User talk:Bbb23/Archive 19

Administrative action

Hi Bbb23. Please see the note on your comment over at the administrative page. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed your comments. There's no reason to bring your claims from WP:AN3 to here. I have read what you wrote there. As I stated to EyeTruth below, what would be most constructive would be for you to resolve your dispute. If you can't interact with each other in a forward-going manner, then bring in other editors to help achieve a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your help. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For your honesty and sense of integrity in rectifying this tangle. EyeTruth (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks EyeTruth, I'm glad we could work this out. Please try to settle your content dispute with Gunbirddriver in a civil and non-disruptive manner. Remember, there are dispute resolution mechanisms available to you to assist you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

L.A. Frank's

Hey Bbb23, I am not advertising. You have just deleted my page 'L.A. Frank's'. I am not in any way associated with them. I posted the menu and that's it. I don't know why this is advertising when I also posted the history. Can you return my page please? I just spent my morning working on it. This is relevent as L.A. Frank's has been around for 20 years and consistently gets a large customer turnout. Am I not aloud to post the menu? I am interested in hearing your reply as you have just deleted the page that I spent my time on. Again, I am just a local kid who goes to L.A. Frank's so I have no incentive to advertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike123321123 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because you have no vested interest in the restaurant doesn't mean that the page wasn't promotional. Why on earth would you want to post the menu of the restaurant? Wikipedia is not a proxy for a restaurant website. I also deleted it because there was no claim of significance.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Those articles should be deleted

Dear Bbb23, Can you please report these articles for deletion because I think they are using Wikipedia as a free advertising website, without sources and clone articles:

• Miss Multiverse Belgium
• Miss Multiverse Netherlands
• Miss Multiverse Dominican Republic

Thank you.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Angelo, you can, of course, use one of the deletion processes yourself, but, as I think you're already aware, there appears to be a broader problem with these articles and the editor who created them. It might be more efficient to tackle that problem rather than addressing each article piecemeal. At the end of the day, putting aside the conflict and promotional issues, it will matter whether these articles are notable. I'd have to look a lot more closely at all of it to make my own determination.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, The Banner had reported them. Someone tried to make Wikipedia becomes trashy, it's really pissed-off to me. Thank you again, have a nice day.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Only to get frustrated by refusals so the SPAM is still there... The Banner talk 09:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

thank you for undoing my edit

I am in the process of getting help at the teahouse for this. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, it's a learning process. BTW, the film may be deletable per WP:NFF - I didn't check.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Abuse of admin templates

Hey, Bbb23. Don't sweat it, man. I'm used to it. Every time I post a message that this certain user sees – no matter what – he posts a threatening template in my talk page. Every. Time. It's like having a flower patch at the edge of the jungle: Every now and then an animal might ruin it or pee in it. I have developed a client-side JSON script that visits my talk page and undoes the latest edit by him. I receive far more irritating spam more often than stupid templates from this user.

Reactions from third parties is also not new. Before Codename, Jasper Deng and someone tried to revert these templates. Just don't sweat it. Automation's got it covered. Fleet Command (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Asylum Support Partnership

Can I ask why the Asylum Support Partnership is being deleated. This is a part of the official and UK Government sponsored Asylum System, though often in conflict with now disbanded/rebranding United Kingdom Border Agency.

The Importance of the Partnership is that it combines all the agencies in Britain being supported with (limited) finding from the Home Office (if this as caused some confusion as Home office in America often in Means a company office) in the UK the Home Office is the Administrative part of the Government in England, and in this case it also is including the Scottish Office (government of Scotland) and Welsh Office (Government of Wales) though the Northern Ireland office (Ulster Government) has still not integrated.

As such its relevance is of those researching or seeking Asylum in Britain, and all the other Wiki Links lead to the partner members, but not the whole of Britain (IE people dont decide to claim Asylum in Liverpool they claim Asylum in Britain (England/Scotland/Wales). This means it is a part of what in American Terms would be a federal agency. People dont claim Asylum in Texas they claim asylum in the United States of America and may end up in Texas. It was put up as a dispute of the deletion, but the dispute on its second listing was dealting before being read as the dispute button does not seem to exist.

This is linked through from even the UKBA (like us Department of Immigration). In American legal terms the UKBA could be seen as the prosecution and the Asylum Support Partnership is like the public defenders office, and like that it does not get much funding as the government does not like funding agencies to dispute its decision and sub contracts funding through pre established partnerships. The Partner members. I think the problem is the American Centric nature of Wiki may not understand what the Asylum Support Partnership is (also the agreements are very new as it was realised different parts of the country were sometimes competing with each other and duplicating services (then got a 72 percent asusterity cut).

Repeatedly recreating the article without satisfying Wikipedia's policies is going to get you nowhere. I suggest you try WP:AFC so other more experienced editors can help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain why although pages about Partner Members is allowed, a page about the Asylum Partnership and changes to the UK Asylum Support system structure is not allowed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Royblewitt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royblewitt (talk • contribs) 18:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Also followed the WP:AFC instructions to create it as a dummy on user page and it took whole user page, just like when the first dispute said to go to page and dispute its deletion was deleted as the page being deleted was already deleted.

Found the review bit here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Asylum_Support_Partnership

There would be a lot of links pointing to this page, which is why I created it as the Refugee Council had already put up the link but not the page or it had been removed.

You have to click on the Submit button.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Gun politics in the United Kingdom

Yes, you're right about it being 2006. In addition to the actual report page, the BASC press release states "Friday 29 September" - the only year that date fell on a Friday in the last seven years was 2006. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Islam in the United States

I see that you fully protected "Islam in the United States" article and that is perfectly fine by me. But I do've one concern: Louis Farrakhan (only person whose image is present twice) and his group are being over-advertised. As far as I know, I don't think that is justifiable by any means on Wikipedia. Also, by seeing the editing pattern, I can pretty much tell that the two editors who are trying to overkill the article by inserting Louis Farrakhan in gross excess of what is reasonably expected, are connected in some way, as mentioned by another editor on the SPI-page. I believe that we are dealing with hardline people here - user Inayity mentions on the SPI that only ""practicing Muslims" can be added, [1] meaning women who do not put on the Hijab are excluded. He also made it clear here--Brinkidiom (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no overriding policy basis for picking a particular version to lock. You'll have to take your arguments to the article talk page. And please stop with the "connected in some way" claims, as well as your other speculation of bias.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Strange how both Brinkidiom and User:22 Male Cali have this habit of seeing endless conspiracy theory where editors are concerned. Maybe it is just a coincidence. --Inayity (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm ... that lingering SPI. Please make it faster if you can, Bbb23 (big bad boss at 23)--Brinkidiom (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You already know you and him are on two different continents. Wikipedia:Meat puppetry And before editing that article clear it on the talk page. A place your energy has never been seen in. --Inayity (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits comments

Since you are the blocking admin of 117.196.72.94, I have come to you to ask you to delete their edit comments too here and here. Apart from the first three words, the rest of the words are in Hindi, and the meaning of the terms can very easily be determined by a google search (they are quite offensive). This just creates an unpleasant environment to edit an article. Also, I am not sure if deleting an edit comment is done for comments in languages other that English. Kindly tell me if that is the case :) Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You want me to revdel the edit summaries? I wouldn't do it based on the English part. What does the Hindi translate to in English?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have sent the translation to your Wikipedia email. Thanks for looking into it! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's quite, uh, colorful. Let me think about it. Revdeling material is dicey and administrators often disagree on what needs to be deleted and what doesn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but i brought this to your attention only because that article is also a part of WikiProject India, and a large number of viewers/editors would understand what is written. Otherwise I would have just ignored that, as i usually do when frustrated vandals write similar stuff on my talk page ;) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry it took so long.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! No problem! :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 10:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ken Cuccinelli

Why have you removed this reference ot Washington Post article all other sources and content covering Cuccinelli's involvement in this case? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You've been reverted by two editors. If you still want the material included, please take it to the article talk page, not mine. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You removed an entire section of content and all the included sources such as the one I noted above. Why do you think this content and these sources shouldn't be included in the article? Please explain yourself.

You've also misrepresented my actions. I reverted one wholesale removal of the content. Then, after reviewing the sources and content a second time after it was again removed, I trimmed the disputed section and readded it a second time after which you removed all of it again. Please explain yourself. What was your reasoning? Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Block of Fareed30

Hey Bbb, Thanks for taking care of 22 Male Cali's sockpuppetry. After declining the very disingenuous unblock request form 22 Male, I'm wondering why you didn't indef Fareed30 (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It was a discretionary call, Todd. Generally, we don't block the master indefinitely when the sock puppetry is first discovered, although obviously there are exceptions when the behavior is egregious. For me it was a close call, but I preferred to err on the side of leniency. However, I wouldn't object if you wanted to raise the issue with other admins and see if there's a consensus for an indefinite block of the master. Frankly, now or later, my guess is the user will dig himself into an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool. WP:ITSALLGREY. I left this when I was a bit annoyed at the nonsense with the unblocks. I agree about your observations on WP:ROPE as well. Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, I didn't know about that essay. Naturally, they used the British spelling.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am them. Cheers. :) Toddst1 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Roguerafter

Hi Bbb23-- Why was I "Speedily Deleted"? All I have recently done is added information about the hospitals in my area, I do not work for them, nor am I trying to promote them. I started the page for our local hospital and added their recent ratings and stuff that had had been on the news recently. For the record-- I would never go to Three Rivers Medical Center even if I was about to die on the doorstep!

Thanks, Roguerafter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roguerafter (talk • contribs) 19:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is User:Abhimanyu16792?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any idea, honestly.... That's part of why I was so confused. Just got a message saying I have a may a conflict of interest with Rogue Regional Medical Center from OrangeMike on my user talk. Just added some info to the page, that's all, no conflict of interest, actually never even been in that hospital. Should I contact him about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roguerafter (talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your user page was deleted as vandalism because it was created by a user other than you. Assuming there's no connection between you and the other user, it was not deleted because of anything you did. You got the conflict message because your user name is similar to the company name and you're editing that article. Why'd you pick that name?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, makes more sense now. I picked the name because we live on the Rogue River, and we are always rafting. I use it as my username on almost every site and blog actually. Roguerafter (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh, that's very funny. I've been on Wikipedia too long. Makes me jaded. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

50.131.100.128 and Mickey Hart again.

Hello, Bbb23. It seems that 50.131.100.128 (talk · contribs) has not been dissuaded from changing dates in Mickey Hart related articles, and other articles also, while refusing to discuss the changes with other editors, despite the recent five-day block that you administered. I would request that you consider the use of sterner measures. Thanks. (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ken Cuccinelli redux

Can we re-add the text you removed from the article as you've now had a chance to recognize that the source used was valid and the content belongs? It would be helpful if you replied to posts on your talk page and communicated your objections if you still have any. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your block threat

Can you point me to the applicable rule? I've never seen unblocked users forced to maintain a tag like that. It's like branding the user. Minorview (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC

Can you explain why you are threatening to block me? Warnings and notices are usually required when there's an active sanction. Minorview (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Article probation blocks

Hey - try this new template next time: {{subst:Uw-csblock|anon=No|time=Indefinite|reason=A different reason|notalk=no|page=Men's rights movement|sig=yes|log=Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation}}--v/r - TP 15:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, TP, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

SOCET GXP

BBB23, I noticed you had deleted the SOCET GXP page. Would it be okay to reactivate the page, but using encyclopedic information that is congruent to pages such as RemoteView? I will ensure the overall structure of information is similar.

8/22/13 I have created a page, to be reviewed by editors. Jacobhsieh (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Congress

Reliable reference source now added -- although this is common knowledge for anyone who is a student of U.S. civics. Was not "original research" or "novel synthesis."

"Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to United States Congress. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.47.100.150 (talk)

First, your edit screwed up the page. You should really look at your edit before saving it. Second, you continue to misspell words. Finally, I'm not convinced the material is noteworthy. My suggestion is you take it to the article talk page and see what other editors think.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Blanking Block

Please show me where in WP:Blanking it says removing a block notice is not allowed, because I did not see it, so as I see it, the block you put on my Talk page should not have occurred. TySoltaur (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction." (bolding added) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough TySoltaur (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: MRM probation on Reddit article

Yeah, I had a lightbulb-coming-on moment during the day and was going to get on the talk page as soon as I got back to my computer to write "yo, I'm going to be keeping to 1RR now etc., recommend everyone else do the same." Thanks for beating me to it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Grant Cardone

Why did you edited out all the text on the page of Grant Cardone? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Cardone) I spent quite some time putting everything together with the guidlines of wikipedia. It's my 10th page I work on/create, and thus I follow the rules and only put accurate published and recognized content/info. I'd love to know how we could work this out and roll back the work I've put in, to enable this page to benefit the research and efforts it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valefebvre (talk • contribs) 12:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please Userify Not Dead Yet

Please undelete Not Dead Yet to my Sandbox at User:Dodger67/Sandbox/Not Dead Yet. It would be trivially easy for the subject to meet the Notability standard. I would like to see what the deleted article was like - perhaps it has usable content and references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If not to his then to mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disabed and proud (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it to Dodger67's location.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sinclaip's block

I reported Sinclaip (talk · contribs) for sock puppetry [2] and she was blocked for it by @Someguy1221:. You reviewed her request for unblocking. Her statement about subcontracting for someone rings true, including all the details: the "sockmaster" appears to be a company that hires Wikipedia editors temporarily in just the way she described. While she didn't exactly promise not to do it again, she did admit to it and express contrition. It may be appropriate to unblock her; if not, could a more specific explanation be given about what she needs to do for the block to be lifted? —rybec 14:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, she apparently doesn't want to edit anymore, so I'm not sure why it matters. Still, if you wish to pursue it, I suggest you talk to Someguy1221.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Knnindia added spam on talk page

Hi. It may become necessary to block User:Knnindia from editing their talk page. Your block notice was removed here and a new spam section added here. I reverted. No need to reply; just letting you know. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 19:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc Tree. I've revoked the user's talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit war at Wikipedia:Banning policy. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bushranger. It looks like you've disposed of the issue. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not Dead Yet

Why was the article removed? Ace-o-aces (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It was moved to User:Dodger67/Sandbox/Not Dead Yet. It's not ready for mainspace yet, as it doesn't assert notability. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia - Lauri Flaquer

Hi Bbb23 Might you be able to explain specifically the reason the Wikipedia for Lauri Flaquer was considered advertising? I'm working on understanding the rules are here and don't know what the issue is. Maybe you could give me some insight. Thank you, (Cyclosuccess (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC))

Here are some examples of the promotional language:

• "A childhood rich with art and music, Flaquer remembers her father, a lifelong musician, hosting jam sessions and her mother, a naturally talented artist, creating fine art. She attributes her love of art, music and culture to those early years."
• " A passion for travel and a desire to experience foreign cultures was fostered in those early days."
• "An avid reader by the age of 12"
• "eager to experience a completely different culture"
• "later with famed motion picture make-up artist and author, Vincent Kehoe"
• "Fascinated by business, she spent any free time available speaking with the owner about how to run a successful salon."
• "Carr was a brilliant consultant, vibrant speaker and talented organizational development specialist, but not adept at sales and marketing."

