User talk:Bbb23/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

An arbitrator request on a case of yours

Arthur Rubin made a request on the Gun control case workshop. It's been a few days. I'm still in training and I wasn't sure if I should notify you, or remove the empty sections myself. Which is more appropriate?--Rockfang (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Rockfang, I've gone inactive as a clerk. The other clerk on the case, Penwhale, may be available to help out. In any event, there's nothing that prevents a non-recused clerk from taking action. You could always run it by the arbitrators on the mailing list. When I was active (and a fairly green trainee), I found it paid off to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, rockfang and Bbb23, empty sections aren't normally removed from a page. Since the PD isn't posted, I'm more inclined to allow people to still edit Workshop page anyway - whether the arbitrators look at them, though, is a separate issue. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Penwhale, thanks for the information and thanks especially for responding to Arthur.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Roger that to both.--Rockfang (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of "play" in particular case

You have reverted my insert of a link to "play" with your comment "good faith edit but WP:OVERLINK (common word))" on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Me_Out_(play) Please don't forget that many non-native english speakers are reading this article as well, and most of them will have no clue (like me) about all the different meanings of the word "play". Regards! Copa017 (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, and the guideline would make no sense if it took into account that the reader might be non-English-speaking, effectively requiring a dictionary to fully understand an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

RBI etc

Hi Bbb23. Re MildredBLOWERS, you might find the message I posted to User talk:NawlinWiki a few hours ago of interest.  —SMALLJIM  23:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying you think I should block them but not tag them?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that might help, yes. And, in case you'd not yet come across it, I thought you might like to know about the new search engine, which has useful new properties [1].  —SMALLJIM  00:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the search engine. I'll try to look at it later when I have enough energy to absorb it. :-) It goes against my grain not to tag indeffed socks except in unusual circumstances. Although they may be enjoying the attention and compiling a little list, we, too, keep a list in categories about socks. Our lists are useful for keeping track of the abuse. Lots of socks play with us and get a kick out of being blocked as fast as they can create new accounts. That shouldn't prevent us from tagging them. Not that I don't understand your point of view ... --Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem – we all look at things in our own way. Hope that CirrusSearch proves helpful, though it seems to be a bit fiddly to get the best out of it.  —SMALLJIM  16:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Smalljim, I looked at it a bit, and, as usual with Wikipedia, I found it overly complicated. I haven't tried it because I don't even know how. I'm too embarrassed to post on the talk page, but what do you do to execute the search?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You can select it from the 'Beta features' tab of Preferences, then scroll down and click the Save button. It just replaces the old search – it looks the same and mostly behaves the same, except that it indexes everything more or less at once, which is very handy. But as the MediaWiki link that I posted above shows, it also has some useful extra parameters, one of which is if you type 'prefer-recent:1,0.1 ' in front of a search term or phrase (leave a space), it gives much more weight to pages that have been edited recently. There are lots of false hits because any recent edit to a page brings it up towards the top, but it's good for finding newly-created pages that contain unusual words. A small stock of carefully-crafted searches kept ready for quick pasting into the search box could prove most useful. I must admit that I'm still exploring its facilities myself.  —SMALLJIM  17:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've enabled it. I don't use Search much except for very simple things, and, even those, I found to be intermittently unreliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please review

My reading of consensus here. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

John, I looked at it although I did not read the lengthy discussion but mostly focused on the voting. The closing was reasonable, although I'm not sure I would have gone "outside" the consensus (the "provisos"), but you explained why, which I thought was helpful. Small point: I would have said Option 2 at the top in your closing result. It, of course, became clear in context, but when I first looked at it, I wasn't sure what "won".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast reply. I have amended my close comment accordingly. --John (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

User(s) issue

Hello. I need you help in reviewing two users, although I think there might be a sockpuppet here. Those are Enslaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Johnbutlerr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The first says he is an admin, but he is not, the other says he is rollbacker and reviewer, and he is not. Additionally, I think they "stole" user and user talk pages from other users, making them their own. I believe those accounts are made for single purpose, and that is to disruptively edits Nigma Talib article. Thanks in advance. --BiH (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My, my, both blocked and vandalism (impersonation of user and talk pages) removed. There was even some very sneaky vandalism on the article talk page. Thanks for catching it and bringing it to my attention, BiH.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I am here to help. Thank you and have a nice day ^_^ --BiH (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Lideta Maternal and Chlid Health Center

I would be grateful to your response to my contestion of the speedy deletion on it's (now also deleted) talk page. Also, if you could please copy the content of the deleted page on my talk page for possible inclusion in other articles or possible expansion with further information increasing its relevance. /Urbourbo (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it to User:Urbourbo/Lideta Maternal and Child Health Center. I corrected the typo in the article title. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions Notice?

Sorry, don't understand why you put this message on my talk page? don't do it again please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafar Saeed (talk • contribs) 22:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

If you don't understand the contents of the sanctions notice, then you probably shouldn't be editing articles that are subject to those sanctions. You won't get another notification; it only needs to be given once to make sure you're aware of the sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry

The user that you blocked a while ago, Jllproductions for socking, personal attacks, and edit warring is back again with another sock (64.121.64.15). AcidSnow (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week. However, it's a dynamic IP, so I'm not sure how much good it'll do. That said, if there's more disruption, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Erica Mall

Hello.

You deleted the Erica Mall page today due to my not mentioning its significance. As you will see in the text, the bulk of the content concerns 87 years of history in rural Virginia. The hamlet that is described is a neighbor to the birthplace of George Washington, the birthplace of Robert E. Lee, Menokin, and other places of historical significance.

I hope you will reconsider.

I am not sure if I am to repost the content here, but I will do so if needed.

Thanks.

Donhess (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Having reviewed the text, there's still nothing remotely notable about the establishment. A store does not inherit notability from past stores on the site, nor does it gain notability from being located in a historical location. I know of a small town hall where the first Prime Minister of Canada spoke - but that town hall does not have a Wikipedia entry DP 11:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Donhess, please don't repost the content here. I can access the deleted content. If you still have the content, I'd create a subpage in your user space for the proposed article and when you think it's ready, submit it to WP:AFC, where more experienced editors can give you feedback on Wikipedia guidelines for articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

My mistake, I did not intend to delete your comment on the Jason Russell talk page >< I'm still kind of a Wikipedia noobie.173.79.251.253 (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you deleted my comment. You deleted Collect's. I believe you when you say it was inadvertent. Although deleting others' comments is the worst kind of refactoring, you should also not change your own posts once someone has responded to them.

Unfortunately, I see you're continuing to fight over the content in the article and accusing others of vandalism. I think we could probably reach a consensus on what should go into the article if you would be less combative. Generally speaking, WP:BLP articles are subject to a much higher degree of scrutiny on Wikipedia, and with this kind of content, WP:BLPREMOVE is applicable, meaning it is better to err on the side of not including the controversial material until a consensus is reached as to what is appropriate.

You say you're a newbie. Then you should pay more attention to experienced users. You don't have to accept everything we say, but you should at least proceed more slowly. Think of it as being in a new job. You don't start disrupting the workplace immediately. You learn the ropes first. Also, remember that your interpretation of policy may not be correct, and even if your interpretation is reasonable, policy can by applied in different ways by convention, and you would have no way of knowing about the practices here.

To show good faith, I suggest you revert your last changes, stick to the talk page, and speak more civilly when discussing the issues with others.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

But AN/I is weak for IPs (sigh)

That IP is again iterating charges of "vandalism" at Talk:Jason Russell and saying that he can "verify" the word by looking at a video, that that is good enough for Wikipedia <g>. I was about to file at AN/I, but that is generally ignored for IPs who can change addresses in a flash (sigh) Collect (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

He is now at 4RR -- reverting me once, you twice, and User:Writegeist once. I fear it is past time to make sure he knows that bright lines do exist. If you are involved, any passing admin or editor is welcome to file the report, I suppose. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The IP has now reverted the conservatively worded version yet again, despite being told repeatedly that it his/her version has no consensus and that he/she needs to obtain consensus before reinserting his/her version. I'm beginning to experience sense of humour failure. Writegeist (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANEW report filed. Let's see how long this takes. Collect (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Lo and behold, Darkness Shines declares that there is now a "consensus" for the BLP violating language -- including a laundry list of sources which do not even make the claim at all :( including the WSJ article which said the police responded to reports (then quotes the reports) but do not say Russell was naked as a fact. Cheers -- but I fear we are in a land of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

As I'm sure you already know, Collect, the IP was blocked. Unfortunately, I still think they don't get it, that it's not just whether their position is right or wrong, but the manner in which they are going about it is clearly wrong. Thanks for filing the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

BJ edit

Apologies. I'd edited again before seeing your message thinking my last edit hadn't showed up. I'm not sure why that'd be in any way interpreted as 'vandalism' as it is done obviously because I initially had wrong information (I'd read that before but it seemed to be an unreliable source; and I actually had a typo, I meant <$18, not < $8), so I'm saying to disregard the comment. No experiment here.

Can you please tell me how to properly reply to comments? Is it simply through the "edit" feature of a page?

Does the account User:AbramTerger belong to you?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The AbramTerger account does NOT belong to Lapadite77. Lapadite77 was leaving the unsigned messages on Blue Jasmine and felt that $18 Million was too high. AbramTerger pointed out additional sources that supported the value.AbramTerger (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that out later. The series of Lapadite's edits was confusing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes apologies to all. This is what I replied (to Bbb23) on my talk page: "Bbb23, thank you for the helpful link. When I edited my comment I didn't realize I had deleted the other user's comment, my apologies. Like I said to you before, I was implying that it should be disregarded as I had read/written wrong information. I see now I should reply to the comment instead of editing it. Thanks again."

I thought I did sign my comment too. Hah, oh well, I know how to wok this now for the most part. --Lapadite77 (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please help

Please help me with USchick... I can't take much more of this, or this, or this, etc.. And it all started even before, on Talk:Jewish Bolshevism, with more gems like that. I'm trying to be civil and understanding, I'm trying to explain, and discuss, as if I wasn't annoyed and staggered by what I read... but one of these days the WP:CHEESE exchanges will blow my top. Or else I'll develop a violent alternate personality that goes around massacring chickens. Please tell me what to do. Should I go to ANI, should I request a topic ban? In all my years on Wiki I've never seen anything quite like this. -- Director (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The first two links you cite above are to older discussions. The only recent one is the third, and I don't see anything that terrible about it. If you think you have sufficient evidence to go to WP:ANI, that's your prerogative. I don't see anything in the evidence you've provided here that would cause me to act unilaterally. BTW, generally, diffs are better than links to entire sections.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not requesting admin action, merely advice on whether to seek it. The user is not really malicious, but is very much unfamiliar with the subject matter, even the most basic parts thereof - yet persists in participating to the fullest extent and engaging in these pointless "debates". E.g. here the user demands that a Soviet propaganda poster featuring Leon Trotsky be removed on grounds that there's "nothing Jewish about it". After a lengthy exchange consisting mostly of my pointing out Leon Trotsky was Jewish, it took Altenmann to figure out that USchick was actually talking about the religion of Judaism, and was requesting an image that features communism and Judaism - or else its unrelated to the topic. When this was pointed out she responded with "an image combining Judaism and Communism, imagine that! Is that too much to ask?". This is a lengthy discussion where she essentially refuses to accept that Marxism and Leninism are not separate from communism, etc.

Its really quite astonishing. The third one is basically me explaining who Karl Marx is and what his "relationship" to Communism is (I'm convinced she never heard of him). And there's more of course, and it ain't stopping anytime soon. I mean this has to be some sort of disruption? -- Director (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My advice, FWIW, is not to go to WP:ANI. Based on what you've shown here and what I've seen independently, I doubt any action would be taken. At the same time, ANI can be a surprising place, so it's only my opinion and in the absence of any deeper probing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Right then. I guess I'll see if it develops into a more significant pattern. Thank you. -- Director (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

CS Darrow's recent conduct at Sexism and Talk:Men's rights movement

As the title says some of CSDarrow's recent conduct at Talk:Sexism and Talk:Men's rights movement is worth an eye. Especially given his history of warnings re: unconstructive use of the talk space--Cailil ^talk 12:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, he is almost expecting to be banned, but for that user, I don't see anything egregious enough to act on the MRM talk page. Most of what he's saying he's said before, so to some extent it's disruptive to keep repeating oneself, but without something more inflammatory or at least a more protracted discussion, I'll pass. As for the other talk page, it ain't much at this point. It's not that I don't get where you're coming from, but I have to independently exercise my own discretion. Obviously, the line can be a fuzzy one.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed & understood (I'm not asking for action just an eye on it) I just find it disappointing that he decides to come back to WP after months of absence *only* to flamebait and revive old threads--Cailil ^talk 22:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Magic Wand

I have discovered the magic wand with the spell ability: Summon Admin. I point it at those Joe's and you magically appear!--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Heh. I occasionally catch them when I'm patrolling CSD, but I believe you patrol new articles. Anyway, I appreciate it. As an SPI clerk, it's a change of pace to evaluate a report that's really easy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Don't mind the trout, you just undid my first edit on wikipedia on a different account Jakesyl (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Fyi - Education program

