User talk:Bbb23/Archive 18

Updating a Bio page

Hi, you've twice now reverted to an outdated article for the bio of Grant Cardone citing it as "blatant promotion," however, nothing is being promoted on the page, it's just an updated bio.

Please advise, thanks, - L — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leosuccar (talk • contribs) 21:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Before addressing your question, I'd like to know if you and 69.84.113.66 are the same person (meaning 69. is you but not logged in) or if the two of you know each other as you seem to be operating in tandem.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's me. I was unaware of the location of the source editor. It's been a bit of time since I edited in Wiki markup. Thanks for the quick reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leosuccar (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't edit Wikipedia anymore unless you are logged in. Particularly here where it gives the appearance that there are two different people "supporting" one point of view when in fact there is only one. I'll answer your initial question now because I said I would, but I'd also like to know if you have any relationship with Cardone (you uploaded the picture as well as everything else). Here are a few excerpts you added to the article:

• Grant Cardone (born March 21, 1958) is an International Sales Expert and bestselling author providing Motivation & Sales Training Programs to Fortune 500 companies, small businesses, success-minded individuals and entrepreneurs.
• Cardone hosts his own radio show, The Cardone Zone, where he entertains and educates listeners with tips and strategies to achieve greater success and break out of the Middle Class.
• In 2012, Grant made the largest individual real estate investment purchase in the state of Florida with the acquisition of 1016 apartments.
• Grant Cardone first hit the sales scene in the car industry by revolutionizing automotive sales and marketing training approaches and dealership processes. Cardone’s Information Assisted Selling was coined as a non-confrontational customer-focused sales process for the 21st Century.
• Grant is driven by a motivation to help others achieve success and is heavily involved in Civic affairs, charitable organizations and has been awarded commendations by The US Senate, US Congress, Los Angeles County, US Army and more.

I'll stop with that, but there's more. And most, if not all of what you added is unsourced in addition to being worded like an advertisement.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I have no relationship to Grant, but have used his services and was hoping to help clean up his Page/Article. He's very much along the lines of Tony Robbins, motivational speaker, etc. I'll make sure to make edits that are as objectively written as possible. Thanks again, I'm re-adding his picture and infobox, seeing as that doesn't violate anything that was discussed here. Leosuccar (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to make some changes to the infobox but not because it's promotional - for other reasons. Everything in the infobox has to also be in the article, and there are other things as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Along the lines of Tony Robbins? No. He's about as along the lines of Tony Robbins as a paper airplane is to a Dreamliner...and that's a stretch (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

New tournament articles

Not even A7, though they can probably go via PROD/AFD - I know we have separate articles for the Olympic events, but this is a much smaller tournament and these articles seem to be a WP:NOTSTATS overkill. GiantSnowman 08:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much, GS.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence

You warned Neo. about edit warring here, he is back at it.[1][2] We have a consensus version here, which was rewritten and replaced by a user who has not even used the talk page. I reverted as the changes removed academically sourced content, used primary sources, replaced academic sources with newspapers and used opinion pieces for statements of fact. This is now getting beyond the joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Bardel Entertainment

I would like to request that you undelete this article, as I believe its subject satisfies WP:N, even if there was no indication of significance in the previous version. (Note that I did not create this article.)

If you decide to restore this article, I would further ask that you restore all of its revisions so that there is as much content to work with as possible (it was deleted three times, but only through WP:PROD and WP:CSD). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my decision stands. However, you are welcome to recreate the article. If you do so, I suggest you add more than was present in the very brief version I deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you at least provide some reasoning for not restoring it so that it can perhaps be improved upon? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

MRM Probation Scope

User:Mathsci made this double revert to my banner placement there. My edit is valid per WikiProjects do not own articles and as specified there, correct procedure is to bring up any questions about WikiProject banner tagging on the tagger's or the WikiProject's talk page.

Does the MRM probation apply to the evolutionary psychology article or should I take up this dispute elsewhere? Ummonk (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The probation could apply to your addition of the banner in the first place Ummonk. Can you explain what the relationship of that topic is to Men's issues? It's not obvious--Cailil ^talk 23:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Logically, if the probation does apply to that article, then by definition the article is broadly related to Men's Rights, and thus it is related to WikiProject Men's Issues.

Regardless, the evolutionary psychology article is of interest to men's issues because many men's rights activists draw from evolutionary psychology for their views, while in many evo psych researchers place a strong emphasis on contemporary men's issues. This is probably due to the emphasis on sexual selection in the evo psych field.

A look at edit histories for major men's rights pages and evo psych pages will also make it clear that there many editors have a mutual interest in the two topics, and this also provides indirect evidence that evo psych might be related to men's issues.

Finally, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#WikiProjects do not own articles says that "Placement of any relevant banner should generally be accepted, as each project may have unique resources and be willing to improve and monitor the article. One group may not prohibit another group from showing an interest in an article."

The evo psych article is of interest to WikiProject Men's Issues participants, and we wish to contribute to it. Thus, I have tagged it as being of interest to us. Ummonk (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no reference, even oblique, to EP in MRM or to MRM in EP. So, apart from Memills having a common interest in both topics, where does the connection come from? Slp1 wrote that "This book explains the linkage and why MRAs are interested in EP."[3] Memills found the "linkage thin".[4] Binksternet has also commented about the book.[5] Mathsci (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ummonk has restored the tag unilaterally once again. I have opened a report at WP:ANI, since he seems to be unconcerned in providing proper explanations of his edits. Mathsci (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean Ummonk by "Logically, if the probation does apply to that article, then by definition the article is broadly related to Men's Rights". That's somewhat backwards, logically. The probation applies to edits about the topic of men's rights. What has Evolutionary psychology to do with that topic?--Cailil ^talk 16:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What?!

Why the hell did you undo my recolorization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HooslichZero (talk • contribs) 00:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated your "recolorization" for deletion at Commons.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why FEChild page removed?

FEChild is a charity page and no advertisement or campaign involved in that. Two reference links placed in reference section. Kindly let me know what is wrong, so that such mistakes won't happen. Its 3rd time I'm updating the page after deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.207.216 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The first time it was deleted it was because it was blatantly promotional. I agree with that deletion as the language was like an advertisement. The second time it was deleted it was also deleted as blatantly promotional. I personally would not have deleted it on that basis. Instead, I would have deleted it for the same reason I (the third administrator to delete it) I deleted it, which is that there was nothing in it that explained why it was notable. If you want to find out more about how Wikipedia notability is evaluated, take a look at WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:ORG. Technically, those policies aren't 100% appliable in speedy deletions, but they still might help you understand what the article needs. The best thing you could do would be to find secondary reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, books) that discuss the organization. If you can't find that, then the article won't last.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chung-Chiu Hong Sudden Death Event

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chung-Chiu Hong Sudden Death Event. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

File:MYANMAR BEER AT THE NEW DOREEN RESTAURANT YANGON MYANMAR JAN 2013 (8492498537).jpg

Thank you for your prompt attention to the checkuser results. 203.81.67.123 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, surely you blame me for an excess of heat in this debate. Can you show some examples how this community deals with overtly unresponsive sysops who damage the reputation of en.wikipedia, as well as with enablers of all sorts of irresponsibility? You apparently have great survival skills in this environment. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to such a loaded question. My only suggestion is that whatever you think in a given situation, you should learn to comment in a less divisive and attacking manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You didn’t answer. But I now realized that my use of ~8,000 quality edits as a protection against a stray incivility block was not better, on moral grounds, than one’s throwing 3+ months IP blocks to random Burmese users. I will now try to cease to be such a problem for the community. Bbb23, may I consult you from time to time? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for responding in a positive manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

TransVannian

Hello Bbb23,

Before being blocked, the user came to my talk page and mentioned the victim's name twice. Under the circumstances, I redacted it. If you believe it appropriate, please feel free to revdel earlier versions containing the name. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Cullen. I'll leave it alone. If I were to revdel it, everywhere her name was mentioned but later removed would have to be revdeled. Another admin may feel differently, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, and will move on. Let's hope the editor ponders the reasons for the block, and returns in a more collaborative frame of mind. Thanks for the work you do here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Brett Kimberlin. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Good decision on revdel discussion. The comments were obnoxious, but no need to wipe them off the record. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Yokesh.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Juan Manuel López (racing driver)

This article was deleted in an AfD in 2010, but I believe the subject is notable. The deleting admin is no longer a sysop (which I discovered after querying this with them), so I was wondering if you could move the article to my userspace? That way, we retain the page history, and I (possibly) can sort it out with less effort/time taken. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. It's at User:Lukeno94/Juan Manuel López (racing driver).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fantastic, thanks. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• In case you're interested, I've finished the re-write and republished it. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Your rewrite looks quite different from the original. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• There was basically nothing there, but the history is intact, and that's the main thing :) Notability should be well and truly established now! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Andrew Bromley

I must add that he also was a teen jeopardy winner and very famous is south florida. Is there anyway you could re-instate the page and I will add to it first thing tomorrow all of the important thing? Or at least give me what was written so I can work on it on my subpage?

Why was this page deleted? It is very possible he will be a noble laureate at the end of this year, and youngest individual to do so for his work with the Newly discovered t-nitroaminyl section of the ras cancer protein. I was working on the page but I am still adding to it each day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adbmiami08 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he may become. It matters what he is now. If you want to add to it each day, you should do so in non-article space. For example, you can create a subpage in your user space and work on it there until you think it's sufficiently notable to be moved to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I must add that he also was a teen jeopardy winner and very famous is south florida. Is there anyway you could re-instate the page and I will add to it first thing tomorrow all of the important thing? Or at least give me what was written so I can work on it on my subpage?

I'm not inclined to WP:USERFY it for you. It reads almost like a joke, at least what was there before it was deleted. And what's this picture about? Regardless of the ridiculousness of the picture, it doesn't even purport to be Bromley.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hi Bbb23. There's a thread that mentions you at the WP:Dramaboard. Tis already closed, but I thought you should know. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a good think I go off-wiki occasionally. That way, things can go boom and unboom before I'm back.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment The initial block looks sound, and the EW on Fairy Guy is obvious, but I don't think he needed blocking for that. I read Archcaster's failed WP:SPEEDY as a good-faith attempt to self-revert the page. He realized that his edits weren't working, and self-rev under those circumstances seems like a perfectly reasonable response. Unfortunately, {{db-a3}} is not the way to do it, especially when others are contesting.--R.S. Peale (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

to be clear, I support your BLOCK for his earlier edit warring, and that you didn't actually block for the later, apparently rendered moot with his retirement.--R.S. Peale (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are. Perhaps you've edited at Wikipedia before but using a different account? Anyway, the speedy tagging (twice) looked spiteful to me, and it still does.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dave Phillips

Hello, I'm a Newcomer to Wikipedia who is a fan of the maze work of Dave Phillips. I was hoping to improve his Wiki page and realize that to do so properly I will need to learn so much more about reliable sources, etc, and in general, how exactly Wiki works. It's a little overwhelming at the moment and disheartening to find contributions removed without information as to the reasons, how to avoid future issues, or at least a link to follow to read instructions or guidance.

Would you please point me in the right direction with some guidance and/or suggested Wiki reading so I can further my understanding? I'm not exactly sure why all of the book citations were removed. I am beginning to better understand how a source is reliable or not but examples or comparisons would help and I suspect that Wiki has already covered this somewhere on the site and that I only need to continue to become more familiar with content.

Danachully (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons I asked you about your relationship to Phillips is that you created your account right on the heels of Phillips's wife creating an account and editing the article in a very similar fashion. I apologize if my suspicions are ill-founded, but after a fair amount of experience at Wikipedia, sometimes it's easy to get a bit jaded. Assuming it's coincidence, I suggest you use the article talk page to suggest specific changes. It will be easier to answer your questions when the context is concrete rather than in an abstract, policy-driven manner. That said, R.S. Peale's comments below are helpful..--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not Bbb23, but I suspect the reason the book cites were removed were that they were not acting as meaningful reference to the text they were citing (basic biographical material). They're simply books that the subject has published. A good source would be one written by a third party, discussing the subject. This would be one example: A decent (though not great) source would be one written by the subject discussing his work and maze design as a whole. Something like this: . A book containing a collection of mazes he has created without substantial commentary wouldn't be very helpful, unless there were no other sources available. And for Dave, there are other, better sources. The Wikipedia policy on reliable sources is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. For a more in-depth discussion of usable vs unusable sources (and picking apart borderline cases), you can check out the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Those tend to be disputed cases, but you can get a better idea of what other Wikipedia editors consider good sources.--R.S. Peale (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Backhanded compliment

I must admit that it took me a moment to parse "misusing his tools properly".—Kww(talk) 16:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's like someone who's proficient at committing crimes, as opposed to your run-of-the-mill stupid criminal.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

The appeal got granted. Thank you for all your help. :) --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I could facilitate a happy ending, but the person who truly deserves your thanks is User:Bwilkins. He went to bat for you. I just helped out procedurally and monitored your talk page. As for the future, my recommendation is if you're in doubt about something that might arguably violate your topic ban, ask User:Sandstein before you do it, or another knowledgeable admin if Sandstein is unavailable. And pay attention to Sandstein's advice at AE. Best of luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 24 July 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.William Jockusch (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your warning to Badmintonhist. If he continues stalking me, should I come straight to you, or post at ANI again? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You can come to me. If I'm not available, you can go to another admin, preferably someone who's familiar with the history like User:Black Kite. If no one's around (I can't speak for others but occasionally I delude myself into thinking I have a real life), you can open a new topic at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I must say that I disagree with your statement on the Men's Rights Movement article Talk page here. In particular, you accuse me and another editor of

" ...defying consensus as to what should and should not be included in these articles and pushing an agenda that is clear on its face. Their defense that the "other side" is pushing their own agenda is unsupported by any objective measure."

Honestly, the purpose of the Talk Page is to openly exchange opinions. The issues under discussion have come up repeatedly by a host of new editors, many of whom have been hounded/wikilawered by a handful of editors until they leave. There is no clear consensus on these issues -- exactly what would be expected for an article on a controversial topic.

What is most disconcerting is that Multiple Editor Ownership seems to apply here:

" ...(an article) will often be on the watchlists of only a small handful of editors who revert on sight any changes proposed by newcomers while insisting quite forcefully that their version is "consensus". If the newcomer persists in editing the page, they may be accused of edit warring or disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, targeted with spurious complaints to administrators, threatened with blocks or bans and bluntly told (sometimes even in the edit summary of a revert) to drop the stick. ...A small group thereby could succeed, largely unnoticed, in intimidating a new editor into avoiding one specific encyclopaedic subject or into leaving Wikipedia entirely."