There's more, but that's enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I understand now. If any changes were made to the subjective language and adjectives removed, would this be approved? (Cyclosuccess (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC))

No. (That's just my comment on what I would do...) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Why, Demiurge1000, are you recommending no? Does that mean, no, don't make the change? No, not to approve? What does the "no" mean?

Thanks for your input. Your time and consideration are appreciated.(Cyclosuccess (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC))

Non English

Hi Bbb23, I proposed deleting Suiza Karol and you've reverted it. OK maybe G1 doesn't apply for an article written in a foreign language. Then which tag should I use ? I can understand the text. But over 99% of WP readers won't understand anything. Do you think we should keep it in an English encyclopedia ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If you understand the text, then you can use any speedy delete tag that does apply based on your understanding. Possibilities might include WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Friends of science in medicine

Dear Bbb23,

The page was intended as information on an association that is currently growing at a rapid rate in Australia. The association is run by some of the highest regarded professors and academics in Australia at this current time and is involved on a daily basis with the media.

I would like to contest this deletion. section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion does not apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJFryzy (talk • contribs) 01:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)DJFryzy (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no claim in the article that made it notable other than it exists and what it is. The only sources were to the organization website.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If the sources are the issue, I would be more than happy to refer to further sources and additional information. DJFryzy (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. I'd like to take a look at the previous content and work on it. Maybe I can whip it into shape. Please place the content here: User:BullRangifer/Friends_of_Science_in_Medicine. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's done. Next time, don't create the destination page because I just have to delete what you create. Just tell me the path. Saves me a step.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sheldon Solow

Good morning. I disagree with your revision of my edit. On the other hand, I am impressed by your quality of your work and so assume you have good editorial judgement. Kindly take a look at what you deleted with fresh eyes. I think at least the son's name should be included as he seems increasingly important. Or not. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up, User:PaulinSaudi, I have to show some support here because it happened to me too - please take a look at our short discussion at the article's talk page. The entire information I added in this version was deleted, and I still disagree with that decision, because all the sources are quite reliable and with just a few edits one can me the article look more neutral. User:Bbb23, with all due respect, I think you're a bit too critical. Shalom11111 (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I won't be able to look at this until probably Saturday. Please remind me if come Sunday, I haven't done anything. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright no problem then here's the reminder, thanks in advance. Shalom11111 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh, now it's Sunday (my time). I've edited the article to add back in Paul's material. I've reworded it and sourced it more clearly (the NYT article is helpful - better to cite the online version for readers). I've included Stefan, but the article never really defines his role in the business, so I've left it intentionally vague.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Old sockpuppetry case

I think 201.215.187.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just "resurrected" as 75.98.19.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – can you check that? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

...and here's a brand new one: 209.226.201.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

...and another one: 81.133.23.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

...and the IP's de jour are 83.244.194.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 46.37.55.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting a little dizzy. The latest IPs you note are all supposedly from the UK. Now we have Chile, Canada, and the UK. I can see they are editing the same articles and have the same style, although each of the new ones has made very few edits, but I'm not sure picking them off one by one is the best way to go because, assuming they are the same person, xe is fairly devious. And I know less about this sort of technical deviousness than some. Perhaps we should be protecting certain articles?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Kournikova is protected, but now the IP is trying to bombard the talk page. By all means, protect however many articles (and talk pages) you see fit, I'm all up for it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu

Please talkback and more importantly help here: Talk:Asaram_Bapu#Removed_sections. Note, I'll ask one or two more WikiProject India experts to check PoV pushing, and political gaming in this article. Your help will be appreciated. Tito☸Dutta 07:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page, I've locked the article and restored a different version. I also just opened a topic at WP:AN if you wish to comment. Probably not the help you wanted (smile), but it's what I thought was warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your revert has been incorrectly assessed at WP:AN. You have provided toolserver edit count link. But, the thing which got unnoticed, that one of the 3 or 4 reverts was a revert of your edit, which makes you WP:INVOLVED, second, you have protected your version (which was reverted), WP:FULL does not permit it.

Anyway, just yesterday I was participating in another WP:FULL issue, where I was supporting an admin, see User_talk:Mark_Arsten/Archive_the_twelfth#Blocked. I don't have much energy (and time) left to discuss/debate on another. If you think these two points have merit, you can post there, or just forget these. (see next point).

Actually your WP:FULL has helped. I was going to request it soon (yesterday I posted at NPOV noticeboard too). The only issue which I request you to consider" the recent minor girl issue is a current event, thousands of people are visiting the article these days (see recent page view stats). And that has been covered in numerous new articles. So, full protected version of our article is backdated. If not, BLPCRIME, that can be added as a BLPCONTROVERSY.

More importantly, who is going to the answer to my request? I have posted at NPOV noticeboard, India noticeboard, but, no one replied. And that recent User:Pee.. Tito☸Dutta 07:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your post at NPOVN is problematic in at least two respects. First and foremost, the most pressing issue isn't neutrality. Second, you don't really say anything to make a case there. The BLP issues have to be resolved before anything can go forward. Thus, you should either be posting at BLPN or at least addressing the issues at the article talk page. You tried to do that in your post before I locked the page, but although the points you raised were interesting, they didn't suggest what could be done and why. (I agree with you that Pee3.14159 appears to be a problem, but that's a separate issue and needs to be dealt with in the usual ways.)--Bbb23 (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you accept Tito's contention that protecting your version which contained a revert of a revert of your edit had made you WP:INVOLVED because of which you were not permitted to protect your version because of WP:FULL? Secondly, the criticism Asaram Bapu is facing is similar to the criticism faced by David Miscavige on Miscavige's wiki page (see the 'Media Coverage and Criticism' section in the WP page of Miscavige in particular). So your wholesale removal of the criticism (and protecting the page) is something i protest against, particularly since you were involved in the editing of the main article. Soham321 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Request

Might you be able to fully delete the section that I posted Lauri Flaquer? Even after viewing several pages, I can't seem to figure out how to do so. Thank you for your help with this. I appreciate your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclosuccess (talk • contribs)

You want me to delete the section higher up on my talk page that you started?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Meytal Cohen

I believe she deserves her own wiki page, because she has the second most visted channel on youtube for a female drummer.

She is already listed on List of female drummers and now she just finished a crowdfunding project on kickstarter that got more than 2 or 3 times what she pladged, to start working on her debut album with original songs.

I am a drummer myself and believe me, she has the talent, she plays so naturally you feel like you can grab a stick and do the same yourself. She plays incredibly complex songs with a smile on her face.

She also has an amazing crowd following her around on the internet, from all over the world.

I saw all the lists about drummers and I never heard of some of the drummers listed there, while she is generating a lot of buzz on youtube.

She has her own website, has many videos on youtube, has videos and tapes teaching how to play, releasing her debut album, she is an acomplished musician with an incredible talent.

In my opinion, she deserves way more than just a page on wikipedia, but that for her will be enough.

Thank you for your time and patience.

(sorry, it has been a long time that I don't login to wikipedia and I lost my user and pass. I'm trying to recover it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.5.55 (talk)

The most recent version of an article about her (there've been at least three) was deleted per WP:CSD#G11. In relooking at it, I should have also included WP:CSD#A7. It had no claim of significance, and it talked about how she sells videos and other merchandise on her website. You're going to have do much better than that, and the kinds of staterments you make above won't help matters. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu‎ article is biased, and doesn't meet wikipedia standards, please remove the page

In the article about Asaram Bapu controversies have been highlighted in non-neutral fashion and are not showing the two sides. For example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asaram_Bapu#Statements_on_2012_Delhi_gang_rape_victim Asaram Babu's comment was interpreted by media as if he said that the (rape) victim was equally responsible as the rapists.

Refer ( video translation not availble ) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyWHg0drKSk

In this video, Asaram Babu himself clarifies that he didn't never said that, what he said was that since the (victim) girl was the only bread earner in the family, the parent of the girl may come to Asaram Babu's Asharam if they like and he would support them by the donations that he recieves. He later said that "Taali ek haath sey nahin bajti" direct translation would mean "It is not possible to clap with one hand" literal meaning of which is, "Mistake is not of one individual, it takes two for a quarrel" ... this he said later in reference to dowry laws, which was manipulated by paid-media and presented as if he said it implying tha the girl was as guilty and the rapists.

I have written articles in past and have found that wikipedia admins rigourosly analyze available information and then make posts. Now since these video is in Hindi language, admins might have simply ignored the actual video and posted what was posted in the newspapers.

Now since this page has been blocked by wiki admins, and we cannot add any references and clarification.

Please fix this article, as this article because of it's biased nature doesn't meet wikipedia standards. If that is not possible, I request that this article be deleted instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashaanktulsyan (talk • contribs) 13:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to comment, use the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you I have commented in the article talk page. Please look into the comment or refer some expert to do the same. Thanks again.--Shashaanktulsyan (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin_User:Bbb23.27s_actions_on_Asaram_Bapu. Thank you. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is the sockpuppet investigation link?

You have recently blocked this user:Breadinglover on charges of sock puppetry. I was one of the first to interact with the user and this is what got me interested. I've searched but could not find any sock puppet investigations on this user. There is a chance that this has been done in haste, could there be an investigation? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There has been extensive disruptive sock puppetry and possibly meat puppetry on these articles. I blocked this user based on WP:DUCK, although there was an investigation of the master and some of the puppets. It was not done in haste.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Well, I guess it seemed kind of obvious, seeing what all has happened before in that article. The user has filed an appeal to be unblocked, lets see what happens. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Lauren Harries

Hi. I find it almost impossible to believe that Loreen Harris and Lauren Harries are two different people; Loreen Harris had a chart hit shortly before Lauren Harries appeared on Celebrity Big Brother, and it is very, very common for Big Brother contestants to do something semi-notable before going on to the show (1st, 2nd and 3rd placed contestants in regular Big Brother Sam Evans, Dexter Koh and Gina Rio appeared on Deal or no Deal, a newspaper story detailing his sugar daddy antics and a newspaper story regarding how she was the most spoilt girl in Britain respectively). Do you not find that suspicious?--Launchballer 18:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to find some secondary sources to back up the claim of the song and that your recently created redirect is supportable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. For the time being, I've changed where Loreen Harris redirects to to I Love It (Icona Pop song).--Launchballer 18:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, very good of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Aarthi Aggarwal

Hi. You reverted the (birth date)changes I made on above person's page. If you closely see the sources mentioned for Aarthi's birthday, the sources are for some other person (named Trisha). There is no mention of above named person in those citations. Both Aarthi Aggarwal and Trisha are different individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenis23 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. I've adjusted the article accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Improper block

Hello, you've recently blocked Special:Contributions/96.50.86.210 who was trying to removed some biased and incorrect information from the Canadian Cadet pages, which was added today by a person who is carrying out his own little war against the program through many means (mainly Facebook). It would honestly be a better idea to block the person playing the countervandalism game who kept reverting the removal by multiple people, who didn't bother to actually examine the information being added. I would ask on behalf of whoever that IP is (I'm not exactly sure myself) that you remove the block. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for edit warring and for probable multiple account abuse. At this point I have no intention of lifting the block. As for your other comments, I've commented on the army cadet talk page, but I don't see anything about Facebook, at least not in that article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankly it quacks like the duck of edit warring. The IP made no attempt at dialogue, and reverted with untruthful edit summaries after increasing warnings. It only has itself to blame. I see no reason for this admin to lift that block. The article talk page is the correct place to handle this issue, not user talk pages. This strikes me very much like a Lady Macbeth argument.

Wars can be handled well and with consensus on article talk pages. The way this was conducted is, at best, ungentlemanly, at worst conduct unbecoming to a Canadian Cadet. Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The guy didn't bring any of the usual stuff that he gets around Facebook on here (surveys and such), just the two additions of obviously slanted information. I think the issue with the IP is that the person in question didn't know the proper methods for communication... but I am biased in this case, and suppose that I've also taken a step too far in here. Thanks to both of you for your time/thoughts. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

My piece is said

Though we have not necessarily always agreed, you and I, I respect you and your abilities, perhaps because we have not always agreed :). I intend now to have nothing further to do with the Canadian Cadet débacle.