Just a quick note related to this revert you just made. There is currently an Education program actively editing Wikipedia that apparently has ~250 enrolled students in it. Most edits seem contained to user sandboxes for now but there are some article space edits with mixed results. Some are problematic and some are promotional. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you think it should not have been reverted?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest i have not looked at these edits in great detail - I came across the revert due to running trough the recent contributions by the course. I did figure a heads-up may be handy since i ran into course editors several times over the past few hours with mixed results. That said the added text is quite (if not very) promotional and close paraphrasing is a copyvio concern so it might not be a bad idea to refer this one back to the sandbox along with an explanation as to what should be changed. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 00:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not well-versed in this, but the editor I reverted isn't listed on the program page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I'm wrong, didn't realize there were multiple pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Hi Bbb23, I noticed your warnings to TaraDan95 and their subsequent block and thought you may be interested to know that they appear to have created a new account to evade the block - Tdaniel95. The original block is finished now so I don't know what process/warnings are necessary, just thought I'd let you know. Sam Walton (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Samwalton9, thanks for the note, but I don't think that's what's going on. Tdaniel95 is another student who's taking the course. Also, unlike TaraDan95, who hasn't edited since he's been unblocked, Tdaniel95 is restricting his edit (only one) to his sandbox. Technically, the copyright issues are still problematic, even outside of article space, but I'm letting it go. I've tried to get a hold of the course instructor, but she hasn't responded. It would be nice if the students could learn something from all this. Blocking was a last resort because TaraDan95 just wouldn't respond to my warnings and then more explanatory messages.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Jordan Belfort

Hi Bbb23, In regard to the Jordan Belfort page, please read the present last sentence of the first paragraph carefully. It now reads: « He recounted his life in his memoir (...), and the 2013 film of the same name (...) ». It seem to indicate that he made the film, which is not the case. The sentence should read, at the very least, this way: « His life was recounted in his memoir (...), and in the 2013 film of the same name (...) ». The phrasing is close, but the meaning is not the same. What di you think of it? Charles Millar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles.millar (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Charles, I've reworded the lead for accuracy and clarity. See if it satisfies your desire for precision.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk: A Voice for Men

Hi Bbb23. Could you look at this convo Talk:A_Voice_for_Men#.22Fighting_Wikipedia_Corruption_.26_Censorship.22. Specifically the tone of the response from the IP and user:Brian95620‎ (who was alerted to the men's rights probation already by you). The article on that site mentioned (but which cannot be linked to) is worth noting. I believe User:DEsmay has crossed a line in terms of conduct. But I also think it's time for ArbCom to get involved. I'd like your view on that. There's no direct call for meatpuppets but there is a direct attack on a group of editors that has encouraged new users (the IP for instance) to take an offsite battle to wikipedia editors like PearlSt82. This is not the first time this has happened and it wont be the last, unless something is done--Cailil ^talk 10:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I finally found the damned article and read it. The intersection between off-wiki conduct and sanctions against editors on-wiki is not one I understand. Perhaps you could link to some definitive statements ArbCom has made on this point? I personally would not sanction Esmay for the article he wrote on the AVFM website. As for the dialog on the talk page, I'm not keen on sanctioning Brian, either (I blocked the IP and will do so again if they resume their conduct after expiration of their block). It's too oblique for me, but maybe I'm not being stern enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No I don't think any sysop alone can sanction User:DEsmay. That would not be appropriate. The line between off/on-wiki conduct is for ArbCom. The two cases that deal with this are the CAMERA (see here too) issue and WP:EEML (see the sections 'Off-wiki_communication' and 'Off-wiki conduct'). But the general negative impact on AGF by off-site conduct of this kind is dealt with in WP:NPA (strange its there rather than AGF I know but that's where it is).

As regards action if you're not comfortable then you shouldn't act. I'm never asking you to act when I post here just for your 2c. I consider myself "involved" completely in this topic area and I like an uninvolved view as a "sanity check". I'll raise this with the committee myself if you'd prefer to stay out of that, but TBH I think you've answered my question re: ArbCom - no individual admin should put in the position of having to jump on this grenade--Cailil ^talk 08:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Also if you read the comments a wikipedian is targeted by User:Garyonthenet and for once it's not Kevin Gorman. This in particular is the damage that this kind of off-site stuff does. Individuals are targetted, systems are targetted, articles get attacked. This has happened before at AFD, on talk pages. It's just like any political lobby group they want to use wikipedia's position on the net for political ends--Cailil ^talk 08:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't read the comments, just the article. I still haven't really read the comments (so much tripe), but I did read Gary's and cursorily reviewed his rather old and limited history on Wikipedia. I glanced at the arbitration decisions (thanks for the links). As I expected, I don't find them particularly illuminating because so much of it is mushy as to at what point the level of off-wiki conduct becomes sanctionable. I supppose, if you were interested in pursuing this - and I don't necessarily think there's enough here to pursue - I would take the advice of the 2008 case (camera) and, as a first step, submit your concerns privately to the Committee. I've never done that before, but hopefully they'll give you a sense of their reaction without your filing a formal request for a case. As an aside, I never mind your posting your comments here. Whether I agree with you or not, I always find your opinions valuable and informative. It makes a bit of work for me sometimes, but you never push if I'm slow to get around to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"Sockpuppet"

I'm not a sockpuppet. I've registered quite some time ago, and it's pretty revealing how quickly people assume such. You know, it rather seems like the conflict of interest here is on those people managing this wikipage-page - they apparently view it as some kind of evil cult that also isn't even worthy of any information. That wikipage is nothing but a joke. It needs more info on what TZM is about (its key-ideas etc as you would expect on a wikipedia-page on a new ideology & movement), its outreach and what the international event "ZDay" is about and so on. And for the criticism-section again the bias is on those "neutral" managers of this wikipedia who apparently view it as their duty to delete any extensive information: criticism on "Zeitgeist The Movie" should move to its wiki-page as it's totally unrelated to the movement. Here's an example of a very similar wikipedia-page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism If you have any questions please ask. But please do review the history section with a more neutral mindset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixuture.member (talk • contribs) 12:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Rehtaeh Parsons

Wondered if you could deal with this since you have been active on her Talk page. That tattoo is likely Photoshopped onto her image. See this. I know there are next steps but busy at the moment. thanks--38.105.132.130 (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Return to edit-warring at articles related to water fluoridation

Hi Bbb23, you blocked LarryTheShark for breaking the 3RR at Fluoridation by country, this editor appears to be edit-warring along the same lines at Water fluoridation (a WP:FA). I've left a warning, could you please keep an eye? Thanks... Zad68 12:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As I'm sure you already know, it's a bit late for me to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocking policy

Please explain your reversion more fully at the relevant talk page section. – Smyth\^talk 10:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This section was intended for disruptive promotion, not attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The section is simply a list of disruptive activities worthy of blocking, and now I'm proposing an addition. So what's your objection to the addition? Surely an account which exists for the primary purpose of adding negative content about a person or organization is a fortiori at least as worthy of being blocked as an account which exists to add positive content. – Smyth\^talk 23:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Klaus_E._Berger&oldid=602802228&diff=prev

Could I ask you what would make this article qualify for an A7 deletion? I've been a bit confused with whether I was tagging articles right, and I really could use some explanation from a reviewing admin, as well as some constructive criticism on whether my tagging habits are over deletionist/inclusionist/skepticist from your POV. Thanks. Ging287 (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment on your tagging generally because I haven't reviewed it. In this instance, I can't tell you what would make the article A7-deletable. All I can do is tell you a little more why I declined to delete it. As I recall, Berger has writen five books, at least one of which has received some publicity. That would probably be enough to withstand an A7 if the author was Anglo, but the author is Danish, meaning it's hard for me to assess the claims assuming the books that have not been translated would be cited in Danish sources. I can't speak for other administrators, but I'm reluctant to delete a foreign-based subject that's borderline. I hope that helps a little.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

These Paper Bullets

User:Lemaroto, whom you've blocked before, did something odd to the page These Paper Bullets. The revision history [2] shows that he moved the page to Aladdin (musical), even though this musical at the Yale Rep [3] has nothing to do with Aladdin. The page is now a redirect to Aladdin (2011 musical). I think this was pure vandalism, but I don't know what existed before the page move. What can be done in this case? Michitaro (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). He created the page as a redirect to Aladdin; there never was a real page about These Paper Bullets, so I've simply deleted the redirect. I've also asked the user about it on their page, but I see they blank everything without reply, so I don't expect much. Thanks for noticing, Michitaro. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

SPI

Hi, Bbb23. I see you took trouble with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flowersforparis, so you may be interested to see that another one, User:Andytark, is already blocked and indignant about it. They haven't edited the article at all but merely taken User:Earl King Jr. to ANI with their very first edit.[4] Bishonen | talk 11:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen, you seem to be blocking a lot of suspected socks lately, or at least they've come to my attention. If the CU is accepted at SPI, Tark will either match or not. As I said in my rather long recital, it's not clear to me whether there is meat or sock puppetry involved, or both, not that we are precluded from blocking someone for meat puppetry, but, in my view, we have to have a stronger justification. In Tark's case, the block was good regardless of whether he's a sock. He's certainly not a newbie. It's also possible that we are dealing with multiple masters. There is a backlog of CU requests. Last time I checked, we didn't have as many CU admins around to deal with them all, so we'll have to be patient.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting better at it, though not by much — I always hesitate a lot, I want belt and braces before I block 'em. In this case, it doesn't really matter if Andytark matches or not, he's cooked in either case, because after the block, he has stated in no uncertain terms that his IP is quite different. The interesting question then becomes how he can possibly know anything about Flowersforparis's IP, nudge, nudge. At the very least, WP:MEAT would come into play. And then, just as you say, there's the disruption. I must say I'd quite like to reblock him with a different reason, such as "unattractive injured innocence act". Your guys are more interesting, though I really think they quack pretty loudly. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

His comments about the IP addresses don't necessarily mean he knows Flowers's actual IP address. They can also mean he knows Flowers personally (meat) and knows he edits/lives somewhere else, or he understands how CUs work and because he's "innocent", his IP address and Flowers's IP address can't be the same. Blocking socks is tough. In addition to my clerking, I block a lot independent of any filed SPI and based purely on duck. One side benefit to your involvement is you came to my talk page and helped out another user (above). It's great when stalkers deal with my problems while I'm off-wiki. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, exactly. He knows something about Flowersforparis that he has no business knowing if he's going to play the innocent — not necessarily literally knowing the IP. "Because he's "innocent", his IP address and Flowers's IP address can't be the same"? No, that duck won't fly. Take a look at how he expressed it. Bishonen | talk 17:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

Redmen44

Thanks for handling Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redmen44. For my convenience, since you are somewhat familiar with the user now, can you look into Redmen44 also being a sock of Carthage44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was lst indef blocked for block evasion. I had opened an earlier SPI in 2012, but Redmen44's account was relatively new and other admins erred on the side of considering the behavior a coincidence with no abusive behavior at that point; CU came back as  Possible and  Likely back then. With the continued overlap of edits, and now Redmen44's edit warring and block evasion history to match the pattern of Carthage44's own block history, it seems like a (obvious?) WP:DUCK. If needed, I can open an SPI with more behavior details, but I was hoping to save the effort.—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Bagumba, I've been reviewing the two editors for quite some time now. It's very tiring. Unfortunately, it's impossible to do another CU as Carthage44 is too old, but I'd say the behavior is close enough to block. They don't talk a lot in comparison to the number of article edits they make, but stylistically they're often similar. The most obvious is both of them refer to Wikipedia as this "great site" when they've been blocked and want to be unblocked. They also both have a passive-aggressive style. Article-edit summary-wise, they both mention and change stats constantly, updating them, saying they're incorrect, etc. Even technically, there's a little bit of help. The IP I just blocked is from Illinois, and so were the Carthage IPs. Despite their interest in next-door Wisconsin, they are obviously interested in Chicago teams. This edit shows that Redman is a big White Sox fan and he calls them "our Sox", meaning he probably lives nearby. Finally, it's a small thing, but both use the number 44 in their user name. Not that I know anything about sports (ironic, isn't it?), but I'm assuming it's some player's number. I'll wait for your comments and then I'll take care of the blocking and the clerical aspects (the SPIs should be merged). Also, I don't like some of the tags on the IP pages. I would have removed them immediately if they hadn't been placed there by an admin, but I may do so anyway. That's a much smaller issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You didn't just stop with the quacking, you went and dressed the duck too! Always good to see thoroughness, now I regret trying to be brief. It would have been so much easier for everyone if this was a legitimate WP:CLEANSTART. No objection to proceeding: you're preaching to the choir here :-) Enjoy the rest of your weekend.—Bagumba (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a major weakness for duck (I eat fish and fowl only). Everything should be done now. I've moved the report to the correct master and indeffed and tagged Redmen44. Let me know if there's anything I missed or if there are problems in the future. I don't watch these kinds of articles except in rare cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision resubmit?

Hi, pleasure to meet you and no rush if you're busy.

My addition to the Rehtaeh Parsons page was reverted and wondering if you would entertain a resubmit please? The cited work is from a very reputable publisher in Canada (postmedia) and an experienced Journalist and the article is, unfortunately, a correct history of the events of the year since.

Did not add several additional citations supporting the referenced citation for the sake of brevity - but can extend if that is helpful. Also, could add a bio page for the Columnist if that would provide context. He has written for several Canadian dailies from the Globe and Mail to the Halifax Herald and now regularly contributes to the Postmedia chain.

