User talk:Bbb23/Archive 22

Help on Katia Elizarova

Can you please intervene with the IP user trolling Katia Elizarova's page. I am a new user and can't stop the editor from putting gossip-y and unnecessary details in her personal life section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairyspit (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 December 2013

Thank you for intervening on Katia Elizarova page - I don't understand users wishing to revise history subjectively for personal fantasy. I like your intervening to stop it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.52.20 (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Woah Nelly - are you serious - just read the context of the edits before that assertion in my chat. Objectivity is the goal. I'm lucky you didn't block - seriously?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.52.20 (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask a favor, would you mind monitoring the personal life section of Katia Elizarova as it's full of fluffing and addition of unnecessary information and unsubstantiated speculation that shouldn't be indicated in the biography at all. Since the rumor first started in 2012 it has been disputed immediately by both parties. And it is not widely reported at all as fact. It's gossip. Thank you very much!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairyspit (talk • contribs) 02:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi Bbb. I was wondering how an editor goes about instituting a redirect, if that's what it's called. What I'm trying to fix is this: When you search Wikipedia for psychological stress it takes you to this page Stress (biology), when it should take you to this page Stress (psychological). -- Thanks. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You just change it, which I've done.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Could you do me a favour and close Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tumandokkangcabatuan as withdrawn or something similar. I'm having second thoughts about it and I'm not sure it is a sockpuppet any more. I couldn't find any instructions for withdrawing a report. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. You could have just commented in the report itself, but no problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking for instructions on withdrawing but couldn't see any. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: Warning

I disagree with the warning you gave me in Talk:Men's Rights. The very issue I raised is core to Wikipedia and had attracted a number of significant contributors. I entirely fail to see what the problem is with my commentary on Sexism, it was core to the problem with the page. The free flow of ideas, regardless of how distasteful others might find them, is key to a collaborative project that relies on diversity of opinion to reach a consensus. CSDarrow (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The warning stands. As far as I can tell, almost nothing you do at Wikipedia is constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

History might well see that differently. CSDarrow (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

If you are counting my response to your post as a "significant" contributor being attracted by it, you are fooling yourself. I was repelled by its spiteful non-specificity and I wanted to halt any further development along those lines. I thank Bbb23 for closing down the thread.

I recommend that you hold your talk page posts to a standard which includes any one of the top three layers of this pyramid. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

And perhaps I could refer you to the bottom 3 layers of the pyramid. Just as you may be repelled by my commentary, I am similarly repelled by the wide ranging damage you have done to Wikipedia. CSDarrow (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

As Collect is taking a Wikibreak, he recommended you[1] to me as an impartial editor skilled in BLP discussions so I hope you can help me out.
An editor reverted three edits I made to the article Franklin child prostitution ring allegations for "BLP violations." I went to the Talk page and requested clarification on how the edits violated BLP. The editor became abusive and three other editors came to Talk to support him, yet in four weeks of discussion none of the editors have quoted a single BLP policy that is being violated. The editors keep referring to personally "know[ing] that this incident is a hoax and a conspiracy theory,"[2] making straw man arguments[3] or making claims that I should know the edits violate policy, citing the entire Wikipedia page WP:BLP in support. The discussion was taken to the BLP noticeboard where the four editors are still declining to justify the reversions and are instead relying on personal and Ad hominem attacks in reply to my posts. It has been discussed on the BLP noticeboard for over a week without any independent editors weighing in and commenting[4]. I'm not looking for support, I accept I may be wrong (although I don't think so) but I require a reason, not rhetoric. The following are the three edits in question:[5][6][7]
Also, in late November 2013, text that had been in the article since May 2012 was deleted for not being fully referenced, I replaced it with the missing reference[8] only to see it immediately deleted with the comment "revert per BLP [as] it is not specific, accusatory, insinuation and guilt by association". This time a specific reason for the violation was eventually given (WP:BLPCRIME) but I'm not sure it applies as a court of law, albeit civil, found the person in question guilty. I honestly can't see how the four edits violate anything and would appreciate your input at the BLP noticeboard. Wayne (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The subject matter of the article is complicated from a BLP perspective. I'm having trouble getting my arms around the issues without doing a significant amount of work, which, right now, I can't do. The article has changed considerably since your edits. Perhaps you could tell me here what you want to add or change to the current article. I need to understand, as simply as possible, what you want to include in the article that the other editors object to. Shorter is better.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

These are the reliably sourced edits that the other editors object to on the grounds of BLP:

• To be inserted in the second paragraph.[9] The current text is wrong...the Foster care Board reported the abuse a year earlier than the article states. The Nebraska Legislature was not investigating reports of child sexual abuse, it formed a committee to investigate the abuse only after the Foster Care Board turned over the results of its investigation to them because police would not act on the claims.
• To be added to the end of the article.[10] These are actions taken by the State Legislature which they based on the results of the Foster Care Board's investigation.
• This one is easy.[11] The claim made in the WP article is not in the source provided. My edit replaces it with the claim that is in the source. Although the uncited claim is true, it can only be found in two sources, Nick Bryant's book The Franklin Scandal and the Discovery Channel Documentary Conspiracy Of Silence, both rejected as a RS by these editors who deleted mention in the article that these two sources even exist.
• This edit should also be at the end of the article.[12] It is the civil case that followed the investigations. The original case never went to trial so this was the only finding by an actual court of law.
• There is also another sentence I would like to see changed. I never edited it but brought it up in talk where it was rejected. The sentence a federal grand jury concluded that the abuse allegations were unfounded and indicted 21 year old Alisha Owen, an alleged victim, on eight counts of perjury is, I believe, a BLP violation as it says the abuse allegations were unfounded. In fact, Owen was charged with perjury for naming a person, at her trial it was found that she had been abused but not by the person she accused. Wayne (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure you're trying, Wayne, but you're not making it easy for me. I don't want to see diffs to the article as it was but diffs to the current article. If you wish, put it in your sandbox or somewhere in your userspace. Make a change to it, and then come back with your reasoning. Unless a change is dependent on another change, do one change at a time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb23, one should update you on a couple things here. The article in question was a cesspool a couple years back and was deleted I believe by FloNight and then recreated as a stub by NuclearWarfare...the mess that was deleted had a long history of BLP issues that needed to be erased, some of the deletions needed was due to BLP violations Wayne had added. Since the article recreation, myself and NuclearWarfare kind of let some of the BLP stuff creep back in, and Wayne once again was in the midst of that. I decided to once again remove the BLP issues when an IP editor (probably one of those that has been pusing the fringe issues and BLPCRIME issues in the past) decided to try and force policy violations back into the article. This is not the first time Wayne has been either incapable or disinterested in BLP enforcement as a view of the editing history of the Kerry and Kay Danes article should indicate...there, Wayne was once again adding insinuation and fringe issues in violation of BLP, the article was posted at the BLP Noticeboard and at Jimbo Wales page, and Jimbo ended up stubbing the article out himself a year ago. I cursory glance at the talkpage on the Franklin allegations should indicate clearly that myself, DHeyward, and administrators Tom Harrison and JodyB have all tried to make Wayne understand why what he is arguing for here is a policy violation...while I am not going to be wasting much time on this matter, I am going to be defending policy should Wayne persist in being noncompliant with our policies.--MONGO 16:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@MONGO: Must you follow me to every page I go to? You know very well that the Danes article was not stubbed due to BLP violations. The subject objected to the article and primarily asked for several things, that information given by the Danes own lawyer in the ABC documentary Australian Story be deleted from the article, that WP state that the Laotian court was illegal and they wanted information included that was in their possession but not publicly available. Some minor changes the Danes asked for I made and then I myself posted their requests to the BLP board and asked that the board handle the rest of it. JIMBO agreed that there was no overt BLP violation but that we should respect the wishes of the subject[13] and he stubbed the article saying it should be written again to read more clearly. The "Background" section was deleted per BLP but that was irrelevant as those named were deceased and the section had no mention of the Danes in it at all. Much of the article was sourced to a WP:SPS which was deleted as unreliable, but then that SPS was the Danes own website so that was also irrelevant. You have also repeatedly been told that bringing up the Danes article to discredit me is a violation of WP:NPA. Another editor, your friend P&W, was told on the NPA noticeboard that he could be blocked if he continued to do it.
The BLP problems with the Franklin article all involved either inclusion of the names of people involved (deletion of which I accepted) or the use of a source that was later rejected as unreliable. The edits were not BLP violations when they were made and I stopped defending those edits once their source was found to be unreliable. My arguments were all around your rejection of a newspaper source because it was behind a paywall and you claiming we had no way of knowing if the claimed content was the same as the newspaper. Another of your friends, an admin, backed you by saying we cant use newspaper articles behind a paywall as a source because it would be a copyright infringement and that we also cant use court records as a source because they are primary documents. Significantly you praised this editor for his very honest and nonpartisan manner despite his long history of disputes with me! Hmm, it's interesting how many editors from this 2008 dispute followed me to this article.
@ Bbb23: I'll do a sandbox showing suggested changes for you to look at. Wayne (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I have worked on 9/11 articles for many years and that is where I first encountered you...secondly, the Danes article was posted at Jimbo Wales talk and I have that watchlisted, as I do Bbb23's page...they are on my watchlist...I don't much appreciate your coming here with diffs regarding me and not informing me. Thirdly, as explained above, the BLP Noticeboard participants as well as the talkpage participants on the Franklin article are in disagreement with the material you wish to add back into the article...because it is a violation of BLPCRIME, so now you are virtually forum shopping to try and put insinuations and misleading information back into the article. Fourthly, If the Danes article wasn't stubbed due to BLP concerns, then why was that the edit summary used by Jimbo Wales here, followed two minutes later by Jimbo's removal of a lot of insinuations, allegations and weak material that was also due to BLP, material that you had been defending, and wikilawyering about keeping with the subject of the bio themselves as well as others on that article's talkpage. I have the emails from Kay Danes thanking me for helping them with the article...I can and will submit that to the arbitration committee with her permission which I am sure she will give...she names YOU as part of the problem with her bio. You are the type of editor that is a net detriment to this website...while I have written over 1000 articles that have never been challenged for NPOV or posted for deletion and produced more than a dozen featured articles, you've spent your time on this website wasting others peoples time with your nonsense...now if that isn't polite enough for you, I don't give a crap because I don't like having my times wasted when I would prefer you ceased your ongoing misuses of this website and allow me to get back to writing about parks, mountains and glaciers. I will not allow you to continue to misuse this website to violate BLP and promote fringe theories as if they were truths.--MONGO 15:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

MONGO, that's enough. Wayne came here for advice. If he is able to follow the structure I laid out above, I agreed to try to help him. I don't see how anything "bad" can happen from my counseling another editor, so please let it go. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Section break

I have added the article to my sandbox here. "Original article" is the article as it is now. I've numbered the edits "first" to "sixth" and as they don't overlap they should be easy to see as diffs in history. I hope this is suitable. Wayne (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The reasoning behind my edits:

• First edit: The current text is incorrect on several points...the Foster care Board reported the abuse a year earlier than the article states. The Nebraska Legislature was not investigating reports of child sexual abuse, it formed a committee to investigate the abuse. The Foster Care Board only turned over the results of its investigation to the Legislature because law enforcement did not act on the claims. This is supported by the source provided.

• The Foster source says 1987. The current intro sentence says 1988 (you didn't change that, though, in this edit). I can't see the source for the current intro sentence (it's a book). My guess is it's based on when the stuff was turned over to the legislature, which apparently was 1988. Seems like a small point. I don't see the necessity to include the Foster statement that law enforcement failed to act - seems self-serving. If it were reported that way in a secondary source, that would be better. I don't like section headers that says things like "controversy" or, as here, "scandal". Seems unnecessary and non-neutral. haven't looked at the next edit yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The section headers are tentative only. The article needs sections, but I've no opinion on what their titles should be. There are newspaper sources supporting "law enforcement failing to act" but they do not say that exactly. For example, the Attorney Generals Office claimed they investigated but when the departments investigator, T Vlahoulis, was subpoenaed, he stated that they didn't investigate but turned the case over to the Omaha Police Dept. This is supported by a report by the Franklin Committee dated 22 June 1989. The OPD said they investigated and found the claims to be unsubstantiated but an officer later said the investigation did not include interviewing any victims and that officers were reluctant to investigate as King was considered to be "too powerful politically." The FBI did interview the children who claimed abuse but said that the statute of limitations (three years) had likely expired so took it no further. This can be found in the Lincoln Journal star of 19 March 1989 Pg LAW 3B where D Carlson (Vice-director of the Foster Board) also states that he was concerned over whether the claims had been properly investigated. I suppose relevance is that it explains the reason they submitted the results of it's investigation to the Executive Board of the Nebraska Legislature. Additionally, if the claims had been investigated in 1987 the case would not have coincided with the Franklin investigation or gone to the GJ as four of the five "victims" who testified before the GJ only came forward after the State Legislature appointed the Franklin Committee in 1989. Including the reasons the Foster Board thought law enforcement failed is probably too much information and possibly a BLP violation anyway but this failure determined how the case was handled making it relevant.Wayne (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear. I'm always flexible with wording as there are usually better ways to write any edit. For example, perhaps "law enforcement failed to act" could be less accusatory by being written as "Believing law enforcement investigations were inadequate, the Review Board..." which is still supported by the Journal star article. Wayne (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know from the message box at the top of my talk page, I don't have as much time as usual on Wikipedia, and when I do have time, my energy is not up to snuff, either. First, the purpose of this discussion had to do with BLP violations. In this first edit, I don't see any BLP issues. It looks more to me like a run-of-the-mill content dispute about how much material to include and how to word it. So, I don't see any real purpose to further discussion about this edit. Second, I'm not sure when I'll get to the next edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This edit was specifically, repeatedly and solely rejected by the opposing editors as a BLP violation[14] which is why these edits are here for you to look at. No other reason was given for it's rejection. Wikipedia does not have time limits for articles so I'm happy to work with you in your spare time. Thank you for your time and effort. Wayne (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Second edit: Again the text is incorrect. The source does not say that the abuse stories originated with the "vindictive employee," it merely says that the employee may have "fueled the fire of rumor and innuendo." As the source names this person, the sentence in the article may be a BLP violation as he was never accused of this, the Grand Jury simply "suggested" this may have happened.
  I also added a sentence per the ref on who the Grand Jury did believe was the original source of the stories which I believe is relevant.
• Third edit: I added mention that the Nebraska Legislature enacted child protection legislation as a direct result of the Franklin case which is supported by the ref.
• Fourth edit: I replaced long standing text that had been recently deleted. This is the only court of law that handled the case, keeping in mind that a grand Jury is separate from the court system. The edit does not violate BLPCRIME as King was (1) found guilty and convicted by a court of law and (2) "explanatory information" on the contradictory judgement is included as required by the policy. The edit also serves the purpose of informing the reader that the other accused in the Franklin case were cleared.
• Fifth edit: Again, this is the replacement of long standing text that had been recently deleted. The content of the sentence is fully supported by the source.
• Sixth edit: The text only stated how long Owens served. I add what she was sentenced to by the court.