You might be in an excellent position to offer him/her/them guidance on how to work within the rules here. If I attempt that I will appear to be combative still in the light of the (limited) history in those articles. The good news is that the talk page(s) are now being used. Consensus will form. Thank you for your contributions. Fiddle Faddle 22:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Disagreement is often healthy. We just have to remind ourselves that we are all doing our best and not to suspect each other of bad motives. This was a tough sequence of events, and I think all your actions were completely understandable. Could you have done better? Perhaps, but the same goes for me. We're not perfect. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

We can always do better. What we need to be is 'good enough', though. :) Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Badmintonhist

Per your final warning about hounding, attempted to do so by proxy. Have blocked for a week. See their talk page. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Good block. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Move notice

The content of a Wikipedia Administrator's Incident discussion you were involved in, Admin User:Bbb23's actions on Asaram Bapu:, has been consolidated at ‎Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Asaram_Bapu_and_WP:BLP . NE Ent 00:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the move and the notice here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

MRM probation spill over

Hi Bbb23, I just noticed a bit of brouhaha at Controversial Reddit communities between Rosclese and Ranze. The issues is the Reddit for Men's rights, which has been labelled by the SPLC as a hate group, but its members don't like that. Since these edits are all relevant to the Men's rights movement they're covered by the probation--Cailil ^talk 10:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I started to look at the substantive issues and decided my brain wasn't up to it today. Nonetheless, I issued a warning on the article talk page so editors would at least have notice that their actions are being scrutinized.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

editwarring

I was going to call this section 'breach of 1RR' but I'm not sure the 1RR restriction extends beyond Men's rights movement (something that should be looked at in the future if spill over edit wars continue), but the editwarring probation does.

Ranze has reverted twice within 35 minutes yesterday[3][4] it also does look like a synthesis. Rosclese has been removing this material but Ranze has inserted and re-inserted it[5][6] or broadly similar content[7]. This revert war has been going on since August 19th - it's time to for it to stop (note it takes two to Tango, Ranze has just been a little more trigger happy that Rosclese)--Cailil ^talk 23:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(Boy, that was weird. I was logged off just as I was about to save my edit.) I blocked Ranze and warned Roscelese. If the probation sanctions apply to a particular page, or in this case section, then 1RR also applies as they are indivisible in my view, although I see the potential ambiguity in the language. I also counted three reverts by Ranze in a 24-hour period. The first August 26 edit was a revert. On a separate subject, the probation sanctions will expire on September 20. My view is they should continue, but I'm not sure when that should be brought to an administrative noticeboard, nor who would be the best person to do it. Any thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the 1RR expiry yeah I was thinking about that. September 10th or before would be the best time. In terms of who, I don't mind doing it but it might be better from an uninvolved sysop. There's time to think about it anyway--Cailil ^talk 10:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thought you could use this after dealing with all of the Chris Siloma created articles. Singularity42 (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it was kind of tiring. :-) If you notice recreation of any of those articles or evidence of socking, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Matthew Wise - Undelete article and its talk and edit and/or Userfy:request or SANDBOX ]]

May I suggest that you userfy this without AspieNo1's actually asking you to do so, and do it to their user space, telling them that you have done so? You might want to consider enhancing the rationale for deletion that you have given because the primary editor is part of our differently able editing community, see WP:AUTISM, and they need to understand and relate to what has happened here. When (and if) you userfy, I suspect the Talk page ought to go with it. I'm not sure of the usual process for that. Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to nudge the user, but I won't userfy it without a direct request.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please consider to do whatever you can to either reinstate this page directly, or something so the work is not lost. We have had a shock one of our members on the other side of the country and Damon's niece in-law suddenly died on Thursday, and we are all helping the family at the moment with online communication. Myself and may of our colleagues will not be able to engage with our colleagues in the world-wide Aspies helping until at least Tuesday ... I quote details below for your information as to why. IN ICAAN we are busy downloading websites he has worked on, or from charities and causes he has been instrumental in to hard drive and backing the content up from Damon's Archives he has donated - all the dropbox accounts used for sharing content between users in Shannon, Limerick, Cork, Galway, Dublin and Wicklow are working overtime at the moment - due to dual pressures on resources in relation to website content and the families bereavement.

Please undelete and [[userfy|Userfy request]], sandbox or whatever to get this article back up - a lot of us had put hard work into it, and generally most were positive and voted to keep ...- while not perfect as much content was generally noted to have improved sufficiently to remain keeps on getting removed and articles photographic evidence and references thereto related is being held up by Wikimedia release - see reference and information by Wikipedia:AUTISM in User:Timtrent (reproduced below). Damon's wife's niece suddenly past away, and we are attempting to support the family, as she like many in the families of both Damon and Karen were also in the High Functional side of the autistic spectrum. Sorry but many of us are too occupied to deal with this at the moment; we are a tight-nit community especially in the Greater Dublin area on the other side of the country from Damon, where we have a number of user-led groups resulted from his work over the years. He was upset about misrepresentation of his nationalities, however, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service have given him permission to upload PDF and Scanned image files of their correspondence confirming the loss of Irish Passport rights, which allowed his reinstatement of Belgian (Flemish) rights and Passport (we have also now received and copied all his passport, state register and ID card public images - for which he has requested permission from the embassies to allow these to be included to confirm his nationalities and where he was from); these issues have all taken a back-burner - he has asked something is there a form or declaration he can fill in to allow images, pictures and content specifically in relation to the information page - it has been mooted, but he has only been given a unconditional US Copyright page, which appears not t be the best accurate in relation to his exclusive or shared personal and charitable rights as officer, director or committee member of the bodies, which he shares with himself in personal and voluntary capacity - he seems to be getting the run-around on confirming and identification of content from commons.wikimedia.org in relation to "US derivation from International copyright law": - " PUBLIC NOTICE : - Clodagh-Anne McElligott viewing at Flannery's Funeral Parlour Saturday 2 to 5 and Sunday 5 to 7 Requiem Mass 10 am Monday in St. Patrick's Church in Wicklow Town. Cremation at Harold's Cross straight after. No Flower " and " I have prepared a co-operative workspace in which anyone is free to contribute or make suggestions as what can be included from their personal memories, videos, pictures, or written - feel free to pass it on to other friends and family - even those not active on her facebook profile - we want a positive permanent presence of her from our own memories and sources. A permanent vault of diverse people best memories of her ... "Now the news has officially broken, after Monday, after we start loosing the daze, disbelief and shock and in order to fill the collective void - how about anyone who feels the urge want to collaborate on things they want to remember about my only niece, Clodagh-Anne McElligott. I am in the final stages of Web Design course - if anyone feels that it will help send me a message with your e-mail address and I will send a link so you can work on a tribute and contribute any images, music, text, memories, poems - whatever moves you. Contact me (e-mail removed) ... sorry to hold out on you for a while. We will miss you! " and "I could work with others to do a memorial tribute site, the one I am currently working on: http://candy-waters-tribute.comuv.com/index.html; Want to exchange pictures, and media to work on a web page or project - the following link allowed shared work on projects in a program called Dropbox, which can be downloaded from here (weblink removed) For Clodagh case we would have to make the background much more colourful!" " AspieNo1 (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

My gosh, much as I'm sympathetic with the issues you and others face, your lengthy comments raise some red flags. How many people use this account to edit?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

He has stated clearly elsewhere, that this is a single editor account, despiet appearances to the contrary. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I take contents from different users by dropbox, and yes collaborate in chat with other editors - placing researched material in talk and then editing down in content. Aspies culturally think of social group, and rarely use I or me, which we do not feel that use of I is appropriate (being selfish) ... just simple not the way I or we think - it is thus extremely difficult of me to use I rather then we - the article about Damon who defined Aspies in the early 90's and developed self/peer advocacy and support groups is to many an important step for the Aspies community and concept to come out of hidden and secret groups and enter the mainstream ...

Damon_Matthew_Wise and Talk:Damon_Matthew_Wise

Damon_Matthew_Wise and Talk:Damon_Matthew_Wise (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

majority consensus was sufficient work was done to keep, and some felt if not ought to be userfied or sandboxed - I have chosen to seek that myself and other editors want the consensus kept to. It was reviewed for Disability biography content status and passed. Have notified user Bbb23 in Talk of this. AspieNo1 (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Many of my support team are not back in things; yes, I quoted articles on Clodagh's funeral and background (quoted from social media and webpages), to show what is going on and why had been covering without most of my support team - it appears that attendance on the funeral was very good - and filled the church. AspieNo1 (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC) AspieNo1 (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please guide this editor

As you have seen from the foregoing, they express themselves well, just not in the style many of us are accustomed to. It seems to me that AspieNo1 wishes to engage in the first stage of Deletion Review with you, discussing the matter. They have also started a thread here which I think they genuinely believe is the Deletion Review process. You might (quite reasonably) interpret this in one of two ways:

• attempts to circumvent DR
• attempts to undermine your closure, rather than discuss it formally

My belief is that it is neither of those, but an impassioned plea for help by an editor who is not skilled in our ways. However they have proved that they can learn, given the right guidance.

Would you guide them, please, through the correct process of first discussing the closure with you, and then, if you and they cannot reach a conclusion, through the DR process? Despite the fact that you closed the original discussion I think you are uninvolved enough to do that. If you feel unable to do the last step, might you ask someone else to guide them? I would do this myself, but feel I have become far too closely involved in this article and personally with the editor concerned. I am not sure if I have recommended WP:AUTISM to you yet, but, if not, I recommend it to you now. Fiddle Faddle 08:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes WP:AUTISM and Disability tag applied - article had status already been reviewed and approved for Disability biography ... AspieNo1 (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been suggested to seek review and Administrators noticeboard of deletion by User: Bbb23 of article Damon Matthew Wise and its talk page. In view that considerable work done by me and background team and many other editors, and had passed criteria for Disability biography - the alternate consensus if it did not pass contents of page and talk be te,porarily undeleted and userfied or placed in sandbox - either alternatives are acceptable to allow me, my support team and other editors to finetune the article if any remaining issues not addressed can be identified. Have already posted review and will copy this on Bbb23's talk page. AspieNo1 (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

AspieNo1 (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

LittleBenW

I noticed that you didn't tag this account with {{blocked user}}, and the block log doesn't link to an ANI permalink so one has to search for it to find it (here). Is there any reason not to add a tag, and use that as link=? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a block "notice" on his talk page with a link to the AN discussion. I thought the use of the template on the user page was optional, although I've never seen any guidance on when and when not to use it. I generally don't, but that's more a matter of habit than anything else. If you feel it would be helpful, you're free to add it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Finding Government Information

I was editing an article and there was an edit request, but the person didn't provide a proper source for what I would assume is government information. (A recommendation from a U.S. Senator.) An aside: I was going to add some information from the testimony on sexual harassment of women in the military after watching the hearings to relevant articles, but when I looked for the transcript, it seems you have to pay for the information. Is that how it is? My question is: Do we have a Project or Roundrobin on how to access government information? You search on subjects, find what would be good info, and then it's on some Web site like democracy underground that doesn't properly source. It's frustrating. Thank you in advance (and excuse my ignorance).Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I need more context. What article are you talking about? Government is vast, and I don't think there's one answer fits all. Also, remember generally that primary sources can be problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The Cadet War of 2013 continues

I was wondering if you could bring a steadying hand to the mess? There are still reversions and counter reversions. A solution is page protection in whatever state obtains to force them all to thrash it out on the talk page. That seems draconian if they can be persuaded to work "together". IT seems one can lead the horse to water, bit one has insufficient salt to put in its mouth to make it thirsty enough to drink properly. Fiddle Faddle 22:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the guy who originally added the content made an account to revert me and add it back. So far, nobody else has presented any good refute of the points for removal (the new account's comment is just generic), but I don't feel comfortable with taking any more action at this point. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have semi-protected all four articles for one week. I have ensured that the two sections are not in any of the articles because I don't believe it's acceptable per policy for them to be there in their present form. I'll leave it up to others to discuss the content issues on the article talk pages (or, better, as Tim tried to do on one of them as the material is the same across all four, even though they are separate organizations).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That week ought to be entirely long enough to form a documented consensus. My recommendation is that formal closure is sought from an uninvolved editor, probably an admin (which status is not needed, but gives some clout to the closure). Bbb23, might you ask someone suitable and of standing here to keep an eye on it, and to remain uninvolved, giving them no briefing except that a closure will be required in due course, and probably prior to the semi-protection expiring? Fiddle Faddle 08:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

He's back... and doing it again.

It is possible that he really does not understand what he did without discussion last year was wrong... and by again removing entire swaths of well-documented and sourced content he is repeating that behavior. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Damon Matthew Wise

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Damon Matthew Wise. 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. (notifying for User:AspieNo1 who tried to post his DRV on the wrong page - I moved it.) Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

1) Undelete and guidelines or 2) Deletion Review and/or 3) Userfy or 4) Sandbox of Damon_Matthew_Wise and its talk to work on it

I have asked for Deletion review on the grounds that Damon_Matthew_Wise article met criteria Disability Biography and most had changed position to keep or if not possible userfy or sandbox.

This is a WP:ASPIES article and has been recognised as passing eligibility as a Disability article and uses language accordingly.

The comments were sometimes inappropriate and distracted from autism and disability content, and was still being worked on.

Alternatively, I agree that although it is the right side of keep, such discussions may have distorted it, and as a result would be prepared for temporary undelete of article (and its talk page, which contains information on research and work in progress that the editors were working through) and userfy or sandbox - many people on wikipedia are interested in this remaining a viable article, and yes work needs to be done to improve it.

I and other editors look for instructions of what may need to be improved to keep as a disability biography, as by and large have changed it as best we can get permissions through commons.wikimedia at this time.

We hope that you can restore, or temporarily restore page into whatever way and its talk so we have a coherant, independent, neutral, balanced, references and cited and researched article. AspieNo1 (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Hello Bob

It looks like Bob from here. New user hence the clattering through protocol. I cobbled together my very first article about the Royal mail Choir and expected Wiki to act like Facebook. You type stuff and on it goes. Only you deleted it. I read why and what I didn't do was put on any sources. So the whole thing could have been made up by anyone. Fair enough. Now another administrator (who I shall call Dave although his sign in name was Shabazz or something) has said that if I ask nicely you can undelete it so I don't have to type the whole damn thing out again.

So come on Bob, be a sport eh? I have learned my lesson and will put on references and everything. It may need re checking after I have done it because I am still really really not sure how to do this yet. And yes there are pages and pages of instructions available which, being a bloke, well, I'm not going to read those am I?

What about it?

