User talk:Bbb23/Archive 7

Your unexplained reverts of my edits at Black Swan

Regarding your recent reverting history at Black Swan (film), you and the other editor have failed to provide sufficient rationale for the reverts, even though I have explained my reasoning for the inclusion of quotes from one of the individuals at the centre of the controversy. Please see WP:REVEXP and WP:ROWN for the proper etiquette when reverting. Saint91 (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Black Swan (film), Talk:Black Swan (film)". Thank you. Saint91 (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Herzog body-guarding

All uploaded on the 2 Jan - looks like promotional creation to me - see commons - I nominated a couple for deletion, as require evidence of permission, they are all cut and copy paste imo - lets see if the uploader will send the otrs declaration. Youreallycan (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I was also thinking I had seen this previously - as I was getting vague memories of having seen the picture before. I think it was under the title of the business - The Bodyguard Group - perhaps ask the admin User talk:SchuminWeb, or, as he is not very active, any admin to have a look how similar this article is to the one that was deleted. Youreallycan (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I've asked User:Beeblebrox. We'll see what your memory is like. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

damn it, double bubble - I asked Todd,here. We could have bets on which one replies first , hehe. Youreallycan (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, the requests are different, though. You've asked Todd to review the deleted article - I asked Beeblebrox for a copy of it. Of course, I provided Beeblebrox a link to this discussion, so he may be looking over our collective shoulders. Don't worry, I'll let you take full responsibility. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

lol. I'm logging of hopefully I won't wake up with a "you have messages" template and a link to some noticeboard report with all my usernames in neon lights - ciao amigo. Youreallycan (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Biophysicist's E-Book

Two of those three e-books you just deleted were in the article up until the recent edit war, from publication until 30 December 2011. Crowsnest did most of the editing during that time. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Youvan&oldid=468678612 .

Also, the most recent User that was banned made no legal threat. They simply stated fact that Youvan has several multimillion dollar settlements. Coming in from Commons, for the first time, my reading of this is that there is a conflict between the biophysicist and Crowsnest, including a financial position by the latter in ocean wave power and an association with MIT.

On Commons, Crowsnest attempted to delete one of the biophysicist's figures that sets an early priority date for structure in the genetic code, now used as the 4th figure in Genetic Code with 600,000 hits per year. Another editor pointed out that it was most likely a carry-over of a Creation / Intelligent Design / Evolution debate from this encyclopedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Genetic_Code_Structure.JPG Drawit4u (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Now there is an image of a letter at Commons from the biophysicist. We are trying to get him to delete it, but other than a fairly weak argument on Scope, it is going to appear like censorship.

So, I ask you to turn back the article to my most recent edit before your revert, protect the article, and let's save the foundation a lot of time and money. This is going to get ugly. Drawit4u (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You may start a talk page for me or answer me here. Drawit4u (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just found this, too: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Genetic_Code_Structure.JPG - a seemingly unnecessary apology from the biophysicist to Crowsnest after he won the deletion debate and the figure was kept and while not saying one word in his own defense. Drawit4u (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I spent 2 months researching Kris Herzog,

I spent 2 months researching Kris Herzog, the world he lives and works in is primarily reported on by media sources like TMZ and TMZ.com, CelebDirtyLaundry, LickAblecelebs.com, RadarOnline.com, etc.... I also included more mainstream ones like; Los Angeles CBS 2 / KCAL 9, People Magazine, US Weekly, Life and Style weekly and several others listed on my Wikipedia page, which combined have published over 247 stories about Herzog, his Book, My True Hollywood Story and/or his company, The Bodyguard Group over the last 4 years. As for Independent, since over 50% of the stories on TMZ and TMZ.com do NOT show Herzog in a good light, I would say they those are as Independent as you get. The 21 Independent and verifiable sources I list include several national news media outlets like: Los Angeles CBS 2 / KCal 9 which have aired 2 News Anchor Sharon Tay in depth news investigations about Herzog (re Mel Gibson) for a total of over 10 minutes of air time, it was then re run nationally and internationally. Herzog has been the central figure in over a dozen national and international news stories in just the last 4 years and that is far more than thousands of others who currently have pages on Wikipedia. Herzog owns the only company in the United States that gets jobs for free for U.S. Navy SEAL team members and others. Herzog was a key and central figure in some of the biggest news stories of 2009, 2010, 2011, Mel Gibson and Herman Cain. Herzog's story is noteworthy and as 50% or more of the news stories I have sighted DO NOT paint him in a good light, this is clearly* NOT** self promotion, advertising or an auto biography.