Thanks for the time, let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdexter (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you take your issues to the Parsons talk page and see if you can obtain a WP:CONSENSUS for your edits or some portion of your edits. If you want to create an article for the journalist, that's up to you, but if you do, I urge you to submit it to WP:AFC to get feedback from experienced editors on the notability of the subject and the quality of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Totally good .. Will update contrib on Parsons to talk page and kick a write up on columnist to WP:AFC .. Appreciate the assistance, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdexter (talk • contribs) 23:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

You have deleted the page Katikala Siva Bhagya Rao. The man runs an NGO offering free services to over 22000 backward caste people in Andhra Pradesh, India. The work this man does may not reach the elite media because all his work is in the villages at the grass root level. The man needs commendation and a wiki page is the least one can do for him. I also have given newspaper articles about his service work. The language could have been more simplistic, agreed. But certainly isn't 'instant delete' worthy. Whilst, movie stars with mere 1,2 movies have wiki articles, why should a government servant who spend the last three decades in helping people through his NGO not deserve a wiki page? Can you please help me put up this page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunkinghunk (talk • contribs) 08:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want me to WP:USERFY it for you so you can work some more on it, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Block

Hi, you blocked me due to inadvertent violation of the 1RR rule (wasn't aware of the rule) in the City of David article. I'm not appealing the block, but I see that a section named after me has been entered in the talk page reporting the block event. I think it is inappropriate to put a user in the pillory just for one violation. I think this is not acceptable behavior. Am I correct? If yes, how do you suggest I proceed? Thanks, Danielcohn (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

What talk page do you mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:City_of_David

As a courtesy, I've changed the section header. I can't remove the content, but there's no reason for your name to be in the header. Let me know if there's a problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. I edited the content to leave just the facts (taking out presumptions like "he knows it"). Can you please also unblock the IP address (134.191.232.71 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs))? As I said, I was not aware of the 1RR rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielcohn (talk • contribs) 19:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Daniel, I reverted that edit. You can't change others' comments that much. You can, if you wish, add your own comment that you didn't know about the rule. As for the IP, they are already blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear why Daniel wants the IP address unblocked. He can obviously edit from his account. It looks as though he's also been using that IP address, including at David and the talk page (as well as at other articles). Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Doug, this is what happens when I don't focus enough. I misread his comment, and then I didn't take the time to probe more deeply because the IP was already blocked, which is what I thought Daniel had asked for (reading "block" instead of "unblock"). He shouldn't be using that IP as it's a confirmed proxy server, one step short of an open proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, 134.191.232.70 and 134.191.232.68 are two other confirmed proxies being used on the City of David talk page. They all track back to an Intel site. I'm guessing it simply happens when an editor doesn't log in, not for deceptive purposes. I know I went years editing as whatever IP number was assigned to my Internet connection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your editing as an IP, which was assigned by your ISP, is not the same. This is more like Intel employees editing using Intel's Internet connection (or someone else using the server, although Intel should guard against that). It's as if you edited from work. My guess is Intel would not be happy to know that its employees are using its connection to edit Wikipedia articles. Are these IPs being disruptive?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive? Well, they are editing the City of David talk page (like 134.191.232.71, the confirmed proxy that has been blocked) so I just thought they were likely the same person and if one proxy was blocked, I thought the other two might be blocked as well. If not, that's fine, I just thought I'd pass along the info. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither has edited in a few days, so I'm going to leave them alone for now. If they were open proxy servers, it would be clear-cut. Let me know if they create a problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimean status referendum, 2014

I Saw you declined the EW case re this page, I'm not disagreeing with that at all. However It seems to be just getting worse and I'm wondering if you would look at the history and consider fully protecting one way or another until consensus is reached for either side. Neither party can agree and there are various discussions ongoing, including one Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RT_news_and_Crimean_status_referendum.2C_2014 Here. Neither party seem willing to stop edit warring, its slow but not stopping.Blethering Scot 21:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ive posted this to the talk page as a reminder.Blethering Scot 22:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to take any action at this point. HJ Mitchell just semi-protected it. He could have fully protected it if he wished. Since then there's been a mini-battle between VM and Petr (why doesn't that surprise me?) with one other editor (Poeticbent) joining the fray. I formally closed the previous report at AN3, but nothing prevents you from opening a new one based on subsequent events. Considering that the main problems are VM and Petr, full protection seems problematic as it punishes other users. You're welcome to convince me otherwise, though, as I haven't studied the whole thing closesly.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

They started up again after HJ protected which was one of the reasons I felt correct to speak to you. I'm actually hoping I've got them agreeing to talk, if I haven't then I don't have much choice but to report as a slow edit war. They are both almost as bad as each other. I know they are the main editors involved but I felt better to protect the page given sanctions involved & how sensitive the page is. Also there are other editors on the edge of the dispute. I'm happy to leave at that. Will notify you if reported again. If I have to what venue would EW or An be best venue. Blethering Scot 06:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like there haven't been any reverts since last I was on-wiki. To answer what I hope now to be a hypothetical question, AN3 would be the best venue I suppose. Depends on how strong a case you have that they are edit-warring vs. more generalized misconduct that includes reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I was just responding to an RfPP request. I noticed that there was a dispute, but didn't have time to look into it in much detail. I'm reluctant to break it up forcibly if the parties can be convinced to come to the table, especially on an article about an ongoing event, where full protection could be hugely damaging. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Greetings. I recently reverted a reversion you made to Daniel Radcliffe. I apologize for this, it is my fault for not first checking subsequent sections of the article for references. Thanks for the correction. Happy Editing! Rilech (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I'm glad we worked it out without getting any deeper. Those kinds of edits do trigger red flags, so I understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Mark Tufo

Hi! I see that you blocked one sock at Mark Tufo. There seems to be at least one other, not to mention the small herd of IPs that contested the speedy deletion nomination. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A user

[5] This person has been barred from any contact, discussion, etc and topic banned from the subject of the Zeitgeist Movement and related things. Would that also include having an article about it in his sandbox? Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the sandbox was created and edited before the topic ban was imposed, so technically is not a violation. I've taken the intermediate step of deleting it, although it's not clear I have a sound basis for doing even that.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. Another editor/user on the Zeitgeist Movement was using it for a reference point, or at least changed some of their edits to comply with some ideas from it. That article is experiencing a very intense gathering of the supporters of Zeitgeist recently currently. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, can you please restore the sandbox, but feel free to go ahead and blank it. Thanks. IjonTichy (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

IjonTichyIjonTichy, you should be able to recreate it yourself. Have you tried?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

SockPuppet Investigation Immediately closed by an administrator when the accused requested him to close it- Need Immediate attention

Hi User:Bbb23,

I had opened a sock puppet investigation on two users Shriram and Lihaas on India General election page- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shriram. One of them suddently made a request to another Administrator ( RequestMadeHere ) to close the investigation and the page was immediately closed.

Excerpt- User:JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The immediate closure of topic looks suspicious. Please do the necessary.

Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Soorejmg, it looks like your SPI has been dealt with appropriately (closed and archived). At this point, You should consider yourself fortunate that no one has blocked you for obvious WP:CANVASSING and the filing of a baseless report. Please don't comment any further on this issue on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, opening an SPI on two editors who are obviously not the same person is pretty offensive, don't you think? ES&L 16:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Soorejmg has sent this message to six different administrators. See User talk:Soorejmg#Canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete

Bbb23, I created the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodli,_Beskar,_Krueger_and_Pletcher,_S.C.&action=edit&redlink=1 . You deleted it. I'd be happy to add more, but I thought what I had was concise and worthy. I'd like to have it published again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxfieldelijah (talk • contribs) 01:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

First, there's nothing encyclopedically significant about the law firm. Second, you have an obvious conflict of interest as you are associated with the firm. That said, if you want me to WP:USERFY it, let me know, although I honestly think it's a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

Bbb23, thank you for your feedback. This is all new to me. I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Best_%26_Friedrich_LLP as a model, which led me to believe that encyclopedic significance is more a matter of opinion than formula. At this time I am not requesting WP:USERFY .

Thanks for letting me know. I don't think much of the Michael Best & Friedrich LLP article, particularly the resume-advertising-like tone, but it's a much bigger firm than yours with multiple offices.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for revert

Hey Bbb, just wanted to say thanks for reverting that IP over at WP:EWN that created a report against me. I was just about to reply to it, but you got to it before I can. Again, thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was a disruptive report by a disruptive user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Rather than Edit war, Request Help

Hey Bbb, The post you placed the notice board was appropriate, I do not wis to engage in edit war as it is being lodged against me. My are o apply good faith post as I requested help, and I dont need contest of who can pee the farthest, I have data and supporting facts to the issue, with supporting references, much of the page is based OPED media not factual investigation reports,that I have. Please advise and place notice of edit war as well as correcting speculation post supported by OPED's not factual data reports

I'm afraid I have great difficulty following anything you write. In any event, thus far, you have posted nothing in connection with Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 that is constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Gorgi88

A single purpose account has been editwarring at radical feminism and is taking their "push" (as they describe it) to Feminism. They've already been advised by a bot that they are involved in an editwar on radical feminism. In fact that conflict needs looking at. It involved 4 users Ging287, Gorgi88, NFLjunkie and Drowninginlimbo. In fact in this edit summary NFLjunkie is showing the underlying problem here - Men's rights advocates trying to give their issues more prominence in other articles[6]. IMHO I'd let them all have it for this one. On the other hand they all seem to be rather new editors unaware of how bad their behaviour is, but I note also you've notified two of them of the Men's rights probation before these incidents occured. If you get a chance could you take a look--Cailil ^talk 10:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Kate Mulgrew

Have you considered that changing a living subject's marital status to indicate a marriage without proper sourcing may be a violation of WP:BLP? Really, I don't understand what the deal is here. They got divorced. You can look at the divorce lawsuit yourself on the New York Supreme Court web site. 107.10.62.59 (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The divorce was acknowledged by her Facebook account when a LA weekly article was posted. She talks about her new boyfriend in the Q & A.

Facebook is not a reliable source for most BLP material. I saw the LA Weekly article, and it never mentions Hagan or divorce. She can have 16 boyfriends - it doesn't mean she's divorced.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

AN3

Thank you for closing down that report for being invalid. Do you think you can inform FrostPawn that his reason for constantly having to restore his preferred version (or rather why he thinks I'm restoring my preferred version) is wrong? Because I'm clearly not getting through to him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I rarely become involved in content disputes unless there is a policy violation that requires administrative action. This issue doesn't seem to fall into that category, so I'm afraid you're going to have to use the traditional dispute resolution mechanisms.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why such a step is necessary. It's just like he doesn't read what I've been saying to him at all and is insisting that I'm wrong in this matter, even though I've instituted his change in a better method.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hopper suggestion

You might want to ask how this user dealt with a certain long-term iphopper with a penchant for a certain type of attack on a certain class of target pages. It's not quick or simple, but it can be done. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about this discussion. I'll ping Maralia to see if they want to contribute anything. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You assume correctly. Good luck. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And good luck with this. Minor variations are more than acceptable; I covered mine in panko before frying. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies, I'll tell the cook in the house (not me) about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm watching Chopped. One of the ingredients is Dim sum--or, I suppose, some elements that are found in dim sum. Have you eaten this food/style? It looks fascinating and fun. I wonder if we can get that here. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Dim sum is very common in Southern California because of the large Asian population. The largest number of "authentic" Chinese restaurants are east of downtown LA (not in Chinatown, which is in downtown), and particularly on Sundays, Asians and Whites flock to them for dim sum.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Before he answers that: you mentioned panko. To make a seriously good schnitzel with Panko: pulse the crumbs a few times in a Robot coupe. Don't pulverize them to powder, just a few good pulses. Then proceed with the dredging of the cutlets, and pan fry. Panko used like this is better than any pre-packaged "bread crumbs" I've tried. Excellent crunch ;) Doc talk 02:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, Doc9871 - Panko beats any other store-bought bread crumbs hands down. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

In my case, I have Alton Brown to thank for it--I didn't know it existed. Dutch "bread crumbs" are beschuit ground almost to dust, but panko, that's good eats. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

More Carthage44 socks

I mentioned your previous work on socks of Carthage44/Redmen44 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carthage44. You might even be interested in following up there on the latest suspected IP block evasion. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for deleting that page. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete Yugopustynia

You deleted the site before I could elaborate on the subject, add valid references and correctly wikify it. It was already marked as a stub, andIt was marked for deletion at 4 AM in the morning according to danish local time. At the time I was so sleepy, I only had time for a short remark in the talk section. When I had the the time today, you had already deleted it. Why is Yugopustynia less eligible, than other micronations? Gywerd (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

All you did was copy material from a wiki to create the page. I saw nothing independent that established it as anything other than a hoax.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

1RR on Radical Feminism?

Hi Bbb23! A user directed me here from their talk page. In this edit on Radical feminism, they claimed that the article is subject to a 1RR restriction from the Men's Rights Movement probation. I cannot find anything about feminism on Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Article_probation. I was hoping for some clarification as I don't think that probation applies to Radical feminism (even when broadly construed) and honestly don't think it's needed. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is not subject to WP:MRMPS, but any edits related to the MRM, broadly construed, would be.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Should that notice on the talk page be removed then? EvergreenFir (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

For the moment, I would say yes (I see you did), in large part because a non-administrator added it for misguided reasons. There is no policy that prohibits adding the template to an article (unless it's clearly disruptive), but it would be better generally to leave such tasks to administrators. Just so you know, another administrator might more broadly interpret the terms of the probation to apply to Radical Feminism. Given the content, it's a blurry line.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A bit alarmed

I am a bit alarmed by Prcc's behavior at Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States and could really use some intervention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What exactly alarms you and what kind of intervention do you seek?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please advise

Hello again. Once again, I have encountered two (apparently connected) issues on two different article with what seems to be destructive editing] which probably violates WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE (the entire "Anthropology" section is created in this manner). This user is obviously misusing Wikipedia to publish his own personal critique about Griffith’s thesis which has not been published elsewhere. None of the sources he refers to discuss Griffith’s work. I would suggest the complete removal of this section due to WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE policy.

The same applies for this section, a breach of WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE policy. I would suggest the complete removal of this section as well.

