User talk:Bbb23/Archive 29

Request for undeletion

To

The CEO,

Wikimedia.

Dear Sir,

I'm inventor of Arsenic, Toxic Minerals and Iron filtering compound. Bangladesh Government has given Patent for my invention. I'm now erecting Arsenic, Iron and Bacteria removal filtering plants in some schools, colleges and orphanages in Bangladesh to save lives of young people. I wish to implement my invention in other countries with the crisis of safe drinking water. In view of this, I've posted some of the pictures of these plants and photos of foreign and local visitors, teachers, students and orphans of these organizations in Twitter and Facebook. After then I've created some webpages in Wikimedia Commons. I've wrongly clicked on deletion space during changing the title of some pages with different subjects. But after some days it is observed that some of my created pages and my account have been blocked. I've appealed through the page of Wikimedia Commons and saved this page as per instruction. But after two days all of my pages have been blocked.

I, therefore, hope that you would be gracious to consider my case sympathetically and I appeal to you to withdraw the deletion order from my own and created pages and User Account.

Thanking you,

Sincerely Yours,

User Name : shyamalchy

Name : Shyamal Chowdhury — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamalchy (talk • contribs) 13:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It is not a place for personal websites. I suggest you find a web host that suits your needs.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Elliotness1

Thanks for the heads up on my error here. I think I saw the time at which the edit was reverted and for some reason took that as the time it was made. A rookie error and thanks for calling me on it. Britmax (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for cooperating.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Afronig (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem user

You recently gave User talk:MitchyThorngate a final warning for creating inappropriate pages. Well, they're at it again with Bethan Thorngate, a hoax created by copying an article and changing the names and adding silly lies. Please take what action you consider appropriate. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@BethNaught: I've deleted the article and indefinitely blocked the user. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Technical issue

I had just made a suggestion,(Bbb23, I think that it shouldn't be removed.......) but they don't appear in page history.[1] Even your comment is not appearing.[2] I have never seen this before. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're having a problem. This is the diff of your "I think that it shouldn't be removed" comment, and it's in the revision history of the page. The last things I did were to remove one of the IPs' latest diatribes and semi-protect the page for three days. Substantively, the last thing I did was to ping Callanecc again. Everything looks good to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Even now, http://s12.postimg.org/d7vjjqenw/Untitled43242.jpg Bladesmulti (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should get some rest? The image (sans girls) and the revision history match. Nothing wrong with any of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It is all good. I had thought that you had protected the SPI before you had left the comment on sock's report, just figured it out that you had done that before. You should block those proxies anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy new year

Hi Bbb23, I wish you a happy new year! I know its late but better late and thanks for protecting Persib Bandung article (again). Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this?

Happy New Year! Can I ask you to take a look at something? Here's the rundown from my POV:

• [[User;Djflem rewrote the article St. John's Park -- about a block of land in Lower Manhattan with some interesting history, but which is now used for exits from the Holland Tunnel -- to focus not on the history of the land, but on the "rotary", a non-notable circular cluster of 5 exits.
• He then moved the article to St. John's Rotary
• Since there was no prior discussion, and the rotary was (and is) non-notable, I moved it back and opened a discussion on Talk:St. John's Park
• The emerging consensus in the discussion (3-1 at this point) is the the history of the square-historic townhouse development-private park should be the focus of the article, which should stay at "St. John's Park"
• To subvert this, today Djflem moved from his sandbox his "St. John's Rotary" article into mainspace as Holland Tunnel Rotary. That article was a substantial duplication of St. John's Park, with no accreditation given for copyright purposes. It was, in fact, a fork of St. John's Park.
• For that reason, I moved it back into his userspace and converted the title into a redirect to St. John's Park.

There's some other little stuff going on as well, but that's the main points. Djflem seems to be having ovwnership issues about the article and appears to want to control its content despite what a consensus of editors he saying. If he can't control St. John's Park, then he'll fork it to another article and control that one -- but, really, 5 exits in a circle isn't a notable roadway structure and would never pass notability on its own. As the editors in the discussion have pointed out, it's the history of the land that is interesting and notable.

If you could take a look and drop a comment or two -- wherever and to whomever you think it is appropriate, I would appreciate. If you think I should instead take it to AN/I, I'll do that, but I usually like to avoid making a mountain out of a molehill if it can be resolved more easily.

Thanks for taking a look. BMK (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a look also at Talk:Holland Tunnel, where he accuses me of being a "weasel". The editor doesn't seem to have a good understanding of WP:V, WP:N or WP:OR. Or the new section he started on Talk:St. John's Park in which he completely misconstrues what the consensus of the discussion is. BMK (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for me to intervene in this. If you think you have sufficient evidence of misbehavior, you can take it to ANI, but my sense is you don't and you'd be better off trying dispute resolution methods to resolve the problems. As an aside, he didn't call you a weasel until after you called him clueless.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your opinion. BMK (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Hi Bbb23, I actually wanted to say something else but unfortunately I couldn't so I felt the warning was the best way to let off some steam,
In hindsight it probably wasn't a very good idea but I guess it was better than me being uncivil back,
Anyway cheers, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was better than being uncivil back, but the best would have been to do nothing. The user is banned. Forget about it. You shouldn't need to let off steam on-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem is I get pissed off very easily, On-wiki and IRL (Been like it since I was a kid!), But anyway the past is the past but just thought I should explain myself, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Resumption of disruptive editing by GLPeterson on Wireless power

You recently handled an ANI/edit warring complaint by me against GLPeterson on Wireless power. I am concerned that his recent edits [3] [4] seem to be a resumption of previous efforts to insert unsourced material into the article. Talk:Wireless power#Recent changes to summary table and Talk:Wireless power#Reintroduction of unsourced pseudoscientific content detail the concerns of myself and other editors. I don't really know what to do here. Could you look at it? Thanks. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I glanced at it, but I have neither the time or the energy to really examine what's going on. If you want quicker action, you're going to have to take the issue to the appropriate noticeboard. In the meantime, please be careful that you don't edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, will do. I can see your busy, thanks. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Spshu

Spshu managed to get himself blocked by edit warring against User:Ttll213 at One Magnificent Morning. Though Spshu exceeded his mandate by making so many reverts, have you considered that his opponent Ttl213 could be just another sock of User:IDriveAStickShift? If we were convinced that Spshu's opponent was a sock would that make a difference in the 3RR verdict? I can see both arguments. Somebody who had the patience to study these TV articles (not me though) and sort out the various POVs might be able to create a better sock lineup. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I wondered why IDriveAStickShift was sandwiched in those bullet points. IDrive would, of course, be a sock of Ttll213 as it is a much older account. I think Spshu also threw in User:SummerFunMan who was blocked in November of last year based on CU evidence, which although it was before IDrive was created, Ttl1213 already existed. It's never been clear to me if sleepers automatically turn up or if they turn up only in certain circumstances. In any event, going back to IDrive, the only intersection between Ttll213 and IDrive is One Magnificent Morning, which is not a lot to go on, particularly given the disruption by many users to that article. And although IDrive talks a lot, my recollection is that Ttll213 does not, making it hard to connect them stylistically. I did believe from the beginning, though, that IDrive was not a newbie. The only question was did he gain his experience from having a named account or editing as an IP (he did/does a lot of that). In addition to his disruption, he's one of the more deceptive editors I've run across. I suppose I would feel uncomfortable making any kind of finding without a report being filed by someone.

As for your other question, if Spshu believed that Ttll213 was a sock master at the time of the reverts, that would help excuse his edit warring, but it was a post-hoc thought it would not. Even if he did believe it, it would have to be a credible belief. I would be more likely to "excuse" it if he were to request an unblock and admit that what he did was edit-warring and perhaps even promise to stay away from the article for a while (he's very caught up in it). Sorry for the long comments, but it's complicated.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. For the benefit of any talk-page stalkers, Spshu also tried to explain matters at User talk:Spshu/Archive 1#ANI 3RR Sock reports though I haven't tried to puzzle that out. Since it was only a 72-hour block I won't try to think about this any more. If the same set of articles shows up again, a lot of semiprotection might be justified just to make it slightly harder for the various socks to operate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion

Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Squidward679

Hi! Would you mind taking a look at this? It is CUdeclined, which I don't agree with, but regardless of socking issues, there's some significant WP:CIR issues like Zoey Burger. I'd handle it myself, but beyond the short-term block I applied a few days ago I feel any further action should come from someone else... --Rschen7754 02:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, it looks like we have another sock of Squidward679, see here. War wizard90 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@War wizard90: The account has been indeffed. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Bluesapphiredigital

Where would I go about reporting this userpage? It appears to be used just as a way of advertising their business, but I didn't know what subsection of AN to report it to. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone else beat me to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Jake Chasan

Hi Bbb23, You correctly declined an A7 on this page, so I'm just letting you know I have sent it to AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I figured someone would. I had actually put it on my watchlist because I was curious what would happen to it, but thanks for the heads up. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion of Suraya Shivji

Just curious why you Speedy deleted Suraya Shivji without notifying me? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The admin doesn't notify the creator. The nominator does. Ask Sgroupace.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Morcohen2 reopened

He's back under a new name: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morcohen2 HGilbert (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeepers

Thanks for this Bbb23. I have visions of whoever this is sitting at their computer with a watch counting down the seconds until that protection expires so they can add their nonsense to the article again. I hope that your 2015 is going well and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Hasn't been protected since October, as far as I can see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You are right Lukeno94. I got this confused with another page that is always getting hit. Apologies to you both. Now since Briony gets added to this one every so often shall we set odds on when it will happen again :-) Thanks to you both for your efforts and vigilance. MarnetteD|Talk 03:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• If it weren't being added by an apparent sock, it would probably be a justifiable edit, to be honest. There are so many pages that get targeted by vandals, that it is often hard to keep track! :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL, "jeepers." Love it. FYI, all, there's nothing vandalous or otherwise disruptive about simply wanting to know why someone would block talk page access just for asking someone else about the blocking, especially if the accusation of being a sock-puppet is false even if they are the same person.

That's because, for example, first the account/IP in question has to have been abusing wiki while using that other account/their IP address in order for it to even count as socking (remember that from WP:SOCK?), but then if the admin hasn't backed that up (what the "abuse" was, in order to make the person who made those edits a socker), of course the blocked member will and should ask about it and be able to get a reasonable response instead of just getting his or her talk-page access removed without any further discussion. And even this simple FYI response is not disruptive.75.162.213.116 (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality

Due to your involvement in Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article, I invite you to an arbitration request discussion. Please write your statements in your own section, and reply to other people's statements in your own section. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

Hi Bbb23, I noticed you recently dealt with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns initiated by Neelix who as you know has since retired. By chance I bumped into two ongoing AfDs of articles created by Neelix, namely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name. Looking into the nominators activity, a new account who started editing a week ago on another Neelix article (Tara Teng), I have the suspicion there may be sockpuppetry involved. Also notice the activity of another newly created account, Yaktaur, on that same article. Is there any way for you to look into this? Thx.--Wolbo (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Another SPI has been opened up under, unfortunately, a different master: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang. I just left a brief comment there, but I don't have time to do anything. My time on Wikipedia in the last few days has been severely limited.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Hmm, delicious, and really bad for you. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia so little in the last few days I fear the burger has gotten cold. The only thing worse than a warm burger is a cold burger. However, as soon as I finish my daily ration of bacon, I'll heat it up in the microwave and swallow it in one bite.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Request

If you have a moment, would you take a look at this [5] at AN/I and the additions to the report that followed in the last hour or so? I'm trying to understand why it's happening and keep coming away confused. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You posted this late last night (my time), so I just took a quick look at the topic at ANI. Looks like a 3-way conversation that hasn't gotten any traction yet. Without reading it carefully, I can't say what's best, but my off-the-cuff advice is to stop commenting unless someone new becomes involved and a response is genuinely needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see your response here until just now. Regretfully. Please take a look at where the thread has now gone. I'm done commenting there unless absolutely necessary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's getting out of control, but it's hard for me to intervene at this point. I don't think your autism is "irrelevant" per se, but it probably doesn't help to discuss it. Never heard the term neurotypical before. Based on our article about it, it doesn't sound like your labeling other editors as neurotypical is a big deal, although you can't really know. Even people who are part of a minority can be ignorant. Thus, someone who is mildly autistic could still be ignorant about autism. Anyway, it's a fruitless discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fruitless as is nothing will come of it in the end? Because, at this point, the "Support" votes don't look fruitless to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I meant that the autism discussion was fruitless. It's difficult to predict anything at Wikipedia. Sometimes, particularly at ANI, things get a bit crazy. The user name comment is really over the top. I'd concentrate on resolving the Myerson issues at the article Talk page rather than worrying so much about the proposal at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent advised me to not even comment at the article talk page for the time being. I'm inclined to agree with him as it seems pretty much anything I say there has been taken and twisted around and used against me. That's the way it seems to me, at any rate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been following the discussion at the Talk page, but I know NE Ent is trying to resolve this, so I'd take his advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that this [6] has happened. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I might have been had I been around at the time, but I wasn't and haven't been around in general lately. I'm not going to rehat it at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:DangerousPanda

We're not going to correct "all" the errors, but why revert the corrections that have taken place? You made 2 changes the version I'd left. You restored a small active tag to a bot that apparently isn't active...and you restored a userbox that says they are an admin willing to make difficult blocks. Why? --Onorem (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It would cascade from there as there are other "errors" on the page. If you want to change things so there are no supposed misrepresentations, then perhaps you should ask one of the arbitrators involved in the desysopping. Otherwise, just let it go to the last version that DP had up there.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If the cascade is making the page more accurate, what's the problem? Last I checked, we don't allow people who aren't admins to claim that they are an admin. --Onorem (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the involved arbs should make the final decision on this. DP is still an ed and member of the community despite all that has happened. It is the wisest course of action. Irondome (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. What a waste of time for the sake of wasting time. Gotta love bureaucracy. The arbs have nothing better to do, so I'll just assume this will be addressed without needing to mention it anywhere. Have a good weekend! :) --Onorem (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have started WP:AN#The User:DangerousPanda page. Feel free to join in. --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Abductive again

Hi. I was wondering if you could look into this as you are the admin who blocked Abductive.

