User talk:Bbb23/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Saladin1987 and his vandalism and POV pushing again

Hi there, sorry to bother you again but after you warned him to stop, Saladin1987 (talk · contribs) is again removing sourced content from multiple pages [1] [2] [3] and POV pushing. [4] [5] He's just playing around and I'm certain that he doesn't care about being blocked because he is very likely using other accounts. See also here. As for me, I'm a neutral and serious editor who enjoys doing complex research on subjects so you should know how I feel when people such as Saladin1987 come to bother me.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to give it the attention it deserves. If no action has been taken at WP:ANI by the time I'm back on-wiki tomorrow, I'll revisit it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate i am alreday having discussion with him on the talk page also i am having discussion with him on wikipedia admin page. but he seems to not respond to the talk page and is not ready to go for a consencus. He has removed my sources and placed his sources and In Anil Kapoor article he himself is using a youtube source and is against my youtube source. I would appreciate if you could ask him to leave ethnicity out of the article until proper consecus is acheieved. Also i have tried to stop him from edit warring by just removing the ethnicity but he keeps on editing it which is against the rules of Wikipedia and is called edit warring. He needs to use to talk pages for Prithviraj Kapoor Anil Kapoor Kapoor family Raj Kapoor Surinder Kapoor in order to achieve a consensus whether the disputed ethnicity needs to be added or not as i have placed many reliable sources on the talk pages of these articles which he seems to ignore.Saladin1987 05:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Hi also i have removed the ethnicity of Anil kapoor and have started a conversaton on the talk pages i.e [[6]] as the reliable source that he is using is a youtube so as mine. In the case of Prithviraj Kapoor i havent changed the article and i have started conversation on the talk page i.e [[7]] and i have placed many sourced links but Fareed30 hasnt responded to those. In case of Kapoor Family a previous concensus was acheived but he removed it and placed his version , i have started a converstaion there too [[8]] We are also having converstaion on [[9]] Admin talk page and all he demands is my ban. When i am not even doing edit warring, its him who keeps on reverting the articles by placing disputed ethnicities in them for example [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]]

Now from above it is clear that all he does is chnage the ethnicity in the articles when the ethnciity is completely in conflict. Some sources say they are Punjabi Some say they are Hindu Pathans. That is why i would request you to remove all these ethnicity terms and not to use any ethnciity in these articles. Also Fareed30 is always trying to ban me, When he reverted my edits the first thing that i did was mention him on admin page. Thankyou Saladin1987 05:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

User:Nobody is perfect and i am nobody

The block seems to have no effect on him. He is back to his ways once but I have advised him to seek an adopter, what do you think? Sohambanerjee1998 11:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week and left a personal note after the block notice. I don't see how the user can be adopted if they are unwilling to talk at all. An adopting relationship requires a willingness by the adoptee to improve, follow instructions, and discuss issues. Thus far, I see no evidence Nobody wants to do that. You might also take a look at some of the recently created articles about characters in the movie Twenty:20, like Ramesh Nambiar (created by Nobody) and Devaraja Prathapa Varma (created by another editor). I have trouble seeing how these articles meet notability guidelines, and the latter is horribly written. I don't believe there is a separate notability guideline on movie characters, although there may be some convention about what kinds of characters are considered notable and which ones are not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I was particularly irritated by him but was keen to avoid any altercation with him since these kind of editors are generally hot heads and that might have put my DYK in risk also. Thats why I asked the editor to seek an adopter, coolest possible way for me to react. I did some background search for the two articles you told me about and found them to be absolutely nonsensical ones, the first one is about Mamooty (I guess thats why he created it) and the second one is because of Mohanlal. The characters have little mention in the rest of the net (Third party sources) and therefore I think they don't meet the general notability standards and should be deleted. Sohambanerjee1998 17:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh these articles are just plain... Ahem. Instead of deleting you can place redirects on the two articles. In due time if they are notable someone or the other will expand them. Sohambanerjee1998 07:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume that was meant for somebody else. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, what a dick I am. Next thing you know I'll block myself by mistake. I've now put it in the right place. Many thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Maybe he didn't want himself to forget. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Mr.Cappadocia

This isn't MRM related. User:Mr.Cappadocia is trolling Talk:Feminism and attacking a user whom they disagreed with in March 2013, on a completely different topic (Talk:Misandry)[15][16]. Please note this user has never edited the Feminism article. They are either VERY confused or trolling with a capital T. The attacks on Binskternet are violating WP:TPG, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NOT. I'm tempted to say its also breaching WP:SPIDERMAN. Could you keep an eye on this?--Cailil ^talk 16:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

They've no escalted to reverting Binksternet[17] on Antifeminism. That edit removes the lede line and sourced info. Binskternet was undoing vandalism--Cailil ^talk 17:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you have the situation in hand. The acccount has made only a handful of edits. I wonder who they are. I'll try to keep an eye on them, but feel free to nudge me if you need help.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought so but here[18] we have textbook trolling. This is a vandal only account. I wouldn't be concerned about who this is. Over the years there's been lots of vandal only accounts re: feminism and antifeminism that have no relation to the other issues in the area--Cailil ^talk 11:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on him, but I'm not crazy about blocking him at this point. I'm assuming you don't feel you can block him because you're WP:INVOLVED?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I understand. I'll drop you a line if it recurs. And yes I tend to avoid the tools in that area except in the case of uncontroversial emergency (and even then I'd try to avoid it)--Cailil ^talk 18:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Some advice please

Hi I want to do the right things, but need some help. A user swore here. [19]

I posted this User name... please refrain from offensive language. See [20] [[User:Blade-of-the-South|Blade-of-the-South](talk) 23:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Another editor removed my post and the swearing is still there on [21] Russia holds its ground. Q. are editors allowed to remove my talk posts. I thought that was a no no. And is using the F word OK? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In my view, Sayerslle should not have added the phrase at the end of their comment. It served no purpose other than apparently to express a personal point of view. Although it technically would have been better for you to address your reaction to the language on their talk page rather than the article talk page, I don't see anything that terrible about your briefly commenting there. An extended discussion about civility on the article talk page would probably have been out of line. Although I think VQuaqr acted in good faith, it was not their place to remove your post from the talk page. As for the original use of the "F word", it's fairly commonplace at Wikipedia. I personally don't think it should be used, particularly because some editors are offended by it (even though others are not), often editors from certain non-Anglo cultures, and I think it shows a certain amount of insensitivity by the editors who use it, even more so in specific forums. Unfortunately, the application of the civility policy remains truly chaotic at Wikipedia, and there's not much you can do about it, especially when the uncivil comments aren't directed at you.

I hope I've answered your questions, even if you don't agree with all of it. If there's something you want me to actually do, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes you have. Thank you. Re, 'Unfortunately, the application of the civility policy remains truly chaotic at Wikipedia, and there's not much you can do about it,' Thats interesting. I have noticed the trend, and Unfortunately it seems to reflect society itself. Signing off on this. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb2 23 - the swear word - is actually evidence of sensitivity, not insensitivity, I am too sensitive for Wikipedia really, - to think - oh this horrible person used a swear word , what an insensitive person this must be - is psychologically banal. some people are more offended by the relentless pushing of matrial that smears enemies, fringe garbage that destroys articles , thn they are by an very occasional swear word. admins of course find it far easier to silence genuine contributors who very occasionally swear, than they do polite pov pushers. ah well, its a fallen world. Sayerslle (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, admins rarely block users for incivility, and they (certainly I) often block them for obvious and persistent POV-pushing. If I recall the context, you were using the word "fuck" to express a personal opinion, which if true, is probably not a good idea on an article talk page where the thrust of any comments should be toward improving the article. Finally, it's up to you, but using the word "fuck", no matter what the context, offends some people, just as using profanities (the literal meaning of "profane", e.g, "Goddamn") also offends certain people.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

deliberate and methodical excision of a source previously deemed reliable

User:John seems bent on removing specific tabloid format sources previously decided to be reliable for BLPs from a great many articles -- asserting that "tabloid format" is sufficient to call a source a "tabloid" and that "tabloids" are forbidden. If he were consistent on removing all tabloids, I think he might be making a WP:POINT of dome sort, but the number of places he is doing this is disruptive utterly. "Tabloid format" per se has nothing to do with being used on Wikipedia, but this looks like a jihad of some dort from here. I am still on Wikistrike, but ask you look into this behavior, which, as I said, I find disruptive to the nth degree. Collect (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I think you are deeply mistaken on several counts here. Firstly, I have made no such claim about the format sizes of publication determining their reliability. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to post a diff where you think I have made such a claim. Secondly it is mistaken to claim that the Daily Mail has been previously decided to be reliable for BLPs; on the contrary, this has been frequently discussed and kicked out to touch. The Mail is the worst sort of tabloid and can never be used on BLPs. Best regards, --John (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You called People magazine a "tabloid" and you gave an implicit threat about my proper noticeboard posts:

"I counsel you to think long and hard before making any further edits of this type"

sure looks like an implicit threat from here. And you just happen upon my post here as well. Cheers -- unfortunately you can't put my contributions page on your own watchlist <g>. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@John: [22] no consensus to "ax the Daily Mail." [23] Daily Mail usable in BLPs other than for contentious claims. And then on a "case by case" basis. And, IIRC, you were involved in that discussion. [24] not a "tabloid" and useable as a reliable source. [25] "reasonably reliable." and so on. Although you had demurred, but did not gain consensus then or now. Cheers. And just to make sure no WP:POINT is made by anyone, I am now on Wikistrike on all general noticeboards, etc. as well as on general BLPs and other places. Good job!!!! Collect (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't happen upon your posts; every time you mention me I get an alert on the new notifications system. As regards the Daily Mail, I'm in agreement with Jim Wales when he says "It should be a blocking offense to use the Daily Mail - and similar sources - to add negative information to BLPs. It's really really really bad...The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases. (There are a few rare exceptions, but even those should be subjected to the strictest possible scrutiny.) In particular, relying on a single tabloid source of known low quality to post outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives is wrong, wrong for Wikipedia, a violation of BLP policy, and not something that anyone should accept cavalierly. It is easy to solve this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)". --John (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Eh? My post did not mention you, so your claim that you were "automatically notified" because your name was mentioned quite frankly is absurd. You likely should note that my position on BLPs is very strong indeed - but tht it does not extend to blacklisting sources which pass RS/N and BLP/N. Indeed at the top of my UT page is

Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained

Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Appending: Mea culpa -- I did use John's name in this post, but not in others on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Now this has spilled over onto my talk page. John, first, JW's opinion is just one editor's opinion; it has no additional power. Second, JW's opinion is clearly qualified as it is talking about "outrageous accusations of salacious personal details", not just any material cited to a low quality source. FWIW, I agree with JW's statement as expressed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If I may, Jimbo's opinion means absolutely nothing compared to the (lack of) community consensus to axe the source in question. Jimbo is not godking. John, you cannot use one post on Jimbo's talkpage to claim that the community discussions linked by Collect are invalid. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 15:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Eddie Redmayne

The Theory of Everything is currently filming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.245.109 (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If so, then find a reliable source that says so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

IP edits on Syrian civil war articles

I'm wondering what is the policy on IP edits on Syrian civil war topic articles? I was just reverted 2 times in 24h by an IP [26], though i'm not sure what to do with this - do we report and sanction IPs? Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IPs should be treated the same as any other editor. I've given him a warning for edit warring. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: I'd pull back. You have clearly violated WP:1RR (as, of course, has the IP).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: You are clearly wrong, i did only one edit at that page through the last month! You are welcome to Check again.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; I misread the date. I've removed the warning from your talk page, and I've removed it from the log of such warnings on the general sanctions page. As I said in my edit summary, my apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd interpret the history as both you and the IP being at 1 revert, but borderline enough that Bbb23 was right to warn both of you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

What???Greyshark09 (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jack, the IP violated WP:1RR; as above, Greyshark did not.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the IPs first two edits did constitute a revert. I wasn't thinking about it that way. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And for protocol - 1 revert is not a violation of 1RR; 2 reverts and more within 24h is a violation (revert is counted both as "undoing" a full edit or manual edit, which removes another editor's contribution).Greyshark09 (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Cheers for you correction - frankly i had been stunned by your notice (!?), but as no damage has been done, it's fine. Just a revelation - i've never violated 1RR or 3RR and the only block i have got so far was "to teach me a lesson".Greyshark09 (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And did it teach you a lesson? :-) By the way, you don't have to ping me on my own talk page. Let me know if there are continuing problems with the IP. They are editing from more than one address, which makes blocks more problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It did punish me; regarding the "lesson" - see the result [27]. On another note - thanks for all your cooperation and assistance on the Syrian civil war topic - it is a huge help for the benefit of the community.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Again. This time the IP violated 3RR at Iran-Iraq War - see [28]; he is surely seeking a block i guess.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see three reverts, not four. Why don't you give them a 3RR warning for this article on their talk page? The best time for such a warning is after the third revert. You could also explain to them, if you haven't already done so, what is wrong with their edits on this article. That always helps before taking them to WP:AN3 if they revert a fourth time.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Silly me, i've just explained that 1RR allows one revert, but... i forgot that 3 reverts is ok at 3RR. Never mind, i shall keep watching this one.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:John. Thank you. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Shockingly, that talk page doesn't exist

I don't pretend to understand what you've removed, but regarding your edit summary: WP:ANI has no talk page in its own right :-O. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I didn't know that, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Mind Blown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noelia_-_Mind_Blown_(feat._Timbaland_%26_Adrian_Visby)#Contested_deletion (Jerry Santa Monica (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) Thankfully, I've deleted the article so no one's mind has to be blown anymore. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You're an awesome administrator. Earlier I thought of Admins to be extremely serious with a ban imposed on them which forbids them to be funny. Your just the opposite, you are extremely pleasant to work with and I really do think that you should apply for Cratship till then just keep on moppin' just like this! Sohambanerjee1998 07:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sohambanerjee, some admins have a sense of humor, or at least, like me, think they have a sense of humor. As for running for 'crat, even assuming I wanted to do so, I'm dubious that it would be successful. Every admin is different, but I often make what I consider hard blocks, which, naturally, upsets the blocked users - and sometimes their "supporters". But thanks for your vote of confidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Consider me to be with you for the RfB. If no one stands by you, double check to find me standing there. Sohambanerjee1998 13:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleting my contribution to a talk page

Hi! This edit [[29]] does not appear to be constructive, and I have reverted it. Your edit summary "this isn't even the ANI talk page" was incorrect - it is.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 15:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Bbb23 reverted it themselves [30], many many hours ago. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice on possible sockpuppet

I'm not linking names as I don't want them to come and infest your page. At the end of the DR case he filed, Sarower Sigh Bhati stated he was leaving Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati Yesterday, a new editor showed up at Talk:Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati, Dr Meenakshi Kanwar, exhibiting the same sort of behavior.