Go on. Pretty please. It's for a charity choir who happen to work for the Royal Mail. Cancer charity as well.

And I promise not to call you Bob any more.

JTKKavanagh (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You were given advice at WP:REFUND, however, now you should see WP:NOBLECAUSE ES&L 18:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Watts9595

How about a {{uw-ewsoft}} /softer warning for Watts? She/he did reach out to me on my talk page with a request for assistance. I really couldn't get involved in the topic, so I said no and added a welcome notice to Watts' talk page. Your call. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That article gets a lot of very contentious editing, and I'm afraid I'm suspicious of a brand new editor coming along and making such a massive change to the article, not to mention the IP, who has also made no other edits except to that article, backing them up.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And the edit history is one of the reasons I shied away from the ersatz 3O. Anyway, happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Subreddit MR issue gaming

I am very concerned that other editors are simply gaming this 1RR thing. I am trying to be co-operative here and explain the reasoning for edits in depth, and other users are not being co-operative and simply dismissing edits by shouting "fluff" or "OR". The actual content in question is not really being specified, and I think this is being used to advance a biased perspective of this section.

To show how this can get a bit messed up:

1. bad info introduced
2. someone comes across the bad info a week later, removes it
3. removal is reverted, restoring the bad info within the day
4. bad info removed again, remover is cited for 1RR

When it comes to the "clarify vs claim" controversy, I have 2 options here to try and make things correct (in terms of editing, since I am engaging in talk page discussion and edit summarizing):

1. change the word to something better (my approach so far)
2. tag the word with fact/misleading/OR

Assuming the first is considered reversion, is the second? If my tag gets removed within hours and I don't notice for a couple days and restore the tag, will that be a revert?

I worry that too much focus is being placed on the sanction's rules and too little on the actual rightness of the content itself. This clearly is not a revert war on my end, you can see that by my engaging in conversation and trying to be progressive. But I have to be insistent about trying to make statements come from NPOV and tag or remove OR, which is what I'm doing.

I'm in an awkward position here where the reduction of clarify>claim is itself being called "OR" (which I really don't understand here, 'claim' doesn't suggest anything, claims can be true or false) when I am in fact removing unsupported OR.

You can see from edits like this, the section is being reduced to a single presentation of source material: reactions.

Both Rosc and now Bread have removed direct quotes from the original report (the primary topic that spawned the controversy), and are making it so that only the responses (Potok's March 28 interview and the SPLC's May 15 followup). This is not a neutral point of view, because it avoids addressing the direct topic, and only cites what the organization claims was in the topic.

I would very much like to revert it to my last version before bread made that removal, may I do so, now that my 24 hour ban is over? I have contacted bread and explained why I do not think it is 'fluff'. I believe it is a false statement to say I 'added nothing' because I added critical information from the original report, as well as developing information on the doxxing section.

I am accused of 'padding' out the section, which isn't true at all. Padding is irrelevant information and I don't think anything there was irrelevant. I think if users are going to assume bad faith like this, they should explain themselves. Calling an addition fluff/nothing/padding is very insulting and something I think that deserves a better explanation. Shouldn't people be highlighting this stuff on the talk page before removing it? Explaining their reasons for not wanting it there?

The information I added was sourced. The excerpts from the original report are from the reference Rosc added upon first creating the section. It has been slightly biased from the outset (saying "misogynistic websites" rather than sites listed under a 'Misogyny: the Sites' report) and I've only been trying to make it NPOV. Ranze (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pangender

An article that you have been involved in editing, Genderqueer, has been proposed for a merge with the article Pangender. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --April Arcus (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Restoring unanswered questions to Jimbo's talk page

Isn't this something that happens frequently? What is the reason you think it is unconstructive? 192.81.0.147 (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's highly unusual to mess with the archives of another user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

URGENT message at Asaram Bapu talk

I have a habit of ignoring notifications when I am busy with some works (right now I can see 2 notifications, which I'll check after posting this message). There is an urgent message at Talk:Asaram_Bapu#.40_Bbb23_on_29_August_2013. The article is going out of control once again. --Tito☸Dutta 10:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Tito, I was going through my watchlist when you posted this message. I would have gotten to the Bapu article eventually as I worked my way up the list, but your notice caused me to go there sooner. More important, I appreciate your concern about the integrity of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion a combination of—

• Pending Changes level 2 protection and
• WP:1RR might be helpful here in future if such disruptions continue.

PC level 2 will filter all auto-confirmed, non-confirmed editor's edits and WP:1RR will stop edit wars. If someone reverts my edit, I'll be forced to discuss first for 1RR. But, most probably they are not allowing to use PC2— is not it? --Tito☸Dutta 11:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that pending changes level 2 cannot be used at this time. I am unaware of anything that authorizes me to impose 1RR sanctions on the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggested New Photo for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_Walker

I have a photo that I think would be preferable for Vaughn Walker, and I contacted the photographer and got a Wikipedia Declaration of consent for all enquiries from him. However, I new and not yet a confirmed user. If you agree that it would make a addition, would you mind putting the picture up for me? If yes, is there a place where I can upload the photo and Declaration? I see all sorts of ways to do this, but I don't want to use a clumsy method. Ddb2001 (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: Please disregard. I saw by your conversations that you were busy and got help from someone else. Thanks, though. Ddb2001 (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(smiling) Your conclusion was absolutely correct. I've been super busy. I'm glad you were able to get the help you needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Tabarez2

Hi Bbb23, I suspect that Tabarez is back with the username AccWi. H/she inserts the images uploaded by T2 as you may see from Mehrangiz Dowlatshahi's history. Can you please look it? I tried to report it, but I could not manage it. Thanks. Egeymi (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've indeffed him as a sock of Tabarez. Are you able/willing to go through all their edits and revert them - or at least delete the ones that aren't innocuous or helpful? If not, let me know, and I will do it. By the same token, he's created new pages. I can delete all of them. I deleted Mehrangiz Dolatshahi per WP:CSD#G5. I can delete all of them. Are there any you think should be kept?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear admin I will do. Regarding the pages the user created I should review, so it may take time. Thank you so much. I could not express my appreciation. Egeymi (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The user created Mansoureh Sharifi. I have no idea about it, dear Bbb23. It is your decision. Best, Egeymi (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your protection of The Departed page earlier today.

Is it possible to ask if this page being protected at this time could show a neutral version of this page from before its current discussion-cycle while the discussion is taking place. Possibly the date of Aug 22 or Aug 23, your choice, before the current edits started taking place. 209.3.238.61 (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but absent an overriding policy basis, an article is locked in its state at the time of the lock. We don't choose a particular version.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you so much. Egeymi (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Protection and the article feedback tool

Hey Bbb23. Have you noticed that article protections are now changing the visibility of the WP:AFT, thus cluttering the log? I don't know if the AFT is supposed to be normally off or normally on. Any idea how to avoid this? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about this. I've never even looked at that section on the protect form before you brought it up. All I can tell you is that by default if you take an article that is unprotected and never has been protected per the log (try Hydrosphere as an example), the default for AFT is "Disable for all users". Whether this has changed, I don't know. I also don't know if disabling and enabling article feedback is the same as protecting. You might look at Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5. Look at the section "Protection tool and information issues?". I have a feeling it has something to do with this "new" tool. There are other sections on that page that might be relevant as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I left a note there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Page deleted?

My page was deleted this afternoon, strangely while in the process of making changes to the entries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themadants

23:51, 29 August 2013 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Themadants (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12 (http://madants.com/index.php/about/))

Our band has been a local staple for 30 years, I was in the process of adding the history and articles (cites) to the page when it disappeared. Also I'm not sure why you sited G12 (copyright) since I own the site madants.com/themadants.com and the text therein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.47.60 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The article was blatantly promotional, essentially just a proxy for the website. I have no way of knowing who you are or whether the text on the website is your work. Even without the copyright infringement, the article would be deleted based on the content.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The speedy delete template on my page

How would the Template:User AfC missing template place a speedy delete on my page (Just so I know)? APerson (talk!) 01:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It appears that Bbb23 was confused by the CSD notice being transcluded to your userpage from User:APerson/Userboxes/User AfC missing template, which you tagged for deletion after renaming (and as such would have caused a CSD template to appear), in the revision on the left. No such speedy deletion tag appears when the template is transcluded normally [8]. Theopolisme (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm never confused, Theopolisme, just clueless sometimes. :-) My objective was to get the user page out of the speedy delete category, so I kept looking at changes to the page until I found the edit that added the tag and then undid it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Oseodion Aburime

I don't think you were involved in Oseodion Aburime (twice deleted), Christopher Oseodion Aburime I (trice deleted) or the current AfD of Oseodion Aburime, Alex Oriakhi Jr., and Hakeem Olajuwon, so have a look at the same guy in his dictionaries/essays/promoforks Uru Esan ...A Dialect of Bini Language and Ebe Ota ...The Ishan Dictionary. What's the cure? Best, Sam 🎤 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a massive sock puppet farm. I'd ask you to file a report at SPI, but you won't be able to see all of the accounts because many of them are only findable through deleted contributions, which only admins can see. I guess I'll have to do it, but it'll be a lot of work, and I have to connect the dots to get a clerk to endorse a CU. I'll try to do it this weekend. Meanwhile, you can deal with any existing articles as you see fit. Some of them will not be susceptible to speedy deletion, though, and may have to be prodded or AfD'd.

Christo Aburime. Best, Sam ^Sing 14:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Okoloko. If you have anything to add in the way of evidence (or if I've missed accounts), please do so at SPI. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu 31 August 2013

We are nowhere near any solution or consensus. A question has been asked at the talk page, which seems to be an important one. If you have few minutes in hand, can you check it? --Tito☸Dutta 04:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is a new reply at my talk page. Not much urgent. But, if you see it first before replying at Asaram Bapu talk, then you might find my post interesting. --Tito☸Dutta 16:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• A summary of issues User:Titodutta/Asaram Bapu (this does not include the talk place comment redaction, which is already being discussed). --Tito☸Dutta 18:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu

Hi, you have fully protected the Asaram_Bapu page. Could you please move it to semi-protected? I am a non-admin editor and a lot of developments are happening everyday in the rape case against him. I don't know why I am not auto-confirmed. I have been around since 2011 and have 1800+ edits. Could you also help me with that? Thanks :) Noopur28 (talk)

You are autoconfirmed. Why do you think you're not?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope that comments are allowed when he gets finally questioned, and the judge makes an official statement. (by this way, there was a discussion on Jimbo's talk page about this) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Certain kinds of comments won't be allowed until there's a clear consensus about policy. I don't know what you mean by the judge making an "official statement". There are discussions on Jimbo's talk page on just about everything. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The judge will say if the charges stick. If they do, he will impute Bapu (in Spanish it's "imputar", I'm not sure if this is the correct word in English). And then you can say that he has been "charged" by the judge. And I think that the judge gives a date for a trial right after imputation, I'm not sure. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That won't satisfy BLPCRIME.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Common sense says that something which is plastered over many major newspapers clearly is not a BLP violation to be mentioned. The reason this is plastered everywhere is because the person is relatively well known. Accusations against relatively unknown people don't get plastered over many newspapers with the massive coverage this has received. That should be self evident. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of "Jeffrey Voorhees"

I'm kind of annoyed right now, because I spent quite a while working on that article. Next, Cindamuse put it up for speedy deletion, so I went to contest it on the talk page so I could keep the page alive long enough to explain its notability, and you went ahead and deleted it while I was in the middle of contesting it.

Come on, give me a chance next time. >:/ --Matthew (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally, it's not a good idea to move a page into article space until it's ready. However, if you want me to WP:USERFY it for you, I'd be happy to.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please go read WP:BLP

Your removal of reliably sources quotes for discussion on Talk:Asaram Bapu is wildly against policy. Please go read WP:BLP and stop incorrectly citing it as a reason for blatant abuse of people trying to have a useful conversation. Do not do it again. WP:BLP advises that we should delete material that is poorly sourced and negative about BLP subjects. This material is not in any way poorly sourced - it is sourced to multiple reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it and commented on your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm posting here to make sure you see my response to your message on my talk page. I recommend that you not persist in clearly against-policy removals of reliably sourced information. Before you do so again, at least discuss with me why on earth you think it violates policy to quote from reliable sources. Please cite the specific policy that you have in mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(Addendum post-edit-conflict) I recommend that you restore the information (or else I will, but I will wait a few minutes to give you the opportunity to discuss. I have posted reliably sourced direct quotes from news reports so that editors can discuss how to proceed. There is zero policy basis for your actions. If you think there is, please point to the policy you have in mind - quote specifically please the lines you think are relevant here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The facts continue to emerge. The Times of India is now reporting (since my post) that Asaram Bapu has been arrested: Jodhpur police arrest Asaram Bapu from Indore. To quote from this undeniably reliable source, "Controversial godman Asaram Bapu, accused of sexually assaulting a minor, was arrested by Jodhpur police from his ashram here late Saturday night." I'm waiting 15 more minutes, and then I'm restoring and expanding the section of the talk page that you have censored against Wikipedia policy. I am still waiting to hear your quotes from policy that led you to think that deleting reliably sourced quotes from the talk page was a wise course of action.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say on this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't care to even attempt to explain, so that I can understand, why you thought what you were doing was within policy?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Try just for a moment to step back and look at this from my perspective, not just as an admin but as a person. I think I've only once before made such angry comments at AN or ANI since becoming an admin. I don't remember the circumstances; I just remember I "lost it" because I was so pissed. Generally, I try very hard, no matter what the provocation, to retain my cool because I think it's important for me to do so. Perhaps later we can have a civil discussion about this, but not now. I no longer intend to do anything with the article or the talk page, so there's no more fear of any "disruption". For the moment, just please leave me be. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this at least. I will ask you about this next week then. Have a nice rest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Don't let Jimbo get you down, he's becoming less and less relevant to this project anyway. I don't agree with your actions in this case, but I greatly respect your desire to be very careful with BLP issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked at your actions in depth, but your precaution should be commended, not reprimanded. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Jimbo remains relevant to this project, in my judgment, and I agree with him on the basics of the issue. I disagree with his call for you to resign as administrator, though, and have told him so. You consistently do excellent work for this encyclopedia, and I hope that you will do so for a long time to come. Take it easy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

What I meant is that Jimbo's disapproval isn't as big of a deal now as it used to be. His opinion is still relevant, but it isn't the final say on the matter. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I support a strong interpretation of BLP - though I commend you to read the opinions on the new Manning ArbCom case where one arb seems to think that WP:BLP is subservient to any local consensus on an article <g>. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Chelsea_Manning Collect (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Bbb23 has established his arguments well along the lines of BLPCRIME and WP:PERP. The policy as written is ambiguous enough so that his good-faith interpretation and execution of BLP along these lines should be respected. I know there is a conflict of BLP with WP:RS if there is significant coverage of a BLP crime; but being cautious in applying BLP until clear consensus emerges should be encouraged, not discouraged. He is a also a longterm editor of the BLP field and his work there has been exceptional. Exercising due caution and accountability for his actions as admin he has gone to AN twice for wider input, and he should be commented for seeking the input of his peers and that of the wider community. Now as events are politicised he is being treated with haste and without regard to his longterm contributions as an editor and respected admin. This is short-sighted and unfair. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Involved actions and edit warring by User:Bbb23 at Talk:Asaram Bapu. Thank you.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't let them intimidate you. If you erred, learn from it and move on. If not, completely ignore them. Don't turn in your bit or leave. Jimbo is totally clueless. PumpkinSky talk 10:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for all you do, sorry you are frustrated with how things are going on right now, but please know that I really appreciate what you do. Enjoy some tea, take a break, but please not for too long. Go Phightins! 01:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Request

If you get a chance (in between rounds of Asaram Bapu), would you please unlock my user page? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Not sure why you came to me but I could see no reason not to grant your request.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Picked you pretty much at random. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC),

Could you look at consensus count.