Gamebuster19901 self-reverted his deletion of content added by PuffinSoc (a large edit, including the material Abductive deleted before) in favour of taking part in an open discussion. Abductive immediately reverted it, and has not taken part in the discussion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

picking up the dirty socks

Thank you for cleaning up the Kaufmanitay ‎/ Dhdhdhdffx mess. Jeh (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: I'm glad someone appreciates the tedious procedural work involved in merging three cases. Thanks for the kind words.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Kirkwall Ba game

Do we have another sock of Elliotness1 working here? Britmax (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Aleš Strojnik

You were cited as the admin who deleted a page with this title. I am in the process of writing a new page, and cannot find the original talk about the deletion to make sure I'm avoiding the A7 issue that was listed.

Can you assist?JohnDWashington (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. What "original talk about the deletion"? As far as I know, it was tagged, and I deleted it - no discussion. If you decide to recreate the article, I urge you to submit it through WP:AFC rather than put it directly into main space.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bangalore Conservatory

Hello Bbb23,

Can you please salt The Bangalore Conservatory. Article has been recreated multiple times by same editor who seems to have no intention of letting up. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to do that at this juncture. It should not have been deleted in the past and you should not have tagged it as an WP:CSD#A7 as an educational institution is not eligible for A7. Even my delete per G11 was borderline, but given the brevity of the article, it seemed justifiable to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ordinary Love has returned

User:Ordinary Love (or is it User:15 times 15) has returned as User:Magic Alaric Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: I indeffed both, although 15 hasn't edited since October. I threw in User:Gurupi for good measure. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Algieri vs Ruslan Provodnikov

Hi Bbb23, I wanted to drop a note and say thanks for your action on Chris Algieri vs Ruslan Provodnikov. That one was my mistake, and I appreciate that you noticed the article to which it was similar; I had just realized my mistake right as you deleted it. Thanks for all your hard work! MJ94 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A diff that may be of interest to you

Here. Just wanted you to be aware since you were the blocking admin. John from Idegon (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that's all water under the bridge. Eurodyne was also blocked (not by me), but he was later unblocked by DeltaQuad, a checkuser.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Chris Quigley

I edit conflicted with you in reviewing this undeletion request. I figured out after going down the rabbit hole of checking the actual page name provided by the requester, that what was actually meant was a more recent page and I've restored that.I t may appear upon a first glance to a third party that our posts there – your {{not done}} and my {{done}} – are in conflict when they're not, so I just wanted to drop you a note to give you a heads up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: I don't believe I've ever acted at WP:UNDELETE before. The irony of my error is not lost on me. Thanks for going the extra mile for the IP and for letting me know. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Further hands are welcome; don't let this discourage you! By the way, gobs of requests are undiscovered copyvios, so it's a good idea to check before granting a request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Brad Pitt

I appreciate the notification, in that I know it was required. I think if you'll look closely at Talk:Brad Pitt, you'll see there is no consensus for removing a piece of baseline biographical information of a child's gender based on what another editor (Prayer for the wild at heart)has now documented as false and outdated rumors. I hope you will examine Timeraner's politically motivated agenda, now demonstrably based on incorrect data. Thank you again for the notice; I hadn't been keeping track. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Honestly, it seems like a small point for anyone to get excited about. I just didn't want to see you blocked for insisting on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

On an unrelated matter, the photo of the French countryside on your user page is so extraordinarily beautiful it almost hurts to look at it. It takes one away to another much simpler, freer world, at least in my mind. Thank you for posting it. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Dunno about "freer", but it is beautiful, isn't it? I took it last year when we spent a wonderful 10 days in the south of France. I was a little frightened, though, being on top of the tower, and you should've seen the stairs leading up to the top.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see this page:

Template:Wikipedia ads LeoLi1234 (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've answered his specific question, which I really think should have been done before blocking him. What would you say to reducing his block to 24 hours instead of 48, since he was having timezone issues and didn't see the earlier warning? DS (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I understood even without the timezone issue that he may not have seen the final warning, but there was a warning before that one. He'd been reverted by more than just me. He also added the ads to the Talk page. It was clearly disruptive. However, I don't mind even unblocking him if he said something more about understanding what he did wrong. He was also going at a rapid clip, which sometimes makes it hard to "explain" things. I'll comment on his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on article deletion - Neograft

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neograft&action=edit&redlink=1 Hi,

I apologize as I'm relatively new to the wikipedia community. I wanted to reach out to you regarding your deletion of an article in the middle of 2014. I saw you listed the reason for deletion as G3:vandalism. After reviewing what's defined as vandalism, I can't seem to understand why the article was classified as such. Would you mind providing more insight?

Cbradburyneograft (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)CB

It's not important as the original article, NeoGraft, was deleted because it was an obvious promotion of your company. I won't even get into the long list of other accounts involved in creating that article. I'd be very careful if I were you, as you're dangerously close to being indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

remove indefinite page protection?

If you feel the immediate disruption that led to you semi protecting my talk page is over [7], can you remove the protection? I tend to have interactions with a lot of new/unregistered accounts and them not being able to directly connect with me- particularly when the templates tell them to - would be problematic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: It already expired. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I intentionally set it to expire at the same time as the block expired because I figured that's what you probably would want.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

My fault, I had somehow read it as indefinite! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you saw the move part, which is autoconfirmed/indefinite. If you want me to alter that, I can, although I can't think why you wouldn't want it protected from being moved.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

NazariyKaminski

In October 2014, you blocked NazariyKaminski indefinitely for a 3RR violation. This seems unusual.

I was looking at Rick Perry for the first time in a few months, and I noticed his/her contributions to that talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at his block log, it doesn't look unusual to me. Nor have they ever requested to be unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Reason for deletion

Can you please advise why you deleted AnyDocs A7 This is software and indeed relevant. I can include more details, but my understanding it the citation for your deletion grounds does not apply for software. Not trying to be disrespectful -- just asking clarififcation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.68.85.146 (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You're going to have to log in before I will answer any questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

logged in...

Can you please advise why you deleted AnyDocs A7 This is software and indeed relevant. I can include more details, but my understanding it the citation for your deletion grounds does not apply for software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexjh2013 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Putting aside your obvious conflict of interest, A7 applies to web-based software, and my understanding of the sketchy article is that it is at least partly web-based.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

− Sketchy article? Conflict of interest? Yes, I created my own entry to identify my own company, which was simplistic and one paragraph in length to merely identify us and provide further links to us -- is that prohibited? It is windows and web based, combined -- yes. A company that has a web based application isn't allowed to post an entry? My LLC isn't allowed an entry? An owner of a business can't post an entry to the public can find him? I was unaware of such rules. I posted nothing misrepresentative. Kindly advise.. Would it be acceptable if we rephrase the article with more comments that have cited sources (LLC registration, windows software screenshots, length of company and mission statement and link? I simply wanted a presence for my LLC as I saw many others. I created my own account because I'm not hiding anything. Please respectfully advise.

What basis to remove my Talk page access?

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.

---

On what policy basis did you remove my user Talk page access? (When you did after I was blocked, I obvioulsy couldn't inqire on my Talk or yours. Now I'm inquiring.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote why I did it at the time. It's still there on your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what's there: "I've revoked your talk page access as you are abusing it during your block with your endless attacks and rants." What attacks? (Diffs please.) And what "rant" are you referring to? And aren't you aware how subjective that is? (Any opinion I register is identifiable as "rant" by anyone who dislikes me, and certainly based on your past behaviors toward me, that includes you.) I consider you one of a minority of abusive admins, Bbb23. (But I expect you already have known that.) I'm not gonig to be quiet about it, so I guess you better figure out a way to gag me forever (site ban), huh? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• To stop you making personal attacks I would think, and to stop you soapboxing on your talkpage, based on what I can see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Ha, I supposed I missed all this excitement. Sorry Bbb--I should drop by more often, but your talk page isn't as attractive as mine, with Hafspajen as a dedicated decorator. IHTS, you can go back to soapboxing and ranting all over your talk page again now that you're unblocked. I do not consider Bbb an abusive admin and, at any rate, it wasn't Bbb who blocked you. Revoking of talk page access is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights or something like that. But, if you like, I can call Dennis Brown on His Secret Cell Phone and then me, him, and Bbb will get together in our little cabal and gag you forever, yeah. Or you can just take Princess Anna's advice (or was it the other one?) and Let It Go. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: it was Elsa, duh. Anna was too preoccupied with her desire to build snowmen and shtup the ice-collecting dude.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What is this, ANI? You called Toddst1 "an excellent admin" and re DangerousPanda "I appear to be the only admin to break a lance for the Panda, and I do so unabashedly" so what kind of standards? I was not "unblocked", the block expired. Am well aware who the blocking admin was. Removing Talk access is tantamount to "gagging" someone, I'm sure abusive admins relish that. I asked for basis in policy, got no answer, no one brought up civil rights but you. No one brought up Dennis Brown but you. No one brought up cabals but you. Bait much? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2015 (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.

Web Applications (SequenceDiagram.org)

Hi, you previously removed and article about a Web Application. Are you saying that applications written in Java are more interesting to readers than applications written in JavaScript? Isn't one of the corner stones of Wikipedia that it isn't biased, the reason I read Wikipedia is because it doesn't include personal unreferenced opinions, just straight information. More and more applications are Web Applications. HTML5 is a framework for creating applications just as Eclipse Modeling Framework or any other framework out there.

Is it your opinion that Web Applications shouldn't be considered when people are choosing an application to work with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staffanp (talk • contribs) 09:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how my opinion about web applications has anything to do with the deletion of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Because you deleted the article before I had a chance to contest it's swift removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staffanp (talk • contribs) 01:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the nature of speedy delete, which is why it's called speedy. Sometimes an admin gets to it before the creator.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for answering. I understand from your answers that I have to discuss the topic of Web_application's having the same importance as non-web-applications elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.14.106.81 (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

This comment you made about me at ANI "The two principal users who suppport it are not here to improve the article or the project." really got to me, I'd appreciate if you could explain why you feel this way? Thanks. - Lips ^{are movin} 12:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, your edits seemed focused on a very narrow range of related pages. You seemed to work in conjunction with that other editor (forget the name - the one with fan in it). Your views appeared to be biased based perhaps on your own personal taste. And your attitude towards other editors when they did things you disagreed with was combative. That said, I hadn't reviewed your entire editing history, so my "analysis" was superficial and mostly related to the ANI thread at hand. A word of advice, though. Don't let my comments rankle. Just work on becoming a good editor and try to listen to others when they disagree or even criticize you. You don't have to accept everything others say, but listen with an open mind. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Wikipedia is still very much the learning curve for me. - Lips ^{are movin} 16:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Bbb23, I would like to request for your assistance on an article I created about a music artist Jefferson Yap. The person in the article is very notable in the Singapore music scene and is arguably the top saxophonist in Singapore. However, the page has been nominated for deletion with other users saying there is not enough references to prove the person is notable. Could you kindly advise me on what I can do to resolve the issue? Thank you so much! Jackchee (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Look at WP:MUSICBIO. Many of the criteria are slanted toward pop (or even jazz) musicians, but it includes classical as well. According to the article, Yap covers all three spheres (saxophone is an unusual instrument). Overall, WP:GNG rules. Remember that the sources supporting notability must be reliable. Saying that a particular person is "arguably the top saxophonist" in a particular country is a hefty claim. If you can't back it up, don't say it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While you wait for a response from Bbb23, this could be of help Wikipedia:Subjective importance Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 09:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblock template

Hey Bbb23. Hope all is well. I happened to see your recent edit at User talk:Cwobeel. Though technically the declined unblock request might not be removable, when the person clears out their whole talk page (except for the retired banner) that is a hint that they won't be continuing to ask for unblock. In cases like that why not let it go. If they file any new unblock request then it has to come back, though. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, might as well be flexible, builds character.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

+1 for common sense > bureaucracyTwo kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay

Sorry yeah I shouldn't of removed the speedy, I was just feeling a bit strange about it I guess as I never have gotten one. Well thanks for the notice anyway. Wgolf (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Investigation update

I have provided additional information regarding my SPI - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr._Lama . ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, the evidence phase of the case is now open, and as a listed party you are encouraged to add evidence. Evidence that is not brought to the attention of the arbitrators risks not being considered, and the evidence phase will close on the 2nd of February.. If you do not wish to contribute evidence to the case, the committee may consider your response in the initial case request as your evidence; if you wish to take this option please let me know and I will convey it back to the committeee. If there is anything else I can do to assist on this case, please let me know. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