1. Rapid, consecutive posts saying the same thing over and over
2. Same habit of using other editors' entire sig (including talk page link) when replying
3. Same need to puff up subject (youngest patent holder, "deserves" child prodigy)
4. Same habit of placing critical importance on what is basically a regurgitation of a primary source (announcement of patent publication)

I can provide diffs for all these. Bhati's contributions can be seen starting here. He has been involved in a SPI here. Is this enough for a CU on Kanwar? If not, what do you recommend? BTW, Bhati is still editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That new editor is frustratingly dense. The old one said he was leaving but today he has logged in to talk to TransporterMan, sign a DRN thread entry by IP, and make a plea to ArbCom. So far, the two accounts have not both chimed in on the same thread. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Finally looked at this. I'm including three accounts in this mess. It's not clear to me how much of this is sock puppetry and how much of it is meat puppetry, but both are sanctionable. I almost blocked all three, but after thinking about it some more, I'd prefer that one of you open a report at SPI. Make sure you explain that meat puppetry might be involved. Also, Sarower Sigh Bhati is the oldest account and therefore should be named as the master. I may yet block them on my own. If you file a report, please let me know that you've done so. Also, if there is continuing disruption, please give me a heads up. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudeepgangal/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I linked to it up above. But your advice is to open a new SPI with Sarower Sigh Bhati as the master and ask for CU, correct? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, missed the link. Yes, that's my advice. I don't know whether the CU will be performed, though. I'm an SPI clerk (trainee), and I still haven't gotten the hang of when to endorse a CU and when not to. In this instance, my inexpert opinion is it's questionable whether a CU is warranted, but, hey, you're not a clerk, ask for it. If it's declined, so be it. Another option is not to request a CU and let a clerk request it or a CU make a decision to do it. Your choice. There are a lot of competing issues here, not the least of which is just the plain disruption caused by the editors, regardless of whether there's any sock or meat puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarower_Sigh_Bhati. I didn't ask for a CU as Kanwar self-declared she was the mother. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. Kanwar is trying to appeal her block with the usual regard for directions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I see this is keeping you busy. Thanks for being on top of it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Django unchained edit

You said you needed more sources for the Cosplay sections for Django Unchained. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Django_Unchained&action=history

What would you consider 'reliable' secondary sources? There wont be many articles about it, but there are plenty of pictures available. Would links to some taken from comic con work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.60.29 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at WP:RS. Pictures are almost never reliable sources. You'd need something from a major newspaper or magazine that comments on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

IP sock

Hi, I just noticed that this user who you blocked the other day is now evading his block and making contentious edits with a new IP. Both IPs can be traced to Denver, Colorado, and in both cases the IP user is edit warring on the NRA and Gun politics articles. ROG5728 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nom nom nom

Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

We can't have you starving now can we?

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

Oh, I dunno, I kinda liked playing Camille. Thanks, Ponyo. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit issue

[31] User Farolif on the Hun Sen article is reverting me. I am thinking it is o.k. to use what I have used on the article page and he is saying no, that it is not neutral. Its a legit news source and they say it, and it updates the situation of that particular person in that particular place [32] so I paraphrased it and used it. I noticed a previous action you made with that person and am wondering if what he is doing now constitutes a kind of creeping edit war. I asked him to talk page the issue but no luck on that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look like an edit war to me at this point. Don't let it become one. As for your edit, you may think you paraphrased it, but if I saw it, I'd remove it as a copyright violation without regard to any other problems it may have.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Good information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abusive IP socks

Hi, Bbb23. You blocked the dynamic 201.215.187.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for three months on 13 August; mainly, as you said, because of their sock puppetry threat. Yeah... I think 200.73.232.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same person, per WP:DUCK: same ISP, same city, same charm. See their talkpage. Unfortunately, those two can't be blocked as a "range", it would be massive. How are you on range blocks? Is there anything we can do, other than blocking 200.73.232.97 as well? (I'm holding off on that until they respond to me, but considering their reception of User:Thomas.W, I'm not expecting a very warm welcome.) What annoys me is that 201.215.187.159 stopped editing on 13 August (obviously) and 200.73.232.97 didn't start until 26 September. I just bet there were some little duckies in between, and will be more. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

I'm just slightly better on range blocks than I used to be, which isn't saying much. I ususally go to User:Kww when I have these kinds of questions. I believe User:Diannaa is knowledgeable as well. If there's a pattern to the edits, sometimes a filter can eliminate the disruption, but there has to be enough evidence to justify the filter. Sorry I can't be of more help.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Range block looks out of the question: too wide, and no convenient subnets are apparent, either.—Kww(talk) 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything I know about range blocks I learned from Bish's talk page -- Diannaa (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And here I thought you knew what you were doing. I'm still working on "convenient subnets".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked 200.73.232.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) per self-confessed block evasion, and I guess they fully intend to return with another IP.[33] I'm actually a little torn on this: they have a bad temper, but make useful edits. I've offered them a deal, to which I hope you don't object, Bbb. But as for NuclearWarfare's famous words-of-one-syllable range block instructions in my archive, they don't work no more, because the link is dead. :-( Bishonen | talk 10:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC).

As long as you're willing to keep an eye on the new account (assuming the deal is accepted) and the IPs, I have no problem with trying to assist someone who shows promise. I just hope we don't end up with a long-term user with a bad attitude.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I had a nice polite conversation, on both hands, with the ip, but they declined my offer, as I rather expected. They've been around for years, and if they'd wanted an account, I guess they'd have had one by now. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was watching. As you say, at least they were polite.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a replacement tool: http://toolserver.org/~tparis/rangecontribs/. I hope User:Kww can give us all a hand in cases are not clear-cut. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Mysogynist" and WP::Label

As you have effectively forbidden discussion of this on the Men's Rights Movement talk page, I believe it is entirely appropriate to take the issue up on your talk page. As I'm sure you are aware, [[WP::Label]] states that a label should not be used unless it is "widely" so used by RS. In practice, the label "terrorist" is applied when one or more governments apply the label -- e.g. Al Qaeda, Tamil Tigers, Hamas, etc. I would ask you to apply the same standard to the Men's Rights Movement article. That is, if one or more governments have stated that the MRM is "mysogynist", it would be appropriate to use the label in the lede of the article. Otherwise, it would not. I request that you apply the policy the same way it is applied elsewhere on Wikipedia. Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello? It would be polite to explain yourself.William Jockusch (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Boxing - Notability discussion

Changes to WP:NBOX/WP:NBOXING have been discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#Notability discussion, and I believe a consensus has been reached. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you go to the guideline talk page and start a topic linking to the project discussion and invite comments. It's not clear to me that a consensus was reached in the project discussion. Nor is it clear that should be the end of the matter considering the extent of the changes. Procedurally, for someone who has edited as much as you have, you should (1) stop marking your edits as minor when they clearly aren't and (2) use edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

DynamoDegsy - these kind of changes need wider input than just one WikiProject, same goes for every sport. GiantSnowman 16:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss 2(2013 Bengali film)

While this fails WP:NFF, the topic of a planned sequel IS beginning to be spoken about in reliable sources.[34] Yes, the article is TOO SOON, but being sourcable is not a speedy-able film topic. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

SPI advice needed

Hi Bbb23. I hope everything is well with you and yours. Sorry for the trouble, but since you are an SPI clerk I would like to ask your opinion about IP sock tagging. Please see: Mass reverting of IP sock tags of K-pop articles and associated discussion at Please do not mass-revert IP sock tags. Whenever you have the time, please let me know your opinion regarding the best way forward in this case. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dr.K., I'm kind of worn out from Wikipedia today, and, thankfully, I'm going to get off in a moment. I'll try to take a look tomorrow. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Bbb23. No obligation or rush at all. Thank you very much for considering this. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In my short time as an SPI trainee clerk, I've learned that the issue of tagging is a contentious one. Policies and templates contradict each other, not to mention the practices of individual administrators and editors in this area. If I had my way, I'd make it simple. Only administrators would be able to add tags or remove them, and there'd be a thorough discussion to make the tagging consistent. In terms of this individual crusade by Greg, I'd bring up the issue at the talk page of WP:SOCK and see if you get any reactions there. My guess is no one will be bothered that much by the removal of tags from unblocked IPs. I sampled a few of Greg's edits, and given that the tags were added by non-admins, it doesn't bother me all that much for them to be removed. Just as an aside, some administrators believe that IPs should never be tagged. One more thing. WP:HSOCK doesn't apply to IPs but to all users.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, tagging of IPs should be restricted only to cases where a significant number of "sock edits" are traceable to the specific IP, and where there is no possibility of having an "innocent bystander" be faced with that tag -- especially for such cases as IP addresses linked to schools where it is likely that new students will be faced with the detritus from previous students, etc. Indeed, I would suggest this is an extension of how we deal with "living persons" - that is, contentious claims about a person who was quite likely not involved in socking as a "sock" should be removed. There are, indeed, some IPs which are tagged, and properly so, but cases where single edits are found should generally not be so tagged. All IMHO, of course. Collect (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bbb23 for the information. I agree also with Collect's points. The problem is, according to my experience with K-pop articles, there are certain geolocations which chronically edit-war unsourced BLP information about birthdays and positions into these articles. Many of these IP addresses strongly indicate they are from a rather narrow IP range. This information could be useful in case a range-block was ever necessary. I remember one instance where one IP was blocked as a sock through checkuser. But as Drmies mentioned we could go the other way and semi the articles involved. In any case thank you both for your feedback. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Having only admins tag socks is a bad idea. There are plenty of good-faith trusted users like myself that have experience dealing with socks. I don't have any interest in becoming an admin; but I've met a few I can run circles around. Overburdening the already overburdened admin corps simply because that sock tag can be abused is totally unnecessary. At the most it should be limited to autoconfirmed users, if necessary. Your average admin might have absolutely zero experience in dealing with socks. But there are many non-admins that have a lot of experience. Doc talk 00:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, please give me an example of when you would tag a user and what tag you would use.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've authored two LTA reports that concern IP-hopping nightmares: this and that. Their IP's don't usually get tagged: judgement call. No admin bothered to create the reports: now they know who they are dealing with a bit better. I've helped show a banned user towards the door using the IPSock template to prove their malfeasance. My taggings are all reviewable, and I've tagged a few. I can easily provide you several examples of what you are asking for... but do you really believe that simply because I am not an admin that I don't know what I'm doing with this tag? I would hope not. Doc talk 03:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'll give you an example anyway, one I brought up on Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs)'s page. Veryverser (talk · contribs), an indefinitely blocked user who pops up periodically to thumb his nose at the block, briefly used 167.206.233.254 (talk · contribs) only on October 6, 2012. Only the edits from that day can be confirmed to be Veryverser. Others have used the IP before and since: and no editor using that IP has brought up the tag since it was placed. If Veryverser ever uses it again, or even if he doesn't, we should keep the tag to show that he did. Any editor using that IP that is not Veryverser should not be worried about it, and they certainly don't seem to be now. Doc talk 06:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's an excellent example of why non-admins should not be tagging. It obviously conflicts with the current language of WP:HSOCK, and it appears to serve only your idea of how things should be done. My assumption is that if anyone using that IP address wanted to remove that tag, they could legitimately do so, and most editors would agree with the removal. I don't see any purpose to continuing this discussion. There are too many inconsistencies in the sock tagging, in the policies, in the instructions, in the templates, and in the practice (and that includes admins). I just find it irritating - and that is not directed at your personally.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

But if the IP had been blocked, even for a few hours, HSOCK says nothing about future users removing the tag. I'll stick to the policy talk page on this. Thanks for your time. Doc talk 02:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Woven Thread deletion.