• • TMZ calls him a criminal, etc....

I just found out all the charges were dismissed and expunged, after an initial plea deal, 3 years ago, basically, it was stay out of trouble for 3 years, which he did and the charges would be dismissed, which they were, I went down to the court house and paid the court records fee, I just got the results today. It was ALL over a verbal only altercation with the Paparazzi. When you Google search: 1. Kris Herzog, 2. Kristian Herzog or 3. Kris Herzog Book, you get millions of results and Herzog has a higher standing and more noteworthiness than thousands of *people that currently have Wikipedia pages. Like his contemporary Gavin De Becker. who currently has a Wikipedia page. I have never met or spoken to him and only started this project to learn about Journalism and Wikipedia. Amanda, NYC Student — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aad351 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Trickle charging

You can start adding references to it as well as anyone. Deleting great chunks like this is pointless make-work for everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but when an article is unsourced and tagged for almost two years, then the unsourced material must either be sourced or removed. It's not my burden to source the article. The editor who created the article - or anyone else who cares to - can look for sources. Wikipedia is founded on verifiable reliable sources. Without them, it's just someone's opinion, not an encyclopedia article. Your reinstatements of the article are contrary to policy. I will revert one more time, and you can either leave it alone or find some sources yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not sorry, you're just another editor with more interest in finding excuses to exercise policies in order to flatter your own ego than you are in building an encyclopedia. Or are you going to hide behind your no doubt vast list of created articles on baseball or pokemon?

Read the contribs history - I'm the dumb schnmuck who cleans up after edits like yours. If you didn't waste so much of my time on crap like this, I'd get to do more of it. However you don't give a damn about that, about an encyclopedia, or even about the almighty "article quality" that you hide behind. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Iqbal Sacranie got me thinking...

Hello again! I nominated for deletion the article Iqbal Sacranie, and if you have a moment, I think I'd benefit from your opinion on the matter since you have a stated interest in things LGBT. Essentially, I think a stand-alone BLP whose claim to notability rests on homophobia is probably not encyclopedic, even if it's a well publicized controversy, when the wider controversy is covered elsewhere. I'm not canvassing for your !vote, but it got me thinking, and I wanted some insight.

Generally speaking, along the lines of WP:BLP, I was wondering about your opinion as to homophobia (or insert any other controversial attribute that might be conservatively construed as negative) as a basis of notability. Even if the subject might not consider it an attack per se, do you think it might be an attack BLP as a stand-alone article here? JFHJr (㊟) 02:22, 8 January 2012‎ (UTC)

The only reason a person's views are notable is if they are first notable for some other reason. Thus, Obama's views are notable. Sarkozy's views are notable. Unfortunately, celebrity views are notable. And, even then, theoretically, even if one is notable, one's views on everything aren't notable, just on those items that are logically connected to the thing(s) one is notable for. Thus, the views about furniture from an expert on oranges wouldn't be notable. Celebrities get away with all sorts of logically disconnected views partly because they are sometimes considered role models (don't ask me why) and partly for no good reason at all other than they are well-known and get lots of press.

I've !voted at the AfD. I assure you your posting here didn't influence my vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a moment. I very much appreciate it. JFHJr (㊟) 04:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Kunis page

Hi Bbb23, I noticed you removed an entry another editor put on her page regarding the news of her signing a contract to be the face and have a print add campaign for the Christian Dior handbag collection. Although I agree that should not be in her personal section, or expecially in the section of her recent film career, I would think it would be appropriate to have it placed in the (media publicity) section. It is pretty noteworthy for an actor/actress to get a contract and a campaign add of this distinction. Not only is it a lucrative contract for the actor, but it usually is an indication of a higher status for the actor. Kunis got quite a bit of media attention for this announcement. I was planning on adding it the media publicity record for her, but wanted to hear your thoughts on this before doing so.Fsm83 (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that both you and the other editor think it's important, go ahead and add it in the appropriate section. Honestly, one of the problems I have generally with the article is its bloat - it's just way too big. Always a pleasure talking to you, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, always good to be in touch with you as well. You are a valuable editor and resource. I went ahead and added a short comment on the contract. I think it is noteworthy considering of the status it represents for her, and the media attention it gets. But this is not something I will fight over. If another editor removes it I am not going to complain. Certain things I will absolutely fight for. As you have probably noticed on the talk page. I understand your concern for not having too much, but there are many celebrity articles, that are noted as good articles that have extensive detail. I think everybody has their own preference and I respect that. But I try to fight for the things I feel are reasonable and appropriate.Fsm83 (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan

Hi, please can you check what you have just done at Amitabh Bachchan? Obviously, adding the date to the citation is A Good Thing ... and My Big Mistake <g> But the source does say Twitter as well as "blog", and "blog" tends to be used in a wider sense in the Indian media than it is in the west. Can we track that Tweet/blog down? Furthermore, the Indian English of the source does appear to say that it was not quite as specific a comment regarding the Black film as our article now says. Kumar's comment seems to me to be more generalised, although probably instigated by the Black situation. I could take this to the article talk page, obviously, but I thought that perhaps you might like first dibs. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that he tweeted that he had blogged! See this. I remain uncertain that he was referring specifically to Black failing to be nominated or more generally to Bachchan deserving the recognition for his ouevre. - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the wording of the Wikipedia article succinctly captures what the cited source says, including the blog and the Black part. If you have a suggested alternative wording, please post it here. Even assuming he tweeted that he had blogged, that's hardly something worth noting in the WP article.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me but no worries - can't be bothered explaining Indian English etc & the article is insignificant to me except in the context of the issue currently at WP:BLPN re: caste . - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Lesley Gore - Bear Family Addition?

Hi: As per Lesley Gore Article. I'm curious why my addition of the small paragraph on Bear Family's excellent Lesley Compilation of all of her Mercury work, was removed? And the Article I added about it?

Albabe (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "the Article I added about it", but the short paragraph was removed because it was unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Rishloo

Hi there, I noticed you had placed a multiple issues tag on the Rishloo page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishloo). Nothing wrong with it, just letting you know that I spent a few hours changing it around a bit. Would it be possible for you to take another look at it and see what you think? :) mÆniac ^Ask! 08:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it, Sean. I made several changes. Honestly, it still needs a fair amount of work. Too much of it is unsourced or sourced only through them. Also, the lead is way too long for the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Jack Harte (Irish writer) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein Edits

Regarding your removal of recent additions to senator Feinstein's page:

I agree with your edit (removal) and the reasons you give. My question is how can we make a legitimate heading (or page) for policies of various politicians? When they vote, I think it is important to know their positions, and hold them accountable for their decisions, which should especially be included in something like a free encyclopedia.

Thank you for taking a look at my message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.137.50 (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There's an article on her political views, and in the Feinstein article itself, there's a section that simply points to that article. Thus, the only question is whether we want to include anything from the political position article in that section of the Feinstein article. That would require some thought as to go about selecting what to say and what not to say. My suggestion is to bring this up on the Feinstein article Talk page if you're interested in working on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. If a fact is posted that applies to an article, then that fact should stay in that article. Having clear voting records should be an imperative goal for a serious Wiki entry about any politician, and I don't see why that shouldn't be part of a politicians article. Please do not hide the facts! Irievibe (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Your unexplained reverts of my edits at M M Alam

Please read the source. He was never removed from his command on "false pretext". It says he was removed from "staff college" on "absurd" pretext. Now, absurd can not be considered false. If you feel additional info is not required, please delete, but do not change other things. If possible, move this to article talk page so that all can participate and evolve some consensus. -Adi (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Adi

thanks for your rapid

the THUMBS UP AWARD

improvement of the image caption at Sand Creek massacre. I came across the image in another article just now and sort of slash and burned it over to there. For your rapid, concise and generally excellent edit you have received the seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL, I think your finding the image is far more important than my editing the caption, but thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well . . . . . . ............ it takes a village. Carptrash (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Kim Novak