The Talk page exchange for The Departed has started to thin and perhaps you could offer your count of the yeas and nays. There appears to be a lack of agreement with the count presented by User:OldJ.

The count I am presenting for the edit going forward and posted on the Page is as follows:

User:AutoMamet original author of text

User:Britma, who requested that the url link be added (and which was done)

User:Hearforme, straight affirm

User:DocWatson, original co-editor who otherwise appears only in the edit history log when originally posted in August

User:BettyL, who suggested removing the references from the main text and footnoting them (and which was done)

Some of the participants seemed only to appear on the Talk page to heckle with no direct criticism one way or the other and perhaps there is some unique way of counting or not counting them.

Could you post your tally either way here on your Talk page. Thanks. AutoMamet (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) The most important thing is that WP:CONSENSUS is WP:NOTAVOTE, so any form of "tally" is ridiculous and useless. The main issue with that discussion is that there's really no definition of the "problem" that is trying to be resolved throughout the rest of the discussion. However, if I read correctly, this has to do with the brief discussion about being loosely based Whitey Bulger. It's already ref'd in the lede. As there is no further attempt to make the connection throughout the rest of the article, then there's zero requirement for additional links to websites or links or books to "prove" the point - and that is the consensus that I can see based on the discussion. ES&L 10:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@AutoMamet: I assume the only reason you came to me was because I locked the page in response to an RFPP request (IIRC). I generally don't get involved in content disputes, particularly in areas where I've taken administrative action. Good luck in working things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your SPI clerk request

I'm happy to take you on as a trainee clerk if you would like me to. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That'd be great. Just tell me what I have to do. Just so you know what you're getting into (smile), I can sometimes ask lots of questions. Even good friends of mine think I'm a bit of a pest at times. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take you on! Please read the guidance page for clerks, and be sure you are familiar with what is and is not abusive sock puppetry. You will probably find the "mark blocked users" script highly useful (see the import from ruwiki on my vector.js page). You will probably also want to use the SPI clerking script (importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js');). I've added your name to the clerk list. Feel free to ask me any questions! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the page and added the scripts. Also started a subpage (User:Bbb23/SP clerk duties) just to keep track of what I'm doing. Feel free to edit it if you think it would be helpful - or I could create a talk page for it so we can discuss things there instead of here, up to you. What's my next task?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Reaper, why would I find the ruwiki script useful? See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's helpful so you don't miss blocking a sockpuppet or repeatedly reblock an already-blocked account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've added scripts before that at first seemed odd to me, but ultimately I not only got used to them but grew to depend on them. I still need to know what my next assignment is unless you just want me to dive in and use my own initiative (god help me :-) ).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: Can a trainee clerk who is also an administrator take administrative action on a report? I didn't see anything in the guide about it. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crème3.14159 for context. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Any admin, whether clerk or not, can take action on cases needing administrator attention.

I don't do "assignments", since I wouldn't want to assign a case you feel uncomfortable with taking action on. Pretty much just go to WP:SPI, find cases that need administrator or clerk attention, and take the necessary action.

If you want to engage in slightly more real-time discussion, we do have a publicly-accessible IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-spi ^connect. (There's absolutely no requirement to ever be there—some clerks and checkusers are commonly there, some are only rarely, and some never are. It can be a fast way to request checkusers in an urgent situation, however.) Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Bapu and the comments here

Since the explosion at AN and ANI and my one angry post, I have remained silent. Nor have I made any contributions at Wikipedia anywhere else. At this point I do not plan on commenting on the issues at either noticeboard, but I did want to respond to those editors who posted positive comments here. That is not to say I don't also appreciate those who did so on the noticeboards, just that I don't want to go from talk page to talk page thanking editors because it feels like I'd be making too much of it.

So, in no particular order, Mark, Charmlet, Collect, Pumpkin Sky, Go Phightins, and Dr. K., thanks for your kind words. I can't say this experience hasn't left a few scars, but your remarks helped me come out of my self-imposed funk.

Regards to all.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

On the plus side, chicks dig scars. That and you know you did the right thing, cheer up and do not let the buggers grind you down. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

DS, it was a disagreement: there is no need to cast accusations of buggery to one side or another. If we can't disagree without moral absolutism thrown into the mix we'll never get anywhere. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything goes right over my head. I wasn't even thinking about the word "buggers" (aren't they like chiggers?). I was hung up on "chicks" and Ted Baxter.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI "Bugger", although descended from "buggery", is harmless British slang and usually doesn't imply any sexual preference. Black Kite (talk)

Now that you've explained buggers (I was aware of the affectionate use for a kid in the US), can you illuminate Demiurge's picture and comment for me? I have no idea what he's talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I presumed he was riffing on Drmies' comment about expecting you by the pool next year, but I could be wrong... Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you're right. I didn't even notice until now that Drmies had edited his comment after Demiurge posted the picture. I'd also forgotten about Drmies and his pool and the green scum. I think I'm going to turn over my talk page to everyone else. I'm clearly not keeping up. Probably PTSD.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten about it too. I'm going to find a way to pay Demiurge back. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Beer would be fine.

You may not be the only one missing something here, Bbb. The pic I added is (part of) the pool at the Barbican Centre, which is the venue for the "next August" event in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to August 2014, which is the way I read Drmies's invitation. But what "event" is happening at the Barbican Center then? And do I have to bring my speedos (don't have any), and who's paying for my airfare (first class, of course, as coach has become intolerable)?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania 2014. The page doesn't currently detail a dress code, or indeed much else at all. A travel grant from the WMF might pay your air fare, but not first class. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I should say that I generally think your actions that I have seen are good, I just disagree in this one instance about your specific actions. I think calls for desysopping or RFCU or whatever are uncalled for. Good luck, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Dad here

I hope someone sorts out that green tinge in the pool by then. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb, my son, a few words from the old man. You know I agree with your actions (for the most part, and at the very least with the principle of them). They are justified, though, on an admin's prerogative to take administrative action (removing content, locking pages) unilaterally based on their interpretation of the BLP policy; this, in my opinion, is the one exception where reverting to one's "favourite version" is actually applicable, though not in those words, of course. But, by the same token, another admin should be given the latitude to disagree and to act on it. In other words, if you get into a pissing contest with Jimmy Wales or whoever over BLP matters, there also comes a point where you have to leave it be and accept their judgment, just as you expected them to accept yours first (and they're wrong, of course). That, in my opinion, is both the prerogative and the burden of adminship: the application of the BLP policy to the point of controversy, and then to let it go. So, if you reverts and he reverts your revert, you'll just have to bow to his wisdom. I understand if you revert again to make him bow to yours, but by that time it's admins swinging their tools around, metaphorically of course, and there's nothing to gain in that game. Anyway, all the best. Thanks for sticking out your neck. Now go write an article--it's fun, you know, and I.O.U. (album) is in terrible shape. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I never thought I was battling with another admin over policy. You may not believe this, but I had to look (later) to discover that Jimbo was even an admin (my ignorance is boundless). So, when I reverted more than once, all I was thinking was that an editor was trying to invoke his special position at Wikipedia and that to treat him differently from the others would have been unfair. On the other hand, when Crisco reverted me, I stopped.

As for I.O.U., you're just trying to punish me for being long-winded. As you well know, as an inveterate snob, my knowledge of popular music is almost non-existent. Here's to opera!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he's the original admin. The other hand comment, yes. Mind you, I didn't think I was telling you anything you didn't know. As for you and Crisco, you're both about equally indispensable to the project and I hope y'all make up, certainly by next August when I expect both of you here by the pool, in your Speedos, with a case of beer in hand (the beer is for me, of course). Also, Demiurge, the pool looks great: last year's problem is well under control. And I just ducked Liam; he is not a witch. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Chareibati Assurancestar

	Chareibati Assurancestar
	There is an Indian word "Chareibati", which means "go ahead, it does not matter how bad the circumstance is, go ahead." And there is another Indian quote— "in a day when you don't come across any problem — you can be sure that you are traveling in the wrong path." So, "Chareibati" Tito☸Dutta 14:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the few good things to have come out of this mess, Tito, is getting to know you and your educating me on Indian culture. All the best.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Cracy --Tito☸Dutta 17:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Kudos

You do great work here. Sorry I never took the opportunity before now to tell you this. Cheers JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's nice to hear anytime.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

NOVA International Schools Macedonia

Just before you deleted NOVA International Schools Macedonia, I had removed the bulk of the article because of copyright concerns. Could you please restore the article? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion of Steven Akins

Akins has continually tried to promote himself on Wikipedia, this is the latest. See [9] and Talk:White nationalism. And on a more personal note, this latest act by Jimbo is really disappointing. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the background, Doug. You say he's "continually tried to promote himself". Is there any evidence that Akins/Abramson has edited under any other registered account?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It could all be coincidence, I guess, but see [10] and Talk:Clan Akins and Talk:Akins. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me there's enough evidence to indef Abramson as a puppet of User:Wyvren. Any reason why you haven't done that?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Lack of time, will get at it tomorrow, dealt with a sock farm and copyvio most of today. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	you're an awesome sysop. keep up the good work, don't get discouraged! -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I am discouraged, but your kind words help. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't let Jimbo's cluelessness and total detachment from the community get to you. PumpkinSky talk 22:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

New User placing speedy prods

00:46, 3 September 2013 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Ruggero Ceppellini (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event))

Come on old chap, you don't delete a bio being worked on by an experienced editor with an it.wp article just because some newbie has grabbed the fast end of new page patrol? ... I went to the toilet and poof!! In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't have gone to the bathroom. Seriously, it's always better to wait to put a new article into article space until it's ready. I'll cut you some slack, though, and leave it alone. Remember, no bathroom breaks. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if there should be guidance to new prodders to leave the first 20 min of the new page patrol queue alone? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

For A1 and A3, there already is (well, 10-15 minutes). Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As usual, Jack is ahead of me. In ictu oculi, I go back to my original statement. Don't move a page into article space until it's notable-ready. New accounts do that (unfortunately); you shouldn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment

While I don't think you'll be surprised for me to state I'm not always a fan of your approach to adminship -- and reverting Wales was a bone-headed move, regardless of that "I'm just another editor" fiction -- "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". -- just wanted to say there's never been any doubt as to the amount of hard work you put into the project nor your intent in improving the encyclopedia. Take it from a less equal animal that calls from the most equal animal for you to resign are ridiculous. NE Ent 23:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tagging

Just a question - there was a time when sockpuppets were sometimes reported to WP:ANI per WP:DUCK. Usually there was agreement and the puppet was blocked and tagged. Are you saying that only an admin can put the tag up? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, if I file an SPI report on an IP or user, I'll tag them with the suspected sock template. For one sockmaster in his heyday who was EXTREMELY obvious, I'd notify one of a couple of admins familiar with the case and tag them. Otherwise I'm not going to tag them, even if I'm pretty sure about it. I'm not an admin, I'm not blocking them for being a puppet and if I'm not confident enough to file an SPI on them I really shouldn't tag them. Ravensfire (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

My point is that WP:ANI was (is?) seen as a shortcut to WP:SPI for WP:DUCK cases as SPI often got backlogged. Admins blocked and they or other involved editors tagged after the block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Neil, the short answer to your question is no, although it's generally done by admins. As for the socking/tagging issue itself, it's complicated, but you can't tag an account as confirmed when it hasn't been confirmed. If I decide that two accounts are socking, I will block them on my own and tag them, but I tag them both as suspected. The tagging in this instance is just plain wrong, or at least some of it is, and I don't even see that ANI discussion as a proxy for SPI (some AN or ANI discussions can be). It led to his block, and he was blocked for precisely what he was accused of, which was not socking. I don't know about other later discussions, but I see way too much tagging by a non-admin who doesn't seem to know how to do it right.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've responded on Reaper's page. (Not stalking your edits, Reaper's talk page is on my watchlist) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

brian hutchison

hi brian hutchison here...my first time attempting to self update for about a year or two... i liked the resume aspect on the site which was accurate... i defer to your editing expertise completely, but i can attest that i am this brian hutchsion ( formerly brickpiper on here) and also that any updates i did today were correct ( i.e. MY actual credits) i understand a comment you made about wiki pages not being reliable, but i thought the page for my character on person of interest ( saic brian moss) seemed to be created by the network CBS, so i added the link... again, im sure i didnt do it all correctly, but if you are able to reinstate any of the info i added i appreciate it

thanks brian hutchison [email protected] www.bhutch3.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarport (talk • contribs) 02:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ave atque vale

