again that I didnt get back quick enough, and thanks for your additional work on the SPI. Murry1975 (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It was a lot of work, but I understand we all have outside lives. I hope you enjoyed your holiday.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, most would have waited until I got back to them. Not back in work until Tuesday, so another family day tomorrow. Thanks again. Murry1975 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not the most patient person, more's the pity, plus the user was bothering me on my talk page. But you're absolutely right, I could have waited. I could have even blocked the user temporarily for disruption if they had persisted in disruptive edits pending an outcome of the SPI. Family days are good; have fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Would this probable 3RR report amount to anything?

See the history of the article. The user is at 5-6 reverts, and is claiming BLP exemption due to BLP. Other discussions include; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#List_of_pornographic_actors_who_appeared_in_mainstream_films and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Why_Wikipedia_is_a_joke. If I were to file a report, where do you think it would go due to the application of the supposed BLP exemption? Tutelary (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My advice is not to go to AN3, regardless of whether the BLP exemption applies or doesn't apply. The issues are being discussed in enough forums and with enough administrative attention. Why add another venue?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Redbranch

Many apologies, I just didn't have time to respond immediately and then simply forgot. Great work there. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Douglas Youvan Info Box

What do you want me to do to validate the names of students and spouses? You should know that page has a $300 per month "offer" for page protection by "Wikipedians for Hire". I did report that to an admin. I am also aware that there are some wealthy people who want no name-association with Youvan, although my edit was factual. Frank Layden (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

All the material you added is not in the body and is not sourced. The hiring thing doesn't change the fact that policy must be followed. If you can't find reliable sources, you can't add it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I can work some of the names into the body, and the source becomes the published paper's author affiliations. The spouses can be found on "BeenVerified"; I suppose some of that info can be clipped into the talk page of the article. I don't think many other articles have been treated in such a stringent manner. Perhaps I can find original marriage certificates at county court houses and fax them to Wiki headquarters. One of those people could get very upset if other articles have simply trusted the editor's word. It would obviously receive a very strong complaint if I got it wrong. Obviously, it is the wrongly named person that would have it taken down. Frank Layden (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Most BLP articles are "treated" this way. Marriage certificates are not considered reliable sources as they are primary sources. I don't even understand what you mean by the "author affiliations." Frankly, the whole thing sounds loony to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You win. Your edit stands. I will not revert. BTW, If you would want to write an article on a scientist who is obviously missing from Wikipedia, I could name him and perhaps cooperate, but I'm afraid my experience is not sufficient for your standards. We would need a sandbox for tutoring. Frank Layden (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your not reverting, but I don't think it of as winning, just remaining compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'd like to help you, but we seem to have a bit of a disconnect. You might learn better about wikipedia through someone else (I don't think of myself as being warm and fuzzy). Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user may be useful to you if you're interested.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Rather than hit one biography in what might seem to be an arbitrary enforcement of rules, why not propose to one of the bot-writers a program that flags names in info boxes that are not in the main text? Frank Layden (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Aca2910

I just went to his page to template it and you beat me to it! Sorry to be so slow. Should I also raise a pro forma SPI so there's a record? Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, Doug. I wouldn't endorse a CU when something is so obvious, so the report would just be closed as "dealt with". The block log and the tag on the user page are enough of a record--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

And I wouldn't ask for a CU. Ok. I just thought it would make it easier if there were another one. Callanecc told me "If you use Twinkle to make reports, edit the SPI page after you've filed the case and change – This SPI case is open. to – This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser. and leave a note in the admin section that you're just filing for the record. If you use the box on the main WP:SPI page, when you make the report note in the |admincomment= parameter that you're filing it for the record and that will automatically close the case. That way the clerks can archive it straight away." That's what I was going to do once I found what he told me! Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If that's what Callanecc said to do in these circumstances, by all means do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