I have also been arguing with these editors that the categories Conspiracy theories and Hoaxes in the United States are inappropriate. No court of law ever found the abuse allegations to be either. Some related conspiracy theories did arise but some of the original abuse claims did result in three people being indicted by the Grand Jury and later convicted of pedophilia in a court of law which appears to negate the abuse claims being a hoax or conspiracy theory. Cheers Wayne (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sexism

Hi Bbb23 - sorry for this short message I'm extremely busy at the moment. With the men's rights movement probation in mind it might be worth looking at today's activity on sexism and talk:sexism. There is a real life campaign to deny wage gap in america among certain commentators (mra bloggers being 1 group). What's being selected for deletion and the grounds are interesting and IMHO not inline with Wikipedia standards for behavior not to mention editing. CSDarrow (again) seems to take issue with academic usage of terms - but this is Wikipedia we use third party scholarly reliable material. Any way I think the issue deserves an eye on it--Cailil ^talk 17:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cailil

Re "..but this is Wikipedia we use third party scholarly reliable material"

No Cailil we use appropriate sources as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines on Reliable Sources, and I particularly draw you attention to the section on Scholarship. I was also unaware Wikipedia had an institutional view on the 'Wage Gap'. Before you cast aspersions on my character perhaps a little introspection on your part might be in order. The more honorable thing would have been to address these issues directly to me and not behind my back. That is what the talk pages are for and are preferable to the lobbying of Admin, I am sure you would agree. CSDarrow (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds

Bbb23 Hi just wondering it says he is is of Irish and English ancestry on imdb page and I keep putting English also on here but it keeps changing back? Is this wrong information and can you let me know?

Thanks David.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.29.58 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. The sentence is currently supported by two sourceds, neither of which says he is of English ancestry. You can add it but only if you add a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, David.. specifically, it needs to be a statement by Ryan Reynolds on their blog per WP:ABOUTSELF, or something like a teevee/newspaper/book which specifically says "English". It can be online or offline, and can be *published* in English or in Irish, or any other language for that matter. But unless it is *Ryan's* blog, or his employer's blog, or similar, it cannot be a blog/forum/fansite/similar. Gotta be something from a journalist, or straight from the BLP. Make sense?

  p.s. The reason that IMDB is not good enough, is that they allow anybody to edit... they are a fansite, basically. Counter-intuitive that wikipedia *also* allows anybody to edit... but then, we don't allow wikipedia articles to be used as sources in *other* wikipedia articles. And we don't take what IMDB says, unless we find another WP:RS which also says it. This forum claims[15] that Reynolds is not English... but their claim is not good enough for wikipedia! See also WP:NOTEWORTHY which explains why, even if Ryan does have some English blood in his distant past, that fact might not get into the article about him. Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

gma500 with emgd-1.10

If my how-to re making the notorious gma500 work would have been deleted because of it being in the nature of a manual, I would have accepted it in good humour. Maybe I still do. "Blatant hoax"!? - Nice first date with Wikipedia. :D Validust (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

who hath revdel'd yon talkpage? and who was trying to contact me?

Hello Bbb23, there is a deleted message of a couple thousand bytes on my talkpage, and I don't know who deleted it.

(cur | prev) 20:55, 13 December 2013‎ NeilN (talk | contribs)‎ . . (451,730 bytes) (+204)‎ . . (→‎Thanks for reaching out) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:41, 13 December 2013‎ Billbird2111 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (451,526 bytes) (+200)‎ . . (→‎Proposed fix for Bob Huff page)
(cur | prev) 20:39, 13 December 2013‎ (Username or IP removed)‎ . . (451,326 bytes) (+2,070)‎
(cur | prev) 19:13, 13 December 2013‎ Timtrent (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (449,256 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎How do you feel about...: The o i and u keys move about, I swear they do) (undo)

I know that Bill is not an admin, they are a relative-beginning-editor I'm training, so I figured I would ask NeilN about the mysterious message. Neil has rollbacker&reviewer, however, but not revdel... on they other hand they've got 25k edits so they prolly know the answer to my question about figuring out who *did* revdel my message.  :-)

You have recently semi-prot'd their talkpage, however, so I cannot ask them directly. Also, maybe you know my answer? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the entry was suppressed. Only an oversighter can address your question. If you look at the section entitled "Oversighters" on the policy page, you'll see a bunch of 'em.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(tps) It was indeed suppressed - by me - but I now see from the next edit to the page that the suppression was unnecessary, so I have reverted my action. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well, thanks DoRD... but my question still stands, how could I have figured out it was you, so I didn't bother Bbb or Neil or somebody who had nothing to do with it? How could I even have realized that some change like that happened, if I didn't happen to glance at the edit-summary of my own talkpage, something I almost never need to do? I guess what I'm saying is, I agree there is need for oversight, but I'd like people to *know* when the Oversighter swoops in, and uber-deletes something, and then swoops out again. Does this make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense but as it stands, I don't think you can do that. DoRD, do you know if registered editors get a talkpage changed notification when oversight is performed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like there's any notification for revdel (either for the performer of the edit or the user whsoe talkpage it is), so I doubt there would be one for oversight. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought not. I would suggest that Oversighters place a note on the affected talk page but upon reflection, that would probably open more cans of worms. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the specific identity of the oversighter who performed it is not public knowledge, even to the person who may have requested the oversight. (I don't know whether it should be--or needs to be--or not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You're about to become a bureaucrat; what do you know? Every time a suppression occurs a bell rings. Happy holidays.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh heh.  :-)   Besides the angel who gets their wings, nobody else knows what happened, unless it gets noticed in the edit-history, and then asked about, right? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

So it turns out, that the message included an IP address, of somebody who forgot to login, and is being trained to avoid that mistake by moi. Maybe they want to protect their IP? We could ask, and seek backwards in their IP-edit-history. They have forgotten a few times before, so I already knew it, and am guessing they don't care if it is known. I've instructed them on how to come back and sign as their username, if they do forget to login, so as to avoid accusations of socking. What is the best-practices advice here? Should I tell people to contact WP:OS when they forget to login, so as to protect their IP? Does that annoy the oversighters? Seems a bit like overkill to me... but then... ahem... well. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oversighting accidental IP reveals is one of the standard tasks that oversighters do. It doesn't bug them (although of course the best thing would be to avoid revealing the IP address in the first place). Some editors don't really care if they reveal their own IP addresses accidentally, but for those who do, contacting oversight (privately) is a perfectly fine course to take. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that is one of the reasons I volunteered, and I certainly don't mind using it when asked. When I first looked at this case, I took a quick glance at the diff and it looked like the IP signature had been removed. When I realized today that the signature was still there, I figured that they aren't concerned about having their IP known. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

They work for the state-senate-leader in california, and have prolly never heard of oversighters before.  :-)   I will ask on their talkpage if they care about IP-obscuring, and if they do, will contact DoRD about the trail of IP-breadcrumbs which have been getting left in the wiki-forest. Anyhoo, I knew there *were* oversighters, but I thought they just removed the most vile WP:BLPTALK stuff, often in connection with arbcom-ban-violations... :-/   I didn't know anybody who had been banned, but then again, how would I find out, right? Thanks for the help, folks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please Reconsider

I believe you stated in an edit tag that Kairos Scientific v Fish and Richardson did not go to the California Supreme Court. Here are court references: Kairos Scientific Inc. v. Fish & Richardson P.C., Nos. A107085, A107486, 2006 WL 171921 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2006). Supreme Court Case: S141615 resulted in a remand. Could you tell me how to reference this case in the Douglas Youvan biography? Frank Layden (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any basis for citing those cases in the Youvan article as they are not relevant. I said (a LONG time ago): "removed lawsuit material - unsupported by sources - never in California Supreme Court - case was about malpractice". There was, as you state above, an unpublished decision by the Court of Appeal. That case did not involve patents directly but legal malpractice. The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review of the Court of Appeal's decision. Thus, the Court of Appeal's disposition was unchanged: "We remand for the trial court to determine whether any costs should be deducted from the award of gross profits. In addition, the damage award is reduced by $1,296,000 (offsets for the $600,000 in license fees and the $600,000 in milestone payments under the January 2000 license and the $96,000 in licensing fees under the May 2001). As modified, the judgment is affirmed."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are far senior on WP than me. So, I will not cite the case in Youvan. Since you seem to be "up" on this sort of thing, perhaps it belongs elsewhere. It's a shame the case was not published because it is being used as an example in law school courses. Frank Layden (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Really? What law school courses and what law school(s)?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Youvan is/was Chief Science Officer at Kairos... not sure the court-case belongs in his BLP (seems unlikely!), but it may belong at the corporation-articles on Kairos Scientific and/or Fish & Richardson, plus perhaps deserves a mention at Malpractice#patents or something like that.

  As for your specific question, some WP:GOOG suggests at least Mercer in 2010 and Fordham in 2009. [16] by Professor David Hricik, Mercer University School of Law, footnote#1 is Kairos Scientific Inc. v. Fish & Richardson in patent-firm-malpractice-lawsuit. [17] by Michael Ena, J.D. Candidate, Fordham University School of Law, 2009 ... footnote #30 is Kairos Scientific Inc. v. Fish & Richardson ... the acknowledgements say this: "Many thanks to... and Brian Coggio, Senior Counsel at Fish & Richardson P.C., who were my professors in the Patent Litigation class, for their guidance and comments on this work." HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You are one busy little beaver. I think I'm going to send everyone to your talk page. I just looked at the first cite, the one by Professor Hricik. That's just an article. It doesn't mean he teaches the case in a course, but even if he did, it still wouldn't belong in the Youvan article. It was being used the Youvan article as a pure patent case, which it isn't. The Hricik article itself is about the perils of being a patent practitioner, one of which, just like for any lawyer, is malpractice. It's just a subcategory of malpractice. Run-of-the-mill malpractice, for example, is blowing a statute of limitations. This is that kind of thing but in the patent world. And, now, my talk page mascot, perhaps you'll give me a break until at least tomorrow? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely.  :-)   Thanks for taking it well, appreciate it. I've become a turrible talkpage busybody, the past couple of months, just turrible. And yes, you are correct, my WP:GOOG does not guarantee these were being taught as courses... but the URL of the Hricik one said "spring2010/coursematerials" which is pretty suggestive, and the class-on-patent-litigation professor in the other PDF *works* for Fish (plus one of the students cited Fish in a paper that the student claims the prof reviewed beforehand). Suggestive, though not proof. Anyhoo, agree the case-file-cite prolly belong in the Karios Scientific article, not the BLP, but that corporation-article is a redlink. I'll let you get some peace, and stop orange-bar-of-dooming you. Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI edit conflicts

Thanks for fixing here. How weird was that? I know that sometimes the software doesn't report a conflict, which is presumably why MM's post @ 01.01 removed mine of 01:00 but then to find me clashing without notification with someone else at 01:11 when trying to restore the thing ... I think that message is jinxed! - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I've seen this happen before, but I don't know whether it's a bug or a Wikimedia conspiracy. :-) It's even possible it's working right, but that would ruin all the fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Deborah Voigt

I'm very surprised (and disappointed) that you actually reacted to the IP's post at AN3 by protecting the article. The editor has no understanding of WP:PEA, made false accusations of vandalism (this was a content dispute), and falsely accused me of being uncooperative (even though I offered him a detailed refutation of his faulty reasoning on my talk page). The IP is wrong, and should have been blocked for violating WP:NPV. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection on Category:Peer review

I have question for the decision "semi-protected" on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:63.251.123.2 reported by User:14.198.220.253 (Result: Semi-protected and what to do next. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You take the dispute to the category talk page. Alert the other editor that you've done that and try to reach an agreement on the dispute. If that fails, see WP:DR for further options.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that I already did, Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather brief discussion with one other user, and I'm not sure what the conclusion was even after I read it. It's also not a discussion on the category talk page, which is the page you want to change.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"That's a rather brief discussion with one other user" Wikipedia, as I understand, never say consensus building has to be long.

"and I'm not sure what the conclusion was even after I read it" Then I have to good faith accuse your negligence, because we can verify it:

For the lack of opposition, with the agreement on peer review as a rhetoric of science suggested by Ancheta Wis and the rather implicit agreement by Tomvasseur ("I don't really see the need to further specify the scientific method in terms of what it is not"), I can only assume that peer review is not a defining characteristic of scientific method, I will proceed and fix the overcategorization of Category: Peer review.

"It's also not a discussion on the category talk page, which is the page you want to change." Then you neglect, not just me, but the consensus from every editor on scientific method, please explain why you think that Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method can be ignored. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps one of my talk page stalkers can figure out what you're saying, but I can't, sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I would love to know which line is not at the elementary level and which word do you not understand. You don't seem to recognize that you basically locked up my edit, and you are also given privilege to block users and lock article, and this is the attitude and limit of understanding of such an editor on Wikipedia, I will keep that in mind. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Gather rounds, talkstalks, for this is the tale of 14 versus 63. Specifically, User_talk:14.198.220.253 versus User_talk:63.251.123.2. Both of them are interested in science. They are in a content-dispute over whether peer-review is a subcategory of scientific-method, or a subcategory of science, or a subcategory of rhetoric-of-science.

"Originally", back in the days of yore (late September 2013), it was under CatSciMeth. There was a *SciMeth* article-talkpage discussion (CatPeerReview itself has no talkpage) between 14 and Ancheta and Tomvasseur which mostly-resulted in a local consensus that peer-review should not have sci-meth as a parent. Meanwhile, 63 was reverting 14 in mainspace at CatPeerReview itself, but not participating in that article-talkpage discussion.