Hi, thanks for your message letting me know about the speedy deletion of The Woven Thread production company page I created. I understand your reasons for doing so, but I'd like to ask a couple of questions. I checked to see that there were other similar pages for independent television production companies in Scotland and found several: The Comedy Unit, Effingee Productions are two examples, both of which make comedy in Scotland, as does The Woven Thread. In fact effingee hasn't made any television for 5 years, but The Woven Thread is a new company and will make programmes for the forseeable future. My question is this: At what point is a company big enough to warrant a page? Thanks for your help--— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMHines (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 September 2013‎ (UTC)

• WP:CORP has some guidelines. And there's WP:GNG. It's not just about size. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

TOO Copyright images India

I truest you as an admin and @Drmies: too and know you always post your own views. I also try to do so. In Commons, my arguments are being rejected thrice. No one, not a single admin, is supporting my points there and someone has told, I am wasting their time. Still, I can not understand where I am wrong.

The point I am trying to say them— when we don't know copyright status of an image/content in a country, our attempt should be to find it. "We don't know", "Commons does not have any information" — these should not be reason to keep content here. Please help me to understand where I am wrong here. Commons thread: Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#My_disappointment:_TOO_and_India Tito☸Dutta 12:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, but that's outside of my scope of experience. I don't know who Fry1989 is, but they provided an argument that, at least to my inexperienced eyes, makes sense. If you're asking for more participation in a particular discussion, well, you can but it probably won't help much. On en-wiki such discussions remind me of MfD discussions; they don't attract a lot of attention. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Tito, I can barely follow the discussion on Commons. Commons has its own set of policies and ways of doing things, and I've never really participated in any significant discussions. The only thing I go to Commons to do is to nominate an image used on Wikipedia for deletion or in rare instances to tag it for speedy deletion. What you say above I understand, I think. You're saying that although normally a no consensus to delete something defaults to keep, it should be the opposite for copyright issues (the burden should be shifted to use legalese), but that's as much as I understand. To the extent it matters, I do know Fry1989.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Lindodawki's 3RR report

• Lindodawki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Bbb. see this 3RR closure, where you wrote 36 hours as the result. Did you forget to issue the block? I had previously done a 48 hour block (though not per the 3RR board) because the Latin America article is on my watchlist and I noticed the revert war. It does not seem that the user is paying any attention. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ed, that closure was a mistake on my part. I put a block in the wrong report (first time I've done that - embarrassing). I later corrected the error here. I'm very sorry for the confusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 20:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing of Binksternet ANI

Your closing of the ANI (1) was completely unjustified. My concern was simple and plainly stated. Bink kept hounding me by repeatedly posting erroneous allegations of misconduct on my talk page, after I told him not to. I didn't make any of the distracting/off-topic sub-threads, so it makes no sense to hold them against my original complaint. Your doing so also sets a terrible precedent for future legitimate ANIs complaints, implying that posting a bunch of inane, off-topic stuff is an effective strategy to derail them. Your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between my (concise and clear) original complaint, and the distracting off-topic threads that follow, is highly disappointing, particularly given your admin status. Steeletrap (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Calm down, and let me see if I can help (no promises). When I looked at the "main" topic and then the subtopics, all I saw was an amorphous mess. Let's put aside the subtopics for the moment (their closures were incredibly odd) and concentrate on the main topic. I'm not going to look at the revision history as ANI is extraordinarily busy, but the date/time stamps make no sense. It shows that an IP opened the topic on October 2 at 15:15 (first post under the header). Who is the IP? That is followed immediately by a post from you on September 29 at 05:36. Did the IP just stick their post in above yours three days later? Was your post intended to be the opening post? Are you joining in the IP's comments? Assuming that this really got started four days ago on September 29, where did it get you? Not a single admin commented, which likely, although not absolutely, means no admin was persuaded that you had a case. As I read just what you wrote, you were complaining about Binksternet templating your talk page with unjustified warnings. For this, you asked for a "temporary ban". What's that? Did you mean a temporary block? Is there a persistent pattern of Binksternet using unjustified warnings (I haven't looked to see if I agree with you, btw, just asking)? Anyway, if you respond here in a civil manner, I'll do my best to help, although my views may not meet with your approval.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who the anonymous IP address is, or what s/he is talking about. My post directly below that (beginning with the words "I have warned a user three times") fully details my complaint against Binksternet. Check that out. As to bans, because the hounding/harassment was so persistent, I was recommending a (very) brief ban from editing wikipedia to teach him not to harass other users.

I'm sorry if I came across as uncivil. I was (and am) irritated, because I have a legitimate gripe that was clearly stated, yet is being ignored because of lengthy off-topic "sub-threads" posted by Binksternet and others. Steeletrap (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Look at WP:BAN. I think you mean WP:BLOCK. I'll take a look at just your post and give you my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On September 6 at 16:42 Binksternet posted an edit-warring template on your talk page about Hans-Hermann Hoppe. At that point you had made two reverts on the article in the preceding 24 hours, one at 6:30 and one at 16:39. Your statement in response that you had made only one over "several weeks" was incorrect. As for Binksternet's reverts, he was claiming a BLP exemption. If you believed there was no basis for that exemption, the appropriate thing would have been to take him to WP:AN3.

Binsternet left two more edit-warring templates on your talk page, one on September 27 at 13:37, and one on September 29 at 4:56. The first was again about the Hoppe article, and the second was about Murray Rothbard. With respect to the Hoppe article, you had made one revert in the preceding 24 hours but had made multiple reverts over time, which could arguably be interpreted as edit warring, even without a breach, or imminent breach, of WP:3RR. With respect to the Rothbard article, which is now locked, you had made two reverts in the 24 hours preceding the warning.

I see some overzealousness on Binksternet's part, but that's without looking at the underlying content disputes. My suspicion is you will get nowhere at ANI with the conduct issue until you resolve through consensus the disputes that you and others have on these rather contentious articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed but not surprised to hear your view. The relevant issue is that he continually posts inflammatory charges to the talk page of someone who tells him to stay off. That you're basically OK with this blatant violation of rules, without even knowing whether the charges have any basis in fact, is astounding (though again, not surprising). As is your incorrect (or only "correct" in a tedious technical sense) statement that I had made 2 reverts on September 6th. Steeletrap (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're incorrect about the issue. If you tell someone to stay off your talk page, they should respect your wishes with respect to comments, discussions, etc., but they still have a right to post a warning template as long as the template is justifiable. You can't prohibit editors from using your talk page to post warnings. Now, let's say Binksternet posts a warning, you remove it, and they repost it. That would be abusive because you are presumed to have read the first warning, and you have a right to remove it. But new warnings are generally permissible.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"they still have a right to post a warning template as long as the template is justifiable". Which is why it's bizarre that you're effectively indifferent to whether the charges were justifiable. Also, can you please (providing diffs) show me the two reversions I made on September 6? Again, I'm talking about substantive reversions; if we want to get into wikilawyering, removing typos of other users can be technically characterized as reversions. Steeletrap (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

My last comment. I've taken the time to give you personalized treatment, and all I get is criticism. You, of course, have a right to disagree with me, but given that I'm the only admin who's responded to your complaint, you should try taking it to heart instead of fighting over everything. I gave you the times of the two reversions already. You no doubt think the first was not a revert. Normally, I'd agree with you because it was mostly an addition, but it was in a disputed area, and looking beyond the "technical" I'd be inclined to classify it as part of the war.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for input at DRN

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Jorge Erdely Graham". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Ajax F¡ore_talk 03:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sylvanvale Disability Services

Hi there

I set up the Sylvanvale Disability Services page which you deleted earlier today.

I don't completely understand the deletion codes that you attached (I'm new at this) and just wondering what I have to do to make that page pass the criteria? Seems to be a lot less worthy pages that survive than that. I drafted it based on the Plan page as it is a similar organisation and I don't see why the Sylvanvale page was any different than that one.

Would love some advice.

Cheers

Sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanjhross (talk • contribs) 12:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You copied the article straight from Sylvanvale's own site, which is not allowed, as it is a copyright violation. Also, it wasn't clear why Sylvanvale is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Danrolo returned

Hello Bbb23,

it looks like User:Danrolo (if you can remember?) has returned. 201.239.253.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits masses of political party articles (mainly the infoboxes), adding unsourced information (mainly about their ideological orientation). He is even having an edit war with another user across several Chilean parties. The IP is based in Chile, Danrolo's homeland. Should I file a formal SPI or can you just block the IP for being an obvious sockpuppet of Danrolo's? Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked them for three months. I blocked them before for one month in June. It's too bad I didn't follow up after expiration of the block, or I would have blocked them again much earlier. If you notice any other IPs in this range doing the same thing, please let me know because the edit filter does not have the range. I don't want to add it to the filter unless there's at least more than one. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SPI case closure

My bad and apologies for that error. I read the SPI Clerking guide and interpreted it the wrong way here. -- SMS ^Talk 07:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You really ought to know better than mess with bureaucracy SMS Darkness Shines (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. As DS implies, the procedures at Wikipedia can often be confusing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite

I just found out from someone that TheOldJacobite has been doing a series of edit warring on articles Raging Bull and The Departed. Check out the revision of those articles if you want to see this. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the report at WP:AN3 to any further comments. You need to stop making baseless accusations. It's disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It is quite clear that the anon. who left that comment is a sock of user Mamet who has been disrupting the named articles for over a month. This is really becoming quite ridiculous. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What anon and what comment?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to the comment the anon. made on BattleshipMan's talk page, which was part of a canvassing campaign by a suspected sock of AutoMamet. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Theonesean#The League of Peace Foundation

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Theonesean#The League of Peace Foundation. theonesean 21:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this tomorrow. If I forget, feel free to remind me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've looked into it, and think you and the tagger were perfectly correct. I'm one step short of thinking about G3... Peridon (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you advise

I thought A-7 was for something that was not notable. What would be the correct tag in this case? The page is for a totally unnoteworthy object as far as I can see.Antiqueight ^confer 16:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Jumping in, Twinkle has a good description of each tag and will automatically notify the creator. James^x12345 16:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

So it is impossible to tag for a thing to be unremarkable (using speedy deletion)?Antiqueight ^confer 16:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

A7 is for lack of indicated significance, but only for people and groups of people, named animals, stuff on the web, and organised events. So you can A7 the Church of the Electric Hamster (organisation) but not St Ethelfrock's Church (building), greathyaena.com but not the Hyaena browser, and Gertie the dancing alpaca but not Conia easteria (the newly discovered Easter rabbit species). All CSD categories are limited. Peridon (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about Gateway Station (Aliens), a relatively silly article that unfortunately cannot be A7ed. A lot of editors tag entire films as A7s. Films cannot be speedied under A7. Sometimes, it's possible to delete them under G11, but one has to be careful that the article satisfies that category. Anyway, when something as silly as the station article is created and I have to decline the speedy, I will often take it to AfD as I did here. I thought of redirecting it to the movie article, but the station isn't even mentioned there, so it seemed pointless.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for that Bbb23. I too looked at just adding the data to the movie article but it didn't seem to fit anywhere. I thought that since it was so un noteworthy it would be better to speedy it than AfD.Antiqueight ^confer 16:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand the temptation to A7 something that seems so obviously non-notable, but it's just not permissible. I'm not sure what the original policy rationale was for limiting A7 in this way - haven't been around here long enough, and I don't feel like slogging through the history. It might be that the notability of certain categories of articles is too difficult to determine without discussion. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers knows.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's down to battles and compromises at the talk page of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. It took quite a battle to get events in recently. The current one is new - A11 - for things made up one day (thought up by Johnny and Shaun to impress Jenny - who probably wasn't impressed anyway - and very obvious to any admin who's worked in CSD, and the majority of the taggers. There are those who would, I think, like to end CSD but realise that PROD and AfD just couldn't cope. It's an interesting page for anyone concerned at all with speedy deletion. It's not admin stuff only. The G13 (untouched AfC) battle went on for quite some time. Peridon (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess I need to stay on top of things more. The A11 discussion isn't historical; it's now. Thanks for pointing it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually they should use...