I will solicit some neutral 3rd opinions at WP:3 in the hope of resolving these issues without resorting to bans or censorship. Memills (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The probation applies to WP:3 as well. In any event, your request there was declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread closure

Just a minor clarification - at WP:ANI#Legal threats by User:Wordsindustry, the closure says "Utterer of legal threats indeffed and threats redacted by User:Barek."

However, I didn't redact anything. The threat at the help desk was redacted by Looie496, and the disputed material in the two pages brought up by the maker of the threat was redacted by Canoe1967. However, their threat still remains on the named user-account talk page at user talk:Wordsindustry. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more careful. I've corrected it; let me know if it's not okay now.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Like I said, a minor thing. Just wanted to be accurate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, precision is a good thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral RfC notices

Hi Bbb. I responded to your remark on the ANI page regarding your view that my RfC notices were non-neutral. Owing to my regard for you, I am interested in hearing specifically why you think that (but don't want to clutter the ANI thread with OT remarks). Feel free to respond on my talk page. Even if we don't agree that it was non-neutral, I expect your remarks will be helpful in some respect. Steeletrap (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment here is more helpful than your comment at ANI, which I just responded to with some asperity. Why don't you take a look at WP:CANVASSING and, playing devil's advocate, see if you can guess what I think is wrong with the notice?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment article

Which template is the right one to notify editors to check talk before editing an article that is entered for dispute resolution?Wzrd1 (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve. You haven't taken the article to dispute resolution. What do you believe is disputed in the article? Generally warning people to go to the talk page before editing the article is kind of odd, and I don't know of a template that does that. Nor does it make a great deal of sense unless the article is subject some kind of sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's up on the dispute noticeboard now, awaiting attention. Meanwhile, there were edit attempts that quickly were reverted. Rather than confusing uninvolved editors, it would be good to have them know up front that there is a dispute in progress. As for the wrong template, WP:Oops Defense.  :) Wzrd1 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a template, {{DRN}}, that is intended to be placed on the article talk page to let people know about the discussion, but it's not intended to be used in the article itself. I've put it on the talk page, though, FWIW, although it's not particularly helpful in my view (I don't like the way it reads). Also, you can't link to the discussion, as far as I can tell, since DRN changed the way they structure discussions (from a TOC of threads to separate pages).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the DRN template on the talk page, somehow I missed that one when looking for it. Should it also be on the article or is it sufficient on the talk page? The reason I tried it on the article is in my earliest days editing, I got bit upon when the article was in DRN and I failed to read the talk page first.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As the template itself says, as well as the language it produces, it can't go in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Got that from your response. Looks like we were editing close to the same time. I wonder if the template can be changed to reflect the way the discussions are structured now? I'll have to play with it a bit to see on my test wiki.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Q

Bbb23, do you know a thing Wikimedia communities need currently, or in a foreseeable future? I see users who make useful things and users who make useless things: it is easily distinguishable. But what is more important at the moment? Who needs my help the most? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for reverting the IP on my talk page. I didn't mean to ignore your question from yesterday, but I really wasn't sure how to answer it, so I put it off. Editors at Wikipedia are expected to contribute constructively to the project. However, that can be done in many different ways. We are all volunteers, so we should do what we want to do, as long as it benefits the project in some fashion. Personally, I think we are happier at Wikipedia if we do what we enjoy. So, for some, that's creating new content, for others it's proofreading and correcting errors, for some it's reverting obvious vandalism, and the list goes on. What do you enjoy doing most at Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to excuse: I do not ask simple questions, and I am accustomed to wait for a reaction. I enjoy to work together with editors who improve the project. I enjoy to make things that other users cannot do or are reluctant. I enjoy to bash useless editors who mainly create a noise, make a waste in an industrial scale, and engage in pettifogging; you do not like this my answer, but it is true. I enjoy to help users to become helpful ones, of course. Recently I “lost” a dispute at Commons, but I am not embittered about this. I found guys that are more competent that me in these domains.

I feel that the community, unfortunately, wastes its resources for a chaff. A plenty of attention is poured to the glitchy VisualEditor, whereas an extremely useful ArticleFeedbackv5 is next to abandoned. The people produced and still produce miles of discussions on insignificant amendments to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, whereas my idea of labelling many redirects as “unsafe” is virtually ignored (example), and many users create more and more links that eventually may become dabs; nobody cares that it will make significant problems in the future. Hundreds of man-hours were spent in discussing various “RfA reforms”, whereas quality-related problems receive only a limited feedback. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

LOCKED

Hi Bbb23. I hope everything is well with you and yours. I apologise for the disturbance but I wanted to ask you if you know what "LOCKED" means when applied to a user. More specifically, when I hover over the user link of MilesMoney, pop ups come up describing the account thus. What is the reason? Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You're never a disturbance, Dr.K. I have no idea whu you're seeing locked when you hold your mouse over the link. I don't see it. Nor does it make any sense to me. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers knows. If not, you could ask at the Help Desk. Many of the editors who assist there are very knowledgeable about technical issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Dr.K is not referring to his account, but MilesMoney's account is Locked. New account. Dave Dial (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Dave, I'm not following you. I know Dr.K. was talking about the Miles account, but he said he got an unusual pop-up when he hovered over the Miles link. I don't see any pop-up that says locked; only a pop-up that shows User:MilesMoney. The Miles account is relatively new, but it's auto-confirmed. What does "locked" mean in this context, and why does Dr.K. see it and I don't?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• This sometimes shows up when you hover over a link to a user's user page or user talk link (you must have the navigation pop-ups gadget enabled). It means the account is under a global lock - the account is basically completely disabled on all Wikimedia projects (even from logging in), and the action is usually done in the case of cross-wiki abuse. Only stewards can perform locks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This particular case appears to be a mistake. I talked with the stewards about it and the account was unlocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@bbb23, I see the "Locked" popup too, but I have no idea why you don't. @Jasper Deng, thanks for the explanation. I thought it had something to do with the IP the account was using being locked from the projects. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Thank you very much Bbb23 for your welcome. :) FWIW this is the output of the pop ups (I have them enabled):

User:MilesMoney ⋅ actions edit history most recent edit move page what links here related changes unwatch talk page edit talk new topic ⋅ user ⋅ popups 21 bytes, 0 wikiLinks, 0 images,0 categories, 16 hours old LOCKED, 164 edits since: 2013-07-16

"LOCKED" is in italics. I will ask at the pump. Take care Bbb23. It is always a pleasure talking to you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, as I was editing the above reply the "LOCKED" disappeared. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Post (edit conflict). Many thanks go to Jasper for his assistance. That was some fast work. Thank you again Jasper. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. No idea how or why it happened and didn't even notice. MilesMoney (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad it didn't last long. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand everything everyone has said (I've been off-wiki) except one thing. When Miles's account was globally locked, how was he able to log in to Wikipedia (he said he didn't even notice)?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Miles returned to editing today at 21:13 UTC. According to Jasper the unlocking happened prior to 19:31 UTC. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

According to his history, he edited at 06:58 and then at 21:12. So, the lock and unlock must have both occurred during that gap.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is authentic irony/Martha Stewart

We have had many arguments about the fates of Joan Gerber, Philip L. Clarke. BTW, most recently Valentin De Vargas has joined this list, because he died on June 10, 2013, and guess you will not accept his death reference either as it is find-a-grave.com. Won't argue about the either one of them because you have not provided Wikipedia with one hard piece of evidence that these people are alive. You reverted the Talkin Toons podcast where Rob Paulsen and Nancy Cartwright mentioned Joan Gerber's passing, you reverted the Jack angel announcement concearning Philip L. Clarke's passing and you will surely revert the find-a-grave reference about Valentin De Vargas' passing.

But, would like to direct your attention at the strange case of Martha Stewart, the actress who about a year ago had a article from reliable source published saying that he had passed away, however facts have risen supporting her being still alive.

Please comment. Irony is complicating our editing Wikipedia. Radiohist (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the remnants of her unreliably sourced death from the article. As far as I can tell, the source used was a blog post that has since been removed from the website.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Rick Remender

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, again. Sorry to bother you, but another photo (more like a new set of photos) has been found and uploaded, and added to the choices in the discussion. A new issue is which photo those who participated before that photo was added would have favored had they seen it, so I'm requesting that all those who did so view the photo and indicate whether or not their favored photo has changed. Thanks, I really appreciate. Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Re; Edit Warring

Hi fellow editor, Thanks for your comments on the edit warring regarding Diet in Sikhism. I think I may have reported in him in haste however. I've been editing Sikh related and other India related articles for a while now and they are a tortuos process. The problem I come up against (as with any religious based articles) are the differences between those people who are motivated by dogma and people like me who are trying to get the article encyclopaedic and based on WP:Reliable references. With India related articles there is another major issue, and that of WP:Competence. Many of the contributors have English as a second language. Although I spend a lot of time in India, I was educated in the UK, so understand the problems a lot of these contributors have. This does not help however, in trying to get article up to a Wikipedia standards. I do have other administrators to help me from time to time, but they lose patience with the articles for the above reasons I have highlighted, however, I'm pretty determined to hold up the standards of wikipedia. Many editors from the Indian subcontinent want to WP:Censor the articles, but I strongly believe in the guiding principles of wikipedia and WP:NPOV being central. Damdami Taksal is an example of this. Therefore, I would appreciate any help from administrators like yourself in ensuring standards are maintained. Thanks SH 11:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Canada but I also understand the Guru Granth Sahib in Gurmukhi I do cite all my resources and I am open to change and compromises why do you have a problem with me? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Mail OnLine

Has a brand new editor who seems to think it wise (having only 12 edits total at this point) to link "soft core pornography" as a Wikilink in that article multiple times. There is the off-chance that this is the same person who tried sticking in the "child porn" links in that article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That's my view as well. I removed that link. Were there others? I've also warned them. Their user page comments are suspicious as are their comments on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Bye bye.Account1000000 (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would you add such a link?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Count Iblis

Hi Bbb23. Long time no see. :) Sorry for bothering you again, but since you are a 3RRN expert I would like to ask you if you could please check into the case of Count Iblis who got a 10-day block for edit-warring. I personally think the block length is ridiculous but I would like a second opinion from an editor whose opinion I respect. The Count has also asked for an unblock with no response so far. There are a few other satellite issues involved but they seem to have been resolved. If there is anything you can do to resolve this, I would really appreciate it. Although I am acquainted with the Count, my stake in this is the length of the block which I find offensive for editors in good standing. In fact I am not even asking you to unblock the Count. What I am after is if you could modify the length of that monstrous block which not only sends the worst message possible to reputable editors but also discredits the blocking process. I would also understand if you didn't want to get involved for any reason at all. Thank you again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the  On hold unblock template wants a parameter for the blocking admin's name, right now it goes to a blocked dummy user :P ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

(laughing) Thanks, I fixed it. I assure you it's no comment on Finlay. If anything, I'm the dummy. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If I wasn't the dummy, I'd create a magic thing to do it automagically, with automobiles(whoops, I'm too tired) automagic. T13 may know how :) ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Charmlet, you rang? What do you want done automagically? Technical 13 (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• What's wrong with you, T13? You're supposed to figure out what Charmlet wants automagically; you shouldn't have to ask. :-) Simply put, Charmlet wants you to replace all the templates at Wikipedia with ones with no parameters. The templates themselves will figure out what the user wants and just do it. And you can call it Templates for Dummies.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Shookallen88

Hi, thank you for your input at 3RR. The user in question has gone right back to making the same edit once his block expired and his entry on the talk page amounts to him threatening that he will never stop doing it until he gets his way. He did this same thing at Fast & Furious 6 which was why I opened the first 3RR discussion about him and I ended up having to give up there because he was blocked and came back doing the same thing. He clearly does not take the blocks seriously. If he continues to do it should I let you know? Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Shookallen88 just edited disruptively again and posted this saying that he will not stop. I endorse further action regarding his conduct. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Now then..

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.

---

Let's talk removing the AA ban as a whole. As was said on AE, these types of bans are supposed to be simple, and this issue simply isn't. Let's look at my history. Disregard the last block; it was a joke. Before that, well, you know the whole story with Sandstein's ban. It was the result of reporting someone who broke the same ban. That's not what the AA is for. And, like this, it was removed early due to good intentions.

Now that we got those out of the way, I will point at that I went 9 months without an AA2 issue. And the ban has been in place for over a year. Since 25 July 2013. Ironically, Snowy blocked me on the date of my AA2 ban anniversary. Perhaps it means something. When the ban was first place, there was need for it, I won't lie. And now it's just a joke. Serves no purpose, no need. I have been doing my best to contribute under sanctions for over a year. Now I want to do so freely. Will you grant me my freedom, Bbb23? TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to give a brief overview of my three AA2 "violations" in the past year.

1. The recent one. We've been over this, it was horseshit.

2. Sandstein's. As we have already been over, not only did I not know that it violates the rules, but this also fits what Coop was saying in AE, about how bans are supposed to serve simple purposes and confusing edges. I think we can infer the ban currently isn't serving it's intend purpose anymore.

3. For calling User:E4024 a racist and a vandal. However, he in fact turned out to be both of those things and created a huge resume of over 100 violations of such before he was finally banned and blocked. Coops still owes me an apology to this very day. And if that isn't good enough for ya, well, it was seven months ago, which exceeds the amount of time you want to wait.