Re this edit. The Kim Novak/Variety Ad and its fallout (including a response from the director of "The Artist") has been extensively reported on by the media and has appeared in 50+ outlets including BBC News, Daily Mail (UK), Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and The Hollywood Reporter. Would appreciate your rationale for deleting the content completely from the article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The only cited source was the Daily Mail, but I'll assume you're right that it's been reported elsewhere. As I said, it's an attack ad that implicates BLP issues for the makers of the film. It's just her accusation, and just because the accusation is reported in the media doesn't mean we have to repeat it. If there's some significant coverage of it (not just noting it in a bunch of outlets) that includes a response, then maybe it would rise to the level of being noteworthy and falling within WP:WELLKNOWN, but at this point, unless you have more, it's inappropriate. Feel free to raise it on the Talk page, though, if you want to see what the consensus would be.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I was planning on doing so but I wanted to hear from you first. In response to Novak's ad, Michel Hazanavicius issued a statement that was published and reported-on in The Hollywood Reporter, CelebrityCafe.Com, Chicago Tribune, The Telegraph(UK), BBC News, etc. In my opinion, the Novak/Variety ad coupled with Hazanavicius' response plus the extensive reaction/commentary makes the entire situation important enough to be included in the Novak article... "The Artist" is a serious contender for several Academy Awards, this issue could possibly damage its chances with AMPAS voters. I think that Novak has also raised a serious issue about the usage of artists' work after their death without their express consent. Also, this situation is included in a section of "The Artist" Wikipedia article (see The Artist (film)/Controversy section). Shearonink (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fuller explanation. Based on what's in the Artist article, do you think we really need this in the Novak article, too? It's really more about the film than it is about her.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

This barnstar is to you for having co-authored BLPCRIME - a policy that I consider is the most important policy addition done for biographies of living persons in recent times. Not many would know that you are the person who went the whole mile in ensuring that living people's biographies should not even contain allusions to a crime unless they are proven guilty in a court. Hats off to a fine contributor! Hats off to a fine character! Wifione Message 19:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Very kind of you to give me so much credit for something that is largely your doing. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, Bbb23. I forget that not every editor is familiar with how seriously I take BLP issues, and that they may not recognize when I assume a contrarian role in order to open a volatile discussion on the BLPNoticeboard. Regarding the stuff on Smith and his alleged copyright violation, my actual position is quite simple: it is inappropriate for both the SOPA article, as well as his BLP article -- it's mostly a blogosphere meme right now. I tried to delete it when it was first introduced by User:FT2 to the SOPA article here and to the Smith BLP here back on the 17th, but FT2 reverted me. Anti-SOPA editors have since latched on and have been inflating and sensationalizing the non-issue until it has become, according to their portrayal of it in Wikipedia articles, a full-blown "controversy" complete with a criminal villain versus a hero, hypocrisy and full-color illustrations. Facepalm Anyway, I'm leaving this note to clarify my position. I wrongly assumed my over-the-top stance on the BLPN, coupled with my even more ludicrous statements like "3RR should be suspended on such important matters", would be easily seen as the sarcasm it was. My bad; sorry for the ruffled feathers. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Consider them unruffled, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Rishloo edits

Hi, and thanks for going through the Rishloo page and fixing it - most likely - according to the wiki standards that I must have missed when writing it. The article still has 4 tags about being erroneous. Did your changes help with any of them? Thanks Lakeoftearz (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed only a small part of the article. It still needs work. If you want to improve it, I would focus first on the relationship between the lead and the body. The lead is way too long for such a small body. I'd move much of the information in the lead to the body so the lead is just a summary of the body. At the same time, I'd source every assertion in the article. And unless it's a truly innocuous assertion, I'd make sure the source is independent of the band's own website or anything else that is published by the band or its members, meaning secondary sources. If you manage to do that much, the stylistic clean-up should either take care of itself or be fairly straightforward to do by another editor. The article is on my watchlist, so I should notice any changes you make to the article. Please don't take offense if I revert any of your changes. I review changes fairly clinically (it's not a personal thing with me). At the same time, feel free to question why I take any action if my edit summary isn't clear enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No offence taken, I understand there's rules to follow and even if it looked ok to me, the article might, afterall, not meet them. It will take a couple of weeks for me, unless someone else is kind enough to do it. Thanks for the feedback though! Lakeoftearz (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Finally got the time to edit the Rishloo page according to the guidelines you gave me, hopefully. Except one statement that I can only find on the band's biography, I tried to remove the other band mentioned sources. Hopefully it is more on the right track now. Lakeoftearz (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the article. I've made a number of copy edits to the article and added a LOT of fact tags. We really need inline sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Re worked again on the article. I guess someone else seems rather mad at this article so it ended up with a Delete tag now and the following discussions will be held there. Thanks for the gudance anyway Lakeoftearz (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should interpret the AfD as motivated by anger. The nominator believes the article is non-notable and has said so. The fact it has been nominated and deleted before isn't going to help. However, feel free to contribute to the discussion if you think it's a notable band. However, pay attention to Wikipedia notability guidelines and what has changed to establish notability when apparently it wasn't considered notable before. Don't get into anything personal. Just stick to facts, reliable sources, and guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