... a site like this (there are many bad photos, I started creating my family tree, the work is incomplete). Your action was perfect. They impersonated Wiki Management US too. One thing I always say, if a user is puzzled and politely confesses that he can not understand things here, his critical errors might be ignored for sometime. I'm giving my own example, very foolish this and this you'll find the user (I) could not understand where to sign, how to talk etc, but simultaneously trying to learn things. I ask others to see these posts and foolish help requests and then ask to observe the improvement I have done in last two years from that point. One should not be ashamed to ask help or confess mistakes. But, if a user tries be over-smart or attempts to game the system by impersonating Wikimedia US, that is unacceptable. --Tito☸Dutta 18:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If it was just incompetence or newness or good faith issues, that would be one thing, but there was too much deceit. And I still don't understand changing the name of the Indian municipality to Jose Silva. Thanks for your assistance.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

AN3

Hi. I've replied. I hope that is clear - if you need anything else, please let me know. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I do, actually. Please see my response at AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Replied. Again, please let me know if you need more. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Your last chance, Lugnuts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please update the article in question with details of it being released in Ireland on the 11th October, per this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Seems a reasonable request. Or can you point me to the policy that allows you to state a random length of time that a user can't edit an article for? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You violated WP:3RR. In exchange for not being blocked, you acknowledged the violation, promised to be more careful in the future, and promised not to edit the article for seven days from October 6. Now you want to edit the article by proxy and you're asking me, the administrator who arranged this, to be your proxy. When I refuse, you say it's "a reasonable request". I call that the epitome of chutzpah. I have nothing more to say about this except that if you violate the agreement, I'll block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I promised not to edit it (which I'm sticking to), so I thought it would only be polite to ask you to add that info, as you dictated the sanctions in the first place. Fine if you don't want to/are not capable of doing so, but please can you link me to the relevant policy of stating the timeline for not being able to edit an article. Many thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I see you were active yesterday but you've not replied to my request of linking me to the policy in question. Please can you do so? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I already told you in my last comment I had nothing more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think what I'm asking is a fair question - why are you being so unreasonable? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Sir you have deleted my page New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary. Sir I request you to get it undelteted. I will be thankful to you. Pratham 09:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not going to happen, sorry. In addition to the reason I deleted it (promotional), as @JohnCD: told you, it's also a copyright violation of the school's website.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

00:11, 5 October 2013 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Như Quỳnh (actress) (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event))

Hi. Did the stub before deletion fail to mention that vi:Như Quỳnh (diễn viên) is a government awarded/recognised People's Artist? With very plentiful sources in the vi.wp article any objection to recreating this? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it didn't mention the Vietnamese wikipedia. You can recreate it if you like. I mean, it had only one brief sentence in the entire article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Recreated, the wikidata link was still there and popped back. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of page Valerie Loo

Hi there, it has come to my attention that you have deleted the page Valerie Loo and I would like to request for you to undo the deletion. Valerie is a young and budding Singaporean artiste and she has a growing influence among Singaporeans after her involvement in the television program Campus SuperStar (season 4). It is vital for her to have a wiki page for people to find out more about her. Some of the other contestants do have articles about themselves as well thus we see no reason as to why her page was marked for deletion even though it has even more adequate references cited about her. Please do consider undoing the deletion. It seems that it has been marked for deletion as it wasn't clearly stated enough about her significance in the Singapore music and online industry. We will be happy to make any changes to the article after the undoing of the deletion so as to improve the article. Thank you. Happyglenshades (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Who is "we", and who are User:Winstonbegone and User:Shanaisthecoolone?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

an issue to sort out

I have been issued a warning for my edits on the page Seeman (director) though i had provided highly reputable citations for the same...and pro-separatist content has been restored on the page..I had pinged SpacemanSpiff regarding the same and he asked me to take the matter to you...wonder if you would be able to help?!

Thank You none-the-less *cheers* Arlok2005 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I need a little more help. The warning was issued by a now-blocked user. Some of the material that user restored has been removed by @SpacemanSpiff:. What material do you think should still be removed from the article and why? Also, normally these kinds of issues are better discussed on the article Talk page, or if compelling WP:BLP violations, at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, sorry for suggesting that you get in this mess without checking with you, but you are one of very few people who have done BLP cleanups on Indian bios recently. I'm hardpressed for wikitime now and therefore haven't been able to check the entire article, but there are likely some more issues there and in some of the linked articles like Nedumaran etc that I hope to get to over the next week or two unless they get cleaned up earlier. While the OP wasn't exactly clear on the problem, there are some issues related to what they said. I'd also asked Qwyrxian to keep an admin eye on the article. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I'm not sure I want to be known as an experienced person in this area. :-) I won't have time to look at it until the weekend at the earliest; I have too much on my plate and too little time on Wikipedia to clear it. I have a great deal of respect for Qwyrxian's knowledge and handling of these kinds of issues. He's incisive and deft. Hopefully, he'll tackle it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

My eyes hurt now, but I think I got most of it out of the article (was primarily a lot of labeling not present in the sources) and primary sourcing of controversial statements as fact. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I know how that is. I blocked a new user yesterday and then began a clean-up of all the disruption they had caused in a very short space of time. I couldn't finish because I had to go to dinner. I'm now going to finish. Some of the stuff was truly mind-boggling.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Squeaky

Johnny Squeaky (talk · contribs) is continued to edit Soylent Green in evident violation of the consensus on the Talk page and without making any evident effort to gather consensus for their edit. As you warned them about this behavior before, it may be time to engage in stronger action. Please let me know if you have any questions. DonIago (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no time right now. I left a brief note at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I saw that and added my own comment. DonIago (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Turkishhistorian

• Turkishhistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Bbb. Just now I saw this edit on my watchlist, which shows User:Turkishistorian once again adding blog-sourced information to this article (from http://dodecad.blogspot.com). Since you'd previously warned Turkishistorian on his talk page about a possible block, perhaps you want to take a look. In this case Turkishistorian is making reference to a Google Doc generated by the anonymous owner of the Dodecad blog. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Specifics to your Criticism

Sir or Madame:

You have failed to cite WHAT in particular in my edits LACKS a source. There are plenty of sources throughout the article justifying the edits I made (LOOK at the links). Other edits are simply that a book is now published (before, the article said that something "will be published in July"...do you object to the idea that July has passed? Or do you object to the book being published, because you haven't bothered to look on Amazon?)

I do not appreciate my work being undone without ANY constructive criticism of WHAT is improper. Justify yourself or I will seek arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballroom Dancer 001 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If you ask me nicely, I'll help you. Otherwise, I won't. So far, you haven't. You're a new editor. The only edits you've made so far have been to Caroline Joan S. Picart. What's your interest in her? By the way, edit warring is a no-no at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly a little child. My "new-ness" is not logically relevant. My interest in Dr. Picart is not relevant to editing a Wikipedia page. You have no right to speak of "edit-wars" given that you refuse to answer questions about how to edit this properly. If you were an adult, you would address the specifics of my request; instead, you act like a child playing games. Her article will be edited for accuracy as opposed to your puerile behavior.

I'd recommend that you review Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks if you're going to continue to address editors in the manner you've just displayed. I'd also recommend that you review WP:OWN with regards to your claims that the article "will" be edited in any particular manner and look at the link Bbb provided to edit-warring. Put simply, I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish by addressing your fellow editors in such a manner. DonIago (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

why did u delete the page i created

why did u delete my page? There are plenty of sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante20000 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• It didn't, and it didn't make credible claims of importance. It did mention her height, though. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I like your edit summary for the Wikipedia-article from 10 October: assuming these sources are reliable, they don't support the assertions... it is quite poetic. Soerfm (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Concise perhaps, but poetic? :-) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Syrian topic intervention

First of all Bbb23, thank you for intervening to this topic. A lot of edit warring was going on. I have reported this incident violation last night on article. I do not understand why I am on the warned user list, however I am fine with it. I try to abide the rules, made no more than 1 reverts per 24h and my only double edit was for template fix of my previous one (m). My edits were documented, referenced and discussed as per the topics raised in the relevant talk page. I will continue to contribute in a good faith manner. As a fairly new WP editor, if I did not go by the editing policy and did something wrong, I apologise and would like to ask you to point me to it, for future (avoidance) reference. RegardsAriskar (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ariskar: you made three reverts today, one at 12:22, one at 14:15, and two consecutive edits the last of which was at 14:47. All times are UTC.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed this is true. I have made the 12:22 revert, an edit badly done to restore removed content, which was uncuccessful (mistake in the code) and I had to make 2 minor edits later to fix it. My apologies if this counts as a second revert. It was technically an edit, however I see your point. I have also warned and discussed in a constructive manner edits previously with one counterpart AOnline on his talk page. Regards and I guess end of discussion.Ariskar (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For deleting Terry Tang and Siraj Awad within 10 minutes of my tagging them. Thanks. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 00:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's nice to know they're still in season. Where's the shortbread and the whipped cream?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sandeep Maheshwari

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (All the copyright content has been removed and only reliable sources of wikipedia has been provoded,its an important article with so many relaible sources ,provided for that).. first see the article contents and discuss on talk page . dont delete it directly ,prsuming that it will be promotional again. just see the article first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitishkumartn (talk • contribs) 15:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't recreate the page unless you eliminate the blatantly promotional material.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

blatantly promotional material,if any have been removed now--Nitishkumartn (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleted my page on T.S.Raghavendran

I had mentioned in the Talk that the article is yet to be updated completely. Did you not read that? It isn't a promotion. The books are about a philosophy. Also he is Limca Book Record holder, its all yet to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amru92 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles are not supposed to be "finished" after being moved to mainspace. If you want to work on them, do so in your sandbox or create a subpage for the article in your user space. The article was incredibly promotional. It would be better for you to use WP:AFC so you can get feedback about a proposed article from more experienced editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of SARAVANAN ENGIRA SURYA.

If I have to agree to the Wiki definition of a 'spam' then could you kindly advise me how to create a page for a to-be-released-Indian-movie under the "Upcoming Movie" category (to be released in a regional Language). Kindly be specific and do not jus redirect to a generic FAQ page pls! Your help and guidance would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funtoontalkies (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you submit a proposed article through WP:AFC so you get some feedback as to how to create an article that will be encyclopedic and meet notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your level head. Per a suggestion at the drama page, note: [35] Montanabw^(talk) 17:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Your striking your comments is appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

My point still stands, but I phrased it inelegantly. Redacted and rephrased. I think NH is right and would support that proposal, but not sure if I want to engage in the new round of drama yet. (sigh) Montanabw^(talk) 17:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but there is nothing wrong with your expressing an opinion; it was the manner in which it was expressed that was objectionable. The substantive disagreement can, of course, continue, theoretically ad infinitum, as often happens at Wikipedia - or at least it sometimes seems like forever.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It was nice to return from a walk and find it resolved, thank you, let's do content (and there was an infobox already, lovely) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Taking a walk sounds lovely, Gerda. I'm a big fan of walks and hikes (walks where I live and hikes on vacations).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So true about ad infinitum. Phooey on that. Montanabw^(talk) 17:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Anugoonj

sir why havee u deleted the article it is one of hte biggst fest of india and one should no of it !! it is from the state goverment of delhi(capital of india ) >> ? what else you want to know ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRAWATJI (talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@MrRAWATJI: Please don't just re-create pages that were deleted without addressing the issues that led to their deletion. @Bbb23: It's back; can you delete it again? Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted again by another admin while I was off-wiki. Not necessary to ping me on my own talk page, Jack, although, as usual, I appreciate your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The ping of you was actually for MrRAWATJI's benefit, to make it clear the second sentence wasn't intended for him. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Your advice

I need some advice whether we can include 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution under the umbrella of Syrian civil war sanctions: on one hand it is clearly having to do with the modern Syrian government topics - the formation of modern Baathist party leadership under Assad family; but on the other hand it is quiet far away in the past and not directly has to do with the Syrian civil war; finally, if we go by ARBPIA-based guidelines - it would be included as a closely related topic. At first i did put the Syrian sanctions notice on the talk page, but now i'm not sure (so in the meanwhile i removed it).

Any way, there is currently a very aggressive editing there by some user [36], which made this article blocked twice by an administrator within a week. The question is - do you think 1RR of Syrian sanctions should apply to that article? If so, then the aggressive editor should be warned/blocked for 1RR.GreyShark (dibra) 21:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be subject to Syrian civil war general sanctions. It's too remote, even broadly construed.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. In this regard, i think we should set a defined place to discuss such issues. I guess Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions is not proper, since it is not a regular talk page. Taking the topic every time to AN:RFC is too inconsistent and using user/administrator talk page is too unofficial. What would you suggest?GreyShark (dibra) 16:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

David Butts

You deleted the page for David Butts. The creator was still working on the page and has references to verify notability. Can you please restore the page? --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No, but if the creator wants me to WP:USERFY it, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be fussy, but you're not the creator. If you want me to userfy it to your user space, I will. If the editor who created it wants me to userfy it to their user space (and asks me to do so), I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I submitted the request on behalf of users here at the Portland arts edit-athon. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please userfy it to the contributor's space. Hobsonlane (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Likewise for another article we were working on at the same Arts edit-athon in Portland: wiki/Mad_Dog_Garage Hobsonlane (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Why were these 2 pages deleted without giving the contributors (there were 3 contributors to these 2 articles) time to address your concern? How can we improve it so it will not be summarily deleted when we resubmit it? Hobsonlane (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I've userfied both articles to Hobsonlane's user space, e.g., User:Hobsonlane/Mad Dog Garage (the other one is the same but with David Butts). If you want to avoid deletion, make sure the article is not speedy deletable before you create it in article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Complex infinity

Hi, I see you have speedily deleted Complex infinity. I do not know what the previous contents was, but redirect to Infinity#Complex_analysis would be appropriate. Jmath666 (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The page had a bizarre history. Back in 2006, it was created as a redirect to Riemann sphere. It looked to me like a good faith creation, but Riemann sphere never uses the term "complex infinity", so it wasn't clear it would make sense to anyone (I'm not a mathemetician). Then, recently, it looked like it was vandalized. An editor tagged it as nonsense, an often poor choice as a CSD tag. Obviously, the tagging editor hadn't looked at the history. I was going to restore the redirect, but for reasons I cannot explain, I had trouble doing so. Finally, given all the bizarre circumstances, I deleted it as an implausible redirect - not ideal, but at the same time, not a great loss in my view.