Question

Cwobeel said And yes, you can answer here if you want, but thread with care, as my patience is running pretty thin with you... which is an endorsement that I can respond. I am not sure why you reverted it, but did you Cwobeel's invitation? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I saw his last edit summary but didn't see he'd apparently changed his mind. I restored your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries - he'll remove it if he wants. I think he is reasonably upset over the incident, but I harbor no ill will towards Cwobeel. I picked an edit which was simple to explain and show for readers. I do not want to antagonize the situation, but I also still seek to correct misconceptions and such. Thanks for the self-revert, I know you were trying to help. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I toned it down more and streamlined it for relevancy. Ugh... I miss my NRHP and silent film articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Reason

Hi Bbb23! I know it's been a while so how are you? Anyways, do you mind lookimg over this? It's a bit old since I just got back. Thanks you! 13:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're continuing the discussion with the other user? I don't see the exchange between the two of you as constructive. If you're still concerned about the content of the article, then I suggest you get other editors involved. Also, please sign your name, not just the time, so I don't have to look at the history to see who posted here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Valguard Deletion

The pages was deleted because it was seen as promotional and not notable, however the article followed all the criteria outlined by section G11 to NOT be deleted as it maintained a completely neutral point of view, in addition notability was shown in the section of the article outlining the recent robbery, which was reported by the news (which was linked to as a reference) Because of this I politely ask you to reconsider the deletion of this article. In addition if the position that this article is promotional is still maintained, may you please outline what needs to be changed to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkfloydfan97 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted once before in December by a different administrator. In my view, the newer version is worse than the older one. If you wish, though, I'll reluctantly WP:USERFY it for you. I then urge you to go through WP:AFC so you get feedback from more experienced editors about the quality of your material and the notability of the company. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a copy of the article, thank you though. I'll submit it as a draft and see what I need to improve, any quick reasons as to why you think this article was worse than the last one? I didn't see any guidelines which I broke (It fit the rules in G11 and A7). Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkfloydfan97 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The section called "Services" reads like an advertisement as to what services are provided. It is sourced only to the company's website, which is generally not considered an acceptable source. The section called "Recent Armed Robbery Intervention" is blatantly WP:UNDUE. One incident involving a Valguard security guard, and you blow it up into tremendous proportions. Also, a great deal of the material is not at all supported by the cited source, which reinforces my belief that you are affiliated with the company (an obvious WP:COI); otherwise, how would you have so much insider information as to what happened at the robbery and to the guard afterwards?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

request to restore page

Dear Team, Here request regarding page deleted Ashfaq Chishti. As wikipedia required refrence for the page approval I submitted there but suddenly page got deleted. Please go through Big website of urdu poets and restore the page. The page really not associated with any kind of advertisment. Refrence http://www.rekhta.org/poets/ahmad_ashfaq

Thanks and Regards, Anjali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjali.sitapur (talk • contribs) 05:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What's your relationship to User:Ashfaq.chisthi and User:Ramsha.fatima?--Bbb23 (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Salty Batter/Bridge Boy sock

I put the requested diffs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bridge Boy. I would be willing to let this go as a "fresh start" after 2-3 years since the old sockmaster was blocked, but the new sock has returned to exactly the same pattern of disruptive editing, so there's no change in the old behavior. It's a classic example of block evasion.

I don't really believe the person behind these accounts has been inactive for 2 years. A checkuser would probably turn up other socks. I only notice this guy when he goes back to motorcycling related articles, but he has had other interests in the past, such as turning Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force into a battlefield. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Reason for Deletion of Minus33

Hello. Can you please elaborate on why the Minus33 page was deleted? It is extremely similar to the SmartWool page that currently exists on Wikipedia. Please explain how their page is significant and ours is not. Additionally, the company's nearly 100 year old history in the wool and manufacturing business does provide credible importance to the subject. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurrierField (talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What's your relationship to User:Csexton25?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

British Nigerian Education Section

Hello BBb23,

Nograviti here, I want to explain that I was acting in good faith when I reverted midday's changes on the British Nigerian Wikipedia page.

The education section has been unchanged for many years until he took it upon himself to change it.

He has made more than 3 edits and it appears that he has made 1 main edit with an additional minor edit to quickly build up a case for 3RR.

As I explained I only logged in today to ask him to not engage in original research and gain consensus before making changes. I also contacted him on his talk page and he merely removed my section, edited the page again and raised a 3RR against me?? Then chose to insert flimsy explanations for his edits which I will detail below.

The Camden report he cites is for only one borough in the city of London, it is not a national level report. It is akin to using data on the Jewish community in Manhattan and trying to say that is representative of the group at a national level in the USA.

Also with regards to a 78% figure he or she is unhappy is from a well known publication the Economist. Secondly the older figures are probably the best material available as they directly recording academic figures for British Nigerian children.

I will withhold from editing the page, but could you please revert his recent changes as in truth I think the user is being disingenuous about his intentions.

All of this seems like a convoluted attempt to replace accurate data with poor sources and general data on African attainment in Britain. Nograviti

My focus is on user conduct, not on your content dispute. For content issues, you'll need to get other editors involved to discuss the dispute. As an aside, I strongly suggest you only edit while logged in, and don't use the word "lies" when referring to another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Point taken but how else do you then point out when an editor has been dishonest? In the meantime, would you be able to revert his changes? Because as it stands there is now inaccurate information on the page, cited as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nograviti (talk • contribs) 21:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't say that another editor is "dishonest" any more than you say they lie. Just skip it and focus on the content. No, I'm not reverting anything. I'm not injecting myself into the content dispute. If you really want to edit successfully at Wikipedia, you're going to have to learn to edit collaboratively and abide by policies in doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A courtesy

Could you provide me a copy of the article Bice Valori you recently deleted per A7? I plan to recreate it, very soon. My best, Cavarrone 15:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's now at User:Cavarrone/Bice Valori.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The River (Greece) and edit-warring

I acknowledge I violated WP:3RR, though I did not do it with the intention of violating that policy. I just tried to prevent the user from disrupting the article, since I had already seen that:
1. He had engaged in warring and disputes with other users (namely Alakzi).
2. He consistently tried to add the "center-left" ideology on the article, on the basis that "the party is S&D and subsequently it is center-left", which is a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS.
3. He refused to participate in the discussion on the talk page, which other users entered and agreed upon that "center-left" was to be left out (yet he insisted on adding it anyway).
4. He refused to listen to any of the warnings issued to him both by Alakzi and myself.
5. He insisted on reverting our reverts on the basis that we were doing vandalism, which I considered an offence since I already explained him why the "center-left" option should not to be added there (yet he still kept from refraining on his behaviour).

This said, I do recognize I should not have reverted his edits that many times and just reported him outright (I considered him a spammer/vandal because of his insistence on adding the same info in such a manner repeated times, ignoring warnings and accusing others from vandalism; I thought the 3RR did not include reverts of edits going against Wikipedia policy). Anyway, as you say, I'm an experienced user, and I should have kept from entering in such a foolish edit warring. I'm sorry about that. Impru20 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Impru20: Thanks for the explanation of your reasoning. WP:3RRNO has specific exemptions, including vandalism, but it has to be blatant vandalism, not this kind of thing. I'm not going to take any action against you based on your understanding that what you did was inappropriate and that, going forward, you'll be more careful (I recognize it's sometimes easy to get carried away even for experienced editors).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5 SPI

Thanks for your participation. Can you point me to where the evidence of abuse or misuse is located? TenzinTashi5 (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I prefer that any discussion related to this SPI take place on the SPI page itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:PabloOsvaldo17

Hi, my understanding (no guarantee of accuracy) was that blocked users shouldnt be removing their block notices during the period fo that block? Could you confirm if this is wrong/has changed? Thanks in advance. Amortias (T)(C) 23:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the policy "changed" (there was a dispute as to what the policy was, so some might say it was "clarified"). You can remove block notices. You can't remove declined unblock requests. See WP:BLANKING (first bullet).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, change firmly tattoed onto palm of right hand for future reference. (If we can avoid any future policy changes or clarifications, I'm running out of room to record them.) Amortias (T)(C) 23:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as you have an unlimited supply of palms and don't mind them being covered with tattoos, you should be just fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Urgent Request

You deleted the article on "ExpertScape" despite contest to start a discussion and evaluation with due process. Can I ask you that we resume the posting and allow a health period of review and discussion? Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expertscape S.Burntout123 (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No, speedy deletes are just that, speedy. They don't require a discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"Speedy deletes are just speedy deletes" would not qualify the action and may misrepresent the true spirit of "collaborative" nature of Wikipedia. You deleted the article on "ExpertScape" despite contest to start a discussion and evaluation with due process and despite the request to allow a healthy period of review and discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expertscape Honestly I have no idea who or what runs the ExpertScape, and I am not even sure if this is a company or enterprise or autopilot web operation. I know that "notability" is met here, since the nationally renowned medical centers and USA based medical schools refer to ExpertScape rankings. If so the Wikipedia is warranted to have a neutral reference about this. One would benefit from seeing an informative article that is not promotional but indeed critical and questions certain angles such as source of funding and other limits. S.Burntout123 (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hafiz Khan actor‎

Hafiz Khan (actor) was previously deleted four times and salted, Hafiz Khan actor‎ only once but has now been recreated by the same editor. I can't figure out why they also play around in User:Neerajmehra/sandbox. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In this instance, I think it's a waste of time to try to figure out why they made that one edit to an 9-year-old sandbox. I'd just chalk it up to yet another weird user comes to Wikipedia. I've deleted the article and indeffed the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

IPsock tagging

Hey, Bbb, long time no chat. The reason I moved the tag from the User Page to the Talk page was twofold:

1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Administrators_instructions#Blocking_and_tagging says, for "Sock puppets (IP addresses)... Tag only the sock puppet's user talk page – Unlike with registered accounts, we usually don't tag the user page since another person in the future may edit under that IP. ... The talk page of an unblocked IP may be tagged with the {{IPSock}} template.". I realize a given IP may be blocked now, but the tag persists for later.
2. Most importantly, it is how the sock category (in this case, [[Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of IDriveAStickShift]]) gets updated for future reference.

Without the tag, the category is not up to date, because the block template doesn't update the category (maybe it should, but that's another issue).

I know you're an SPI guru these days, and I don't mean to try to "teach my grandma to knit". I'm just sharing my interpretation of the documentation, which also makes sense to me. Of course, what is really done may differ from the documentation - if so, let me know, and I'll edit it to match reality (e.g., "Don't bother tagging...").

All the best, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right about what it says, but the reality is clerks, CUs, etc., rarely tag even the talk page of an IP. I'll let your edit stand, but, honestly, in the future I think you should leave this sort of tagging to the folk who manage SPI and to administrators who block an editor for sock puppetry independent of an investigation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I don't care about the edit. I do want to do the right thing, both w.r.t. the documentation and w.r.t. my own actions. Regarding the latter, I have routinely added such tags to an IP when I was active in reporting a sock puppeteer and see continued activity. I thought that such action was not only acceptable but welcome (I don't do vandalism patrol or other such things, so it is just my way of helping). I do believe, based on your reply, that I've not been doing it wrong, so I'm surprised by your suggestion I stop.

Maybe I should volunteer over at WP:SPI as a clerk. Do they still need help?

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

We could always use help. However, I don't know what the status is of users who've applied or the training (a relatively new concept that I should pay more attention to but don't).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I applied [8]. Thanks again, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:COPYPASTE

We use our own words. We do not lift chunks of text from other people's work and assemble articles like some kind of puzzle. It's quite clearly explained, and I would have thought it's pretty obvious. So why exactly are you edit warring to restore non-free text to The Mary Tyler Moore Show? 200.83.136.145 (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

COPYPASTE is not policy but an informational page, but even by its own terms, COPYPASTE clearly states that quotations are permitted: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". Your interpretation of COPYPASTE would mandate the dismantling of almost all quotes in all articles on Wikipedia, and the ones you've removed from the Moore article are indeed brief, whereas many articles include much longer quotes.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

They are not quotes being used to illustrate any point, establish any context, or attribute any point of view, and their length is not the reason I removed them. They are verbatim copies of non-free text being used instead of properly written free encyclopaedic text. COPYPASTE is a handy summary but the relevant policy is WP:COPYOTHERS. My interpretation of COPYPASTE would leave all quotes intact, because quotes count as fair use. 200.83.136.145 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

They have surrounding quotation marks. How can they not be intended as quotes?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

So let's start Winston Churchill as follows:

"Sir Winston Churchill, in full Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (born Nov. 30, 1874, Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, Eng.—died Jan. 24, 1965, London), British statesman, orator, and author who as prime minister (1940–45, 1951–55) rallied the British people during World War II and led his country from the brink of defeat to victory."

It's in quotes so it's OK, even if it's copied from Britannica. Right? 200.83.136.145 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Which Chart Can Be Used?