Later, after 63 suggested a compromise, 14 and 63 had a two-way discussion (themselves only) on the *Science* article-talkpage, about whether CatPeerReview was a subcat of Category:Science. This was inconclusive, but now *both* believe the "existing" consensus is on their side: 14 believes that CatPeerReview should not be underneath CatSci or CatSciMeth during discussion, whereas 63 believes that CatPeerReview should now be put *back* under CatSciMeth, until the dispute over where CatPeerReview really belongs is completed. Also, both seem to believe the *other* one is edit-warring, not *them*.  :-)

abridged-version gory details of talkSciMeth, talkSci, histCatPeerReview, talk14, and MOS-discretionary-sanctions edit-warring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method.3F peer review is an activity amongst scientists; but peer review is not 'officially' part of the scientific method. --14 peer review is part of the rhetoric of science. __Ancheta Wis Why should "peer review is not 'officially' part of the scientific method" be added? Does somebody think it is? --Tomvasseur "peer review is not scientific method" ... return NO result. "science is not peer review" returns ~200k results. I think it is what we mean by notable. The misconception on scientific method should not be notable. For science though.... --14 See Category:Peer_review history, however.[18] ... 63 can't be satisfied except "consensus". --14 For the lack of opposition (Oct27 thru Dec14), peer review is a rhetoric of science per Ancheta, I don't really see the need per Tomvasseur, peer review is not a defining characteristic of scientific method, I will proceed, and fix the overcategorization of Category:Peer_review. --14 Thank you for your contribution to the encyclopedia. --Ancheta ...Sorry for the trouble, I recognize the unwelcoming nature of edit-warring, so thank you for thanking me :)) Now the page is semi-protected can you help fix it? Thanks. --14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Science#Is_peer_review_defining_characteristics_of_science.3F Peer review is not Science, it *can be* a rhetoric of science, not science itself. Peer review can be applied on usual non-scientific literature/product/system/etc also. --14 ((week later)) If no one opposes, then I am going to fix the overcategorization. --14 someone does oppose. --63 Hey, i didn't admit anything! Are you suggesting me to revert your edit disrupt now? I am fine with that. --14 WP:OVERCAT remains inapplicable. --63 WP:FOC, which says the same as WP:OVERCAT. So, you insist that peer review is defining characteristic of science? Why don't you explain yourself? --14 00:33, 13 Dec'13‎ Bbb23 Protected Category:Peer review: Edit warring; expires 00:33, 27 December 2013 20:50, 11 Dec'13‎ 63... feel free to request the input of additional editors; this remains the version present before your proposed changes 10:44, 11 Dec'13‎ 14... There is no revert with "consensus version", read WP:BRD, this is your last edit-war warning. 20:33, 10 Dec'13‎ 63... this is the version that stood for over 6 months; you want to change it; I (and others) object; you do not have consensus 08:21, 10 Dec'13‎ 14... No revert trolling, see what you've deleted by yourself 19:40, 09 Dec'13‎ 63... what consensus? 03:04, 07 Dec'13‎ 14... Stop edit-warring pls, restore back to consensus, "scientific method" has been rejected by consensus and no consensus on "science" so far. 00:51, 07 Dec'13‎ 63... I'm happy to revert to the previous consensus version, but that wasn't it -- this is how the page stood for over 6 months 22:38, 06 Dec'13‎ 14... Revert to consensus until we draw a conclusion, see Talk:Science#Is_peer_review_defining_characterist talk 23:23, 19 Nov'13‎ 63... Considering the discussion on Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method.3F, I suggest this compromise. Your thoughts? (( left out SciMeth, instead added Category:Science )) 20:09, 19 Nov'13‎ 14... I'm sorry, where is your explanation? Where does the edit go wrong? 20:01, 19 Nov'13‎ 63... three words do not an explanation make 10:07, 16 Nov'13‎ 14... Not defining characteristic, see WP:OC 20:26, 25 Oct'13‎ 63... Peer review is a reasonable subcategory of scientific method. Please explain why you wish to remove it 06:31, 24 Oct'13‎ 14... fix category (( deleted Category:Scientific method as no longer a parent of Category:Peer review )) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:14.198.220.253#Accusation_of_Wikihounding 63 has been following 14 around, which 14 did not appreciate, but 63 was doing so with good-faith intentions methinks. No excuse for edit-warring, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28definite_or_indefinite_article_at_beginning_of_name%29&action=history They got into an edit war over the MOS guidelines, which won them both an arbcom-discretionary-sanctions "alert" from Sandstein, just yesterday Dec 14th (their short edit war on that article was back in mid-November... sigh).

14 has made a couple hundred edits, starting Oct'13, whereas 63 has also made a couple hundred edits, starting in 2008. Both have read at least some policy-stuff (they interpret the meanings differently), and both are acting in good-faith methinks. A little more talkpage-discussion (escalating to WP:RfC or WP:3O or similar when needed), and a little less yes-huh nuh-uh reversion-wars in mainspace, is all that may be necessary here, methinks. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Methinks you should help them. I appreciate all the green on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Will do. But if they *do* arrive at a consensus, can you de-prot? The page CatPeerReview is locked against all three of us, at the moment. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 74.192* for compiling our story,

"Will do. But if they *do* arrive at a consensus"

I already gained consensus on Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method, it is clear that 63.* is not engaging in discussion, not even once, that makes his/her reverts an act of edit-warring, I would love to know why it isn't plain obvious, why you think otherwise.

Also, I don't know why we have to make/wait for 63.* to switch side, Wikipedia is clearly WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, we do not enforce or wait for his/her agreement, because he/she can disagree and we resolve this by consensus. As stated on the policy, "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures".

A little more talkpage-discussion (escalating to WP:RfC or WP:3O or similar when needed)

After consensus is reached? 63.*, as I understand, reverts without engaging in discussion, I don't mind if he/she edit-wars enough for us to open a RFC on Talk:Science but scientific method has been concluded for a long time, and we (at worst) discuss whether science should be added there or not, or open a RFC if you insist that all discussion is just "yes-huh nuh-uh". However, that is aftermath, it is largely irrelevant to the content disruption we try to resolve now, the removal of Scientific method, and it has to be removed.

I will also question you guys if you are edit-warring by not resolving the disruption and lock me up instead, why you insist that scientific method has to be there, which stands against consensus. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion can take place at the talk page of Category:Peer review. If you or anyone else starts the discussion there, the talk page will be created. If you believe a consensus has been reached, you can contact me, and I'll unprotect the category page. If I'm not around, you can ask any administrator and refer them to this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your procedure is original, consensus, as I understand, is the consensus of people. Not specifically where, who and when, I have no responsibility to follow your original procedure. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY applies to you, and I believe that this is not just an essay:

Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for informing me of this discussion. I would like to report that user "Enok" for the same reason. Also I would like to aware the admins that is impossible to find any kind of violation of that rule by me since I was the first interested in opening a peaceful discussion in the talk section of the article. Thank you.--Francotti (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Francotti, what is your relationship with 93.32.174.228 (talk · contribs)?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any relationship with that user. Apparently we found ourselves both on the same side of this weird conflict, which means that someonelse other than me noticed this situation. He explained his reasons in the talk section of the italian People article and provided a version of it even better than mine. I would suggest not to condemn him since he just helped Wikipedia to improve and simply reacted to Enok's actions in kind. If you condemn him you have to apply the same sanction to Enok, who rudely kept his position untill he has been outnumbered by us.--Francotti (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Please let know what admins will decide about me, Enok and that other user when you know. The conflict seems over anyway. Thank you.--Francotti (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. For the moment, there's nothing to decide. As you say, the conflict appears to be over, and, hopefully, it will not resurface.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkstalk says.... methinks that Francotti is asking for your opinion on whether they, Enok, and 93 were acting properly. Did the behavior of Francotti violate any rules/customs? Did 93 violate any rules/customs when they "reacted... in kind"? Was the behavior of Enok correct? Not having looked into the situation, I have no opinion, but I'm against rudeness if it's *actually* rudeness, as opposed to mere disagreement. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well if there is nothing to decide it means that both me and the other user were cleared from the accuses moved by Enok. Thank you.--Francotti (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Review Request

Greetings Bbb23,

Could you please review your action here? I'm not sure what you had hoped for, but it didn't take long to learn that it didn't work. Perhaps now you will consider some action against the user who was actually reported? Many thanks. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You should look at the section higher up on this page from the other user. Seems like they weren't happy with my decision, either. I guess that means I did something right. I suggest you discuss your changes to the article with other editors on the talk page. Otherwise, if you continue to insist on your changes after protection expires, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Smauritius_disruption. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, HiaB, looks like Callanecc neatly took care of the problem, at least for a few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Notes on a Scandal (film)

I was surprised to see my first set of changes for "Notes on a Scandal (Film)" called "'way too much editorializing." In reviewing my work, I found perhaps 3 phrases that might bear any sort of private opinion, although I suspect the consensus reader would find no controversy. Guessing at what you found "way too much editorializing," I re-did my edit to remove words that might be guilty of that offense. That was on 9 Dec. 2013, at 16:25. In short order, my second edit was reversed. Can you indicate to me the ways in which my final edit was "'way too much editorializing"? Thanks. Xenonstrophe (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Xenonstrophe

Another editor reverted you the last time. Here are some objectionable phrases:

• much of which is filled with sarcasm
• as her diary shows us
• The diary records Barbara's ridicule of these people. Her comments are unusually negative with regard to the son, who is disabled.
• However, Sheba can't seem to end it on her own. Barbara seems intent on making Sheba do it.
• From that point on, Sheba becomes a victim of stalking by Barbara, who the film suggests is a repressed lesbian.

There's a lot more, but too much of your opinion as to what the film means. There are also changes that are unencyclopedic (too casual) and sometimes too much detail.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Xenonstrophe replies: First, your "other editor" denies making the "last," therefore, definitive reversion, and claims it was you. Can you two reconcile these claims?

Secondly, every word of what I wrote is self-evident to anyone who dosn't have a stake in the film or in the characters the film depicts. My phrase, "...as her diary shows" is an illustration of a point by reference to real text cited verbatim from the film... not to text interpreted by me. Other than that, there's the question of consensus readings versus your apparent wish to reconstruct. For example, how many English-speaking audiences would fail to hear sarcasm (or outright scorn) in Barbara's voice? Did it sound like gentle wit to you? And if so, why?

To call my characterizations 'editorial opinion' is like saying we should write, about Simon Legree, that he "set stiff work goals" for his employees, not that he "was a cruel racist and slave-driver." Or, that Bull Connor had "strong and controversial opinions" on African-Americans. As for my own particular care not to 'vent', just to give one example, my sentence, "Her comments are unusually negative.." is careful, not opinionated -- the sentence is tentative, not definitive, as one would expect in an encyclopedia. The descriptor 'unusually negative' records how normally socialized people (an 'audience') would judge Barbara's cruelty, cruelty to Downs' victims not being a social norm where I live. In fact, Barbara not only ridicules the mentally disabled boy, she shocks the sensibilities of audiences. To summarize an otherwise complex case, in depicting a lesbian who is a vicious predator, a stalker, and a sociopath, this film is obvious to the point of blatancy. That has to be reported to readers of the page, not as opinion, but as ordinary, observable reality. However, you appear to be sugar-coating or bowdlerizing this film's content.

You should tell your community, here, why you feel compelled to do that. Do you have some stake in all this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenonstrophe (talk • contribs) 00:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Temple (singer)

Hi, I would just like to discuss the page Temple (singer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmeliaLilyOnline (talk • contribs) 02:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Artpop - volume 2

Hello, I noticed you had to warn User:Artpop - volume 2 on Matthew Perry, but I'm struggling with their edits on the newly-created Beyoncé. Aside from poorly written content (including the word "gonna"), he/she seems hell bent on ensuring that certain songs are listed as singles despite no official announcement. Some of the content includes things like: "Later, however, it was announced that "Blow"'s release has been scrapped at the last minute and that the label is now going with "XO" as the lead pop single instead", at no point has any source ever said this and I've tried rewriting the section to ensure that original research is removed but he/she is just reverting my edits. Talk page discussion is futile and I'm not sure how to proceed. —JennKR | ☎ 00:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

JennKR, it's important NOT to edit war with the other user. You don't want to get yourself in trouble even though his edits are frustrating. I've backed out his edit (along with another editor's edit), and I've warned Artpop about edit warring. I really think this is a conduct issue as much as a content problem. The best place to go for that sort of thing, even though it's not fun, is WP:ANI. If you decide to do that, make sure your report is concise and supply diffs of your evidence. I would focus on (1) unsourced edits, (2) unencyclopedic edits ("gonna" - not the first time he's used that word), (3) refusal to talk or collaborate), and (4) edit warring. He was reported to WP:AN3 for Beyonce and was warned by another administrator (see [19]). After his and my dispute at the Perry article, I am now WP:INVOLVED and can't sanction him.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget the copyright violations (twice) at the Perry article. You can figure all that out from his talk page. If you need more help, let me know, and I'll do what I can.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! Apologies for the second revert, facing a weekend of poor edits from excited IPs/new accounts has been difficult. I'll see how it pans out as most of the hype around the article is slowly diminishing, but I'll use WP:ANI in any further instances. —JennKR | ☎ 02:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, User:Artpop - volume 2 just reverted you on the article. Should I take this to ANI? —JennKR | ☎ 02:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not for the moment, let's see what happens with the report I filed at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

An Apology over the Mess on the Report Page

My apologies for the whole mess created between me and Katcheic on the report page. It indeed reached ridiculous proportions. I copied everything on the article's talkpage and we will take it on from there. Thank you for the indication of using the Dispute Resolution option, and again, I apologize. I appreciate your patience and your helpful comments. --Tco03displays (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries, sometimes people get carried away at AN3, and it's like they're having a private discussion. That can be healthy within limits, but, as you acknowledge, it had gotten out of hand.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you give me a quick answer in regards to NPOV policy? In the view of NPOV policy, are notable journalists' views to be put into a controversial subject covered by an article, especially if other options are lacking, in order to reach NPOV and eliminate article bias? This is one aspect of the problem we were discussing, and Katcheic was too stubborn throughout the discussion to allow any crack that I could slip through to reach consensus. --Tco03displays (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather stay out of the content dispute. You should try to get other editors to participate in the discussion so it's not just two of you. One option is WP:3O.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was an uncontroversial point, oh well. Yes, I will use third opinion in the near future, but at the moment I've started a new discussion and I'm waiting for the other editor to respond. I'll wait a few days to give him/her the time to see it and answer. If s/he doesn't answer, or we fail again I'll try the third option. Thanks for the help, hope we cooperate again over a less adversarial topic.--Tco03displays (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Penelope Koutourinis