Your redirect is more obviously plausible to a lay person. Why don't you create it yourself? I could do so, but it makes more sense for you to do it than me. Let me know if you have any problems or questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Infinity#Complex_analysis is a better redirect (that place explains well how this infinity fits on the Riemann sphere). I made that redirect myself now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Luispedros

The sports bios he's writing are poor, but actually look to be notable, and I'm seeing a number of constructive edits. I think this is an editor who is here to build, but doesn't know how we work, hence the edit warring. However, his comment of "فارسی متوجه میشید برادر؟ " made here looks to translate as "English maid found a brother" - perhaps an insult or personal attack? We need a Farsi-speaker to explain to him how we work and try and nip this in the bud. GiantSnowman 15:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

My Google translate came up with something even less comprehensible. Luis had changed it from English to Farsi. The English said something about "subversive". I don't know any Farsi speakers here. The reporter at AN3 is Iranian, but I don't think the two see eye to eye (heh). Did you look at the content merits of the battle itself? I don't normally get into content much when evaluating EW reports, but because both parties are warring ... Thanks for helping out.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a content dispite per se - it's basiaclly aesthetics. One editor likes it looking one way, the other like it looking another way. Both have violated and both should be blocked and told to take it to the article talk page. GiantSnowman 15:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Both were warring but neither breached WP:3RR. In any event, Mark protected the article, so there won't be any blocks for now. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Craig James

The Google bomb was the most notable thing in his campaign. It's even on Wikipedia's entry for Google bomb. Mentioning it here, with sources, is not vandalism and is not even negative for Craig James so much as it is negative for Internet yahoos.

So if you could stop deleting it, that would be super. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.80 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed it again. I don't care what's in the Google Bomb article. This is in James's article, and it can't remain the way you did it. You cited to an unreliable puff piece (a blog of a magazine) that is clearly intended to be a humorous post. Even if the source were reliable, it doesn't support your assertion that the bomb was "notable", just that it happened. It has a distinctly WP:COATRACK aspect to it. If you want to include it, take it to the article talk page or to WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the mere coverage of it proves that it was notable, I'll just keep undoing your edit, since your objections are without merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.77 (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

1RR

I literally don't see where I violated the 1RR. I don't see where I removed or restored content, whether whole or in part, more than 1 time in a period of 24 hours. I am not challenging your observation, I just literally don't see it. Sopher99 (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Here they are:

1. In this series of consecutive edits you mostly added new locations. However, you also changed material in two spots.
2. In these two consecutive edits you changed material.
3. In these three consecutive edits you changed material.
4. In this edit you removed a location by commenting it out and "contesting" it.
5. In these two consecutive edits you changed material.
6. In this edit you changed material.

As you can see, that's six.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Any edit "changes material" in some way. Are they all to be considered "reverts"? I thought reverts were when you "undid" someone else's edit, completely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Technically, the only edit that doesn't count as a revert is the addition of material (brand new - not restoring something that had earlier been removed). That said, administrators have some discretion on how strictly the definition of a revert is applied in a given case, but a straight undo clearly is not the only thing that counts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, could we get your attention on edits on the same topic by the same user upon the restriction lifted? It was not me (among others) this time to clean up the mess this particular user is causing to this template/article. I would like to ask for your opinion (post 2nd 1RR warning) on the last 24h edits by this particular user. Thank you.Ariskar (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm about to go off-wiki and won't be able to look at it today. If it's not resolved by tomorrow, feel free to remind me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your post is not very clear, but if you're speaking of AOnline, they have been blocked. If you're referring to a different editor, I'm not sure who it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, the post was relevant to AOnline (multiple reverts, 1 1RR warning to date) and Sopher99 (7 edits changing content in 2h after restriction lifted, 2 1RR warnings to date).Ariskar (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you can give me some diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Washington Redskins

Thanks for undoing the last of the blocked user's edits. I was wary of doing it myself because I didn't want to violate 3RR. Appreciate your assistance. 1995hoo (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I figured you were reluctant to undo it again. I rarely pick a version, but the edits in this case were arguably vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, considering that the banned user simply copied-and-pasted text and included reference numbers without the references themselves, I think it would be hard to argue it wasn't vandalism. Either way, thanks for the assistance. Much appreciated. Hopefully it won't all start up again next week! 1995hoo (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Slavic Chorale

Excuse me, you deleted the page without allowing me the chance to contest the deletion nomination or improve the page. Can you please restore the page, so I can provide the needed information? --Sanya3 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to offer to WP:USERFY it for you, but I see you've already created it in your user space (Sanya3/Slavic Chorale). I've removed the A7 tag from it, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

ARBCC followup

Hi, Thanks for the formal warming to DigbyDalton FYI see followup post at ANI NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible return of AnddoX

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/ServiceGhost&offset=&limit=500&target=ServiceGhost

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/AnddoX&offset=&limit=500&target=AnddoX

Same articles (Ninja Gaiden, Zelda and Metal Gear games), same kind of edits (particularily telling is the replacement of Ayane's infobox image, which was Anndo X obsession), created few weeks after AnddoX was indef banned. --Niemti (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Also F-Zero, Splinter Cell and Bayonetta games, etc. Absolutely AnddoX. --Niemti (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There was considerable evidence to block ServiceGhost based on timing (they created the account shortly after the CU was performed), same articles, and style. However, the clincher was User:198.91.223.178. Back on April 2, the IP made this edit and signed themselves as User:SOCOM Warrior, a confirmed puppet of AnddoX. On April 13, the IP made this edit on ServiceGhost's talk page thanking a user for the Welcome template. On September 22, ServiceGhost replaced the IP's sig with their own in this edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

ghouta

Is there a particular reason why you have put that message on my page? I'm aware its a contested area and don't really need reminding. have I transgressed some line? Sayerslle (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you violated WP:1RR at Ghouta chemical attack. I noticed it when I was evaluating the reverts of another editor. I chose to warn you rather than block you. Please be more careful.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Right - I was oblivious, - the UN report section was bothering me , unbalanced looking, and I didn't notice. Will take more care. Sayerslle (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Film Fan

Can you please check the users Sock puppet investigation archive please? Sohambanerjee1998 10:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edits there. You need to reopen it properly. I don't have time to look at it right now as I have to go to work. You could ask another SPI clerk how to go about if if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide me to a link where I can understand how to reopen it properly. Sohambanerjee1998 13:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help you, but I think filing an SPI is not the way to go unless it were to continue. It looks to me like Film Fan was using that IP (which is a proxy server, although not an open proxy server) to make that one edit to your talk page. The previous edits by that IP address appear to have nothing to do with Film Fan. I would talk to @Diannaa: the blocking administrator, about it and allow her to decide what action is appropriate. That would be much more efficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sohambanerjee1998: I agree this is Film Fan, but since it's a dynamic IP and other people are using the range, a range block is not appropriate. Blocking the individual IP is not appropriate either, as it looks like he is assigned a new IP each time he turns on his computer, and the edit is already a day old. Please let me know on my talk page next time he edits as an IP, though unfortunately we are all in totally different time zones so it's difficult to take prompt action. I will keep a record off-wiki of the various IPs used in case we need them for future reference. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, yes absolutely. His IP is not a static one but a Dynamic, I understood it the time I opened the IP's talk and contributions. Otherwise I would have taken prompt action but my internet connection is a bit problematic so I cannot pursue it even though I want to. Sohambanerjee1998 06:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, but he is already blocked so for this Sock-puppetry and block avoiding tendency a ban is in the making, right? He is an editor with tremendous possibilities so in my opinion we should give him another chance. Sohambanerjee1998 07:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

His use of two different IPs at Talk:Titash Ekti Nadir Naam#Requested move is a much more serious infraction than socking to post some advice on your talk page. At Titash Ekti Nadir Naam, he was socking to undermine the process of consensus - he was attempting to appear to be several people in an attempt to sway the outcome of a move discussion. Combined with the edit warring to try to override local consensus as to which film posters should be used and his demeaning approach to communication, his behaviour demonstrates that he does not presently have the cooperative attitude so necessary to successfully fit into the Wiki community without disrupting other people's enjoyment of editing here. Hopefully he can and will change, and can re-join the editing community at some point in the future. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The feelings mutual. Sohambanerjee1998 15:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I posted that message because I forgot about the email user feature and your edits were utterly silly. Nothing wrong with that. I hate it when editors make it about them instead of the content. The other accusations are bullshit but I don't care because I have much better things to do with my life than contribute to Wikipedia. Diannaa, you are too power-hungry and take yourself too seriously. Bye. 82.132.214.244 (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Black Tulip

Thank you for your kind tips. However, please do not remove "controversy" section of this page as it is well documented that MPEG protested the producer of this film. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.-- Dunforget (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reported your edits to WP:BLPN. At the rate you are going on both articles, you are headed for a block if you persist.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Cousin Terio

Cousin Terio is signifigant and the article does not deserve to be deleted. Terio is insanely popular. Do a google search for him and you will see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request of CenterforIsraelEducation

Hello Bbb23. CenterforIsraelEducation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Miniapolis 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No obligation

Hi Bbb, if you should feel like playing sleuth to a complicated piece of original research, I've started the ball rolling at the BLP noticeboard regarding MS Mikhail Lermontov and Richard Prebble. I'm calling it quits for the day, but there's a lot of investigative journalism here, and it's not easy to separate reliable sources from an agenda. Anyway, there's no expectation that you dig into this any time soon, if at all, but you're very good at this sort of thing, and there may be talk page stalkers who take an interest as well. All that said, consider this is an opportunity to say hello, more than an attempt to complicate your life. I hope you're well. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Martha Johnson

I wrote the material you removed based on an interview I did with Martha Johnson. Why was it taken down. If you need citation, I can provide it. I am new to this and could use help, not removing my material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbadgley (talk • contribs) 21:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read NPOV

I, in turn, suggest that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, because it is quite obviously a violation of any number of content policies to categorize an organization under a category that more-or-less directly states that the organization is guilty of terrorism. There is no "consensus" issue to be raised here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War 1RR violation

• User:Blade-of-the-South (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I think this (following [37] and [38] in the last 24 hours) violates both the spirit and the letter of the Syrian Civil War sanctions. When you get a chance, can you please follow up with the user? I will notify Blade shortly that I posted this here. VQuakr (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the heads up VQuakr. I can see why you might think the above but I did a lot of work which you changed en mass here [39] And I thought it was good material, which we had been talking about esp as the new editor Swawa came in with those points of his. This started when you edited out again en masse discussed edits that Swawa bought up and I put in. Here. [40]. I put them back in again and you changed it back again. I did some thinking. I was tempted to just revert, but took a leaf from what you did with your one edit removing mulitple disparate lines. (I can see how you removed all this material is a way to circumvent the one revert rule). I saw you had some points and reworked some of the material back in.

You seem to have issues with Swawa refs. On talk I suggested you take issue with a ref you dont think is reliable on the appropriate forum, rather than delete it without discussion. Please re read Podiaebbas comments in the 'Secret US intel' thread about refs. The two editors here and myself all hold the same view. You dont agree with us and keep changing the edits back. Its frustrating. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Blade, I do not want to get into an extended discussion between us on Bbb23's talk page (I am happy to do that civilly on either of our talk pages), but I do take issue with two things you say here. 1st, making smaller numbers of complex edits is more my style, while you prefer to use a series of smaller edits. One style is not better than the other, and this is why revert rules count chronologically contiguous edits as a single edit. My combining several changes into one edit was not an attempt to "circumvent" anything. 2nd, my edit did indeed remove some material (thus counting as a revert in the context of 1RR), but it was not a simple click of an undo button. I only changed things that were problemmatic per WP:BRD, as opposed to "nuking" everything you did. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr I didnt know about the chronologically contiguous edits as a single edit.Someone put some thought into that rule. Accepted. Yes it would be kinda annoying to see this chatter on your talk page. Sorry this happened Bbb23. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Do you still need any assistance from me?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think Blade-of-the-South's continuing activity at Ghouta chemical attack constitutes POV-pushing and edit warring. Due to the additional layer of complexity resulting from the relevant sanctions, I thought it made more sense to bring it to your attention rather than a noticeboard. I can take it to EW/N if you prefer. VQuakr (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

He's violated 1RR again, [41], [42]. I asked him to self-revert on his talk page and he refused. The second one was a similar revert to several others he has done in the last few days, so in my opinion it violates the spirit of WP:EW as well (admittedly, this time is less severe). As always, if you want me to start taking these to a noticeboard instead, I am happy to oblige. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 Please read my talk page where I replied, BTW I did this revert at 00:05, 25 October 2013‎ and its the only one today, yesterday I did one contiguous edit, thks for the heads up though. BTW I didnt refuse I mentioned it was the next UTC I edited meaning 1 revert per 24 hr period. If he had of mentioned that wasnt the rule, i would have reverted. That is ? was my understanding of how things work. 24 hr UTC time. Others seem to edit the same and if thats not the rule some are transgressing also incl Sayerslle & Rolf h nelson and VQuaker did the same here [43] by editing in a rolling 24 hr period with these reverts.

23:46, 25 September 2013‎ VQuakr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (195,853 bytes) (-1,275)‎

19:34, 25 September 2013‎ VQuakr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (191,057 bytes) (-582)‎ . .