Hi, you recently decided the verdict for my user report, [9], and I was wondering if I'm allowed to go back, and start using the original chart, rather than the other person's chart? Thanks. Bbfan23 (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am still wondering if I can change the chart back to the original, thanks. Bbfan23 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed your first post. From what I can see on the talk page, you have one other editor who agrees with you. That isn't much of a consensus. Why don't you try to get more editors to express a view rather than restore your version?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

B.A. Johnston Article

Hello, I notice you've deleted an article I spent some time creating without a discussion with the reason of "self promotion". Although a quick google search would have revealed 65,500,000 results attesting to this artists notability, and you are apparently too busy to do this before deleting someone's effort and work, here are some links.

http://music.cbc.ca/#!/artists/BA-Johnston http://noisey.vice.com/en_ca/blog/ba-johnston-is-canadas-answer-to-gg-allin http://exclaim.ca/Music/article/b_johnston-mission_accomplished_album_stream http://www.ionmagazine.ca/music/profiles/ba-johnston-no-frills http://www.pigeonrow.com/b-a-johnston-hi-dudes/ http://www.thespec.com/whatson-story/4179621-the-funny-and-very-odd-world-of-b-a-johnston/ http://www.sledisland.com/2014/ba-johnston http://electriccitylive.ca/2014/09/beef-boys-ba-johnston-survival-guide/ http://www.themanitoban.com/2014/01/b-johnston-im-sorry/18552/ http://trentarthur.ca/b-a-johnston-wouldnt-do-well-in-the-porn-industry/

Once again, thank you for arbitrarily nullifying all the time I spent creating the article and contributing to wikipedia. You are truly helpful.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

cheers. Rbc2 (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't disagree with your deletion. I disagreed with deleting it as advertising, but I agree with the original tagger's idea of marking it as an A7; I figured you'd just hit the wrong button or something. Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think I did. I think I was swayed by the description of the person as it was so sleazy (that, of course, shouldn't be a factor), and I also think I acted too quickly. I should have at least looked at the sources before taking action. I don't understand why the author didn't just ask me to revisit it rather than taking me straight to ANI, which wouldn't even be the first place a new user would normally think of.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation - Bridge Boy - Archive

Apologies, but I had to edit the archive to add a defence regarding User:Dennis Bratland's accusations regarding me being a 'sock'. I am certainly not a 'sock' and take great exception to the statement. Please can you investigate this further as untrue statements without any foundation should not be being made by editors. --WyrmUK 11:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your change to the archive. I appreciate your letting me know you made the edit, and without addressing the merits of what Dennis said or what you're saying, it's not appropriate for you to alter the archive. There was no adverse finding made at the SPI against you, so if I were you, I'd let it go. If that doesn't suit you, then you should discuss the issue with Dennis (if you haven't already) and if that fails to satisfy you, take it to the appropriate noticeboard. I might add that your call for a public retraction at the archive wouldn't likely be seen by anyone anyhow except maybe if the case is reopened and someone looks through the archive, so it really doesn't achieve your objective.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know how I can get this claim retracted then. Just saying that this isn't the way to do it does not help. To be frank, to allow others to post things 'for the record' as a statement of fact when it is certainly not and have no come back at all because someone decided to 'archive' it before allowing the relevant party to comment is shameful and really calls into question the whole nature of Wikipedia. --WyrmUK 08:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Having thought about it, I would consider this to be a personal attack as it is without evidence or foundation. I would request that this is dealt with accordingly. Thank you. --WyrmUK 09:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

N.B. Just to clarify as the above possibly isn't as clear as it should be. Given that the article could be considered as a personal attack (and indeed I do consider it as such because it really isn't difficult to figure out that I'm not a sock, it's not in a talk page but on an official investigation page, there is no evidence given, the poster has interacted with me in the past when I requested something that he did not agree with), but it is in an archive and so can't apparently be touched. How should one go about having it removed or retracted, or is there another way to have the statement marked as incorrect or contended or whatever. I hope you get what I'm trying to say here, basically that untrue statements about users should not be made on official pages and should really be removed. I will be posting on Dennis' talk page in due course, when I'm satisfied that I've calmed down enough. --WyrmUK 15:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite honestly, if you are Bridge Boy returned, then I would welcome you back with open arms. Note though that I have no standing here and there would be an almost inevitable wikitarring andd wikifeathering to follow. The way that Bridge Boy was hounded off the project was shameful. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am certainly not Bridge Boy. My own personal experience of Wikipedia is that it is rife with bullying by those who have obtained more knowledge about the bureaucracy. --WyrmUK 08:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Having looked into the styles of posting between Salty Batter and Bridge Boy, I find it most unlikely that they are the same person. Bridge Boy uses TOMCC and 'Triumph Owners Motor Cycle Club' whereas Salty Batter uses TOC and 'Triumph Owners Club'. The investigation should be re-opened and re-examined. --WyrmUK 08:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have undone your edit to the case page as that is also not the way to achieve your goal. Please take Bbb23's comments above into consideration, e.g. discussing it with Dennis Bratland directly. Your edits to the page would likely go unnoticed unless another case is properly filed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Note how when WyrmUK is told to stop doing something multiple times, he keeps going? Ever seen that before? The inability to drop the stick demonstrated right here is certainly consistent with the pattern of the known socks. WyrmUK's previous battle was over nothing but an apostrophe, much like Triton Rocker's old battleground mentality around UK terminology, or Bridge Boy's inability to stop fighting over the terms parallel twin and straight twin, or Salty Batter's fight over saying club or gang. The sudden activity of WyrmUK after a two year lull is tells us either Salty Batter contacted him, or else they are the same person. This easily adds up to enough evidence to run a checkuser. We couldn't use checkuser befofre on stale accounts, but WyrmUK has solved that problem by resuming activity. As with Salty Batter, I don't think there's a reason to seek a block evasion block for its own sake. But as with Salty Batter, WyrmUK is only here to disrupt Wikipedia, so he forces sanctions upon himself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Salty Batter did indeed contact me, and the sudden activity is because I take great exception to lies being published about me. As I'm sure most people would be, that's really only natural. Please go ahead and run checkuser and when no correlation is found I would like an apology. I am certainly not here to disrupt Wikipedia in any sense and there is no evidence in anything I have done which would support that. All changes I've made have been in good faith with the aim to improve accuracy. To be honest I used to think that Dennis was one of the better editors I'd encountered as he informed me how to go about changing the title of an article properly, which I followed and indeed thanked him for his advice at the time. It didn't result in the change so I dropped it, I certainly did not keep fighting. I wasn't happy about it but I did drop it. I feel that my ignorance of Wikipedia bureaucracy is being used against me by others who should know better and should instead be helping and advising. Dennis didn't have to mention me at all as the investigation was for Salty Batter and Bridge Boy, but he just had to make a last comment without any evidence and that's what I'm strongly objecting to. --WyrmUK 19:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

People get accused of being sock puppets at WP:SPI. It's what happens there. Demanding sanctions and apologies for someone using that forum for it's intended purpose is silly. I would take Bbb23's advice and move on. Marteau (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, if I had been the subject of the sockpuppet investigation then fine, I could have defended myself and my denial would be in the record for all to see and make their own judgement, however in this case a statement has been made and I am not being given any allowance to deny it. Is that really fair? Is that really good for Wikipedia? --WyrmUK 19:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we're done here. @WyrmUK, you need to let this go. I have given you evidence that has been echoed by DoRD. Please don't post anymore on this subject on my Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

WP;3RR comment

Please explain why you think I "clearly breached" 3RR. Unless you think it's okay to add biased material with tabloid sourcing, if any at all. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to say that I didn't say at AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Bawer1

Hi, you blocked this user at AN3 for two weeks at the beginning of January: see this. The user has returned from the block and has made only two article edits both of which are identical reverts that were the subject of the AN3 report: [10] and [11]. Should I file a new AN3 report or would you take it up? Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I blocked him, although I actually read the Talk page discussion, which was tedious.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think there's any prospect of him coming off his block and not doing what he did before. DeCausa (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Kingchamar

This is another one you just blocked at AN3 here and who has come straight back today and made the same revert he was blocked for: [12]. Would you mind taking a look? DeCausa (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You're keeping me busy, aren't you? Blocked for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Just a coincidence I think - don't believe there's any others I'll be bring back to you. Thanks for the speedy response. DeCausa (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Jetboil again

It appears the Jetboil article has devolved into near edit warring again. If you could please keep an eye the article and the Talk Page] it might improve the chances of a positive outcome. Thanks. 842U (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to remind me why you're coming to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Strike of lightning

I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strike of lightning (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Strike of lightning: could you explain what you don't understand? Lor^Talk 21:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

your assistance please

In 2013 you deleted an article on Amanda Rosenberg as an instance of WP:CSD#A3. Could you userify it, so I can determine if it was about this Amanda Rosenberg? Geo Swan (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Talk page too please. Geo Swan (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• There's no point to userfying an article deleted per A3. If you want to create an article about her, go ahead.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Patti Rutland

"No", as in "misuse of speedy", or no as in "also clearly notable"? Geogene (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of speedy. I believe the terse no was because I had come across another article you tagged as an A7 that should not have been tagged. I think you tagged yet a third article that I in fact deleted, if that gives you any comfort, but I haven't reviewed my deletions to confirm my memory.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I do see why those shouldn't have been speedied, I just wondered from that if you had an insight into Rutland's notability. Reconsidering it, I think I'll leave any AfD there to subject-matter experts. Geogene (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to do WP:BEFORE and check it all out. On the face of the article, my guess is she's sufficiently notable to have an article here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the frank discussion

I did want to make one point to you personally. When discussing the value of sources and edits, and how they're looked upon by Wikipedia policies, your arguments will carry much more weight if you actually refer to policies supporting your statements. Essentially all I'm saying is that providing sources to support information is as valuable in that context as in the context of an article. This is not a criticism, and I'm not saying you were or weren't 100% correct. This is just an observation that it was hard to really accord you an appropriate amount of credibility on Wikipedia policies without you having presented anything to support your claims about them. Generally the person making a claim (such as that Wikipedia's policies feel a certain way about something such as citing law as references) is the one expected to present supporting sources, rather than the other party being expected to find sources to refute it. The fact I don't know Wikipedia policies particularly well outside of in very vague notions is why I generally don't refer to them, I merely go by my personal feelings on how Wikipedia should be, which is easy to justify because Wikipedia's policies are mostly just a collection and amalgamation of many people's feelings on such things and are merely a framework of guides rather than actual rules. Anyways, have a good day. AaronMP84 (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's more helpful when another editor cites to policy in support of their arguments. I don't necessarily agree that the burden is on the reverter to do so. Indeed, WP:BRD puts the burden on you once I reverted to justify inclusion of the material. Wikipedia is a collection of policies, guidelines, and essays, from most to least binding. Although essays are at the bottom of the list, WP:BRD is so often cited it's hard sometimes to remember it is an essay. It's simply inaccurate to say that policies are "merely a framework of guides". Although the interpretation of any given policy may vary, policies are rules. Guidelines, on the other hand, are presumptively correct but can be "violated" if there is a clear WP:CONSENSUS to do so. BTW, with respect to the disagreement on this article, the main policies I relied on are WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY, which is a subset of WP:OR.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Chris Penso Deletion

I appreciate your concern, but I think that there was no reason to delete the page Chris Penso. Most FIFA referees have pages, and adding one for Chris Penso seems reasonable. Please explain why Chris Penso's page is unnecessary and unreasonable. Thanks, Eman52 (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw no claim of significance in the article. It seems I'm not the only admin to assess the article that way as after you recreated the article, it was again deleted, this time by Seicer.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A referee in general is not notable. But what I'll do is copy/paste the content below for you to use. I would suggest using your sandbox to build it up. My issue was that there was no notability established. Sure, he was a referee for the MLS, but what makes him special? Or outstanding? A player is notable; a referee needs more to go on.

Chris Penso is an American Soccer referee from Ohio.<ref>http://www.referee.com/resources/officiating-rosters/mls-roster/</ref> He has been a [[Major League Soccer]] referee since 2011 and a [[FIFA]] referee since 2013.<ref>http://proreferees.com/roster-chris-penso.php</ref><ref>http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=usa/footballofficials/referees/peoplekind=ref.html</ref> == Dao2k socks == FYI since you blocked several of them: I have collected up the latest crop at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dao2k]]. Regards, [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 19:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC) :{{ping|JohnCD}} prolific, isn't he? Thanks, John.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23#top|talk]]) 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC) ==References== {{reflist}}

Let me know if you need any assistance. Thanks! seicer | talk | contribs 02:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about MRM discretionary sanctions

I noticed on Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions that the MRM has a 1RR on all pages until October 27, 2014. Is that 1RR restriction indeed expired? Or does that page need updating? This info is also on Template:Editnotices/Page/Men's_rights_movement. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: The 1RR restriction expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Permission to remove the edit notice from the MRM page then? If the restriction has expired, it doesn't seem needed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

violation of 1 rr

Hello, infantil has now continued to violate the 1rr even after you gave him a warning https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_cuisine&diff=646565753&oldid=646453285 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

ANEW script

Hey Bbb23! I know you're a much-appreciated regular at WP:ANEW, so I thought I'd let you in on a script I wrote to help responding to these reports (and also other noticeboards). Might save you some time. Any feedback you may have is greatly appreciated too. Hope all is well :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: thanks for thinking of me. Adding a script for me requires energy (I'm such a wuss), so it probably won't be today (no sleep), but I'll let you know what I think after I install and use it. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Historic.us Corporation