PIPA

Your edits appear to be biased and opinionated. Please leave facts as they are. If you have more to add, or have a better idea for a section, etc. please discuss it with me before erasing my statement of fact. It is important we get information out there regardless of how you think it should look. We just need to get this information out there. Let the facts live!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irievibe (talk • contribs) 20:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've re-edited the article and commented on the Talk page. Please keep any further discussion there.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Ziff

Thanks for taking a look at the article for Matthew Ziff. Incidentally, the IP that added the external links you just reverted might have a conflict of interest in editing this article. This IP posted on the talk page claiming they were the actor's agent and claimed the information was accurate (and added by the actor or his parents or whoever), and provided their e-mail and phone number for contact purposes. I asked Oversight to remove the personal info, which was done, but it looks like the IP is trying to save the article from deletion, but they're not really in a position to do so properly. --McDoobAU93 04:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that earlier but then actually forgot when I was reviewing the added external links. In fact, I examined every one of them to be fair, particularly because of the AfD, but they were pretty much all crap, so I reverted them. Looks to me like there's a PR campaign going on on many fronts, Wikipedia being one of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed ... I did post a hand-written note about conflicts of interest on the IP's page, but this does need to stop. --McDoobAU93 05:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

P J Ellis

Dear Bbb23 - I think you might have made mistake with your Afding of Prof Ellis. He is really very well known - notable. Just letting you know in case you would like to withdraw the nomination. You can check GS under PJ Ellis. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC))

Another wonderful day at AfD. Thanks for your courtesy. I've let off some steam at the deletion discussion page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disrespectful posts at ANI

The man is busy writing his own eulogy; he is likely done here, no matter what block is issued. Do not post any more snark or I will remove it. Sincerely, -Dianna (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not snark, and you had no right to remove my comments. You also left the board in a weird state having not even finished your sentence.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I know I have no right, but you should not be posting mocking stuff like that right now. So disrespectful. Put it back if you feel you must. --Dianna (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You should really reread what I wrote. Baseball criticized him for taking longer than 15 minutes. All I did was correct Baseball as to what Lecen was doing. You then accused both of us ("guys") of being disrespectful, when I hadn't done anything to push Lecen (indeed, I was the one who encouraged him to explain himself). Then, you removed only my comments but left in Baseball's, which made even less sense. At worst, the only thing I did was make some lame, semi-humorous comments, but they were not directed at Lecen, but at Baseball, and then I complained about you including me in the disrespectful category. Not worth putting it all back in. What's more important to me is that you understand what I wrote and why.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed yours because they were lame attempts at humour. I am not directly involved in what has been happening to Lecen but I know what he has been going through, and lame attempts at humour struck me as especially inappropriate in the circumstances. Sorry for upsetting you. --Dianna (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I get upset when I'm "misunderstood", a weakness I have. I really don't think it was necessary to remove my comments because, as I said, they were not directed at Lecen, and god knows Baseball can handle it. :-) But I don't mind anymore now that we've talked it out, and particularly because the comments were hardly necessary to the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk page stalker – Note, there's a whole series of WP:UWT designed specifically for Diannaa's behavior: Template:Uw-tpv1. Let any consequences land in the laps of editors who post commentary. If you don't have WP:OVERSIGHT, don't try to exercise it. JFHJr (㊟) 00:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. --Dianna (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for cooling off so fast, Bb23; appreciate it. Lecen has just posted his statement; off to read that. And then I have to go out for the evening. TTYL --Dianna (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand

Thanks for all your very positive posts to me, but you must understand that what happened was a message and it was clear. I have no value here and I should not participate in these types of discussions because it is out of my depth. I think you, yourself are among some of the better editors (regardless of adminship) I have encountered and I don't want you to think that your words fell flat. They did not. But Toddst1's words simply made a bigger impact. And Manning's made it even clearer. Stay away....and I will. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help a little, but I do think your comments about having no value are an overreaction. Hopefully, later, when it's not so raw, it will look differently to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but the message to me and anyone else that reads that ANI is clear. It won't be any differnet two months from now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Right you are, Ken"

If memory serves me right, it was one of the stock phrases on the real Iron Chef. See this. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Never even heard of the show. The things one learns here. And that exchange on reddit (your link) - do people really talk like that? I need to get out more. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