Overall, I have not ever been truly given a chance to prove myself as an editor in over a year ever since the ban was turned indef by Coop (at the recommendation of a hostile editor, not Coop's own idea). I say give me that opportunity and let me show how much I've changed. You shouldn't judge me for how I react to getting blocked over 2 weeks old bans. That will piss anyone off. Removing the ban gives me the first opportunity I need to show how I've changed since it was first given. Going away for another half a year won't. I've more than served my time. If I cannot edit AA2 articles, I have no reason to be here. You might as well block me for that long. And there we go again, getting blocked for no reason. I'm not the problem anymore. The ban is. Get rid of it, and everything will be solved. TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with me? I've got a ton of work to do and no ability to do it. Why not help me out? TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack and you know it ("What would be the basis of the block?"). Where is the logic in me getting a worse sanction for a block that shouldn't have been made? The funny thing is, its now as if Sand's block was never removed. Are you gong to remove the ban or not? You have no reason to doubt that I can edit Armenia-Azerbaijan articles peacefully, as none of the recent conflicts really have anything to do with that subject. Once again, the ban is serving the wrong purpose. The only way we can truly know if I can edit these articles is to let me. To do otherwise would mean to not assume good faith. TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just a couple of quick comments, but I won't be able to respond to your core concerns until later. Your comment was a personal attack, and you shouldn't infer otherwise based on my question to BWilkins. Stop following me around to see if I'm doing things other than responding to you. It's childish at best, and it won't help you. You're not blocked. Why don't you do some constructive editing rather than obsess over your topic ban and my response to your requests?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm obsessing because I want to do constructive editing. I don't have the passion or knowledge to edit much else. There's actually worse things I almost posted but didn't through self control. Sorry I'm agitated, it's stressful to be so behind on work and to not be able to catch up. Do you really think I'm a threat to articles that actually have something to do with Armenia and Azerbaijan? It's been well over half a year since that's happened. If you let me edit them, I promise I won't make you look bad by doing something stupid. I'll make you look like a genius for trusting me when no one else would and articles will be better written because of it. If you won't do it for me, do it for WP:WikiProject Armenia. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As you've no doubt gleaned from reading the discussion at User:EdJohnston's talk page, I am not going to lift your ban. Your only path to removing the ban is through an appeal at WP:AE. There's a strong consensus from several administrators that you should wait at least three months, but preferably six, before appealing your ban at AE. Taking it there now would be foolhardy because you essentially have a preview of what would happen. I'll address some of your comments:

• I don't know where you get the idea that you have gone nine months without any problems. Your block log alone tells a completely different story. Just looking at the recent history - and putting aside the blocks that were lifted - you were blocked for one month in October 2012 for violating your topic ban. You were blocked again in December 2012 for three months for abusing multiple accounts. From that point until the block at the end of June, which was later lifted, was 3.5 months. Even assuming you didn't violate your topic ban during those 3.5 months, which I think is debatable, it does not amount to nine months.
• Your belief that the ban should be removed so you can prove yourself, and to do otherwise is not good faith, is backwards. The burden is on you to prove that the ban can be removed. A ban is not imposed and then simply removed because the editor says he'll do fine.
• Your statement that your only purpose in being here is to edit AA2 articles is disturbing. Find another purpose. Find a way to edit articles constructively without violating your topic ban. Find a way to behave better with respect to other editors. If you can't do that, you really have no business being here.

--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please give my other comment a reply too, because it was before you made this. I never at one point said I went nine months without "any problems". I said I went nine months without a AA2 violation. I'd argue I went ten. I'd say 17 December 2012 was my last real fuck up, but let's be honest, the 27 October 2012 block, which led to the December one, was a little biased. I really think I moved on from my actual AA2 issues on 1 August 2012, which was a year ago. From then on, I mostly was a victim of the "broad interpretations". I think I've proved I deserve a second chance after all this time. And I do other things for sometimes, but I'm so behind on AA2 shit that it can wait. Besides, I tried editing other stuff before, and that led to Sandstein's block because of those damn broad interpretations. I tried, and was betrayed. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I really hope you'll start getting back to me sooner. Soon I will have both college and a job eating up my time and won't even be able to try to catch up in work. Shit, I probably could have finished it by now. TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going off-wiki now. I don't have time to continue this discussion tonight, but I want to be clear. No matter how much discussion we have, I am not going to remove your ban. So, although I'm willing, within limits, to address at least some of your issues, you need to focus on what you're going to do here with the ban in place.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I had an idea last night. Give me the sport exemption back. I don't see a reason to take it away in the first place. This gives me the opportunity to get almost all of my work done and be an active editor, and if things go well for a couple months, lets remove the ban. How about that? TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Not only will I not unilaterally remove your ban but I won't reduce its scope. Anything that involves making the ban less restrictive will have to be appealed to AE. In case you're curious, though, I agree with the rescission of the exception. Indeed, you're fortunate that the ban hasn't been expanded to include categories, as was suggested by one admin at AE this last go-around.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand that you own the ban now. You can do anything with it. If you agree, please do it. Again, don't do it for me, do it for WP:Armenia. I won't go to AE again. I can think of at least three users who are immune to WP:GOODFAITH that will be there in a matter of minutes. You are my only hope. TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read the discussion on Ed's talk, you should understand that the consensus was that I could not remove or reduce the ban as the "owner". Whether the scope of my ownership is dictated by policy or simply by what makes sense, the end result is the same. And think about the implication of saying I'm your only hope. That means you believe a consensus of administrators would not do what you want. Generally, in a consensus-based environment, one admin cannot act against a consensus of other admins. BTW, I'm continuing to respond to you because I understand your frustration, but at some point I'm going to call a halt to this discussion if I deem it's no longer constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I did read it, he said you can do whatever you want; removing it outright at this moment would only "raise eyebrows" of some. If you think I can be trusted to edit sport articles, please let me. Remember, the last block had to do with the Sandstein block mistakenly being thought active. Because of one admitted-wrong thing Sand said, everyone assumed it was AA related, and also assumed getting rid of the sports exemption would simplify things. But it had nothing to do with it! AA2 articles have nothing to do with actual Armenia-Azerbaijan politics. This is that "ban not serving its purpose" thing talked about. Also, I hope you don't feel that the sport exemption was unique for me. It has been done for others too. TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood Cailil's comments. And now I'm doing what I said I would. Any discussion about my lifting or reducing the ban is over.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If I appeal to AE, will you support me? TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you appeal now or within the next three months, no. If you appeal three months or later from now, it will depend on what you've done in the intervening time. The later you appeal, although it still depends on what you've done in the interim, the more likely I am to support you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

God damn it man just let me edit the fucking website. Your still haven't answered all my questions: Why did my last 'block' result in losing the sport exemption even though it had nothing to do with AA2? What do sports have to do with the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict? Why do others get this privilege and not me? TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can I redirect WP:WIKILAWYERING to this conversation? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, BWilkins, welcome back to my talk page. You were missed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 30 July 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.

Request for clarification / Request for Peer Review

You wrote on my Talk page that you have sanctioned me for "this edit, which has a misleading edit summary and intentionally defied consensus." I do not see how it was misleading -- I described each of 3 edits I made and the rationale for each. You appear to have done this at the request of user Cailil above. There was discussion of the topic related to my edits on the Talk page, and, once the discussion appeared to have diminished, I made relatively minor edits to add sentence prefixs (such as adding "According to feminists.. " and "According the men's rights movement activists..."). Far more nuanced and cautious than simply BRD.

Further, your accusation that my edits on the Talk page were disruptive was previously strongly challenged by two editors, here:

disruptive? Seriously? Someone posts a thoughtful critique of the prevailing dogma and you call it disruptive? Why don't you let the eds here discuss in peace without your warnings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What a shameless load of hogwash, Bbb23! Badmintonhist (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than being disruptive, my comments on the Talk page have been relevant and substantive, and are aimed at improving the article -- especially making it more NPOV. I have also made several requests for third party review of this article, including third opinion and peer review. My comments have been civil, despite occasionally uncivil comments directed at me.

Your administrative actions on this page appear to me to be wikilawyering and are quite antitheetical to the mission and spirit of WP. They clearly violate WP:Censorship.

I have noted that your administrative actions have been directed at editors who have challenged the feminist interpretations of the Men's Rights Movement in this article. You have labeled their discussions on the Talk page as disruptive, and you have sanctioned several of these editors, some of whom have left WP in disgust. At the same time, you have implicitly supported a like-minded group of editors who have essentially established Multple Author Ownership and who come running to you when they wish to silence open discussion on the Talk page. The purpose of Talk pages is for open discussion to improve the article. Shutting down discussion with bogus claims of disruption, as you have done several times, is inappropriate.

This type of administrative behavior is antithetical to the mission of WP. I am afraid that AGF has its limits, and mine has been reached with respect to your quite biased administration of this article.

At the very least, this article andits Talk pages, as well as your administrative actions related to this article, deserve a peer review by neutral third parties, if not a mediation review. Memills (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want from me, but I'll address some of your points.

• Any action I took was independent. Editors are entitled to come here and alert me to what they perceive as problems. Whether I act and how I act is my decision; I don't act by proxy. Specifically, the MRM articles and many of the editors who edit them are on my watchlist. Although I may miss something, particularly if it's not directly related to MRM, I tend to be relatively on top of what's going on.
• Your persistent talk page comments were disruptive. I warned you of it. You not only persisted but you transferred your POV to the article in defiance of clear consensus. This is not new.
• The policy WP:CENSOR is irrelevant to the issues here. What you're really trying to say is that I and others are trying to stifle your perspective. You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you like, but you have no entitlement to express those beliefs at Wikipedia if they do not serve to improve articles. This is a collaborative environment, and your agenda, even if shared by a few other editors with the same agenda, is not acceptable if rejected by the community. Equally important, it's been pointed out to you that your viewpoint is not supported by a preponderance of reliable sources. Yet you continue to push it.
• WP:PRG is clearly not the forum for this article. Did you read the material at the top of PRG? The kind of dispute you have with the other editors would normally be handled by an RfC. However, in this instance, there is no need for one because enough experienced editors have repeatedly rebutted your contentions to make an RfC an abuse of the process.

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BBB23, I know you are making a good faith effort to control troubles at the MRM page, but I feel your recent actions have pulled the trigger rather too quickly - this one is a case in point. A 3 month topic ban is excessive, especially given that the actions in question were not disruptive. Consensus can change at any time, and the discussion on the talk page was reasoned and backed by sources, in spite of claims to the contrary. Not everyone agrees with SLp1 and SonicYouth on the way this article should be structured, and I really suggest that you reconsider this block which is excessive for an edit that had been discussed and had other editors supporting it. Sometimes being bold is OK.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

RPA at Aaron Swartz talk

Removed personal attack at Talk:Aaron Swartz. (“I understand your close personal connection with the MIT police.”)

A likely bystander casualty here is Mightyhansa, who’s a newcomer to this BDP. His one contribution got summarily reverted by MarkBernstein, who’s telling him (and other newcomers) not to link to the police department whose officers arrested the article’s subject. Never mind that the article mentions the department five times. The arrest doesn’t seem to have had significant consequences for anyone, he argues.

(“No reason to link to the MIT police; they're not important to this story. … They were simply running an errand, and their involvement seems to have been brief and inconsequential.”)

I’d like to suggest that some newcomers (such as Mightyhansa) would hesitate to assert that they don’t understand the more knowledgeable editor’s argument. And they may not want to associate themselves with someone who’s said to have a close personal connection with police — a connection that’s apparently too embarrassing for the more knowledgeable editor to spell out. They may just choose to disappear. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 08:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 08:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Mark's view about the link is clearly wrong based on the guidelines. Indeed, the term should be wikilinked twice, once in the lead and the first occurrence in the body. As for his comment to you, it's not clear to me that it's a personal attack. It's probably inappropriate, but I'm assuming it's based on your user page, perhaps in conjunction with other comments you've made? Don't know. I wouldn't worry too much about Mightyhansa. You restored the edit. Content disputes are kind of a way of life at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Abelson report, released today, makes it clear that the MIT Police involvement was brief and peripheral, serving briefly as an intermediary between an MIT department and law enforcement agencies with the expertise and resources to proceed -- expertise that MIT police lacked. Dervorguilla has been extensively connected with MIT Police for years, and almost all his edits at Wikipedia involve some aspect of their work or the activities of "The MIT Crime Club". Many if not all of the mentions currently in the article stem from his additions, and he has worked zealously on their behalf. That he is clearly COI with respect to the MIT Police is evident from his edit history and from the user pages of his account and of his alternate account talk. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Even assuming Dervorguilla has a conflict, the term should be wikilinked based on the linking guidelines. A claim that a particular entity's "involvement ws brief and peripheral" has nothing to do with wikilinking. I suppose I can see how you might think otherwise, but your argument is not guideline- or practice-based.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I’m seeing a “Talk: You have new messages” notice at my User talk, but I’m not finding any new messages. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You need a break. Your talk page hasn't been edited since June 10.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)He's right. That's been happening to everyone (including me). Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I most likely do need to take a break though...  ;)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood, you mean the orange thing at the top. That was lingering for me, too, a while ago, but it finally went away. Good old wikimedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Revdel at ANI

I assume your revdel at ANI was to Daufer's edits. Just so you know, it looks like most of what he wrote is still visible in [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. I'm not sure if you'd want to do anything about those or not, but I thought I'd let you know. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Revdel problem

Hi, Fred, I rev/deled a number of contributions by User:Daufer at this discussion at ANI. However, apparently, I need to do more, but I can't figure out what. See this post on my talk page. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I have them all; just nonsense anyway. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So do you think it was a mistake to revdel them in the first instance? I didn't revdel the ones where he was just vulgar; it was the others I thought were offensive. Putting that aside, what did I do wrong technically?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

When you revdel a revision of a page, it doesn't remove that revision's changes from future revisions, so you need to revdel all the revisions from the one where the bad content was introduced until the one where it was removed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Partly because I'm tired and partly because I need to have technical things spelled out in little bitty steps, where does it say what you're saying at WP:RVDL? In any event, I don't understand how I should have done what I didn't do, so I suppose next time this comes up, I just won't do it, unless in the interim someone is able to explain it to me so I get it. Thanks for trying.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RVDL doesn't mention that. I'll see if I can fix that soon, but for now, here's an explanation. Most revdels are easy, because the revision to be revdel'd was undone before any other edits were made. In this case, revdel'ing the bad edit hides it completely. In the case on ANI, several other edits were made before the bad edit was undone. In that case, the permalinks to all of the edits between the bad content being added and removed all contain it, so all of them need to be revdel'd to hide it completely. I made an easier-to-understand example at User:Jackmcbarn/Sandbox. To hide the "TROLL TROLL TROLL" comment from the revision history, the edits Add trolling, Add good content, Next, and Undid revision 566473115 by Jackmcbarn (talk) would all have to be revdel'd, because the permalinks to all of them show the bad content. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added this information at WP:RVDL#Limitations and issues. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's very kind of you to go to all that trouble, both to explain it and add it to the policy so others will benefit from it. My memory is hazy, but I thought that the introduction of the material was removed, but I must be wrong, and I believe the user added it twice. I'm assuming if for example #1 adds the material, #2 does something completely different, and #3 removes the material - and those are consecutive edits -I have to revdel #1, #2, and #3? And although I shouldn't be asking someone who is so helpful, how do you know all this when you created an account only this month? You obviously know your way around.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case, only 1 and 2 would need revdel'd, since the permalink to 3 wouldn't contain the material. I was an IP editor a long time before I made this account. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So many wrong assumptions. You don't have to answer this if you don't wish to, but what made you decide to register?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, you've learned in a few minutes what took me 3 or 4 years to learn on my own... If you actually have it. Anyway, that is why something that was added hundreds of edits ago and still remains in a document is seldom removed unless it is nearly life-threatening. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Fred. Now I don't feel so dense.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Now, to demonstrate that I "have it". If I want to properly revdel some material from a page, I have to delete the edit that introduced the material and, if any, each consecutive edit after that up to but not including the removal of the material. If I have it right, I want a star. If I don't, a trout, but I prefer fresh and almond encrusted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

		The Technical Barnstar
		For taking the time to figure out how RevDel works in situations with complicated page history._ Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Gee, the first star I blatantly solicited. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI regarding User:carolmooredc

Hello Bbb. I request that you chime in again here. I know it is cumbersome to read all the context. But with so much back and forth banter, we really need a little admin feedback. In any case, I hope your day is going well! Steeletrap (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just clarifying: My saying "Best to stay away from BLPs until whatever doesn't tick me off so much. " was not a promise to Steeletrap to say away from North as I immediately wrote back to her when she asserted that. Also I was not the one objecting to keepng it open, though it was getting rather tiresom.