Not sure what fails to make this company eligible for a Wikipedia Page. Currently Historic.us Corporation has an exhibit at the Villa Antigua Border Heritage Museum, 810 Zaragoza Street, from January 21 – February 24, 2015. “America’s Four Republics: The More or Less United States,” for Washington's Birthday Celebration, which is just one of 16 that we have done in the past four years. List includes Carnegie Institute, Clara Barton House, Fort Pitt Museum, James Madison's Montpelier, James Monroe Foundation's Birthplace, MGM Grand Las Vegas Hotel, National Collegiate Conference, NY Hilton Hotel, Smithsonian "The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden”; Thomas Jefferson's Monticello, Waldorf=Astoria, DNC & RNC Conventions, LA, VA, WV, & U.S. Capitol exhibitions, New Orleans Mint and a host of Universities and Colleges. We respectfully request you reinstate the Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stas.klos (talk • contribs) 17:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Who is we? Apparently, you are the president of the corporation. That seems to be an obvious conflict of interest. Wikipedia strongly discourages users creating an article about a subject they are affiliated with. And please WP:SIGN your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

re: Farzana Mitu

Just in case my comments were taken the wrong way, I wanted to make it clear that I didn't mean to imply you did anything bad. I personally consider RS referencing a near automatic A7 disqualifier, but of course no 2 people will ever agree 100% on what is and what is not an A7 case. I certainly agree the article was severely lacking - I probably would have moved it to draft if reviewing speedy deletion requests at the time. As to the offer to move it to draft, I was simply trying to be helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB: I wasn't offended by your comments at all. I know you were trying to be helpful. I don't usually comment at WP:REFUND, but I thought my opinion of the article was worth noting, if nothing else for the benefit of the article author if they decide to take you up on your offer..--Bbb23 (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your Roberts edit

The comparison of Roberts to Rehnquist is needed for the article. Did you mean to fully delete this material with two sources? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. First, almost all of it was cited to one of the two sources. Second, it is way too much material for the Roberts article. Third, forgive me, but it's not even particularly well crafted. It's wordy, somewhat redundant, and poorly organized. If you want to take a stab at a very short version, go ahead. Otherwise, I suggest you take your proposed material to the Talk page to see what other editors think.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Shon Pace

Articles on Shon Pace and his recording Terminator were prodded, deprodded by article creator, Savagepb1 (t c), and send to AfD. Creator removed AfD messages and received a level 4 warning 14:24 by Cyberbot. At 14:26 Amirhasan95 (t c) is created and repeats the behaviour. Is there a need for me to line up at SPI for this? -- Sam ^Sing! 15:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

One more: ITunesManagementCo. (t c) -- Sam ^Sing! 15:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

And one more: Hayley1997 (talk · contribs · block user) -- Sam ^Sing! 16:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I presume Towelspink80 (talk · contribs · block user) is related. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockmaster hijacked the redirect Jihaad in this diff in order to create a bio on Shon Pace's brother. (It was a rip of Willow Smith btw.) Now a new user, Kayla9009 (talk · contribs · block user), pops up out of nowhere and hijacks Jihaad with a bio on the same brother. -- Sam ^Sing! 00:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Amir787 (talk · contribs · block user) ... and another semi. -- Sam ^Sing! 16:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thorcon

Hi! I see that you speedy-deleted Thorcon as G11. As you can see from the blue link, it is again in our midst, and now listed at WP:CP because of copyright problems. Is the content of the current version any better than the previous one? It seems wholly promotional to me ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: The content of the recreated article is significantly different from the earlier one. It is much longer with more images (probably copyright vios without permission) and far more detailed. It is poorly sourced, using only self-published sources and a couple of puff pieces. I don't think it can be deleted per G12 as it doesn't appear to have wholesale infringement throughout the article. If you believe it should be speedy deleted, I don't think you're going about this the right way. I'd remove the copyright template and tag it as a G11 and/or an A7 (as it was in the earlier iteration). I won't delete it having done so before. Once in a while I'll delete the same article twice, but generally I avoid it. If you believe it doesn't meet notability guidelines but is not eligible for speedy deletion, then take it to AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Eva Bay

I'm sorry I have used wrong tag, I just wanted to say that Eva Bay don't exist. I searched the web and I couldn't find any information. That article was started by a user whose only contribution was this article. I think that it should be deleted. Other island mentioned in the article are probably invented. Alexzr88 (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In the future when you tag an article because you believe it is a hoax, use this template: {{Db-hoax}}. You may be right that the bay doesn't exist, although I think the other islands mentioned do. Nonetheless, I've nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Bay.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Kingchamar

Sorry to bother you again. Further to this thread the user has come off his block and immediately made the same edit yet again. I thought I'd got through to him on his user talk page but I was mistaken. DeCausa (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy action. DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Gabon macrofossils

Hi Bbb23, All the content of this article has been added by a known IP serial vandal, and EncMstr is usually pretty swift in blocking his IP accounts. After seeing a typical addition to another of his favourite targets today, and then checking this IP's other contributions, I found that he had previously added content to this Gabon macrofossils page under yet another IP address, also located in north-eastern Pennsylvania. The linked article Francevillian biota is the sort of topic that attracts the attention of this IP vandal and he has borrowed author names from it to make his hoax more plausible - it certainly fooled some GF editors into adding categories, etc.

The IP's MO consists of constructing fake taxonomies for biological and palaeological topics (including some paranormal and non-living phenomena!). He has been intermittently active for more than 2 years, and never responds to messages on his talkpage. On occasions he has created new articles consisting of gibberish mixed with text copy-pasted from other articles. Due to these being quickly deleted, he has changed his MO to creating article talk pages, rather than actual articles. The IP addresses he uses are scattered over an area of north-eastern Pennsylvania. Occasionally he uses what may be his own name - Edward Ostroski.

On looking at the situation again however, rather than a speedy deletion, qa better solution is to remove the content back to the earlier version, of being a redirect to Francevillian biota - I'll do that now. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

RE:A1 tags

I have no idea, I don't even remember doing that. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 22:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

At least twice: here and here. If you don't remember doing either of those, what do you think you intended to do (those aren't accidental edits)?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

spi

Regarding this: Thanks for the fast response time -- I didn't even have a chance to notice this was created before seeing your post on the user's talk page. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Collectors Toy Fair Kuala Lumpur

if sdcc could have an article here,i dont see why our event can't..its the very same event..promoting an event using wikipedia is not a wise move..we got our own way to promote the event..we also succeed in the first event..we even got reviews from local newspaper..plus we gain NO PROFIT from the event..kindly please restore the article..thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiramones (talk • contribs) 07:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw no claim of significance in "your" event (I don't know who "we" is). I also saw no reason for the page other than to promote the event. I will not restore it. However, if you want me to WP:USERFY it so you can work on it and submit it through WP:AFC, I will do so. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits to infoboxes

Hi, Bbb23. I just noticed your block of User:104.34.120.237 and decided to stop by here and add a little information. I'm convinced that editor is also User:104.34.99.185 and User:Swanson14. After seeing similar edits back in January from User:Daffy123, I suspected that might also be the same user, but am unsure about that one. Like you, I've also observed a mixture of productive and unproductive edits from this editor.

I've occasionally undone batches of their edits where they seem to be confused about the appropriate use of two Infobox fields, "Alma mater" and "Education". The problematic edits fall into two categories: (1) edits which add extraneous data such as degrees and fields of study to the "Alma mater" field instead of the more appropriate "Education" field, and (2) edits which change the proper name of an institution (for example, Harvard University) to a sub-school or branch within that institution (for example, Harvard University School of Law) in the "Alma mater" field (where only the main institution name should be used). Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: You have no idea how far back this goes for me. Sometime before July 2014 I started blocking these IPs, but I didn't keep a list of them until July 2014. With one exception, all the IPs geolocate to Northridge, California, and they are interested almost exclusively in judge and lawyer articles. This is the first time anyone has raised the possibility of a named account, although, at least with Swanson14, the account was only recently created. I can readily see why you think Swanson is related, but Daffy123 is not as obvious. The account is much older, although it hasn't done that many edits since its creation in 2010. I know you said you're less sure, but perhaps you can give me whatever evidence you have of a relationship? I'm trying to decide whether to open a case at SPI or just handle this on my own. I may block Swanson in the meantime (haven't decided). Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I never made the Judge & Lawyer connection. Nor did I realize it has been going on for so long. Regarding Swanson14, I would bet serious money on that being the same editor. In fact, I can tell you exactly what happened: On Jan 7 (the first day of Wikipedia activity for this IP), IP:104.34.120.237 was merrily tweaking infoboxes, alphabetically at first. Then the editor started running into semi-protected articles which were messing him up, so he created User:Swanson14 to edit them. IP:104 edits ceased and Swanson14 edits began just moments later, and began accumulating edits to trigger autoconfirmation. After a few hours of editing, the editor discovered that he needed more than an edit history to trigger autoconfirmation, he also needed to wait at least 4 days. So he parked the account, and on the 5th day (Jan 13th) resumed editing with Swanson14 -- starting with Biden, Kerry and other semi-protected articles. It's definitely the same editor. As for my brief suspicions about Daffy123, I'm still on the fence. I found this series of edits made over the span of just a few minutes to be remarkably similar: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. I also found the timing of those edits (Jan 10 - just after he activated Swanson14, but before autoconfirmation kicked in) suspicious. But then I saw this edit which left me scratching my head; why would IP:104 undo an edit made by Daffy123 just the day before? Could be coincidence; could be exquisitely planned deception to throw you off his trail while he proceeds with his evil plan of world domination. I haven't looked closely enough at it to be able to tell either way. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much, I'll look at this tomorrow with non-tired eyes.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I blocked Swanson indefinitely, although it's an unusual block for me as I rarely block an account for sock puppetry without another named account to tie it to. Not unheard of, though. As for Daffy123, the revert by the IP doesn't bother me as the IP seems to be at least partly playful/mocking. My question is why would Swanson need to be created at all if Swanson and Daffy123 are the same accounts? And if it's to do these kinds of disruptive edits, why would Daffy123 do any of them if they wish to avoid scrutiny?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

hey

Been meaning to swing by and say hey - "HEY". And thanks for the clue on the SoV RfA. I was really glad to see you and some of the old crew were still around when I popped back in. Lots of new faces I see too. Hope you and yours are doing well. Best — Ched :  ?  09:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ched, I started seeing your name pop up here and there and wasn't sure whether you were just passing through or something more. From your recent contribution history, it appears to be the latter. :-) I hope that means that real life is not tugging at you as much (I know very well how that is myself). I have trouble keeping track of all the old faces, let alone the new faces. Sometimes I figure I should call myself the reclusive admin. Other times, despite my best efforts, I end up in the thick of things. Anyway, I'm very glad you took a moment to say hello. It's nice to know you're around again.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to Robert Boochever

There may be some concerns about the subtly promotional tone of edits coming from the Alaska Law account. However, your edit summary implies that you feel it's someone else's responsibility to come up with other sources. Okay then, it took mere seconds to find this page on the GSA website:

Hurff Ackerman Saunders Federal Building and Robert Boochever US Courthouse
709 West Ninth Street
Juneau, AK 99801

Seems pretty clear to me, other than naming the building after some obscure federal bureaucrat few people outside of Southeast Alaska have likely ever heard of (Boochever and James Martin Fitzgerald, the current namesake of the Anchorage federal building, obviously enjoy far greater name recognition and are of far greater importance). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Returnnew unblock request

It is clear that you are following what is going on at User talk:Returnnew, so I don't need to post here to let you know that I have just posted to that talk page. However, I thought I would just mention that the most important question is "what would most benefit Wikipedia?" The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Tirgil34 SPI

I have now made an extensive comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34 which i encourage you to read. Krakkos (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Aware IM

Hello Bbb23,

My article on Aware IM has been deleted citing "No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)"

The software has been used by thousands of people in more than 30 countries around the world. When writing the article I thought I had provided multiple references from independent users who use the software and even maintain their own repository of resources to help other users.

Is it possible that you have not seen these references? If you have, could you please explain to me how similar tools with much fewer external references, such as AppFlower, have their articles on Wikipedia?

Is there something I am doing wrong or do not understand?

Your advice would be much appreciated.

Sincerely yours, Pen93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pen93 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I did look at the sources, and you used either self-published sources, which obviously aren't a sign of notability, or what I consider puff pieces, which are not reliable sources. That said, I am willing to WP:USERFY it for you if you wish so you can work on it some more and then submit it through WP:AFC to get the feedback of more experienced editors before moving it to main space. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23,

Thank you very much for your reply. I can assure you that all the references I included into the article are from genuine independent Aware IM developers. The only resource that we maintain ourselves is the Aware IM user forum. We have been around for over 12 year and you can judge the activity and interest by the number of posts on our forum. If you want, you may even post a message on our forum to see what replies you would get.

I am not familiar with the Wikipedia protocols so I rely on your guidance. If you suggest I should move the article to WP:AFC, I will do so. Basically, I will do whatever is necessary to prove the genuine nature and level of interest in the software. Please let me know.

