User talk:Bbb23/Archive 15

No edit notice per se

Isn't there? When I go to the edit page, I see a warning about sanctions including 1RR. (It is out of date because it's from when the only sanctions were community-imposed, not ArbCom, which I'd forgot. But the 1RR notice is there.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I must be going blind. Maybe it was because of the lack of color or something, but I missed it. You're right.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

please clarify

Hello,

Yesterday, I added some basic personal information to the bio page of actor Rob James-Collier that would be informative to the many fans who think he's HOTHOTHOT and want to know if he is available. I saw today you had removed all my work, describing my addition as unencyclopedic. I am not familiar with that term. Do you mean the information was not sufficiently comprehensive? I thought it provided sufficient information on his personal life to quiet the pangs of the longing fangirl-boy, and each statement was taken from newsmedia and attributed as such. This new part of James-Collier's profile compares well to the WikiPedia bio of his co-star and fellow heartthrob, Dan Stevens (a/k/a "Downton Abbey" Matthew Crawley). What was "unencyclopedic" about my contribution? What does "unencyclopedic" mean???

- Inkless EditsInkless Edits (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe you write as you do above and then wonder why I reverted your change to the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (I see you got some responses at the Teahouse as to what that means). In any event, the information about James-Collier's son, the name of the mother, her French dog, etc., mostly obtained from the tabloid The Mirror is fan cruft that doesn't belong here.

I'm curious. What makes you think the Stevens article has material similar to what you tried to add to the James-Collier article? I'm going to leave a standard Welcome message on your talk page. It has many links that may help you understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Bbb23, Your snide opener, "I can't believe you write as you do above..." does not inspire constructive, congenial conversation with a stranger! My message to you was designed to be conversational and humorous, and I thought the lighthearted tone might inspire goodwill. My goodness! my friend: you DO take yourself quite seriously! As you may imagine, your summary removal of my contribution without any talk on the matter came across as quite aggressive and I thought a little comic relief would do some good. Wikipedia is a user-edited encyclopedia which is a go-to reference for Internet surfers, with the awareness that it is an interesting, potentially useful, and imperfect resource. Wikipedia it is well-known as a fount of information, surely on many more topics than the Britannica, but lacking the gravitas of the latter compendium. As a frequent Wikipedia reader, I have noticed that many celebrity profiles include personal information, reciting the names of girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, wives, progeny, parentage, favorite football teams, and lots of other potentially frivolous or merely charming, entertaining details. For example, to read a "Personal" section documenting some lively romantic activity, footnoted with the same sort of resources that I used, see the entry on actress Alison King. This sort of information humanizes the subject and entertains the reader, which of course is what being a public figure is all about. The info I added on RJC is completely in line with celebrity profiles and of great interest to the fans who would want to read about him. I appreciate a friendly "Welcome" and look forward to reading it. And at the same time, please think anew about your deletion of my contribution, and your motivation for same; I wonder if inadvertently you may have been acting on personal opinion rather than editorial???Inkless Edits (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if your initial edit here was intended to be humorous. You're absolutely right; I can be very serious. And sometimes it's hard to get humor in people you don't even know, so I took it at face value. I haven't changed my mind as to the reversion of your edit. My recommendation is that you take the issue to the article talk page to see if you can obtain a WP:CONSENSUS for including the material. I have no idea what you mean by "personal opinion"; about what?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Bbb, I happen to think that Rob is HOTHOTHOTSIZZLINGHOT as well. At the same time, WP:HOTTIE, while clearly indicating his notability, gives us no reason to include any other information, though a photograph of his six-pack would be appreciated. I assume asking for a shot of his ****er would be asking for too much. I also wish to thank you for your courteous and business-like tone, often necessary to keep the lid on steaming, boiling vessels of desire such as myself--and apparently I'm not the only one. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's not a single image in the James-Collier article. However, if you can find one that is acceptable pursuant to HOTTIE (WP:IC), feel free to upload it with the appropriate HOTTIE rationale.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Did someone say Downton? Ah, but I come here for another purpose, one which may interest Drmies as well (especially given the naked breast business), if he's stalking this page. I'd like your input as to whether this is a reliable source [1], but really I'm soliciting for someone else to take a scythe to the article in question, if there's a consensus to do so. And I'm back from the tropics, just in time to get snowed in. Cheers as always, 99.149.87.54 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Your transparent attempt to switch topics from James-Collier's skin to Mr. Skin (the things that come up at Wikipedia) is unwelcome. You can discuss Downton Abbey or any related subject, but that's it. I cut out large chunks of the article. I should probably cut the Filmography section, but I'd have to compare it to the list of her works, even if it's missing inline citations, and I'm too lazy to do it right now. Feel free to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Nobody's lazier than I am. I'm exhausted just from thinking about attractive drapery-challenged subjects. Good work on the article. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I find that exhaustion from thinking about work is THE best way to avoid work. Here's to the ladies who laze! Everybody rise!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...sugar heaps...boning...good.... DYK that The Best of Barry White is at Target for $5? Drmies (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the language 99 objects to? I mean, "sinfully skinful" - what's not to like?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

99 is a Puritan from way back when. I wonder what his nipples look like. I mean the ones he paints. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why he lives in New England. As for you, you're always obsessing about nipples. Did I know that 99 paints? Does he paint pictures of nipples or does he paint the nipples themselves? As for me, I recently learned about nipples in a CPR class.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nipples, nipples, nipples. Wow, you two really need something better to do of a Friday night. Among other hobbies I paint men and often wimmens, sometimes in the altogether. Sometimes they disrobe, too. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Another change of direction, as well as IP addresses: It seems I and a registered account have been accused of being sockpuppets here: [2]. I'm disinclined to follow up this evening, but would appreciate any help/advice, including going to ANI. Thanks and cheers, 99.137.210.244 (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Maybe you two are socks. I think we should ask a NippleCheckUser to render a verdict. If Fladrif could please produce one as well--thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)]

Will these do? Fladrif (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why "certainly not of Fladrif"? Do you know Fladrif?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if that was out of bounds. But, I suspect that this Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Threat_from_Administrator is even more out of bounds. Claim to have been threatened for ....well, persistent personal attacks compounded by utter incompetence. Fladrif (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(Sigh) I so tire of being asked to show my breasts. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've left a warning on the accuser's talk page. Hopefully, they will cooperate and retract the accusation. If not, although I threatened them with a block, I wouldn't actually be comfortable blocking them for two reasons. First, I consider myself involved because of our virtual relationship (heh), and, second, I don't think that one baseless sock accusation is bad enough to be blockable. Even if the editor does not retract the accusation, I would not go to ANI; I don't think it's worth it. If Drmies or anyone else stalking here disagrees with me, feel free to chime in.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that this isn't block worthy, and I do appreciate your response. For you I'll reveal a nipple. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes. Whoa. Bbb, hope you don't mind some resizing. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This is all your fault. It all started as a nice pleasant exchange between a misguided James-Collier fan and me about how hot is hot, and you've now turned it into ... I dunno, a circus ... no, worse, you've turned it into your talk page, a free-for-all where anyone can say what they please how they please, post tasteless pictures (although it wasn't around long enough for me to taste it - does TPG really prohibit such pictures? my only objection was that it was so BIG), and natter endlessly about n******. If I want to experience the wonders of intellectual anarchy, your talk page is available. My talk page, OTOH, is dignified, restrained, and generally boring. It's certainly NOT an extension of ANI. I am now going to look at my watchlist, which despite my efforts, keeps getting bigger and bigger. I hope you're enjoying your Saturday.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ye GADS!!! She exclaims, fanning herself furiously. Is it getting HOT in here, or is it just ME? "Misguided James-Collier fan"? There's nothing misguided, I am straight-up, all over RJC, no shilly-shallying about it. I appreciate the sympathetic comments, and would add my own, if I were more familiar with what Wikipedia considers within the bounds of good taste. Permit me merely to quote other editors. "...a photograph of his six-pack would be appreciated." OK. Can do. "I assume asking for a shot of his ****er would be asking for too much." Can't get my hands on one of these at the moment, but I certainly can give it a try (and who's to blame me for trying?). Is it getting HOT in here...? There is a lot to read and absorb here, I will have to table it for the weekend. The information deserves considered review. And thank you Bbb23 for lightening up your tone, to me it makes a HUGE difference! Thanks.Inkless Edits (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, hands on a ****er, and HUGE, can it get any worse? No doubt the answer is yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I know you'll LOVE this - Rob James-Collier modeled for the Argos Catalog before he broke into television, and he did this little PSA (public service announcement), too. This is just the photo; the PSA itself reads, "Be careful where you eat your corn dog." Maybe we should use this for his profile??? ;-) Rob James-Collier, Public Service Announcement, 2007--Inkless Edits (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For this :) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it. You're probably not a father yet. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Good guess. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

PA By MezzoMezzo

Dear,I have been called Roguedue to my edits on Wahabi and Salafi pages and have been accused of harassment in these words,an attempt to harass me(MezzoMezzo) personally by User:MezzoMezzo here.Does it amount to Personal Attacks? There is no content dispute and no one has reverted my good faith edits of removing blatant POV/dead links and forums link from both Wahabi/Salafi pages. I had wrongly/mistakenly clicked on a Link which blanked a pagefor which I have expressed my sincere apologies.I have informed and discussed/explained bonafide use of RFC to User:Qwyrxian. Shabiha (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You (Shabiha) also discussed this supposed personal attack with Qwyrxian, to which he responded not only by telling you that my comment wasn't a personal attack but that it was, for the most part, accurate. He told you (Shabiha) that before you made this comment on Bbb23's talk page, so I don't know why you went ahead and did so anyway. If you want to go down this route then fine, but I can't expect things to end up well for you that way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I accept kind advise of User:Qwyrxian.I took the literal meaning of rogue which means,a dishonest or unprincipled man,I am sorry for my complaint and I withdraws it. Shabiha (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Info2012 (talk · contribs)

H. Just to let you know since you were the blocking admin of the EW report on this user. It looks like this user has evaded their block here. Thanks. — Abhishek  ^Talk 19:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Abhishek sounds like he is a Indian Government paid troll and vandalizing the wiki article.

1.186.126.139 (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, this guy is back again both reverting [3] and with his PA both above and over here. — Abhishek  ^Talk 12:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm Hamilton harpsichordist

Wikipedia's stub currently up has a significant error and no references whatsoever and an opinion stated as fact.

You asked for a reference for my changes and I gave you a published one, which was liner notes to a record. The rest of the liner notes were written by Hamilton himself. If you think that these are not reliable, I can only figure that you are being deliberately obtuse and prefer to have a poor entry.

Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanBeroff (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to retract your "deliberately obtuse" comment and talk to me about how things are done at Wikipedia, I'd be happy to help you. Otherwise, no.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would I want to retract an obviously apropos comment? I assume that someone who has no life outside of Wikipedia knows about how things are done at Wikipedia. Instead of making this personal and acting like a know it all (condescendingly telling me that I am going to have to do better than that), perhaps you should consider having an accurate entry? You are sadly mistaken if you think I am in need of help from you. What is in need is the inaccurate stub. Why not focus on that.

Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanBeroff (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

HELP!!!

A few days ago, you removed a speedy deletion tag that someone else issued on a page that I created Hoopla Worldwide. That same person (talk) has now put up deletion tags on every page that I've created. He even put up a "sockpuppet" claim against me, so clearly he is looking at the user (me) and not the content and he has some kind of vendetta against me. I agree 100%that I do put up too many sources, but my approach with that WAS add sources, if people don't feel it's reliable, they will remove it and put up the reason why. However I see that's the wrong approach because it's never happened that way. All the pages I've created are connected from a Louisville, Kentucky standpoint as I'm in Louisville, Kentucky and I passinate about that. I strive to make great wikipedia pages and spend a lot of time doing it. Sure I need help, and I want that desperately. I want people to correct edits so I can get better.

Here the pages I've created that this one user has flagged for deletion.

• Hoopla Worldwide
• Audio Stepchild
• Sabrina (pop singer)
• Birdgang clothing

Causeandedit (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this stuff. I didn't create the "A Different Kind Of Christmas" page. Someone else did and tweeted it to @nappyroots (www.twitter.com/nappyroots) and I saw how terrible it was and I started fixing it. Nappy Roots is a successful band from Louisville, Kentucky who were involved with the album and it deserved better. Causeandedit (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I don't intend to intervene in this, which is being played out in multiple noticeboards in addition to the various AfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

did you get my email about my recent block

new to this site not sure if i sent it properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgio Forelli (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I got it. The information you "added" was information that had been removed earlier. Therefore, when you restored the material, that counted as a revert. You then reverted a second time within 24 hours. Do you understand now?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

it was removed for no good reason, so I added it back in with some more information (I didn't know that would count as a revert). when can I add the information back in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgio Forelli (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You're still evincing a fundamental misunderstanding of our policy regarding WP:1RR. Don't add it back in. Discuss whatever you want on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Issue about editing

Most of what has been cited on media channels especially the biased one is not at all reliable regarding the info at Dr. Aafia's page. She was kidnapped and this is a KNOWN fact. I fail to understand why it is that you are not willing to show the minimum of truth regarding that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconicironic (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Raja Nawathe

Hello Bbb23 You referred to the material I posted as being 'Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced...'. "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (February 2013)"