To clarify a bit further the tag (and hence category) are generally enough, unless they've introduced something new with this sock, or there is more than one. For example, a new or different to normal naming convention or different behaviour which should be recorded as something to match against in the future. Otherwise yeah the category will do. Having said though that there's no real harm in filing it for the record except that it uses up a bit of time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, I'm glad Doug understands, but I don't. What exactly causes the SPI to close automatically?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If you use the inputbox (top section on WP:SPI in the collapsed section) it opens a template for filing, if you enter anything in the |admincomment= parameter the report will be automatically marked as closed when the page is saved (and hence report is filed). Hope that makes it a bit clearer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Crystal-clear, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Time is far too precious to waste so I'll try to avoid this in the future. There is never enough time to do what I want to do here and I'm sure it's true of you two as well. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"tagging a lot of old articles"

That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm rummaging through Category:All unreferenced BLPs because I'm getting fed up of seeing them stagnating. Most of them are eligible for WP:BLPPROD; I don't use proposed deletion because I cannot see the use of a process which can be overruled at a whim (i.e. anyone can ask for it to be restored at any point). That said, I didn't tag many for speedy deletion, did I?--Launchballer 09:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Several, certainly enough to annoy me a bit. I understand your frustration, but that's not a justification for tagging them. As I'm sure you know, references aren't necessary to get past an A7. Please try to contain your frustration in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to say, I didn't know that. (Actually, I went through far more than the CSD log would show - I AfDd most of them.) Sorry if I annoyed you.--Launchballer 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll live. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Feedback request on one of the articles you've recently protected

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Permanent_death#rfc_ADF653E. Please help us determine whether of not Path of Exile belongs on the list of games featuring permanent death. Thanks. I really need that username (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your help and for fixing the SPI page which I messed up entirely, It's very much appreciated, Kind Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Davey, filing SPI reports is tough for many people, not just you. It helped that I was somewhat familiar with the issues before clerking the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Oh well that's a relief I guess :) Anyway thanks, have a nice day, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Babymetal

Hi! I'm sorry to disturb you here.

It's about this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Moscow Connection reported by User:SilentDan297 (Result: Both warned).

Could you look at this and comment: Talk:Babymetal/Archive 2#Disruptive edits by SilentDan297?

Please help cause I'm frustrated. Since I returned to Wikipedia 2 weeks ago I do nothing but what I think is defending the Babymetal article from a very disruptive and uncooperative editor named SilentDan297 (who, by the way, can't read Japanese and seem to fail to understand basic things about the band whose article he edits).

(And now I get warned... But every time I look away, he changes the article again! I will either have to go away from the article forever or face a block. And I night well be the only one who is qualified to look after the article cause it needs someone who follows the band and who can read both Japanese [rather badly, but still...] and English.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's not much I can do with respect to the content dispute and your frustration. Without delving deep into the discussion and past discussions I don't see any obvious consensus for how the article should read. I think the best thing you can do is to try to get more editors involved, and taking the position that you are the only "qualified" editor to make decisions about the article is not going to help in a project that believes in collaboration among editors. From an administrative point of view, all I can tell you is to avoid misconduct on the article, regardless of whether you think you're "right". If you don't have the patience to do that, then focus on something else that's less trying for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, Bbb23. Awhile ago you blocked an Ip due to sock puppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucasantunes09/Archive. Well, he is back . Could you do something about it? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lecen. Actually, I blocked no IPs as a result of that SPI, but only because they hadn't been active recently at the time. Nor has this IP address ever edited before. Nonetheless, I agree that the IP is the same person, and I've blocked them for a month. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. The reason why they were not editing at that time was because both articles were protected. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sergio Busquets

Hello.

I believe this has been brought to your attention before, but can you offer a few minutes of your time to view this editing issue being discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sergio_Busquets#Champions_League_Incident_Revisited

I disagreed with the inclusion of a paragraph that I felt wasn't relevant. However, a consensus was reached, or at least 79.49.159.166 decided it was and reverted to the original comment. The language used though to address the incident I feel is not supported by the sources and doesn't provide the reader with a neutral and unbiased view and have rephrased it to highlight the facts that I believe should be mentioned. Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall ever being involved in this before.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive250#User:Panhead2014_reported_by_User:Chris_troutman_.28Result:_Declined.29

The above report was made against me on 15 July 2014 regarding contributions I made to the article. You assessed the concerns and made a decision.