Sincerely yours, Pen93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pen93 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I've put the article into your user space at User:Pen93/Aware IM.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pen93 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hi, If you go to User: Ryan McGrady you will see he claims to be using three accounts, i.e. sockpuppets User:RM395 & User: Rhododendrites. This is against the rules. I am not very good at setting up a sockpuppet investigation thread, would you please do that?! Thanks IQ125 (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @IQ125: Two things. First, Rhododendrites explains on his user page and on the Ryan McGrady user page the purposes of the two other accounts, which seem legitimate to me. Unless you have allegations that Rhododendrites is using those other accounts abusively, there is no SPI to file. Second, next time you find yourself in trouble after attempting to open an SPI, ask for help, but do not close the report. Only administrators and clerks may close reports.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Take a moment to actually read WP:SOCK then reassess whatever it is you're trying to do here. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Stick"

There was no stick to drop, no dead horse to beat. If I had continued asking Kitty for answers following your comments, then your non-AGF accusation would have been appropriate and warranted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

At the SPI I just opened, you speedily declined and closed it. I can't say I've ever seen an SPI declined and closed so quickly. I do find your choice of wording there interesting. Rather than saying, "Almost all of the evidence...", you chose to write, "Almost all of your evidence is worthless." (added italics mine) The use of "your" makes your decline seem personal. But just for the record, I would bet my left you-know-what the reported account is a sock of that particular currently-blocked user. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It was an easy report to evaluate and, of course, it's on my watchlist. Your inference (or should I say the inference?) is patently silly. As for whether the new account is in fact a puppet, for all I know you could be right, but SPI is based on evidence not on intuition or whatever it is you want to call your feeling.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Feeling" along with the kind of evidence I presented is exactly what WP:DUCK blocks are made of. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As I already stated at the SPI, you had almost no evidence. And we're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it did seem like your decline was personal (calling the evidence worthless and silly seemed personal, too). Your decision is different from what I've seen other admins block for at SPI. And that kind of discrepancy is confusing to me -- there seems to be a lack of uniformity. And that makes it difficult when filing an SPI (and any report needing an administrator to make a decision, for that matter). I appreciate that admins are overworked, under-appreciated, and have garbage piled on them frequently. It's not my intention to be a nuisance to any admin and I don't file reports lightly or haphazardly. From what I could see, the evidence I put together was sufficient and not a lot different from what I put together at the two previous SPI reports for the same sockmaster. That two of the same-type were acceptable but this one isn't is, as I said, confusing. It seems like luck of the draw. After spending a considerable amount of time putting SPI evidence together only to have it quickly dismissed when two previous similar reports weren't, is pretty frustrating. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about CSD U5

Is it only the page and not the edit summary? I thought things like:

Welcome to SM Shakil Shuvo's Official Fan Page. All the fans of SM can like this page and get all original informations and updates here from him. Biography Sm Shakil Shuvo also known as "Mr CreativE" is a Bangladeshi Artist (POP & HIP HOP) , Music Pro..

show a pretty clear intent to use the page like a Facebook page. Thanks for the help. JBH (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary was over the top, but it's only the page. If, of course, he adds that stuff to the page, that's a different matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks JBH (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Kath Soucie

Could you please explain to me why you keep reverting my edits to said page? Like bonjour, mon amore~ 23:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical data. Also, just so you know, many editors have tried to put in a birthdate for Soucie without any source, and I confess to being tired of reverting the article. At least you attempted to source it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a verifiable birthdate, thanks! Like bonjour, mon amore~ 01:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Holy ****

I just blocked you by mistake... I was trying to extend a block on Special:Contributions/95.144.66.118 and for some reason I clicked on your name... god I'm so sorry... sorry... §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha that was funny. Did wonder what on earth you were up to when that popped up in my watchlist xD! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Look at the bright side: you'll gain considerable street cred with that name on your rap sheet. Favonian (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Too bad. I was just about to commence Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bbb23. Coretheapple (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me it was for "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes: sock puppetry; possible incompetence". I still laugh out loud at that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This gave me such a giggle. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Why'd you unblock me, FreeRangeFrog? Just think, I could have taken a well-deserved 6-month break. Poor NeilN, as he states, I didn't just block him for one thing, I blocked him for so many things. I was mortified. He thought it was amusing (which understanding attitude I've never forgotten, btw). As for Ponyo (see below), she was blocked for only 31 hours. That's barely enough time to take a deep breath. Obviously, because I'm a bigbad[b]ass, I got a much longer sentence. Oh, well, I guess this means I have to go back to my high-paying job here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• No vacation for you! And also, the blocks will continue until morale improves! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• You didn't even have a block log at all before! That's embarrassing. I'm very proud of mine. Bishonen | talk 01:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

• Didn't embarrass me, Bishonen. It fit with my drab demeanor. Now, you, otoh, are one of the more colorful admins we have, so your block log makes sense. I particularly like "Asked to be blocked, to experience it". And, of course, being blocked by Jimbo is an honor. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you.:-) Yes, it's an honor in itself, and even more in conjunction with this. (Look for August 2009.) Bishonen | talk 11:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

Huh?

How exactly was my edit at WP:Administrators "biased"? It's not a huge secret that NOBIGDEAL is outdated. Townlake (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edit and your edit summary were both biased. You want to make a policy change like that. Take it to Talk for preliminary discussion. Otherwise, express your opinion about "current practice" on a more appropriate forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that my edit was driven by bias instead of reality. However, I acknowledge that you were right to revert me since it's a policy page. I'll take the question to the talk page over the weekend. Townlake (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Best way to handle death threats from a Wikipedia editor

Dear Bbb23, I have been trying to research the best way to handle death threats from a Wikipedia editor, and I have not been able to find much information on the subject. As someone experienced with Wikipedia, maybe you can offer some guidance. I think I made a mistake in initially focusing on an editor I suspected because it was consistent with his pattern of personal attacks. As the socks that made the death threats used some sort of IP address masking, I now understand it will be impossible to ever prove who was behind it. I am now trying to determine the best way to respond to the death threats.

The death threats appear to be targeted at my reverting of edits I consider to be extremely anti-Arab and non-NPOV (for example, "== You deserve to ₫ie for your support of genocidal Islamic settlers. == I will make sure you suffer greatly." and "I can arrange for you to die in Gaza. Keep it up, raglover." ). I therefore thought best way to deter whoever is making the death threats is by continuing to revert extreme anti-Arab non-NPOV edits (in the same careful, selective manner I have been doing, and always observing the one revert rule) to demonstrate the death threats have had no effect. What do you suggest I do? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. Death threats, even if hollow, are creepy at best and scary at worst. That said, I think everything that can be done has been done, and you should try to relax, let it go, and move on. You might even want to take a break just to put Wikipedia out of your mind. I wouldn't change your editing habits, but you should do what makes you comfortable, not what I would do. You should, on the other hand, make sure that you don't disclose any information on Wikipedia that might lead someone to discover your real-life identity.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Gouncbeatduke: See also: Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. I've emailed the "emergency(@)wikimedia.org in the past and always received prompt attention. — Ched :  ?  04:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• That was already done Ched by another administrator who adroitly handled the entire matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I knew it!

Sock indeed...Well, you're in good company at least :)--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I was blocked for 31 hours? More like 31 seconds. 31 hours would have been a luxury!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 04:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. My point was that if you hadn't been unblocked, it would have been for 31 hours, whereas if I hadn't been unblocked, it would have been six months. If you think 31 hours would have been a luxury, just think about the bliss of six months. I mean with all the money I've made in my job here, I could have gone to Europe, stayed in first-class hotels, eaten at 3-star Michelin restaurants, and taken beautiful walks in the countryside, whereas all you might have gotten was one good night's sleep, which, by the way, from an inveterate insomniac actually sounds pretty good.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm already in Europe. It isn't all its cracked up to be. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Fleetwood Joiner

I'm not sure he should have been deleted. He does seem to have done quite a bit. I'm trying to find more references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to restore it if you wish. Congratulations on regaining you adminship.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) I would have declined the speedy, but I'm not finding anything easily usable to improve the article and make notability clear. I'll leave it as is for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent report against me for Edit Warring from Mann jess

firstly, thank you for your impartiality. For more information on the subject, I have opened a talk section on the page detailing issues with the page content and a quick impersonal note on the denial of grammatical sense by this user. If it interests you, I feel the edit should proceed without this user constantly revoking my properly justified edit, and would appreciate a second opinion without escalating to mediation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Agnosticism#Does_not_Believe_in_God_vs_Believes_there_is_no_God

kind regards, 124.148.252.225 (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I rarely get involved in content disputes, particularly ones that are reported to WP:AN3 as it prevents me from acting administratively. I'm glad you've gone to the talk page. No matter what happens, don't revert or you may find yourself in trouble (that would go for any user, not just you).--Bbb23 (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan Bilzerian

Hey Bbb23, I'm not terribly familiar with WP:OUTING policy, but it looks like these edit summaries should be deleted [19] [20] given their specific nature. Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Again

Lover of Art is at it again[21]. I'm not sure how they are coming to their conclusions, but the Edit Summary is not a place to make COI accusations. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Assistance with malformed nonsense SPI

I looked up the clerk list, and you appear to be one. An IP (172.56.15.36 (talk)) has filed a nonsense SPI, but has done so entirely incorrectly. It is malformed and not even appearing at the SPI page. He also canvassed a variety of users. Can you please clean this mess up? Much obliged. RGloucester — ☎ 16:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Another clerk has dealt with it. Much obliged for the aid you would've potentially given. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Mike V is faster than I am. :-) I was looking at it when it disappeared. There are actually at least three IP addresses being used by the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy Bottom Riding Club

That was hilarious, and I completely see how that would have been flagged! Thanks, as always, for watching out for me — things have been quiet for a couple of weeks, but, yeah, it does seem my talk page attracts more than its share of ... eccentrics, let's say. And, hey, any excuse to come by and take a look at that incredible photo. I spent several days in Dijon back in the '80s when I made much less money yet somehow had the funds and time to take a fairly lengthy vacation in Europe, and they were some of the most visually beautiful and best-fed days of my life. We did visit a chateau, but never did get around to looking for the mustard companies! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It's funny how you sometimes manage to do great things when you're "poor" but not when you have more money. For me at least, when I had little money, I just spent whatever I had and did whatever I wanted. With more disposable income, I feel like I have to prioritize, save, etc., all those pesky mature-adult type things.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The 'Pastor'

See [22]. Needs talk page access revoked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Favonian took care of everything. I just closed the case. That guy sure gets nasty, doesn't he?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Favonian:You might want to take a look at this [23] as well. w.carter-Talk 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Favonian: and @W.carter: i'm not Him, i'm his friend, my user is called (España (La madre Patria)) because he and my we are proud to be Spaniards--España (La madre patria) (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Axxon21/sandbox

Hi Bbb23 sorry to disturb you but I disagree on the idea that the article about about a self-promoting article about a user's self be allowed to remain on wikipedia, even on somewhere such as a wikipedia's userspace since the article I believe is mere attempts of self-promotion of an otherwise unknown entity. I may be biased in this so take my word as pinch of salt.

Anyways, I would like you to consider that the user who created the article has created no other articles and does not seem intent on further improving the quality of the article nor of any other article on wikipedia, and that based on what I found on the internet (that means his linkedin, facebook and personal website) it makes a self reference to the article in the way of referring to the wikipedia article as a means of his established notability. Thus, suggesting a level of conflict of interest in his creation of this article, which somewhat led me to want to get the article deleted.

Thus, I was wondering if these are good enough reasons to have the article in the userspace deleted. Like I know, what I want is not grounds for deletion. But considering the conflict of interest, the lack of notability, and the neglected nature of the article. Could this in any way move you to support my view, or in the very least open a discussion to have the article deleted. Bottlenocker (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that it's pointless to have the page and it's probable promtion of some sort, so I deleted it per WP:CSD#G6 with a comment. He actually had an identical draft as a talk page to a subpage. I deleted that, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked user is back

Hi, the blocked user who you blocked initially a few months ago is back doing the same exact thing I complained before. It's an unregistered user on the median household income page. Do I need fill new report? It's the same IP address. Thanks. Lneal001 (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, although it would really be better if you reported it to me or elsewhere without participating in the battle.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a sock puppet, can you also block his secondary IP address as he just did it again? Regards Lneal001 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see This EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

condensed link to fit on page Lor^Talk 00:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't feel like blocking each new IP, so I semi-protected the article for two weeks with the hope that SarekOfVulcan doesn't mind the "override".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, thanks. Just for the record, this individual left a hateful message in my talkpage: "you are a buthurt person." Lneal001 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That is yet another IP from Denmark. This one, though, is not a dynamic IP but editing from within an organization, meaning, if needed, I would be willing to block him and for longer. I've left an "only warning" on his Talk page. Please let me know if it happens again.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello...

Hi, I recently was made aware that there was a wiki page that named me with no information. So, I sought it out, learned the code of the website (this is the ONLY time I've ever attempted to edit a wiki page) and filled it in with my info. Perhaps it is a bit self-aggrandizing, but I just filled the damn thing out with as much detail as it would let me. My intention was NOT to spam the system, merely to fill in the information that other such people had on their pages (I used several other pages as examples). I'm not sure why this was deleted, but rest assured, I'm happy to make what ever changes you suggest or require, I'm just a bit green to the process. Many thanks. PS, I'm not sure if the site will tell you the post this is in reference to, so here is the url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Roush — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashingtonGold (talk • contribs) 08:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it after it was tagged per WP:CSD#A7, meaning that the subject (you, sorry) was not sufficiently notable to justify having an encyclopedia article. Although you have an obvious conflict of interest creating an article about yourself, I'm willing to WP:USERFY it if you wish, but once you think you've completed it, you should use WP:AFC rather than moving it directly into article space. That will give more experienced editors a chance to give you feedback. Otherwise, you risk having it deleted again. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Tom Hanks

Hello Bbb23,

Just wanted to respond to your edit reversal on Tom Hanks (deleting Azorean American category as unsupported) with a quick mention that although it's written in Portuguese, the very footnote (10) cited on the Hanks page that supports Tom Hanks as having Portuguese lineage further breaks it down to include that great grandparents are, in fact, from islands in the Azores:

"Tom Hanks recebeu o Oscar de melhor actor por Filadélfia (1993) e Forrest Gump (1994). Nascido em 1956, em Concord, Califórnia, Hanks é de ascendência lusa pelo lado materno. A mãe, Janet Marylyn Frager Hanks, é filha de Elenia Rose e Clarence Frager. Elenia era filha de Manuel Rosa, nascido em 1870 nos Açores e Nora Rosa, nascida na Califórnia em 1882. Clarence Frager, era filho de Manuel Frager, nascido em 1872 e de Mary Enos, nascida em 1880. Manuel Frager era filho de Francisco Gonçalves Fraga, nascido em 1847 na ilha das Flores."