Finally, by looking at this user's edit history, it seems to me that he owns and operates WP:SPA, only used for editing these two article. Could you please look into this? I will be waiting for your insights. Thanks. --BiH (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, BiH. Without probing deeply, it looks like some rather destructive editing is going on at Jeremy Griffith. It also looks like possible sock puppetry involving Divinecomedy666 and Press2014. What's the other article you're referring to? It also doesn't look like you're involved in the editing of Griffith. Nor do I see any discussion of the edits on the article talk page. If you're interested in the issues, then I think you have to involve yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The second concern is this section, added by the same user, Divinecomedy666. By looking at his edits from the 2011 (I'm not sure for this), he/she attempted to add similar content to some other articles, which got my attention to review this issue deeply. I will remove controversial content from those articles and see what will happen. --BiH (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Just as I thought, this user patrols this article and adds content opposing WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE policies, just as he/she did a couple of years ago, according to his/her edit history. I do not want to start editing war, so take a look yourself here. --BiH (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you should attempt to talk to the user. You should initiate a thread on the Griffith talk page (that's the user's primary focus) and let the user know on their talk page that you want them to contribute. I don't expect that they will respond as they have never used a talk page, article or user, since registering their account, but it's a necessary step if you want to take the high road. I have limited options. If I intervene content-wise, I lose the ability to intervene administratively. However, if you build a case, I may be able to take administrative action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. --BiH (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

James Valenti

Hello, Thank you for your response regarding recent changes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Valenti. These were strictly factual: opera roles performed by James Valenti. What sort of proof/documentation is required to accept these additions to the page, as well as the photo submitted earlier this week.

Thank you for your time

Jamesvalentiopera (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

First, if you are Valenti or are affiliated with him, you have a conflict of interest, and it would be better if you didn't edit the article. Instead, you're welcome to propose changes to the article on the article talk page. With limited exceptions, Wikipedia cannot use copyrighted images. As far as I can tell, you grabbed that photo from some website and then uploaded it to Commons. Unless the image has the appropriate license, it can't be used. As for the "factual" changes, you need to provide reliable sources to support material you put in a Wikipedia article. Take a look at the welcome post on your talk page. It has many links that may help you understand how Wikipedia works (unfortunately often complicated).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I struck some of my comments above because I confused Valenti's picture with another - sorry. I removed it because of the caption you added, which was promotional ("Internationally Acclaimed Tenor, James Valenti"). There was another image that was removed from Commons and from the article. Do you have a relationship with User:Gmason32?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I will submit the proposed changes on the article talk page along with sources (links to newspaper articles reviewing the performances.) As for the photo, can it please be added with just the caption, James Valenti?

Thank you. Jamesvalentiopera (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for willing to use the talk page. As for the image, you uploaded it and said it was your own work. I'm assuming then that you are not Valenti; is that right? Where did you take the picture, meaning what's he standing in front of? Looks like a theater, perhaps an opera house?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The photo was taken on Mr. Valenti's iPhone by the doorman at the Plaza Hotel NYC on Sunday April 13. Thank you! Jamesvalentiopera (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I suppose technically that means the copyright belongs to the doorman, but I suppose he took it at Valenti's request. I'm going to change the description of the picture file and then I'll add it back to the article with an appropriate caption.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic! Really appreciate it! Jamesvalentiopera (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

More IP vandalism

Supreme Court of California and many other edits. By 209.116.65.82 . Can you block please. And is there a tool for a one-click rollback of all the IP edits? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Kevin Gorman has taken care of the edits and the block. – S. Rich (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

IP edits on A Voice for Men

Hi Bbb23, can you take a look at this revert? I consider the IP comments unhelpful and removed them yesterday per WP:SOAP. A Voice for Men is a men's rights page and subject to the terms of the Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A vacation snack for you!

	Happy days, Bbb
	Who knows, maybe you're vacationing in the Netherlands. These are the best. Enjoy your vacation, Bbb and Mrs. Bbb. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

S. E. Cupp

I may need help in averting an edit war on the S. E. Cupp article, instigated by Eclecticerudite. This user keeps changing Cupp's religion to "Christian", on the theory that she is presenting an atheist public persona but is in fact a Christian. There are, of course, no citable references that support such a theory, yet this user persists in making the change repeatedly, and has insinuated that I have a personal motive for correcting his edits. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Let's look at the facts: She grew up Catholic, studied religion in school, and married a guy who would only marry a Christian. She says things that no other atheist ever has: that she doesn't want an atheist as president, that we need religion to have values, that she aspires to be religious, etc. What's the motive you ask? To be a public persona and make money. A lot of people would and do lie to stay in the media industry. She created this persona so she would stand out. I have no personal problems with her but I want the wiki page to reflect the truth and not her persona. -Eclecticerudite 19:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic S. E. Cupp. Thank you. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe an Oops?

I created an article (ok, not much more than a stub) this morning using the correct spelling of the business name, as opposed to the stylized version. I based some of the text on the vesion from the French Wikipedia.

After creating the article, I then searched through Wikipedia for instances of the spelling in order to update "what links here". I surprisingly found that an article had been deleted 3 previous times based on the stylized spelling - and you're one of the deleters!

I have reviewed the 2009 AFD, and agree with the deletion at that time. However, I feel even the "stub-like" thing I created this morning beats the original AFD delete, and any A7's since.

I have decided NOT to login to my admin account to review the contents of the previously-deleted articles (yet). I will do so later to see if there's anything salvageable ... which of course will require some form of selective histmerge...unless of course, you (in your infinite wisdom) care to review those deleted versions first :-)

Note: I'm leaving this same message on all 3 admins who deleted the article in the past the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the version I deleted said almost nothing. Yours is a bit more fleshed out. I would probably not delete it if it were tagged, but generally I make it a practice not to delete something I've already deleted before. I prefer to let another admin review it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Small Request

Since you're primarily the one who organizes WP:MRMPS, could you change my name on there from 'Ging287' to 'Tutelary'? I requested a name change a few weeks ago and due to privacy reasons, decided to do a google search only to find that page come up. I'm still the exact same user. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Stern Review SPI

re: your edit summary here, It's not that I'm intentionally leaving them untagged, I'm just lazy ;) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, somehow I don't think of the word "lazy" in connection with you. Anyway, tagging is one of my many clerical functions, and I was happy to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The more clueful clerks, the merrier! Glad to see you back from holiday.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you should be made aware of this

Atlantictire is engaging in some blatant and massively over-the-line character attacks that are going to seriously complicate our efforts to restrain the problematic behaviour of the targets of those attacks. He's also making general implications that other editors are acting as apologists for racist contributions or providing unwitting support for same, and there's the matter this image, which he's just added to commons and has utilized on two pages so far. He's pretty clear that he knows this behaviour is unacceptable and in fact seems to be baiting a block as a manner of ideological statement. I'm sorry to try to saddle you with this, but as the admin who handled his most recent block, and who cut through his theatrics, I wonder if we could have you look into the matter? Snow talk 21:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, the image has been speedy-deleted from commons, but I'll give you a description as to its content. It included a racist characterture in the vein of blackface, next to which Atlantictire had added a speech bubble with the dialogue "I sho' duz luv me sum waduhmelon!"; next to this drawing he included two stick figures, one of which had dialogue saying "Wow. That Halloween costume sure is racist." and the second of which replies "Tsk. Tsk. Assume good faith!" A caption above read "How to be a WikiIdiot" with an arrow pointing the second figure. It's unfortunate (well, not unfortunate for you personally but for the sake of process) that you couldn't see how inflammatory it was with your own eyes, but I and the dozen or so other editors who saw it can attest that it was pretty vile. Snow talk 02:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Snow, I blocked Atlantictire back in March for sock puppetry. I haven't kept up with anything they've done since. If you want me to take administrative action, you'll have to give me a better understanding of why they should be sanctioned (including diffs). I don't have the time or energy to dig through the history without some guidance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Dual accounts and COI

Thanks for looking into Bastias and Johnbastias a bit, Bbb23. Now that I look into it myself a bit more, the conflict-of-interest angle is a bit more widespread than I first thought. In the Fotos Politis article, which the two accounts have massively expanded, Costis Bastias (the editor's father) is now mentioned 16 times in a 3,768-word (32,000-byte) article. The editor's 2005 biography of his father is 3 out of the 23 citations, and one of the six Bibliography books listed. Costis Bastias is the author of 4 of the 23 citations and 2 of the six Bibliography books. Assuming good faith, I don't believe the editor is/was familiar with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (in fact, on Greek Wikipedia, he appears to have created a biography of himself). I'm not sure what the best course of action is here (if any), and I'm not an admin and this is not an admin noticeboard, but I thought I'd at least mention these concerns; perhaps it's best to air them out on user Talk pages rather than outing anyone too publicly. (If you reply you may do so here; I've put your Talk page on my Watchlist.) -- Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to wait to hear his response to my comments. If you notice him editing without first responding, please let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Zistebá

Sorry for interrupt, an account named Zistebá, he/she always added unsourced genres as did on Both Sides. Can you block him/her indefinitely? 183.171.178.27 (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see enough edits to warrant a block. You'll have to deal with this in the usual way. Talk to them. Revert them if justified (but don't get into an edit war). Take them to an appropriate administrative noticeboard if their behavior becomes sufficiently disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Further informations about YOOZ article

Hello :) I'm the creator of the YOOZ article that got deleted, i'm not new to wikipedia and i already read the guidelines and articles about writing good content, but i never expected this to get deleted, and i'm aware i didn't link to reliable sources, beside the official links by the company, and only 1 press article..

YOOZ operates in North africa nad the middle east, and that doesn't mean it has to be worldwide to get accepted in Wikipedia, please correct me if i miss any detail, and hopefully can i get help to bring the article back ?

Thanks At oussama (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't restore it as it was, but, if you wish, I'll WP:USERFY it for you. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask to restore it as it is, but since it needs reliable sources, i already included a press article, and i could link to you many sources, mostly in french and english and then rework the article and make it approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by At oussama (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. I've moved it to User:At oussama/YOOZ. I suggest when you are done with it, you submit to WP:AFC for review.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Entry of new motion picture company

Bbb23,

The recent entry regarding Sunset Studios a motion picture company based in Orlando FL was deleted within in a few hours of creation before further information about the company's films, popular culture references, and affiliations could be completed. Verifiable "ref" tags were present on the page including the companies main site and IMDb. Can you please explain your decision to delete this item before the page could be completed.

GuyFilmmaker (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)GuyFilmmaker

You're not supposed to create an article in main space that's not policy-compliant and then work on it later. That's what WP:AFC and your user space are for.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23,

Understood. Is there a way to retrieve the content that I had worked on already to work through private platforms. I have read through the wiki help pages and still not clear on what is required. Other than verifiable "ref" I am still unclear as to what the site requires in determining relevance of the creation of a page or not.

Also, so that I am able to increase my changes of the page remaining active to the site would a "ref" to a non-wiki site such as the content below qualify in keeping compliant with citing requirements for the site? What else should I include to be compliant?

http://orlandoweekly.com/film/short-film-39-charlie-39-to-begin-filming-in-april-1.1463834

GuyFilmmaker (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)GuyFilmmaker

I've moved the article to your user space, User:GuyFilmmaker/Sunset Studios. Third-party sources are always better than self-published sources, but the sources should be about the studio, not about a film. A series of links was left on your talk page that should help you understand how Wikipedia works (it's a slow process), in particular the link about your first article. I strongly urge you to submit the article to WP:AFC if you believe it's ready in the future. That way you'll get feedback from more experienced editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

DB

Because you indeffed one editor (diff) I am approaching to you to point to another editor who probably passes duck test (list of their contributions). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, if you don't want to reopen the SPI report, then think of me as a mini SPI and provide some diffs connecting the IP to the master or the puppet. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppet and SPA

Hello. I have been collaborating with you in the past regarding issues on Wikipedia, so I am contacting you again. User:Lucas McEntee accuses me of being payed, more specifically that I worked for him on a page that is currently under deletion. I had the exact same issue with an IP user I traced to India. Since his statements are not true, I presume the vandal has returned. My logic says that if the page was payed for, the CEO would not write all over Wikipedia that he payed for it, directly violating WP:COI!? Can this user be checked for SP and SPA? Can you give me some directions where I can check this? Thank you. --BiH (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this is now a moot point, BiH, as the user has been indeffed subsequent to your post here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Lgfcd activity

I thought you may want to know that Lgfcd has already proceeded to evade his temporary block using more than one of his IPs, see this edit and this edit. I would suspect that more activity shall follow in the coming days, with all likelihood. On a more positive note, I would also like to thank you for your even-handed approach to the investigation, ultimately I think that you had made the correct call on the tenacious link I made; perhaps I did see something more than what was there. Kyteto (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Kyteto, the second diff above is no good. However, based on the first diff, I've changed Lgfcd's block to indefinite and blocked the IP for two weeks. Please let me know if there is another IP involved. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I did screw up that second link, so here we go linky while I'm less tired! It's from a different IP - beats me why he does these IP changes. Kyteto (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kyteto, I've also blocked that IP. Both are from the same place and in the same range. If there are enough of them, we may want to consider a range block. Keep me posted if you see more problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Days ago, there was some activity on User:200.219.132.104, User:John has already banned this account so there's no need for action; I figured you might want to know of this for reference/range activity. Kyteto (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Two user names: One American and one Greek

Dear Bbb23, Thanks for your mail. I’ll try to respond to your questions as well as I can. As you already know, I have two different user names, one in the Greek (bastias, since June of 2012) and one in the American Wikipedia (Johnbastias). “Bastias” is actually my surname. I mention the fact of the two user names in my user page to avoid confusion to readers. So nothing is hidden nor is there some sinister reason for these two names. The reason of the two names is that when I started to contribute to the en.wikipedia, I wanted the same user name “bastias” that I had in the Greek edition. However, someone from a Spanish speaking country already had the name “bastias” and I couldn’t use it, though in your Greek edition there was no problem. So, I tried Johnbastias and it was accepted.

Concerning the intersection of edits between the two accounts in the Fotos Politis article, it is due to habit, and I’m sorry for that. You see, I was used to the Greek account name and occasionally I would start writing without changing to the American. There were even times when I would add edits without any user names and my IP address would appear. How gross!

The question of “conflict of interest” because Costis Bastias is my father, is another matter. You see, Costis Bastias was very closely connected with Fotos Politis and he is the major source of information about him. If I remove him or if I delete his name but keep his quotations and his thoughts I would be plagiarizing. If I remove his articles or his obituary of Politis from the bibliographical section, I would not be serving the interests of our readers since I would deprive them of sources most necessary for further reading. In those U.S. universities that have Modern Greek Studies departments, articles like my text on Politis open interesting horizons for their students.