I have unwatched almost everything but seeing things like ANIs against me for comments that are so much tamer than some of the things I saw said about others on that ANI and elsewhere does tend to make me stay in the fray. At least a whole lot of people were drawn to both the Hoppe and North pages and commented on the bad behavior I saw; we'll see if it has any affect.

If only editors paid more attention to previous BLPN and NPOVN and WP:ORNs, maybe I wouldn't get so frustrated. But I can't save Wikipedia singlehandedly from what may be the inevitable conclusion of so many abused BLPs without sufficiently effective/proactive Wikifoundation Leadership. If only they could hire 100 part-time admins and give them a little extra power to watch over these problems. There must be some way around the legal impediments that might save the Foundation from eventual legal blowback. Whatever... User:Carolmooredc 19:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

e-mail

haha After reading your comment at ANI about e-mailing users I actually had to read WP:Emailing users to figure out that there is an Email this user link in the toolbox sub-menu! (I'm usually not so dense. Really.) The only links I've ever used on the menu are Recent changes and the Print/export sub-menu. I guess I should get rid of that old fashioned e-mail link I've had on my userpage since forever. -- Taroaldo ✉ 20:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that. My user interface is different from yours, partly because I'm an admin, and partly because I use certain scripts to change the interface. BTW, the user e-mailed me, and your suspicion was correct. He had automatic notifications turned on. So, when you edited his talk page, he was notified by e-mail. He mistakenly (unless he's lying) thought it came from you. Then he supposedly had a problem with his online e-mail host, but as far as I can tell, they just flagged it as junk and possibly unsafe. Assuming that part is true, I have no idea what algorithm they use to make that determination. As for his cousin claim, it's very odd. You should look at the edits of the cousin account and the main account. As I recall, the language was very different. I believe the cousin wrote significantly better. So, either it is the same individual and they are really clever, or it's the same individual and my reading is off, or it really is two different people, as as that is to believe in these kinds of cases. My view at this point is I don't care. The user was disruptive. Even if the cousin exists, the main person doesn't monitor his computer very well, which means his account could be easily compromised. At the end of the day, we're better off without him.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So far, everything he has said has been consistent in its lack of credibility. I still don't believe he could have mistaken a talk page notification for a direct e-mail, or that a filter would have been triggered on only one (standard) message from Wikipedia. If you were to edit my talk page, the header on the e-mail notification I receive would say Wikipedia, not Bbb23, but if you were to e-mail me via Wikipedia the header would be styled according to your e-mail account settings -- at least that's how it looked on my end the last time a user e-mailed me. As for the "cousin", he only chimed in once Ranleewright had been blocked. I saw the two styles as similar (Jimbob being disguised without the combativeness). "Jimbob" also made early claims that he was basically an innocent bystander who just happened to be following the debate and suddenly decided to comment. He then made a comment on Ranleewright's talk page as if they had never met before. The cousin argument didn't come into play until after the SPI. One or two of them – either way it is blatant deception. You are correct, Wikipedia is better off without him. -- Taroaldo ✉ 22:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway

Hi. Having written two FA's (see Rani Mukerji and Vidya Balan), I am extremely surprised that "all" my edits on Anne Hathaway were reverted by you. I understand that I use British English, but that is hardly any reason for such blind reverting. Anyway, since I am not that familiar with American English, it would be helpful for other editors (such as yourself) to help out with that. --smarojit ^HD 14:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The British spelling is just an annoyance, but it's not just that you added words with British spelling, you also changed the spelling of pre-existing words from American to British spelling. Worse is the style. Do you really think that a phrase like "She is one of the most high-profile and popular celebrities of Hollywood" belongs in the article, let alone in the second sentence of the lead, followed by a string of awards? Then you added even more material to the lead with not-as-bad but still over-the-top style. You took a bare mention of her LGBT activism from one sentence in the body and made her a "prominent" activist in the lead. None of this is acceptable, encyclopedic tone. I'm not going to battle with you on this, but you have not improved the article.

By the way, the article used to say that she was an actress in the lead. You changed that to "film, television, and stage actress." Why is that necessary? Is there some other kind of actress? It's just additional words that somehow make her seem more important.

I suggest you self-revert or at least clean it up.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel this way. I intended to take it up to a GA level, but with this level of criticism directed to my work, I am happy to leave it to the more "experienced" editors. --smarojit ^HD 14:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it. I haven't upgraded any articles. You could open up a topic on the article talk page if you wish and solicit other editors' comments. Feel free to copy any or all of our discussion here if it makes it easier for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have self-reverted, as per your suggestion. Having read a statement like "you have not improved the article", I would rather focus my energy on something that won't be termed an "annoyance" . Thank you very much. --smarojit ^HD 14:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi Bbb23,

Could you please confirm the reason for the page in the headline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STA_Travel) was taken down? And also it would be great to know how to get one back up again.

Thanks, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.220.25.25 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The page looked too much like an advertisement, rather than an encyclopedia entry. If you want to make a new one, I recommend you go through Articles for Creation. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see that much difference between the article and a company website minus pictures.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi both, great thank you for your feedback. Much appreciated. James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.220.25.25 (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Fry1989

You may want to look back at User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_17#Reviewing_the_civility_of_User:Fry1989 for context.

This user went ahead and made the edit even though he had no consensus and was told to go to DRN. I have reverted his edits and I am reminding him to seek consensus before making edits he knows are controversial. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You can not sanction me for an edit on Commons. I made the change because there was no reasonable objection from anyone in the discussion, all I got was "I don't like it, I think a different blue is more pretty". I didn't get any substantive objection to my perfectly valid question asking why this map should not use the same blue for full marriage as all other maps. So yes, I edited the map on Commons unilaterally, but that change has been left alone for over a week without any objection from anyone else. As far as I'm concerned, it is now an accepted and established change. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You blatantly edited against the consensus, you were told to form a consensus and given avenues to do so and you did not. Just because people don't noticed vandalism for a week doesn't mean it is not vandalism, some logic runs here. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

By people, you mean yourself. I haven't edit warred, and I haven't said anything which breaks my civility restrictions. There is nothing sanctionable here. I asked a valid question on why the US map shouldn't use the same blue as all the others, why it should be the only one which doesn't. Nobody could give me a substantive answer, all I got was "I don't like it, it's not pretty". And really, vandalism? Vandalism is the deliberate intent to disrupt or mislead, I had no such intention, and you will not be able to provide any harm my change caused, except perhaps for the aesthetics of some people who "don't like" the new blue which all other maps use You wish to talk about logic, I'm using logic too myself. I'm using the logic of standardization and conformity. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Because you initiated a discussion about preferences. That is all you are going to get (i.e., "I like it" or "I don't like it"). There is no Wikipedia policy that states that maps should all use the same colors, thus there is no relevant policy to debate. Your logic is not Wikipedia policy.. I've called back all the people who previously responded to that discussion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I initiated a discussion asking about standardizing the blue on the map so it matches every other one we have. All I got in response was "is this co.lour-blind compatible???" which I already answered, and "I don't like that, I think the current blue looks better" which is purely an aesthetic response with no valid reasoning against my point of standardizing it. I never mentioned my preferences. Of course there's no rule that everything has to be the same, but it's still a good idea and it's reasonable. Saying you don't like the blue isn't a reasoned answer. I absolutely refuse to accept personal aesthetics as a reason against a valid point of standardization. Until I get a valid objection based on reason instead of "I don't like it", I will pursue this on any relevant board I have to. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you coloration is so logical, it would not be hard for you to initiate an Request for Comment to generate a consensus for your color change. Until you have a consensus of people who prefer your color, you have no consensus to change the map colors. I've got work to do. Good Day. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I already explained why I haven't done one yet on my talk page. I didn't have the substance to start one yet, but now because of this I do. If all I continue to get is "don't like its", then I will initiate one shortly. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Then do a request for comment instead. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like quite a lot of drama over a change of a shade of blue. Newjerseyliz (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Often at Wikipedia, the amount of drama is inversely proportionate to the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles surrounding Yasir Ahmed

You recently (About 6 hours ago) closed a number of CSDs around this gentleman. I wonder if you would mind checking a little deeper because some of them also had AfDs running and some of these have been left open. I support your deletion. I would do a non admin closure on those I can remember, but I haven't a clue how to do it :) YOu can see deleted content and track them down more simply. Fiddle Faddle 06:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That user (Yasir72 dot multan) has now re-created one of the articles and removed the Speedy Deletion tag from it. Fiddle Faddle 10:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The user has now been blocked for a week, and it looks like the blocking admin was more meticulous than I was and closed the AfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Help

Okay. I need help. You reverted edits and asked if I can make changes without making such a mess. In truth I am learning. Please help. Thank you. The Page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_International_%28United_States%29. I am a new here and am trying to learn. I had information about this article that I was trying to add. I am learning and need help. I went to the tearoom as well. Please advise. Mrsilintl2004 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to try to help, but I won't be able to do so until tomorrow at the earliest. I'm about to go off-wiki in a few minutes. I'll contact you when I'm available. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel

I notice you blocked Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a little over 2 months ago for edit warring, looks like s/he might be at it again over on Talk:Nilo-Saharan languages. I have added the boiler-plate notice on both parties talks; but thought I would ask an admin to keep an eye on it. LGA _talk^edits 22:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please contact another admin or file a report at WP:ANEW if you deem it warranted. Based on some recent history, I consider myself arguably WP:INVOLVED with respect to TE.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do if it continues. LGA _talk^edits 22:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(Passing observation): I know nothing of the dispute at that article, which now seems to have reached 8RR, and I have no knowledge of your previous dealings with either party. But I don't think that this was a particularly useful edit summary. In fact, I have seem certain editors (some more notable than others) rapidly blocked for using similar uncivil language in edit summaries in the past. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh, what about the edit the user wants to restore? What a ridiculous war.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, quite. A war over who's falling asleep the fastest? Still quite uncalled for, I think, despite the basic futility. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, is this where judgment is cast? Why have I not been invited earlier? — Lfdder (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Both unlikely, I feel. But in fact, one of several places where polite comment has been made about your comments. Not that I would expect it to lead anywhere. I was wondering why you don't keep an archive of your Talk Page discussions, but instead just simply delete them on a regular basis? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Because yellow is much like orange. — Lfdder (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I don't think you're going to get anyway with Lfdder. Sarcasm seems to be more important to them than civil discussion. I'd let it go unless you feel they've actually done something sanctionable, in which case you can report it to the appropriate forum. As for removing vs. archiving, although archiving is preferred, with very limited exceptions, users have a right to remove anything from their talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We didn't seem to have trouble communicating before. Have we even ever spoken? Why are you in such a rush to judge me? — Lfdder (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(When you dumped that thread out of your Talk Page, I had assumed you thought it was worthless. Is that how you feel about all your communications with other editors? But as Bbb23 says, that's your prerogative. Can I look forward to your apology to Til Eulenspiegel? - without that comment you might have both avoided 8RR. But who knows, maybe you're old mates and you were just being "deliberately ironic"?) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

... — Lfdder (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So where does MiszaBot III put your archived threads, exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, does it matter? So, let's see....you assume I 'dumped out' our convo and -- based on that -- you conclude that I must've thought it worthless, and then you extrapolate from it that it must be how I feel about all communication on here....naturally. Do you have trouble assuming good faith? Are you trolling me? Which is it? — Lfdder (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of trouble. Not sure why. Maybe MiszaBot III writes your edit summaries for you too? It seems Bbb23 was right. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I the standard for conduct on Wikipedia? Does my behaviour elsewhere excuse yours here? — Lfdder (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we tend to use policy and guidelines for that, not the conduct of individual editors. My behaviour? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

AfD closure of speedied article

You might like to close this. --SMS ^Talk 17:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been closed by another admin. I think this is the second time recently I've failed to close an AfD after a speedy delete. I need to pay a little closer attention and not make work for other admins.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Lil Ugly Mane