I beg to differ on this. Please note, this man is deceased. Where does one get more material about a man who is not from the western world but has made significant contributions in his/her sphere. The person has survivor (wife - senior citizen) who is unlikely to be internet savvy. Little is available as other 'reliable sources'. IMHO, is IMDB not a reliable source? I often notice that when the subject is not known very well in the western world, there's a great rush to delete or contest the material, especially by over-zealous editors. It is hard enough to find sources, and material, which is why we dig hard, deep, and wide to search for the possible reliable sources. It seems that the notifications for deletions come in such a rush, and without an effort to read the information box. How about giving relatively new editors a chance to add new material. Why not go fix pages which have been around on wikipedia for eons, have little useful information, are dead links, or plain promotional material? What is one supposed to make of the words "living persons" in your notification? Instead, it would be courteous and polite to assist 'newbies' in fixing formatting issues if they're lacking on the page. I hope this point is clear, and that you will appreciate where I'm coming from. These 'tactics' seem more like intimidation tricks to deter new editors to even make some contributions! It does not serve anyone's purpose by posting these notifications on a whim. Please refrain from deriding someone's article with your 'scary' notifications. I truly would appreciate cooperation in this matter. There's NOTHING libelous in what I've written. Thank you. ~pictowrit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictowrit (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The tag was wrong; I've corrected it. However, even articles about deceased subjects need to be properly sourced. IMDb is not a reliable source as anyone can edit it. The fact that it's hard to find reliable sources doesn't justify the insertion of unsourced material. I should add that I don't believe I've ever removed unsourced material from the article; I've just tagged it, and the tag should remain until the sourcing issue is solved. Moreover, if the tag remains for too long without the addition of reliable sources, unsourced information may be removed if challenged.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23, thanks for the revised notification, which makes a significant difference. At least now it does not imply that I've written "libelous or harmful text". While I appreciate your diligence towards editing the content on Wikipedia, it may not quite be appropriate to deem IMDb as an unreliable source. Both sites, Wikipedia and IMDb, have User Generated Content. One may be more vast than the other. Neither are perfect, you'd agree. Also, as for the matter of 'unsourced' material, well, I've added sources which are not exactly flippant sources. The publication, The Times of India is a mainline daily i.e. English newspaper with a mammoth size circulation of 3.14 million subscribers (not to mention the humongous readership). The book by Tom Vick is from a reputed, renowned publishing house - a Harper Collins. Sure, I agree that more references would help. But in the absence of more material, what is written thus far by me is neither an exaggeration, nor is it false, nor libelous. Nor is it excessively long in view of the limited reference sources. Please understand also the scope of the subject; a hasty deletion of a page created with selfless non-promotion intent means we do injustice, and a disservice to numerous interested readers who may find it hard to piece together content scattered across the web which is buried deep in the search engine results. Thanks. ~ Pictowrit —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Pictowrit, I'm not quite sure what your point is. As I said above, I have not removed any material you added to the article, complaining about your sourcing; I just restored the tag. Your point about IMDb and Wikipedia is incorrect, though. Neither is a reliable source. For Wikipedia, there is an actual policy, WP:CIRCULAR, which prohibits the use of Wikipedia itself as a source. IBMDb is simply unreliable based on WP:RS. Personally - and this is not a statement about policy - I find IMDb to be reliable for some information and much less reliable for other information. For example, it is far more reliable for released movies than it is for movies that have not yet been released. It is also generally more reliable for information about a movie than it for information about an actor. As a matter of policy, though, it is advisable to cite to a secondary source rather than to IMDb.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, Okay, well, thanks for your note. I agree with you that IMDb is far more reliable for movies that have already been released. Both, Wikipedia and IMDb often have content that is a work-in-progress, hence not all of it may be fully reliable; which is also one of the reasons why I've seeded this topic; at some point perhaps others will add to this page. Thanks for your time. ~ Pictowrit added 6:56 PM, Wednesday, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon / edit warring

Hello Bbb23,

after a 48 hours block and a very, very last warning a week ago, this user still has not got his message. Again, he has resumed his long-term edit-war with User:Checco across several articles on Italian political parties. I am afraid that administrative action is necessary. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, can you point me to any article in which he's "reverted" more than once (since the March 3 warning)? I glanced at a few of the many articles, and it looks like he makes a change, someone reverts him, and he stops. Alternatively, can you show me an article in which the recent change he made was a change that was rejected in an earlier edit, even if the earlier edit occurred before the warning (I'm referring to your use of the word "long-term")?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Valerie Harper

Why is it morbid? you made it morbid, no one knows that's there. It was commented out. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 04:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

My edit summary was restrained. Let me be blunter. Don't ever add material like that to an article again.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ankit Fadia Page

This refers to the edit on the page Ankit Fadia. You had rejected a source given by me arlier, hence like to know about another source and I would like to know whether its reliable. The source is here. The article seems to clearly mention that Ankit Fadia is a self proclaimed hacker.Logbookmark (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In my view, that source is not reliable, particularly for the assertion. It is on the blog portion of the site, and it is clearly just the opinion of the poster.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

How about this source. This one is from Forbes magazine, and article is written by one of the reputed editor.Logbookmark (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've read that one before; it's pure opinion and not usable. Persistent, aren't you? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am persistent. Persistent to bring out the truth so that Wikipedia reflects the ground reality instead of some fantasy world. Nevertheless could you help me out on what type of source are you expecting which pass the test of credibility on Wikipedia. Please don't direct me to Wiki help articles because I have been there and some section over there seems to self contradict. I would like to hear it from you. If you are able to show some examples, that would be great help.Logbookmark (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

An article in a major publication, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. An article from a major broadcast news source like the BBC or Fox or NBC. A book published by a major publisher and written by an authority. BTW, sourcing isn't your only issue. The material you add has to be sufficiently noteworthy and appropriate to put in the lead (that's where you wanted to put it).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of National Youth HIV & AIDS Awareness Day

Hi there!

I wanted to just ask, why this page was marked for speedy deletion? It was my first Wiki page, so maybe there was an error on my part--in which case I'm happy to correct it.

I've seen that there are other HIV/AIDS awareness days on Wiki, and that this one would be a welcome addition. Also, as this day is geared towards young people (13-24), it seems that having a Wiki page to let them know what the day is would be a great idea, as they'll most likely Google it first thus making the Wiki page one of the top search results.

Also, most of our citations (7 in total) were to health journals and the CDC, neither of which we (Advocates for Youth) had any part in so I'm not do't think there was any self promotion there.

Would you mind clarifying for me?

Thank you, Rachel Advocatesforyouth (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Rachel, it's always hard to write an article at Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest because it's very hard to be objective. The parts of your article that were about the event were very promotional, e.g., "There are many ways to get involved in the day. You can show your support through tweeting on the day and following the NYHAAD Twitter account and Facebook page. You can also host an event, get tested, or table on your campus." The other parts of the article weren't really about the event, and that includes the sources. They were about HIV/AIDS and young people.

If you want to make another stab at writing an article about the event, you have to find secondary sources (not advocacy websites) that have significant coverage about the event (not about HIV and AIDS and young people). You then have to write in as neutral a tone as you can possibly imagine. Leave out all of your passion (which I'm sure is very well-intentioned) and write it in a detached voice, including only facts that are supported by those secondary sources. One way to get feedback is to use the article wizard. In that way, other editors will give you feedback about what's good and bad about the article, and you won't be on your own.

That said, you must change your user name. Wikipedia policy does not permit user names that are the same as names of organizations, which yours is. See WP:ORGNAME. I thought about blocking you because of the user name and because of the promotional article, but I decided against it. But you shouldn't be editing with that name. Let me know if you have any more questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Blackgaia02. Thank you. v/r - TP 13:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Help

Bbb, I need your sharp eyes; can you tell me what I did wrong at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cantaloupe2? Drmies (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

See if this is what you want. I didn't do anything else mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. I'm not sure why you used {{consensus}}, but I've never closed an RfCU. Even if the consensus template had worked, it wouldn't have put the summary at the bottom per the archivetop template's language.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I'm making it up as I go along--no, it's what Beeblebrox used on one that he closed. Thanks Bbb, Drmies (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to follow instructions, but I guess I'm not very good at that. My mother in law will tell you the same thing. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I found one Beeblebrox closed, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert. However, first, he did not use the same template at the top as you did. Second, his consensus was short and sweet, but, more important, had nothing but text in it. Your consensus was complex, and apparently the template will not accept certain things. I'm not sure what all of those "things" are, but, at a minimum, it won't accept diffs, at least not done the way we normally do them. I played around with it a bit, and the first diff threw it into a tailspin. Now, I have no idea why Beeblebrox used {{discussion top}} in his closure, but, as I said, I've never closed an RfCU; you'd have to ask him. There are different instructions for different kinds of closures, and, honestly, I don't know what kind of closure yours was.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know either since, for one thing, the case is possibly going to ArbCom, and if a case is definitely going to ArbCom (has been proposed already?) then the RfC/U can't be closed. But I figured that the close itself was clear enough (hehe, clear as mud: I know how I write--still no Bradspeak). No, that was not the one I looked at; I forgot and I can't be bothered to look it up because if I do naptime goes out the window. (Though I do wish to leave you this.) Speaking of the great outdoors, I vacuumed the pool, which is still at a chillsome 54, but we're supposed to have a nice weekend. To say goodbye to winter I had baked beans and BBQ pork for lunch. All homemade too. Natti natti, and thanks again, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Gee, I know that numbers don't tell the whole story, but I have 1,437 edits to articles in 2013 to date. 54 isn't just chilly; it's cold. Might be good for me, though. I had a dreadful night last night and have been up since 2:30 a.m.; I'm about to fall asleep as I type. It would certainly wake me up - of course, the shock might also kill me, but what the hell.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Pies

[4] As a very intelligent person once said, just click on the picture! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent maybe, truthful, who knows? A wise man once said ... well, I forget what he said, but I'm sure it was very relevant. What were we talking about again?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Pies. Which is a much more enjoyable topic than what we have been seeing around this site lately. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Cross The Line Films Page removed? Need help-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_The_Line_Films

Hi Bbb23, I recently created a page and it was removed very promptly. I would like to know what I have to change/add to keep it from being removed again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.83.22 (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You would have to write it in a more detached and neutral fashion as it was written like an advertisement. This is an encyclopedia, not a website for the company. Also, citing secondary sources that talk in depth about the company is always a big plus.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Proof

Bbb23 you said I have no evidence against him. Look at this [5]. He knows many policies of Wikipedia and his edits make it seem like he is an experienced user. Also from the link you will find that there's not even a single mistake at all in his edit descriptions. Only a user who is experienced and has been using Wikipedia for much time can edit and type so fluently. My accusations are not at all baseless. And do you know why he is not creating an account? So he can get away no matter what he does. Even if his IP or IP range is blocked he still will be able to edit wikipedia easily. It's a simple process of turning your internet modem off and on you have anew ip. That way the only one who will be blocked will be me and he will get away with it. TransVannian (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason why an IP can't be an experienced user, and there's nothing wrong with an IP being an experienced user. So, I fail to understand your point. As I stated at WP:ANEW, you have to show that there's some misconduct by the IP, and other than edit-warring, which you did as well, you failed to do that. I suggest you move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong I did not induldge into an edit warring. I had properly sourced my edits and even then the IP address reverted my edits. This is wrong. Wikipedia rules clearly states that if a person's edit are properly sourced and still his someone reverts his edit without explanation then the first user has very right to revert it back to his original edit which was properly sourced. SO I did not get into an edit war since my edits were properly sourced. Also Admin please think about it, even if you block his IP address or maybe even an IP range, only I will actuall be blocked. Also the user gave himself a block warning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.13.78.204). We all know that blocking an IP address or even a range won't do much as a user wil still be able to edit Wikipedia. So you see I do have a proper evidence that his behaviour is really suspicious. Please think clearly about this. TransVannian (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Show me the policy that says you can revert as much as you like as your material is "properly sourced". You're wrong on just about everything here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright I'm really sorry I do not what an edit war means. If you think I participated in it too it was purely unintentional. Had I known I won't have done that. But still you cant rule that the IP user is more at fault because even though knowing that I had posted a discussion to stop the edit war he didnt participate in it. Also my accusation of his suspicious behavior still stands. Have your seen someone especially an IP user give himself a block warning? How can just blocking a previous IP adress or bandwith actually stop someone from editing? Please explain that to me. And also I won't edit the template unless proper consensus is reached but the IP should be willing to cooperate too otherwise I request you to semi-lock it. I won't be discussing this with you if his behavior didn't really seem suspicious to me. His talk page might not be a solid evidence but it still somewhat support my claims. I'll only report him if he edits the template again without discussion. Also I should notify you that I posted another section about alternate/pachislit timeline a week ago but the IP user still hasn't turned up to discuss and I dont think there is much chance that he will in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransVannian (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the policy on edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that but as you know I did start a discussion. But what about the other matter? Why aren't you replying about the block warning he gave himself? Why dont you comment about that? TransVannian (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to learn more about editing at Wikipedia, its policies and guidelines, instead of focusing on this one incident and what you perceive as quirky behavior by the other editor. Then you can apply what you've learned and edit articles constructively and collaboratively.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright I accept everything you're saying but you still haven't replied about the most important question. How is Blocking IP address going to stop him from editong the template? Please answer that admin. Also I'm leaving you one more message under a new section. Ive also left tis mesage on the talk page of the castlevania chronology template. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Might be a further problem emerging...

User:Kaylee_Elizabeth_xx has been recreated following deletion. No significant content - yet! rgds, Leaky Caldron 15:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

82.30.29.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is almost certainly linked and may attempt to reinstate the page. Leaky Caldron 16:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm watching the page, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Official source for alternate Castlevania timeline

Hello Bbb23. Now since the template is unlocked I'll mention the official source. Here it is(http://www.kpenet.jp/kpe_ad/dracula_Blog.html#blog120228). The blog link is of 28 Feb 2012. The blog is quite long and it is reallu difficult to find the part that pachislot games are alternate side stories. So I am posting it here. ｢悪魔城ドラキュラ 闇の呪印｣が元となっています (Pachislot Akumajo Dracula is based on Curse of Darkness). ラルフ側から見たもうひとつの物語が､ パチスロ版の悪魔城ドラキュラI･Ⅱのストーリーとなっています (Pachislot Akumajo Dracula I&II story is "another story" from Ralph's perspective).

Another story is actually the english translation for the word "gaiden", if you don't believe me then search the word on Wikipedia where it's meaning is given as "side story" which also means an alternate story which is not canon for example Resident evil gaiden.

Just press ctrl+f and copy and paste any of the japanese sentences I've written here in the search box that pops up. You will be directed to that japanese sentence. Then translate the page when google asks if you want to translate the page to english. You will find that the translation is correct. Actually the translation I've provided here is much more correct since google will provide a very broken translation. Credit for this goes to babylon translator and user Nagumo baby from castlevania wiki. I know thia process is cubersome but still confirms my statement's validity and the source is official. I want to add this source to template but first I'll like to discuss. TransVannian (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss it on the template talk page, not on mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ADMINABUSE

I'm not quite sure why you have decided to provide more evidence (and what strong evidence, too!) for me to use against you, but anyways... WP:ADMINABUSE states that I should try to resolve the dispute with you first, so here I am.