Per WP:Tiptibism example set by ArbCom Collect (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, Bbb23. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Rivertorch (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for noticing, Rivertorch.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Block settings

I think softer blocks should have autoblock disabled... (I hang out at the list of blocked users (Special:BlockList) 69.212.172.173 (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Gotcher back

Serious beverage

If in real life I could offer you a soothing beverage right now, I would. I appreciate your volunteer role as administrator, and I don't want to see it end. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Binksternet. The best part is your post caused me to go read your user page. I don't know if your life is "notable", but it sure is interesting. I think @Drmies: would be more interested in the beverage, though, than I. My idea of a soothing beverage is a smoothie. The best one I ever had was at a road stand in Kauai after a strenuous but glorious hike. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. I'm not sure if you know but you are mentioned at AN in the section "Administrator Nick-D, editor EyeTruth, former editor Blablaaa and the battle over the Battle of Kursk page". Caden ^cool 09:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Caden, but I try not to read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A question

How does King Phaze pass A7, when one of the references only implied he worked with someone before (it is now a dead link) and the other is some website where you can release press releases. Nothing in the very short article implies he is slightly notable anyways. STATic message me! 20:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The two things that permit him to get past an A7 are his involvement in the notable song by a notable person in a notable band and his position as executive of a music company. That probably won't make him notable per WP:GNG, but it's enough to avoid speedy deletion. That said, I am very suspicious of the article and the accounts that are involved in this and some other articles. For example, the "executive" position is at First Priority Music, and the claim that Phaze was made president in 2010 is unsourced. The company's website has no information that I could find about who's in charge, so I have no idea if it's true. Can't find anything about it using Google (mostly clones of Wikipedia). Anyway, much as I would have liked to speedy delete it, I couldn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A notable song would be a song that actually passes WP:NSONGS and has an article which as far as I can tell there is no proof of one in the article. However, I might take it to AfD. Yes, it seems to me Billboarder22 is a WP:SPA, all his contributions have been to articles like World Live Music & Distribution, Sylfronia King ‎, Girls For Charity ‎, Sean Guerrier De Bey among many others that have been speedy deleted, but these few barley sqweak through. His talk page is littered with COI and deletion notices. How should we proceed with the issue though? STATic message me! 22:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Two things. First, if an admin talk page stalker thinks the article should be deleted per A7, it wouldn't bother me if they did so. Second, with respect to Billboarder22, I keep thinking about doing something about the user, but my energy and motivation levels have been low this week, and I haven't felt like doing the work. If you wanted to do something about it yourself, take him to AN or ANI on the basis that his only goal here is to promote related people and companies. You should be able to support that both with his contributions and his deleted contributions. If you need a list of the latter, I can provide that to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked STATic to take a look at Billboarder22's articles because I thought my neutrality may have been compromised by my level of irritation. But Billboarder22 clearly has a COI; his contributions don't go through AfC; the references are manipulated, and the content in some cases is deliberately misleading. (Check out the credits on Sean Guerrier De Bey -- the subject is credited for his work as an employee of the label!) I'm still finding my way around here -- I can write, review, and edit -- but I don't quite understand the processes involved in nominating an article for deletion or proposing a change in status for an editor. But if you're willing to help me figure out what to do, I'm all about doing it. Thanks to you both!.JSFarman (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, we're kind of tackling this on an article-by-article basis, whether it be through speedy deletion or AfD, but that doesn't eliminate the core of the problem. For that, as I said above, you'd have to go to AN or ANI (assuming there's no evidence of sock puppetry). Those boards are demanding, so if you've never done it, it may be tough for you. Being brave helps. Being thick-skinned helps even more. You first have to have a clear idea of your objective. In this instance, a reasonable objective would be to block the user based on promotion. A conflict in and of itself isn't generally enough, but if you can demonstrate it, it would help. Then, your presentation has to be thorough but concise, neutral, and well-supported by diffs so readers don't have to hunt for things themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm brave, but I'm not thick-skinned. I think I'll just avoid anything involving Billboarder22 and learn as the process unfolds. Thanks again. JSFarman (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I will try to keep an eye on Billboarder22, and his/her edits and if they continue creating inappropriate COI pages they could be blocked for that. Considering two of the pages are up for AfD anyways. After looking into it more, couldn't King Phaze be speedied for being a unambiguous copyright violation of [11]. The content is rearranged but is basically the exact same thing. STATic message me! 23:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and done. Good catch.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

Hi Bbb23, there is an IP who you have previously blocked and who now needs further attention.... On 11 occasions (including today) over the past 7 days the IP has inserted the phrase "convicted child molester" into the lead of the Victor Salva BLP. see IP's contrib list They have been reverted 11 times by a variety of editors and the IP has recvd numerous warnings on their talk page. The IP has removed all of the warnings, including a final warning by User:FreeRangeFrog on Aug 31st. see IP's talk page history I posted on the IP's talk today and then discovered he/she has been warned many times before so I'm coming here. I hope you will take action to resolve this issue as it is taking up a lot of people's time. Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for an extended period of time. They've been told enough times that the material is already in the article and doesn't need to be in the lede, it's getting boring now. Black Kite (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Keithbob and BK.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks folks!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

New User jbkackert discussion on eProcessing Network page deletion

I am in the process of creating a user page for my client eProcessing Network, and noticed that before I could complete my entry, it has been removed. This is not an advertisement for the company, more an entry to provide researchers knowledge on the hisotry of ePN within the processing industry. They partner with Fiserv, TSYS and First Data, and compete with Cybersource and authorize.net, all pages within Wiki. If I need to modify my history content, I am happy to do so, but please provide me with tips on how to accomplish that so the page can remain on Wiki. Thanks, Jaki [email protected]Jbkackert (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to create an article about a company with which you're affiliated (see WP:COI). I suggest you use the process at WP:AFC. That way, you'll get feedback from more experienced editors without puting the article into article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Partner or spouse.

Due to the fact that there has been a civil partnership, the correct term would be spouse as partner can imply that there is no civil union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvyas94 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Spouse implies marriage, not civil union. Partner is correct. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand the ambiguity in partner, but spouse is incorrect as they are not married. (One of these days I'm gonna reply before Jack.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Math error

[12] 4 of 4, actually . NE Ent 18:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Question

(CVLRema (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)) If I write my Biography on my sandbox page just like I have written on my user and article page, would it be speedy deleted again.

(CVLRema (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)) I have just edit my user page, this time slightly different.I wish this time I din't do anything wrong and break any law on wiki, and what about my article page have been block, can you please unblock it.This my article page CVLRema

(CVLRema (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC))About what have I written wrong and what should i write what should I delete it rather then speedy deleted, next time give me full information, and I would gladly accept it and make my correction, thank you Bbb23

Vuzor, Dimensionaut, Sound of Contact

Per this diff [13] re: the edit warring report and your decision of same (please see User:Winkelvi reported by User:Vuzor (Result: Warned)), I am coming to you about the same edit warring behavior from User:Vuzor. I informed Vuzor he appears to be engaging in edit warring behavior (here:[14] and here:[15]) after he made the following reversals of content edits at Sound of Contact here:[16] and at Dimensionaut here:[17]. In each instance where I followed the standard of WP:BRD and removed content resembling WP:CRYSTAL, I started a article talk page discussion. Vuzor completely ignored those discussion attempts and started his own, giving reasons why he was justified to replace content that constitutes the use of WP:CRYSTAL. After he responded to the edit warring notifications here:[18], I then responded here:[19]. By employing the use of WP:IDHT he refuses to see that his placement of content of future events is the blatant use of WP:CRYSTAL. I have tried to explain to him more than once (this time as well as a couple of months ago) that future events that have not yet happened have no guarantee of happening do not belong in an article of any kind. I have tried to explain that Wikipedia isn't a news source nor an advertising service. All to no avail. Previously, when he insisted future touring events for Sound of Contact should be in the band's article as well as the band's album article, I let it go after tiring of arguing with him. All of those events were cancelled and are now supposedly postponed to April 2014. He feels it all should be included in the article (the cancellations, the reasons why, the future tour dates) and has reverted what was removed per WP:CRYSTAL. Thus, his edit warring at both articles resumed. Please know I don't like bothering you or any administrator with this kind of thing, but I am at the end of my rope with this editor. I am beyond frustrated. As I stated to you at the AN/EW page in July, I will not edit war at either article or any article associated with this band. Vuzor, however, is back at it. I'm not looking for punishment or revenge or anything of the sort. I just would like the edit warring madness, Wikilawyering, and placement of inappropriate content from this editor to stop. He won't listen to me, my hope is he will listen to an administrator. Of course, any suggestions you have would have for me would be appreciated as well. Thank you in advance and thank you for taking the time to read what probably falls for you into the category of WP:TLDR. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The edit warring report was at the end of July. A great deal of time has passed since then. I would not be comfortable blocking you and/or @Vuzor: based on the recent edits. I see this as a fairly run-of-the-mill content dispute in which the two of you can't agree on what belongs in the articles. It's a little harder because both articles have so few page watchers. To resolve the dispute, I suggest you try WP:3O and see what happens. I think both of you should stop insisting on your version in the articles. I don't think it matters much which version remains in place while you hash out the dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to post exactly how many people are watching a page if it's less than 30. The software won't show it to non-admins in those cases, because it's basically telling you a page is easy to vandalize. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

How the hell do you know these things, Jack? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I just picked them up along the way somewhere. I'm really not sure. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please understand: I'm not insisting on my version, I'm insisting on what's allowed content-wise and what's not. I don't care what the article says or how it says it as long as it's not going against things like WP:MOS and WP:CRYSTAL. I don't like to point fingers or play the blame game, but I honestly don't think Vuzor can say he is approaching this from the same perspective that I am. From what I've seen of him since March this year at any articles relating to Sound of Contact, it's pretty much his version or forget about it. He just doesn't seem to get (or want to get) that Wikipedia isn't a journal or a newspaper or an advertising service for Sound of Contact. Putting prospective tour dates in a band article is predicting the future. We don't do it for television or film articles, why should it be allowed in band articles? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: I really don't see this as merely a content dispute. It's a dispute over Vuzor's insistence on his content being the content that stays. It's about edit warring behavior. You, yourself, recognized that there was a re-occurring issue with edit warring at articles related to Sound of Contact. Even though edit warring at Dimensionaut and Sound of Contact hasn't occurred from your Edit Warring decision in July until now, it IS occurring now and again and by one editor. I expect that it will continue to happen with that editor at the same articles (and the same types of articles) until he understands that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a journal or magazine or advertising service for musicians and their touring schedules. From reading what happens at 3O, under what circumstances and why, I just don't see how getting another opinion there will help with Vuzor's editing and propensity for edit warring to win and keep his version alive. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I see this as a content dispute with the potential for mushrooming into a behavioral dispute. Again, I suggest you not let that happen and seek dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your input is appreciated (even if it doesn't seem like I feel that way). The frustration I feel over this editor has gotten to me, I guess. I realize Admins aren't meant to be babysitters. Thanks for your suggestions. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Babysitters at least get paid. :-) Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a revised article Less w/ colorfull descriptive adjectives and more plain fact

(Redacted)

LET me know if this will fly or where to make changes! thanks C.sebb (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC) A loyal fan

If you are not Chris Sebby but only a fan, then you shouldn't have chosen a user name so close to his name. See WP:IMPERSONATE. If you are Sebby, then you shouldn't be creating articles about yourself. Either way, I suggest you use WP:AFC if you want to recreate the article and NOT put the article into article space unless a more experienced editor believes it complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No-one is trying to impersonate. My name is Kai Ngo, I am his Ex-Fiance and probably #1 fan. I used this e-mail to create because I spam filter through fan-mail and booking inquiries for him using this account, then I forward to his real e-mail. You wouldn't believe half the experiences while I was with him. I figure I probably know more facts about him than anyone. I created a username same as pre-fix e-mail, so I could remember it, just for this purpose. I was trying to start a biography about him cause so many fans have lots of questions about his past, besides, I asked him if I could and he gave me permission. Is there a different site you would recommend to create a biography about someone? I had originally just copied his social media bio and was going to add dates and facts and places, around it so I could do justice to how he would like to be personified. I understand this site is encylopedic and I am new to editing here. I will try to recreate in the page link you sent and when I am finished I'll have you come give your stamp of approval to publish ...sound good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.sebb (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sebb's e-mail problems have nothing to do with the user account name you pick here. Don't pass any AFC article by me. Just submit it in the way described in the instructions. Other editors will comment. Honestly, it sounds highly unlikely the article will be acceptable to Wikipedia. I think you are wasting your time here, but it's your decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Aafia Siddiqui

not sure how this works but i have researched Aafia Siddiqui thoroughly , allegations were made by the FBI that she was married a second time but her family insist she was not. This allegation was supposedly made by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who gave up Aafia 's name after being waterboarded 183 times. He was tortured. Therefore I would like to to undo your revision or let me do that thanks

@Rzq123: you are fighting with two editors (not counting me) in the article. As one editor said on your talk page, your personal knowledge of Siddiqui cannot be the basis for your changing material in the article. You must cite to reliable sources. Also, it rarely goes well for a new editor to come to Wikipedia, focus only on one article and disrupt it by adding material they think is right but failing to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I strongly suggest you take a step back and discuss whatever issues you have on the article talk page. Also, listen to what more experienced editors have to say. Insisting you are right is a path to nowhere. I left you a warning on your talk page. If you continue to edit disruptively, it will only lead to your account being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no copyright infringement in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_Point_Energy_Technology

Hi there is no copyright infringement in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_Point_Energy_Technology. I am the author of the paper as well and own all the rights. Kindly reinstate the page immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhshalender (talk • contribs) 06:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you have control of http://zpointenergy.com you can put a license there as described at WP:DONATEIMAGE. Another way you can donate your text is to go through WP:OTRS. —rybec 07:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very strict about copyright. You have to prove that you, as copyright holder, release the content under an acceptable Creative Commons license, knowing that anyone else can use that work however they please. But then the issue arises as to whether the material is appropriate for this encyclopedia. Does it meet our notability guidelines? Is it written from the neutral point of view? Is it properly referenced? There are many elements that go into writing a decent encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia has no obligation to keep articles that don't meet our accepted standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Singhslalender: You did not create that article using this account. It was created using User:Priya2711. Who owns the Priya2711 account? You?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Further MRM spill over

I had just left KC a message about something related last night[20] when I saw this by User:Tezero. He re-reverted with the edit summary "there are misandrist feminists. just not all of them are". There is a low level buzz of activity across this area (See recent events on Ecofeminism and this comment[21] at WikiProject Gender Studies, as well as this[22]). Some of this might be the normal run of the mill trolling but if you read my post to KC you'll see why I'm concerned--Cailil ^talk 11:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Also I'm sure you've noticed these[23][24] as well as the IP you reverted[25]--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a continuous problem. Unless someone advises me of somthing - usually you - I notice only what's on my watchlist. Feminism, for example is not. I've issued several notices today to editors who have started editing Men's rights movement. It's hard sometimes to decide when to take action (the revert I made of the IP) and when not to, particularly when it's on a talk page. To me, the IP's comments were so far over the top, I reverted, whereas the other talk page edits, although objectionable, were not quite so inflammatory, so I left them in. This is one of the few areas where I sanction editors based on content as much as conduct, and I want to remain as uninvolved as I can to be able to continue to do that.