If you had the time to go to the original entry on Fotos Politis which you will find in the history section from March 2013 and back, you will find a very poor text with a banner in the beginning saying: “Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources”. Well, that’s what I tried to do. Removing now important material because of a coincidence in the names is unfair both to me as the prime author of the text and to your readers. Compare my text, almost 32,000 bytes and a lot of hard work, with the previous text (1590 bytes) which was there for years with a banner and no one was interested to improve it and I believe you will see my point.

Furthermore, Softlavender, probably because of the language barrier thinks that an entry in the Greek Wikipedia about me is actually written by me. This would be flagrant self promotion and I would never do it. Actually, it is written by an administrator of the Greek Wikipedia, as anyone can see in its history section.

This whole misunderstanding started when I added an article of mine in the bibliography of “Maria Callas” recently published in the Dutch English-language Maria Callas Magazine. This magazine is a quarterly and has been published for the past 24 years. There I present material that has not been noticed in most biographies of Callas about the support she received from my father, founder of the Greek National Opera in 1939, at the beginning of her career. Of course, the whole article is based on the relationship of these two persons and was deleted immediately as self promoting. I thought I was enriching your bibliography and immediately in the few hours that my addition remained on line many people used the link to see what it was about. I was very sorry to see it go.

Now, concerning the two accounts, I would prefer to let things stand as they are. But, if you must keep only one, I would prefer to keep “bastias” because all my entries in the el.wikipedia have this name. The en.wikipedia has only one entry, for the time being, Fotos Politis, and it would be easier and less confusing. I assume that all the history section of the Politis text would also have to change from Johnbastias to bastias Can you do that?

I hope the above are satisfactory Bbb23. If there is anything else please feel free to get back to me. Looking forward to your reply, --Bastias (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Bastias, thanks for your response. It's a bit long (smile), so I'd kind of like to cut through all of the history and suggest the following:

• I indefinitely block Johnbastias. I would make it clear in the block log and in the block notice that it is being done without any "finding" that you improperly used the two accounts but simply to prevent you from accidentally using it and creating a suspicion as to your motives. As for the history, that would not and cannot change.
• You have an obvious COI with respect to Fotos Politis, but I also understand that the article, for whatever reason, receives very little attention by Wikipedia editors, and you want to improve it. There is a fairly easy way to resolve both issues. When you want to make a change to the article, suggest it first on the article talk page. If no one responds within a few days, then go ahead and make the change to the article. If anyone challenges your edits, either at the time or later, you may have to endure a revert of your changes until a consensus can be reached. Bear in mind that there are dispute resolution mechanisms available if a consensus can't be reached on the talk page.

I could go ahead and block the account without your approval, but I'd like you to be onboard with both points because I think matters will be far more productive for you and for Wikipedia that way. Let me know whether the two suggestions are, if not ideal, acceptable to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Bbb23. I agree to your proposal to cancel the name Johnbastias and keep the "bastias" user name. That's what I tried to do in the beginning, as I said in my longwinded reply of yesterday. Here I go again. Sorry! I'll keep it short and to the point. And I'll use the article talk page. But, if I have any problems I'll get back to you and I hope you will help. Take care --Bastias (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, I'll block the other account sometime today. Feel free to come back if you have problems, but please don't assume I'll remember, so if you come back, please refresh my memory. Thanks for your courtesy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

To Bbb23. I don't think you were fully awake when you left me this note, my dear clerk! :D AGK [•] 23:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I self-reverted as fast as I could. Nothing gets past you. :-) If only coffee solved my problems ... --Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme

You have deleted the page 'Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme' with the explanation that it has reference to copyrighted material: www.amap.no. This page also has a reference to www.amap.no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Climate_Impact_Assessment#Arctic_Biodiversity_Assessment I work for the Secretariat of AMAP, and I would like to write an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrlarsen (talk • contribs) 17:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it because it's a copyright infringement, not because "it has reference to copyrighted material." Wikipedia doesn't permit using material that is copyrighted unless it meets specific licensing requirements. The material on the website does not. You can read up on all this (it's complicated) at WP:COPYRIGHT. I might also mention that assuming you are in fact affiliated with the organization, you have an inherent conflict of interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User:SuperNepoznat is back

Since you were involved in a sockpuppet investigation before I'm bringing this here. It seems they've returned as yet another IP: User:188.127.110.107. Can you do anything about this, or maybe recommend what to do? CodeCat (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia and need help

IP 209.156.45.74 is routinely making changes on the Auburn Tigers football page. Suggesting that Auburn has had greater success at national championships in college football. Auburn only claims 2 national titles in football. However 3 others remain unclaimed, but are officially documented by NCAA recognized selectors. Auburn recognizes that the NCAA record book documents these additional titles, however, as said before, Auburn still only officially claims the 1957, and 2010 National Championships. It's also obvious in this language that Auburn is merely referencing another source, not making an actual claim to those titles. This page is merely documenting success, but I guess this is where the confusing in college football starts. There is a prevailing distinction between claimed and unclaimed titles, which is why the banner existing for NCAA college football teams includes lines for both references (claimed and unclaimed). Auburn has only recently added this last web page, and people have mistaken this for an outright claim of those additional titles, but this is not the case. The leading tab which says national championships, on the front page clearly shows the school's athletic national championship history. Auburn has for decades produced the Auburn Football Media guide, and listed these titles as well, without changing this claim of only the 1957 and 2010 being years claiming a national title. Furthermore, this IP user is suggesting that Auburn 'claims' all five, but has unclaimed titles which Auburn never mentions on any website, nor is the NCAA documented titles from any of their selectors. Simply put, if Auburn were to claim those 5, or some combination, the sum of all titles, claimed or unclaimed should never be more than 5 titles. This suggests to me that the user simply is living in a fantasy land, drumming up years as he or she sees fit, and calling them National Title years, and with no reference. This further leads me to believe that the user is not working with the best interests of truth seeking in mind, but trying to bring sports message board flights of fancy into reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgmoon353 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't this just on ANI where someone was told to take it to the article talkpage and follow WP:DR? the panda ₯’ 00:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't help you, but if you are involved in a content dispute, the proper course of action is first to raise it on the article talk page. If you can't obtain a consensus there, then use one of the dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted your revertion of the IP editor because even though they are a COI editor, I think that reverting them is the wrong way to go; rather, explain why they shouldn't be advocating and other things. Tutelary (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to do so if you like, but the IP's edits are disruptive and, honestly, screwy. They have no business on anyone's talk page, but I would normally leave it to the user to make that decision. In the case of a blocked user, I take a harder line. I'll remove it again; please leave it alone. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Navesink Maritime Heritage Association

Hi Bbb23,

Note that the Navesink Maritime Heritage Association entry was deleted on May 18, apparently because it is thought to be non-existent. This is far form true. Possible the organization link became inactive. Please undelete and I will make updates as needed.

FYI this is the link www.navesinkmaritime.org

74.92.94.217 (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The article was not deleted because the organization did not exist but pursuant to WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Patricia Zhou

After a google search does seem to be notable, thanks for catching that. Zeus^u|c 01:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Zeus, I'm not absolutely sure she would survive a deletion discussion, but I felt a speedy delete wasn't warranted. You're a very busy tagger. You do a good job.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I'll come back to it tomorrow. I used to be really into it a while back then disappeared... figured I'd give it another shot. Thanks. Zeus^u|c 02:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Unblock on hold: User:Alans1977

Wanted to let you know there'd been an unblock request from this user that sounds kinda reasonable to me. They appear to recognize what they did wrong (after a quick word from another user, at any rate) and have straightforwardly agreed not to repeat their edit warring. If you agree, you can go ahead and enact the unblock yourself if you like. If not, just leave your comments on the unblock hold template per usual. Thanks! - Vianello (Talk) 01:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed it earlier, but I chose to leave it alone beause another administrator, DangerousPanda was handling it. I'm afraid I'm going off-wiki now until tomorrow. Even administrators have to eat. Hopefully, DP will see the ping and Alan's subsequent comment and take whatever action he thinks is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. I had not realized that was the reason. I'll let DP know what's going on. Thanks for the heads-up! - Vianello (Talk) 02:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like DP has taken care of it and the user is unblocked. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Middletownmedia unblock

I like his latest answer, but I want to hear from you first. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Daniel, frankly, I don't think he understands what he's doing. I know Wikipedia can be hard for a new user, but some of his statements and actions evince unusual incompetence and sometimes downright weirdness. Hopefully, he's a better journalist. Before he registered his account, he edited as an IP at Muncie, Indiana adding his own newspapers. His statement that he wants to edit that page but he isn't interested in self-promotion strikes me as disingenuous. It may be perfectly okay to have the newspapers listed, but it's hard to evaluate when they're added by a person with an obvious conflict (I've reverted the changes). All that said, you have a lot of experience with these sorts of requests, so I have no objection to giving him another chance if you think it's warranted. You might want to probe a bit deeper, though, to find out what else he wants to do here besides add information about his own projects.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about Myōdōkai_Kyōdan

Just for further reference, and so I get better at this, what made you decide this page was notable? I saw one source, and the link was broken, so there really was no source, shouldn't you leave some sort of tag on the site? I really have no stake either way in this, but I just would like to know your train of thought so I can get better at patrollingJacobiJonesJr (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Jacobi, there were two sources, one listed under references and one under sources. The latter link was broken, but the book exists. That aside, whether an article is eligible for an A7 doesn't depend on sources. The article could be entirely unsourced. It depends on credible claims of significance. I decided that the article was borderline. The claim of 219,000 adherents seemed to be enough to withstand an A7 and warrant a discussion. There's nothing wrong with your nominating it for deletion if you want to pursue it further. However, you should research the subject before nominating it because AfDs operate under a different standard from A7s. And it's hard when you're nominating a foreign organization unless you're familiar with the country and the culture of the organization. Finally, I was also influenced by the fact that the subject has articles at two other wikis (Japanese and German). Hope that helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, it does help. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

hello

hello I thought that 1abacada is a sockpuppet of "You should be slow sliced!", so I created that user page. I have seen that there are some people that are doing like me. Bb23 I saw that you undid some my revisions, byt why? thanks HiJiGN€ ^{Tell me} 16:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hijigne, what made you think that a non-existent user is a sock puppet of anyone? Why did you advertise on your user page that you have rollback, reviewer, and autopatroller rights (you don't)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should deleted before, "rollback, reviewer, and autopatroller" I have found in a user page, and then I copied it and pasted at my user page. Now I've understood what this is. Thanks HiJiGN€ ^{Tell me} 16:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I must work very hard to be "rollback, reviewer, and autopatroller". HiJiGN€ ^{Tell me} 16:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Whitehouse Institute of Design

I've requested a semi protect. unless you would consider putting one on. it is obvious the edit warring IP is back under a different IP. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I'm glad you posted here because I thought I had semi-protected it for 10 days on my own (didn't see your request). However, when I went back and looked, it wasn't protected. I think I neglected to fill out one part of the form properly (first time I've done that). Ironically, I usually check after I do it, and this time I didn't - wouldn't you know? Anyway, it's semi-protected now. I've also backed out the IP's last edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

many thanks. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

My edits

Hi Bbb23, I just wanted to ask you why you reverted my edits to List of Doc McStuffins episodes (Season 2). As far as I know, there was nothing wrong with what I did, and I did not remove the db-a10 tag from the article. Please enlighten me as to why you did this instead of just re-putting the tag on the article :) ~ Anastasia (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Anastasia, my apologies, I should have been more surgical in my edit, but I was annoyed with a disruptive editor (not you). Anyway, your edits have been restored by another user, so not to worry. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A tagging comedy. Based on the new tag, I've deleted the article. Again, though, you did nothing wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks :) ~ Anastasia (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user Man of company

Hello. I noticed that you blocked the user with a comment about them probably being a sock of someone. Well, if I was to bet on who I'd say Political Cricketer, based on edit history, talk page and previous interactions with TRPoD. CatHorseDog is also most probably connected to Man of company and their master, based on both being new throw-away accounts and CatHorseDog reverting TRPoD on List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Telugu) films right before Man of company issued a totally unwarranted level 4 warning for edits on that article to TRPoD. Just my 2p. Thomas.W ^talk 20:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thomas, thanks for helping. I was actually thinking of a known sock master, not a new one. One comment that MoC made rang a bell, but I can't remember who made a similar comment. If I have a moment, I'll check out the users you mention, but I'm not sure when I'll have time. You're welcome to file a report at SPI if you feel you have sufficient evidence to connect the accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

CatHorseDog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has begun to follow TheRedPenOfDoom around and revert his warnings, clearly showing that there's a connection between that user and Man of company. Thomas.W ^talk 22:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm not persuaded that I would block based on WP:DUCK. I'd probably be willing to endorse a CU if you filed a report at WP:SPI. My guess is if the user continues to edit, they will dig themselves in deeper. In addition to the edit war and the disruptive removal of a warning, they've committed one act of clear vandalism. But you still have the problem with Political Cricketer, a much older account with far more history, who, according to you would be the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Your action looks like a vandalism :)XXN (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Stalkford again

User:Stalkford editing again at Gautama Buddha in Hinduism diff. See also archive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Stalkford returned again. This time they admitted it. Helpsome (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your viewpoint, advice, and/or opinion, continued

Hi Drmies, I'm coming to you with this because you are somewhat familiar with the situation. If there is a more appropriate Admin to address, please let me know and accept my apologies for dragging you into this any further. Lightbreather came back from her stated vacation over the weekend and one of the things I noticed was posting the {{Discretionary sanctions}} tag on many of the gun related article she has edited. This, in and of itself, is not a problem, but she has restarted her onslaught (and I feel that is an appropriate use of the word) of edits so the posting of the tag seems IMO more like an intentional gesture of some kind.