Perhaps you could provide a link to a policy that states that retaliatory reports are not allowed... you know, just to get the ball rolling here. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll make it easier for you. I'll waive my rights to have it discussed. We've already had enough discussions, and they are pointless.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I need your help

There is a user that is vandalizing and edit warring the article flag of syria and I filed a report against him,can you rule in the case,please Abdo45 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't toss around the word "vandalizing". It's not clear it applies here. In any event, at this point I have nothing to say at WP:ANEW on your report. I will say that you appear to be edit-warring as much as the other editor involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

'Admin why did you remove my message? The policy that you stated mentions nowhere that a personal opinion can't be shared on a talk page. Also I was just advising and speaking truth. Isn't compassion a policy of wikipedia. TransVannian (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stay clear of political discussions about the war in Syria.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand but that is no explanation for removing somepne's edits. It might be your talk page but that doesn't mean you'll remove someone's edit for such a trivial reason. Being an admin you should understand that. TransVannian (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for the quick response to that edit war report! Ducknish (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the cookie. I sure wish I knew a way to transform a virtual cookie into a real one.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

AnastasiaDate

I noticed you have blocked changes to the AnastasiaDate page, however it appears you may have overlooked which version to leave; you have left the page as modified by the COI staff that has been removing the controversial passage from the book. Could you take another look please and leave the book excerpt in. It is one of the few actual allowable references for this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.152.13 (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I looks like both sections were restored, and then one of the two was removed. In looking at the removed section (the controversy), I see no reliable sourcing in support of it. Indeed, my guess is they couldn't source to examiner.com because I believe it is blacklisted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you bbb, I understand now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.152.13 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Response

You accused an editor and an IP address as being the same person in this discussion. Please retract the accusation or you may be blocked for making a personal attack. You are, of course, welcome to file a report at [WP:SPI]] if you have evidence supporting the allegation. (Your talk page is screwed up. It's not an archive.)--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I know about the archive. Not 'screwed' up as you say just I didn't finish editing on the work computer. Will do [WP:SPI]] soon. I'm not on Wikipedia everyday and I need to read up on how that's done but I don't believe him/her and wont retract the suspicion I have at this time. Far from a personal attack though to disbelieve what someone claims. However the words Fladrif used eg 'media whore' & 'grandstanding' where the offensive remarks. Now that talk page has nearly zero visits, how did you mange to find out about it and respond so quickly? Wombat24 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be away from a computer most of the day tomorrow, so am adding last thoughts now, for the time being. The above determination to maintain a sock puppet accusation, without good cause and in the face of strongly worded suggestions from two administrators, is, in effect, an attack on the integrity of several users. Given this persistence, and the promise to file an SPI, I'm thinking of WP:BOOMERANG. For the record, Wombat has been well advised that this isn't a productive path to go down. My thanks to Bbb and Drmies, though it's fairly clear how this is playing out. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth, I didn't know they were administrator and at first was just suspicious due to the speed of their responses. However Drmies comments I believe are way out of line due to his use of foul language on two different occasions in two separate posts. I thought that was banned on Wikipedia. Anyways the SIP was filed in good faith since I believed, and still suspect, 99.149.87.54 is shared by someone else. But if I'm wrong, fine. It will be time to move on. But to call it a personal attack is odd otherwise no one wouldn't file any SIPs when we suspect wrongful activity. We'd all have to ignore it always Wombat24 (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. If you file an SPI out of ignorance, after being told repeatedly that the accusation was baseless to begin with, then you have your own self to blame. Good faith ends where incompetence begins. I don't know where I used foul language, but I can get a lot more insistent if you don't start listening. IP 99 has a person behind it, a person who has been here for years with a variety of IPs (because, you know, that's how IPs work), a person who has forgotten more about Wikipedia than you have managed to learn so far. I don't have to sing his praises: his good work is found all over the project. Your contributions, not so much. And with this fight you were picking, where you were losing an argument and sought a different tack, an accusation of socking, you've taken up more time than you're worth. You irritated one longtime editor, you were given advice by two editors/administrators which you chose to ignore, you made an SPI clerk do more extra work--in short, I'd like to know what the pay-off is for Wikipedia of having you around. I will make one more suggestion to you: stop fucking around and wasting time, and start contributing to articles without resorting to accusations. Or you will be blocked, as a time sink. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

More threats here Drmies! I didn't file in ignorance at all but whatever! So can you stop fucking around now. Feels like your stalking me now on wikipedia. This wasn't a message or question for you here but for the other adminWombat24 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wombat, I'm not sure if you're really listening, but here are some points you might find helpful (in no particular order):

1. Normally, one files an SPI (not SIP) when one has enough evidence of socking. This, of course, is a judgment call, and people with more experience with socks usually make better judgments than those with less. Generally, it's considered a personal attack to accuse someone of socking without filing an SPI. However, filing an SPI with almost no evidence, particularly when a content dispute is not going your way, may not be a personal attack but it is not good conduct on the part of an editor.
2. Drmies and I tried to explain to you that 99. is not a sock. We both know him and have known him for quite some time. As with most editors who contribute through an IP, a different address is often assigned each time he accesses the Internet, although it is often within a certain range.
3. It's not terribly important that Drmies and I are both administrators. What is more important is that we are both very experienced editors, and you should get in the habit of checking things like that when you encounter an editor for the first time. For example, I checked you out and can see that although your first edit with this account was about 3 years ago, you've only made a total of 406 edits in three years. Unless you have experience with Wikipedia under another account or through an IP address, that, to me, means you have little experience. You should listen to those with more experience than you. You don't have to accept everything they say, but don't brush them off.
4. I could have told you before you filed the SPI that it would go nowhere. Clerks will not check for a technical relationship between a registered account and an IP address. Therefore, the only way to establish socking is through behavioral evidence, and, here, it's sorely lacking.
5. "Foul language", which is defined differently by different people, has never been "banned" from Wikipedia. Drmies speaks plainly and directly. He also may speak colorfully and he may use words that bother you. It's a waste of time to be offended. Hey, he once said that I wasn't an asshole; that was high praise.
6. Treat 99. as you would an editor with a registered account. He's an astute editor and has only Wikipedia's interests in mind when he edits. You don't have to agree with him, but you do have to respect him.

• --Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know you answered here. Only saw it today. Last stance. Some points: I read around a few wikipedia rule pages and its clear in several places that one would raise an accusation of wrongdoing first in the Talk page or with the person directly before jumping to mediation or other, like a SPI, which is what I did. Note: this was after I deleted the contentious paragraph basically conceding the other editors POV so as to move on and improve a page that desperately needs improving. It wasn't because I was loosing the argument since I deleted the paragraph and conceded the point. Then I raised the socking suspicion due to the 99....54 edit history which was absent of activity for three years before showing up on a board and very soon after Fladrif went to that board, which by the way was far too quickly since we couldn't really argue the matter on the Talk page first. So I suspected Fladrif as the IP. That was my judgement call. If 99 is also that second IP well then it would make sense that the first was inactive since he'd use several dynamic addresses. But when I noticed another address I directly asked that 99 which one he was but he, probably feeling offended, wrote back "It's too late. You've said more than enough'" instead of clarifying that he was both IP's, something he could've done then and there to settle this, but refused. I take issue with your claim of 'trying to explain' to me that he wasn't a sock. Both just stated it as a matter of fact without any explanation on IP range or dynamic IP's or the several he supposedly used until you have here now. Now I didn't go checking you out then because it felt like stalking at first but I see everyone does this during times of conflict. However it is, for me, more important that you are an Admin because that adds 'experience' to the recommendation. If you would have signed as an Admin the first time you wrote about 99 I would have waited and thought more about this but I would have still asked more questions about that edit history because it stopped in '08 and restarted in that board two days ago after the argument. But the SPI hasn't been determined yet, only checkuser was rejected, and its listed as under administration and , again, the argument was all about behavioural evidence, so I was well within guidelines I believe. If foul language isn't banned on wikipedia, then I'll use it more! About 99, never a personal problem with him and never disrespected him with eg foul language, he was more offended with me due to the socking suspicion. I was only offended by Drmies' disrespect when he wrote those threats, insults (silly, incompetence) and especially saying that the page was fucked up when I hadn't finished editing it. Now that its fixed I wonder if Drmies will say that it is no longer fucked up? doubt it. I find it odd that I'm asked to respect another editor when an administrator's example is that of total disrespect and aggression, which you're classifying as 'speaks plainly and direct'. Judgement call I guess. I think you should ask him to calm down a bitWombat24 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wombat, I'm not going to be able to respond to your long post today. I will try to respond as soon as I have time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wombat, after reading the continuation of the discussion at WP:EAR and the discussion on your talk page between you and User:LadyofShalott, I've reconsidered and will not be responding to your post above. You're going to have to get your education somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, for the record, I wasn't looking to be educated by you or anyone else here. Surely, Wikipedia isn't about educating new users by editors who have been around longer or by you administrators. The post above was in response to your points above it and part of a conversation, or at least I believed it was part of a conversation; no need to answer now, for the record.Wombat24 (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies and Bbb, I appreciate the time you've taken on this matter. Your responses explain some of the basic policies of Wikipedia interaction. They also, whether you realize it or not, constitute real acts of friendship. The virtual world needs mensches, too. Very best, 99.137.210.226 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No response

It's probably been more than two weeks but nobody has paricipated on the discussion on the talkpage of castlevania template. I want to ask your petmission and advice that will adding a reference to the template be ok. I'm not going to edit the chronology template but just add a source that confirms an already present edit. Also if you'll like to then please you should also participate in the discussion. TransVannian (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to partipate in the content discussion. From a procedural perspective, I don't see anything wrong with your adding a reference without changing the substance. It's good of you to ask.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. TransVannian (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ive added the reference according to your advice. Also I've added a proper translation for it to help people understand it better since the translation is very broken. TransVannian (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please take a look on Mahmudur Rahman article?

Hi Bbb23, I am requesting you to comment on this talk page. That article is seriously biased. I am trying to balance that with sufficient reference. But someone can't agree with me. Please comment on this issue. You may check my references. Thank you.--FreemesM ^(talk) 18:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting to this earlier, but it's been a long day. I commented on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Bro, Yesterday I was too busy and can't reply to you. Thanks for your comment. But can you see that conversation again? Chad said that you were wrong about lead section. Moreover if you can manage time, see the third opinion section. There I tried to tell my point in brief.--FreemesM ^(talk) 08:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Grounding Kit - Discussion for Deletion

Talk:Grounding_kit This article does not meet the general guidelines of Wikipedia. I have listed reasons here why it qualifies for Speedy Deletion, which you removed the tag for. I'm not saying this item or class of items does not exist, it does. But thousands of other items go by the same generic name. This particular one gets undue recognition because it has a wikipage associated to it that comes up in the first page of a Google search... which is thereby promotion and why I tagged it as such. Borealdreams (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A WP:CSD#G11 tag was inappropriate for that article. As I stated in my edit summary when removing the tag, there was nothing promotional about the article. Your interpretation of these tags is offbase. It doesn't matter whether the article comes up on the first page of a Google search. That doesn't make the article promotional. The article is judged on its merits, not in conjunction with the algorithms of search engines. There are many, many Wikipedia articles that pop up on the first results page after a Google search. In the future, please don't tag articles like this as being promotional.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Sammarinese elections}}

Hello again. Unfortunately it looks like Barlafus is back (although editing via IPs rather than logging in), as the template has had that link removed from it again twice today. Could you protect it for a while? Cheers, Number 57 18:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to do that. It's never been demonstrated that Barlafus is a sock master. Nor is he currently blocked. If you want to file a SPI report, you can, but recognize that you have to have a fair amount of evidence; otherwise your report will be closed with no action. Also, a checkuser will not be performed when the only puppets you include are IPs. Let me know, though, if it gets worse.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Barlafus removed the article from the template again today. I'm not really sure how to go about putting a stop to this. Number 57 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've locked the template, commented on the template talk page, and referred you (and Barlafus) to my comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, although I found the warning rather unpleasant and unnecessary. I don't see what else I could have done to prevent what was effectively vandalism (the page blanking certainly was, and removing it from the template is vandalism by proxy) - I went through WP:RFPP, WP:DRN and then asked you two days ago to protect the template as the vandalism was ongoing. Do I just ignore the template having the link removed? What do I do when he removes it again once the protection expires? Number 57 12:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've already stated - and I have to be even-handed here - I will block either of you if you edit the template without consensus after the lock expires. If Barlafus reverts after the lock, I will block them. I have the template on my watchlist, but feel free to come here if I fail to notice something (it's a BIG watchlist, sigh). Remember, that the blanking, etc., all revolved around the redirect, and I warned Barfalus about that, but this is a different kettle of fish, although it may not seem that way to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

a question regarding Datatune

Hi, how can I improve the write-up about Datatune, which was the first data cleansing system? Michael Haephrati (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Datatune should be expanded but not deleted. There is an historical value to this product, claimed to be one of the first Data cleansing systems, and nevertheless being discontinued, there is no commercial aspect to anything written about it. Kleopatra1932 (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

RM closure

Hey B hows tricks? If you have time would you gauge consensus at this RM and close it out please. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, DS, already done by someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

Hi Bbb23: Apparently, you deleted a section I inserted regarding Hosni Mubarak in the Muslim Brotherhood section. I assume you rejected it because it referred to a living person and was controversial or poorly referenced. My insertion was that Mubarak was being investigated for his possible complicity in the murder of his predecessor, Anwar el-Sadat. This accusation is well reasoned in a recently published novel, The Search for the Lost Army: The National Geographic and Harvard University Expedition. Please note that in the third paragraph of the introductory section on Hosni Mubarak in Wikipedia, it states that Mubarak is being investigated for his possible role in Sadat's murder. I believe that introductory section cannot be edited by ordinary people like me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhagen (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You added that material again, and it was reverted by another editor. I suggest you take the issue to the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Bbb23. You may remember this editor Ashokapurr (talk · contribs) from last June and their desire to add their own original work to several articles as an EL. Today an IP tried to reenter the link here [6]. The IP is from Ottawa and there was some connection in that Ashokapurr edited some Ottawa articles - as well as their being an IP or two from the same city that Ash used at the time (though I don't have time right now to dig them out so you are free to disagree with this.) I don't think that there is anything to do at the moment I just wanted to give you a heads up so you can keep your eyes out for any other attempts to restore the link. Thanks for you time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Marnette, that goes back a ways. I'm impressed that you keep track. I've put the IP on my watchlist, but that won't catch contributions, only edits to their user and talk pages. Feel free to come back if you notice a pattern. Thanks for your vigilance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome and I will let you know if anything happens. MarnetteD | Talk 01:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What to do until season 4 of Downington