There is now, however, an IP address whose sole contributions on WP is to this Sergio Busquets article, constantly reverting edits made to clarify a particular incident by ignoring the reported material in the media which I believe is not in the interests of WP's guidelines on neutrality. I presume seeking consultation with an admin is the correct course of action here, or would you advise WP:DRN? Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It depends. If you believe the problem with the IP is a conduct issue as opposed to a content dispute, then you should go to the appropriate noticeboard. Just remember that a lot of things that strike editors as misconduct are at bottom still content disputes. If it is a content dispute, even if contentious, there are various dispute resolution mechanisms. DRN is one possibility.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks for your help. Panhead2014 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Insult at Jack Wilshere

Hi, Could you please help me hide a insulting edit summary at Jack Wilshere who tries to insult me (male) in a no good way? It would be highly appreciated. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if it happens again.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Let's hope it does not happen again. QED237 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

William Levy (actor)

Hi, sorry to bother you. I do not want to start an edit war in the articles William Levy, but the picture is putting that ip, is copyrighted and has been marked for deletion [17]. --Damián (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I nominated it for deletion, and in retrospect, I should have probably tagged it for speedy deletion. That said, everyone's been blocked, at least for a bit, so things have quieted down. I have the article on my watchlist, so at least when I'm on wiki, I can see what's happening. Thanks for your sensitivity to the edit-warring issue; it does you credit.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to re-look at the block of User:Joncmaxwell?

Joncmaxwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Tomgglass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There's been no follow-up at the SPI case. I've got a feeling it'll get shot down as a fishing expedition, so I'm not expecting any further information there.

That said, Joncmaxwell has been willing to engage in a civil discussion about the guidelines for inclusion of candidates in the infobox. I have a feeling that he's starting to grasp how Wikipedia works in that department. I've also got a feeling that the tone of his edits reads differently that the Tomgglass account or its obvious sockpuppets.

I have one misgiving: about the time Joncmaxwell appealed his block last night, two IPs edited Talk:Texas gubernatorial election, 2014. One geolocates to Houston. The other ties to a different ISP in the Dallas metroplex, and Joncmaxwell has admitted to living in the Dallas area.[18]

Nonetheless, Joncmaxwell is willing to engage, and I'm inclined to return the favor. Would you look back through his edits and see if you support either an outright unblock or an unblock conditioned that he not re-add Glass to the Texas gubernatorial election, 2014 infobox? Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

C.Fred, since you wrote this, a CU has been conducted and there've been comments by the CU, Ponyo. Please take a look and tell me what your thoughts are at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The comment about the geolocation goes right back to what I saw yesterday. My gut still says it's not the same person as Glass; however, I've got a feeling that he isn't totally independent of Glass either—as in, they're probably both members of some organization or another. I'm still willing to engage the user about the article and keep some civil dialogue going forward, but I'm not sure I'm ready to hit the unblock button right now. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There's also the name issue. I'm going to close the report, keeping Joncmaxwell and CarlJJarvis blocked as suspected, not confirmed. Given that there's suspected sock puppetry involved, if you later decide you want to unblock Joncmaxwell, please consult with me first. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd completely forgotten that I opened the report, so I left a note on the SPI page but didn't actually close it. The line blurs in these kinds of cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary Deletion

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.