The crux of my issue is her absolute insistence on certain or specific detail (and its wording) in articles. She's at 4RR for this particular edit [7]. I have the same contention with this edit [8] that she and I have gone back and forth regarding. You have made edits/comments regarding her use of excessive, unnecessary, or questionable (at least) detail [9].

Like you, I am not a fan of ANI or many other formal procedures, but it seems like LB is on a mission. What it is, I'm not exactly sure, but she's openly stated some indication of it here and here (that I know of) where she makes statements like, "...my observation is that I am the only "pro-control" editor here...".

Speaking of formal procedures, I'd been forced to learn more about them and be involved via Lightbreather more in the last 6 months than my entire time on Wikipedia. And its gotten worse since the topic ban on gun articles was imposed on several core editors recently. It's like she learns of a new process and can't wait to try it out on an article or the next person that disagrees with her. You had recent exposure to this here.

I'm very much in favor of providing balance to an article, but LBs interpretation of "balance" seems to be very different the rest of the WP community. Your thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Scalhotrod, I don't see a violation of WP:3RR by LB at either Gun politics in the United States or Assault weapons legislation in the United States. LB's comments about their own personal beliefs are not optimal, but not sanctionable unless there's actual misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, thank you for taking a look. Just to confirm what Drmies mentioned with regard to the BRD process. Granted, I understand its not a policy, but the normal procedure is that content is added, someone reverts it, and then its up to the Editor that added it (or that is defending its inclusion) to start a Discussion on the article Talk page, correct? Part of the reason that I bring up LB's beliefs is her insistence on certain wording. For example, I have literally lost track of the number of times that she has used, reverted back, or changed content to include the word "ban" in articles where its use is unspecific or vague at best. She then states or claims that the preponderance of the sources use the term without any regard for clarity or seemingly encyclopedic writing which as I understand it should explain the subject and not just mindlessly repeat a word or phrase. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Without an obvious policy violation, the best you can do is to build a case and take LB to a noticeboard like ANI or AN, but as you probably know, those boards insist on fairly compelling evidence to sanction an editor, and generally the burden is on you. The fact that discretionary sanctions exist on the articles helps you a bit because the bar is lower for misconduct. I haven't looked at LB's edits generally except to answer the 3RR question. Remember, content disputes are not fodder for administrative boards. Other forums exist to resolve those problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank again for the clarification, its appreciated. What makes the situation especially difficult is LBs interpretation of WP policy, guidelines, and the use of formal procedures. She's used ANI several times to dispute content. Furthermore, when someone raises an argument regarding similar edits that she makes across multiple articles, she interprets this as a "personal attack" which she has taken to ANI as well.

Through the forced involvement in ANI by LB, I am so confused as to what is and what is not the proper procedure that I'm not sure I'll ever start one. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, User: Bbb23, Do you remember me? [10] I do not want be blocked, as user freemesm. He came again for start edit warring again. He is adding unreliable sources, as I mentioned on the talk page. Now if he will undid my revision again, I can not undid for another time, because I do not want ti be blocked. Now what can i do? You are an admin, so you know more than me. I am continuing to add reliable sources. What would you suggest me? Thanks Bigidilijak (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you talking about Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh, Freemesm properly reverted your copyright violation. Keep doing that and you will be blocked. Otherwise, I have no idea to what you're referring.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the cpyright, and I added a new thing. Bigidilijak (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, now Bigidilijak is in 3r [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I am going to report him. I already requested page for page protection [16].--FreemesM ^(talk) 13:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, As already a discussion started here [17], should I file another 3r report in edit warring noticeboard?--FreemesM ^(talk) 13:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:G S Palmer already reported 3rr [18]. --FreemesM ^(talk) 14:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked Bigidilijak for 72h for persistent inclusion of copyvio material and material sourced only to blogs; whilst Freemesm did technically violate 3RR there is an exclusion for copyvio reversals. I am now wondering who Bigidilijak is a sock of; the account was only created three days ago and is very familiar with wikicode and policies. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone for pitching in while I'm off-wiki. I had the same suspicion as BK, and it's been confirmed (pun intended).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Bigidilijak has been blocked for sock puppetry [19]. Before that he was blocked by User:Black Kite for 72 hours. Just after his block, user:LucrativeOffer become active again in 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar. These two users working side by side.--FreemesM ^(talk) 00:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You left a message on Ponyo's talk page. I'll let her deal with it if she wishes to.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Freemesm has been removing vast amount of properly sourced parts of the article even after his block, see this edit where he blanked a large part of Later incidents section which was properly sourced. In this edit, he cleverly distorted a source by completely changing the title (original title is "Children in violent politics" and false title "Noted personalities express concern") as well as putting a fictional quote. And he is putting false allegation on me, I don't know how to warn people for edit warring or other things, I saw a warning section on Freemesm's talkpage that suited my purpose so I copied it and posted on the talkpage. LucrativeOffer (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:SuperNepoznat

Hi. I'm not sure what the proper course of action is (starting a new SPI?) so I'm just posting here since you're the one who blocked him the first time. User:SuperNepoznat is at it again, now as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MunjaWiki and doing the same types of edits. 78.1.143.200 (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an easy call without a CU. I did a lot of comparisons of their edits against the edits of the confirmed socks. Ultimately, I decided there was enough to block based on (1) user name similarity (MunjaWiki is a combination of the master's first user name, Munjanes, and Wiki, similar to other socks); (2) nationalistic agenda; (3) similarity in some of the edits themselves to other socks; and (4) the post to User:JorisvS (I could see no reason for a new user to go to Joris's talk page as he hasn't edited since May 8, but he was involved with the other puppets in discussions).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There should be a block template for that...

Uw-kitchensinkblock [20]?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That's very funny. We're doing some major repair work to our house, and it's chaos. A little levity helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds both ambitious and exhausting!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR mistake

I copy pasted the text from Betty Logan's page and didn't realize I grabbed my sig. Sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any opinion on the text as written however or do you feel this should be obvious and I am over thinking this?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Mark, in my view, you're over-thinking it. The "new" text isn't needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. While I disagree strongly, I will make no further edits and will use the talk page. But most likely not right away. This isn't that important to me at the moment.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP violations?

Re this edit. Would you please consider the BLP violations in the article today that I had to remove numerous times but which were re-added by a user [21]? 'Obnoxious' is not a nice word at talk page, but claiming someone is far-right, fascist or anti-semitic in the ARTICLE is a bit more serious? Or, perhaps, it isn't if an 'established user' writes things like that ...? Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And the descriptions in the article have little <ref>s on them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Note to Bbb23

Can you please stop The Red Pen of Doom from disruptive editing? thank you. TristanAlessis (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What edits are you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Street Level

Why isn't Street Level eligible for A9? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Because the artist has an article here (De La Cruz (band)).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Blind defense of obvious error ain't helpful

Substiute word "THIS" with what went before ..... BOLD-REVERT.

Thus, you get BOLD-REVERT is known as the BRD cycle. Which is

• bald face,
• utterly
• manifestly
• unambiguously

wrong. In my opinion, foot stamping demanding an RFC to change such error is ....... not helpful. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to take a chill pill, NewsAndEventsGuy. Edit warring on the edit warring policy is a bit redundant.--v/r - TP 23:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's hot and muggy, so sentence #1 sounds wonderful. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Here come the Suns

I was looking at the AN3 report for him trying to figure out if he was indeed edit warring... I'd just worked out that yes, he was warring when I discovered you'd blocked him already. So it looks like we've switched from last day when I did the blocking during your investigation. :) Tabercil (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we'll get to know each other this way by overlapping. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Siddheart Sock puppet report

You should tell to King of Hearts that you haven't blocked Siddheart for sock puppetry, but for edit warring. Report link. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you came to me about this. Spike Wilbury blocked the listed puppet for sock puppetry. I wasn't involved and don't know whom he had in mind as the master. King of Hearts can easily see the basis for my block of Siddheart and its duration. He didn't change that. If you're concerned about the sanctions or the closure of the report, you should approach one or both of those two administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. Siddheart (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Need your help now.

Please I need your help now. A user has reported me for being sock puppet. what should i do? I am not a sock...... will you please help me now? I am asking you as a friend if you consider me. Thanks. Siddheart (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't help you with the socking issue. You posted a message at the report itself (even though it's closed). No one has blocked you for being a sock. As far as I can tell, the clerk did not make a determination that you were a sock. If you want to understand more about the status of the allegation, I suggest you talk to King of Hearts, the administrator/clerk who closed the report. In the meantime, the best thing you can do for yourself at Wikipedia is to behave properly, interact civilly with other editors, and avoid disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Question about long term abuse by IP editor

Where would I go to bring attention to long term abuse by an IP editor? The editor has been vandalizing P. J. Patterson for months now. See User_talk:50.30.49.20. Ping me in reply to get my attention please. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

They just violated the 4th warning so I guess AIV will handle it. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

57th Berlin International Film Festival

Hi, you recently deleted 57th Berlin International Film Festival due to Wikipedia:CSD but it is an important subject with lots of details and reliable references available for it. Shouldn't we improve this article instead of deleting it. Really like to know your answer on this. Regards--Jockzain (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Also like to know why you deleted this article. Guoguo914 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it had no references in it, only self-published external links, although references aren't necessary to withstand a speedy delete tag. It basically had just a few things in it: (1) the members of the jury, (2) the contestants, and (3) the fact that it happened. That ain't much to demonstrate a credible claim of significance. Perhaps the best thing in it were the films in competition, but, curiously, it didn't even have who won what award - despite the fact that it has existed since 2010. If you wish, Jockzain, I'll WP:USERFY it for you so you can improve it and move it back to article space. Let me know. Looks like some of the other annual film festivals have articles, too, and suffer from the same defects - but they weren't tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am willing to work on this article. Let me know as soon as you WP:USERFY it.--Jockzain (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's now at User:Jockzain/57th Berlin International Film Festival. Enjoy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, Bbb23. Yes, it does look pretty poor now I can see what state it was in! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added award section with reference and some details about the festival with reference. I have moved it back to it's place. Thanks for your time and help.--Jockzain (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks much better to me. If it's tagged again (seems unlikely), I'll let another administrator evaluate it. If you have some time, you might want to work on the other articles by year. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• I had tagged the article. Bbb23 did an excellent job, in explaining why he deleted it, in capturing why I tagged it. As to why I didn't tag all such articles at once, given that many suffered from the same malady (as pointed out), it was so that before I did so (given that there is no deadline) interested editors could have a chance to observe the problem, which is what happened. Before going through the possibly needless steps with all the other articles of deletion and userfication and improvement through reflecting a credible claim of significance. Given that I expect this series of articles will be improved, I'll certainly not tag them myself in the immediate future. Good work here by all. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am going to work on similar articles like that. But it will take time because there are large number of them. But I will improve them as much as I can.--Jockzain (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Good luck. All the best. Epeefleche (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Uishaki

is apparently operating now as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.191.188.170. If it is obvious please block the IP and if not let me know and I will have to file an SPI. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious, Brewcrewer. I've blocked the IP for a week and increased the block duration of the master to two weeks from today. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Macintosh

I consider G30 sufficiently notable that an executive director of it is very likely to be notable, and will be working on it; I therefore reverted the redirect. What really needs attention is the main article. I'll be trying to do that also. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

my Giuliani edit of December /2013

I'm not understanding why you described my edit changing the term "marched" to "frog marched" as unhelpful vandalism. At the time of Wigton's arrest numerous media outlets used the term "frog marched" to describe the circumstances surrounding Wigton's arrest. To say someone was "marched" can be interpreted in a number of ways, soldiers march onto the battle field, celebrants march in parades. In this case Giuliani deliberately had this man arrested in front of colleagues, was handcuffed and frog marched out to maximize his public humiliation. By leaving out the word frog, the impact is lost. Following is a quote from thecrimereport.com about Giuliani and his use of perp walks to shame people, I think it explains it well.

"Giuliani also helped pioneer the use of perp walks for white-collar criminals, who were accustomed to more genteel treatment.

In 1987, Richard Wigton, an executive at Wall Street’s Kidder, Peabody, was frog-marched out of his 18th-floor office in handcuffs for alleged insider trading. He was in tears as he faced a media phalanx outside.

Giuliani called the arrest “a lesson to people who want to be millionaires in their 30s.”

After nearly three years of twisting in the wind, Wigton was cleared when the investigation was trash-canned. But Wigton was ruined. Near the end of his life, in 2006, he described himself as “a victim of Giuliani’s ambition.” Parnellg (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parnellg (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

First, you're talking about an edit and revert that occurred six months ago. Second, the cited sources do not support the term you want to use. If you can find a reliable source that supports it (not thecrimereport.com), fine, but it's a specific kind of march and probably not applicable here. I do agree, though, that it's not vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

whoosh

You deleted Whoosh, I'm kind of pissed of because I just spent time with another admin to restore it. Please discuss with another admin User:RHaworth and restore it, he just reviewed the page. There is a clear lack of communication from you admin, you click on the delete button really quickly without discussing to anyone, that's complete lack of respect for contributors. TomT0m (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• @TomT0m: perhaps I did not make things clear. There was absolutely no point in reposting the same unreferenced text - you were expected to improve the article before reposting. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  @RHaworth: I did, I added the references that proved admissibility. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, what is the point of writing an admissible article without allowing other users to contribute ? Are not beginning of articles allowed on Wikipedia now ? This is absolutely not the spirit I like. Or no deletion is more valuable than creation. And individual work is more valuable than collaborative one. Can I at least recieve the deleted text to work it elsewhere with other people ? Every admin should do that, this would make them work a little bit more before pressing a delete button to save the encyclopedia from contributions. TomT0m (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  You would get further with less aggression. Still, if you want me to move the article to your user space, I will. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  I claim the right to protest. In fact I don't contribute a lot in enwiki, and I'm here following a topic do you contribute to Wikipedia ? on a french communautary website. Someone commented "I did but one of my article was just deleted, this refreshed me a lot and I stopped". As I don't really know well the english project, I decided to investigate and to see if it was not an overeaction, and tried to see what I could do here with a little chatting. So I try to see what the procedure is, and I try to chat with RHaworth, because it's a policy and because I think can little chat can smooth a lot things. So, I do everything in the rules, and he sent me the text and say the spam immediate deletion claim he did earlier was too much. I recreate the article adding references and notify the original author the article was recreated (he may work on it if wants to) ... The next day I discovered on the same chat the article was deleted again ! On the french forum, I have not even been notified here the article I created was deleted !