Hello Bbb23, since you've been active on their talkpage I wanted to let you know that I've just blocked this account. I thought the name combined with the fact that the account is operated by her management didn't match our policies for user names and accounts. De728631 (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I just finished cleaning up her unblock request. The person or persons behind the account have so many problems, it's hard to know where to start. Their English is poor. They want to create an article that is probably not about a notable individual, but, regardless, they're doing it for promotional reasons. They are incompetent Wikipedia-wise. I deleted a whole bunch of things besides the article itself, including the user page and subpages. My guess is they are operating in good faith, but whoever tries to help them has their work cut out for them, and it's unlikely that the work will benefit the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I just left her a note how to start over with a new account. That's probably the best solution and would save the 'crats some work. De728631 (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you got the same e-mail I did. It would be helpful if she disclosed the old account if she creates a new one.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

general question concerning revs

General question, but if a user reverts X, and I were to re-insert it with a dispute template, does that count as a revert? (since it's altered content, not wanton reversion) Because I was obviously operating under that mindset but in hindsight now I just want make sure I'm in the know in the future. Thanks--Львівське (говорити) 02:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to restate your question just to make sure I understand it. An article says, "John is an actor." Another user removes the sentence. You restore the sentence but with a fact tag after it. Your question: is your edit a revert? Yes. If I misunderstood, please rephrase your question.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I was assuming you thought I crossed the line re-inserting a paragraph from that article, so I was thinking the tag specifically, but yeah I guess that example works. What if it's "John is an actor", User A deleted saying 'back it up, WP:BLP actorslander' and User B put's it back with a few full citations - is that a revert or just normal WP:CYCLE good faith? --Львівське (говорити) 03:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming that User B put in the sentence in the first place. If that's true, User B's second edit is technically a revert, but that's taken in pure isolation, meaning that if a report were filed against User B, what happened subsequently would be important.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Stiarts erid

You recently invoked a talk page block against this editor, and he seems to have registered a new account: User:Skiwalkko. He posted on his old talk page earlier today, and then began editing with the new account 20 minutes later. There is a complete intersection between the editing patterns. If you need further proof, his English hasn't improved either. Normally I would take this to SPI, but it's a clear case of quack quack, and you are already on it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I dont know anything about this Stiarts erid. I am new to the whole thing so sorry if I make some mistakes I can't be perfect. It's not my fault if I sound similar to this editor you mentioned, I will try and change my writting style if you are so convinced. I am quite offended by your accusation too!

Sportbeat Festival

I would be grateful if you could reinstate my page "Sportbeat Festival" as the article describes a popular music and sports festival that is held every year in the UK and attended by large numbers of people. Pages for similar festivals "Lakefest" and "V Festival" have been allowed and there is little difference between the content I added for "Sportbeat Festival" and the content provided on both "Lakefest" and "V Festival" pages. The content is not an advertisement, it is a record of prominent musicians and bands who played the festival in 2013 and will include the prominent bands and musicians who play the festival in 2014. Supporting news articles on the event are as follows:

http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Hundreds-enjoy-Gloucester-s-SportBeat-Festival/story-19489660-detail/story.html

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Gloucester-s-Sportbeat-Festival-left-city-Feeling/story-19494204-detail/story.html#axzz2nkWHPVUr

http://www.thefestivalcalendar.co.uk/festivals/Sportbeat_Festival_of_Music_Sports_amp_Family_2013

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/festivals/others2013/sportbeat

http://sportbeatfest.com/

Thank you very much for taking the time to view this.

Kind regards, Rikkihill22

Rikkihill22, I deleted Sportbeat Festival based on WP:CSD#G11 as it was blatantly promotional. That really shouldn't suprise you considering this sentence: "After further discussions with close friend Rikki Hill, the idea was brought up of adding larger, better known bands to the bill and giving the event a truly big time flavour." Other promotional portions of the article include:

• The event is held over two days and combines a large line up of famous music acts with national sporting competitions in Football, Rugby 7's, Netball, Crossfit and Tennis. The event looks to promote creativity in music and art and promotes healthy living through sport participation.
• Acts are currently to be confirmed, however rumours continue that 2014's line up will be even bigger and better than last year.
• Sportbeat is noted as a socially responsible festival which embraces community spirit and seeks to promotoe participation in music, sport and the arts. This is seen through their work promoting sport in schools and local clubs, funding for arts projects and through a competitive ticket pricing practice which seeks to make tickets as affordable as possible for families and those on low incomes. Sportbeat won the prestigious BiG Award for Best Event in 2013.

Generally, users who have such an obvious conflict of interest shouldn't create articles about subjects with which they are affiliated.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Soham (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Soham (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor

Thank you for your contribution on Shraddha Kapoor, your recent edits is currently being discussed on the talk page, the topics relate about the Fimography section, you're requested to join the conversion and make sure to prove your following actions, thank you so much. --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 09:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of Azul Claro Numazu

Hi,

would it be possible to restore Azul Claro Numazu in order to save some time? The article is about a Japanese soccer club which recently earned promotion to the lowest of nationwide leagues. Thanks in advance, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was months ago. I can WP:USERFY it for you if you wish. There wasn't much to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Hello. Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. Over the past few weeks I have reverted quite a lot of IP-vandalism on articles relating to the Philippines, both date change vandalism, deliberate introduction of other factual errors and more or less elaborate hoaxes, including edits on articles about deceased Filipino/Filipina celebrities that make it look as if the subjects of the articles are still alive and active. And quite a few IPs have been blocked for it. So it's no surprise that some of the IP-editors over there don't like me. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Understood. If you want me to protect your userpage, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, because I intend to continue doing what I'm doing... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll semi-protect it. I just need to know what duration you'd like.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A month or so would IMHO be enough. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. If you need it reapplied after it expires, let me know, although any admin should be willing to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Dude

So are you a dudette? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If I were, I wouldn't want to be called that, either. You may refer to me as Sire or some other similar appellation commensurate with my status as an abusive administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To me a "dude" is a California surfer kid with an IQ below 50, so I wouldn't want to be called that, either. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In my view, it's the speaker who is the bigger problem than the addressee. I can't speak for the world, but the word is used a great deal in the U.S., and it's used by many otherwise bright people, and not just by teenagers and 20somethings. I don't get it, obviously, but there it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I abuse administrators all the time, do I get to be called Sire as well? I would prefer Sir Darkness Shines, it has a nice ring to it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your title is on the civility blacklist. It has a nice ring to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Making 3RR actions more informative

Hey Bbb23. Do you ever wish you could make a block log entry that linked back to the 3RR case? If so you might look at the helpful suggestion of User:Viriditas at User talk:EdJohnston#Linking in edit summaries which began a thread. There is also a follow-up at User talk:Wbm1058#Adding permalinks to block log entries for 3RR. Near the bottom there is a method to experiment with permalinks. I've discussed with User:Wbm1058 whether the 3RR boilerplate should be modified to make it easier to create these permalinks, but suggested he wait till more feedback can be received. Two block entries that use permalinks are at [20] and [21]. In each case, click on the word 'permalink' to be taken to the 3RR case which led to the block. If others agree that adding permalinks to block entries could be useful, then we can make Wbm1058's proposed change to the 3RR boilerplate. The only downside is the {{anchor|XXXX}} that would be added to each section header and would be visible in edit view. If admins who don't use the permalink system are willing to ignore that, then we are OK. The anchor is added automatically when each 3RR report is created, so nobody needs to understand what it is, they just need to tolerate its presence. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ed, just to let you know that I'm too tired to follow all of what you said above today (I only became aware of permalinks recently and, naturally, like so many things on Wikipedia, it's complicated). I'll try to get to it tomorrow. It sounds like a good idea to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Epicgenius (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!Epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wendy CBright

Hi Bbb23:

Why has Wendy CBright been deleted? SHE OWES www.wendycbright.com and www.wendycbright.com.br!!! Thank you. --Elcarvalho 00:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcarvalho (talk • contribs)

Hello. I was the user who tagged Wendy CBright for deletion. Specifically, it was deleted under sections G12 and A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. It was marked under section G12 because it was copyright infringement of this website (which, as you can see, holds an "All Rights Reserved" notice). Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text because our text is released under a Creative Commons license. Wendy CBright was tagged under section A7 of the criteria because she is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Simply having a website does not qualify you to have an article. See the Notability Guidelines for details. If you have any further questions, you can ask me on my talk page. — Carnivorous Bunny (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Carnivorous Bunny. I'd like to add that I deleted it under A7, G12, and WP:CSD#G11 (blatantly promotional).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

stupid cookie policy?

Per a comment you left on [22], could you clarify what you meant by "great difficulty reading because of their stupid cookie policy". I can read the article just fine.--Auric talk 23:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I tried it with Firefox and with IE. In both cases, the website told me I had to accept third party cookies. I don't normally do that but I changed my setting to accommodate them and tried again and they said the same damn thing. I believe I could have fixed it by looking at the cookies that had been previously blocked and unblocking them (that's a guess) but I didn't feel like going to all that trouble. So, what I would see is the article in the background with a floating message in the foreground from the newspaper hiding part of the article. If I closed the floating message, it would redirect to the main page of the newspaper instead of the article. However, I could see enough of the article to read most of it, even though the silly floating message would float down as I scrolled down (it was like I was being stalked ). It was irritating but became a bit of a challenge. Anyway, if I recall correctly (I'm not going to go back and look), the only relevant part was the last paragraph of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I use Noscript (on Firefox) and am bothered by no such floating boxes. --Auric talk 00:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what or where Noscript is on FF.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

See NoScript.--Auric talk 01:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure that what was happening on the newspaper website was the result of a script, and even if it was that it was malicious. It's an interesting extension. How much trouble it is after you install it (setting up which sites you trust, etc.)? Regardless, thanks for the tip.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No trouble at all. Sites are blocked by default. There's a little icon in the addon bar. I hover over that and a menu pops up where I can block or allow sites related to the current page. I can also grant temporary permissions for a page or revoke them. The options allow for more complex permissions/forbiddings and tweaking of the popup menu.--Auric talk 12:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi, Bbb23. You have banned me to edit articles related rapes by G.I. You have may thought Rape during the liberation of France and other related ones been improper articles as Wikipedia. However, the articles are approved by Wikipedia and still exist and improved, in spite of I have not written the article since your topic ban. Now your topic ban don't make sense, so I apply for unban to you.--Syngmung (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ban you. The community did. I don't have the authority to lift the topic ban. See WP:UNBAN for your two options.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Nell overspill

I am guessing that the proxy range block will kill the diatribes my own talk page is getting over this? It may amuse you to have a look. One has apparently confirmed that they are another, which gives you ammunition for the range block(s). Please donpt worry about removing the attacks rom my talk page. I rather like them . Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm working with another administrator on the range blocks as he is more comfortable with them than I am. It looks like you're getting hit by IPs outside of the range and one IP whose range is not blocked at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I genuinely do not understand why this has turned into a fight and a shambles. Good behaviour is easy enough to achieve. IN this case the bad behaviour appears to be stressful for those exhibiting it (or, more likely, the single person who is IP hopping). As I'm sure you have worked out, I have broad shoulders. Fiddle Faddle 20:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are two things involved. One is whether the edits to your talk page bother you, but the other is a principle, and that is proxies should not be editing Wikipedia. So, even though you have "broad shoulders", my overarching concern is the project. This isn't like an insult where you can rightfully say, "no big deal", and that would be taken into account in determining whether an editor should be sanctioned for a personal attack. This is more akin to allowing blocked editors edit. Hope that makes some sense to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Perfectly :) From my perspective it is no big deal. The project is a different matter. The part I don't understand is why the fight over the biography, why it is suddenly so important to this person (probably) or these people. Fiddle Faddle 21:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing surprises me. Editors battle over much smaller matters like tags, accent marks, grammar, and the list goes on.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Abundance of socks for the holidays

Hi Bbb, the discussion re: a run of sock-driven disruption begun at my page has spilled to C. Fred's. But you're pretty savvy, so you may have sized up the various strands already. Have a great holiday, JNW (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it all started on your talk page, which is where I saw Pink Map. I blocked them indefinitely; they didn't take it well. I've now indeffed Stormfool, which is pretty obviously the same person as Pink Map. I haven't taken any action against the other accounts, which are clearly all related to each other, because except for one they haven't done anything except create accounts. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2014! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Dougweller (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.

Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

a new page of mine was deleted

Hi there , I created a page named Macrotechnology it was deleted , how can i tell why  ?

Thanks Skcazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skcazy (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted per WP:CSD#A11.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

OK - I didn't know that taking credit is not allowed. Let's just delete that sentence and leave the rest ... the new concept is incredibly important it really is the birth of a new science a little like macroeconomics.. Can you undelete the page and I shall make the corrections and resubmit? --Skcazy (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)skcazy.