One of them pointy things

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For helping our less aware editor(s) and taking the time to explain. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much, Todd, I hope he reconsiders.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hats

Thanks for fixing my hat archiving issue on ANI. Not sure how I managed to screw that one up! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I would have fixed it for you rather than reverting, but I didn't have time. But I managed to do it later. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Prince Paul Philippe of Romania Photo

Dear Sir,

Please check again the copyright status of the photo of HRH Prince Paul of Romania that was posted on his official Flickr page. http://www.flickr.com/photos/67793985@N06/6790457067/

Thank you for your support,

Oana Timar HRH Prince Paul of Romania Private Secretary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.235.133 (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The image was restored to the article once the Flickr indication was updated properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Shoeing

Ah, sorry about that. Must pay more attention. Though, I have been going through the article for sometime, and I observe that the word "shoeing" is likely a neologism (in the particular context). Since this article is a collection of "shoe hurling" incidents, it ought to be renamed as such. Comments? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I kind of like the title of the article, but it would probably be more descriptive to name it something else. Shoe tossing already exists. In looking at the collection of cited sources in the article, my preference, FWIW, would be "Shoe throwing" rather than "Shoe hurling". Hurling seems too aggressive, whereas throwing seems a bit more neutral, although, admittedly, we're not talking about neutral conduct. Shoe-throwing incident redirects to the Shoeing article, but I don't care for the hyphen. Shoe hurling also redirects.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more on the lines of List of shoe throwing incidents. Shoe throwing would fall afoul of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't see how "shoe throwing" would be a problem for WP:NOTDICT. God knows we have articles about words with far less information in them that supposedly pass muster as "encylcopedic". I think our guidelines on the dictionary issue are particularly incomprehensible, but that's just me. As for calling it a list, it seems like it's much more than a list given the Context section. Usually, there is only a lead and the list (WP:LIST). There is also too much information in the article for each incident to qualify as a typical list article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The point being, we cannot go on indiscriminately collecting information about all the reported shoe-throwing incidents around the world. Personally, I don't think we should even include reported incidents if they cover borderline notable individuals. Just thinking out loud. In any case, the word "shoeing" is a neologism, and so would be "shoe throwing", if we attempt to give it a definition it does not yet have (WP:SYN). A list would be a rather indiscriminate collection of information of all such reported incidents around the world, and will possibly grow beyond what can be sensibly managed and used. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be more important to focus on what incidents we should report and what incidents we should not (your point about notability although you'd have to call it noteworthiness to avoid the somewhat silly notion that notability relates only to article creation, not to content). I don't see why "show throwing" is a neologism - I can see calling shoeing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved discussion to Talk:Shoeing

opinion request

Hi Bbb23 - would you have a look at this issue for me and just comment here if you think the addition is supported or not - thanks - Youreallycan 18:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Lots of disclaimers first. I have not been following the JDL issues. I am unfamiliar with the article and am therefore looking at that one sentence all by itself, not in context of the rest of the article. The cited source is Italian, and my Italian is mostly limited to operatic libretti. I don't have a lot of faith in the precision of the Google translation, at least not for this material. Okay, all that said, the Italian source reads like an opinion piece and, therefore, I would be reluctant to use it for such bold material. Also, even if the material were included, it should be dated (it appears to be from 2009). Finally, the paragraph that actually has the graffiti is hard to follow. I'm not sure what the JDL did or when they did it. So, I suppose I would argue that the material should be excluded absent better, clearer sourcing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking and for the comment - I won't quote you as I just wanted to know it I was missing somthing - regards - Youreallycan 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, please see my response on the talk page. YRC has for some reason chosen to provide his own link to a google translation that he conjured up, when in fact I provided my own translation in adding the source per WP:NOENG. This is a distraction, particularly insofar as it implies that the sentence is not comprehensible. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of making a really bad pun, I'm not sure I want to be dragged into this kettle of gefilte fish. I looked at your translation, Nomos, but what is your source for the translation? In any event, even assuming your translation is correct and putting aside any connection between the sentence and the picture (help! I'm now aware there is a picture controversy), doesn't it strike you that the Italian article is an opinion piece and that the allusion to the graffiti is merely in passing and in passing judgment? And when exactly were the graffiti put on the walls? I dunno, I realize that this kind of article generates more heat than light, but the material/source feels inconclusive to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly understand not wanting to get dragged into it. I posted here partly out of annoyance that YRC had misrepresented the situation in his post on the talk page. The translation is my own, by the way. In any event I won't belabor things here -- I assume you'll contribute there if you do want to be involved. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(smiling) Don't hold your breath.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Carli Lloyd