Hello, Lil Ugly Mane is a hip-hop artist who had gained a cult following on the internet. Since you deleted it for lack of explanation of significance, I will explain his significance. His facebook has 10,000 likes, and his twitter has 2,000 followers. He has worked with rappers such as SpaceGhostPurrp and Antwon and several others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.203.202 (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@96.232.203.202: Please see our notability guidelines on musicians. 10,000 likes isn't even a whole lot, nor is 2,000 followers, so I'm not sure that he will meet the guidelines for musicians. For a simple version in one sentence, see the simple general notability guideline. Thanks, ~Charmlet ^-talk- 19:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Electric Edit War

bbb thanks for addressing the personal attacks. I've responded to you on the admin board regarding Joefromrandb. However, I'm not sure what "plastering" you're referring to. The article is abysmal by any standard. The "sources" are self published. After that article went through AfD with a keep/improve I didn't touch it for over a year. When I happened upon it again it was worse than it was when I nominated it for AfD. I'm not sure how pointing out the sourcing issues and encouraging the article's improvement on it's talk page can be construed as "plastering" or bad faith. An interview where an employee makes a series of unsubstantiated claims about the supposed notability or achievements of an organization does not meet wikipedia guidelines on sourcing. The core issue is the notability of the organization. Indeed googling for Hurricane Electric news makes it clear that the situation is insurmountable. https://www.google.com/search?q=hurricane+electric&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=hurricane+electric&client=firefox-a&hs=oi4&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=kWn9Uei6Oqz8iQLEx4G4CQ&ved=0CA0Q_AUoAQ&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.50165853%2Cd.cGE%2Cpv.xjs.s.en_US.seW1cfrvSKg.O&fp=948faa898672a69f&biw=1191&bih=1112 There are 3 articles, none from any respected news organizations all citing a self published press release from Hurricane Electric. This isn't about me, it' not about the user you warned, and it isn't about Joefromrandb's bullying of anyone he doesn't like. It's about the article.Jgeddis (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've responded at ANEW. Don't call Joe a bully.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

bbb23 Please read my statement more carefully. I did not call Joe a bully, I characterized his tactics in his dealings with me (judging by his number of blocks and complaints, it's not just me) of which I am well within reason to do. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove the personal attack against me as well as my response from the Talk page in question. I've responded to your response on the admin board which you've closed saying content discussions belong on the talk page. However, the entire point of me bringing it to the admin board in the first place was that I started a discussion there, two editors completely ignored it, and went through and reverted the changes. So that suggestion seems a bit silly as that's what I attempted to do in the first place. Thanks againJgeddis (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section from the article talk page (the personal attack and your response). Just because you start a topic on a talk page and no one responds does not give you license to do what you did. There are other dispute resolution mechanisms available to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

bbb23, thanks for removing the offending material. I think you've confused the order of events however, I added those tags over a month ago and posted on the talk page regarding them. A month later supposedly 2 people revert it without disputing the actual tags or bothering to bring it to the talk page. So again, I'm still not clear on what the issue with the tags are. Did you feel they are incorrect? If so, how? Is a HE interview not a self published source? Is a HE press release not a self published source? Is a HE web page not a self published source? Lets try to stick to the root issue. Is each tag appropriate for each source? I intentionally didn't touch the actual content so i could leave other editors the room to improve the article. according to the talk history the page was wiped and redone by other editors (not me) who made it the few lines it is today. That has nothing to do with me and nominating an article for AfD is certainly not wrong nor has anyone alleged it was done in bad faith. Indeed the consensus of that AfD was that the page was awful and needed to be improved. That's a normal process for articles that do not pass the muster of notability. Something is notable or it isn't. If it is, it should be easily supported by the vast information on the web. Indeed, I haven't created any pages in competition with HE so there's no issue on NPOV. Even cogent (over $300mil in revenue with over half a billion in assets) isn't competition with HE (only $10mil in revenue) and no one has disputed my content removals on cogent's wikipedia. What you'll notice from my edit history is I focus more on removing unsourced material, non-notable organizations, and plagiarism. I leave creating content up to others. Both are equal with regards to their contribution value. Jgeddis (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what is a self-published source. The interview is a primary source. A self-published source refers to not a source published by the article subject, but one that could've been written by anyone, like a blog or forum. Given that I've seen you do a lot of things against Hurricane Electric's article (you started the AfD, then you started tag bombing the article, and now you borderline edit warred to try to keep it that way), you'd do best if you would limit your participation to the talk page without directly editing this article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Jasper, nominating a subpar article in not an offense. I followed the process you yourself told me to follow and you yourself agreed with me stating "However, I do find the current state of the article very worrisome." So I'm not clear on why we're rehasing any of that. That AfD was done in good faith, it was voted on, it's a non-issue today. However, the issue of the state of the article and the notability of the company still remains.Jgeddis (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Further comments here are not constructive. I see Joe is responding to Jgeddis on the article talk page. Jasper can do the same, if he wishes. One aside: the AfD is not a non-issue. The community made a choice, and although that choice can be questioned again, it's not like the AfD just disappears in terms of its validity. My suggestion is you work out the source issues before tackling anything else. Either way, keep it on the article talk page, not my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Tabarez again

Hi! Maybe you'll be interested to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tabarez_.3D_Reza.Piri, and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tabarez, because you reverted some edits of previous sockpuppets of this guy... Thanks in advance! Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I played a very small part in Tabarez's history. I see you've left a message at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page. That makes more sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion at Memills' talk page was inadvertent

Because it was similar to the material on my own Talk page, sire, and I had been going back and forth between the two, I mistakenly thought that I was deleting a comment on my own page. Thanks for noticing. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

What are you talking about What does my edit have to do with punctuation? The first word is the headings should be capitalized, per MOS:HEADINGS. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

What it says is that section headings should be in sentence case, similar to article titles. Here, the first term in each heading is a year. As far as I know, if you have an article in which the first term is a year, the words that follow the year are lower case (unless they are proper nouns or acrononyms or something like that), e.g., 2008 in music, 2013 in Norwegian football, 2012–13 in English football.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"2008 in music" is not the same as "2012–present: television work". The colon represents a new statement. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct, which is why I cited MOS:COLON (I created a shortcut for it). Essentially, you capitalize the first word after a colon if the words succeeding the colon form a complete sentence; otherwise, you don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. Thanks for the explanation. I'll try to make these corrections whenever I see them elsewhere (which is quite often). — Status (talk · contribs) 05:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That's up to you. I'm not sure I'd make a point of it myself. The Lohan article is a "good" article and has long been on my watchlist because of the controversial aspects of her life, particularly the legal ones. Also, one of the editors who edits it the most heavily is someone I respect enormously. Generally, she is very vigilant about maintaining the article's integrity. As I noted in one of my edit summaries, if we keep the headers as the MOS dictates, I personally think it's ugly, but I think guidelines are presumptively enforceable, although they can theoretically be overruled by clear consensus. If you feel like it, you could start a discussion on the article talk page. It would be interesting to see what others think. Not that you have to, of course. I also remember early in my Wikipedia life that I found putting quotation marks before periods and commas to be really odd looking because I wasn't used to it in real life. I've since gotten used to it, so much of it is a matter of conditioning. I now have this schizoid approach to quotation marks: I use them one way at Wikipedia and one way off-Wiki. Different rules for different places. :-) Oh, btw, there are two possibilies for circumventing the MOS. I don't know if either of them would be acceptable to you or to other editors. One is instead of "2003–05: breakthrough, Mean Girls and music", you could have "2003–05 (breakthrough, Mean Girls and music)". That doesn't look as ugly to me. The other is "Breakthrough, Mean Girls and music (2003–05)". I don't think that style is used often, though. Anyway, I'm glad we could work this out amicably. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

MRM ban

I'd like to challenge your assertion that there is a "consensus" in favor of the "misogynist" quote on the MRM page. That's not the case. Material with a consensus in favor would not have seven users other than me arguing against it. Thank you. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]William Jockusch (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)William Jockusch (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, a request to other editors who are having similar issues, please do NOT jump in here, lest you run afoul of WP:Canvas. Thanks.William Jockusch (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Jumping in to this discussion has nothing to do with canvassing. Overall, I've said pretty much all I've had to say in our previous discussions. Remember, the consensus issue was just one of several bases for imposing the topic ban, not the only one. Also, you have appealed the ban twice to ANI, and neither has succeeded, so I'm not sure what you think is accomplished by continuing to argue against the ban. I will say just a little about the diffs above, though, in the hope that you won't feel like no one is listening to you, even if you don't like what I have to say, but I don't want to have another protracted discussion with you.

Consensus is judged not by the number of people taking a position but by the strength of editors' arguments. Many of the editors you link to above are very suspicious. They have very few edits - one editor had ONLY that one edit, which is bizarre to say the least. If judging consensus, I would discount them almost completely. Two of the editors have demonstrated agendas (CSDarrow and Memills). I would discount them as well. That left two editors, as I recall. One gave very limited support, and the other, who, in my view, has not been helpful in the talk page discussions, was supportive in a very general, let's compromise kind of way more than anything else. I not only think that a consensus against your views had been clearly established before the RfC, but I also think that the issue had been beaten to death, and you wanted to continue that process.

I strongly urge you to find something else to do at Wikipedia. It doesn't help to be banned from a particular topic and then make almost no contributions to the project during the ban (you've made only one article edit since the ban was imposed in late June). It clearly signifies that your only interest is in ban-related articles, which is never a good sign.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. First of all, how about some AGF in relation to my actions since the ban? Perhaps I feel that not editing much is the safest way to avoid violating the ban? Perhaps it's not exactly clear what "broadly construed" means? Having been banned on what appear, to me, to be inaccurate grounds, how am I to trust that something similar won't happen again? That is, if you are willing to assert what appears to be a non-existent consensus in order to justify a topic ban against me, how can I trust that you won't find some equally creative grounds for further punishment? A chilling though, is it not? One of the other grounds advanced in favor of the ban is equally weak -- see below. But as you are still unwilling to concede the most obvious point, I find it difficult to trust you. Sorry about that, I don't like saying it, or feeling it, but there it is. I will note that your unwillingness to back up your assertions itself contributes to my distrust. For example, you also backed up your ban by implying that I could have used one of the alternatives mentioned on the RfC page. When I pointed out that the RfC page itself showed that none of them apply, you didn't respond. So again I am left wondering -- was that really a heartfelt reason for the ban? Or was it an excuse, made up afterwards?

In regard to your statement that things are to be judged on the strength of the arguments, well, what about WP:LABEL? Is it somehow a weak argument? If so, has someone refuted it somewhere? If an argument is simply ignored by the other side, does that indicate that the argument is weak? Or could it indicate that the other side has no answer to it? Additionally, what about the fact that an admin explicitly wrote that there was no consensus? Or that when I explicitly wrote that there was no consensus, even the person who reverted me did not take issue with my statement? I would also note that repeated bans and warnings from you make it kinda difficult to develop one's arguments.

Even though you have applied the ban to me, I would be able to trust you if you were willing to either back away from or back up the assertions you have made in support of the ban. You noticed I pretty much did that in the case of the 1RR block, right? The evidence I have seen, while mixed, is more supportive of the block than not, and I was willing to tell both you and Memills exactly that. That is an example of my ability to accept valid statements from an admin, even if those statements lead to an action against me. I could do the same thing in relation to this ban, given such information. But it hasn't happened. Your unwillingness to get into a protracted discussion is likely part of the reason; your unwillingness to back away from questionable statements you make in support of the ban is another.

Lastly, in the spirit of what I wrote above, I will agree with you on one thing. I do agree that it is strange that two of the users I list above had made only one edit. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I hadn't been aware of that. This does move the needle for me on the question of whether or not there is a consensus. But it does not (yet) move it enough to change my view of the answer to that question. Regards.William Jockusch (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to address only one point. Not editing is not recommended if you want to demonstrate that you can contribute constructively here. True, it's the safest way to avoid violating the ban, but there are tons of articles out there that can be improved that have zero to do with MRM. Go edit those. Showing you're a better-rounded editor is a good thing. Of course, if that doesn't interest you, there's nothing I can do about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

More hostile remarks from User:Carolmooredc

Hello Bbb. I am sorry to bother you again on this matter, particularly because my remarks in the last ANI were undisciplined to say the least. (I especially regret that my anger at the composition of Carol's conduct toward me led me to overstate my case on individual diffs, and hope you know I take your general admonition in that regard seriously.) But I feel that the question regarding the above user's conduct again deserves attention, as the conduct has only intensified following the previous ANI.

For instance, here, Carol makes a number of highly charged statements about me, including: stating that I am "push[ing] agendas" in my edits; implying that I am attempting to "smear people and destroy their reputations"; and flouting the question as to whether I should be "banned from working on Austrian Economics BLPs."

The dif she cites as an example of biased edits to Austrian BLPs is my creation, on the section of the Walter Block page describing his views on the productivity of blacks and women, of a sub-title I called "controversy" (1). Though a noob (and now, a paranoid one), I cannot even begin to understand how this sub-title merits her characterization of it, or indeed does anything but accurately describe the surrounding text. I kindly ask that you check out the diff in the context of the broader section, and offer me your opinion on this situation. I feel hounded, harassed, and intimidated. Steeletrap (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on chronic violations of BLP. Finally others are starting to notice and object as well - and some of them are starting to lose their tempers. Which makes it much easier to keep mine. :-)

See Walter Block sectioning discussion which is under the larger BLP discussion of his and probably another editor's editing: Block - adding WP:OR material.

Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors reads: Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but politely — one gets more flies with honey than with vinegar) and asking others to help. I asked twice at the recent ANI about this issue of discussing POVs publicly and no one said "no you can't do that".

User:Steeletrap has been through sectioning-related controversies on Hans-Hermann Hoppe (see his May ANI because I contested a libelous section title) and another editor's May RfC there because of his edit warring on creating another POV title. Not to mention another editor's current BLP notice on biased section titles at Gary North. So I find it a bit disingenuous for Steeletrap to say he has no idea why sectioning, be it titles or placement, is an issue because he is a "noob". User:Carolmooredc 12:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that at some point I may get involved in the BLP policy issues, but not now. There is a long discussion at BLPN that Carol has started. I don't intend to read all of it (I skimmed it just a bit). I'm not going to even look at the Walter Block discussion for the moment. So, all I have to say are generalized comments. Carol, as I've mentioned to you before, detached, content discussion without comment on editors is the best way to persuade other editors of your arguments. The only time you should delve deeply into current and historical user conduct is if you're requesting user sanctions. Although BLPN is the right place to discuss BLP issues, it is generally not the right forum for asking for a topic ban, for example. That should be done at WP:AN if you think it's warranted. Steeletrap, it's hard to think of you as a newbie anymore. You've been around the block enough. You also need to develop a thicker skin, particularly if you're going to embroil yourself in controversial articles. For the receiver of alleged attacks, the best way to respond is to ignore them and just focus on the substantive issues. Finally, as a matter of clear BLP principle, I agree with Gamiliel that if there's a dispute about BLP material, the possibly-violating BLP material should stay out of the article while the issue is being discussed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reasoned response. I think clarifications on POVs are relevant when people specifically ask why people are editing in such a biased way (as happened other day on Murray Rothbard), or on noticeboards when particularly relevant to a discussion. I also have asked for clarification on talk:NPOV/FAQ and talk:NPOV on where and when to go heavily into POVs but got no response. (Guess should edit what I think is meant and see who drops by to revert/discuss or even bring general policy questions to Village Pump.) Obviously I'm reluctant to go to ANI again on this which is why I asked for opinions on whether others thought sanctions were necessary given the chronic negative POV editing on BLPs. User:Carolmooredc 15:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I really hope you have a chance to look to at the relevant material (i.e. the specific section header I changed, and whether it fits the surrounding content, much less merits Carol'c characterization), Bbb, as that will provide context for this discussion. I will as always take your advice into account. Steeletrap (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

A personal attack?