I think it may be time to hang it up even as an IP, when I'm so slow to make headway on relatively small issues like those at Scary Movie 5 and Chris Benz; to me, these are cut and dried examples of content that doesn't belong. Then again, I may be getting grumpier than Andy the Grump. Hope you're well. You and my friend the Dr do great work here, and I don't know how you do it without regular infusions of corn mash. Which sounds like a good idea right now. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I took time out of my regularly scheduled programming and did some work on the movie and Benz articles. The copyrighted material HAD to go. The Benz article is in worse shape as it is a piece of fluff with too much unsourced or poorly sourced crap in it, but other than tagging it, I don't have the time right now to clean it up. Don't let the stuff get you down. Sometimes it can be very frustrating, and I imagine it's even more frustrating editing as an IP because of the built-in biases; it gets to me sometimes, too. What exactly is in corn mash?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a clue, but it sounds delightful, like mixing popcorn and Jim Beam in a blender. 'Course, given the diet me and Ms. 99 are on, there'd be some kale thrown in too. Mmmmm. And thank you; not my intent to do an end-run around good-faith work by other editors and admins, but....c'mon, people. The best thing that could happen would be for business to pick up here and take me away from Wikiville. Looking forward to warmer weather and a little traveling. Maybe just to get out of the house; I'm over a cold, Ms. 99 is getting one, and one of the dogs got thoroughly skunked the other night, just drenched. The whole house still smells of it 48 hours later, and so do we. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We live next to a very large urban park in which there are lots of animals: coyote, raccoons, possums, and, of course, skunks. When we first moved here, we used to joke when driving home at night that we always knew we were home when we smelled skunk. Raccoons are scary critters. We sometimes see them in our backyard; I swear some of them look at me like they know me and hate me.

I hope business picks up - whatever business you're in - but if it does, do check in once in a while if only to chat.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised one day to hear one of our little darlings barking incessantly, to find he'd treed a raccoon that must have outweighed him by 15 pounds. Our other one is going through heartworm treatment now, very painful for the poor lass--the two of them are quite close, and often go outside haunch to haunch looking for rodents. I've instructed them to leave the 'night squirrels' alone, but I have a feeling we'll go through the skunk business again. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I == Nathan Fillion's Birthday ==

Hi, Just writing to tell you that Nathan Fillion's birthday is indeed 27th March, 1971. Per his imDB page and his kidsneedtoread birthday fund (which we have all contributed to). The tweet in question was him re-raising his charity bid for Clean Water like he did last year.

http://community.kidsneedtoread.org/?p=4693

So I've changed it back to 27th March.

Could you please change the citations to the original one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cae prince (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You know, when I was fixing the Twitter reference, I was fairly sure it was wrong. Every website showed his DOB as the 27th, but it was really hard to find any reliable sources. I also suspected that the tweet didn't really mean that the date of the tweet was his birthday, just that he was gearing up for the fund raiser. In any event, I've added two refs: yours, which doesn't give the birth year, and one from buddyTV, which is not the best of references but it's a bit better than many of the other websites. Is there another reference (you mentioned the "original one" but I'm not sure what you mean)? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits! When I said original, I was referring to whatever citation was present before the "Twitter-edit" was made. Sorry about that confusion. Question: is iMdb not considered a reliable source? It lists his birthday there. Caroline Prince 16:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Fillion's Birthday

Hi, Just writing to tell you that Nathan Fillion's birthday is indeed 27th March, 1971. Per his imDB page and his kidsneedtoread birthday fund (which we have all contributed to). The tweet in question was him re-raising his charity bid for Clean Water like he did last year.

http://community.kidsneedtoread.org/?p=4693

So I've changed it back to 27th March.

Could you please change the citations to the original one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cae prince (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You know, when I was fixing the Twitter reference, I was fairly sure it was wrong. Every website showed his DOB as the 27th, but it was really hard to find any reliable sources. I also suspected that the tweet didn't really mean that the date of the tweet was his birthday, just that he was gearing up for the fund raiser. In any event, I've added two refs: yours, which doesn't give the birth year, and one from buddyTV, which is not the best of references but it's a bit better than many of the other websites. Is there another reference (you mentioned the "original one" but I'm not sure what you mean)? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits! When I said original, I was referring to whatever citation was present before the "Twitter-edit" was made. Sorry about that confusion. Question: is iMdb not considered a reliable source? It lists his birthday there. Caroline Prince 16:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

IMDb is not considered a reliable source, particularly for certain kinds of information including birthdates. The reason is that users can edit IMDb.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Adriana Ferreyr

Actually, on this page there are unfounded, unsourced and almost surely false informations which can't be removed, while infos supported by reliable sources such as Daily Mail are sistematically censured. Free encyclopedia? --79.56.203.59 (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed a block

I upped a 72 hour block you made to one month, User:89.100.139.219. Static IP, likely a cafe, as I ended up revdel'ing their edit. If it was a named account, I would have indef'ed but felt one month was the appropriate length due to the totality (it was brought to ANI). I thought it was pretty uncontroversial and that you would agre so just made without asking first, but if for any reason you think I've made a mistake or acting out of line, by all means revert me with my blessing, and just ping me about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note, I am fairly sure this is another user that has been blocked for similar activity recently. I forgot to add that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not a problem. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about Constitution of Hungary Edit War

Dear Bbb23, I have a question:

I have been adding updates to the Constitution of Hungary page and several users have been deleting them. I have been discussing each deletion of my addition on the talk pages and then reverting my addition (sometimes with suggested modifications, and never with 2 reversions in 24 hours). Last night, after the most recent deletion, I initiated a dispute resolution. But this morning I see that you have deleted my latest addition, and what is called a reversion to Biruitorul (talk · contribs)'s last edit is in fact a reversion to a deletion of my addition. And a warning against me has been created (I'm not sure by whom - yourself, or Biruitorul or someone else.

My question is this: Why is it I -- who have added content, which was then repeatedly deleted by others, and then repeatedly reverted (sometimes modified as requested) by me -- who am being warned about edit warring, and just when I have launched a dispute-resolution, having complied with the request to try to resolve via talk? I was not the one who kept deleting: I was just reverting the deletes of what I had added, and discussing it each time with the deletor. Is there any reason why it is me rather than the repeated deletors who receive the warning about edit warring?

Please let me know if I have misunderstood something, or failed to abide by any rules.

Also, will there be mediation in resolving this dispute, as I had hopped in launching my request for dispute resolution?

--Stevan Harnad 17:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Harnad (talk)

Hi, Stevan. Generally, when you add something and another editor reverts you, you are not supposed to restore your edit. Instead, it is better to go to the talk page and obtain a consensus for the material. See WP:BRD. There are, of course, exceptions, but it's a good rule of thumb in most content disputes.

• Thanks Bbb23. I have in fact been discussing and explaining the deletions on every occasion, and have often modified before reverting: In contrast, the deletions themselves have been peremptory, simply mentioning soap-boxing or recentism in the edit summary, and not discussing it with me first. --Stevan Harnad 18:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, policy prohibits edit warring, not just breaching WP:3RR, but any kind of edit warring that is disruptive to the article. In this instance, both you and the other editor, in my view, were edit warring. I could have blocked both of you, but I chose instead to lock the article to let things simmer down and permit you to work things out on the article talk page (hopefully) before the expiration of the lock. Please be aware that if you resume the battle after protection expires, you may be blocked.

• But there has been more than one editor deleting my additions. --Stevan Harnad 18:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason I reverted your edit was because, as I stated at WP:ANEW, you came way too close to copying the text frm the NYT, which constitutes a copyright violation and cannot remain. You should be more careful in the future.

• I appreciate that. But the only reason I turned it from a direct quote into a paraphrase was that one of the deletors rationale for deletion was that it was too long as a quote. So, since it was the substantive points that needed to be made I (lightly) paraphrased it. I informed Professor Scheppele immediately that I had done that, and why. And the citation is appended to it. I am pretty sure that neither she nor Professor Krugman have any objection under the circumstances, but if it would help, I can ask them to attest to that, saying they have no objections to the light paraphrase as it stands. --Stevan Harnad 18:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Any user can post a warning on your talk page. That doesn't mean the warning is valid, although you should pay attention to such warnings and determine for yourself whether you may be violating policy. You can always ask someone else who is not involved if you are unsure.

Starting a new topic at WP:DRN was a good thing. Be aware that it is not binding mediation, but, hopefully, it will shed some light on the content and policy issues. Just so you know, there are other dispute resolution mechanisms available to you besides the noticeboard. Whatever you do, don't battle in the article.

I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still a bit at sea about what steps I should take next. This is an interesting test case for WP. There is something really unfortunate going on in Hungary, and a good chunk of it has to do with media freedom. There is a strong and undeniable effort being made to suppress criticism. I think it borders on the absurd to try to prevent a short summary of the criticisms by one of the world's leading international constitutional scholars -- criticisms that are being given close attention all over the world, and that she has just presented in Washington to Senator Cardin's Helsinki Committee, and now published in their proceedings -- as "soap-boxing". This, unfortunately, is the clearest sign of how partisanship in Hungary has infected WP pages about Hungary: Why on earth should a short summary of these critiques, now being aired worldwide, be deleted from WP, rather than presented in the point-counterpoint fashion that (say) Ltbuni has (rather naively) tried to do: I say naively, because the counterpoints look rather weak when faced directly with the points. (And that's the reason there is considerable government pressure not to express the points at all. Biruitrol's summary certainly does not express them: it presents the canonical government-side view only, hedged only by noting that there is some controversy about some of the points...) --Stevan Harnad 18:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're discussing the content dispute. I don't want to get involved in that unless there's a policy issue, e.g., the copyright violation. I focus on behavior and procedural issues, particlarly related to policy. (Please stop using italics.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent unblock request

This user's posts on my talk page, on the Pope Francis talk page, on her own talk page (including her unblock request) are, well, "strange" for want of better word. I've had a look at some of her edits in articles besides Pope Francis and they are similarly "strange". I'm not going to get involved cleaning those up, but I'm wondering whether "something needs to be done"!. DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps you could provide some diffs of those edits you think are strange. And is it a small percentage of her edits or a significant percentage? And what do you suspect is the reason? Do you think it's a competence issue or something more disruptive? At this point I don't plan on reviewing all of her edits to form my own opinion. You're welcome to do that, although you're certainly not required to do so. Those kinds of reviews tend to be a fair amount of work.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry. I thought pretty much all her edits stuck out as being in the realm of the surreal - but it's probably just me. DeCausa (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we continue with that discussion?

Hey Bbb23, can we continue this discussion (yes that was my IP and no I'm not DeFacto) either here or at my new talkpage. I have questions about the accuracy and fairness of those tags. As a gesture of good faith I waited until your blocking of my IP address that day had expired and then registered a real account for the purpose. Puzzled and curious (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to continue. I have nothing new to say. I'm happy you registered, although you shouldn't be advertising your IP address. Hopefully, your behavior at Wikipedia on your registered account will be policy-compliant.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The tags seem wrong to me. Are administrators infallible? At least help me understand why the "confirmed" tag is so liberally used where there has been no confirmation, only personal opinion and where "suspected" seems more appropriate. Especially where their use is described in detail in WP:SPI/AI - and they appear to have been misused. Puzzled and curious (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to spend your time on this, feel free to address the tags with the admins who placed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that you, having administered a block for changing those tags, would have had a reason for characterizing that act as disruptive, especially as they all appeared to go against the advice given in WP:SPI/AI, and that the changes were all explained in the summaries. What seems so odd is the wroth and lack of explanation of the reasoning and that there seems to be such a very defensive attitude here, both from you and others who undid the changes, and a lack of enthusiasm to provide any sound reasoning - and now I want to get to the bottom of it having had my suspicions aroused. Will you help me to understand this? Puzzled and curious (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic

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

---

I don't disagree with or contest the block, just curious about the topic-ban violation-diff (fully agree with the NPA-part). Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Here ("That becomes a way for you to add a source to any article you like: just find a source that mentions religion somewhere in it, regardless of whether that has anything to do with my comment, and then insist I not be allowed to discuss your use of sources.") (emphasis added by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah, I suppose that counts. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's a continuation of an argument discussion at Talk:Argument from silence, where religious sources were being discussed by more than one editor. HP entered the fray and managed to avoid using the word religion in that discussion, although it is arguable that even then they violated their topic ban. However, the continuation on their own talk page made it clearer what was going on. I imagine HP would argue they were baited, but that doesn't excuse it. There are other ways of dealing with such situations. The personal attacks, of course, made it much worse.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's absurd. If you accuse him of violating a topic-ban on X, he has to be allowed to use the word "X" to discuss whether he violated his ban. Strangesad (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how I violated my topic ban. Also, how it is a personal attack to suggest that an editor has represented sources dishonestly. And, how I can know "dishonest" is blockable when I am subjected to the same term, and nobody is blocked. Humanpublic (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Asked and answered.[7] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