Why must her miss of a penalty kick be included? Why is this necessary information? If you believe it to be so necessary, why have you not added the pK misses to both Shannon Boxx and Tobin Heath's pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anc07 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a crucial moment in the World cup and you are 100% free to add it (and source it) to the other players pages. It does NOT change the fact that she DID MISS the PK, and the game was won by Japan. It is a 100% true, factual statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.87.36 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I still do not think it is crucial player info. Everyone misses pK's and by adding this to her bio, you are partially defining her career by it, which I think is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anc07 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I also think it's not necessary for her player bio. The pK miss is not what lost the game for the US, but placing this information in her bio makes it seem to the uninformed football population that the loss of the game was her fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.116.100 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

moved to article Talk page--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Thanks for the template.Momento (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your unexplained reverts of my edits at Asma Assad

I cited all my assertions, and used word for word quote from a reliable article from the UK paper the Telegraph for one. I do not understand why you are reverting these changes. All you wrote was "completely unacceptable material, poorly sourced." Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.190.79 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have explained in more detail on your Talk page. I've also opened up a topic on the article Talk page, to which you should feel free to contribute.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

John Abizaid

In regards to your recent edit/s, General Abizaid's Defense Superior Service Medal is referenced in the Awards and decorations section. I was under the impression you had deleted the award from that section, not just the infobox. Take a look & let me know if that satisfies your interest. Bullmoosebell (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Doc, thanks for pointing out the references to me. I've restored the entry to the infobox and restored the cat. My apologies for not noticing it (I did look, but I was looking for text rather than pictures + references), and thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being diligent, professional, and (most importantly) doing your part in keeping Wikipedia free from stolen valor! Bullmoosebell (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for your professionalism and diligence with John Abizaid. Bullmoosebell (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc, particularly considering the trouble I caused. I'm glad we worked it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Deserter (1912 film)

I showed that the film passes WP:NF because it is preserved in a national archive. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It was a pain searching with two silent films of the same name showing up (1912 and 1916). SL93 (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I bet. It was good of you to take that much trouble and to be nice about it. I appreciated that.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

thank you ..

I appreciate you looking out for him. I just flat out deleted some of the info on that page ... sigh. I wonder if WP:CIR is going to come into play here. I think he's trying, but I agree with you that it is worrisome. Thanks again. — Ched :  ?  01:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably a good idea and better done by an admin than by me. I still think the "article" portion should be deleted. I also have some concerns about his editing in general. We have some young editors who display remarkably good judgment in their edits, but although I think Davy's heart is in the right place, I'm not so sure about his editing judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI analysis

Hey BB - I took your advice and the discussion about Moni's ANI analysis got moved to userspace for now. If you're interested then please feel free to join us at User:Manning Bartlett/Moni3 ANI analysis. Cheers Manning (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Manning, I'm glad you decided to jump back into it, regardless of what comes of it. If I understand properly, for me to look at the data, you need to e-mail it to me. I have e-mail set up, so you can just e-mail it to me that way (I don't have to e-mail you first, do I?). I don't have Access, so please send it in Excel format. If after looking at it, I have anything useful to say, I'll contribute to the discussion. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Why?

Why would you close a discuss by saying it was in the wrong forum, then provide no direction as to what is the right forum? Faw05 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Because there is no right forum for your post. If you want to discuss something about actual edits by editors to articles, then you have to name the editors and/or the articles, depending on what it is you want. Why you want to be "intentionally vague" is a mystery. Your post reads like a musing about editing styles and consensus, but no one will be able to understand what you're talking about or what it is you want to accomplish.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Curious about your edits to Hugo Schwyzer's page

Hi I'm curious about your edits to Hugo's page, mainly because I don't understand a lot of wiki policies and would like to know more.

1. Across the web, there are numerous statements that Hugo has tenure. Many of these are in fact statements from Hugo on all sorts of websites not just his blog, that he has tenure: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/11/30/schwyzer

So, in removing that reference, you seem to think it's unsourced or not a compliant source, and you seem to place a higher level of credibility, not on all of these many and repeated personal statements over the years, but on some HR generated, computer produced listing from PCC.