[18] Could you please explain to me where is the personal attack in my comment? Thanks. 76.126.140.123 (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You've now been reverted twice, once by me and once by another administrator. It's an attack against another editor, and if you continue (you've already been warned by me for another attack against yet a different editor), I'll block you. Go find something useful to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Bbb23: relevant thread here on my page. Bishonen | talk 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen, but I've been watching. I'm happy to let you and Brad take care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI

You warned Memills last night at 01:18 (UTC)[19]. Within 6 minutes he made this post to WP:NPOVN[20] followed by this[21]. The whole conversation is worth a read through for context. These posts are targeted at SLP1 and are not just about Evolutionary psychology as evidently Memills wants to cast aspersions about SLP1 generally and in relation to other "topics" ("Let me suggest that an underlying motive, per the above, of these editors is a strong, very strong, antipathy toward certain topics"[22]). Their other interaction is at the Men's rights movement page. He's dragging that issue to NPOVN to poison the well--Cailil ^talk 14:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And that is all followed by this today[23] and this[24] wherein he explicitly links Slp1's disputes with him on the Men's rights pages to the current issue--Cailil ^talk 21:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of all the edits on Memills's talk page as it's on my watchlist, but thanks for the pointer to WP:NPOVN, which is now on my watchlist. I need to think about this some.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There's further abf today. Accusing a "group of like-minded editors" of censorship[25][26]. He is also insisting on comparing Evolutionary Psychology article's and Men's Rights Movement article's to the Feminism article's structure (specifically what HE sees as the criticism section - which is not a criticism section, criticism is included throughout that article). This is part of a consistent attempt to ghettoize sources Memill's defines as negative. In the above NPOVN Mathsci and in the last ANi thread about Memills actions at Evolutionary psychology] there are serious issues with WP:OWN evidenced. Memills has attempted to spuriously identify editors he opposes, and Slp1 in particular, as POV warriors, without evidence and seemingly to poison the well for any dispute resolution attempt. Something needs to be done here, but if you're not comfortable acting I understand--Cailil ^talk 09:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry if I was clear as mud on the TSC case - what ever you do I'm sure it'll be fine. As regards the above see this[27] (and the talk page announcement[28]) by Memills. An edit contra to policy and unless I'm am very much mistaken without consensus.
  More problematically it was reverted by Mathsci who is in conflict with Memills on other articles (i.e Evolutionary psychology). This could start to spiral. Again if you're uncomfortable acting no worries (I can see how this whole issue is a head wrecker and that you've got other things on your plate)--Cailil ^talk 18:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked another sysop to sanity check my action in reporting this and they've confirmed both the need for my action and your ban, from an outside POV[29]--Cailil ^talk 17:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Again I'm sorry to bug you Bbb23 but the level of abuse is being bandied about by Memills is utterly unacceptable. I've asked Seraphimblade for input on his allegation of admin abuse by me. I have a serious problem with being attacked for being a sysop[30] (which seems in Memills world to mean I can't edit or comment on topics as a content editor at all) with an added spicing of the insinuation of pov-warrior thrown in for good effect. We are all putting up with mud slinging by Memills that would not be accepted anywhere else. Slp1 has been painted in a similar fashion by Memills at various boards, he has attacked you & KC for following though on admin duties. This has to stop. If Memills wants to allege misconduct fine but he will have to prove it. Such casting of aspersions is explicitly against policy and has been included in 11 RFAR rulings[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]: The wording goes that "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause", this is precisely what's happening here. It's showing other users that they can get away with it and creating an even more posonous invective ladden atmosphere around that topic--Cailil ^talk 12:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the applicable policy is WP:UP#POLEMIC. However, not just because I am the subject (and have been before) of the accusations, I would prefer that the issue be raised, if at all, at WP:ANI by someone other than me. Although I don't believe that generally I am WP:INVOLVED simply because editors write nasty things about me, I do believe that it would be unseemly for me to sanction the editors for that particular misconduct. On a personal note, it doesn't bother me - not that that makes it okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your question

Those IPs are all in the same /16, so it's a band of 64K addresses. That's a big block, and I would need to have an extremely strong motivation before I would block it. That's especially true in a country that doesn't have widepread internet access. As a percentage, 64K isn't a big block in the US, but it's likely to represent a large percentage of Iran's allocation. They don't look static from the behaviour.

The range contribution on the contributions page does a single block of 5000 addresses, oldest first. That can make it miss recent contributions. That's why I miss some of the ones that used to work on toolserver.—Kww(talk) 05:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much, Kevin. I referred to your comments here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Saladin1987 (talk · contribs)

Hi. This person again turned to edit-war and is erasing "Pashtun" from every article.--Fareed30 (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Skolmen

Hello,

On the page for Skolmen, you declined an A7 CSD because you cannot CSD a farm. However, wouldn't a farm fall under db-inc? Thanks.

Fbryce (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Farms don't count as companies. Just wait the PROD out. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

What Jack said.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Numbered list v/s bullets

Wouldn't a numbered list be easier to quote, for anyone who wishes to do so?[41] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose, but it's not referred to in the policy itself, is it? And the rest of the policy uses bullets, so it's inconsistent. Do you have examples of when it's quoted outside the policy? I often like numbered lists, personally, but I don't think it belongs here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example of a numbered list in another sub-section of the article, I was thinking about the ease in referring to a particular clause, anyone who needed could say according to 1.3.1 etc. No I don't have knowledge of anyone actually quoting any of the clauses, but it is quite likely that the same may have happened and may happen again. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, don't know how I missed that one. Why don't you raise the issue on the policy talk page and see if anyone comments. If there's a consensus for your change or if no one comments in say 48 hours, you can revert back to your version.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

How about changing all bullets to numbers? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL. I would like consistency unless there's a good reason to be inconsistent. If you want to do that, you should still raise it on the talk page. You might look here first.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've written a message on the talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Roy Wilkins Center wiki page

Hi,

You sent the following message to us regarding the Roy Wilkins Center page we created, "Your edits are creating major problems. You are creating articles in which you appear to have conflict of interest. The articles, among other problems, have copyright violations in them. You are editing pages in another user's user space. And you appear to have two accounts. Please explain whether User:IsAbdi belongs to you or you know who it is. Please also explain whether User: LD.Oseni belongs to you or whether you know who the user is.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)"

The are multiple employees of the Roy Wilkins Center that are attempting to write a wiki page on our behalf. Please identify what you are determining to be a conflict of interest. Please identify what you are determining to be copyright violations.

UserIsAbdi is our employee. I am not sure who LD.Oseni is but it is possible it is an employee.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.251.179 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to keep this discussion in one place. I responded to IsAdbi's message on user labdix's talk page here. I'm not going to respond to your substantive questions until I straighten out the account issues. If you have an account, you should log in before posting anywhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi Bbb23 - I'm considering unblocking this editor per WP:ROPE. It has been several months since the block and the latest unblock request appears to show an understanding of the requirement to edit in a collegial manner and to obtain consensus for contentious changes. I would ensure that the unblock would include the caveat that if they returned to their previous disruptive ways they would be reblocked immediately. What do you think?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ponyo. I have trouble believing that after the preceding EW blocks, they didn't understand how our policies work. That said, the user's unblock requests keep improving, and if you think they deserve another chance, I'm okay with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I gave it a shot - we shall see...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Michele Miscavige

Considering our disagreements regarding BLP issues at Grant Cardone, I'd like to invite you to chime in at Michele Miscavige, which is in violation of virtually every point of BLP as regards presenting speculation and hearsay as fact, and considering the fact that I'm not interested in getting reverted again for simply tagging the article to initiate a dialogue on the talk and getting warned for simply trying to correct BLP issues, it would be good for others to get involved who have no connection to the subject of Scientology and can maintain some modicum of neutrality. If ever there was an article that was in violation of BLP and nearly impossible to correct, this one is it. Laval (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, master

Sorry to drop in on your talk page even though you threatened to block me if I did again, but I'm pretty sure you don't even check my pings anymore and I'm here to talk about something constructive this time.

So, can I talk on someone else's talk page about AA2 pictures, not about articles or anything that I plan to edit on Wikipedia, but rather on information for things I plan on doing on the Commons. Would that be ok? Admins have been edgy with this shit in the past, so I can't take any chances. TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The ban includes any discussions covered under AA2, so my assumption is it would be a violation of your topic ban. Perhaps you could give me an example so I'd have some context. And why would you need to discuss something you want to do on Commons here?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I need to talk to someone about pictures they have of Nagorno-Karabakh and see if I can get permission to upload them. He doesn't have a commons account. I want his OK somewhere on Wiki so I have proof he gave me permission, so there isn't another way I'd like to contact them. This discussion won't have anything to do with the pages on Wikipedia, it will all be about the Commons, where the ban doesn't extend to. TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the topic ban doesn't extend to Commons, but the discussion you want to have would be here, and I don't see why that discussion would not violate your ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, typically the ban extends to things that have to do with editing Wikipedia. Hence why I can say Armenian and Azerbaijan here without violating it. TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your last statement makes no sense to me, but let's put that aside and dig a little deeper. Assuming for the purpose of this discussion that it's not a violation of your topic ban to discuss the images on Wikipedia, what happens after you get permission and upload the pictures to Commons?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I meant because the subject isn't exactly involved with any editing on Wikipedia. Actually, I'm now realizing I could have just asked him without mentioning any names exactly. Would that be ok? After I upload them to Commons, anyone can use them on Wikipedia. Of course I won't be until this ban goes away, but what can ya do. TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I consulted with Sandstein, and he agrees with me. Any discussion on Wikipedia would be a violation of your topic ban. As for not "mentioning any names exactly", that sounds like a dodge to me, but I suppose it would depend on what you say. You have a tendency to push the envelope. Rather than risk getting into trouble, I think you should drop the whole idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

An idea

So me and Cooper were talking and I came up with this idea that I get the sports exemption back for anywhere from a few days to a week just so I can empty out my three sandboxes (soon to be four). After that I will happily go for a couple of months without it and edit other things in the meantime. He seemed pretty open to it, but is busy right now. I thought I'd roll this over with you too, since you're the ultimate judge, and get your stance. TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the consensus was that the exemption will not be reinstated. Moreover, in my view, your request is a violation of your latest restriction, which not to appeal any part of your ban anywhere except to the Arbitration Committee itself. I'm not going to block you for it this time, but if you do it again, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an appeal. Nor is that restriction logical. Who said "the exemption will not be reinstated"? TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It very clearly is an attempt at modifying the terms of the Arb Enforcement - hence, it's an appeal. Absolutely no leeway ES&L 23:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Twobells

...has re-inserted the section twice more since you closed the 3RR report. Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Acroterion blocked him. I was about to but ...--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I considered waiting so you could follow up, but it was as blatant and disruptive as anything I've seen in a while. Acroterion (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I'm happy you took care of it. Perhaps it will have a greater deterrent effect coming from two administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows if you've gone off to make a sandwich. Acroterion (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusion re: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Hello. This doesn't pertain to you directly, but I hope you don't mind clarifying something for an ordinary editor. (I randomly chose your name as an admin active on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.) I posted a report there a couple of days ago, but there is no response at all, no comment or resolution. Almost every other report has responses, so I suspect there is some kind of error in the report. I asked (no response), and guessed at the problem and tried to fix it, but clearly I'm missing something, hopefully not something obvious! guanxi (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not missing anything. I just closed the report as stale because neither the IP nor the account you suspect is the same person has edited since August 6. Sometimes reports filed at AN3 don't see any action at all and just archive off without any administrative comment. I can't give you a single reason for why that happens because it could be many things. In this instance, I honestly don't know why your report stayed there with no comment for the last few days. Sometimes I try to make sure that all outstanding reports are addressed, but depending on the number and my time, I'm not always successful. Let me know if there are any further problems with the article. You can do that at AN3 if the report is still on the board, or you can come here directly if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The reversions stopped because I unilaterally stopped editing while waiting for a response. Hopefully things will proceed better this go-round. Thanks again. guanxi (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

St. John Fools of Misrule

Why would you delete the article 'St. John Fools of Misrule'? There are other articles about Mardi Gras Marching Clubs, including Jefferson City Buzzards and Pete Fountain's Half-Fast Marching Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daiquiridan (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It had no claim of significance.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Purpleback and Joe

I regret that Purpleback was overzealous in polevaulting to an admin report about the disagreement over an edit, but I have a problem with your handling of the situation because you not only failed to recognize Joe's assumption of bad faith and his failure to even attempt to follow WP:BRD (he never even attempted to respond to my explanation of why I thought the content was useful for the article), but you joined in that assumption of bad faith and wholeheartedly endorsed Joe's caustic and uncivil behavior. Don't bother to respond, I'll go back to working on other articles because I WP:DGAF about the specific wikidrama, but I do care about the project and failure to deal with incivility has been fingered as a reason why Wikipedia is failing to attract and retain new editors. Feel free to delete this comment after reading it. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Mickey Hart and other articles: edit warring after final warning

Greetings, Bbb23. Remember the recent events chronicled at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive220#User:50.131.100.128 reported by User:Smuckola (Result: Warned), and also at User talk:50.131.100.128#ANEW? I'm afraid that the anonymous editor has continued his or her previous behavior, as you can see here: [42], [43], [44]. I believe that, in the immortal words of Benjamin J. Grimm, it's clobberin' time. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Dylan O'Brien

Hi, so a little while back i spent 3 hours editing Dylan O'Brien's page. because honestly it didn't have anything about him. Every single pice of info that i added was true. I listed multiple sources when I could, a lot was stuff i knew to be true though. I am a huge fan of Dylan and i want his wiki page to represent him. But after all the effort i put in. You deleted it. and changed it back to what it was before. I want to know why you did this and if you could put back up my changes. if you want to fact check them yourself be my guest but i know everything is true. His page doesn't mention that he started out on youtube. where he became youtube famous with the account moviekidd826. It no longer says that he was in a band up until last month in witch he played the drums. If you don't believe that go look at his background on twitter. Its the album cover for his band Slow Kids At Plays first album. It doesnt even mention that he has a sister anymore. I just went on to add that his fans are called cuties and realized that you had deleted it. so if you could add that too that would be great. If you dont believe me again check his twitter. ask a Dylan O'Brien fan what HE calls his fans and they will tell you Cutie.

Also you have Dylan's fathers job wrong. so at the very least change it to cinematographer.