Blade-of-the-South talk 05:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Blade's very first edit after the block expiration was to repeat the same revert. In your opinion is this editor's behavior tendentious to merit a Syria topic ban? VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@VQuakr: If I had been on-wiki when he reverted, I would have sanctioned him (not sure what the sanction would have been). In looking at the history of the article since then, it appears that the two of you may have reached some sort of compromise. Is that correct?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well he's not edit warring any more, but instead posting stuff like this and this along with trying to rehash basically every discussion we've had over the last month. But again, it's on the talk page. Given how much of an axe he has to grind I am not really optimistic about this being resolved without a topic ban or long block, but I can keep trying to engage. It's classic tendentious editing but I have seen worse. VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A little more help requested please

Hi, in the SSCS talk page I am trying to understand why people are picking and chosing some categories to bury in sub cats of subcats but not others. I feel like I am being personally insulted and targeted for comment rather than having the issue addressed. Could you please take a look and see if I'm crazy. I'm not trying to bait or fight, just understand why favorable cats are kept and unfavorable ones are buried in subcats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society#.22Eco-terrorism.22 I have asked the user a number of times to stop focusing on me but to address the issue of content I am trying to get at. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You've never actually mentioned "favorable" and "'unfavorable" cats or asked that question. You just asked why specific cats are hidden and others aren't. "Favorable" cats aren't necessarily kept in the article. Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a member of Category:Animal rights movement, Category:Conservation organisations, Category:Environmental organizations based in Washington (state), Category:Fisheries organizations, Category:International environmental organizations and Category:Wikipedia categories named after environmental organizations, all of which you'd probably regard to be favorable. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's keep this on the article talk page. I've added a comment there pinging an administrator who is very familiar with categorization policies/guidelines. She hasn't edited today, so I'm not sure when she'll respond, but hopefully she can express her opinion when she gets to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• As you can see, we've been discussing this and from what I read it appears the general consensus is that we should rely on the subcats. However, the IP is ignoring this. A few days ago he misrepresented my position when removing a category from the subcat,[44] and now he seems to be misinterpreting everyone.[45] He made this edit warning "Please quit edit warring until consensus has been established", only to make this onesix minutes later claiming "per current consensus". Where was the discussion in the ensuing 6 minutes where we apparently suddenly formed a new consensus? He's the only one stubbornly arguing that we should categorise the main page and not the subcat. I really don't think further discussion is going to be fruitful, he's simply not going to listen to the opinions of other editors. So where do we go from here? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've been watching the mess with some dismay. I still don't want to get involved in the content issue because, if I do, I can't act administratively. Why don't you give me what you think is a tally of those editors who support the subcat and not the main cat? I wouldn't characterize @Qwyrxian: as favoring the subcat. He can speak for himself, of course, but my reading is that he's not opposed to the subcat, but that doesn't mean he is opposed to putting the article in the parent cat. There's only two possibilities in my view. One is that the IP is clearly editing against consensus, in which case I would at least warn them. The other is there's insufficient consensus, and my options are to lock the article if it gets out of hand or block editors if one or more are edit warring. Meanwhile, you or others would have to obtain a clearer consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• I understand and respect your position regarding content. Regarding Qwyrxian, he actually said "Just as long as they remain in a sub-cat that is directly connected to eco-terrorism, the change is fine by me", the change being the removal of the category from the article, as we had been discussing. I'll give you a tally on the other editors later, I've been trying to get to bed for 2hrs here, where it's now 6:28am. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here is the tally as requested:

Support removal of Category:Eco-terrorism from article

1. NorthBySouthBaranof - Created Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism as a more NPOV category and started the "Category will be removed" thread, referring to Category:Eco-terrorism. Cites policy as a reason for removal of the cat.
2. Epipelagic
3. Qwyrxian - As explained above
4. AussieLegend

Oppose removal of cat from article

1. 76.112.8.146 - Still seems unable to understand the way we categorise.

Neutral

1. Gaijin42 - Only made a comment about categorisation, didn't state a preference
2. BatteryIncluded - Tried to explain categorisation to 76.112.8.146, didn't state a preference

And, not only has he now restored his edits, he's left a series of warnings on my talk page.[46] --AussieLegend (✉) 18:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Here was the Tally after slightly more discussion:

Keep the recent addition of Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism on the article or not

Support (keep the Category Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism )

1. NorthBySouthBaranof - Created category and placed main page in Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism
2. 76.112.8.146 - Thinks that this is a good compromise for now. It's notable and pertinent. But still thinks its not AS good as Category:Eco-terrorism. I don't like the words "accused of".
3. Qwyrxian - Who responded specifically to say that it should be on the main page.
4. Gaijin42 WP:TPO violation, but adding self here, per comments above.

Reject (remove the category)

1. AussieLegend - Has stated that this is a matter of "common sense"

That was after more discussion just to be sure and should give you a clue as to what is really happened. The only thing that changed in that list from the beginning of the last round of edits was Gaijin who previously may not have made his preference as clear. It's about to be a moot point though because that cat is up for deletion. The conversation will soon shift yet again to the original question. Eco-terrorism on the main page or not. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it always pays to tell the whole story. NorthBySouthBaranof didn't just place the main article in Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism. He also added the SSCS cat to that category. And, he has now nominated Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism for deletion.[47] Gaijin42 added his name to your list, but he has actually indicated that he's happy for either Category:Eco-terrorism or Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism to be on the main.[48] Further discussion resulted in him saying that he wouldn't object to the SSCS cat being in either of the categories.[49] --AussieLegend (✉) 03:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So now you're telling the whole story? Is that the same as admitting that your previous story was only half the whole story? It still doesn't look like what you are presenting is the whole story. You're edit still grossly misrepresents the views of others, including mine. Change what you wrote about mine if you're really concerned about the whole story. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple discussions. 1. Is Eco-terrorism an appropriate Category? Qwyxian and myself say yes, Aus, Epipe and North say no. 2. Should the category be listed on the main page of the sub cat page? (for which plenty of opinion and no policy has yet been cited other than we all agree that it shouldn't be both) Aus says sub cat page. North chose main page. I agree with main page. Qwyrx comment reflects that either would be appropriate. We should resolve these questions independently to avoid confusion. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's focus on a single issue. As I understand the present dispute, the issue is whether Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (the parent cat) or Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism (the subcat) should be used in the article. Aussie is saying above that all the editors listed but you favor the parent cat. Do you agree with Aussie's list? If not, why not?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

oops conflicted editing at the same time.. :) I was typing that it's probably a mistake for either of us to summarize on their behalf. Bbb, could you mediate a way to tally each editor's response? It would be nice if for both questions we had the appropriate policy listed and then each person comment on how that policy should be applied. As it is now it's a challenge to figure out when someone is basing a decision on policy of simply their own point of view. To answer your question, no. Just look at North's last edit to the page. And I do not know that Qwyrx has given an opinion on which is better. As far as I'm aware it's Aussie that wants it really bad off the main page. Folks are expressing opinions left and right about the word eco-terrorism but Aussie seems to be the only one who wants it in the SSCS category page as opposed to the SSCS mainpage. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@76 -You're misrepresenting what Qwyrxian said. I've quoted what he actually said, which is that as long as the article is in a subcat of eco-terrorism, he's fine with that. Similarly, "no policy has yet been cited" is a misrepresentation. You've been directed to WP:CAT, which explains how we categorise. BatteryIncluded attempted to explain further, as have I. NorthBySouthBaranof was the one who started the thread and specifically said it would be removed from the article. All his edit did was to move the article to an NPOV category.[50] You can't claim that he "chose main page" because he didn't remove Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society from Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism. YOU did that, without any consensus to do so,[51][52][53] even though you improperly claimed consensus on one of those edits. There has never been consensus to remove the cat. As I've pointed out elsewhere, However, NorthBySouthBaranof's edit resulted in this silly situation where the SSCS article is both the only article in Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism and the main article of Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which is the only subcategory of Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Per WP:CAT we only place the article in its subcat, not in the subcat and its parent. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@BBB23 - "As I understand the present dispute, the issue is whether Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (the parent cat) or Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism (the subcat) should be used in the article." - Yes, that's what we need to focus on, as it's the root problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Could you please make your summary clearer on the article talk page? The phrase "Support removal of cat from article" is ambiguous as to what cat you're referring to. If my understanding above here is correct, then you should be saying that. The article keeps shifting. For example, right now both cats are in the article (the parent and the subcat). You're not going to get any clarity as to the consensus if your summary is not clear. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarified here and on the article's talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof's conversion of Category:Eco-terrorism to Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism in the article put a small bump in the road. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Better but not enough for Mr. Clarity here, even if it is for others. What I'd want you to say is Support removal of x-cat and retain y-cat. In other words, you're also in favor of retaining the parent cat in the article (or is that you're not opposed to the parent cat's inclusion?).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Per your request I have re-re-clarified the positions at the article talk page. The most difficult part is regarding Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism. While people have said yeah or nay to removal of Category:Eco-terrorism from the article, there hasn't been a lot of discussion regarding whether or not the SSCS category should remain a subcat of that category. Only the IP has been stubbornly insisting that it should not be and this has lead to his edit-warring over this. Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism was originally added here on 5 August by NorthBySouthBaranof. The IP's first edit was a reversion of this and has been followed by muliple reversions:

1. [54] - No edit summary
2. [55] Edit summary: per Aussiele's comment on SSCS talk, it doesn't need to be here and the main page (This was actually a misrepresentation of what I had said. I've consistently argued that the subcat did need to be "here" and not on the main page)
3. [56] Edit summary: per current consensus at SSCS talk page (This didn't represent the consensus as I've explained above.)
4. [57] Edit summary: Undid revision 578842766 by AussieLegend (talk) revert disruptive edit by experienced editor. Wait for change in consensus (I've previously directed the IP to WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO so he should realise that the statusquo, which was the version before his reversions, should stand, not his version)
5. [58] Edit summary: Undid revision 578986744 by AussieLegend (talk) additional category not needed. It's already on the mainpage. See talk

It was after reversion #4 that I left the IP an edit warring warning on his talk page,[59] which he reverted inappropriately as "vandalism",[60] before making reversion #5. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Bbb, not to intrude, but yes, the question is, "What is the criteria for choosing whether to place an article into category X, or that article's category into category X." So far, "common sense", misquoting policy and a whole lot of personal attack have been the answer. I would LOVE it if that other admin were to come in and bring some clarity as to when it's appropriate to place the article or that articles category into other important categories. The other question is, how to apply that policy in a neutral way across the board so that supporters aren't able to "hide" negative sounding and detractors aren't able to "add" negative sounding words simply by changing placement preference. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And yet again, categorisation is not "hiding" anything. It's simply a way of organising articles into logical groupings. For example, Category:Fringe (TV series) characters is a subcategory of Category:Fringe (TV series). This doesn't "hide" the fact that Olivia Dunham is a character in Fringe (TV series). It's merely grouping her with other Fringe characters. It's what we refer to as "diffusion". --AussieLegend (✉) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If removing it from the SSCS main page and placing it on the SSCS cat page is not a big deal, then why all the fuss? If it's a simple matter of organizational preference, then let it ride. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to answer that question yourself, as you're the one specifically opposing that action. You've insisted that the category be on the main page and not in the SSCS cat. That action in itself now justifies deletion of the cat. Previously, the entire SSCS category tree was in Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism. Now, there is a single article there and we generally don't create categories for a single article unless they're part of an established heirachy, which Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism. That category is likely to be deleted as a result of the Comments at the TfD indicate that the contents of the category should not be upmerged so, by steadfastly insisting that the article be directly placed in the category and by deleting the category from the SSCS category, you're going to end up with neither being in either cat. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

How did I miss this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MV_Brigitte_Bardot_stern_view.jpg You were there and took this picture Aussie? You are a SSCS supporter? You were on their ships? Now when you say that you don't understand how removing a category "hides" it from the article I have a clearer picture why. I think it also gives me a more clear picture why you accuse me of adding a negative POV for quoting the news. If this is a topic that is near and dear to your heart, it might be a touch difficult to take a neutral perspective. Please consider that. I thought you were just an editor who was protecting his own edits. I apologize for that assumption Aussie. I still think you're a great editor don't get me wrong, WAY better than me for sure. But I think perhaps I am more nuetral. My vested interest is that I want an article that accurately reflects expert opinion. No more, no less. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith. I've been a regular contributor to the SSCS related articles for over four years now and visiting the ships while they were in Sydney Harbour, just like thousands of other people did, provided the opportunity to take some sorely needed photos for Wikipedia. Had my daughter not wanted to visit them I probably would not have gone. For the record, I visited a Japanese warship during the recent 2013 International Fleet Review 2013. That doesn't mean I support the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. By the way, there were plenty of Japanese on the Bob Barker. Should they be taken back to Japan and be beheaded for treason? Really, your post is bordering on a personal attack. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You're allowed to call me a POV editor but I'm not allowed to point out your support for them? I don't understand your application of policy. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, are you now saying you no longer support Sea-Shepherd? Because that would be important to let other editors on the SSCS talk page know. If someone's an employee, volunteer, financial supporter, etc.. it could bias opinions and other editors should know that. But if you're not, that would be good to know. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Amazon Eve