I am just curious why you do so. I frequently find that catalogs contain bad information, and I am not sure why you would prefer a catalog that you cannot question, over the many and frequent testimonials of Hugo and others. That catalog is a directory, you don't know how it's produced, and it does not claim to be authoritative.

2. Similarly, I am curious why you would remove these "Schwyzer writes frequently of his additions to alcohol and drugs and his abuse of women and patterns of misogyny. These posts and other disclosures have recently made him a pariah figure in the feminist communities that used to broadly support him. " and say they are unsourced, or non-compliant. The sources seems to be right there, and if you dislike those sources, there are clearly many many more on the net right now saying the same thing. In what sense are these non-compliant?

3. I am always curious about "reverters", at one point the Wiki was about "assume good faith" and "improve don't delete". Why do people revert a great deal of material without discussing it on the talk page?

4. I understand discussions of notability, but ignoring notability for the moment, when you have dozens of blogs, including by bloggers listed in wikipedia, saying that event X occurred, and yet, not mention of X by standard wiki sources like CNN, in what sense did X not occur? OR, perhaps better, is there an acceptable wiki way of saying "according to dozens of bloggers that were there, X occurred."

Thanks,

68.106.47.124 (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(moved to article Talk page)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wil Time Bigtime's Article

Hello, Thanks for reminding me. Those from main host (including co-host, guest host, former co-host and production staff) are real, official and recorded via videostream website www.pnoytv.com. since the premiere of the said Philippine Game Show according to TV5 executives when I visit there last night as an audience part of Studio Tour. here's the sample video (http://www.pnoytv.com/2012/02/willing-willie-february-17-2012-episode.html) Note: Willing Willie is old name of Wil Time Bigtime. About the actual news reference can only found in PEP, Philippine STAR, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Times website which is not found neither TV5/Kapatid TV www.tv5.com.ph / www.kapatidtv.com (TV5 International Channel) online nor Interaksyon (TV5 News Online portal) website www.interaksyon.com . The said TV Game Show's article is exclusive only within the Philippine Territory only. I'll Try my best to find other sources/references regarding the said Philippine Game Show. Thanks! :)

Puppyph (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Euclid

I'm not sure what sort of source you are expecting regarding the listing on IAU. This is a paid publication. You will know it is true if you have subscription. I can tell you that Euclid are not listed as I have access to it. The lack of listing is very important to this story. Euclid everywhere on their site claims approval from the IAU simply because they added them to the web site. But they kept them out of the important publication. The insistence of source for this statement would mean it will never be added to the profile. You will not find a direct source. However Accredibase did cover this in their publication which is mentioned on the Euclid page. We must add this clarification. It is very important to anyone who understands this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.246.182 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The paper source is fine. You'd have to add it as I can't add something I can't see. For example, take a look at WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fabb and Tate

Please let's not go through all of this again. Any material that is reliably sourced can be added per WP:WELLKNOWN. Also, please do not claim that the debate at BLPN led to a clear consensus to remove the material when it did not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at User_talk:Ianmacm#Disappearance_of_April_Fabb. Your persistent armchair lawyering over this issue is becoming very tiresome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a BLP violation, and you spend far too much time at BLPN. David J Johnson is right, do you have nothing else to do with your time?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is frustrating to have this debate all over again, as it seemed to have been settled some time back. The BBC, Telegraph, and Independent are all reliable sources. BLPCRIME is not a card that trumps all the others, and it needs to be taken in conjunction with other policies. If this material was defamatory, it would have been removed long ago. It is hard to discuss the Robert Black case without mentioning the view of the authorities that there is more to come out. This was one of the clear conclusions after his conviction for other murders with a similar pattern. This is not about some weird blog making wild and potentially libellous claims, and has plenty of sourcing that satisfies other guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

rowspan in sortable tables

It seems that with the latest update of MediaWiki software that rowspan can be used in sortable tables after all. If you'll notice the behavior when rowspan is used, when a column is selected to sort, the rows are broken up and populated individually. I am no longer reverting changes that add rowspan to sortable filmography tables. Elizium23 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the heads up. I'll take a look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

New York Times is not a reliable source?

In this talk page posting, you said "For the sake of argument, I'll accept the source as reliable, ..." This was the source that was cited:

Ayres, B. Drummond, Jr. (May 27, 1999). "Political Briefing; Some Big Thunder in Big Sky Country". The New York Times.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Are you seriously saying that there is some plausible argument that the New York Times does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for being a reliable source? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)