Im not exactly happy about this so if you could at least get back to me about it soon that would be great. DwanaVt (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)DwanaVt

There were so many things wrong with your edits, it's hard to know where to start. Above all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles have to be written like encyclopedia articles. We are not a fan magazine, so a lot of material that you and others of his fans might find interesting don't necessarily belong here. You can read about them elsewhere. I don't care what his fans call him. I don't care about Twitter. I'll even accept for the sake of argument that his fans call him Cutie, but that doesn't belong in the article. It might if it rose to the level of an alias and was reported on in a reliable source. As for the Youtube stuff, again, if you want to discuss his beginnings, you have to find reliable, secondary, non-tabloidy, non-YouTube sources for it, and it has to be written in a detached and measured way. It doesn't matter what you know to be "true". What matters is whether the material is noteworthy here and whether it's supported by good sources. As for the cinematographer bit, in the cited source O'Brien says that his father is a camera operator. That's exactly what he says. I'm not going to change it.

You're very inexperienced here. If you want to run things by me before adding them to the article, you can do that here, or you could do it on the O'Brien talk page. I will try to help you learn what is and what isn't acceptable. But you can't put back your changes. They violate policies and guidelines here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

So...

Ok, so who disagrees with the bold, unilateral deletion of images by Werieth now knows that he is exempt from 3rr and that he could easily revert six times three different editors (none of them violating 3rr) in a few hours receiving as a prize the protection of the page for his favorite version of the article. Only on Wikipedia. Cavarrone 23:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

How about you take it to WP:NFCR like was suggested several times? tag team edit warring isnt good either. Werieth (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

For everyone who cares to read the discussion in the talk page, it was suggested several times to you, by uninvolved experienced editors and administrators, and you refused. Articles are taken to WP:NFCR by the ones that want them deleted, as it is obvious common sense and everyone could see and verify. Cavarrone 23:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe some more sarcasm would help. I wasn't rewarding anyone. Werieth just had better timing, so their version was in place when I locked both articles. Also, Werieth, if you think I approve of your behavior, you're wrong. Your stubborn disruption is unacceptable. You just keep repeating yourself. Also, "just take it to NFCR" may sound good on the surface, but I believe that NFCR can be a very slow process, which might be a tad frustrating for those who disagree with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • However the burden of proof lies on those who want the media to prove that it is complaint with policy. To this date that has not been done. NFCR may be slow but if they want to establish acceptability of their position (when I have provided several discussions that counter their claims, which right now is WP:ILIKIEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF) It may be slow, but it is the correct venue for them to review the acceptability of the file that they want to include. NFC practice is to remove a file until the issues have been resolved. In this case I have pointed to several discussions including a RfC which has deemed the file failing NFC. Until it can been established as acceptable the file should not be re-added. That discussion might be as short as a week or take a year depending on how things progress. But until that time the file cannot be re-added. Werieth (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Stop this jack ass Werieth, you were invited to take controversial images to NFCR or FFD, I also quoted three admins saying you to avoid edit war and doing so. Images are taken to WP:NFCR by the ones that want them deleted, it is obvious common sense and the practise could be easily verified. @ Bbb23, Werieth "just had better timing" is an inaccurate statement, Werieth just blatantly violated 3rr, differently from the four editors who disagreed with him. Obviously if he is allowed to do 6rr, he will always have "better timing". Cavarrone 00:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • See WP:NPA much? Werieth (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Werieth, if you boldly remove the images and they are restored, particularly if you're not given any strong reasoning and they don' clearly fail the objective NFCC criteria, it is then your duty to take the issue to the talk page, to NFCR or to FFD to discuss them. You've been told this before, and you're continuing to remove images with too broad a stroke. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Masem, are you involved? If not, I'm happy to unlock the article and let you take whatever administrative action you think is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
            • I'm not involved, but I'm more worried on Werieth's current actions in regard to NFC, due to a few issues coming up at NFCR and other articles I'm seeing. I don't plan on doing any admin action on the article - if Werieth feels the images are a problem (failing the subjective measures of NFCC), then it is his step to take it to NFCR, not edit war on the page to his likely. (Please note I've only glanced at the images to make sure the basic NFC requirements are met, which they seem to be, so there's nothing that needs immediate removal). --MASEM (t) 00:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
              • The image is not in the article. That's one of the things Cavarrone is upset about. I'll leave it as is, but if you decide to take some action that conflicts with mine, you don't have to consult with me before doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
                • I am not upset about this specific image but about the whole Wer.'s practice of removing images based on his subjective interpretation of a rule without discussion, against consensus and flouting 3RR rules, a practice that the recent AN3 outcomes appear to de facto allow and reward. As far as Wikipedia is a collaborative project, noone should be able to impose his ownership regarding the use of an image in an article when that image is considered valid by others who care of policy not less than him. However, currently, I'm fine with the words of Masem both here and in Wer.talk page, and I also want to confide they will be taken in account the next time someone else will take Wer. to AN3 for the same reasons (though I usually hope for the best, unless things change, it looks to me like you'll likely be seeing this individual there again). Cavarrone 06:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Zealous schmelous

Re this, I haven't had that specific pleasure but am well aware of the sentiment. I've been under the impression that you take a pragmatic, middle-ground approach to BLP enforcement, so I was a little surprised at your stance on the question as it came up here. As I said, however, better safe than sorry at this stage. No criticism intended toward you. (I'm replying here because lest I be accused of not "behaving".) Rivertorch (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You're obviously correct

I should've made the connection when I reported. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that was damned clever! Good thing I didn't block you this time by mistake. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my reference links. Sorry about doing those wrong. Pha telegrapher (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I left you a message on the article talk page and a belated welcome message on your talk page. All I ask is that if your edit clearly doesn't work (use Show preview first), then don't click on Save page. Instead, figure out what you're doing wrong or ask someone (me or someone else - lots of people will help you) how to do it right. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked IP continues personal attacks on their talk page

I'm pretty sure 201.215.187.159 deserves a permablock... although it's always problematic when it comes to IP's. He's attacking editors that are trying to talk some sense into him, while being blocked, on his talk page... shining examples are "Cunts like you" and "My break will not be as long as any of you would like it to be" (implying a sockpuppetry intention). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I comment re User:Kevin Gorman

Since I have mentioned your name in a comment I made to AN/I, I am informing you of it per the note: [45] Laval (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Khorramdarreh

I hoped to be more hesitant about deleting and returning the page to the very short one. You have not this right to delete this amount of information that you have not any knowledge about them. please think more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinajalily (talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb23 judged that those edits were "awful", and I concur. Let's see--improper wikilinks, too many images, non-neutral language, lack of references, poor English, et cetera. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• BTW, those wheat fields look very healthy. Adding information to such articles is very, very helpful, but it will need to be properly written and verified, in a neutral manner. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Sinajalily, I'm native citizen of this city in Iran and I'm thankful for offering comments on this article. But I am working on the article and trying to provide citations and references for it. Unfortunately most of references that I use are in hard published and my own experiences. Please help to make this page better not only delete whole information. Thank you BTW.

• I'm going to undo your most recent edits, one by you not logged in and one logged in. Do NOT edit without being logged in, particularly when your edits are contentious and objected to by other editors. It can be construed as multiple account abuse and you can be blocked for it. I also think you should stop editing the article because your edits are unacceptable. Until you can edit in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines you should use the article talk page to discuss possible changes rather than edit the article directly.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I am hopeful that our Iranian friend can and will change their editing habits and work to build an encyclopaedia. Do you know of anyone who might mentor them? Fiddle Faddle 13:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• First, you'd have to find out if he wants to be mentored. If he does, he can put {{Adopt me}} on his user or talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• He has! He put it in a silly place, but he has! I think we are seeing a lack of skill, not a lack of willingness. But time will tell. Fiddle Faddle 08:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Supreme Court of the United States Revert

In the article Supreme Court of the United States you reverted my change on the 13th of August. I had added a sentence about the citizens united case. I tried to keep the sentence neutral, but if you want you could rewrite it. I think it is important though to mention that case in the criticism section. Why did you just revert it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nferrara100 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 August 2013‎ (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You didn't cite a reliable source for your claim. You need to do so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jagger Eaton

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jagger Eaton. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Labeach2002 (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Red Giant Entertainment

I am the CEO of Red Giant Entertainment, and I was notified today that when someone tried to create a page about my company, you chose to delete it.

I find this interesting, as apparently, you find a company that is publicly traded as a fully-reporting stock, is fully funded, profitable, and has readership in the MILLIONS (larger readership than Marvel, DC comics and all other pulp comics combined) is not "worthy" of inclusion in Wikipedia... while the smaller companies are?

We have:

3 movies in production 2 TV series in development with major production companies A dozen more movies and TV in early stage development A video game line beginning A merchandise line Books galore available in book stores 42+ Intellectual properties and counting An announced FREE BOOK line next year which will publish 1 million circulation weekly... making us ALSO the largest print comic company in the world. etc. etc. etc.

I personally don't care either way, but I would love to hear your reasoning for summary deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizbenny (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder who "notified" you. Possibly one of your employees? The article was deleted because it was promotional. It consisted of one long quote from a press release.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Flippingbook Publisher

Why the article was deleted? It was similar to competitors' pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issuu , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uberflip , what is the criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrey Zhitenev (talk • contribs) 06:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The article was tagged for deletion by an administrator, and after having read the article and looked at the few sources, none of which was particularly good, I decided that the article said nothing except what a great product it was. At the same time, it was a close call, so it's possible the article could be recreated and get past a speedy delete, although I don't know what would happen if it was subjected to a more rigorous deletion process like WP:AFD. It doesn't help that you work for the company, which makes it hard for you to create a notable, neutral article because of your obvious conflict.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Chutznik

This user already got warned by you, but after doing some small research, I found this piece of information. If his userpage is correct, he is a sock of Shalom Yechiel and should be blocked immediately. buffbills7701 11:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the user was legitimately unbanned a few months ago (I forget whether by ArbCom or by the community) in response to an appeal and given another chance with the Chutznik account, although he isn't doing much with it at the moment. So he shouldn't be blocked just for being SY, though he can legitimately be told he doesn't have much scope for messing around. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I glanced at the user's history before I warned him. However, if I had sanctioned him, it would have been based on the recent activity, not on the the more complex record before that. If he's violated any conditions on the account, someone who knows more than I would have to look at that. I don't intend to do anything more unless there's new disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Steven Shafer

I was hoping you would contact me when I edited my own web page! Thank you!

I only discovered this page recently (and would be very happy to have no page at all on Wikipedia). Looking at the post, it is very odd that my support of Robert Markman figured so prominently in my page. After decades of research, well over 100 publications, and a very long academic career, why was my web page created in April 2013? Why was my support of Robert Markman added immediately?

The answer is obvious, at least to me. The web page was created by someone associated with Conrad Murray's defense team. I don't know who "stanfordcardanes" is, but my page is the only page ever edited by this person. My page was created shortly after Valerie Wass filed an appeal of Conrad Murray's conviction. Several members of Conrad Murray's defense team have suggested in various venues that my defense Robert Markman is inconsistent with my claims that Conrad Murray violated fundamental medical ethics in his treatment of Michael Jackson.

The Markman story is interesting. I first learned about the case when Dr. Markman submitted a case report to Anesthesia & Analgesia (where I am Editor-in-Chief) describing the case. I received it about a month after the Conrad Murray trial. Because the case involved administration of propofol in a private bedroom, at the time I thought I was being set up by the Conrad Murray defense team. However, after many e-mails, and then many hours on the phone with Dr. Markman, I came to appreciate how difficult, and tragic, this case was. I offered to help him get the care his daughter needed, and was able to get his daughter to Stanford for proper assessment.

Anyway, I believe my page was created to call attention to my defense of Dr. Markman, and thus cast doubt on the credibility of my testimony about Conrad Murray. I'm perfectly happy to have my defense of Dr. Markman known. The facts are the facts. However, the facts need to be correct, and presented with equipoise. If you look at the history edits, you will see the edits to my page by stanfordcardanes have endeavored to cast my support as negatively as possible.

Since I have a page, I thought I should at least have it present my career and my work objectively. However, Wikipedia states (and I concur) that it is a bad idea for someone to edit his or her own page.

What do you suggest? I'm happy to ask that the page just be deleted. However, I'm also happy to send to you the changes I think should be made, and ask you, or another editor, to post them as you see fit. I can do the edits myself, acknowledging the inherent bias in editing ones own page.

I'm open to any and all suggestions, and appreciate your following the page and contacting me about changes.

Thanks!

Steve Shafer [email protected] [email protected] Slshafer (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

One other comment. I see that TW (Twinkle) undid my edits with the comment that it was undoing edits by the purported subject. Nice to know that Twinkle is on the job! However, I am, indeed, the purported subject. How do I tell this to TW?

Thanks,

Steve Shafer Slshafer (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh, the revert, of course, was done by me using Twinkle, which is just a tool to make certain editing tasks easier. As for your comments, I need to take a bit of time to review the article and then I'll get back to you. I may also make some edits to the article in the interim. Thanks for contacting me.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a fair amount of work on the article to make it more compliant with Wikipedia's policies. That doesn't mean that you'll like everything I've done or that more can't be done to improve it. I revisited your earlier edits. I may be able to include some of the material, but it has to be reliably sourced. Thus, for example, the part about your research needs sourcing. The expert testimony in those two other trials cannot be sourced to a blog. They have to be sourced to a real newspaper or magazine, something that Wikipedia considers reliable. I did put in the name change of the company you founded, but I need a source for the change. At the moment, I put it in with a tag. I don't like to do that, but it was the only way to connect the dots. I tried to add another external link for your website at Stanford, but every time I try to access it, it doesn't respond. This link is provided by Stanford. Do you have one that works?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I like your standards! I agree that blogs are not authoritative. For the Willoughby case, is this a suitable reference: "http://times-journal.com/news/article_6228007e-f61c-11e2-a935-001a4bcf887a.html?mode=jqm_rel"? Another reference is from Psychology Today: "http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/crime-she-writes/201305/murder-propofol" These aren't as clean as I'd like, so I can hunt for more if necessary. The Norberg case received a lot of media attention, in part because of the tawdry details (I'll spare you). Here is a link from AP: "http://www.crookstontimes.com/article/20121108/NEWS/121109639?template=printart". I'm much more comfortable with an AP report than the links for Willoughby, but her case was only of local interest in Alabama.

The pro bono part is simply my say-so. To me it is important, because I think it should be the standard expectation for expert witnesses. It's an oxymoron to suggest you can buy expert opinion. However, since it can't be validated (my tax returns aren't public information) I guess it needs to be left off.