I am an inexperienced content provider. May I respectfully ask why the link to Harper's Bazaar was deleted? This was quite a coup for Eve. Any advice you care to share will be appreciated. BTW, is there an easy way to insert my name and the timestamp? Thank you, in advance, for your assistance. User:Greenwayfriend 21:47 19 October 2013 (ET) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to discuss this with you until tomorrow as I have to go off-wiki. I also reverted your later change as well, sorry. These things must be discussed as what you're doing is controversial and it's a controversial article. As for inserting your name, you can either type in four tildes or, depending on what interface you're using, there may be a little pencil above the edit box that you can click on that puts in two hyphens and four tildes (see WP:SIGN).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Greenwayfriend: You'll need to find some prose about Eve from Harper's Bazaar, not just pictures, and then find a way to weave it into the article, rather than just cite to a picture and a video in sentence fragments.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I found the signature button. I set up my notifications to send me an email. The address looks right and I checked junk. Any ideas? Again, I appreciate your helping me with the most basic stuff. My signature generated a talk link. I don't use my talk. --Greenwayfriend (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sentence about transsexual woman that I deleted and you reverted has a link to the Wikipedia page Trans_woman. That page lists many people, but does not list either Amazon Eve or Erika Ervin. There is a footnote to an interview on Access Hollywood without a link. There are several copies of the interview on YouTube. Voice Over: And she's had her fair share of taunts. Often, people accuse her of being a man. Amazon Eve: A lot of women who are this tall get this all the time, “Are you sure you are a woman?” It says that on my birth certificate. Many people (men) have difficulty with her size and strength (she's a personal trainer). The link in the text is not relevant. The interview addresses the issue of taunts. There are interviews in which she gets into the topics of being tall and of finding clothes and shoes. I don't think the sentence meets standards. It is just another taunt. May I remove it?--66.108.158.173 (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you and have removed the material. Regardless of whether it's "taunts" or "claims", the underlying source would be the YouTube video, which, in my view, because it's not posted by Access Hollywood is a WP:LINKVIO. Besides, what you say conceptually makes a good deal of sense. By the way, I assume you are Greenwayfriend. You shouldn't edit at Wikipedia without logging in, if for no other reason than it reveals your IP address, which generally isn't a good idea. There are other reasons as well.

Responding to your comment about notification, I'm not sure what you want to achieve. You should get used to using your talk page. It's the main method of editors communicating with you. When someone posts to your talk page, you should get a little orange banner telling you. You don't need to be notified by e-mail unless you want to. But it's not clear to me what you set your Preferences to and what makes you think it's not working. For example, if you set it to notify you by e-mail when there's a talk page message, that would only happen if someone posts to your talk page after you've set the preference. Did that happen?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

[Bbb23, I did not get a response to my posting on my talk.] I see that the correct citation template should have been "news." ( On the next item I made no edits. Since you took it out once, I did not want to show disrespect.) Ms. Roitfeld was appointed the global fashion editor of Harper's Bazaar this year. The referenced article is called an "editorial." The point she is making is that beautiful women and female models are diverse in many ways. I chose Johanssen because she is well known and is a typical beauty. I chose the other two because they are unusual in a way that is relevant to Amazon Eve's unusual characteristic of extreme height. Dell'Orefice is 82 years old and an active model--certainly not what one might expect. Similarly Sidibe is obese, although I thought "large" would be more appropriate. Amazon Eve is unusually tall. The other 21 models demonstrate other areas of diversity, but I thought Dell'Orefice and Sidibe were the best context into which to put Amazon Eve. If we can agree on what Roitfeld had in mind, then I think it is appropriate within the sentence to include, in parentheses, what makes other other two women special. Not everyone will know who they are nor take the time to follow the link. Again, I appreciate your assistance and input. I hope you feel that I am responding appropriately. I know I have a lot to learn. --Greenwayfriend (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ansaldo STS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansaldo_STS Please leave the revisions from 10/17/2013 (originally) and again on 10/21/2013. The company reorganized recently. The information is factual and can be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.27.130 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Anugoonj (festival)

Does Anugoonj (festival) look the same as the deleted page Anugoonj to you? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Not the same, but similar in many respects. I've speedy deleted it per G11 and G12. I've issued a warning to the creator. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

THANKS for the help !! for your attention does user talk of two admins, look like same to you !! ofcourse they are why not they do the same work !! so page related with same event will be ofcourse similar in many aspects !! regarding the copyright information event is organised by us so we have the copyright information !! i have changed pages many times to meet wiki policies but every time they delete it without any proper reason !! so let me ask why same types of pages still flourishing either delete all or shut down your job !!

no thanks !! my pleasure !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRAWATJI (talk • contribs) 11:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sedat Bornovalı

Hi, I've just debunkered (yep that's definitely a mystification of source) arguments against deletion, can you confirm an AfD is needed anyway? Thank you! --Vituzzu (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@Vituzzu: I saw the same problems with the pope sources as you did. But the source for List of Italian orders of knighthood seemed solid to me, and that, in addition to other claims where I did not check the sources, was the main basis for my declining the A7.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Request to block User:Priyadswami

Bbb23, I would like to bring to your attention User:Priyadswami. This user is the same user who had been blocked (as User:Duarfimaws, User:Swamifraud and their related sock-puppets). This user's recent edits on Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha violates WP:BLPCRIME (on Priyadarshan Swami) and the edits need to be removed right away. The sources cited do not establish conviction. The user name also violates WP:REALNAME as it is identifiable to Priyadarshan Swami. I urge you to block this user immediately and protect the page against further disruption. Kapil.xerox (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I tried changing my name as soon as possible as I was unaware of the WP:REALNAME policy but they said "no problem found" so I don't need to change my username. Kapil.xerox's accusation of me being the same user who had earlier been blocked (as User:Duarfimaws, User:Swamifraud and their related sock-puppets) is your wrong and your opinion. I read the policy of WP:BLPCRIMEand it says "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Pramukh swami is a world renounced guru with tens of millions of followers and and BAPS has thousands of centers and temples. Look at the shear size of the article. We need other admin involved. This information is crucial and BAPS responded on their site. This user is violating WP:Editwarring , WP:Ownershipofarticles, and WP:Consensus. Priyadswami —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

He is referring to WP:Edit warring and WP:Ownership of articles.--Launchballer 10:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, it looks like the same individual who has been vandalizing articles related to Swaminarayan and Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha has created yet another sockpuppet named Bluespeakers. This sock along with its predecessors Swamifraud, Duarfimaws, Breadinglover, Sageorsun, Priyadaswami, and the numerous Detroit area/Wayne State University IP addresses continues to advance personal agenda by disregarding Wikipedia policies, violating consensus, and edit warring. Most recently, the user is reaching out to editors who are unfamiliar with the sock banning history to try to gain support. I filed the original (unsuccessful) sock report for Swamifraud several months ago and several other users have filed additional reports with more success. Another user has filed a sock puppet investigation today. Could you please assess? Thanks! Anastomoses (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the accusations that I am the "same individual who has been vandalizing articles." I am most definitely not the same user as I have clearly stated that I personally know the users that were involved. If you are going to be taking a look at my case, do look at the specific cases. Certain users are patrolling the articles. I know you have blocked many people in the past so I would like to request that you carefully look over my case. I do not want to be doing anything wrong or malicious on this site. Thank you for your time. The users that reported just me are users that belong to a group Wikipedia:WikiProject Swaminarayan that only want to portray their religious group in a positive clean cut way.

Bluespeakers (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

List of new religious movements

Hello!

I have made a few attempts to clean up List of new religious movements, which is a list article with a long history of contention, topic bans, puppetry, even at least one major contributor who was de-sysoped. Unfortunately, I haven't been successful in the attempt at cleanup. I'm asking you to take a look at the recent activity on the article and the talk page. Although I have my own thoughts on what some of the issues are, I would rather get yours without my frustration bleeding through too heavily.

I am dropping this note for the most recently active admins I saw, and I am hopeful that those extra eyes will make a difference.

Thanks for considering it, cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Prathamprakash29

That's closed now. Not sure why the formatting was so off, but it was just going to continue being opposed anyway, a pretty obvious snow/notnow. Wizardman 22:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:GS

Hello Bbb23. Thanks for doing the necessary about Austrian Economics. You've even made the proper entry at WP:GS but in doing so you've taking in a side in the long-running controversy, whether new entries go at the bottom or at the top of the list. I had always assumed the top, and of course I'm right, but notice that the last Arbcom clerk to make an entry also used the top of Arbcom's list. Possibly the page could be enhanced with a written note just above each table to say which way the convention runs. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I actually thought about that when I added the entry, but there was no guidance as to what to do, and I figured it really didn't matter. Obviously, I was wrong; everything, including what kind of dash one uses, is controversial at Wikipedia. I've moved the entry to the top of the table and boldly added a comment (that some people might read) telling editors to add new entries at the top (based on a consensus of you and Rschen7754). I figured it's not my place to add a comment at the top of the Arbitration table. If I'm unlucky enough to become an arbitration clerk, maybe I'll do it then. There's still more work to be done for the Austrian economics thing (templates, etc.). I was operating yesterday on about two hours' sleep and I was exhausted. I'm not good at templates, either, but I figure I'll just clone stuff. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This problem would go away if we could persuade closers of ban discussions to start signing their new entries. That would generate a closure date which later readers might find useful. For example, closers could enter their signature following the text in the 'Sanctions' column. By comparison, entries in Arbcom case logs are always signed. Maybe I'll try signing my next entry in either GS or RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The ArbCom clerks don't sign the entries at GS.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I can see a couple of ways of accomplishing what you want. One is your way, which, by the way, I have no objection to (my comment above was more about consistency than an objection). The other is to have an effective date for the sanction. Any thoughts as to which you prefer?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The most obvious thing would be a simple date, but that seems to require an additional column in GS. If we do add such a column, then let's also have a link to where the editor was notified. That is something that is usually done by the closing admin in the Arbcom notification log. For examples see WP:ARBMAC#2013 warnings, where the word 'warned' is usually a link to the message. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with adding an effective date field at GS and at RESTRICT. Obviously, a new column for notification of the editor would be only at RESTRICT.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Carrie Keranen

Hi Bbb23 - You were right about the non-deletion of Carrie Keranen. I did some further research and she is more notable than what the page described. You did a good job on cleaning that page up. Take care. Dinkytown talk 17:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Retrolord

I hope you don't feel I stepped on your toes, but I have gone ahead and revoked his talk page. I don't believe Retrolord has a desire to do anything other than play games at this point and engaging with him further is not likely to be productive. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I should have done it myself earlier. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboard for Mens Rights Movement

Hi, I'm not sure if you're automatically notified but my reply comment to your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Talk:Men.27s_rights_movement.2FArticle_probation could you reply either there or on my user page (not sure if I get automatic notification so I will check both) Thanks. Still not sure how you meant your calling username "lovely" but the substantive questions too in my comment, thanks. Maleliberation (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Maleliberation: I'll comment briefly here. Hopefully, you'll be notified by the template I've used. The lovely was sarcastic. I'm not going to respond to your substantive comments as it delves too much into content and therefore makes it more difficult for me to act in my capacity as an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Hi, the above link is not working. Even if expired, or "closed" so I can't add, I'd like to read what the rest of that said, where can I find it, it used to be at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Talk:Men.27s_rights_movement.2FArticle_probation in the last 72 or so hours it disappeared, that's totally understandable to keep the main page manageable but where can I find that, to read what was said since I was last able to find time to read wikipedia? Just want to read the rest of that NoticeBoard discussion on Manes Rights Movement "ARticle Probation" Thanks (I will not comment on the rest other than saying whether you're "MRA" or "feminist" it's sad that so many find the idea of coopeartive co-liberation so dangerous.. as an aside, that "sarcastic" was the first word that came to my mind but I toned the wording of my question to "was it meant ironicly?" instead of "sarcastically?" ..if both "opposing" sides toned down rhetoric (without weakening principles) they would help their own side, but that observation seems to be outside the field of vision, sadly. MRAs can't see how they hurt not just women but even their own cause by ignoring women's oppression and the other half, I guess they think that opposing the genital mutilation of all babies, not just opposing it for half (among other things) makes one "woman hating" or makes your aims "lovely" in a "sarcastic" way..)Anyway you're being a good admin clarifying where to find and read what was there a few days ago but isn't there now..

@Maleliberation: The noticeboards archive. If you go to the noticeboards, there's a place where you can search the archives to find what you want to read. But here's the link you want. BTW, try to remember to sign your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

General sanctions warning template??