  So this might be in line with administrators here, I am still pissed. I tried to chat, I barely have has a result an admin who just click delete without doing the same, like a click on the "spam" button on a mail client. I don't know if you realize how violent and dissimetric it is. Contributors should have lawyers :). A newcomer welcomed like that won't become a contributor for sure. I demonstrated Willingness to talk, my answer is totally appropriate.

  In the end, we have an admissible subject, a willingful contributor, and an article without any chance to be bettered by community because he is silently without talking deleted. I understand better some of the person in the chat who said it was really hard to contribute to Wikipedia nowdays and stopped. If you don't know what to do, nobody will communicate and explain what you did wrong. This is a problem for a project who rely on willingfulness. TomT0m (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  You have a right to protest, and if it makes you feel better to vent, more power to you, but if you want to make progress here, you'll have to lose the attitude. So, putting your protest aside for the moment (some of it I understand and some of it, unfortunately, I can't follow, probably because of the language barrier), please address the last two sentences of my previous comment. If you want to give up, that's up to you. If you want to work on the article, I can move it to your user space. Again, please don't go off on a tangent. Just tell me what you want me to do at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  At this point I'd be happy if you recognized that there might be a problem in the way you handle things here and that maybe change are to be made. As I said I'm not really here to work myself on the article, although I did add sources, but more to understand how some good faith contributors actually stopped contributing. I think I understood. You actually ask a lot of a contributor. He REALLY has a lot to do to prove its willingness, almost to beg. Considering I do not really want to work on this article myself as I on't know the subject, I won't ask you to send me the article. It's to easy to just push a delete button and wait for the user to beg to retrieve the text so that he and others can work on the text. There is a lot of collateral damages and this imply to lose good contributors. When you admin delete some article, and I understand it's your job, the author and contributors should be notified and provided with options to go on without having to be pissed, then calm of, then beg. I heard there is a Draft space here, why did we not even speak of it ? I think this option should have been provided to me, why did not this happens ??? These are real questions, and not me beeing aggressive. I'm not nice probably here, but not aggressive. TomT0m (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not interested in such a discussion. On your talk page is a Welcome message. One of the links is to WP:Q. Perhaps one of the forums listed on that page will be helpful to you. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  You should, that's your job. Who really has an attitude ? TomT0m (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of articles about music and film festivals

As a courtesy notification, I made reference to one of your deletions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion of articles about music and film festivals and would welcome your perspective there. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Return of John Go

Hi: I see you were the one who deleted ဂၽြန္ဂို and indeffed JohnGo333. The article has been recreated by Johngosoeya3d, and Discospinster has deleted it and userfied it to User:Johngosoeya3d/ဂၽြန္ဂို. I can't see the Burmese letters, but I note there were also Jon Ko and User:JohnGoFight, although there seem to be multiple birth dates involved, and that the new account has also created an unsubmitted draft at Draft:John Go. I was thinking of starting an SPI, but I have to go to work soon and frankly this makes my head swim with the differences between versions. What do you think - block evasion, or are there two non-notable John Gos being promoted? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not worth hurting your head and trying to figure out the details. The new account is indeffed. I've blocked accounts as an SPI clerk with far less evidence than this. I've also deleted all the pages he created. Thanks for tipping me off.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A Voice for Men

Could you stop in at A Voice for Men, I'm not going to argue that the existing article was a bastion of NPOV, but the recent edits and edit warring by an IP are not helping the article in any shape or form. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I had to block both of you for violating WP:1RR on the article. It's never a good idea to warn and report someone for possible sanctions when you yourself have violated the policy. I blocked the IP for twice as long because their editing was significantly more disruptive than yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Baseless tag

Can I ask what you mean by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cherryholmes_III%3A_Don%27t_Believe&diff=612049853&oldid=612030649 basless tag? The article is pretty much non-notable, and it should be deleted according to A1. WooHoo! • Talk to BrandonWu! 03:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

BrandonWu, if you think that article should be deleted per WP:CSD#A1, then you should not be tagging articles for deletion. I see you tagged it for deletion again, and this time it was declined by WilyD. If you keep doing that sort of thing, you risk being blocked for disruptive tagging. You're young and inexperienced at Wikipedia (at least based on this account). Perhaps you should take more time to learn speedy deletion policy before tagging articles. If you have specific questions, I'm happy to answer them, but first read the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Even I won't nominate it for anything and I nominate a lot of stuff for XFD, and the reason I won't: It won an award, which to my mind is a pass of WP:NALBUM.--Launchballer 14:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Launchballer - If it won an award, why isn't that mentioned in the article? Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe he means nominated.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I should have meant nominated; I read the article far too quickly. Now actively considering sending to AfD.--Launchballer 14:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, there is obviously a difference. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Return of the Sock

hi Bbb23 - you asked me to inform you if I saw any activity from Lgfcd's IPs. All three of the following IPs lit up over the last three days: 200.219.132.103, 200.219.132.104, and 200.219.132.105. Kyteto (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Kyteto, all three IPs have been blocked before for two weeks, two by me and one by another administrator. I've reblocked all three, this time for three months. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The Franklin child abuse allegations

The editor of this page wrote the following: "This needs to be referenced to a reliable secondary source, not to Bryant's book itself. Tom Harrison Talk 13:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)"

In accordance with the editor's directive, I'm using a secondary source that was peer-reviewed and published by a prominent international publisher. I'm also using the word alleged, so I'm not in violation of defamatory content. Indeed, I'm discussing the decision of a U.S. District Court Judge.

I'm adhering to the editor's directives, so your erasure of the content I added is contravening the editor of the page.Nick 19:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickBryant (talk • contribs)

Connection?

After reverting this: File:MGSV Ground Zeroes boxart.jpg, I've noticed a pattern. There appears to be a connection: [22], [23] « Ryūkotsusei » 16:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I did a cursory review, and I can't follow it well enough to block. You could reopen the SPI (you'd have to provide more diffs than you've done here) and someone would then look at it. You could try providing more diffs here, but I don't promise anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:CurrentViews

Hi. Just FYI, the user above, who you just blocked as a "vandalism-only account" is indeed that, but is also the latest incarnation of sock master Daffyduck1234. I've been alerting DoRD to the socks, which come at a regular rate and edit a pretty tightly defined suite of articles. I've assembled a list of their known socks here, as preparation for putting together an LTA page. BMK (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to give me some diffs connecting CV to something confirmed, I'll tag the account. Otherwise, I'll let DoRD take care of it. Either way, thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No, just being blocked is sufficient, thanks. BMK (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked and DoRD changed it to a checkuser block. BMK (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't DoRD great? I don't know what I'd do without him. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hrmmphff

I find this remark offensive and not in spirit of AGF/CIVIL. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

My report at AN3

I agree with Drmies - What was the point in locking the article? I see no chance that the editor I reported is going to change his approach. Did you read his edit summaries and his talk page? Drmies is right, this makes us look as though we are like Yatzek. And did you see the SPI report he raised?[24] Obviously neither of us are going to leave Wikipedia, but I have seen editors leave or at least withdraw from articles because of actions such as this one. I'm a decent editor, I try my very best not to break the rules, Drmies is also, and now we can't improve the article because of an editor warrior who is trying to add racialist anthropology nonsense to an article against consensus at the talk page of the article? I'm sure you thought this was the right thing to do, but could I please beg you to reconsider? The SPI alone should convince you that locking it just stops good editors from working on it and only postpones the problem for a week. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Doug, hopefully you've seen the dialog at AN3 and at least understand what I did wrong. I didn't respond here sooner because, frankly, I expected the user to be blocked for other reasons independent of the report, thus making the report moot. That hasn't happened ... yet. Anyway, to the extent you feel even a little slighted after my explanation, paint me as chastened.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this response. It did actually make me feel a bit "what's the point" - you know what a strain editing can be, and I seem to be involved too often in nationalistic/racist/ethnic etc areas where the environment is less than pleasant. Your response does help. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I know getting involved in controversial areas of the project can often be frustrating, but it's thanks to editors like you that someone tries to keep some order to those articles. I admire you for it. If you're feeling put-upon (understandable), by all means take a break from it, but please don't give up on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't like to give up on things or run from them, so I doubt very much anything but incapacity or a huge change in the project will keep me away. Even though I approach some issues with dread. :-) Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23, @Doug — Sorry to change subject on you, but catching you both on same page at same time is something of a dream opportunity. Have a quick look here [25], and here [26]. At the Amazon page, click on the small purple link (back cover image) immediately below the orange book image that is prominent on page left. Backstory, nutshell, I went looking to see what WP had developed on Karl Popper, and specifically on his Conjectures volume. On reading the short WP article, the second paragraph (now in block quote) struck me as having a distinctly different voice than the first paragraph (frankly, second paragraph was better quality writing), and it seemed familiar. On a hunch I grabbed an appropriate segment of the WP text, and simply google searched it (no formal academic tools used). Immediately, the back cover text cropped up, making clear someone had plagiarized the whole back cover content of the Routledge volume, all but verbatim (one puffery-type word deleted). So, I converted the second paragraph into a block quote. And there it stands.

Bottom line question, what is one formally to do in such a case? I have never seen a "plagiarism suspected" tag or the like. Where and how does one bring such things forward? (Who tracks plagiarism accusations and resolutions?) If there is no current protocol, what existing course or mechanism could be used as a stop-gap? Finally, if there is no course, how does one initiate such—what is the course for significant change of process, in an area with COPYVIO and other legal ramifications? RSVP here, thanks. We can insert a section heading between this new Talk and the foregoing, if you wish. (PS, wrote embarrassingly curt Talk entry in response; this stuff angers me; [27].) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272:Sorry to be slow in responding. This was really straight copyvio so far as I can see. So WP:COPYVIO covers it. There are templates for this as well as Twinkle's tags and all of these and noticeboards, plagiarism, etc are mentioned at WP:COPYVIO. Post to my talk page if you need to know more, or ask User:Moonriddengirl if you think change is needed. Interestingly enough I looked at Popper's article and realised it had a lot more about the book than that pretty pathetic article, so I've turned it into a redirect. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and apologies again for the delay in replying. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

review

please review and allow to create the article Gladson samuel ES samuels.gladson (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I not only deleted it, I prevented it from being recreated. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Smauritius

Is a fair version. I don't know why Hell in bucket removed stuff from there, and your edit recovered a typo(I had talked to bushranger about that), it also removed some recently discussed material. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The "discussion" was not useful. Let it be. Is the typo yours? If not, forget it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not mine though. Ball is in your court, I had my revert. Are you free enough for protecting a page? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted you and left in the typo fix. Now you can stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I had no problem like I added before. I guess I didn't explained my previous request that well, I actually wanted protection for the article, Potential superpower. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record my removal was the mistaken block notice and one of a spi notice [[28]]. I had previously been unaware that there was a dispute between others I just saw it when I was checking if I clicked alert the editor button. The issue is resolved but User:OccultZone I'm curious what exactly was unfair about removing a duplicate block notice [[29]] for a banned user. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: Their issue, some people add template for making it easier. Templates are sometimes automated, and they don't include the extended explanation. I don't know if anything is wrong with removing double notices but I would've contacted the block poster. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation and final edit

As I promised King of Hearts, I will be retiring this account per the conclusion of the investigation of highly disruptive user LibDutch, whom I rightly identified as a (quite obvious) sock puppet master. I understand based on seeing your userboxes that your philosophy on editing Wikipedia is very different to mine (i.e. you believe all users should be registered in a rather Orwellian manner), but I hope you can assume good faith in future. I refer to your statement that "IPinvestigates is headed for a block, just a question of when". As this is my final edit, I'm happy to prove you wrong. Thanks. IPinvestigates (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

List of outlaw motorcycle clubs

Something funny is going on at List of outlaw motorcycle clubs... a bot appears to have reverted your pp template. You might want to have a look. — Brianhe (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Brianhe, thanks for taking the trouble to alert me, but it's not what you think. I added semi-protection to the article. In so doing, I removed pending changes. The bot removed the pending changes template, which was the correct thing to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. — Brianhe (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That was interesting! The IP editor seems to have created its own warning template. I declined it at WP:AFC. That was one thing to remove, for which I thank you. Attacks I never mind, idiots I mind a lot :) Fiddle Faddle 18:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

They caused a lot of disruption I had to clean up after I blocked them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Clerk Trainee