It has nothing to do with "taking credit". It is a recently made-up term and there was no indication it had any significance. If it is the "birth of a new science", then you ought to have lots of reliable sources recognizing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You may want to read this guidance on neologisms and this essay on "up-and-coming" new concepts. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's gratifying when policy and (your) essay elaborate on what is just plain common sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Elizarova images

Italic text I own images and an editor is singlemindedly removing them resulting in your edit war notice. All appropriate ownership nd explanation has been supplied. And further investigation avenues offered. I placed the images up for open use and wish that respected. To have one person simply decide I don't own my content and systematically try to remove it from wiki and attributed pages is destructive. I hope you can appreciate why I maintain my content images should remain. And indeed continue to revert undue edits to remove by one single person. Please police and follow the case on the Katia Elizarova page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Whom have you provided with proof of ownership? In the meantime, edit warring is edit warring, and even if you're right, it's no justification for battling in the article and can lead to a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Fairyspit sockpuppet and Carpefemme

Hey, I was not trying to be in an edit war and I apologize for that. I tried to end it by hiding the images until Common reviewers had a chance to review the images. However, I do know that you are aware of the users Fairyspit and Carpefemme and i already have a sockpuppet investigation against Fairyspit using 2 other accounts and i'm wondering if carpefemme isn't another account they use. That user continuously uploads images of Katia Elizarova claiming the images as their own when the images can clearly be found on other pages outside of wikipedia, including Elizarova's facebook. They have tried to upload other images of her to only be deleted by other users and I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this. Please let me know. Thank you Lady Lotus • talk 18:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Carpefemme, who's now at six reverts in less than 24h, has been reported at WP:AEW. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

(quick follow-up to the above comment) As a result of the report at WP:AEW User:Carpefemme is now out of business, or at least out of WP, for the next three months... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of the SPI but, even though I blocked Carpefemme the last time, I feel I've become a little more embroiled in the content issues at the Elizarova article and would normally not take any action against her for that reason. Thomas, thanks for pitching in.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For being a thorough and astute investigator who has continued to show dedicated initiative in fighting persistent sock puppetry and vandalism on the Swaminarayan, BAPS, and Pramukh Swami Maharaj pages over the past several months. Anastomoses (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a continuing nightmare, isn't it, Anastomoses? Happy holidays.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed, but it is also a good case study of the importance of rules and enforcement on Wikipedia. To continued vigilance! Anastomoses (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for protecting the Boy pictured on top of my talk, as my Christmas card, with best wishes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The irony of battling over Britten during this season. Enjoy your holiday.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

+ the irony of counting "votes" if a published title should appear at all (and missing mine, because again I thought that's nothing you decide by voting). I enjoyed the music on top of my talk a lot, and enjoy family + we have a second day tomorrow ;) - I believe that Britten's article and List of works should have Britten's title - as they had in the blurb, list and template on TFA day, without objection from thousands of readers - but these are not the days to fight ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Taj Anwar's page is a hoax

How is Taj Anwar's page NOT a hoax?

Thank you. 173.162.252.241 (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Well, any quick search of the Internet will tell you it's not a hoax (i.e. [23]). Whether she's notable or not is another question. Black Kite (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPI - Patrick61804

Hi Bbb23, with respect to this sockpuppet investigation I opened, if you think I jumped the gun, I can appreciate that and I'll yield on pursuing it until there's better evidence, so if you think the report should be closed, please close it. In retrospect, I probably should have checked the various accounts a little deeper for more striking evidence across numerous articles before filing, but vandalism was ramping up in anticipation of Christmas, it seemed, and I think I may have been a little overzealous. It does, however, seem very odd that a few users were consistently adding airdates well in the future. Anyhow, I must learn patience. Regards, and I hope wherever you are is warm. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Photo Discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

S. Robson Walton

Merry Christmas! Shouldn't you discuss before removing anything? --Aparnaji_Talk 00:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary "remove undue history of his wealth, remove siblings wealth (tangential and not in this article))". Are you sure? Which criterion WP:GA?? Refer WP:GACN. The lead says "reviewers make their decisions based on whether an article meets the criteria or not, rather than personal preferences". Further - "template American date, reword lead to be more encyclopedic". Again which criteria? Also - "See also: remove per WP:ALSO (links are already in body)" Which criteria? Help me! I recommend you take a closer look at WP:GACN. To cite a precedent in support of my editing, refer this GA. Look Personal section. Refer date formats. In fact I'm fine with any date format.

Don't take me wrong. I'd be glad if you ce often. I'd be really delighted if we can collaborate. It's just frustrating to see your work gone. Let me prepare first draft. I'll put up for GAN. If an experienced reviewer asks me to make these changes, I'll go ahead and do it.

Would you be willing to revert your changes? --Aparnaji_Talk 02:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Aparnaji, I think you're very confused as to how Wikipedia works. You registered your account on December 16. You have a grand total of 154 article edits since then. As shown by your comment above and User:Aparnaji/GAR, you appear to be obsessed with WP:GA as if somehow that trumps every other guideline or policy at Wikipedia, despite the fact that you have never brought an article to GA status or reviewed another person's submission of an article for GA status. WP:GA is irrelevant to the editing of the Walton article. More to the point, actually, is WP:BRD, which says that when someone reverts your changes, you should take the issues to the article talk page rather than attempt to restore what was reverted.

More specifically, with respect to the See also section I removed, WP:ALSO states, "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."

The removal of the wealth history was simply because it is unnecessary, undue, and way too much information about how much money Walton has had in different years. You've made two edits since my revert. The second one just added a source; that's fine. The first, however, restored incoherent material: "At the start of his career, Sam was a clerk making $75 a month at J. C. Penney 1940 who later cofounded Wal-Mart with his brother James Walton which started from a single store in Rogers, Arkansas 1962, went public 1970 and is now world's largest retailer with US $470 billion in sales (2013) and 2.2 million employees in 11,000 stores globally." What is the 1940 after Penney mean? Similarly, what does the 1962 after Arkansas mean? I tried to smooth out that sentence, and yet you put your version back. After I finish this post, I'm going to restore my changes. If you dispute anything else, please take it to the article's talk page rather than mine. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You made one allegation - I reverted your edits. You're wrong. See here. I didn't restore anything.

You're right about the content. The reason is WP:IINFO. Not "You registered your account on December 16. You have a grand total of 154 article edits since then" or "you have never brought an article to GA status or reviewed another person's submission of an article for GA status". That's prejudice. That's like saying I'm a pauper and you're a billionaire. Being an administrator is good but power corrupts. Remember!

"What is the 1940 after Penney mean? Similarly, what does the 1962 after Arkansas mean?". Refer sources here. That shows you're just imposing your POV in mainspace and not referring sources.

LOL. Well, there is no "dispute" just a discussion. You've said so much good about me. How can I "dispute" you? But you're far too kind.

OK Mr.Veteran with net worth a billion edits and with account dating back to Stone Age. Lets not discuss it any further. If I'm wrong, forgive me. If you're wrong, forgive yourself too. ---Aparnaji_Talk 06:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Help on Youvan

Would you please help me insert some secondary references in Youvan. I have them. Frank Layden (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you should take this to the article talk page, not to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User:JeffreyWeisman

Hi. Is it worth considering reinstating talk page access for User:Jeffreyweisman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? The user has attempted to start again, as seen at User talk:Trevj#Error with jeffreyweisman. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Trevj, the accounts were confirmed by a CU. The individual has made a mockery of Wikipedia ever since he was blocked. I have revoked talk page access on every one of the puppet accounts and on the master account because of the blatant lies (he didn't even bother to disguise the style of the unblock requests). I have blocked the latest account, JRWeisman, and blocked talk page access. If he wants to appeal, he's going to have to do so through User:Critic11, the master account, and do it through WP:UTRS. I'll take a look at JRWeisman's edits now and decide if any should be reverted for block evasion. Sorry to be so hard-headed, but any sympathy you may have for the user is misplaced in my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing some perspective to this. I can't remember checking the master account, but your observation makes sense. As for edits made by the latter, I checked the most recent earlier on and it looked genuine. Thanks again. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 00:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Cryx88 and a possible sockpuppet

Hi Bbb23. Re your recent block and warning, I have reverted an identical edit after the expiry of the block by an anonymous possible sockpuppet and posted a warning on the IP editor's talk page. HelenOnline 11:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There is another possible sockpuppet. Both IP addresses are from Hungary. The article affected has been locked for a month. HelenOnline 09:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Helen, I agree with you that the two IPs are the same individual and likely Cryx88. However, could you do me a favor and take a look at the edits done by Cryx88 since their block expired and tell me what you think of them? I'd like to have some more evidence that the IPs and Cryx88 are the same before taking any action against Cryx88. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. The only link to their recent edits is that they relate to Christian denominations. I will let you know if the problem recurs when the article lock expires. I don't expect you to do anything now, just thought you should know. HelenOnline 07:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: )

@Bbb23: Mark Arsten's lock may have solved the issue temporarily for one article, but the long term edit-warring by MilesMoney has not been resolved. I was just wondering if you plan on looking into this further or if you consider the report 'closed'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Arsten locked the page initially because I asked him to, and I don't object to extending it. And if you want to see the bleeding edge of edit-war prevention, look no further than the 1RR-for-artices proposal on ANI right now. MilesMoney (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Additions in italics. MilesMoney (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse edit-warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the solution to that is a stiff wind aimed at the Conservative Cloud. Without their edit-warring and stonewalling, we might make some progress around here. MilesMoney (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the Conservative Cloud again. I disagree with MilesMoney on the Rasmussen article, so I guess that makes me part of that Conservative Cloud also. It's this kind of politicized categorization that makes editing Wikipedia such a fucking drag sometimes. MilesMoney, do you realize I'm to the left of you (since I have no miles and I don't really believe in money), yet I disagree with you? I don't think I've ever agreed with A Quest for Knowledge on anything, but there's a first time for everything I suppose. Also, Bbb, merry Christmas. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you were part of the CC. In fact, I pointed out that your reasoning on Pamela was opposite of and incompatible with theirs. MilesMoney (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Geller. And if by your "theirs" comment you mean that this Jason person is a member of some "Conservative Cloud", you're still caught in the same trap. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say Jason was part of it, either. MilesMoney (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies. As you might suppose, it hasn't been too merry. Hoping next year will be better. Although he generally ignores me, it was good to read Uncle's comments again. One way or the other, he's pretty amazing. Don't drink too much imported beer on New Year's. Oh, and if you're reading this, AQFK, the thing about pinging was just a nit - no big deal.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AQFK, I consider the report closed. Generally, protection of an article that has been reported to AN3 disposes of the report. Also, in my comment, I made sure Mark was aware of what I did, so he is of course free to do whatever he deems appropriate, as is any other administrator. A couple of asides. First, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page. Second, if you wish to add evidence to the interminable disussion at WP:ANI (have we set a record yet?), feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. My question was whether you consider the report closed. You've answered it. Yes, after I posted to your talk page, I realized that pinging you was probably redundant. I didn't really think about it at the time, sorry about that. No, I don't think I can add more evidence. I'm not involved in these disputes so I don't have any diffs handy to present. It's just my general impression as I have numerous dispute resolution noticeboards on my watchlist and when I see the same name over and over again, it seems to me that there's a serious problem. In any case, thanks for your reply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The page history of Gun control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is striking. It's full of users who have been topic-banned from various political topic areas (North8000, Goethean, Collect, Anythingyouwant, etc). A cynic might conclude that they've found a hot-button ideological topic just outside their respective topic bans where they can continue to fight the good fight. MastCell ^Talk 06:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

And a cynic might conclude that the admin more responsible than anyone else for seeing to it that Wikipedia policies were shredded in order to get me topic-banned is now intent on broadening the banAnythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, shall we abusively exercise our power and just take over? I have yet to be topic-banned anywhere. And I can see the NRA interest in it, as Goethean might call it, even if I weren't such a damn liberal myself. The Hitler issue made it clear that it's indeed a hot-button issue easily picked up by those who aren't so liberal and want to use Wikipedia to make a point, to put it delicately. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I certainly am not insisting on inclusion of any Hitler quote, but one should not assume that everything "Hitler" violates WP:POINT, or else we would be obliged to delete the Adolph Hitler article. Drmies, incidentally, I'm not sure that excluding the sub topic of gun control in occupied countries from the gun control article isn't a bit liberal and pointy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, since this is hashed out on every other page in Wikipedia, I'll answer that: no. You may not be sure, but I am. There's nothing liberal or pointy about that; it's a matter of editorial judgment and common sense (don't put words in my mouth: I did not point at POINT). You and a bunch of others are so dead-set on getting Hitler in at the exclusion of almost every other country and time period that it's pretty obvious what's going on: "gun controllers are Nazis", in a nutshell. Countering the use of Wikipedia to broadcast such suggestions is neither liberal nor--conservative? right-wing? it's perfectly in line with the whole "encyclopedia" thing. Have a great day Bbb, Drmies (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope Bbb is well and allows a brief response. Drmies, the gun lobby has been using the Nazis internationally to support its arguments, in an extremely prominent way. The US and Australia are two primary examples. Some of their argument falls within WP:FRINGE which instructs us, in no uncertain terms, to put fringe views in the context of majority views. I therefore support briefly explaining in the article why the fringe views are WRONG per the majority views. I do not support just deleting everything about Nazis. Also, if you look at the article's lead, there is no limitation to "civil" arms control (excluding occupied territories), but even if there were such a limitation, the fringe views in question mostly do not pertain to occupied lands.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The list of topic-banned editors on the article has grown: Arthur Rubin has joined the fray. MilesMoney (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Bovine youknowwhat -- my "topic ban" was dubious at best, and not based on any edits of mine whatsoever you appear to be hell-bent on attacking everything and everyone in your way, and I suggest you take heed of the AN/I reports in the past.