Thank you!

Sussanam (talk — Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sussanam, I see you reinserted the cat and got reverted again. Assuming you're right about the footnote (I'm accepting that on good faith), what you need to do is to add/change the material in the article saying that his great grandparents are from the Azores, and then the cat would be justified. At the same time, there is a limit on how remotely we go to show descent. So, some editors, including me, would probably think that great grandparents is going too far back. I personally wouldn't revert you on that basis, but others might, in which case you'd have to take the issue to the Hanks Talk page and obtain a WP:CONSENSUS on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys

Hi. User Prisonermonkeys' block will expire very soon. Considering this I was thinking whether this would be an appropriate time to reinstate their talk page access, with the aim of fellow contributors having some constructive discussion with them in view of their soon-to-be reinstated editing privileges. I pose this question to you because you were the one who revoked their talk page access. Cheers, Tvx1 23:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

When the block expires, you can discuss with PM whatever you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Bramwell Coles

Hello. I am posting here in regard to the deleted Bramwell Coles article. Would including a citiation to a biography of Bramwell Coles and his life as a Salvation Army composer be sufficient to indicate his significance? I should note that the original article I posted was merely a translation from Swedish of an article already written: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bramwell_Coles

Cheers,

Sparkempire (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Sparkempire

It's not much of an article there, and it's not much of an article here. A biography source would help only if it's from a reliable and important source. I'm not doubting the guy's existence. Still, if you think it merits an article here, I'm willing to WP:USERFY it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Page Tim Conolan

Hello Bbb23,

My article on Tim Conolan has been deleted citing "A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)".

Tim Conolan is a living person, however he has won several notable awards, such as the Australian Of the Year - 2014, Social Entrepreneur Of The Year - Southern Region - 2014, and was an Australia Day Ambassador - 2015. They key requirement in this deletion stated that reputable sources were required. Due to this, I provided many sources from these official/government sites, and very few 'self-published' sources.

I am new to creating articles on Wikipedia, so I am open to ideas on how I can improve upon this page and prepare it to an adequate standard. Please let me know if I am able to do so.

Thank you for your time,

Kind regards,

Emily — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyAshenden (talk • contribs) 02:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@EmilyAshenden: Although the article needs a lot of work, I've decided that my delete was wrong, and I've restored the article. I also made a few copy edits to the article. You need more prose and fewer lists. Look at other biographies for a framework, sections like "early life", "education", "career", "personal life", then things like awards, etc. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23,

I will work on the article as you have suggested,

Cheers,

Emily — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyAshenden (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Just curious

Not complaining at all, but I am just curious about your post at User talk:Kingchamar. I thought you were previously referring to the offer (by another editor) to make the edit that the blocked user wanted to the article. I know you can't do that. But, provided it's not gravedancing, baiting etc, I didn't realise there was a general issue with discussing the user's behaviour with him while he was blocked. Of course I won't go back to the talk page, am just curious for future reference. DeCausa (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The two issues are similar. The kind of discussion you were having with Kingchamar would normally occur on the Talk page of the article. The block involves edit-warring, not necessarily whether Kingchamar's sources are reliable or not. A block prevents him not just from editing articles but also contributing to any discussion about the articles. I wouldn't normally push this except the conversation was extended - and you weren't getting through to him anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ellen Pao page revert

Hi Bbb23,

I just noticed that on Dec 31, 2014, you reverted 3 edits on Ellen Pao. Just curious to find out why. Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Why would you look at something that old? My edit summary states the reason.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

2 month old is old? I wrote this to you as a courtesy because I believe the material you reverted was not promotional as you claimed, but it appears you do on appreciate my notice so I'll leave you to it. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the sock puppet revert

Thanks for the sock puppet revert on my talk page. Next time, please leave a brief edit summary. I was confused until I tracked down the SPI. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Heh, sorry to have confused you, I kinda thought it was obvious given what the user posted. I'll try to remember next time, but I can't promise as I do so many of these.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

You blocked User:Consultant Princewill S Udo indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts on 14 November 2014. There's now a user (User:Princewill s udo) editing the same page (Ikono) that the first user did. User:Princewill s udo has a clean block log, so I can't tell if this is the master, or an account that wasn't seen in the laundry. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 17:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Niceguyedc: Consultant Princewill Samuel Udo was the master. The "new" account that you highlight was created one day earlier. I've indeffed the "new" account and adjusted the tags on the other two to reflect the "new" account as the master and the others as socks. My guess is this account escaped notice because they made edits mostly to their user page. I've also cleaned up Ikono, which was an unholy mess of garbage. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi Bbb23,

I am interested in extending the range of activities I undertake on Wikipedia and am wondering if you would be willing to coach me as an SPI clerk. I have had quite a bit of dealing with socks of Evlekis early on in my time at Wikipedia and was able to report several of his socks while still relativley new in my role here. Would this be something you would be willing to consider or advise of someone who may be willing. Thanks in advance. Amortias (T)(C) 21:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, please read the section "Becoming a trainee clerk" at WP:SPI/C. I don't keep track of this as much as I should, but I believe if you apply to be a clerk-trainee and are accepted, you go through a training program. It used to be that an existing clerk would take you on as a "trainer", but I believe the program has replaced that. If you look at the list of clerks on that same page, you'll see what I mean. (As an aside, you never have to link my user name when posting on my Talk page as I'm notified independently. It would be nice, though, for me to notify you: @Amortias: Every once in a while I'm nice. :-) )--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Force of habbit linking people will get a post-it-note attached to my screen to remind me. The WP:SPI/C page advised me to seek out a current clerk to request coaching as an SPI clerk. I havent been able to find an alternative to this but if you have any ideas where to look it would be appreciated. Amortias (T)(C) 09:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: I wasn't even aware that asking a current clerk was still an option. Shows you how much I know. However, as for alternatives, go to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks/Archive 4#Trainee/clerking interest and discussion and follow the directions. I don't know of any current trainees who have a trainer (coach); am I wrong about that, Callanecc? In any event, I don't think I would be a satisfactory coach principally because of time constraints. I barely have enough time to keep up with my own work here because of priorities in my real life, and those priorities ebb and flow making my presence here less predictable than it used to be. That said, if you become a trainee, I would be more than happy to answer any questions you have.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah we've changed how we take on trainees, we're doing it in groups every few months rather than individual clerks taking on trainees. So I'd suggest leaving yourself at WT:SPI/C for the next intake we do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc Ok, cheers have gone and done that now. Is there a regular inake of clerks or is it an as and when kind of deal. Amortias (T)(C) 20:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As and when. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of an article related to Hecate's Wheel

Please, verify that Hecate doesn't refer only to "a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble" as stated as the reason for deletion. It's also the name of a Greek goddess (you can follow a link via wikipedia: Hecate), and in this sense there is a symbol named "Hecate's Wheel" (search for "Wheel" on the mentioned link) which shouldn't be deleted by the reason that was specified (in fact should be linked to Hecate's wikipedia page). I just found the mistake because I followed a reference to the page when querying Google. --Pmeneghelli (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth creating a redirect to Hecate (the phrase "Hecate's Wheel" not actually used), but that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Julie Fagerholt

Any chance you will undelete the article on the Danish designer Julie Fagerholt? It was deleted at very short notive before I had any time to react but I think she quite obciously satisfies the need for notability and the stub included several references. A lot more can easily be found. I am therefore a little surprised that the speedy deletion prodecure was used.Ramblersen (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

She may be notable but the article didn't have any claim of significance in it other than she's a fashion designer who started her own company. I won't restore it, but if you wish, I'll WP:USERFY it for you so you can improve the article in your user space. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

&TV has been recreated.

And you ok'd it to be speedier. A page with this title has previously been deleted. But it was under &tv

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

05:56, 26 January 2015 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page &tv (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A1, A7)

It's better than the first one. Feel free to tag it if you wish. Please remember to sign your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I see you're active

It might be done before you can get there, but can you please process this AIV report, having a time keeping up with them, oh and you can block as WP:UPOL, or vandal you choice :P thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 01:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Mlpearc (open channel) 01:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, I could have blocked the account for both but didn't think about the user name issue much until after I blocked him as VOA. Took me a moment to separate the two words in the user name. :-) Who ever heard of an anal cactus anyway? Sounds vaguely disturbing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

:P That's exactly why it was at AIV, didn't notice the UPOL till after I reported to AIV, I never have and don't want to :P Thanx again. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 01:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Help, please

I'm kind of embarrassed to even have to ask for help on this, but, an article I created (Stranded (Dave Kerzner song)) isn't showing everything I've been editing into it. If you look at the "edit" version, everything is there, when I save it, only part of it shows up. It must be some kind of coding issue, but I can't find what it would be. Would you be willing to take a moment to look at it and see if you can find what the issue is? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Winkelvi: Fixed. You were missing a close tag on one of your refs. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That was fast. I was just looking at it as you fixed it. Nothing like helpful talk page stalkers.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thank you, FreeRangeFrog. Appreciate it! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk training

I am interested in clerk training to assist at SPI, if you think I can be of assistance please let me know. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 03:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Flat Out: Take a look at the instructions here.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Werieth

Why are you still trying to hide the fact that Werieth was a sock of Betacommand? Yet again we see the admins involved in supporting him using admin tools to strong-arm other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest and stop saying truly silly things. I have zero desire to protect anyone. The SPI and the AN discussion speak for themselves, and I'm simply making the user page consistent with those two forums. As for the lock, the edit-warring over the user page is disruptive, and one of my jobs is to prevent disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So why not restore it to how it was before the recent fracas, with the SP banner intact? You removed the banner to help hide his sockmaster identity, then locked it down.

I'm in no mood to be patronised by one of the admins who defended Werieth so keenly when he was still active. Nor do I see WP:SOCKPUPPET as merely "silly things". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Then I'll stop talking to you and you can stop posting here on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments

Please note the nominations have been posted, and there are standard questions to be answered. Members of the community may also ask questions, so please monitor your nomination(s) until the comment period is concluded on the 18th. Those who are running for both flags have two sections, and two copies of the standard questions -- the first two, at least, are likely to have different answers, so this isn't redundant. (The third one, well, it does.) Thanks for your willingness to serve. Courcelles (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions

As one involved in SPIs, can you answer the following questions please.

1. If a checkuser spontaneously blocks a named account as a sock, with no SPI and no other discussion at all, should the blocked account be tagged as "confirmed" or as "suspected"?

2. Should a normal administrator (non-checkuser) blocking a named account ever tag it as "confirmed" when there has been no SPI and no checkuser involvement? 94.196.210.161 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Are these just general questions, or are they relating to Bbb23's CU/OS application? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP has asked the same question at the talk pages of User:Mike V, User:King of Hearts, User:Jackmcbarn, and User:Vanjagenije, and a bunch of others since I started writing this comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Just general questions. As I got no reply when I originally asked at WT:SPI, I thought I'd ask closely involved individuals instead. 94.196.210.161 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, as you are listed as an SPI clerk, I hoped you would know the answers. If you don't, then just admit it, or ignore me if you prefer. 94.196.210.161 (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy Penn

You have deleted the page about Andy Penn, the new CEO of Telstra, a $70bn market cap company. Enough said ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.211.251.58 (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You should really try logging in when you complain about a deleted article. BTW, the article was just a smidgen away from a WP:CSD#A3.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You didnt really provide a reason for your deletion of the stub entry of one of Australia's most important business people who will run a top ten global telco from 1 May. 121.211.251.58 (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It may be Andy penn to be fair, though any sources I look for to confirm this seems to be conflicted on if it's "Andy Penn" or. "Andrew Penn" (As Google news seems to show). Lor^Talk 02:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Madangarli

Hi Bbb23,

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Madangarli, Wikipedia talk:Madangarli, User:Manojmkn, and User talk:Manojmkn. You'll see why...Thanks -War wizard90 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind another admin took care of it. Thanks -War wizard90 (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

How Do I appeal Your Ban Of Me At Gordon B. Hinkcley

How do you justify banning me at Gordon B. Hickley? I refrain from editing and report edit warriors and you ban me?Mormography (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to increase your risk of being blocked, you can complain about my warning (not a ban) at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No, not a warning, ban. You made it clear that if I revert in that section I will be blocked. I did everything as I was instructed to do my administrators in previous encounters. I followed the rules. I ceased editing. Trodel was clearly, clearly edit warning. AndyTheGrump was clearly clearly continuing it. It was not a frivolous report.

My prior instruction: "FYI: WP:EW does not specify a fixed number of edits which constitute an edit war. You are confusing an edit war with the three revert rule, which is a line that should not be crossed." —DoRD (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Further this his is what I have found:

If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action (see Dispute resolution process further). For another possibility, see Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents. Note: if the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block and/or e-mail the Arbitration Committee directly.