HP, I'd like to add a bit more to what I wrote above. I blocked you on 23 March at 23:58. In a discussion here about the topic ban at User talk:King of Hearts, who was the admin who determined consensus as to how the ban should be worded, KoH said on 24 March, while you were still blocked, "And you went back to editing Talk:Argument from silence, which was one of the pages which led to your ban. This shows every reason why no leniency should be shown." After your block expired, you disagreed that your edits on that talk page were part of your topic ban. KoH essentially said the same thing I did, which is that in discussing religious sources, you were violating your topic ban (" Basically, you are banned from any discussion on that page that has to do with the use of religious sources."). Essentially, my position seems to be the same as KoH's.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not a religious source. The editor adding it, History2007, insisted it's not a religious source. Humanpublic (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a source written by a non-religious author, but it discusses religion, as can be seen from the title. So it is not what one calls a religious source with a religious orientation, but a source that discusses a religious issue as one of its examples. When will this end? I thought the 2012 phenomenon was already over... Maybe not...History2007 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It does not discuss religion. It discusses how much a certain historian knew about the historical figure named "Jesus." It discusses Sherlock Holmes in the same way. More importantly, my comment about the source had nothing to do with its section on ancient history. It only concerned your use of the source to state that arguments from silence are logical fallacies. Humanpublic (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Maduro

I have some interesting news articles which I wanted you to take a look at in talk when you have a second. I get a couple Venezuelan TV stations via streams and thought you would want to fix them into the correct syntax or provide feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts. I assume you're talking about the list of items at Talk:Nicolás Maduro in the section entitled "Maduro Criticisms and Homophobic Allegations Update". I don't think I can be of much help. I speak very little Spanish, and I'm unfamiliar with the sources you're citing, so I don't know how reliable they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the IP you recently blocked. He's back at the talk page and not signing his posts. He's also strongly anti-Maduro and using some questionable sources. Please have a look at the Maduro talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Something else. On March 26 this IP edited the article. His edits were largely removed. On the same day an editor by the name of LifeEditorLatinAmerica reverted. I looked at LifeEditorLatinAmerica and the account was created on March 26. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited in a bit. If you believe their edits are disruptive, you can file a report in the appropriate venue, or you can let me know, but I don't promise to take any action. It obviously depends on what they do. As for the sock puppet implication, sounds to me like you'd need more evidence than you have to file a report. Also, if you have only one registered account, a CU will not be performed based on an allegation that they are using an IP as a puppet. So, the only way a block would result is based on WP:DUCK.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please re-review page for publication

Entry for Indie Game Reviewer was originally flagged[8] for speed deletion (you can see why in that link) and subsequently salvaged and moved to my username:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArchKali/IndieGameReviewer.com

1. I am not sure how to move this from its present state to one for review or publication.

2. Please offer any further comments - it has been substantially revised, citations and reasons for notability added and rewritten to what is ideally a more neutral language.

Thank you in advance ArchKali (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You have a couple of choices. One is to submit it to new articles for creation, which would get you some feedback as to whether other editors think it should be taken live. To do that, add the following template to the very top of the page: {{subst:submit}} (see WP:AFC). The other option would just be to move the article from its current location to article space. Let me know if you need help.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your reply. I am confident that the article, in its new format satisfies the criteria for an article on Wikipedia, particularly as it is based on feedback from four different editors. Having said that I would prefer you give me a recommendation on which of these options to use, as you are far more experienced in this. In that spirit, I ask that you apply the code where it is needed, so that I do not mess that up. I would just like to get the article out of limbo as I have now spent considerable time and due diligence with it.

ArchKali (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've picked option #1, tagged it, and moved it to the appropriate location. As the message says, it may take a while for someone to review the article and give you feedback, but I think, overall, that would be better for Wikipedia and for you as a new editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Last.fm

Hey, what's wrong with using Last.fm as a source?--Launchballer 17:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The material you are citing to on that website is a wiki and is therefore not reliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Weirdest looking Wiki I've ever seen. And that Apollo 440 list?--Launchballer 17:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What about it? I left it in. I removed the most obvious bad sources. That doesn't necessarily mean I believe the other sources are good enough. I'd have to review them and the article more closely.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought that one had gone. Thanks anyway.--Launchballer 18:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wetback (slur)

User just hit the 4th revert... do I need to file the report, or can you handle that w/o it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he's going to stop based on his comment on the talk page. Plus, I've left a warning there as well. I'd let it go unless there's more disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

yepp. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

98.196.234.1

• 98.196.234.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Why did you lock this user's talk page when you blocked him? He has messaged me on IRC, and I would like to unlock his page so he can make a request by normal means (even though it is pretty obvious to me that he is a sockpuppet). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I locked his talk page to match his other IP. If one assumes the two IPs are the same, it makes no sense for "them" to have different settings. You can feel free to do what you wish. I assume you've seen the report at WP:ANI, which is what triggered my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have dealt further with this user and think you have acted wisely. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Mukti Bahini

Hello Sir! I just want your intervention at Mukti Bahini. I added 'facts and figures' from neutral, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi sources, but two editors collaborated and reverted my edits. I did clean-ups and fixes in the Artcle too but they were reverted too, but they were reverted too with the reason of "junk". I had started the discussion at talk about the references for figures of killed Biharis, but the two editors combined reverted everything. They say that the references that I have provided them are not accessible to them(And This is not a reason of removing them). Instead of discussion at talk, where I had started discussion, they reverted my edits. An editor requested another on his talk, and then they both collaborated. They also made comments against my approved rollback request here. About the references for Bihari killings, they say that they are not accessible. I am new to Wikipedia relatively, and thus I came to you for Administrator intervention as I don't have any collaborator. I request to you to go through the Article's history and the Talk's history, I did not engage in edit war but they tried their best. Now you are only my hope. I have requested some other Administrators too! Please Sir! HELP! Faizan (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And in this diff, you can see that editor's humor. Faizan (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

What you have written here is so inaccurate I am still laughing. B, see here for why this guy was reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if I was wrong with the "Torture camps", then why you reverted my other edits too as "junk". Now the Administrators will decide! Faizan (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And cannot you see this section?, let the admins decide now. Faizan (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope I had not see that section at all, and no, the admins will not do anything, this is a content dispute, they will not rule on it. Though you have posted to enough, maybe you will get lucky. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I think that we should stop storming Bbb's talk and let him decide. No more discussion on his talk, he has been notified already. Faizan (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to decide anything, but I have a few comments, mainly for Faizan:

• You added some material, and it has been reverted. At this point, you should discuss the material and not insist on it being re-added (see WP:BRD). If you cannot reach a WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page, you can use dispute resolution mechanisms to attempt to resolve the dispute. You cannot continue reverting on the article, or you may be blocked for edit warring.
• Plastering similar messages as the one you did here on multiple administrator talk pages is not helpful. A better way to handle this would be to use the template {{adminhelp}}. Or you could contact ONE admin, although I'm not sure how you decide which admin to contact.
• Editing articles about controversial subjects when you are a new editor is not the easiest introduction to Wikipedia. But if that's the route you want to go, then take a deep breath, be patient, and discuss the issues with other editors.

--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything Sir! But they should co-operate too! I had started discussion to reach consensus, but you tell me that if they respond only by reverts then what is the solution? I request you to see the Article and the Article's history, so that you may know what is the conflict. I will not contact multiple administrators as per your comment. Faizan (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, there are dispute resolution mechanisms you can initiate. Two examples: you can take the dispute to WP:DRN, or you can request comments from other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you very much Sir, I will now discuss them in other places too. Faizan (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, could you please tell me if I ask a knowledgeable wikipedian to come to discussion any article? I didn't plot anything hiding from others.--FreemesM ^(talk) 15:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

But I would like to request you again, you can spot the difference by just comparing the Article, maybe in this diff. Faizan (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Freemesm, I don't understand your question. Faizan, I've already said I'm not getting involved in the content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Freemesm wants to know if what he did was canvassing. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Whatever happened to diffs? Does he mean this request on your talk page? If so, it's borderline but more likely yes than no.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I've posted incomplete question. Actually I want to know- "if I ask a knowledgeable wikipedian to come to discussion any article, is it against any wikipolocy? I am not plotting anything hiding from others."--FreemesM ^(talk) 16:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't give you a one-answer-fits-all. It depends on the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson

Hi there,

Just to let you know that there's an edit war happening again at List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.114 (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Just wanted to let you know that the IP user has started an edit war again. EscapeX (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Think of this as a mini-ANEW. I blocked you both for edit warring. I blocked 86. for 48 hours as it is their first block. I blocked EscapeX for two weeks as it is their third.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Potential WP:SOCK of User:Ground Zeroes editor?

See Special:Contributions/SOCOM_Warrior. Same contribution patterns, same talk page banter, userpage claims he's been around for seven years. I don't know if a CheckUser request is appropriate here, but I think WP:DUCK applies... Axem Titanium (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say except the "talk page banter." SOCOM has been active on the talk pages. The other two accounts were not. But there was still enough for me to block SOCOM, which I've done. I also felt, given there are now two puppets, to open a report at WP:SPI (so much work, sigh). Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. I'll contribute to the SPI from here forward if the situation changes. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse Me

Dear "Bbb23", Your recent edit on Colburn School article was totally uncalled for. Both piano professors that you removed from the article just because they don't have articles both are notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. They've won and placed major competitions, including YOung Concert Artists auditions and Rubinstein Competition in Tel Aviv, Cleveland Competition in US. They totally meet WP:MUSICBIO. If they seriously need articles to have a mention in this article, then I'll just create them. That's easy! Before you argue with me, please more that I am a graduate student of Juilliard School of Music. You are an amateur and don't understand what it means for a pianist to be notable. Lac47 (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they're notable per guidelines. It matters whether they have an article or you have some other reliable source supporting their notability. At the time you had neither for both teachers. Now you have an article for Shihor. Did you create that as User:Lepianisteallemand20834725? I'm not sure that article will survive, but it's here for now. There's still no article for Lee, so I've again removed it from the list. Don't re-add it without a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

CLEANSTART not applicable to me? "Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here); or is being or about to be formally discussed for their conduct; or is attempting to evade scrutiny, may not have a clean start." I do not meet the criteria of people who cannot have a clean start. Please, leave me alone. You are accomplishing nothing by behaving in this manner. Lepianisteallemand20834725 (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you're receiving more scrutiny than you were on the Lac47 account. I suspect this will not end well for you as your attitude seems, at best, belligerent. I don't think this discussion is productive. You're clearly here to advance an agenda, no matter what account you use. Are you affiliated with the Colburn School? The initials "Lac" make it sound as if you are.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Time to get all up in that block button

[9] and User talk:Lac47 for good measure. Ryan Vesey 00:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan, I'm very aware of the problems. Unfortunately, I believe I am WP:INVOLVED and cannot block. I've left a message on the talk page of the admin who deleted the article (twice now). I'll keep an eye on the situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The newest account has been blocked. I think Lac47 isn't the first account though. New editors rarely link to WP:CLEANSTART or WP:ILLEGIT. Ryan Vesey 01:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point, and good old Kevin.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lac47 by the way, can you pull up the deleted versions and make sure he did in fact copy paste the sections? Specifically the most recent version. I doubt that both I and the two administrators got it wrong (and maybe this is further evidence of sockpuppetry/trolling, attempting to get us to waste our time looking at his stuff), but I'd like the peace of mind. Ryan Vesey 01:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pls advise re: 3-revert rule

I'm out of luck with User:Bmclaughlin9 who has redacted Mary Untier of Knots I have contributed to over the years (and used the "Talk" page) to a "SimpleWiki" format of reduced encyclopedic interest. Could you recommend how I should go about defending content from being repeatedly removed? If necessary to escalate, how do I invoke the censure that was applied to me recently (Quote-- re: Pope Francis "following your unblock request. I'll respond to the only thing I think I understand: removing new material from an article, unless it's exempted, counts as a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC) --) MrsKrishan (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)?

It looks like some of the material you added was reverted by an IP. Then you and Bmclaughlin9 had a tug-of-war on the article. At this point, Bmclaughlin9 has made only two reverts. You have made at least two, possibly three - I'd have to look more deeply to figure it out. I think you should stop reverting and continue the discussion on the talk page. Your contributions to the talk page thus far have not been constructive. Indeed, they were condescending and snarky. That's NOT helpful to anyone, including you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Akuma

Hi, I was the user who was edit warring on the Akuma (Street Fighter) article a few days ago. I really hate to bother you a third time about this, but I have yet to receive any sort of talk page reply from Disturbedasylum, and I have the nagging suspicion that he has no intention of replying at all. I have no idea how to deal with an article conflict with someone who refuses to communicate, so would you mind giving me some advice? Thanks a bunch, TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Disturbedasylum is not behaving well. However, it looks like User:Sergecross73 is helping out on the talk page with the content dispute. Are you content to leave the article in its current state (even though I know you don't like it) while that discussion proceeds?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll be content. Fortunately, I've worked with Serge a bit before, so it should be all right. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jose Antonio Vargas". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

CCHT ELs

Bbb23, Many apologies for creating work for you in having to remove EL links that I put in. Am new to Wikipedia and didn't read guidelines on ELs properly - thought they would be acceptable temporarily until info in them could be incorporated by other editors . Will try to include info in the ELs into the articles and turn ELs into citations. All the best, Laplacemat (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Laplacemat, thanks for coming here. Using the website as a reference is also problematic. I think we should explore this a bit more before you use the website in any article. Let's start with your explaining to me your relationship to the website and a little more background about the site.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bbb23. Thanks for your quick response. CCHT = Cumbria County History Trust (Cumbria being one of the counties or admin. areas in NW England and which includes the Lake District). I'm a member and a volunteer (retired academic librarian). It has provided digests on its website, in 2013, of the history of c344 villages, towns and cities (under the auspices of the Univeristy of Lancaster). These will later (over several years) be turned into larger articles varying between 10 pages to single volumes (ending up with c15 vols. altogether) as part of the Victoria County History Project (under the auspices of the University of London). Website= http://www.cumbriacountyhistory.org.uk/victoria-county-history-project. The aim of the digests and VCH is to provide the bedrock for future historical research ie: all articles refer only to primary sources (taken from the local archives) and will be fully referenced (although the current digest pages only give brief indications of sources used). All information on the CCHT website, although mostly put together by experienced, but amateur (eg: retired academics) folks, has been vetted by Univ. of Lancaster (the main seat of learning for north-west England studies) staff. I think that as far as referencing is concerned, the website is on a par with, and should supersede in some cases, that which has already been written by academics in terms of providing verifiable source material, and should certainly supersede a lot of what has been written by amateur local historians. My aim was to somehow point to the CCHT digests in the hope that the web editors of the 344 places on Wikipedia would take up the cudgels and add history info based on CCHT knowledge. I don't have the time or inclination to do this myself and other CCHT volunteers are busy on the next (ie: VCH) stage of the project! I fully understand the need to eliminate external links that might be dodgy, disappear, change URLs, etc. Hope this helps, Bbb23. Any thoughts very welcome as to what we can do. All best, Laplacemat (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is you have an obvious WP:COI. That doesn't necessarily mean that CCHT can't be used, but it means it should at least be vetted. I suggest you go to WP:RSN and ask whether the website can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Feel free to point to this discussion so you don't have to go over the whole thing on the noticeboard. Also, it would be helpful if you would put it in concrete terms. Take one or two article examples and the material you want to add so the editors at RSN can evaluate it in context. Let me know if you need help.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, Many thanks for your promptness again. I do see your point about WP:COI - all I can sy is that it wasn't obvious to me! As a fairly new member (2 years) of the CCHT, I really don't think it's up to me to make a case for its reliability or not. (Just to clarify an erroneous statement I made above, I vounteered to be a "Volunteer" for the Trust but am still in the training phase). I'll refrain from citing it in future and leave it to other web editors of Cumbrian history to take up the cause. All the best, Laplacemat (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)These summaries were compiled during 2012 by Cumbria County History Trust volunteers.