( That sort of lunatic theory has no place in this article, according to WP:FRINGE. , I am beginning to doubt that you can understand English when it's not to your advantage to do so. Selective aphasia is rare. , Can you also make bat-shaped shadows with your projector? , you imagine that you constitute the community, when you're just the cloud, WP:AGF prevents me from speculating whether this comes from malice, incompetence or some other source of error. It doesn't matter; whichever the cause, it makes discussion with you counterproductive. , If you can't understand how "typically sees itself as a Christian organization" supports calling it Christian, you should not be editing this article, It's not a personal attack when I have diffs, You and Rocco are tag-teaming to remove references to Christianity from Far-right politics. Please tell me how this sort of POV-pushing is beneficial, I did; I redacted your personal attack instead of responding in kind. I didn't even ridicule you for confusing kkk.net with kkk.com. , I find it hilarious that you keep trying to make my proposal seem radical, when all I want is to reflect what our sources say. You ascribe motives to me that exist only in your fevered imagination, violating WP:NPA in the process, if I were president of the org and ordered to do something illegal and immoral, I would refuse. If this was unacceptable to the org, I would resign over it. Scott did neither; he supported the org to the very end, even after it lost the court case. So, no, you can't claim that its unfair to mention this issue because his hands were tied. Nobody tied his hands; he chose to be president, he chose to support the views of the org, and he chose to remain president. It was voluntary all along. Note how your concerns completely refute the idea that it's "trivial". Thanks!, Dunno, do Jason and StAnselm think that she's a dude? , I don't want an edit war, so I strongly suggest that you put the word "Christian" back. If you don't, I will most certainly escalate to the appropriate forum, Well, the solution to that is a stiff wind aimed at the Conservative Cloud. Without their edit-warring and stonewalling, we might make some progress around here

show a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and refusal to abide by WP:NPA and 'all in less than a single day! In fact, I think MM has set a record on Wikipedia for violating every single policy related to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS and every other collegial practice known to man. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The irony is delicious. Here you are accusing me of a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, yet you spit up a bunch of misleadingly out-of-context quotes in an attempt to make me look bad, which must have taken you hours to accumulate. What sort of person spends all that time coming up with mud to sling, but thinks that their target is the one who's treating Wikipedia as a battlefield? Collect. Only Collect. Oh, and you responded to a comment I made about someone else, not you. Guess you work for Rubin now. So, does the WP:BOOMERANG hurt? MilesMoney (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually -- I took all of fifteen minutes as your posts just about invariably show your attitude. In sequence, in fact, and from well less than one day of your editing. I do not "work for Rubin" -- in fact if you actually look at my posts you would note that I did not back him for ArbCom. Now will you finally get it -- 'ATTACKING EVRYONE IN SIGHT IS NOT IMPRESSING ANYONE. (apologies to Bbb23 here -- but I think that I am not the only person whose patience is getting quite exhausted). I would point out that at AN/I, I did not join in on the proposal to get you banned -- but only suggested that you note what others said about you. I fear the next proposal will get my support. Cheers -- and have a cup of tea for God's sake! Collect (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

How any of this refutes what I said about your WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude is unclear. At most, you're bragging that you've been slinging mud so long that you can do it more efficiently than I could have ever guessed. I wouldn't be so proud of that if I were you, but I'm not you. You violated WP:NPA by tossing these quotes without diffs, making it exceedingly difficult to track down the context. In context, it becomes clear that you've tried to make a scandal out of hot air. Once again, your WP:BOOMERANG is more powerful than anything I could say about your misbehavior. MilesMoney (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. You are a very good administrator here. Keep up the good work. Take care. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

One question

This is my first edition, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jordan schlansky for Sock puppet report, but why it's not getting listed? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. OccultZone (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

OccultZone, I'm not sure what makes you think your report isn't "listed". It is in an open status and will be evaluated at some point. You did create the report with the wrong master. The master has to be the oldest named account, in this instance Yassmine.muhammad, who created an account before Jordan schlansky. I've fixed that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Brazil Bennett

Hi BBB23. I wanted to see if there would be reconsideration for my article. I am new to your site and am willing to adhere and make corrects you recommend. My information was all verifiable, non-bias, and non-favorable. All facts. Thanks!!! Celebritynews101 19:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebritynews101 (talk • contribs)

Why don't you try submitting the article to WP:AFC and getting feedback from experienced editors?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Unlike some users, I refuse to lash out because things didn't go my way. I am willing to adhere to your instructions, again, but WHENEVER YOU HAVE THE TIME, could you please send me a link to your instructions, or the instructions themselves? I am not trying to be bothersome and respect that you are busy. I just simply don't get how to resubmit, as you instructed.

Kindest regards,

Jason50.89.251.0 (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you CelebrityNews101? Better for many reasons to edit only while logged in.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes bbb23. I am celebrity101. Sorry about the confusion. Wont happen again. Since my first article wasn't approved, could I please select another subject? T. I. interests me. Or, YOU select for me. Thanks. I know you're busy. I appreciate it. Celebritynews101 03:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebritynews101 (talk • contribs)

Celebritynews101, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your question. It's been hectic. I don't keep a list of potential articles (some editors do). If I were a new user, I'd spend some time getting to know Wikipedia before creating an article, i.e., editing articles in areas that interest you. I'd start with very small edits and proceed cautiously to larger ones. That said, if you still want to create an article now, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Requested articles. That will give you guidance as to how to go about it and lists of potential articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Jahbulon-13

Unfortunately, the first block of user:Jahbulon-13 does not seem effective, neither does talking nicely to him. I think he is going to remain a problem. Thanks! Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, Please keep an eye on this one... in addition to the comments at Talk:Cyril Smith Jahbulon-13 has made similar comments at Talk:Royal National Lifeboat Institution... and he has be caught deliberately falsifying a source (for more on why that is a falsified source, see Talk:List of Freemasons (E–Z)#Jimmy Savile).

I have not raised his behavior at ANI, but I am close to doing so. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You online?

If so can you delete this redirect please, I just finished an article on this subject and cannot move it to main Darkness Shines (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

DS, you're going to have to about this another way. Without reading both the existing article and your article, I can't tell how much overlap there is or what is the appropriate thing to do. I'm also about to go off-wiki. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The other one is about foeticide, the one I have written is about infanticide. Both are totally different subjects, so where do I ask? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:RMT. You decide whether what you're doing is merely "technical" or "controversial", and take it from there.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Abigail Ratchford - deletion

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

---

Hello Bbb23,

I am writing to you in an attempt to get clarification on your recent deletion of my article "Abigail Ratchford" ...

18:00, 31 December 2013 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Abigail Ratchford (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7)

Abigail Ratchford 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Ratchford

Could you tell me how I could get my article restored?

This article was already deleted and restored just minutes ago ... why are you having it removed?

I am very willing to address all concerns of yours in this matter, and I certainly appreciate your knowledge and help/guidance through the Wikipedia experience. My article for Abigail is definitely a "legitimate" article for a brand new star in the modeling world who, as you could see from the content, has been extremely successful. I plan to add much more to this article, as Abigail is embarking on several noteworthy endeavors.

I appreciate your time, as I know you are most likely extremely busy. I am anxious to hear from you soon, and hopefully fix this situation to your standards.

Scoocher16 (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You answered your own question: you called her "a brand new star", and WP:NEXTBIGTHING is the exact reason that Wikipedia does not have articles about up-and-comers. We're not able to glance into our crystal ball to see if she'll actually become notable in the future. ES&L 18:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, please read User talk:Malik Shabazz#Abigail Ratchford - deletion before you restore anything for this editor. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23 (and Malik) ... can you please tell me what is wrong with my article? I made the adjustments that Malik requested, and now there seemes to be an issue with the sources being "not reliable". Can you tell me where the problem is exactly? Which sources are not reliable? What sources and content do I need to remove?

Thank you for your time. Scoocher16 (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is blatantly promotional. It read like it was written by someone who is affiliated with her or is a big fan. I also saw no significant claims of significance in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I see ... you are thinking we are merely promoting Abigail, and not giving info about her. What do you suggest? Take out the references to the websites where she has appeared? Or, since she has only been modeling for a year, she simply does not qualify for a wiki page ... although she has become very successful already, and very popular ... as you can easily see by doing a google search.

Does Abigail simply not qualify for wiki?

Thank you again for your time. Scoocher16 (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Who is "we"?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

My assistant and I make up "we" Bbb23. We are both trying to figure why the article keeps getting deleted. Are you saying Abigail does not qualify for wiki? Due to the fact that she has only be a published model for one year? Is that what you mean when you say, "You answered your own question: you called her "a brand new star"? And, when you say "The article is blatantly promotional", do you mean that I should not cite these websites that I have cited? Thus, making it seem as though we are promoting the said websites, and/or Abigail. Our intentions are to simply give as much info, and show as many things as possible about Abigail, as we feel she is, in fact, a "significant" person, who has become extremely successful and popular in just one short year.

I appreciate your time Bbb23. Scoocher16 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Are your assistant and you at all affiliated with her? ES&L 19:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you and your assistant are affiliated with her. You have not demonstrated that Ratchford meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Nor have you shown that you are able to write an article in a neutral fashion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

hello Bbb23. No we are not "affiliated". of course we have worked with her. What are the guidelines about the relationship. Are you required to have never met or worked with the person you are authoring an article about? I cannot understand why you are saying that the article is not neutral. Should I leave out superlatives? What do you suggest for us to get are article reinstated?

Thank you. Scoocher16 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to answer my questions Bbb23? Nothing else to say? Who can I go to for my answers? Are you saying that because we know the person, we cannot write an article about her? I do not understand where you are coming from. Please exercise some professionalism and at least answer my questions. What do you suggest I do with this article that you have deleted? How do I get it reinstated? Can you cite specific examples of what is wrong with it? Scoocher16 (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have answered your questions. You just don't like the answers. If you want the article reinstated, you can look at WP:DRV and WP:REFUND.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this seems in some way confrontational to you Bbb23, but you have not answered my questions. Within this entity, Wikipedia, the only person I can go to to resolve an issue with my article (in this case specifically) is you. you were the person that has decided to delete my article, and I must go to you with my questions. I will ask again ... Are you saying that because we know the person, we cannot write an article about her? What do you suggest I do with this article that you have deleted ... can you cite specific examples of what is wrong with it?

Scoocher16 (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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

lawline

Is back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Joseph Posner Dlohcierekim 20:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(tps) Yep, see my comments at the SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I was about to block him based on duck. You made it easier.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Posner BLPN

Could you please restore some of the BLP post because 1) someone not a sock responded to the issue, and 2) the AfD discussion indicates there is some merit that this article might be a BLP violation. Thanks. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to start a new thread if you like. The responses that were removed were of no value.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Steven Shafer Page

Dear BBB23:

I appreciate your getting back to me. I had hoped you would reply, albeit by activating your bot.

I do not understand your statement "Wikipedia cannot use primary sources (like a medical board's decision) in support of material." That makes no sense. Primary sources are the best possible sources. I know you consider a newspaper account to be a reputable source, but newspaper accounts may be affected by a reporter's training, expertise, and bias. In this case, reporting on the decision of the California Medical Board, and referencing the decision itself, is definitive. I downloaded the decision yesterday, and provided a link to the URL so that anybody can download the decision.

My concern, of course, is that the data on my page is not only outdated but egregiously misleading. The North Dakota Medical Board reinstated Norberg's license. His former employer gave him back his job. I don't personally agree with those decisions, but my opinion is irrelevant. If my testimony about Norberg is to appear on my page, it is not acceptable that readers be left with incomplete information. If my account said "Shafer testifyied that BBB23 committed murder" and you were acquitted, it's just wrong for my page to say I accused you of murder and exclude that you were exonerated. I'm sorry, but omitting facts, particularly facts that exonerate a party, is just wrong.

In the case of Robert Markman, to my amazement the California Medical Board actually accepted my view about propofol, and reinstated his license. That is relevant information. Are you OK with a reporter saying "Markman license is suspended" and referencing my Wikipedia page as the source of that information? It is true that Markman had his license suspended, but it is egregiously incomplete.

Knowingly providing incomplete information is lying. I'll say it again (per Strunk and White): knowingly providing incomplete information is lying. That is the "whole truth" part of swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Lastly, you note that both medical licenses are clouded. I agree. However, that is our opinion. Our opinion should not impede a duty to make Wikipedia as factually accurate as possible.

I look forward to your response, and appreciate your efforts on behalf of Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Steve Shafer Slshafer (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many inexperienced editors believe that primary sources are the best, but Wikipedia does not, particularly with respect to legal documents. Still, I am sympathetic to your points. In fact, after I changed the article, it bothered me to the extent it unfairly hurts Markman or Norberg. So, I have a proposal. The article is about you, not about them. I suggest removing the stuff about their licenses completely. For Markman, I'd eliminate the second sentence in the paragraph, and for Norberg, I'd lop off everything after the date of his acquittal. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23:

I'd like to propose an even better solution: remove my page entirely. Seriously, who cares? I don't even meet the Wikipedia criteria for persons of interest. If you can pull my page, then its accuracy is irrelevant. This is far and away the best choice. If someone wants information on me, Google will happily direct them to my Stanford page.

As you know, my page was originally set up to tie me to Markman by people tied to Conrad Murray's defense. I have copies of emails from Paul White, sent at the time my page was set up, saying something along the lines of "You can't believe what Shafer has been up to. It's about to hit the Internet." My page was to created to discredit my testimony about Conrad Murray's administration of propofol, based on my defense of Markman's use of propofol. My defense of Markman, (amazingly) reflected in the final decision by the State of California, was that Markman was doing the best he could in a very difficult situation. Markman gave propofol the way an anesthesiologist gives propofol: infusion pump, full monitoring, emergency equipment, detailed record keeping, etc. I've spent a couple of days on Markman - hardly a focus of a 30 year career in research. Yet it remains the primary topic of my Wikipedia page. WTF?

I posted on my "talk" page changes that would make my page at least somewhat representative of my professional life. However, at a minimum, I feel responsibility for at least having the page accurate. Again, the best solution is to just pull the page.

I note for the record that your phrase "inexperienced editors" needs proper context. My primary work, about 60 hours / week, is as the Editor-in-Chief of the largest peer-reviewed medical journal in anesthesiology: Anesthesia & Analgesia. You note above that you "have a real job" (I think those are your words). My real job is as a full time editor. In this context, you mean "inexperienced Wikipedia editors." The rules you cite are Wikipedia rules. In the world of peer-reviewed publishing, the secondary sources Wikipedia prefers would not be acceptable for the reasons I mentioned above. For example, you would likely consider a scientific article to be a primary source, since it is similar to a legal document in that it is likely large, complex, and potentially uninterpretable to the non-expert reader. You would prefer a scientific reporter's account of the article, just as you would prefer a legal reporter's account of the Markman legal case. No peer-reviewed journal would accept a reporter's account of a research finding. The only valid reference would be the primary source.

On a related topic, I had considered taking an active role in Wikipedia in my area of professional interest: the pharmacology of anesthetic drugs. Based on what I've learned here, I'm no longer interested. I would go crazy making scientifically precise changes in the description of a drug's pharmacology, only to have an editor say "no, don't like it." My links to the peer review medical literature would be deleted because they are primary sources of information. There appears to be no appeal process.

The rules of peer-reviewed publication, including deference to primary sources, is based on centuries of tradition. Please at least be open to the concept that Wikipedia's rules, based on a decade of crowd sourced editing, may be suboptimal. To the extent that you can influence Wikipedia policy, you might consider recommending deference to primary sources, particularly when these are publicly available.

Lastly, I am disappointed with the lack of transparency in the Wikipedia process. My login is "slshafer", reflecting my name, Steven L. Shafer. I refer openly to my work. I sign all of my posts with my name. I make every effort to be completely transparent.