If you remember, the probation is going to expire on September 20, only about a week and a half away. Unless you have had an epiphany on this issue, I think I will have to go to WP:AN to request an extension of the probation. At the same time, some of the terms of the probation need clarification in my view. So, if there's a consensus to extend it, those ambiguities need to be resolved. My biggest problem is time. My second biggest issue is I'm not a big fan of AN or ANI at present considering recent events.

As an aside, what's going on with Masculism? It is on my watchlist, and I've noticed with some dismay rather major edits to the article by IPs with no pushback from the usual group of more neutral parties.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Masculism isn't on my watchlist I'll have a look. But I can hear the buzz getting louder.

In terms of time issues I'm suffering the same problem. As regards the expiry date that's just the 1RR. I'll have a word with Black Kite but if nobody else wants to I'll make a post on Sunday detailing the issues. I agree re: clarification and simplification also. On top of all that the probation page needs to be moved from a talk page to a subpage of WP:GS so it can have a talk page of its own--Cailil ^talk 20:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The expiration of the 1RR is just flat-out wrong. I hadn't looked at the discussion and closure in quite some time, but I'd forgotten that everyone ignored my comment that the arithmetic was wrong. The closure said 6 months, which should have been October 20, not September. I am going to change it to the right date. I don't see why I need permission to correct a clerical error. As a collateral benefit, that will give us more breathing room. As for the remainder of the probation terms, why doesn't the probation page link to the first discussion at AN? Do you know where it is? I'm not even sure I've ever read it. I agree with you about WP:GS.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: the date - I'd ping Dennis about his maths but honestly it's as bad as my own. That gives a bit of space (especially considering the current trends). Re: the original AN it's here--Cailil ^talk 20:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The link to the initial discussion is on the probation page; I just missed it (stupid). As for @Dennis Brown:, he has now been pinged, but he's not editing much on Wikipedia these days.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) A cursory look at what PearlSt82 removed is ... interesting. The use of Benatar (in that fashion, i.e not in context) is the same as some edits to the MRM page. The use of Nathanson and Young and this kind of rhetoric -- ""logic," based on totally ignoring all inconvenient facts" -- is consistent with typical MRM forum rants/posts and/or Reddit Men's rights comments.

So I just checked that reddit and guess how many speciifc "wikipedia is biased" threads came up as active in the last 10 days:one on the Masculinity article, a second on the MRM page[26], a third[27] on “Women are wonderful” effect article (which as an interesting recent edit history), two more on the FemTech initative[28][29]. And throw the net back another ten days and you get two more one on the FemTech initative[30] and another on the MRM page--Cailil ^talk 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkbacker.com redirect

Talkbacker.com has no affiliation with Harry Knowles. Why did you redirect the page Talkbacker.com to his wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schamblin (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, whatever you say. It's tagged for deletion. I'll let another admin evaluate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Commas

Thank you so much for your advice on where on Wikipedia to go to 'experiment'. I feel your categorisation of my edits as unconstructive is, if possible, even more erroneous than someone else categorising them as vandalism. This is based solely on the fact the unconstuctive is not a word.

Although I am new to this, I am not here to vandalise or, for that matter, cause trouble. I simply wish for things that I read to be written correctly, you know, using actual words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by This, is not how we use commas. (talk • contribs) 00:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not how it looks. Removing commas from a long series? Removing commas from quotations? Battling over it with another editor? A brand new user who changes one of Wikipedia's core policies? It's hard for me to credit what you're saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Floq, your block reason belongs in the lists of those editors who memorialize such gems.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Brad Pitt

What was wrong with saying Pitt identifies as heterosexual, since all the articles with gay celebrities say they are are gay, and Pitt and Jolie fill very strongly about equal rights, wouldn't it only be fair to say that a straight actor came out as straight, and if not then shouldn't all celebrities who identify as gay, not have that listed on their wiki article?

When appropriate, we include material about someone being gay because it's noteworthy. Being straight is not noteworthy and adding it to an article has a WP:COATRACKy feeling about it. It might be okay to include if it had some context, but such instances would be rare. You just inserted it for no reason at all, and it stood out like a sore thumb.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Haberstr's block

Hi Bbb23! I am currently reviewing Haberst's unblock request. The block you imposed was based on a violation of 3RR due to the 3RR noticeboard report. The basis of the unblock request is that the editor was not edit-warring. I took a look at the diffs provided in the report, and I don't see the reverts. Am I missing some diffs? Singularity42 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Upon further review, I see some reverts in the report. Of the five diffs provided, the first, second, and fourth were reverts of different content on the same page within 24 hours. But I'm not seeing it with the third and fifth revert provided. So I don't think this got past the 3RR situation, which was the basis of the block (versus the 1RR situation now imposed). Singularity42 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are the diffs from the article itself. I didn't include the last one he did as it came just a few minutes outside the 24-hour window. I didn't include a few that I felt weren't warranted, although some of the ones below are more minor than others. Nontheless, there are a LOT of them.

1. [31] 12:29, 11 September
2. [32] 15:15, 11 September 2013
3. [33] 19:25, 11 September 2013
4. [34] 20:40, 11 September 2013
5. [35] 05:43, 12 September 2013
6. [36] 06:35, 12 September 2013
7. [37] 07:07, 12 September 2013
8. [38] 07:14, 12 September 2013
9. [39] 08:04, 12 September 2013
10. [40] 09:11, 12 September 2013

--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Singularity42: One more thing. Haberstr was warned of edit warring here at 6:44, 12 September. He removed the warning here. Note that after the warning Haberstr reverted four more times on the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, saw the warning - just had trouble determing what was content addition and what was a revert. I've declined the unblock. Singularity42 (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Your decline and my last comment overlapped. Just so you know, these articles are very contentious and messy to deal with. Also, the sanctions aren't exactly new, just put in a different category. They used to be incorrectly subject to WP:ARBPIA. Someone finally complained, and based on an arbitration decision and a subsequent community discussion, the exact same sanctions continued, but now under WP:GS instead of ArbCom.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

EW

Thanks for marking it as withdrawn, but no one broke 3RR, it was reinserting something contented under BLP while the issue was at BLPN. I said it in the original, but when I tried to refocus it, he deleted my comment re-explaining it as well.[41] Anyways. If he reinserts than I'll be back at the board - 3RR or not, it was a serious BLP matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but I believe I counted 4 reverts (I'm not going to redo my work at this point). BTW, while we're here, a bit of advice for the future. You should have warned Folken of the edit warring, and you were required to notify him of the filing of the report (I did that for you). Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying him, I thought it was an auto-ping like the last one. I did not realize that without Twinkle it would not go. The 4 reverts by Folken were not within 24 hours, and I did 3 reverts myself. Sorry for the trouble. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Folken made the first revert at 13:18 on September 11 and the fourth revert at 11:59 on September 12. I'm not counting another edit in that window where he only added material. Even if you had pinged Folken properly, pinging has not yet taken the place of formal notice required by administrative noticeboards. If and when those instructions change to allow pinging, then you can eliminate the step. Although I confess you're not alone in your view on that issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I didn't think he broke 3RR, too tired at the time maybe, but a moot point since the matter is resolved and the request withdrawn, but I'll remember that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually just to clarify and be crystal clear for future matters, a revert is any change which undoes or modifies the work of another editor, right? So he can break 3RR by altering something independent of the disputed text by continuing to augment other aspects from other editors as well? I didn't read it that way - I thought it had to be the same subject or material being contested. Think I better go re-read that policy... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

AN notification

Hi, just a courtesy message - I've namedropped you at AN. Regards, GiantSnowman 20:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposition 8

I've answered your comment in response to mine about why Calif. Prop. 8 is dead. See Talk:California_Proposition_8#Is_Prop_8_actually_currently_invalid? for my response to yours. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Near East University

The source of the newly added material is the link of university, already given under the text. The new info, which was about the names of faculties and number of research centres, is verifiable from the link of the university web page, already given as a source. There is no reason to move the newly added content. Besides, the newly added information is just a regular information, nothing else. Once the link of the university used, this information can easily be seen on the official web site of the university. If you are going to challange such an information, you must be reasonable in your challange and put forth `really reasonable` arguments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriantem (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Questionable reverting on Katia Elizarova page

Hi there on the Katia Elizarova page you left the following comment in an edit 15:25, 21 August 2013‎ Bbb23 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,643 bytes) (-724)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 149.241.6.55 (talk) to last version by Pinakulo - inappropriate edits

However, in your reverting you have put back factual inaccuracies and seemingly removed updates and information. Could you please explain this? I'm going to go back in and correct the mistaken labeling of images once more and add back in the updated career information as appropriate. Along with additional information of other work I can find online. But I am interested as to what you find inappropriate, so as not to add material that might cause issues. I am not sure why it would be felt that non-sourced items and inaccuracy is okay? And correct labelling, new links and timeline updates inappropriate, but I might be missing something.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.6.55 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Shookallen88 talk page

Please don't block my IP address for asking please unblock my talk page I just wanted to know what to do when six months past that's all nothing else. That's why I was misusing it to know what to do that's all. So please don't block me I just telling you why I did it. I willing to wait six months I just wanted to know what to do when six months arrive that's it. User:Shookallen88 September 14, 2013 02:00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.157.174 (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with you. Like the last time I blocked this IP address, you not only edited my talk page but you edited Pacific Blue (TV series) four days ago. You would have more credibility if you just edited either my or your talk page but you can't resist editing articles as well. The two edits you did a few days ago were good edits, but blocked editors aren't allowed to edit, regardless of the quality of their edits. I'm tempted to block this IP again, but for longer, but I'm going to consult with someone else before making a final decision. In the meantime, don't edit anywhere on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ashvin Gidwani Productions (AGP)

Hi! I'm new to Wiki and tried contributing my first article today on a dying artform of Theatre that an entity AGP is striving to revive. It was taken off immediately by you. Any suggestions ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madaboutentertainment (talk • contribs) 11:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is a mass of promotional material and copyright infringement (from various sources). You'd have to completely rewrite it from a neutral point of view and focus on the subject company, not on each play they are producing. You should also use WP:AFC. You need feedback from experienced editors as to the suitability of the article before moving it to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

RE Letitia James article

Hi, Bbb23: just wanted to provide you with what I consider to be an impeccable source for the comments re Laurie Cumbo, from the coverage by The Epoch Times of the primary election in question (see here; please note comment "There are no Republicans running in the district, meaning the Democratic primary was the race."). Otherwise, I can "back off" for a while from editing the article as you recommended, provided the IP does the same. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I found the same source almost immediately after I read the initial report. I've commented at AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, would that I had known you would be so diligent. I really didn't realize that would be such a huge problem, especially since you didn't direct me to stop editing; you made it sound like a suggestion, and also because I provided the reflink which was indispensable to proving I was correct in what I had edited at least as regards Cumbo. If it is "awkwardly" written I hope you will rectify that so the article will be the best it can be for now. And since you have made it clear that your comment at the ANI discussion was a directive, not a suggestion, may I ask for how long this mandate will be in effect, not that I am interested in returning any time soon to that snake pit. Thanks. Quis separabit? 19:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless there's an egregious policy violation, which there isn't at the moment, I'm not going to touch the content. Why don't you leave the article alone for five days and do other things that are less contentious and more enjoyable? -- Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Quis separabit? 19:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Billboarder22

More on Billboarder22 sockpuppetry: Jenn Bocian and Sylfronia King - more articles with manipulated references and uncited claims related to Sean Guerrier De Bey and World Live Music Distribution. And! Check this out: SmartWay Products - SmartWay is affiliated with De Bey. JSFarman (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I won't be able to look at this until tomorrow. I'm worn out and about to go off-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

God, every time I look at this stuff it makes me dizzy. I slashed the Bocian article. I did a little work on Ariel de Lion (I wasn't aware of that one until I looked at the Smartway website), and I've stopped. Every time I think about presenting this at ANI, I hesitate, not because it doesn't warrant it but because of the work involved in trying to connect the very weird dots. Perhaps I'll start an abbreviated topic at ANI and not try to be thorough. Others might be motivated to probe more, and at least it would get the ball rolling.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Lukabeograd

• Lukabeograd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lukabeograd2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You blocked Lukabeograd for six months re: an WP:ARBMAC judgement in January. He was engaged in repeatedly reassigning sports results of the former Yugoslavia exclusively to Serbia.