I have not kept my Stanford page updated. I'll update that now, and then let you know. You can then decide whether or not you want to link to it. However, if you go to PubMed and put in "Shafer SL" nearly all of the citations will be to my papers. There is an SL Shafer who does work on climatology - not me. However, the rest of the references are to my research or my work as Editor-in-Chief of Anesthesia & Analgesia.

I'm less anxious about the intentions of stanfordcardanes since I know you are tracking the page. I think the intent is malicious, but I defer to your judgment. However, as long as the facts are accurate, intent doesn't matter.

I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia, and contribution yearly during your fund-raising drive. It's interesting to see how this process works. However, how does anyone find time to do what you do for the hundreds of thousands of web pages on Wikipedia? Are you retired, or you just don't like to sleep?

Thanks again for your help.

Steve Shafer Slshafer (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

One of my statements above is false. I said that standordcardanes had only edited my web page. That was because I didn't understand the navigation. I now have the list, and stanfordcardanes has edited more than my page. If you look at this individual's contributions, he or she also edited the page on the trial of Conrad Murray. The edits were limited to taking the references to Shafer, and linking them to my page. This was done exactly at the time that the Dr. Markman blurb was added to my web page. Perhaps I'm paranoid... but I think this fits my interpretation that stanfordcardanes is linked to the Conrad Murray Defense Team, and is using Wikipedia to suggest that my testimony against Conrad Murray is inconsistent with my support of Dr. Markman. The other change is that stanfordcardanes edited my name on the Anesthesia & Analgesia web site, to link it to my own page. Again, I think this is consistent with my interpretation of the intent of stanfordcardanes.

I'd welcome your thoughts and suggestions. Also, I would welcome your comments on whether I should be involved in the editing of my own page. It seems tacky to do so, but I would at least like my page to be accurate.

Thanks again,

Steve Shafer Slshafer (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I'm not retired, so I guess I must not like to sleep; actually, I do have problems with insomnia. :-) I would let go of the Stanfordcardanes issue as they haven't edited in almost four months. Unless they return and are disruptive, it's unlikely any action would be taken against them. You seem like a capable fellow, but I still think you should avoid editing your own article. You don't necessarily have to come here with suggestions. It's actually preferable to go to the article talk page so more editors can evaluate your proposals. I'll review the sources you mentioned above for your participation in the two other trials, but it won't be until tomorrow because I'm a bit worn out from today's issues (not yours - others). Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you NOT treat your insomnia with propofol! :)

You asked for a link to my Stanford web page. I think this will do it: http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/Steven_Shafer/

Good advice on stanfordcardanes. If I put suggestions on the talk page, will editors randomly drop by pick them up?

Thanks again,

Steve Slshafer (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added the Norberg material. I needed to find a source as to what happened to Norberg, mainly because I needed to know the verdict for WP:BLP reasons. So, there are two sources. One of the Willoughby sources I can't see because I don't have a subscription. The other doesn't strike me as appropriate. If I understand properly, you never actually testified because she pled. If that's true, the material wouldn't be noteworthy anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Procedure for checking sockpupperty

Hi, on Islam in the United States there is an edit by a brand new user who is behaving identical to another user. Now I know you cannot accuse without evidence *that much I know*.But the procedure to deal with it is unclear to me. So what is the procedure as it is very suspect to see the same tenacity and edit style. [Brinkidiom] vs 22 Male Cali--Inayity (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

First, don't continue the edit war. As for whether Brinkidiom is a sock of 22 Male Cali, there's not enough for me to block. It's true that both have battled over the images, but with the exception of Rima Fakih, there are some significant differences between the edits, making it hard to call. If you want, you could open a report at WP:SPI, but it's not clear what the reaction will be there or whether someone will feel a CU is warranted. That said, I've warned the new account of edit warring. I'm not warning you because you've reverted only twice in this episode, but don't push it, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I will leave it. But part of the problem is when more people do not get involved in maintaining certain standards. It is more than a case of I am right he is wrong. Where BLP is concerned only the person protecting BLP is correct re: Nadia Ali. I also believe wiki works by Talk Page agreement, clearly the new user has skipped all of that and pushed the 22 Male Cali version (why then do we have a talk page?). . I wish Wiki was more tidy but rules and instructions are very scattered. I have been here a while and it is very confusing about SPI etc. [46]--Inayity (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I sympathize with how hard it can be to understand all the policies and procedures at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you didn't file the report properly. If you look at it, you can see it's pretty messy. I can fix the mess, but the sock master should have been 22 Male Cali. Brinkidiom would be the puppet. I'll see what I can do to help a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Brinkidiom's version is completely different from mines. i got admins involved at ani so you think i'm that stupid to make a new name and go to the same page and do what that other editor did?--22 Male Cali (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that's a rhetorical question.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, perhaps you are that stupid.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you can just Dial Up a Friend in another country, he seems to know you and him/her are not in the same country. What info do you two share to know this? Please note they use the same remarks to "non-liberal" editors- on a low edit page. What are the odds? Same fanatic love for people with no open Islamic identity etc etc, Tag-Team at best. --Inayity (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

One-sided action

Regarding this WP:ANI case.

I just want you to recognize that you took action based on hearing just one side of the dispute. Not cool. Gunbirddriver filed the report at 1:27 (GMT). You were still attending to several user talk pages up till 1:47. By around 2:00 your attention was finally on WP:ANI and at 2:10 you effected a 48-hour ban. You couldn't possibly have investigated all the background info in just less than 20 minutes.

Some of what Gunbirddriver said are inflated and a few are flat-out false. If you had read through all the discussions he cited, you would have seen that for yourself. For a starting point, the proceeds of DRN case doesn't add up to what he claimed. Notice that in the DRN, Gunbirddriver refused to see this issue as a content-dispute, which is exactly what it is.

He summarily categorized the dispute as a mere case of edit warring and misconduct, and showed little interest in participating in the resolution of the dispute. He is the only editor involved in the discussion that strictly approached it with such mentality and still does. And the reason for such attitude stems from some rough encounters we've had in the past that goes back several months, long before this dispute.

The DRN ended with 4 editors (Binksternet, Magus732, Someone not using his real name, EyeTruth) supporting the inclusion of blitzkrieg and 3 editors against it. One of the 3 editors, User:Hasteur, explicitly stated that he/she is specifically against the "After-the-battle characterization", which is not what the dispute is about. The whole dispute is about the "Before-the-battle characterization." The case eventually closed as "unresolved" because, as stated and agreed upon by two DRN-volunteers early on in the case, a simple majority alone would not be enough to resolve the dispute. The DRN also ended with a presentation of 8 secondary sources explicitly supporting the inclusion of blitzkrieg against none explicitly opposing it. Just see the DRN case for yourself. I won't say anymore. Just check out the DRN. And compare it to the picture Gunbirddriver painted in the WP:ANI report.

Also check out the diffs Gunbirddriver posted in the WP:ANI report. Keep in mind that they span a period of two months, and reflect the talkpage discussions that are well over 100 KB of readable prose. Besides, the term Blitzkrieg has always been in the article ever since at least 2009 until May 2013 when Gunbirddriver cleansed the article of the term. It's almost ironic that I'm referred to as the editor trying to "include" the term in the article, when in reality I'm trying to retain it since numerous sources support it. The whole point is that Gunbirddriver presented a very skewed account of the dispute and you acted on just that. Worse of all, you did not even give me a chance to say a thing. The way you handled that case felt really partial. EyeTruth (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed what happened again, and I believe my block was misplaced, although not for any of the reasons you've mentioned here or in the unblock request on your talk page. The tipping reason for the block was your alleged failure to heed a warning from another administrator. However, now that I've reviewed the events, your last revert on the article was before the warning, not after. And the other administrator had declined to block either you or the other editor when evaluating the first report at WP:AN3.

I'm not sure what you would like me to do at this point. Obviously, I can't unblock you because the block has expired. I can and do apologize for my error. Beyond that, I'm open to suggestions. For example, I can post a note on your talk page that explains what happened, essentially repeating what I've said here. If you have another suggestion, I'm listening.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It just felt so partial, and I was wondering if it was some planned and calculated move to help the other editor. I was just really curious. But it turned out to be a honest mistake. Apology accepted. Nothing else needed. I don't have any other suggestions. But you can look into the dispute if you wish. (But please don't judge me based on my tone towards a "certain editor". Some of those (but not all) who overlooked my tone, saw the sense in what I'm saying). EyeTruth (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I don't recall even looking at your "tone", so need to worry about my judging you based on that. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

One more thing. Reading your post a second time made me wonder whether you mean that you are endorsing how Gunbirddriver painted the dispute when you made this statement: "I've reviewed what happened again, and I believe my block was misplaced, although not for any of the reasons you've mentioned here or in the unblock request on your talk page." As in, are you saying that after you looked into everything Gunbirddriver posted, you think it perfectly presents how the dispute played out? Sorry, if I'm asking too much, but I'm really curious as to what you exactly mean by that statement, or am I just over-assuming things? EyeTruth (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You're reading too much into my statement. I rarely get involved in content disputes when evaluating an edit warring report, and I didn't here. In your unblock request you didn't address the "failure to heed warning" part of the block. If you had, I would have looked more closely. You concentrated on the content/consensus aspects. I had no opinion then - nor do I have one now - on the content issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for explaining. Take care! EyeTruth (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There is something wrong. I just checked the article's history and noticed that the block you effected indirectly gave Gunbirddriver the green light to make changes that he was asked not to make by the previous administrator that intervened in this dispute. The DRN case ended with 4 editors against Gunbirdrdiver's position (2 others supported his position). More than 7 sources that explicitly countered Gunbirdrdiver's position were presented by the four editors, and none was presented to show explicit support for his position. 2 sources were presented but it required editors to imply that blitzkrieg is what the passage was talking about.(See the DRN case).

One of the editors (Sturmvogel 66) supporting Gunbirdrdiver's position already reluctantly agreed to go along with the inclusion of term that Gundbirdriver seeks to remove. This was Sturmvogel 66's statement: "While I don't agree that it was a blitzkrieg in any way, the consensus, such as it was with the editors who did comment [in the DRN case], would seem to be to call it a failed blitzkrieg. But I'd suggest adding in a note that many historians do not agree with that assessment and fail to characterize it as such." (See the article's talkpage)

Even an editor (Azx2) that just recently joined the dispute on the article's talkpage, introduced his/her position as follows: "[Gunbirddriver], why don't you create one of the reference notes that you're so proficient with and include it immediately after the word blitzkrieg in the text, where you explain that there's no definitive consensus that Unternehmen Zitadelle was ever even conceived of as such a campaign, let alone executed accordingly?" (See the article's talkpage)

The other editor (Hasteur) supporting Gunbirdrdiver's position in the DRN case also noted his reason for supporting the exclusion of the term as follows: "While I do not have access to the literature myself, based on the representations and characterizations I think that the "After the battle" characterization cannot be blitzkrieg outright." This rationale was criticized by three other editors (Binksternet, EyeTruth, Magus732), who pointed out that the dispute is regarding the "Before-the-battle" characterization. As a counter to Hasteur's rationale, Magus732 said: "The German forces went into battle looking to crush the Soviets at Krusk, only to be beaten back. The term blitzkrieg doesn't refer to the actual battle in this case, but to the German mindset going in." Binksternet said: "I think the German intention to engage in lightning battle (blitzkrieg) should be briefly described as wishful thinking. The actual battle should be described as a deadly slugfest, whatever is the opposite of blitzkrieg." And EyeTruth said: "What you just addressed is almost irrelevant to the dispute. You are addressing "After the battle" when the dispute is for "Before the battle." You just went off on a tangent and none of the sources were even claiming a blitzkrieg-characterization for "After the battle."" Hasteur never responded to these comments, nor did any other editor. (See the DRN case).

This is the diff of the portion Gunbirdrdiver removed from the article. It is thoroughly cited with reliable sources and has explanatory citation-notes. (It doesn't even have all the citations raised in the DRN case). It is fairly supported by some editors as seen in the DRN Case.

The point is that Gunbirdrdiver is the only editor that has refused to bend to the simple majority of the DRN case. Well, he categorically refused to see the dispute as a content-dispute in the DRN case. The last administrator that intervened in the dispute already warned him not to make anymore changes and also warned me not to take my changes any further. But your ban gave him the greenlight to make the changes. EyeTruth (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

EyeTruth, I'm going to respond briefly because, as I stated before, I don't want to get immersed in the content dispute. My block (it's not a ban) of you did not give Gunbirddriver a "green light" to do anything. Just as Gunbirddriver brought a report to ANEW about you, you could do the same with respect to him. You could also go directly to the admin who issued the warning and see what his take is on all of this. I don't feel comfortable at this point taking any administrative action, but I express no opinion on whether it's warranted. Some advice. If you choose to seek sanctions against Gunbirddriver, make sure your claims are accurate, brief, and conduct-related. When it comes to sanctions, administrators are generally more interested in misconduct than content issues (unless the content egregiously violates policy, which is not the case here).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see any need to seek any sanction against Gunbirddriver. I don't want this to go from a content-dispute to admin-wheeling; I can't speak for Gunbirddriver, though. I just wanted to make sure that you did not endorse his actions. My goal is to resolve this content dispute, and only Gunbridriver is still actively against the solution suggested by several editors that got involved in the DRN case. BTW, by "ban", I mean't a block. Sorry if my usage of the word carried a different connotation for you. EyeTruth (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So following a link posted by another editor I happen to stumble upon the blocking policy page and learned about block log. Was this block also recorded in the block log? If it is, can you rectify it? How do I see the block log? Thanks. (I really appreciate your honesty. Thanks again). EyeTruth (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about my block of you. You should be able to see that from your contributions page: EyeTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). My interface is different because I'm an administrator, but it is available to you. The block log history cannot be changed. In other words, the block entry cannot be removed or even annotated. However, there is a way to record the "mistake" if you wish me to do so. I would block you for a very short time and in the block reason note that the previous block was made in error (see WP:COOLDOWN). Then, you'd have two block entries, but the history would be clearer to anyone looking at your log in the future. Do you wish me to do that?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand but sure, I trust ya. EyeTruth (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see the block log. I understand now. Yeah, do it.EyeTruth (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I just want to make sure we are in agreement before I do it. The reason for the new block would be: Block of August 5, 2013, was made in error. Is that okay?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"This block is just to make a note that the block of August 5, 2013, was made in error." That way it is clear that the only reason for the block is to make a note, so nothing is left to speculation. What do you think? EyeTruth (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of wordy, EyeTruth. I really don't think anyone will think you're being blocked for a reason other than to note that the previous block was an error. It's pretty clear - not to mention that the block duration will be one minute.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Go for it.EyeTruth (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)