Bbb23, Further to our discussion abve re the CCHT, I've just come across their disclaimer about the digest histories on the website: "These summaries were compiled during 2012 by Cumbria County History Trust volunteers. They are based on a common set of key sources, listed below. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE SUMMARIES REMAINS TO BE VERIFIED BY SYSTEMATIC AND MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH IN ORIGINAL SOURCES: THIS WILL TAKE PLACE IN DUE COURSE AS PARISH AND TOWNSHIP HISTORIES ARE DRAFTED FOR THE VICTORIA COUNTY HISTORY OF CUMBRIA" Given this disclaimer (about accuracy) - and I can only apologise again for not seeing this in the first place - I don't think this website would pass a WP:RSN discussion, and the digests should probably be avoided on Wikipedia until the more detailed VCH equivalents are produced. The first two drafts of these have just been completed, so 322 to go! Sorry to have wasted your (and my) time on this and thanks for your vigilance - live and learn. I'll delete all remaining refs to the site. If WP admin.stress ever gets to you, try: http://www.lakelandcam.co.uk - it changes every day and works for me! All the best. Laplacemat (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's rare for someone to react to the kind of warning I left on your talk page in the manner that you have. It does you credit, and it's appreciated. I don't know what you think about editing on Wikipedia otherwise, but we could always use good editors if you're interested.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, You may have spoken too soon! 1) User:Leaky Caldron is probably going to take this matter to WP:RSN after all, despite my misgivings. But, maybe that's a good idea, as you originally suggested. I think that the CCHT "Digests" have a certain level of accuracy (if that doesn't sound stupid), based on the sources used to compile them. It's just that the info hasn't been vetted yet to the "gold" standard demanded by the Victoria County History people. More comprehensive and "primary" sources will be used then. It might boil down to whether WP users will see the CCHT disclaimer i.e.: is it prominent enough or not? 2) Thanks for your kind words. I do think that maybe you could do with a "traffic-light" system of warnings eg: amber instead of flashing the red card straightaway (in soccer terminology) - it might put off younger newbie editors otherwise. Yours, Laplacemat (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Laplacemat, I'm glad LC is helping you. They're an experienced editor, and it does them and you credit that they've taken an interest in whether CCHT may be used as a reliable source. As for the warning system, there is actually an escalating system that starts with a very different icon from that big red stop sign. Unfortunately, you were a victim of statistical history. Generally, a new editor who inserts that many links to one website in that short a time (you were prolific) is not here to do any good. So, I made a judgment and jumped to the final warning instead of a kinder warning. I might add that being human I was none too pleased at having to spend so much time removing the links from so many articles. In any event, in hindsight I was wrong, and, frankly, I'm glad I was wrong. I still think you should think about editing here. Depending on your temperament, it can be stressful at times, but it is overall quite rewarding (not in any monetary sense, of course). If you do decide to stick around and try it out, I have your first lesson for you: WP:INDENT. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Like this? No problems with me about the warning - I can imagine (ie: can't really) how stressful being a WP admin. can be. I must read the WP manual at leisure sometime and take some of the load off you! All the best, Laplacemat (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Outstanding, now that you've passed Lesson 1, we proceed to Lesson 2. Put something on your user page. Anything that is appropriate. You can reveal something about yourself ... or not. After you do that, your user name link in your signature will change from red to blue. Even though you will still be a relatively new Wikipedian, other editors won't presume that you are. There are some very experienced Wikipedians with nothing on their user page, but they are a distinct minority. It's kinda like wearing the right clothes. Appearances shouldn't matter, but they do.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, Lesson 2 done! (after a bit of a struggle). If I could beg your indulgence one more time? The CCHT WP:RSN exercise fizzled out with only one response, with which I agree i.e.: o.k. to add an EL to the 344 CCHT websites, but no mention to be made in the body of the articles. Leaky Caldron thinks it's fine to go ahead along these lines, but I just wanted to pass it by you before doing anything as I don't want to be reverted mid-way through and waste people's time again. Also, I'm not sure if consensus has been reached. The intended EL would be eg:

Cumbria County History Trust: Allhallows (Provisional research only) which makes the disclaimer visible at first sight. What do you think? Yours,

Laplacemat (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Laplacemat, nice to hear from you again. This would be my advice. Add the EL to a handful of articles only (I dunno, 3-5 articles). On the talk page of each article, open up a topic, saying what you are doing and providing a link to the WP:RSN archive (as I did above). Wait a few days to see if anything happens. If no one objects, continue adding them. If you do all of the articles at once, some editors might react negatively because it would have all the earmarks of spamming, even though that isn't your intention.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, I think that sounds like a good plan. Will try that. (Is that really 01:01?!)

Thanks again, Laplacemat (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not my local time but UTC.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Not my personal opinions

The only reason i edited the article, regarding which you messaged me, was primarily because those were not my "opinions" but a well-known fact. Please stop citing my edits as vandalism, when infact they are not. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifedream (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael C. Brewer

Hi, good work on Michael C. Brewer but are you sure that Frances Andrade's name should be omitted? It has been all over the news, and the evidence she gave and her subsequent suicide is I feel a notable part of this whole catastrophic saga, so we should perhaps - I think - dignify her with a name rather than leave her an anonymous victim. I'm not sure who benefits by omitting it? I am not, of course, up for a fistfight over this! I just wondered what you thought on a second go-round? Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it's best to avoid the name of a victim of sexual assault unless the victim is otherwise notable. I don't think it benefits the victim to include her name. This particular case is unusual because the victim is dead, so we're not protecting her as a BLP. I suppose it boils down to whether her family and friends would prefer that she be named or not named, and I don't see any way of assessing that (sometimes purported family members come to articles and scream bloody murder about issues like this, but I'm unaware of that ever happening on this article). Why do you think it's more dignified to give her a name? BTW, thanks for coming here to talk about it rather than simply re-adding her name to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the well-reasoned reply. Agreed generally about naming victims. I feel that this case is perhaps a bit different in that she was arguably already notable as a successful violinist - see this for example - and that she made herself more notable, in a terrible way, by her death. If you Google her she is very widely named (I know we don't have to take this as a model) and there is plenty of evidence of her family speaking out over the Brewer case, which does not suggest that they are reticent about her naming. Also, she had already very bravely stuck her neck well out over Malcolm Layfield's RNCM HoS appointment - did you see the Guardian's collection of correspondence there? On the dignity ... well, it's tricky and I suppose a very personal perception, but I suppose that I'm saying that she took the decision to be named, to go public on what had been done to her - and lost her life over it - and that in a way it affords her more dignity if we give her her own name rather than just making her the anonymous victim of an assault. It's like she already chose to be identified, and we should honour that decision. With the BIG "if" that, certainly, if someone who was verifiably close family said they preferred that it was removed, then their wishes should be paramount and it should go. That said, I am, as noted, not up for a battle over this and I'm not rushing off to change it. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry not to have gotten back to you until now - slipped through the cracks. Perhaps my instinct against naming victims is too strong. Why don't you solicit some input at WP:BLPN? You can point readers to the discussion here so we don't have to repeat ourselves. I'm happy to defer to a consensus if one is established. If not - well, we can cross that bridge later. How does that sound to you?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just a brief note to say thank you for the assistance on American Pickers. Much appreciated! Sector001 (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong

User:Ryulong is being uncivil at me right now. I am asking him nicely that I need help on some things at his talk page but then, he decides to revert and delete it. He just doesn't even care regarding the drama outburst I did. Can you please talk to him and say I'm hurt?--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Blackgaia, I've looked at your edits since you were unblocked. I don't know anything about the subject matter you edit, but it looks like the only bump you've had is at Pretty Cure Splash Star and an apparent disagreement (I think) with Ryulong. I also saw your attempts to communicate with Ryulong on his talk page and his reverting your edits without reponse. I suggest you depersonalize the issue. Ryulong is not required to assist you. He doesn't have to care about your feelings. There's no reason for you to be "hurt" or for me to tell him that you are. Instead, you should approach any problem you have with an article on the article talk page and try to work out any content issues without focusing on your feelings or anyone else's feelings. So, if there is a dispute on that article, open a topic on the talk page about it. If Ryulong responds, discuss it. If he doesn't, you can feel free to alert him to the discussion by leaving a brief note letting him know of the discussion. If he ever informs you explicitly to stay away from his talk page, you should honor that request and just stick to the articles and their talk pages.

I also see you took the Boing!'s advice and have approached an adopter about helping you. That's excellent. Stay cool, and let me know if you have any questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Splash Star is agreeable since it looks terribly bad but other issue is due I am burried with work and I may not have time to edit the Jewelpet anime page. I asked him for help but he didn't took it well.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have work (I assume you mean outside work), that's not a problem. Generally, our personal lives come before Wikipedia. Don't fret about it, and don't worry about Ryulong.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm worrying because he's a rude jerk, forcing me to nail all the rules on my head and reverting EVERY.SINGLE.EDIT I do. I thought this site itself believes in collaborative editing but then you think wanted to be one-sided and just think my opinions were sometimes useless. I'm trying to HELP for once this time! You know I got blocked because I couldn't grasp the point on working together but then...I just don't know if he just had a serious grudge againts me and want me off this site and dead in real life.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't call Ryulong or any other editor a rude jerk, and the thing about wishing you dead doesn't merit a response. I've commented on the Pretty Cure talk page. I know you're trying, but you're going to have to try harder because you're being way too sensitive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Hello. Thanks for changing the link in my comment on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting‎ page. However, when linking to specific parts of a page, you can do this inside the wikilink framework. It works the same way as linking to anchors does in HTML, but you don't need underscores or special character references. To link to this talk topic, you'd type [[User talk:Bbb23#Wikilinking]]. It's much cleaner, and the Wiki framework doesn't treat it as an external link. Don't worry about changing it in the talk page, I've already done it for you. Thanks. drewmunn talk 16:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, drewmunn, I'm aware of your method of wikilinking a section, but for some reason I often find the other method easier, and I get lazy sometimes (too much to do). Thanks for coming here, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

AN

Hello. You undid my latest edit here [10]. It was not in the closed discussion, so would you kindly reinsert it. Thanks.Jeppiz (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that - it got caught in the middle. I've restored it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit warring

Reported. [11] Strangesad (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: Javier12345

You recently blocked Javier12345. However, his unblock request is correct in pointing out that he was blocked even though he did not continue editing past his warning. Any input would be appreciated. Best, m.o.p 20:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I blocked him and the other registered account for edit warring and for abusing multiple accounts. If you look at the history of List of Winx Club episodes, you'll see that each account has his own IP group. If you geolocate the IPs on each side, you'll note that they geolocate to the same location, on one side Germany, and on the other side Mexico. I also semi-protected the article because of the IP disruption. If the only issue had been edit warring, I would probably not have blocked him, or at least not for 72 hours, although it's not like he didn't know what he was doing. Check out his edit summary in this revert ("The edit war is because of you, it's you against various users."). Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. m.o.p 20:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind chiming in on this user's talk - he'd like to plead for an unblock still. m.o.p 22:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

MC Kinky article

I am using content sanctioned specifically by MC Kinky herself, which she has cleared as acceptable. Please leave as is.--Launchballer 20:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. All material has to be properly sourced or it can't be put in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Bluerules ANI thread

Bbb23, if you have the time, do you mind if you can take a look at the thread on Bluerules at ANI? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Mich link spammer

Thanks for the block; NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Even with the links you provided, it was most confusing. However, I left a message on Arthur's talk page as he obviously knows more about it, and he concurred with the block with a slight reservation. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Typos

Re: this edit summary, I seem to recall Malleus being briefly blocked for a typo. He intended to call someone a twit but ... Well, that would be my excuse, anyway. ;) - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the laugh, I wouldn't make as many typos if (1) the font were bigger and (2) we had spellcheck. Also, somehow I don't think you can make "wotk" out to be anything sinister. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Wotk" might be extremely rude in, say, Polish. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Might be" isn't good enough. I did a google search on wotk and Polish and came up with a ridculous number of hits (google is weird sometimes). The first page of results looked like, uh, typos. Most of my ancestry is Polish. Maybe that's the problem; it's genetic. If you want to learn more than you ever wanted to know about typos, go to Typographical error. I can tell you I don't have fat fingers and don't make thumbos, either. I didn't check our article for typos.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm always making typos, at least in part due to FFS but also because something like 20% of my keyboard is lacking keys. I have a replacement keyboard and there is no difficulty in me fitting it except that I've got a ridiculous number of instances of Firefox running and each of those has at least 12 tabs open. Plus usually 20 or so PDFs. I've put off powering down the thing for nearly six months now because just as soon as I begin to get the excess pruned, well, another caste-based row emerges and the things start sprouting again. It has probably reached the point where I will make more typos when I fit the new 'board than I do now - I've got more used to not having the keys than otherwise.