That is NOT the norm in Wikipedia. The norm is a complete lack of transparency. I have no idea you are, nor do I know anything about your experience and background. Are you a fellow medical investigator, speaking with expertise in the field? Are you a physician, able to judge what is and is not medically appropriate care? Are you a Professor at a major university, a potential colleague and mentor? Or are you a 19 year old communications major who loves editing Wikipedia, enjoys bullying marketing firms who use Wikipedia to make unsupported claims about their products or extoll the virtues of wannabe media stars (yes, I've read some of your exchanges...), and has no other editorial experience? I have no idea. Don't get me wrong: I appreciate the work that you are doing, and the time that you are investing. However, your lack of transparency compromises the effectiveness of our communication.

All editors for Anesthesia & Analgesia sign their reviews, as do all authors. Reviewers are commonly anonymous to the authors (although never to the editors). I sign all of my reviews, and I strongly encourage our reviewers to sign their reviews. Transparency improves the peer review process. I would suggest that the Editors of Wikipedia operate using their own names, not under the veil of anonymity. This transparency would improve the process. Transparency also keeps everyone humble!

I appreciate your consideration, and again extend my best wishes for 2014.

Thanks,

Steve Slshafer (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

So many things to respond to, Steve. First, one step at a time. I've removed the text from the article about Markmkan's and Norberg's licenses. Second, "inexperienced editor" was shorthand for "inexperienced Wikipedia editor". We have lots of editors here whose real occupations are as journalists. Just as with other "experts" in their chosen fields, that doesn't make them experienced with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Indeed, they are often frustrated by them, as you are. Third, my anonymity will remain. You can take me as you wish. You can infer what you wish. Anonymity is one of the privileges enjoyed on Wikipedia. The general idea is you discuss the substance and it doesn't matter who the person is, just what they say and how well they support their conclusions. Finally, with respect to deleting your article. There are two things you can do. One is to nominate it for deletion. I can help you with that if you need it. The other is to go through WP:OTRS and explain what you want and why. Many (Wikipedia) editors believe that if a subject is on the line with respect to notability and wants his article deleted, we should do so. Obviously, some people are going to have articles on Wikipedia whether they want to or not, but there are many others who are in a gray area. You would want to argue that you're one of those and that having an article about yourself does not serve the purpose of the project. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you other than admitting that I'm a 6-year-old tap dancer with dreams of becoming the first astronaut to dance my way to Mars.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear BBB23:

The problem with Mars is that it's a one way trip... We could probably send someone there, but anyone willing to make the trip by definition would fail the psychological assessment.

I'll take you up on helping to delete the page. I don't like having my page represent a narrow, if not exactly inaccurate, picture of my professional work. You won't permit me to edit it, and I don't feel like appealing your edits (I did figure out how to do that). So, yes, please nominate it for deletion, or send me a link and I'll do that myself.

Yes, some people are going to have Wikipedia pages whether they like it or not. I suspect a similar appeal from Conrad Murray would be denied.

Thanks,

Steve

Slshafer (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. Seems to me that if an adult wanted to dance their way to Mars, they might fail some psychological test, but a 6-year-old? What about a kid who jumps off the roof because he thinks he can fly? Take a look at the wonderfully complicated Wikipedia procedure for nominating articles for deletion at WP:AFD. Of course, if you're successful at getting the article deleted, I'll miss our little tete-a-tetes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You have changed my mind. A 6 year old who wanted to tap dance to Mars would certainly pass a psychological test for a six year old. Fantasy is an important part of kids' lives.

I think I've successfully executed the steps to have my article deleted. Please take a look, and let me know if I need to do anything else.

Thanks,

Steve Slshafer (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You did fine. I commented there. Back to my tap dancing. How far away is Mars, exactly? Can I get there and back before dinner?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello Bbb23. I noticed the block you recently logged against Walter Görlitz and, if you will, please reexamine the circumstances which prompted you to believe action was warranted. I did see that Walter Görlitz reverted 3 edits on the page mentioned, but I did not see where he exceeded that maximum allowance. Additionally, I thought his edits were constructive, improving the article and guiding the less experienced editor towards proper editing techniques. By a cursory review, it seems overbearing. If you agree, please set the block aside and restore Walter Görlitz's editing privileges. If you disagree, feeling the block is warranted, please advise me here as to why you deemed it prudent and necessary. Thank you for considering this and know that I appreciate your diligence as an administrator on this site.—John Cline (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, John, Walter reverted four times, the first at 6:18 and the last a series of consecutive edits ending at 21:22. I'm not counting another edit in the middle where all he did was add a wikilink at 00:15. You probably also noticed that I blocked the other user as well. I see nothing in this battle that exempts Walter from edit warring. He also should know better given his extensive history. It may well be that he was "right" and the other editor "wrong", but except in egregious circumstances content is not the issue. His method of handling the dispute was not acceptable. As an aside, my evaluation of the report was right after I evaluated another report involving him where he reported another user, all over a trivial dispute about WP:OVERLINK.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; I did miss the 6:18 reversion. If I may extenuate one point further: is it unambiguously a preventative measure; considering the block was placed a considerable spell after the reversions had ceased? I honestly believe the wiki would be better served allowing both editors to return to editing, perhaps under a 1RR restriction until the original block would otherwise expire. I think the benefit of the block has been achieved, and constructive edits are currently impeded while it remains. I won't question this further; respecting your decision—I am thankful that you conduct yourself in an approachable manner; appreciative enough to approach—now moving forward. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Mr. Anirban Sen Gupta

I think this Mr. Anirban Sen Gupta (talk · contribs) may be a new sock of accounts you blocked under similar names like Anirban Sengupta (Artist) (talk · contribs) as socks of Surjendranil (talk · contribs)220 of ^Borg 07:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I got fed up with this person removing PRODs and apparently adding bogus refs to their 'autobiography', so I have opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Surjendranil#02_January_2014. 220 of ^Borg 10:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be moot now as User:Alexf has deleted all the crap promotional pages, and blocked the 'Mr.' Sengupta account plus several other old and new ones. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 16:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bad Salad Page

Hello, could you please help me to meet the criteria to restore the Bad Salad page? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmartim (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Please block a sock

User:SelfEvidentTruth - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AmericanTruthSeeker. Also, if you could indefinitely semi-protect Ping Fu and Bend, Not Break due to persistent sockpuppetry, that would make things a lot better. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that the puppet has been blocked, I don't see any immediate need to semi-protect the articles. Let me or WP:RFPP know if that changes. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Given that there is a significant history of sockpuppetry and BLP violations, I respectfully request you to reconsider, because this defamation needs to be stopped permanently. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User Stats

How do you make those user stats things. I want to make one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of CinemaSins

The article was most recently deleted by Deb, not by me. However, I agree with the deletion as it appears to be just another channel with a bunch of subscribers.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There were no references to reliable sources, which are required for inclusion. Deb (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Must have clicked on the wrong user after the page was deleted. I'll make sure to talk to the right user this time. Tal Brenev (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Tal Brenev

Invitation for input

Hey, Bbb23. Given our good history of working together on many different scales, I figured I'd extend to you an invitation for your input on a peer review for Dota 2. Long story-short, Dota 2 is probably my favorite article on Wikipedia, as I created it back in 2010 and have been longing for the right time for it to become a Featured Article. I would like feedback from editors to give me direction for ensuring that it's up to par for a Featured Article. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the best person to ask for this sort of thing as I've never taken an article to good let alone featured status. Drmies would probably say it would be a way to improve my skill set, but at the moment I can barely keep up with the things I do well. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this would be a good way for Bbb23 to improve their already impressive skill set, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

For the fast response! Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm back, and a bit annoyed...

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your IP address has been automatically blocked because it was used by another user, who was blocked by Bbb23. The reason given is:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Walter Görlitz". The reason given for Walter Görlitz's block is: "Violation of the three-revert rule: Zwarte Piet".

Start of block: 2014-01-03T03:05:41 Expiry of block: 2014-01-04T03:05:41 Intended blockee: 70.36.63.180

You may contact Bbb23 or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.

Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a valid email address registered in your user preferences and you have not been blocked from using it.

Your current IP address is 70.36.63.180, and the block ID is #4935959. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

The time doesn't correspond to my actual block, which ended about 20 minutes ago. This block extends editing from my work computer for another day. I'm editing here from my home computer by using a remote desktop session. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I commented on your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That fixed it. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you try to edit at all from your work IP during the block? What likely happened is that you did and that caused the autoblock to reset or implement itself for the first time on your work IP. only (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Only, does your comment mean you understand how this works? First time this has happened to a user I blocked, and I had no idea what I was doing. Still don't really, even though I managed to unblock the IP. Should I not have? I infer from your comment that Walter tried to evade the block. Is that an incorrect inference?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand autoblocks the best but...it doesn't necessarily mean he tried to evade. So when you blocked him, since you had "autoblock" enabled (that's the default setting), it automatically blocked the IP his last edit was from for ap eriod of 24 hours. Let's say that was his work address. If he tried to edit from it again during the 48 hour block, the autoblock would reset its 24 hours. If he were on his personal IP address for his last edit, and then later he tried to edit from the work address, the work address would now be autoblocked for 24 hours. (That's where we get collateral damage from: I block person A on his home IP...he logs in and tries to edit from his school IP address. The school IP address is now autoblocked. Person B uses the school IP address in that same 24 hours, but can't because he's autoblocked because of person A's block). We can assume good faith here; Walter can probably tell us what he might have done to trigger the block reset, but I'm sure he wasn't trying anything malicious/evasive here. only (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've read WP:ABK more carefully, and the way I interpret it is either Walter tried to evade the block or someone else using that IP address tried to edit. If a user who wasn't blocked is autoblocked, I assume we should remove the autoblock, but in these circumstances, do we do any investigation into the attempted edit? I'm not accusing Walter of anything, btw, I'm just trying to understand what the appropriate course is to take.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Gavin Patterson

Apologies, I don't have Ph.D in Wikipedia. Just a mere mortal trying to add something that was, and still is missing from your website. You deleted a page that I created for Gavin Patterson the new CEO of the BT Group plc. I placed all the basics and three references on the new Wikipedia page. When one of the Wiki-Police flagged it up for destruction I took time to add the reason why this company is relevant - well at least in the United Kingdom. PLEASE can you let me know why BT Group plc has a Wiki page and the Chairman of BT Group plc has a Wiki page, but you guys seem Hell bent on deleting a page for the CEO ? Your standards are very odd. Frankly I am utterly fed up with the Wikipedia endeavour. What's the point? I certainly shall not be donating any more money. In fact quite the opposite. Friends, family, anyone I know in the education sector. Avoid donating to Wikipedia seems what you guys want. Some form of private club. Wikipedia isn't what it says on the advert. When the UK Charity Commission open after the holidays I shall be enquiring on whether something positive can be done to enforce UK laws as they apply to Wikipedia conduct in the UK fundraising as a charitable entity, when there appears several infractions of UK law. By the looks of your profile, banning over 1,000 people from Wikipedia, you seem to be on some power trip. So I am off before you get off on another ban. You just lost a Wiki donor, and also lost some of faltering reputation Wikipedias used to enjoy. Bit by bit the whole thing seems to have had it's day. Shame on you and those of your ilk. You should help and support folk, not go around banning as many as you seem to revel in getting rid of. Russ McLean (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Russ McLean has a point and so I can well understand why he is hopping mad about this. The article stated quite plainly that "Gavin Patterson is the Chief Executive Officer of the BT Group plc." and that organisation is so large that being the CEO seems easily enough to pass WP:CSD A7 which states that "This ... is a lower standard than notability. ... It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied. Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion." And the subject is actually quite notable too, being the subject of substantial profiles in the mainstream press such as this and that. Please undelete the article so I can wikify it. I expect to soon have it in a fit state for DYK and more.

For avoidance of doubt, note that this comes to you from a BT IP address. This does not indicate any conflict of interest but is just because they are also the largest ISP in the UK and so provide internet service for millions of residents like myself. My interest in the matter is as a member of the Article Rescue Squadron. Andrew (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made some comments on RM's talk page. I can understand why you didnt reply, considering the nature of his first complaint, but it was still an error on your part as much as mine, and you will see what I said. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on this one. At the time I deleted the article, all I saw was that a person was claimed to be the CEO of a company. Believe it or not, I'd never heard of BT (another ignorant American), and the company was not wikilinked at the point I deleted it. If I had done more research into the matter, which I'm not reqired to do for a speedy deletion but which I occasionally do anyway, I would have declined the speedy. As an aside, compared to other administrators, I believe I am less likely to respond to a user when they are obnoxious, even if their complaint might have merit. Of course, I evaluate that on a case-by-case basis, and it depends on the context.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, In reply to your suggestion of something untoward (obnoxious). The fact that my IP address is registered to BT is NOT a conflict of interest in this situation. BT Group plc are the largest telecomms company in the UK - with a such a huge share of the telecomms market that it had to divest part of it's business a few years ago. Furthermore, I have a serious dispute with BT so would not wish to provide that company with free publicity. I merely wanted Wikipedia - and it is top in Google search rankings for BT - to reflect the true, accurate and current position. Lord Livingston departed from BT Group plc in September 2013, and Mr Gavin Paterson was appointed as CEO that same month. Why you should go on an IP search hunt bewilders me. It is a matter of concern to me that if anyone else who happens to be a BT Group plc customer requires to write to the CEO of that company, at least the Wikipedia page should reflect the FACTS. Or is that not allowed? I might use the same logic about you being an AT&T customer, and being banned from posting anything on that subject due to your IP address. Russ McLean (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The word "obnoxious" had nothing to do with a conflict of interest. I never said you had a conflict of interest and never thought you had one.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Tommy Carmichael

It seems that my sd script missed this page, someone is asking for it. http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:440827 can you provide the original page please so i can archive it on sd? thanks James Michael DuPont (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No one has ever made a request like yours, and I see no basis for doing it. Userfication is generally done so an article may be improved and potentially become sufficiently notable to exist in article space. I don't see any reason to provide copies of articles to other websites. And in this particular instance, the article has potential WP:BLP violations, which would make me leery of userfying it at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

I swear I know how to count :D v/r - TP 07:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe up to five, but don't worry, with a little more practice you'll soon be in double digits. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case Gun control

Thanks for the notice about the case going forward, but I don't edit that article. My only post on the Arb page was to ask if Gun control is one of the articles that is disallowed in the Tea Party movement Arb case that topic banned multiple editors, "widely construed." Are you on the committee or are you a clerk? If you are one or the other, please remove my name from any further notices. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuisance edit warring complaint by User:Tvx1

Thank you for shutting down the nuisance complaint made by User:Tvx1 on the edit warring notice-board. I see you have had previous discussions about them making such complaints before. What is the best way to stop this user making such nuisance complaints in the future. Many thanks Sport and politics (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Don't come close to 3RR. Personally, if those 2 reports had been on-time, I'd have blocked at least 2 editors for edit-warring, because WP:EW does not need anyone to break WP:3RR. ES&L 13:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Be that your opinion EatsShootsAndLeaves, the issue here is the though making of out of time nuisance complaints by a user who is totally uninvolved, when the situation has been 100% resolved, with the only intention seaming to be to drag up the resolved issue all over again. The merits of the complaints are irrelevant here. The user claiming a revert from a version which was on 1 October 2013 when editing was made in Early January 2014 is spurious and claiming that genuine edits away from a previous version of a page are reverts are also spurious. Finally the user is clearly not making neutral and even handed complaints which is again wrong as they simply singled out one user and and not all involved parties. This user is behaving in a manner which is a nuisance and not in the best interests on Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The user reported 2 people, quite neutrally. Third party reports are actually BETTER - I hate it when one edit-warrior reports the other edit-warrior in a situation. Someone who stands back and says "WTF?!" and tries to fix it is the best thing. ES&L 16:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That may well be the only positive feature of this whole nuisance complaint, that being that they were a third party, but i dispute that the complaints were made in a neutral way. I would say they were disinterested, not neutral. They were biased and one sided in not reporting all sides and only gave selective or misleading evidence, such as going back months to claim a revert from (which is fanciful goal post creating and moving to suit their complaint). They claimed normal good faith and well edit summarised standard editing practices as reverts and they failed to interpret what "more than three" means and they thought it meant two. Sport and politics (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Iambarky789 unblock request

Hi Bbb, any input you have on Iambarky789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) unblock request would be much appreciated. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

oh

Sorry to hear of the indeff. Yes, that's an inappropriate context I hadn't thought of. Hard to check every person though. Best. Tony (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You!