Hello, I am Mmddyy28 and I am interested in becoming a ArbCom Clerk Trainee. I have been on Wikipedia for a little while and am currently active in working on an adoption course set to be completed the week of July 20. I am interested in becoming a trainee because the tasks they do and the process of training interests me. Would you consider me? I have recently contacted Sphilbrick and he said I should try contacting another clerk, as he has only been in this position for three months. --Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 19:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I see you contacted Callanecc. He is an active clerk at ArbCom, whereas I am not. However, to be blunt, there's no way at this stage that you would be accepted as a clerk. You have too little experience. You have a recent block. You haven't even finished your adoption course. Notwithstanding, I wish you the best of luck at improving as a Wikipedian. Be patient.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: How did you know I contacted another user? When you say "You haven't even finished your adoption course" did you forget when I said above "I have been on Wikipedia for a little while and am currently active in working on an adoption course set to be completed the week of July 20."? BTW, how would an incomplete adoption course mean anything in becoming a clerk? I just started it last week and I'm taking my time (hence being complete the week of July 20) so it will be quality work and not something slapped together at the last minute that no one will be able to understand. How would a recent block have any affect? 1: How do you know that? And 2: It was a mistake I knew NOTHING about the three revert rule and policies because I was barely on this site. After reviewing everything I now have a good understanding about Wikipedia's policies. How could I have "too little experience" on the site to become a clerk? Respectively, Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 00:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I knew you contacted another user by looking at your contributions. I knew you had been blocked by looking at your block log. It takes a lot of experience to have a "good understanding about Wikipedia's policies." You don't have to know anything about WP:3RR to know that what you did was wrong. You removed warnings on your talk page. You reverted the other editor's report about you on WP:AN3. It was pure, selfish disruption. As I believe another clerk told you, you should probably have thousands of edits here and a clean block log (or at least a long track record without a block) before you'll even get off the ground. You're jumping the gun by a huge amount. You even tried to run for administrator less than a week ago. You need to develop considerably more maturity and judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

How did you know about the noticeboard discussion removals? And in case you aren't aware, under Wikipedia policy you are allowed to remove warning from your talk page. It is just taken as a sign that you read and understand them. Also, the readding of the deleted warning to my talk page violated this policy stating not to restore comments on a talk page that were deleted by that user. --Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 01:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If I may interject, I think Bbb23's point, Mmddyy28, is that you do not have enough experience to be an ArbCom clerk trainee. If you look at the others who are clerks, you will note that most are administrators, and those who are not would likely have a decent chance of passing RfA. While certainly not a requirement, that is probably a good indicator for you to realize, seeing as how you have less than a thousand edits, and most admin candidates have 10,000 or more, that you are not ready. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but there are other areas of the encyclopedia in which you can help. Write an article; trust me, it's more fun than the wiki-bureaucracy . The bottom line is that you are not ready to be an administrator or a clerk right now, and pestering people about it will only further dissent that will undoubtedly arise in the future when you are ready; you're digging yourself into a hole. Stop digging, please, and write an article, or learn about deletion policy and !vote in a few AfDs, or work on vandalism reversion, or keep plodding away at your adoption course, etc. Thanks. Go Phightins! 01:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Bbb, I went on a walk with the dogs and figured I'd reassess the Martinrehman situation on my return--to discover that you already took care of business. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I always love it when I go off-wiki and someone else takes care of something. Less work for me. Hope the dogs appreciate it, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, they did. And then we got in the pool and now we're going to eat hot dogs. I'll let the paid employees hold the fort for us today. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Konstanty Andrzej Kulka

I was somewhat astonished that Kulka has no English article, while he's well covered in Polish (no wonder) and Japanese. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) "Has won or placed in a major music competition": Distinction in 1964 Paganini competition in Genoa, 1st. prize in 1966 in Munich "Has released two or more albums on a major record label": for example his Violin Concert of Szymanowski (EMI 1981) won Grand Prix du Disque. Unfortunately my Wiki skills are not enough to properly contest the speedy deletion nor further enhance the article and properly document the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdebski (talk • contribs) 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Pdebski, I've restored the article and added a framework to expand it. It's pretty bare bones at the moment. You might be able to help by translating some of the Polish article and sticking it in the article here, but we need reliable sources. Almost everything I added was unsourced. You could try enlisting the help of a Wikipedia project. There may be a Polish one (they're hard to find), but WP:MUSICIANS helps with biographical articles about musicians. You could post a message on their talk page, and someone might come to your aid.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you biting?

Sure, the four-letter articles you deleted had little context. However, they were added in good faith (See User_talk:Piguy101#Message_from_Soupman11 and User_talk:G_S_Palmer#Excessive_CSD?) These deletes will probably discourage Soupman11 from editing, though he seemed potentially very helpful. I think you should restore and userify them and explain your actions to Soupman11. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but a new user who doesn't seem to listen shouldn't be moving at such a rapid clip. I've given him a little leeway by only warning him, but these articles are obviously not ready for main space. He can do what he wants, within reason, in his user space. If he continues, I'll block him just to stop the disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess your actions were justified because the articles were not ready for creation. Hopefully, Soupman11 can create the articles individually and slowly, as they are viable topics. I have left a message on his talkpage explaining this. Piguy101 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your advice was sound, and I've added to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the situation is all cleared up now. Piguy101 (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

IP removing Turkish/Azerbaijani information from articles

Would you be interested watching this IP's edits?[30] It appears this person does not want Turkish or Azerbaijani mentioned in certain articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't able to get around to this. Looks like others are helping in the interim and you don't need me.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Socialnet.ml

A touch of salt? Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Another admin already salted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Quizilbash 1233

[31] Since you just denied his edit request, could you revoke talk page access or something? I don't want to get near 3RR. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 14:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Usually better to leave that sort of thing completely alone and just alert an admin. I've revoked talk page access and restored the material he removed. I've also reinserted his parting comment, although not the picture. Don't think of it as personal. He's just pissed. I considered extending his block but decided against it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks

Brian Evans (singer)

I have requested Pending Changes protection for this article, the ip that you have been working with is evading an indef block for socking and is the subject of the article, that's why I removed his addition in March and it's been ongoing since. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I've been working "with" him. I assume you mean you suspect the IP and the indeffed account are the same person. I hate pending changes (compared to semi-protection), but ...--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No I mean they are in fact the same person. They self id in their edit summaries [[32]] and the original account Croonerman did too. If you notice though it changes the ip refers to brian evans in the third person once but comments such as those are pretty clear I'm not outing them, maybe a more accurate claim is that they claim to be evans. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That made it easier for me, thanks. I blocked the IP for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

All the good templates

Hey! You just gave an ARBPIA notice, but {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}} is old-fashioned and doesn't trigger the edit-filter thingy to get the person notified under the May, 2014 DS system. Please consider issuing {{subst:alert|a-i}}. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ed, I knew I was doing it wrong but I couldn't remember what the correct procedure was. Should I redo it, or just try to do a better job remembering for next time? Can't we change ARBPIA so lame admins like me don't have to remember?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest going ahead with the alert to User:Yarron. See also User talk:Callanecc#Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, not clear enough for me. You want me to use the alert template for Yarron? Should I remove the other template and the logging of it at ARBPIA? I looked at the discussion at Callanecc's talk page, but I don't actually understand what he did (marked done). Sorry to be so difficult.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, how about removing (or striking out) your previous warning to Yarron, which uses the old {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, and then doing {{subst:alert|a-i}}. This winds up with nearly the same text but it makes Arbcom happy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ed, I've taken the following actions: (1) I replaced the alert on the user's talk page with the new one; (2) I removed the log of the alert from WP:ARBPIA as my understanding is unnecessary when using the new template; and (3) I added this comment to WP:ARBPIA about using the new template. I'm not sure I'm happy with the new alert. The concept is fine, but I don't like, for example, that it doesn't expressly mention the 1RR restriction, which is the only bright-line rule. True, there is a link to the decision, and an editor can find it, but I'd rather that editors didn't have to do that, particularly new accounts. I also don't like what I'm supposed to do to make sure the editor hasn't been alerted before in the past year. Seems like a lot of trouble. I suppose I have to get with the program, whether I like all aspects of it or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, both of your goals will be achieved in the future if you leave {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}} (preceded by subst:). Now that Callanecc has fixed it it both trips the edit filter and also leaves a more verbose notice that mentions the 1RR. In my view the virtue of the new triggering system is that notices can't be appealed. The fact that they don't have to be logged is a bonus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

My, my, it does get complicated. So, now you're saying I should use the old template because it's been updated. If so, I should probably amend my comment at WP:ARBPIA, not mention the new template, but still say that the alert doesn't need to be logged. Do I have that right?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask User:Callanecc or User:AGK what message (if any) should be left in the header at WP:ARBPIA#Log of notifications? I have heard that notices *should not* be placed in the case logs any more, though I don't actually see that language at Wikipedia:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Query

Hello - I have never uploaded to Wiki and had a content creator create a Wiki Page for my good friend. She sent me the code and told me to upload it - so I did but about 10 minutes later it was removed by you. As I'd like to have this done (and not deleted) can you please help me 1) get her off of the speedy deletion 2) let me know what needs to be changed so I can change it? I was in the middle of changing it already but it was deleted prior to me updating it where I had noticed a couple issues where the person just copy and pasted her biography someone wrote on her website.

A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

08:08, 19 June 2014 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Erika Harvey (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

A tag has been placed on Erika Harvey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranchescaB (talk • contribs) 08:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

My guess is Harvey does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, the article was such a piece of self-serving fluff, I didn't bother to assess that. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for Harvey to advertise her life. Just some examples of over-the-top material in the article: (1) Harvey maintains website "Pipers Love" dedicated to helping other families on a journey through the spectrum and living with the diagnosis of Autism. (2) The venture was designed to promote the work of local artists, designers and DIY Crafties, connecting them with buyers so that they can turn their hobbies into lucrative businesses. (3) Harvey’s diagnosis of neck cancer, stopped her from singing and forced her to focus on her other talents which ultimately led to her to finding passion in business and paved her path for entrepreneurial adventure.

That's stuff for a personal website, not for Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I didn't check over it until after posting it thinking that the Wiki creator that wrote it was doing it properly. Can you please remove the listing from speedy deletion as it is noted the person that we used just copy and pasted everything from her personal website and didn't do it properly as we requested (& paid her for). If you can remove from speedy deletion I will write this myself so it is correct and not "advertising her life" as that was not how it was supposed to be written at all. I agree with what you've said and that was from her personal website that was obviously just copy and pasted instead. I can then write it and get approval as I've read in the forums before publishing it live. Would you be able to remove the speedy deletion from her name as she wasn't the one that wrote the pile of rubbish pasted. Thank you FranchescaB (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not possible to "remove" it. If you want to create a new article about her, I strongly urge you to follow the procedures at WP:AFC. In that way, you'll get feedback from more experienced editors about the quality of the new article. You also appear to have a WP:COI, so I suggest you tread very carefully.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CaptainAmerica12

Thanks for the CU endorsement. You said that Sandile Sithole is still the only account that didn't edit Kylie Jenner. Sandile Sithole edited Scott Disick, and a Kardashian (not sure which one) connects Disick and Jenner. Just letting you know. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Anna, I should have been more explicit in my comment, but when I said I understood the connection with Sandile, that's what I meant; I saw the edit to Disick and the image connection as well. I just found it interesting that it was the only account that hadn't touched Jenner. At the same time, I recognize that socks don't have to be fully consistent in their edits. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23. Fair enough. And, nice to see the CU results. Thank you again, and best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Swedish Literature Bank

May I request undeletion of this, either in draft space or preferably back to main space? I see some echoing of phraseology in the cited source, but not unambiguous copyvio, and I disagree that it was promotional in tone: I believe that was an inadvertent result of the listing of what the organization does, and words like "classic", which apply to the literature itself. There is a fairly well developed article at sv:Litteraturbanken; that and the high-powered organizations involved in it demonstrate bona fides. Here's an article about it in a major newspaper. Radio Sweden interview Here in English is mention of (and a link to a soundfile of) a piece on Swedish Radio about it. Here is coverage of it in a public library's blog. Here it is described/recommended as a resource by Groningen University, alongside Project Runeberg (I found speculation in non-RS about whether it would draw resources away from the latter, which I used in the second stage of my search for sources). I believe it's notable and the version the editor created not so bad that it needs to be WP:TNT'd. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, I suspected it was notable but I think it was far worse in its tagged state than you think. I can't bring myself to restore it because of the copyright violations. Some are verbatim; some are very close paraphrasing. That said, I don't object to your restoring it, but please take care of the problems associated with it after you do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Incidentally, if the editor User:Lotta Lotass who created the article is the Lotta Lotass, which I would suppose, she herself is both notable and eminent. Member of the Swedish Academy; that's the guys who dish out the Nobel Prizes for literature. Having her editing en.wiki would be a very good thing, so I hope she's not discouraged by this. I'd be very surprised if she's into "advertising or promotion". Bishonen | talk 00:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC).

Hehe, she hasn't given me a Nobel prize. When she does, I'll restore the article. I doubt she's discouraged. She's probably indestructible. Anyway giving out Nobel prizes is probably more complicated than editing at Wikipedia. As for the promotion, often when somebody copies material from a website, the material is promotional. Even non-profit, laudable organizations promote themselves. But that wasn't my principal objection, as I explained above. Do you think the WMF would like to send me to Sweden to investigate this further?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, she is, or so I was told. As I say I didn't see anything blatant by the way of copyvio; but I'll be sure and mix it around. Not sure whether I have time tonight before work. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC) - I had missed an entire paragraph. I rewrote that and added the newspaper reference. Out of time for now! Yngvadottir (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, your first sentence: Do you mean she was discouraged or indestructible? Good job, btw, not that I had any doubt.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and I hope you like it even more now. I was able to find that radio coverage, and I think at this point I've done my best with it. I meant that I am informed the editor is the real McCoy :-) I hope she likes it. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, not even one of my speculative meanings. I made some changes to the article, mostly minor, one slightly more substantive. You can reject any you don't like. What does someone like you do for work? Usually, overeducated folk in the liberal arts teach (see Drmies), but one never knows. If you prefer not to respond, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me :-) It would be very bad if the streams were to cross :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't teach. I stand in front of a group of people and yak. Then I give them either stickers or bad grades. On a good day, they pretend to listen, and I pretend to say something worthwhile. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's nice to be paid to yak, and you do it so well. I love to yak, but I don't even pretend to say anything worthwhile. Generally, the only one who listens is me and even then not all the time.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Armory (software)

Hi,

Thanks! That request for deletion was kind of silly.

—Wikijeff (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)