I think there is/was some sort of spellchecker in the pipeline. I hope that it can handle the various varieties of English but somehow I doubt that it will. Of course, one could always type in a wordprocessor and then copy/paste ... but that would mean yet another window open on my screen. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a lot of windows open in FF, but each window has generally only one tab. I had to disable Shockwave Flash because of a bug in Firefox/Adobe that causes focus problems when I open a new window. Very irritating. FF has known about it for a long time and still hasn't fixed it. It apparently only happens in certainn environments - like mine. Sometimes I think of using a different browser, but I hate IE, am averse to Chrome because of Google's arrogance and some other issues, and the only thing left is Opera. So far, I've refused to deal with the learning curve that would entail. The devil you know and all that.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sitush. You want to attach the new keybard. If it's a stand-alone keyboard you could just unplug the old and plug in the new. Most reasonable operating systems can handle that without needing to reboot. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I like the phrase "reasonable operating system". I'll remember next time I'm pissed at Windows to ask it why it's being so unreasonable. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah, it is a laptop. And, yes, I could attach a keyboard to that by usb but it would rather defeat the object. I need to look into Firefox Sync - there are another 7 or so PCs and a server knocking around my house - but I'm not sure yet whether it will sync multiple instances. Bbb, is Windows ever reasonable? I make my paltry living from fixing PCs so perhaps I am the last person who should criticise its unreasonableness! Personally, I am drifting more and more to Ubuntu, with virtual machines for everything from Windows 3.1 through to Windows 8. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might incriminate Bill Gates, Microsoft, and Steve Balmer.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

About the warning

Hello. I will agree to the terms and policy on editing rules but I still think that my suggestions regarding Šar Mountains article should be considered. Venus fzy (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding and suggestions. Venus fzy (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise

Thank you for your advise on my 'Proposal: block IP 190.242.54.93' on the Administrators Noticeboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=549048320

By accident today on the same page Economy of Romania there was another case of vandalism. This time I reverted and warned the vandal in the way you mentioned (at least I hope so): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.110.206.150 :-)

As I mentioned earlier, I do not intend to do a lot on the Enlish version of Wikipedia Bfwelter (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What you did was perfect, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Admin Nominators

Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Admin Nominators, a project which aims to support editors interested in nominating at Requests for Adminship. We hope that you will join and help to shape the new project. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...

... this. - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't blame you a bit. I should have been clearer.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Tomica/Sandbox14

Hi Bbb 23! Can you please move this sandbox to Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded ? Thank you. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted your sandbox at the same time. Hope that's okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. Thank you ;)  ! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

ty

Thank you for your views in these threads. I found them insightful, and helpful in establishing my own thinking. — Ched :  ?  22:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Ched. Admins are always telling non-admins that there's no rush. We should heed our own advice. The world is not going to collapse in the interim. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleting the Point-of-Rental™ Systems page

It was stated that this page was promoting. I thought I followed the guidelines by only stating history and who we are, like an "About" page.

If you thought the page was promotion or advertising, how can I create it to be in-line with the guidelines and not have it deleted again? Point1983 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you not even try. You have an obvious conflict of interest as you are editing on behalf of the company. That, in and of itself, is not permitted at Wikipedia (see WP:ROLE). The only reason I didn't block your account was because the user name you chose is far enough from the company's actual name as not to be confused with it. I don't see how you can read the article objectively and think it's not promotional. Just a few examples:

• Thus, Point-of-Rental™ Software became a reality.
• the benchmark of the rental industry
• the first ever software company to be awarded two RER Innovation Product Awards in the same year!
• released its most monumental update yet
• ensuring the longevity of the company's software
• Point-of-Rental's toll free telephone software support service are included at no additional cost with the initial purchase of a rental company's initial Point-of-Rental™ System software license

And the use of the trademark symbol throughout the article. If you're not the marketing director of the company, perhaps you should be. Sorry to be so harsh, but Wikipedia is not an advertising tool for companies.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Assistence?

A sock account of ChronicalUsual soley created to report me is reporting me for breaking a warning that was soley in place to regulate a conflict war on the inclusion of material in the infobox. Since the conflict has been resolved, many users have reverted several times, and no action was taken (given that the conflict in question no longer existed). However chronicalusual is taking advantage to singly target me. Imput will be helpful. Sopher99 (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

I've commented at ANEW. Please read my comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem here?

Dear Bbb23, Could you please tell me what was my fault here? First Crtew threaten me and then tell me not to post on his talk page! Does this according to WP:civility? Earlier he did same thing with Darkness Shines. See this. Clearly he is trying to bias these two article Mohammed Nizamul Huq and Mahmudur Rahman. What should I do now? Should I raise this on Arbitration committee?--FreemesM ^(talk) 15:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you should stay off Chad's talk page as he asked you to do. He has a right, with certain limited exceptions, to control his own talk page. It's clear you and he don't get along, but I don't see his comments as personal attacks or threats. In fact, your use of the phrase "irrational news contents" is somewhat provocative. Restrict your comments about article content to the talk pages of the articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Crtew very shrewdly trying to put hacked copyright violated conversation on Mohammed Nizamul Huq article by his great wiki experience. He put--

In December 2012, the court by order suppressed the media from publishing materials or accounts of those Skype conversations.[20][26] According to news sources, the videos of the conversations between Huq and Ziauddin were posted to YouTube.[19] Since the war crimes trial court forbade any further publication or coverage of the materials in Bangladesh, news organizations, such as expatriate sources abroad, were left to publish notices that told readers how they could view the conversations and transcripts on sites such as YouTube.

Moreover he put too much emphasis on hacking incident on Mohammed Nizamul Huq article. Does this good practice on wikipedia?--FreemesM ^(talk) 15:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking me. Are you saying that Chad is violating copyright policy? I don't see that from looking at it. If you have some other problem with it, raise it on the talk page and, if that doesn't work, use some form of dispute resolultion to achieve a consensus. I don't want to get involved in the ongoing content disputes. And for someone who keeps making claims of incivility, the use of the word "shrewdly" and the sarcastic phrase "great wiki experience" aren't particlarly civil.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll never disturb you ever. Actually I'm not very aware about all the wiki policies and found no one around me to teach that, moreover my English is not so good, that's why I'm frequently asking you very silly questions. Sorry, I quite and thanks for your suggestion.--FreemesM ^(talk) 15:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

First, there's no reason that you can't post questions here just because I pick on you occasionally when you do. :-) I'm just trying to be fair. Second, I know your English is not good, and I take that into account. You need to focus more on content and less on personality issues and suspicions. It also couldn't hurt for you to learn a bit more about Wikipedia policy. One of the key things to understand at Wikipedia is when does something stop becoming a content dispute and become a behavioral dispute. Many editors don't grasp that, and when they get involved in protracted content disputes with the same editor or editors, they automatically assume it's a behavioral issue. I cited WP:DR above. Take the time to read the whole policy. It may help. For example, jumping to arbitration when you're having the kinds of problems you are having won't work. First, ArbCom doesn't handle content disputes. Second, even if you can make a case that this is a behavioral dispute, ArbCom is usually a forum of last resort after other forums have been used (like WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:RFC/U). And, even in those forums, as Chad found out recently, you'd better be sure you have a solid case. Anyway, don't feel you can't come here to talk to me. Even if you don't like my answer, you might learn something - or not. :-) And I don't mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, it's very hard to read "his great wiki experience" as sarcasm, given the context. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge

Hi Bbb23. I wonder could you possibly take a look here: [12] re 3RR? Many thanks. Also Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, apparently, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I've left a message/warning on the editor's talk page. Honestly, you or one of the other reverting editors could have done the same thing. There's been no discussion of the change the editor wishes to make except through edit summaries. Particularly for a new editor, that's not the way to proceed. Why don't you open up a topic on one of the article talk pages about the material?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was looking for some advice, so thanks for that. And yes, I think a discussion topic could well have been opened sooner ("honestly"). I was a bit late to the party there. That editor may be new, but they do not seem to be naive nor particularly inexperienced. Maybe I should have left it to Surtsicna to deal with single-handedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, no, more involved editors in the discussion is better. It appears you are all talking now, and hopefully you'll be able to resolve the dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting question - how far the expressed wishes of parents about matters which they had regarded as private, are fair game for news hounds and even encyclopedias. Even when those expectant parents are celebrities, or royalty, or even both. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well, I doubt the edit would have attracted the same scrutiny had it not been for the combination of the people involved and the unusual nature of British "journalism".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Very true. Am no die-hard-Daily-Mail-al-Fayed-theorist, but one sometimes cringes, knowing what has happened in the recent past. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Did I

Just get an "outstanding" from you? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You did, indeed, I'm proud of both of you for working things out. You should make it a habit.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You want us to become nuns? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A vow of silence would be nice.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sadly for you that would be monks, and I doubt you can really hear my typing Darkness Shines (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I hear everything. I'm an admin with super powers.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That being the case I was a moment ago actually writing red hot photography and made a typo or two. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I never correct salacious typos. And you a monk and all.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What?

Bob, can you Tell me Why did you delete “Fernando Vazquez Romero" even id i said please Dont delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fern and john (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You're lucky you haven't been blocked for creating articles like that. If you do it again, you will be blocked. I deleted it because it was blatant vandalism. Perhaps you could explain why it's not.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Bob, the person i was talking about was me, all of it was me. You have to Believe me, please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fern and john (talk • contribs) 11:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm wasting my time with this as it's surreal. Who exactly is "me"? Are you Fern? Are you John? And regardless of that, what is the article about? I don't care if you were talking about you. What's the purpose of the article? I can't decide whether you are a child who doesn't know what he or she is doing, if you're a troll just seeking attention, or if you simply have no clue as to what you're doing or what Wikipedia is about. I suggest you go somewhere else and play.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Article clearly says “Fernando Vazquez Romero" so clearly im Fern and the purpose of the Article is that Fern struggled with Adventure, fell in love, struggled to meet someone who can help me and i did. Im not a child, I'm getting bullied, everywhere I go, I get bullied, no one understands me like my only friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fern and john (talk • contribs) 11:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for whatever problems you have, but this is an encyclopedia, not a support forum. See WP:NOTTHERAPY.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It did say that I was doing an article but the article “Fernando Vazquez Romero" is truly real. My friend is helping me fix my problems but this article is real. You will see me in Blessed Sacrament. I go there. ): I'm sorry, I thought my story would be famous and now how am I going to tell about my story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fern and john (talk • contribs) 11:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you spend more time on your school studies. You might also want to talk to your parents - or some other trusted adult authority figure - about the problems you're having here.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. But how am I going to tell my parents or a trusted adult? And where can I tell about the life of Fern? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fern and john (talk • contribs) 11:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to say how can I do a story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fern and john (talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This is my last comment. You can't create an article here because you don't know how. Please do not post again on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jasmine Sanders

Hi I built a wikepedia page for my boss who's a notable radio personality and it was deleted. It said Advertising/Promotion...

Please let me know who we can solve this issue. (Acilegna Santos)

You have a problem because you have a WP:COI, which makes it hard to be objective, to the extent that you're writing this on your own and not at her request. In any event, the proposed article was clearly promotional. You don't have to read much further than the opening sentence: "JASMINE SANDERS is a rare find. In an entertainment world of superficiality and inflated egos, this fabulous, beautiful, down-to-earth diva’s talent is undeniable." Give me a break.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Was that really in the article? You shoulda passed it just for the lulz. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Joan Gerber

Why are you doing this? What do you have to gain? Why do you ignore what people who knew her and loved her are saying (Paulsen, Fraley and Cartwright). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 12:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You have a history of disruptive edits with respect to this article, but your most recent edits were the worst I've ever seen. If you can't edit the article responsibly, leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a great working knowledge of US Social Security, but is this a reliable source for her death? (and note her actual name, as well). Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never considered those kinds of sources to be reliable. They are a hybrid of non-authoritative and primary. And to use it to source someone's death would be problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought. Apparently there was an obit in the LA Times on 31/8/11 as well, but I can't find it in their online archives. I think someone confirming that was the case would be the only way of nailing this one. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Joan Ellen Gerber was her real, birth, legitimate name. Evryone called her Joan E., but they wrote it incorrectly all over the website. Black Kite you don't have any right to contest her name as am sure you didn't know her at all. And repeat what about the statements of Rob Paulsen, Pat Fraley and Nancy Cartwright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to help you fix the problem. But we cannot take the word of other people as reliable sources for a death. If someone could dig out the obit from the LA Times in some way that would be fine. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried to find it, too, but, like you, was unsuccessful. I no doubt missed it somewhere, but what makes you think it exists? One of those odd sources cited by Radiohist?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"status quo" is demonstrably factually incorrect

the version that you are reverting to is demonstrably factually incorrect. You are replacing the Lee /Facebook citation to support a claim that Savage is calling Santorum anti gay and it does not. The Lee book flat out calls Santorum anti gay. At the minimum, that cite needs to be moved to support the "and others" that has fallaciously been marked with a {fact} tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

and you are right, i have not been participating in the discussion, i have been adding sources to replace content that had been flagged as not having sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You can discuss your position on the article talk page or at BLPN. It's not "my version", either. It's just the version that happened to be in place when I warned editors about warring. Everyone else is participating in discussions. You can do the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

since when is it edit warring to add sources for content that has been marked as needing sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The article has been locked. Any changes you believe are necessary to make during the lock can be requested per standard procedure.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#This_reversion

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#This_reversion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you don't mind, can you take a look at Talk:Abuse#Problems? There seems to be an issue going on between two editors, but I have asked others to take a look at the situation, as with the above notice. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion: Blare Magazine

The page for BLARE Magazine was verifiable and was Wikipedia page since 2009. Why was it deleted just today? And can it be restored? The page represented http://www.blaremagazine.com - a music/media outlet based in Toronto, Canada, that like Stereogum, Gorilla v.s. Bear and Exclaim!, is updated daily with new content/features. It's a real website/organization that's run by real people who work with artists/companies and the page really shouldn't have been randomly attacked with the explanation that it bears "no significance". Especially when other moderators have edited the same Wikipedia page over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shesastrutter (talk • contribs) 01:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I won't be able to give you feedback until at the earliest tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleting a page at Wikipedia is not an "attack" on the subject. It simply means that it meets the criterion for speedy deletion. I didn't see any credible claim of significance in support of the online magazine. The first three references are all to the magazine's website itself, which is not helpful. The fourth and last reference is virtually worthless. Although technically the fact that the article had existed since 2009 plays no role in determining whether it should be deleted, if anything, in this case, it indicates that in over 4 years, the article has not really improved since you first created it. I'm assuming you are connected to the organization and your intent is to promote it. Other than creating that one article, all of your edits are spam links that you've added to other articles. Wikipedia doesn't exist for anyone to promote their product.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Editoreditorman