---

Why did you speedy delete without even asking the page Sean James Sutton when the actor in question is in a major motion picture? Your decision puzzles me. Straitjacket Man (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion rarely involves "asking" the creator of the article. I didn't see any serious claim of significance in Sutton's having a role in a not-yet-released movie. What makes you so interested in the Suttons (you created Martin Sutton as well)?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"You" didn't see any significance. So it was a personal decision then? And my personal motives are under question as well? I thought Wikipedia was objective. (By the way, did you see the article in the Guardian about how elitist/male-dominated Wikipedia editors are. Don't you want new blood? New editors to help out? More women involved? The moment someone tries to edit here they get pounced upon by an established editor which is very frustrating.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straitjacket Man (talk • contribs) 21:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Straitjacket Man, "speedy deletion" is a process by which articles that typically lack any kind of sourcing are deleted because no reliable claim of importance is made for the subject. That applied in this case--someone can hardly be "best known" for something (Peruchazhi) that isn't even released yet. No references to reliable sources were provided for the article--and I note that Martin Sutton suffered from the same ill--and since the IMDB entry suggests this person has not played roles of great significance, deletion was entirely justified. Bbb is not obligated, as the deleting administrator, to discuss this with you; it was someone else who nominated the article for deletion and notified you on your talk page.

  I don't know if you're charging Bbb with sexism--well, perhaps he's a man hater, since you're name is not Straitjacket Woman, but I doubt it very much, and the charge is really silly. If your subject becomes written up in reliable sources you are welcome to resubmit the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion; circling wagons. Wikipedia editors come across as extremely protective and unwelcoming to newcomers. (I won't even bother answering your somewhat curious comments about sexism!) Straitjacket Man (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Those were your comments, dude. Now leave Bbb alone; he's got lots more articles to delete. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. Bbb is being subjective. If Bbb or other editors would like a sensible, rational, debate about this I'm happy to talk. But Bbb won't. Bbb deletes and leaves. Wikipedia truly is unwelcoming to newcomers. Straitjacket Man (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2014 (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.

Domestic Violence Article Sanctions

I'm new here, and a little confused. Am I permitted to edit the domestic violence article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Domestic_violence Casusbelli1 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You have to read the alert I left on your talk page and then read carefully the probation sanctions themselves. You can edit the article as long as you don't run afoul of the restrictions. If you have specific questions about a particular restriction, let me know. As a general rule, though, a new editor should proceed cautiously when editing and especially when editing in controversial areas of wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Bbb23. I read the sanctions (twice) and still came away a little confused. All of this seems somewhat arcane, but I'm sure I'll get the hang of it. I will proceed with caution in my edits, carefully check my sources, and hope for the best. Casusbelli1 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also sometimes best to propose edits on the talk page first. Additions can be tweaked that way as well, just as easily as if they were being tweaked in the article, and WP:Consensus is easier to achieve in that way; well, it's often more accurate than WP:Silent consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Men's Rights probation question

Now I've generally believed that the Men's Rights probation was targeted at topics. However I've seen a number of times where it appears to be more directed at people, not from administration or sanctions, but from comments along the lines of "mra's are getting involved, maybe Men's rights sanctions are applicable" (this is not a direct quote, but a paraphrase). My question is then is this line of thinking accurate? Because it seems to me to fall against the probation, and into battleground behavior. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive comments related to men's rights are indeed encompassed by the terms of the probation and therefore sanctionable. I can't, of course, say what I would do without a real case to evaluate.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm thinking of comments like this [19], specifically the sentence "If men's rights editors (MRAs) are editing this article, that also needs attention, per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation." This leads me to believe that they think that editors are under the probation and not the subject material. From my perspective this goes against the last bullet point of how to not be sanctioned "Leave room for differences, having different points of view represented is why we're so good at creating articles with a Neutral point of view!". --Kyohyi (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Flyer22 is simply trying to explain that edits to the article may be subject to the men's rights sanctions, and I agree. Perhaps he could have phrased it a little differently by referring to the subject of men's rights rather than labeling editors as advocates of a particular point of view.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, Bbb23. Thank you. I'm female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. I try to be careful and use the plural pronoun when I don't know the gender of the user, but sometimes I slip up. I'll try to remember for the future, and it's clearly on your user page now I've looked at it. Big family and your history is very entertaining. Me, I have only two siblings, and I'm the youngest. I think it's better that way because I often got what I wanted because of that. :-) All in all, I think the middle children have the rawest deal. Feel free to correct me again if I screw up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)