Thanks for excellent ruling on Austrian economics. Is there a warning message template including your language - or can you or we make one - to put on relevant pages as necessary and refer people to that as a first step, rather than always referring to the ANI thread, general sanctions listing page for this issue, a noticeboard or you, depending on circumstances? We already need this because, as you can see at the top set of new diffs since shortly after you made your ruling where MilesMoney, a new editor, and a less frequent editor are having an increasingly heated debate with charges of Personal attacks. So need to know best approach. Thanks. Later note: Since I noticed even more of it as I continued, did put in this general note about my question to you. Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#General_sanctions_have_been_applied. User:Carolmooredc 21:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I will be creating the necessary templates, hopefully tomorrow. I already began the framework, but I have to complete it (and that includes the templates). Please be patient. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: I believe I've finished all the necessary templates. Everything branches out from here. I've put the talk page template on a few obvious pages. Let me know if you think I forgot something.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's great!! Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 17:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

SSCS again

Hello. Aussie is at it again. As soon as the lift came off of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society a 3rd editor (North) made an appropriate edit attempting to find solutions in the middle. Aussie immediately changed it back to exactly what it was before the lock. I brought it back the the other editor's edit (round about, chaning a bit) which Aussie reverted again. (and placed a warning on my talk page like it was my fault). Instead the next time I simply reverted to North's last edit instead of adding anything of my own and placed a warning on his. What is the next step if he wants it his way and no one else can take part in the decisions for that page? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you read this section higher up on this page? Do you agree with Aussie's listing of editors' views on the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for including me in the discussion and to summarize, no I do not think he is summarizing the consensus accurately at all on whether to move it to the SSCS cat page or keep it on the main article.76.112.8.146 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Then please show exactly where support for your position is and/or where I have not summarised correctly. I've provided some quotes but I'm happy to provide more, with diffs. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

prove a null? Look above for the response please. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Prove a null"? Are you saying that there is no support for your position? --AussieLegend (✉) 00:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to figure out whose position I think is unsupported by reading here: this section 76.112.8.146 (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you know. Obviously, the action I take depends on the user's response. Let me know if you disagree with anything. Best, m.o.p 00:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets: I noticed your comment, but thanks for the considerate heads up. My biggest concern is that Worldedixor simply can't adapt to Wikipedia. Admittedly, Wikipedia isn't the easiest place to understand, and I sympathize with some of Worldedixor's highlighting of inconsistencies, but editors who push so hard against these things instead of moving on and learning, have a tough time of it and create an unfortunate amount of disruption along the way. Indeed, I'm not sure I get what Worldedixor wants to do if he is unblocked based on his comment at your talk page ("My days of editing are over, and my family already said we will no longer donate to Wikipedia."). You should still do whatever you think is appropriate given all the circumstances. There's not necessarily any correct solution. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I share your concerns, but I'm a big believer in second chances. Hopefully we can turn things around.

Feel free to weigh in on Worldedixor's (or my) talk page if you'd like to. m.o.p 08:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're right. I took some trouble to go through a bunch of edits he made to a particular article since he was unblocked and then point by point explained what was wrong with most of the edits. We'll see how he reacts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Not quite the ideal reaction. I've chimed in on the talk here. m.o.p 16:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

[61] m.o.p 00:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets: Yes, I've been following along, although no longer commenting. I'm afraid I don't have the patience for his passive-aggressive style. Your patience is impressive, so I leave it to you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do my best! If you ever need extra patience, let me know. :) Cheers. m.o.p 00:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Concern regarding another ANI posting re: Ludwig von Mises Institute

Good evening, Bbb. Your ANI closure on the LvMI threaad, as I understand, adopted a no-tolerance policy regarding future policy violations (both related to conduct or content) on LvMI pages. Some users seem to be using this precedent as an excuse to ban editors based on alleged past misdeeds. Here, we see a totally off-topic thread seeking to ban User:MilesMoney for a host of edits, often made several months ago, when he was a total noob. I ask you to look into this situation because it seems to run contrary to the spirit of the sanctions, which is to have uninvolved admins (not libertarian users who have had political disputes with Miles) heavily scrutinze not past conduct, but future conduct on LvMI-related pages. Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: As I'm sure you know, after you left this message (I've been off-wiki sleeping and making money at my "real" job), a topic ban on libertarian articles was imposed, which is different from the sanctions imposed on articles related to Austrian economics (there may be some overlap, but I'm not going to figure out if and where it exists). There's nothing I can do about it, even if I wished to - and I have no opinion either way.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sleep is good, as is money. I should've been more careful with the distinction you mention above. If you can do nothing about the MM matter (even assuming, which I obviously don't, that you agree with my position), I suppose it's pointless to discuss this. Steeletrap (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

sean.hoyland asked for a source in the TALK page and i gave him the source. i have no clue why you deleted my answer.

be careful next time.

--Dorpwnz (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It was explained in my edit summary, and it's been further explained by others on your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Voltari

I'm petitioning for the restoration of the Voltari page. I understand there where a few issues with the initial page, but these were corrected: 1. "you may not edit on behalf of a company, group, institution, product, or website which relates to the entity in question" The page was significantly updated with a personal account. 2. "it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.linkedin.com/company/voltari" Again, the text was significantly rewritten with the addition of more history and background about the company. 3. A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): again, the change should address this. If not, please provide an explanation so that I can understand why information and the history of a publicly traded company should not belong in an encyclopedia. If this is the case then similar companies such as Millennial Media and Velti do not belong either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsighthound (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that I'm not Bbb23, just a fellow administrator.

1. For one, A7 was not the only reason for deletion; please see G11, which effectively covers unambiguous promotional material. Wikipedia is an academic encyclopedia, not an advertising tool; anything that appears to be trying to sell a product will be deleted. It doesn't matter if said content is added from a personal account, just whether or not it's up to Wikipedia's standards.
2. For your second point, that's fair, and thank you for rewriting it.
3. Per point one, the content was promotional and did not make an objective assertion as to why it's notable (for future reference: the company's mission statement in the lede is not a way to establish notability). Furthermore, this outlines why you shouldn't make comparisons between articles as a plea to notability. In this case, I'd point out that both Millenial Media and Velti, while not perfect, have far more in the way of reliable sourcing and encyclopedic worth.

Hopefully this helps. Best, m.o.p 14:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Another (talk page stalker). The company is WP:LISTED on NASDAQ, so it's likely that reliable sources for notability will be able to be found. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comments on my talkpage

Really, you are threatening me for what is a reasonable judgement call about CSD tagging? You are the only user that has ever raised such an issue with regard to pages I have tagged, and I have to say I find your threatening and aggressive attitude in this matter extremely disappointing. Honestly I don't think you deserve to be an admin. --_nonsense ferret 01:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nonsenseferret: Perhaps you should look at the issue from a different perspective. In reviewing articles for speedy deletion, twice I saw you had misused WP:CSD#G1. Each time, I pointed that out to you on your talk page, and you didn't respond to either of my comments. Then I noticed you did it a third time, so I left you a warning. That apparently got your attention. Instead of continuing to misuse the tag or criticizing me for being too "aggressive", maybe it would be more constructive for you to tackle the underlying problem. What is your understanding of when the tag is appropriate?

No, the only reason I am posting here on this issue is because if this is evidence of your general attitude to editors on wikipedia that are doing their best to help, then it is likely that you will do far greater harm to wikipedia than a couple of CSD taggings that you disagree with. I'm really disappointed that you were threatening and aggressive, and further extremely disappointed that you completely fail to acknowledge this after a chance to reflect on your behaviour. I think you really should reflect on this, but frankly I've said my last word on the subject as life really is too short to get involved in petty squabbles with people who should know better. --_nonsense ferret 17:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nonsenseferret: I've looked at your contribution history and thought some more about all of this, and I've decided that although a third comment from me would have been acceptable, the warning was overkill. Although you are not using the G1 tag properly, in the three cases where I noticed it, the articles nonetheless warranted speedy deletion based on other criteria. It also looks to me like the overwhelming majority of articles you tag for speedy deletion are deleted. For these reasons I retract my warning and apologize for issuing it. It wasn't the right approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sincerely noted and appreciated. I have no problem at all with you posting proportionate comments and suggestions on my page - we're surely all here to try to make things better. --_nonsense ferret 19:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello. I created a page for Coatsworth and Sons today, but you deleted it. It definitely exists, feel free to check facebook and like them to download their music so that you will know they are real and do in fact exist. Feel free to contact me directly about this at <censored/>. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coatsworth_and_Sons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.20.23.5 (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please oversight these edits; they contain an eMail address.--Launchballer 07:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not have oversight privileges. I don't even see any reason to rev/del it (I can do that). Wikipedians are permitted to disclose personal information about themselves. In this case, I don't think the user cares about it, either. You're welcome to contact an oversighter if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Studio article deletion

Hello. Just got an google alert that a page on Wikipedia had been made about our artist collective/studio, but when I followed the link I found it had already been deleted. For what reason? Advertising? We didn't make it. We haven't even been given any time to review the page ourselves. Why would you delete a page on an artist studio without consulting us first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.173.147 (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi. It would help if you were to let us know the name of the gallery/studio. Apart from the fact that you are editing from a location in Cheapside, we have very little else to go by. It might not have been deleted as an advert, but there is a whole host of other possible reasons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I believe the IP is referring to United Visual Artists, which I deleted per A7 and G11. It wasn't a slam dunk deletion. You're welcome to re-review it and do whatever you think is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Perfectly legitimate deletion per WP:G11 (advert) and WP:A7 (lack of importance or significance)

Contained a list of installations from which notability is not inherited (WP:NOTABILITY)

Contained a list on non notable people (WP:NLIST)

No sources at all (WP:RS)

One promotional external link (primary source).

Basically written as a B2B directory entry (WP:ADVERT)

Fails Wikipedia criteria General Notability Guidelines and Notability: Organisations and companies

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Kudpung, it's like you were reading the interior of my brain. Those were my thoughts exactly when I deleted it, but you did a better job of externalizing them. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Their website includes a list of publications covering the group. Please restore it and take it to AfD if you don't think it's notable. I would like to have a look at it and see what I can add. If there is promotional content feel free to eliminate that portion. Thanks. Alternatively, if it is considered to objectionable for mainspace, could I have it moved to my userspace? Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

An identical spam article in Italian exists on the Italian Wikipedia. I suggest you work on a Google translation from it. Once you have removed all the items disallowed on the en.Wiki there are only a few lines left. Be quick though, because I may CSD it there too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW: That list of publications are their own works and do not assert notability. I looked for independent RS and couldn't find any. You may have more luck. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

My Italian's a little rusty. I don't see why there should be an issue with moving the deleted article to my userspace so I can work on it if mainspace restoration is considered inappropriate. I'm not having a problem finding indications of notability or media coverage of the group and their projects as here (for example) here (recent coverage) and here archival coverage. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I said you could do a Google translation of the Italian article that was absolutely identical. I will put the Google translation for you on a user sub page - you'll see that it wasn't so difficult. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I see no reason whatsoever to restore the deleted article; I've given Candleabracadabra everything he needs, so he vandalises my user page. That's gratitude ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Redlinks to films are okay

Although redlinks lack construction, they may designate requests to creations of articles they are applied to (such as to films and television series starring Zac Efron and Daniela Ruah, two articles I have edited for this reason in the first place), thus being OK. As for the disruptive editing, I added those redlinks, and you joined in by deleting them. As this action persisted, you have blocked me for about 1 week, and then I have decided to give up and have this conversation with you once my block had been lifted. Homechallenge55 (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Homechallenge55: The purpose of adding a redlink is because the subject deserves an article and to encourage someone to write it. You were indiscriminately adding redlinks without any thought as to whether an article would ever or should ever be written about the subject (see WP:REDBLUE). As I recall, that's just about all you did, and you kept doing it despite warnings, and you removed the warnings. This edit, which I should revert, is a good example of poor redlinking (before the block).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's an old user warning template {{Uw-redlink}} which is used to explain to un-aware users the varied importance of redlinks. As a side note, it has been brought up to implement this template into the Twinkle script. Mlpearc (powwow) 15:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Burnaby South Secondary School

Hi Bbb, I'm not up to continuing to oversee this crap, which has consisted of several accounts attempting to inflate a school newspaper censorship news item. I've tried to trim it to its essence several times. Could you have a look, see what if anything requires mention here, and determine if page protection is merited? Now, back to resting. Cheers, JNW (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. By the way, the good news about David Cregeen is that some of the most important content is well supported by the sourced newspaper articles, it just lacks the inline cites. Proof of illness: I'm considering canceling a session with a model tomorrow. Or maybe I'm just lurching inevitably into middle age, when autumn colors are as fascinating as a woman's skin tone. Nah. JNW (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't need proof. Autumn colors are, uh, seasonal. Good looking models are always around. Thanks for asking for semi-protection; I commented there.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Arbitration Committee Clerk Team!

Hi Bbb23. We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: WP:AC/C#clerks-l). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at mail:clerks-l. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, WP:AC/C/P, and the Committee's procedures page, WP:AC/P, but you will learn all the basic components of clerking on-the-job.

New clerks begin as a trainee, are listed as such at WP:AC/C#Personnel, and will remain so until they have learned all the aspects of the job. When you've finished training, which usually takes a couple of/a few months, then we'll propose to the Committee that you be made a full clerk. As a clerk, you'll need to check your e-mail regularly, as the mailing list is where the clerks co-ordinate (an on-wiki co-ordination page also exists but is not used nearly as much). If you've any questions at any point of your traineeship, simply post to the mailing list.

Lastly, it might be useful if you enter your timezone into WP:AC/C#Personnel (in the same format as the other members have), so that we can estimate when we will have clerks available each day; this is, of course, at your discretion. Again, welcome! Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

3RR violation on Iran-Iraq war article

I'm recently working on the Iran-Iraq war article - there is edit warring ongoing in the past day and a half [62]. It seems Coltsfan, one of them, incorrectly issued an administrator noticeboard complaint on vandalism [63], later issuing WP:AN complaint (closed with no action taken) and now an RfC. It is however clear that one user clearly violated 3RR. Can you take a look? GreyShark (dibra) 16:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Never mind - already on 3RR board.GreyShark (dibra) 16:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)