Now Lukabeograd2 is doing the same. Assuming that the same individual is behind them, the original block was evaded, but is no longer being evaded as it ran out on 6 July.

Do you mind taking a look? Thanks, Kahastok talk 10:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the #2 account indefinitely as a puppet. I blocked the original account for one year under the sanctions. Please let me know if there is further disruption as I don't have these pages on my watchlist. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Request block on RMS

Thank you for arguing with RMS on his biased edits to Letitia James while I took some time to cool off. Here, here, and here you can see he violated 3RR and pushed the same POV. Since he's been blocked before perhaps a month would be good this time? He claims 8 years of editing experience yet can't step away from his own POV. Thanks!!--100.2.12.154 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually glad you (different IP but obviously the same person) stopped by because it affords me the opportunity to tell you the same thing I told Rms. You should stay away from the James article for at least 5 days. I'm not blocking Rms and I'm not blocking you, but both of you could do with a rest from the article and from each other. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but when RMS creeps in again within 5 days, I expect you to do your job.--100.2.12.154 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No need to be so cynical or bloodthirsty. Wikipedia can be tough, but usually the "crises" are overblown. A little bit of calm will be good for all.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User:76.164.103.108

Continues right were they left off. Wondering if you would consider blocking again? I can re-post at 3RR aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, James, but I was off-wiki until now. Looks like it's been dealt with.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

creation of page

hi I'm Uros and come from Serbia. I want to create an article about the football club Recreativo FC 011, which was established this year by young people, mostly students whp are football fans. I tried to put a wiki page but it is my attempt denied for reasons that are unclear to me.I am willing to submit evidence of the existence of the club facebook page and link from the Business Registers Agency Serbia and to confirm the authenticity of this article. thank in advance, Uros — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uros slavija (talk • contribs) 16:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Articles on the English Wikipedia need to be written in English. Articles in other languages should instead be submitted to the Wikipedia for that language. Also, your article appeared to be about a subject that wasn't notable enough for an encyclopedia, and it seemed overly promotional. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 has been duly noted, and thanks for pointing that out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Now regarding Muhammad Madani Miya Ashrafi al-Jilani, I thought - at that time - I could nominate it for speedy because my gutting of the article was all policy based. In this case, the given source (which wasn't dead) didn't verify any of the information given, and even surfing the site itself didn't yield any results. As a general rule, should speedy and prod be off limits if I was the one who cut out content? I just want to make sure so I can avoid any other gaffes like that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there's anything in policy on this issue. For me, it's instinctive and involves the interplay between a speedy delete and an AfD. In most ways it's easier to get past a CSD because you don't need sources as long as the claims in the article are significant and credible. At the same time, in other ways you can fail a CSD even if it wouldn't otherwise fail an AfD. For example, let's say that you have a new short article that says "John Doe is a well-known American television actor." There are no sources. That would fail CSD, and it wouldn't be incumbent on me, the deleter, to go looking to see whether Doe really is notable enough to withstand an A7. The counter-example is an article that's been around a while and has lots of unsourced claims. So, it says, "John Doe is an American television actor. He has appeared in many shows. He usually plays a villain. He has won multiple awards, including the Best Television Actor given out by Joe Schmo Organization in 2003 and 2006, as well as Best Television Newcomer in 1995 given out by the Georgina Film Festival." You come along and see that the article has been tagged as unsourced for two years. You remove everything from the article except the first sentence and you tag it for CSD. It fails. However, it might not fail if you hadn't gutted it. If, on the other hand, you nominate it for AfD after gutting it, you have to do WP:BEFORE first and make sure that Doe isn't notable even though the article sucks. The gutting/CSD seems completely wrong.

Now, this might not be the best example because generally actors are easy to research, and it's not clear that even in my example of the Doe material before the gut it would get past CSD. But hopefully it's understandable to you on a commonsense basis. I'm sure this varies from admin to admin, and even my actions at CSD vary from article to article, i.e., sometimes I do some research, sometimes I don't. It depends on the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

What you've said here is quite reasonable and now understood. I did run a WP:BEFORE check on Muhammad Madani Miya Ashrafi al-Jilani after reading your response here, and what I'm finding are two official websites for the subject, one poorly designed html site for a foundation he is tied to, and a whole lot of blog posts written in poor English along with some youtube videos of some speeches. I'm really convinced that the subject isn't notable, which isn't surprising considering the creator - a now indeffed sockpuppet account used to create a lot of now-deleted articles on non-notable subjects. I know you probably don't want to spend too much time on this one issue, but could you advise on what the most appropriate next step would be (tagging, AfD, something else)? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd AfD it and explain the history and why you think it's not notable based on your research.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

John "$K" McGee and John "SK" McGee

I was just wondering why was the page deleted it had very valid information and credits for a very big named producer in the music industry? All credits and references were provided and his name is already within Wikipedia on various artist pages. Someone just finally created a page for him. Please let me know what needs to done so that we can keep it live and add new information to this amazing producers career.

Anthony Graham [email protected]

You created the SK article, and another user, User:Marshetam, created the $K article. You created your Wikipedia account on September 17; Marshetam created their account on September 13. What's the relationship between the two accounts? There's yet another account, User:SKMcgee, involved. They created their account on September 4. What's that about? I'm not willing to address the merits of the article itself until you give me satisfactory answers about the accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Bardel Entertainment (continued)

I've a significantly rewritten and sourced version of this article at User:Dogmaticeclectic/Bardel Entertainment and would request that you remove the create protection you applied. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You mentioned at WP:REFUND that you talked to me and I "ignored" you. When and where did that happen? Also, I'm just curious why you're interested in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I explained exactly what I meant by that - you ignored my response to your refusal to restore, in which I requested an explanation for that refusal. I became interested in the article when, being a significant contributor at Silverwing (TV series), I noticed that the production company of that show used to have an article but it was deleted. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my first question. Please provide a link or diff to when I ignored your request.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Bbb23/Archive 18#Bardel Entertainment Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and I apologize for not responding to your last comment in July. Sometimes, even on my own talk page, I miss comments. Sometimes I see them and intend to respond later but then forget. In any event, I think the article you created needs a fair amount of work, but I've unprotected the name so you can move it to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Opensooq

Hi, I've re-made couple of times an article under the name "Opensooq" but it had been deleted for advertising reasons. I finally edit the content to avoid the sound of advertising. but when I wanted to make a new article under the name of "Opensooq" it shows the deletion page. Please can you help ASAP? here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opensooq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Existed (talk • contribs) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since you kept re-creating that article after it was deleted, an administrator prevented any new articles from being created there. If you think you can create a non-promotional version, use the Article Wizard, and create it as a submission to Articles for Creation. If it is accepted, the protection on the page name will be lifted and the article will be moved there. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe the admin who protected the article intended to WP:SALT it but made an error, so the protection ended within a minute of its imposition. Although it's now moot (the article has been recreated), an article accepted through AFC could not automatically lift protection. It would still require a request to an admin to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant that if it got accepted, an admin would be willing to do it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Syria civil war sanctions

Hi, can you give a warning for Syria civil war sanctions to User:Sopher99? first revertsecond revert (both deleting same section). thanks, Podiaebba (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. It's your stuff they're removing, but the warning is warranted anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Zac Efron

I noticed your edit here. I understand that most admins on Wikipedia think it is their duty, as part of the sect, to destroy the work of others. However, I think in this case, before deleting the entry, perhaps you could have searched the internet for more reliable sources and added those sources yourself? --Jeppe fra Ribe (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jeppe fra Ribe No, Bbb23 didn't really have a choice. Per WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". I've also removed your edit as the only cite mentioning cocaine was TMZ using unnamed sources. Not exactly a high-quality source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

More from the members of the sect. --Jeppe fra Ribe (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

sourcing

Hi. I'm glad you have corrected my entries a couple times on Joan Juliet Black's birth date, because it made me go to ancestry.com. I discovered the posted date on that site is indeed wrong. The conundrum I have now is that this would be, I suppose, considered original research. Any suggestions on how to proceed? I'm not a big Joan Juliet Black fan or anything, I'm more just wanting to learn the process for documentation here, what's accepted and what's not, and why. It seemed a simple starting point.

There's no easy way. Sometimes a birthdate just can't be sourced. You have to familiarize yourself with WP:RS. When you look at sources like famousbirthdays.com, look for the About. If there isn't one, that's already not a good thing. If there is one, as in famousbirthdays, look to see what it says. When I read it, there was no indication of who was in charge, how facts were vetted, or how they were staffed. It struck me as a fluffy celebrity site started and maintained by god knows who. Not stopping there, I went to WP:RSN, searched the archives, and found a fairly good discussion by experienced editors all agreeing that the site was not reliable. I hope that helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was completely unaware of the reliable sources list. I'm also learning how to use this strange "talk" beast. Stlmopoet (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I left you a belated welcome message on your talk page that gives you a bunch of links if you want to read up on policies and guidelines. Your account isn't new, but you haven't edited much here; maybe this will be of some help.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

-Kudzu1 user in Ghouta Chemical attacks

Hi This user has made a large number of reverts and edits in a one day period without consensus undoing a lot of work. Over 7000 characters in 8 or so reverts. [[42]] The reason I got a Syrian civil war sanctions notice was far less. Hes not editing NPOV and is not willing to talk about NPOV solutions. Can you give him the warning I got please so the damage stops. How do we get the material back without getting a warning? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think of a warning as a sanction. If I had blocked you, that would be a sanction. A warning is intended to avert sanctions. If you have a dispute over specific material, you should discuss it on the talk page and reach a consensus as to how to handle the material. You yourself cannot restore material more than once in any 24-hour window without risking a block. Remember, too, that even if you don't breach WP:1RR, if it can be shown that you are edit warring or are being disruptive, you may still be blocked. I'd focus on your own conduct and not worry so much about other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks for the link. I will follow the suggestions on it including the template Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hey, pretty sure User:Valkyrie 06 is a sockpuppet of User:Blade-of-the-South -- as you may have surmised from your interaction with him/her on the latter's user Talk page. I have created an SPI here: [43] By the way, I don't regard the community sanctions notice Valkyrie 06 placed on my own user Talk page as valid -- seeing as that he/she is not an "uninvolved administrator" -- but I am an active Syrian civil war topic editor, and if you see fit to properly place that notice on my Talk page, I will respect that. Thanks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A few things. You should respect the sanctions and the 1RR restriction even without a formal warning. A non-admin can give the warning, although it's unusual. However, they can't use the template when doing so because they are then falsely purporting to be an admin. In this instance, they used the template, but even more important, the motive for the warning was not constructive. I haven't reviewed the SPI report you filed, but thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I have violated 1RR on Ghouta chemical attacks; if I did so, the error is mine. I'm aware of the sanctions and that particular protection on the article in question, and I can say I believe I have kept them squarely in mind while editing. Thank you for the quick response. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 I can understand Kudzu1 concerns about sockpuppetry. I explained the situation to him thus on the Ghouta talk page.

'Re "uninvolved administrator". Agree I know its not helpful. Dinner party talk led to Syria and Wiki...I think I know who is trying to help, but its not helpful. I'm surprised she managed so much lol and will have a word if she posts again. For the record though she is right you have broken the one revert per day rule blatantly. So an admin may ping you'.

Thank you both for raising this issue. I will be contacting the person I'm 99% sure is involvedBlade-of-the-South (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept your explanation. Valkyrie 06 responded to Bbb23's notice as if he/she were you -- using terms like "my so called badness" and "my talk page" before hastily editing to change the pronouns and claim he/she was a "non involved editor". You then responded to Bbb23's response to the Valkyrie 06 post by defending him/her. Yet you claim to be less than 100% certain of who Valkyrie 06 is, despite the fact that you have collaborated closely on the same pages in the past, as User:VQuakr pointed out in the SPI, and the fact that "she" identifies as a former user's wife on her Talk page. Why the uncertainty: "99% sure", "I think I know", "I'm surprised", etc.? You and Valkyrie 06 tag-teamed my Talk page and you openly commented on her response to Bbb23 on his Talk page. It's not the first time you and Valkyrie 06 have exhibited that pattern of editing behavior. I don't believe your story at all, and I'm unimpressed with your attempt to smooth-talk your way out of this. I think it would be better for you to simply confess to either operating multiple accounts yourself or using an account that belongs to someone you know to create the illusion of support from a "non involved editor", because it seems quite clear to me you did one of those two things. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I got this notice on my page when I opened it after an email from my husband. I told him all this negativity would rebound back. He spends too much time on this site and even though Wikipedia is a very useful organization it should be time limited so other activities dont suffer. I'm quite cross about all this. About these edits, well we did have a dinner party, the topic was discussed. Next day I checked the article and on his page I saw his sanctions warning. So I checked the edit history and saw another editor do the same thing with no warnings, so I acted. Im whats called a Hospital administrator, I dont like rules for one not another. However I don't have time for editing due to full time work and this episode confirms it. It took some working out to do what I did. If I did I think Assad may be responsible but the article is fair so I wold leave it alone. As for these allegations, am I supposed to use my account more. Was hat the issue? Or are spouses not allowed on the same sites? Whatever the case I truly dont have time for any more of these edits, but I am no sockpuppet Valkyrie 06 (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Because I think that Blade has done a lot of progress as Wikipedian since I first met him here many years ago, and because recently I took the initiative of praising him for his edits in the Syria conflict, I found myself involved in this. I hope the sockpuppet investigation doesn't block Valkyrie's account. However, from various details I saw in my investigation into the case, I would like to point out to Valkyrie, that although she may not have intended to deceive but to support, when she communicates with her husband as to "how" she can help, which I think was the case, the advice he may give her makes her a meatpuppet and may result in the blocking of her account. Hoverfish Talk 20:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: thanks for your comments here and at SPI. They are helpful. I've come to a preliminary conclusion at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)