I think editor Editoreditorman got a bit of a bad rap, yes he needs to go to the talk page. User PiCo I feel indirectly launches insults. Not enough to break the rules but enough to try and get at you. He has also accused me of being Editoreditorman.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Editoreditorman#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Almah#Meaning_of_Heb._almah_and_reliable_sources

I have placed a note for a third party to take a look. I just wanted you to know because I perceive PiCo knows how to bend the rules better than Editoreditorman or me. Basileias (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this is a content dispute. I took no action based on the edit warring report except to tell Editormaneditorman that they needs to discuss content disputes. As far as PiCo's conduct, I have no opinion other than I do agree with you that they should not be making sock puppet accusations without some evidence other than the mere fact that two editors (you and Editorman) appear to agree with each other. Finally, I don't know how far you'll get with WP:3O as it's intended for disputes between two editors, not more than two, as appears to be the case here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Closure at Talk:Boston Marathon bombings

Thanks for reverting that. I've been trying to archive those threads that seemed to have been resolved and that one obviously wasn't and I cut you off. My apologies! Cheers, Stalwart111 00:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleased you don't mind, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

Since you haven't worked on the article and have experience with BLPN, a third opinion from you might be helpful here. [13] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

God, Dennis, I've been trying to avoid that article and all related articles. Nonetheless, because of my great respect for you - and besides you rarely ask me to do anything - I've left comments at the very bottom, for what they're worth. I also undid the closure of the discussion by an editor as I think the basis for the closure is nonsense.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I commented some more in response to responses to my first comments, but I don't anyone gives a shit. :-) BTW, just so you know, compared to some BLP issues, I don't feel that strongly about this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this is exactly what a big time admin and BLP expert should be doing. Even if you limit your participation to BLP issues, your experience is needed. You know the policies on bios better than I do. My job there was mainly to clerk and just slow down the entire process. Seriously, it really helps to have someone who can speak with greater experience and authority on articles like this. It makes the consensus building faster and easier. I appreciate the efforts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, Dennis, I don't participate very much at BLPN as I did before I was an admin. I don't get involved in content generally as much as I did, although I have far too many articles on my watchlist that are still left over. You yourself have said that we should be more interested in conduct rather than content. I can see getting involved in BLP issues when there is an obvious violation, but a lot of times it's more a function of how policy is interpreted rather than anything blatant. In this instance, as you can see, I argued more from what I consider to be general guidelines about what to include in an article rather than from a BLP perspective. I don't think I had any impact, either, judging by the few responses. This kind of event has a steamroller effect that is almost unstoppable. Might be easier to clean it up in the future after things have calmed down.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And what is needed isn't one big bad old admin, but a number of respected, knowledgeable editors who have a history working on BLPs. Never underestimate the difference that makes. When I see you offering an opinion on BLP and I'm about to offer an opinion, your opinion is weighted more than someone I don't know, that is certain. It is the sum total of sensible people giving sensible rationales that counteract the steamroller effect. This is why it is important to offer your guidance, your opinion, in events like this. Not to have to clerk, or block, or even edit, but to simply provide one more voice of reason. The people who aren't reasonable won't hardly quit, and if you don't come in, then the sensible ones are outnumbered. It isn't any magic act or action, it is often simply showing up and offering a calm, sensible and well thought out perspective. All we have here are our words. Never underestimate the impact of your own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

True dat, just about all of it. Natti natti Bbb. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I'm being scolded, but isn't "natti" Finnish for pretty? Is there something more in this case you feel I should do, o beloved co-nominators? The contribution history of the talk page is dizzying, but the discussion I was commenting in was manually archived here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I know you closed the Jodi Arias Trial page, but there's a grammatical error that's keeping me up at night...

"Latter-day Saint faith by Alexander As of February 2, 2007, ..."

There should be a period between "Alexander" and "As", to read, "Latter-day Saint faith by Alexander. As of February 2, 2007, ..."

Thanks.

7skullz (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I know you're new, so a couple of things. First, I didn't "close" the article; I fully protected it. Second, normally you would make such a request on the article talk page using the template {{Edit protected}}. Ironically, another editor had already requested the exact same change. In any event, I fixed it, and I do appreciate your attention to detail, although, hopefully, you're joking about being kept up at night. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Human Development Index

Hi Bbb, I was looking for some input. Not too long ago I added a section to the Human Development Index article. Specifically, the section I added was the Inequality-adjusted HDI in the section 2013 Report. The material is made up of different numbers and rankings so there's no room for interpretation according to the source. Along comes an editor who has a theory about what the article should say. I've explained to him that what he's doing is not only inaccurate according to the source but is also WP:OR because he has a theory for why he's doing it. I've tried to make this clear to him on my talk page but he doesn't get it. As can be seen there, due to his theory it's nearly impossible to have a coherent discussion (i.e. "this being a legitimate reasonable price paid for having the article free of a more severe disadvantage: self-contradictions").

If you need specifics regarding the numbers being used and the source let me know. He reverted my last edit to the article so the current version is his. I'd appreciate your input regarding what you think is the best way for me to move forward. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bbb, I'm the editor about whom User:Somedifferentstuff is talking. We began a discussion on his talk page, where he presented a few questions - all of which I fully answered. Then, I presented some simple easy questions (in which he's requested to copy few digits from the source on which his version is intended to be based), and I'm still waiting for him to answer, in order for him to realize two apparent disadvantages in his version: both apparent WP:OR and an apparent self-contradiction. I'd appreciate your input regarding what you think is the best way for us to move forward.

In order to let you know exactly what the whole dispute is about - without obligating you to get into the whole details, here is - in few exhaustive words, both the objective facts (about which both of us agree) - and the objective problem (agreed about by both of us) from which our dispute arise:

• So, all began when User:Somedifferentstuff added a section to the article mentioned above. This section is supposed to be based on a source, and the source is indicated in the article. This source includes three values, A,B,C, all of which are small integers: 1. Value A is explicitly indicated in the source; Both of us agree about it. 2. Value B is not indicated in the source, although User:Somedifferentstuff manually calculated it from some data in the source. 3. Value C, defined by the source to be the gap between value A and value B. Both of us agree about all of these facts. However, here is the objective problem from which our dispute arise: There is a contradiction between those three values! Because value C, which is explicitly indicated in the source and is defined to be the gap - between value A (explicitly indicated in the source) and value B (manually calculated by User:Somedifferentstuff), is not really the manually calculated gap between those values A and B. Note again that all of the three values are small integers (below 100).
• User:Somedifferentstuff suggests ignoring this problem, and thus he supports a version in which I (not him) find two kinds of apparent disadvantages: 1. apparent WP:OR (in calculating value B). 2. apparent contradiction (between value C and the first two values: A,B).
• That's why I've suggested three alternatives, each of which has one kind of apparent disadvantage only (i.e. apparent WP:OR without any apparent contradiction): My first suggestion, is to change value B - that was manually calculated by User:Somedifferentstuff; i.e. to manually re-calculate it, by using both value A and value C - as are explicitly indicated in the source. My second suggestion, is to keep User:Somedifferentstuff's value B, and to change value C - which is explicitly indicated in the source; i.e. to manually re-calculate it, by using both value A as indicated in the source - and value B as manually calculated by User:Somedifferentstuff. This second alternative is justified by the fact, that value C - i.e. the gap between value A and value B - is not intended to represent the position of the authors of the source, but rather is intended to represent Wikipedia's position about the objective gap between value A and value B as are indicated in Wikipedia, just as many tables in Wikipedia (e.g. in Sports, Economy, Geography and likewise) include gaps representing Wikipedia's position about the correct value of these gaps. I've also suggested a third alternative: to only present two values of the three (e.g. value A as explicitly indicated in the source and value B as manually calculated by User:Somedifferentstuff). HOOTmag (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Bbb, this is a good example of what I'm talking about. The source used in the article is clear and concise, yet how do you recommend I move forward when the level of OR has gotten to this point? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have spent the last while trying to figure out what the data means. I tried to focus on just one example, Sweden. Based on just the underlying source (at page 152), Sweden has an HDI of .916. It has an IHDI of .859. Both of you agree on the .859 and that's what's being reported in the WP article. The source says that Sweden's HDI rank rose by 3 compared to the 2012 HDI rank. That's what Somedifferent wants to report, whereas Hootmag wants to report 5. Now, the HDI for Sweden, whether you look at the table on page 152 or the table on page 144, which doesn't include the IHDI, is the same, .916. Nobody seems to be arguing about the HDI tables in the article. The 2011 HDI rank for Sweden was #10. The 2012 HDI rank for Sweden was #8, but it really was tied with Ireland for the #7 position. The article says the rank for Sweden went up by 3. That makes sense to me and appears to be manually calculated by us as it doesn't say anything about rank change in the underlying table on page 144. Sweden's 2011 HDI/IHDI rank was #3 in our article. The rank in 2012 was the same. So, why wouldn't that be manually calculated as no change? I don't get it, even though I see the column in the underlying source that says up by 3, but I fail to understand what it means.

Now the two of you can continue trying to educate me if you wish, but I don't promise to spend more time on this content (I've already spent a ton and not gotten very far). So, I will just quickly outline the principles of a content dispute like this one and how you should proceed to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. If I understand properly, Somedifferent added the new table. That became the status quo of the article. Hootmag changed it. When Somethingdifferent reverted that change, the burden was on Hootmag to justify the change and obtain a consensus for it. They should not have reverted again. That said, nothing in content dispute guidelines justifies edit warring, so both of you should be careful about that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I've moved the discussion to the article's talk page. Just have to wait for some other editors to chime in and see what the consensus is. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your important comments. Anyways, please note that the "gap" indicated (both in the source and in the article) - is not between 2011 rank and 2012 rank, but rather between 2012 HDI rank and 2012 IHDI rank. For instance, let's take Sweden: Its 2012 HDI rank is indicated in the source (and in the aricle) to be 8. Its 2012 IHDI rank was not indicated in the source, yet was manually calculated by user:Somedifferentstuff to be 3. That's why the gap currently indicated in the article is 5. Up to this step, all apparently seems to be okey (doesn't it?)... until we get to the source and get surprised to realize that it indicates the gap to be 3! Strange, isn't it? user:Somedifferentstuff claimed that the gaps currently indicated in the article are an apparent OR, whereas I mentioned him that the whole headache derives from his manual calculation of the IHDI ranks - currently indicated in the article - which are an apparent OR as well. To sum up: both my version and his version has an apparent OR. However, there is a difference between both versions: My version has no self contradictions! It indicates Sweden's HDI/IHDI rank to be 8/3 (respectively) - that's why it currently indicates the gap to be 5, whereas user:Somedifferentstuff's version agrees about the ranks but indicated the gap to be 3 - just as indicated in the source, although this makes his version contain a clear self-contradiction (besides the apparent OR in his manual calculation of the IHDI rank). Note that the last section of my previous response suggests three alternatives. The middle one reflects the current version, and is followed by an explanation why I don't think it's a real OR. However, if this explanation is not accepted, then one of my other alternatives (i.e. the first one or better the third one) may be used. HOOTmag (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I did grasp the 2012/2012 issue. As for the rest of your comment, it just brings back the dizziness I felt when I first looked at it. Worse, I'm more tired today than I was yesterday (too little sleep), so my brain development index has dropped. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If you did grasp the 2012/2012 issue, then I wonder why you wondered: "why wouldn't that be manually calculated as no change?". As for the "dizziness" you're talking about, I'd called it: "headache". Have a good day/night (I don't know what it is where you are). HOOTmag (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

CSD

Hi, I noticed that you deleted 2013 Boston-Cambridge attacks under R3 after reversing a controversial page move. While I agree that the page should not have been moved, the redirect explicitly does not meet R3, per " This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move", and so could you undelete this page? Thanks.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't reverse the move; another editor did. I'm going to leave the page deleted. The rationale (in the footnote) for not deleting such redirects doesn't apply. If one of my tps admins wants to restore it, they can. I think it's a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine with that.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Echigo mole socks

FPaS indefinitely blocked Small tremor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) after he'd been confirmed by CU. He left a trolling message on FPaS's talk page having trolled on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mors Martell (an arbcom indeffed account). I noticed that somebody had left a message on Small tremor's talk page, a page which you deleted. I presume that it was something to do with Echigo mole yet again. Meanwhile a second Echigo mole sock Icelandic cuisine (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), already confirmed by CU on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole, has started trolling on the Mors Martell SPI page and on Dougweller's talk page. If it has not already happened, please could you indefinitely block the account Icelandic cuisine? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

FPaS has already blocked Icelandic cuisine. Sorry to bother you. Mathsci (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. One less thing for me to do. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jose Antonio Vargas, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Can

i make a fourth revert here? He says Washington Post is unreliable. He is editwarring accross 5 different articles. Pass a Method talk 20:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I don't think you even looked at the Washington Post source. For the third time, it just has an image of the birth certificate. It doesn't support the statement that you keep adding. Keted6 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, when you click "return to story", it still doesn't support the statement you're trying to add either. Keted6 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

He's blocked now. Pass a Method talk 21:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I just came back from being off-wiki. Does this mean I don't need to look at it?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sun Yat-sen

Can you let this editor know that restoring their sockpuppet talk page comments is not on please. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What a complicated and obnoxious history. I just reverted the edits. My assumption is the editor is heading for an indefinite block, but I don't want to increase the block already imposed by the KoH. We'll have to wait and see what happens when the editor returns from the current block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Want to take a bet that a "friend" will turn up to restore the edits? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have it on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hubballihuduga (talk · contribs)

Hi. This user us back to the same behaviour after the block has expired. — Abhishek  ^Talk 13:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for one week. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)