You blocked me! This is outrageous! Why?!--123.2.142.50 (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2014)

(talk page stalker) Log back into your account, read the block reasons on your talkpage, read WP:GAB, and understand that evading that block to comment here can lead to longer blocks, and instant declining of any unblock request ES&L 12:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, a quick review of your edits shows that it was this ip address that was blocked, and it's pretty damned obvious as to why - your behaviour is atrocious. ES&L 12:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

3RR issue

Hi Bbb23,

I have a 3RR issue that I was hoping you could take a look at for me. Normally, I would go to the relevant ANI board, but as I am editing from a mobile device, it would be incredibly difficult for me to fill out the forms, especially when copying and pasting URLs in.

The problem is on the 2014 Formula One season page. Two editors, Joetri10 and Eightball, are refusing to accept a consensus on the talk page as they disagree with it. They have both broken 3RR (I admit that I have, too), and it is starting to get nasty. They are demanding that other editors recognise their preferred version of the page, have been attempting to characterise any edits to the contrary as vandalism, have resorted to dragging up the outcome of other debates to mmarginalize the input of other editors and have repeatedly threatened to get the admins involved unless the page remains as they see fit.

To make matters worse, it is a purely cosmetic issue. In short, it centres on the team and driver table. The method of issuing numbers changed between 2013 and 2014, and the debate centres on which method to use to arrange the table. I was hoping an admin might be able to take a look at the issue and maybe settle the problem, because at this point, I do not know what else to do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You're not going to get much sympathy from me. Administrators generally don't resolve content issues unless they are acting as editors, not as administrators, or content clearly violates policy. Complaining about others' conduct when your conduct is just as bad is not a good way to go. You were involved in another edit war on the same article earlier this month and escaped sanctions, mostly because no one reported you in a timely way. I've locked the article and commented briefly at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Christianity Today Is NOT a Poor Reference

see title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.81.56 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Meow! Hope you and yours are doing well.

Drmies (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Everyone's been sick, including me. My fever went down to normal yesterday, and I'm thinking a little more clearly (my head was horribly congested). Maybe I'll even stop dripping soon. Almost finished reading a historic novel about black slavery and oppression of white women in Alabama. Supposedly based on some 19th century legal case. If I were more knowledgeable, I'd know how better how accurate it is. I'm now going to blow my nose. Thanks for thinking of me, Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Big bad bobblehead (Bbb) for you

File:George Washington bobblehead.jpg

Bbb1

May you become bigger and badder than this guy.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What did I do to deserve this honor, Anythingyouwant?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I haven't (yet) found anything objectionable about your billions of edits. Plus you got Jimbo ticked off a few months ago. Plus I see you're now a clerk for some obscure and dubious tribunal.  :) And in any event, your page deserves to be graced by the image of another Bbb. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to create the WP:Some obscure and dubious tribunal redirect... ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a feeling that one of the tribunal's clerks might get annoyed. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Monterrosa sock (again)

Here we go again: [24]. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In my absence Tiptoety did precisely what I would have done. However, that won't necessarily stop the ongoing socking by IPs, so please let me know if there is further disruption to any of the articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

return of the IP

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

the top one is a blatant sock of the one you just blocked on the bottom. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if any more crop up, although if there are too many, a range block may be in order. It may also be necessary to semi-protect the AfD page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TheRedPenOfDoom.2C_tendentious_editing_and_a_free-pass_to_edit-war.. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-unprotection of 2014 Formula One season

I'd like to request reduction of the protection level for the article 2014 Formula One season to semi-protected. There are references that need tidying, and at some point in the near future team members will be finalised long before the current protection window expires, leaving the article out of date.

I've looked at the edits made, and there's probably a better way to handle the issue than a full block. Users may instead be challenged by administrators under WP:TRR and receive warnings themselves, coupled with temporary edit bans. It'd be nice for those of us who have accurate, updated information to carry out edits.

Dancraggs (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Dan, I'm not concerned about tidying up references and other copy edits. You can always use {{edit protected}} if you feel you can't wait until the current protection expires. Unfortunately, full protection often comes at the expense of "punishing" editors who have done nothing wrong. The team member issue is a bit more concerning. When do you think that's going to happen? It would help if you could point to a consensus on the talk page that resolves the dispute that formed the basis for the lock. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

AirHelp

Hi. You deleted my entry on AirHelp and I wondered if I could have your input as to whether I can put it back up, or what I should do to make it more acceptable to the editors! This is a worthy company currently in high secrecy talks with one of the top Silicon Valley funds, and with the Skype seed investor Morten Lund as an official backer. I will strive to be balanced and impartial, to acknowledge competitors and possible drawbacks of the service etc. It is not an attempt to advertise and I have no commercial stake in this company. However, it is a venture that merits public note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbentolila (talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the article for two reasons. First, it made no credible claim of significance. All it did was describe what the company does. Second, it was blatantly promotional both in content and style. It doesn't matter whether the company "merits public note". It matters whether it is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. If you want to try again, I suggest you go through WP:AFC rather than attempting to move the article directly into article space. In that way you'll get feedback from more experienced editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologizes for the misguided reporting...

...but thanks for a keeping an eye on things. Zero Serenity (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

I sometimes go a bit over my head when editing my favorite Wiki pages. Apologies for any inconvenience to those who worked so hard to create those pages. That's what the sandbox is for, and I keep forgetting it's there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLMnovelli (talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. Perhaps you should move just a bit more slowly to avoid making mistakes.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Hello there, I see recently you deleted the Gary O'Neill page I contributed.

I ask you kindly what would I need to change/add to make this page suitable for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebsiteTalent (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You would have to establish notability per Wikipedia's guidelines, including secondary sources, and eliminate the promotional tone. I also suggest that you do it through WP:AFC where you'll get feedback from more experienced editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

link fixing

*headdesk* Thanks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani at ANI

You really cut through the fog there and just did the right thing; not too much, not too little, but just right. People complain a lot about administrators around here, and I've done my share of that, so it's important to compliment them too. Good work and thank you for doing it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality reversion

Hello Bbb23. You beat me to it on that one. I was going to use WP:IRS and WP:UNDUE as reasons for removal.
I'd like also to take this opportunity to apologise for flouncing out of the talk page discussion at that page several months ago, if you remember? I know you weren't directly involved, but it might have been a bit like watching 2 people having an argument and feeling uncomfortable as a result, and I apologise for that. I hadn't prepared myself for how sensitive I would be around the subject matter. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23: Where does that documentation belong? Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight suggests a "see also." Please realize that the subject matter that you deleted is a fact. It is fact that a book contains the referenced quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusteltu (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't belong anywhere in the article. It's not noteworthy, needs better sourcing (a 1958 book?), and doesn't merit its own section (with a non-neutral header). Also, the thing about Mattachine is WP:COATRACKy and cannot be sourced to Wikipedia as you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be noteworthy because Russia, once communist, is not allowing the alleged communist goal you deleted, "26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as 'normal, natural, healthy,'" to happen in Russia. Thus, if I find more recent sourcing for the material asserted in the book, where would the "see also" subsection go? I am thinking that it could go under discrimination because, if the book's assertion is true, then those who self-identify as "homosexuals" would be being used as pawns. Thank you for the guidance about sources, coatracks, and the header. The header at Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Anti-government_patriot_groups is non-neutral. The section itself is, but that section's header does not reflect the neutrality expressed in the section. That is why I thought that the header did not have be non-neutral if the section itself is neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusteltu (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for deletion of Mike Pronovost

Hey Bbb23. Sorry, I have no idea how to contribute to Wikipedia. Is this subject notable enough to stay or is there some other way I should go about requesting that this page get deleted? I used that speedy deletion template improperly, didn't I? I was pretty confident the page would qualify, and obviously this page irritated me a bit. I am currently trying to request deletion in a more appropriate way. If I am doing something wrong, please correct me. 96.19.154.217 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The article was a mess. Now it's less of a mess. I removed the prod tag because you shouldn't be claiming the service is "fake", not without evidence of that. The best way to propose that the article be deleted is through WP:AFD. However, because you don't have an account, it's more complicated, so be sure to follow the instructions. As for whether I personally think he's notable, on the face of it, it's borderline, but I didn't do any research (see WP:BEFORE) to determine if there are other sources out there that would support his notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that detailed response! I have created an account to simplify this process. Although I disagree for a few reasons, I will create an AFD and wait before submitting another propdel which will either omit the accusation of a fake service or have some evidence. ( I trust your judgement as an administrator over mine as to how this should be treated, especially because it is a biographical article. ) My biggest concern is that I feel it will be impossible for me to get this article deleted, even if it deserves deletion. Note that I'm not accusing powerband of being a fraud; I don't think it collects any money at all. It doesn't offer its service to individual residencies, which makes it much harder to prove that it doesn't do anything. Whittledaughn (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on creating an account. If you nominate the article for deletion, there's no need to WP:PROD it as well. Just be aware that AfD discussions can be contentious, so hopefully you have a thick skin.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ritmeyer

A user has complained on WP:ANI that this article was deleted per WP:A7. This says the criterion does not apply " to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." A search on google shows that the article said: "Ritmeyer is a prominent niche piano company, known for making pianos of ...". Clearly the article did make a claim of significance and should not have been deleted per WP:A7. I believe the article to have been tagged by an inexperienced used who has been reported to Ani for his disruptive tagging and would ask that you undelete this article. Op47 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen articles tagged that shouldn't be and articles tagged with the wrong tags. I evaluate articles on their merits. In this instance, the tag was good, and the deletion was sound (no pun intended). If the the phrase you quote were all it took to get past an A7, almost any article with a small, non-specific bit of puffery would do so. I have no opinion on whether the company is actually notable. I've never heard of them, but that doesn't mean much.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

==Deletion review for Ritmeyer==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ritmeyer. 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.

Possible proposal to redirect people searching for Java

Hi Bbb23. Can you give your opinion on a recent addition I made to the Java talk page here. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The section in your link doesn't exist anymore, but I'm assuming you're talking about the requested move. Someone will eventually close the discussion, not sure why you're (apparently?) asking me to do so rather than it take its place in line.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Elena Kagan

Given the "has never married" business has already been "litigated" and that you don't like it either, I won't quibble with that part of the reversion. (I do note, for the record, I think it's subjective and somewhat pejorative on its face.)

The reason I edited the punctuation is that some sentences in the section have periods outside the quotations while others have the periods inside. There are generally two styles of quotation punctuation -- inside (the US style) and outside (the Commonwealth style) -- so arguably the article should be one or the other but not indiscriminately both. Or is it just so hopeless a task to corral the two styles into one acceptable style, even within any one given article because it's the product of many hands, that an editor should not even bother? Siberian Husky (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't use either American or Commonwealth style. See WP:MOSLQ for Wikipedia style. If there are instances where that guideline is violated, you should change the article accordingly.

As for the married/children bit, I objected to saying that she isn't married and doesn't have children period. I think statements of negatives like that are inherently problematic. We say when someone is married or does have children; I almost never see a statement that they are/do not. I was outvoted, as I recall. This happened some time ago, so my memory of the exact facts might be off.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Unobtainium

[25] Apologies - I don't think I've ever forgotten to inform editors before now. Not sure why I missed both parties this time round. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It happens. Don't fret about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

David Camm

Hi, I saw that you removed my edits on the David Camm article because of the style. Could we compromise on the style or work on some edits that might bring the style to what you believe it should be? I feel the additions bring a lot of important information and help the reader understand the depth of the case. Bali88 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

I am new to wikipedia and have a couple of questions. Why did you delete my Jeffersontown Fire Department page (by the way I put it back up because i didn't think it had any need to be deleted) and I am trying to find how I flag something for deletion and actually delete pages like you do. -Nascarman1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascarman1 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article, although I could have. I redirected it. You have been creating very bad articles. It's surprising that more of them have not been deleted. You are inexperienced and shouldn't be creating articles and moving them directly into article space. If you really want to learn how to create articles, then read up more about it and use WP:AFC.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Contest speedy deletion

You deleted the article Yi In-sang. Unfortunately by the time I received notification that this was proposed for deletion, it had already been deleted. It is unclear why this qualified for a speedy deletion. Yi In-sang was a 18th century Korean painter, whose paintings are in museums / galleries and has been documented in literature. Can you please restore, or inform me why it shouldn't be? Thanks. Keithh (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The article didn't say any of that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It turns out this page was duped by another with an alternate spelling, and that one is still available, so I guess the matter is closed. Thanks. Keithh (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)