From your tone, you refusing to discuss. Is this correct? Again, why is Trodel allowed to make an unexplained edit with consensus and I am not? Mormography (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

My final comment. First, you did not report Trodel; you reported Andy. Second, Trodel, like Andy, made only one revert and was not involved in the edit-warring earlier in the article. Thus, if you had reported Trodel, the outcome and the warning would have been the same. Finally, although one can be blocked for edit-warring without having breached WP:3RR, blocking an editor based on one revert would only be done in very limited circumstances, which aren't present here.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the disconnect. I did not ask for anyone to be blocked! Trodel was in fact edit warring, whether or not he was earlier edit warring. However, so far Trodel has not continued to edit war, ergo he/she was not reported. AndyTheGrump did continue to edit war, ergo he/she was reported. Fact is edit warring occurred. I did the right thing in reporting and you have erred in punishing the user that behaved according to the rules.Mormography (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The 'facts' are entirely visible in the article history, and on the article talk page - and now also on the edit-warring noticeboard. Trödel made an edit. Mormography reverted it. Both of which would have been entirely acceptable under WP:BRD. What was not however acceptable was for Mormography to describe this single edit as 'edit-warring' and refuse point-blank to actually explain why he objected to it. In my opinion, Trödel's edit was a considerable improvement - it removed quotes which lacked attribution (one could look it up in the reference, but common sense would suggest that if an article quotes somebody, it should say who is being quoted), and clarified a confusing statement about a forgery 'implicating' something. If Mormography had objections, it was open to him to explain why, but instead we have had this ridiculous time-wasting nonsense about imaginary 'edit-wars' - which it appears that Mormography wishes to continue on the article talk page [24] I only got involved in this dispute because I think that we should at least attempt to write articles that make sense, and which don't confuse readers who aren't as familiar with the subject as contributors who appear to have been arguing about it for the best part of a decade. I see no reason whatsoever why Mormography's POV (whatever that is - his statements regarding the issue have been so confused I'm not entirely sure what he is arguing for) should be imposed through the endless repetitive tendentiousness we have been faced with, and I suggest that a substantial block may be the appropriate course of action - it might at least give Mormography the opportunity to figure out how to explain in comprehensible English what the hell he thinks is wrong with the article, and what exactly it is he proposes we should do about it. Assuming that there actually is an explanation beyond a simple wish to have the last word... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You see Bbb23. Admin GoodOlfactory has already agreed that many the same things AndyTheGrump says above are just plain incivility. You see now how this is not at all about one edit? I stopped editing the article. I reported. I did not ask anyone to be blocked. I ceased editing and reported editing warring so that discuss could occur. I have thoroughly explained Trodel's edit warring if it was not already self evident. The edit war page and Admin DoRD all indicate that multiple reverts is just a hardline, not that edit warring has not occurred. AndyTheGrump's does nothing with the above but vindicate that I was correct in reporting in the first place. This is edit warring on his part and has nothing to do with a single edit.Mormography (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Further 'just plain incivility' here [25] - I've had enough of this crap. Mormography lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia, and should be given the boot. Permanently. Not 'indefinitely', permanently. POV-pushers are bad enough, but POV-pushers who lack the basic language skills to actually explain what POV they are trying to push into articles? We can manage well enough without them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I know you're, er, Andy, but "a semi-literate time-wasting incompetent POV-pushing troll" et al really is a bit overkill when you're talking to a new user. I wouldn't give two shit if you called me an incompetent POV-pushing troll and I doubt Bbb would care if you did the same to him, but behaving like that towards new editors is likely to be offputting to other new editors even when you're right that a new user has hugely problematic editing. I'll indef Mormography if you don't object to me temping you for the same set of interactions =p. I've never bothered suggesting blocking you for even a day before because you may be a grump but you're also fairly consistently right, but that much overkill in conversations with editors who clearly aren't expecting it or okay with it almost certainly has the effect of deterring other new editors - some of whom will benefit the encyclopedia - even when you direct it towards people who you are appropriately suggesting won't benefit the encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This 'new user' has been editing since 2009. Almost exclusively to LDS-related articles (hence the username, I assume). If you like, I'll withdraw the 'troll', but the illiteracy is demonstrated above, and competent POV-pushers (or even competent non-POV-pushers) generally manage to explain what they are trying to achieve with an article after posting as much as Mormography has on the article talk page. I've certainly not been able to make any sense of it. Somehow forged documents are supposed to be evidence of something Joseph Smith actually did, though quite why and how has never been explained. And I get the strong impression that it isn't intended to be explained. Instead, lumbering readers with confusing text seems to be the objective, as far as I can tell. The facts, from what I can gather (I'll freely admit to not having read all the sources) are that Mark Hofmann forged a whole lot of LDS-related documents, and that Hinckley was amongst his victims, having bought a document supposedly showing that Joseph Smith used some sort of magical hocus-pocus to hunt for treasure. Probably not the expected behaviour of a Prophet, and one can understand why Hinckley, as a senior LDS counselor would prefer the document not to be in circulation (whether he thought the document was real - as seems possible - or a forgery). The fact is though, that the document was shown to be a forgery, and whatever these events tell us about Hinckley, they don't tell us anything about Smith. Except for Mormography, who seems for whatever reason to want the article to say that they 'implicated Smith' in the hocus-pocus. This strange use of the word 'implicated' was all that brought me into the discussion in the first place - and all I've asked is for the article to be written in a way that made sense to readers who haven't already read all the gory details. Mormography though, seems to think that a 'consensus' supposedly arrived at in 2007 (when as far as we know, he wasn't editing?) matters more than actually making sense for readers. The sad thing is, I thought we'd finally got Mormography to agree that the wording was inadequate - evidently not, as Mormography used Trödel's edit as an excuse to restore the very phrase we'd been arguing over, and utterly refused to explain why. This is time-wasting on a monumental scale, and worse it reflects directly on article content - it is surely a waste of our readers' time to expect them to have to read confusing statements about forgeries which seem to assume that the reader already knows the details. The whole paragraph needs rewriting, in as much as it assumes prior knowledge about Hofmann, and what bombings have to do with anything - but trying to do anything about it while a contributor floods the talk page with confusion and obstructionism is near impossible. This sort of behaviour is a liability to Wikipedia, and I have to suggest that we owe it to our readers to put a stop to it. There is no shortage of overt POV-pushing evident in articles, and likewise no shortage of poorly-worded confusion. I suspect our readers expect this, at least on occasion. What they should not have to put up with though is wording that seems deliberately intended to confuse. Or obscure. Or insinuate something or other. About someone (Smith) who wasn't even the subject of the article. If Mormography has a reliable source which states that Smith actually did involve himself with hocus-pocus treasure-hunting, he is welcome to argue for its inclusion in the article on Smith (though there seems to be material on this already) - it's no skin off my nose as a non-Mormon, an atheist, and someone who's response to conservatively-dressed eager young men turning up on the doorstep to bring me glorious news from the American midwest is generally entirely in accord with my Wikipedia username. I don't really care that much about Mormons, Hinckley, Hoffman or hocus-pocus treasure hunts. What I care about (maybe more than is good for me) is that we at least make a token effort to write a comprehensible encyclopaedia - and accordingly, when confronted with someone who has devoted so much time and effort to making the thing intentionally obscure, I eventually resort to harsh words - harsh words expressing an underlying truth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I hit the wrong button on the guy's edit history. In any case though, I still doubt there's much to be gained from frequently flaming the hell out of editors, as some are certainly deterred from joining or from sticking around because of our general acceptance of aggressive flaming (I've met at least a couple handfuls of worthwhile editors myself who fall in to that bucket,) and at this point I doubt it's very hard for you to get people gone when it's needed even without such behavior (if you have issues, when I manage not to be hospitalized you can always ping me.) I do agree that the situation is silly and shall rectify the part of it that a blockstick can once I wrap up one other thing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thought I'd chime in with my two cents after I happened to notice this spectacle. Mormography; you are not banned from contributing to the article, but please note that you risk being blocked if you continue to blanket revert just about any change coming in to the article. If you have something worthwhile to contribute to the article or talkpage, please do so. If not, please refrain from accusing others of edit warring. As Bbb23 mentioned when he closed the EW-report, you're lucky not to be blocked, and I second that. You show tendencies of ownership of the article as well as bad-faith against other editors, and you have this chance to actually contribute. You have been blocked for disruption and edit-warring on multiple occasions earlier, and if you end up blocked again it's likely to be for a couple of weeks or more. If there are bits of the article you want to remove, I suggest that you start a new section for each part; describe in details what and why (with references if applicable). Bjelleklang - talk 13:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Page wrongfully deleted - Sasha Unisex

I created a Wikipedia page about notable tattoo artist, Sasha Unisex. I had published the page with little about her credits and why she is notable, but was planning to add it in. I came on today to make sure it looked good, but realized that you had deleted it. I think there are many useless and false pages on Wikipedia and you should delete those and not mine. I am recreating the Sasha Unisex page, this time with sources and reasons why she is important. Do not delete it again. PickleG13 (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up

That particular user has a habit of leaving death threats on the page of anyone that interferes in his weekly rants. It might be best to semi your talk page for a few hours. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5775 00:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5775 00:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Global Peace and Unity

Dear Bbbb23, I hope you are well. Please could you have a look at the recent edits on the Global Peace and Unity page? Am I missing something? The last editor keeps re-inserting unreferenced contentious claims, but says they are referenced. Thank you, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not expressing an opinion on whether the material should be included or, if so, whether it should be recrafted. However, as the article stands currently, the material is supported by the first source. I didn't bother looking at the other two.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Julie Kavner revision 648377378

Just curious: why the single brackets ? And since when links don't go in quotes ? Thanks --Webwizard (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

First question: "Square brackets are used to indicate editorial replacements and insertions within quotations, though this should never alter the intended meaning". (WP:BRACKETS). Second question: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked". (WP:LINKSTYLE).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, seems complicated... :) I'll have to look better into that... Nevertheless, thank you --Webwizard (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I got it. I didn't catch the purpose of the single brackets (I thought it was a typo), but I have now. Sorry for the mistake. Thanks again...--Webwizard (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenofDoom

She or he has been gone for some time but has recently returned and resumed her edit war on the Conan Chronologies page. She is consistently removing well-sourced material contributed by knowledgeable editors and defying consensus, despite not having sufficient knowledge of the subject matter. I'm requesting intervention, and most preferably a permanent edit ban from this page. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

On March 9 I see two reverts by you and two reverts by TRPoD. I'm not intervening; nor do I have the power to unilaterally impose a ban on any editor except in very limited circumstances, which don't exist for this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar Barnstar Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar for all your work involving the SPI concerning Tirgil34, Uniquark9, Ancientsteppe... et.al. Kansas Bear (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

please stop vandalizing

if you think that something is not correct, spend some time to correct instead of vandalizing the whole page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:AC51:A893:D914:73E (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Easybook

Hi I would like to understand the reason for deletion of Easybook. It stated promotion/advertising [26] I would like to have the scale of its promotional scale 1 to 10, hence I can write a better article about it. I believe Easybook is notable and huge brand recognition in South East Asia that qualify for a page in wiki. [27]

Request for review Sandbox:

My sandbox

Awdko00 (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a template so you can submit the draft to more experienced editors for review. The article read like a website, not like an encyclopedia article.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about admins

Is there anywhere to file such a complaint, apart from with other admins? (Who suffer from an obvious CoI, in judging their peers and 'friends.') I think that the capricious and inconsistent reasoning that you used to justify my block make you and the guy whose original block you affirmed unfit to be admins. Please let me know to whom at the Wikimedia foundation I can send my complaint.

Best regards,

Miss Steele. Steeletrap (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would complain to the WMF. The usual forum for complaining about administrative behavior is WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And what when you are being told that you will get 'blocked' if you post anything to ANI and many other boards[28]? Bladesmulti (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because you were told that doesn't mean that Steeletrap has been told that. It seems more likely you're here to vent, but the admin you need to discuss this with is Drmies, not me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Am I allowed to post more on that SPI? Thank you for writing there, and JJ did not always capitalized discussion page.[29] Bladesmulti (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you need to stop harassing JJ (so, no). It's real simple, and bitching about other users, administrators or not, can quickly become blockable too. Steeletrap, AN may do as well for a complaint, I suppose, but I urge you to do so without the "belittling" of others for which you have been warned before. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmies, I'm the victim here. I've been labeled a sock on the basis of inadequate evidence. The SP allegations were initially dismissed by the admin; they were reopened solely because one of the admin's 'friends' said he thought the evidence had merit, without saying why he thought that. I was later convicted on the basis of the same evidence that had initially garnered a swift dismissal. When I asked the admin what evidentiary standard he used to convict me, he said the standard was "reasonable likelihood." Previously, I was told that the standard was much higher ("beyond reasonable doubt"). Does this sound like a competent or reasonable proceeding to you?

BBB- I want to contact Wikimedia, rather than admins, because I lack confidence in WP's admins. I think a phone call or Skype conference with a Wikimedia attorney, whose credentials and competence can be verified, would be much more fruitful than an ANI posting. You should understand my concerns, given the clearly capricious manner in which my SPI was dismissed and then reopened and then closed with a conviction for socking, based on the conspiracy theory that I have created a "spoof" IP address. Steeletrap (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What's up with this fratty culture of secrecy among admins? It seems to me that the vast majority of proceedings--every one of those that does not implicate serious privacy issues--should be fully public. My SPI took about a month, and I never saw any of the "reasoning" or "research" that went into my conviction. What they accused/convicted me of was really quite remarkable. They say I 1) created a spoof Norwegian IP address and 2) used it solely to do things I could do using my real account, rather than using it to edit pages from which I am topic banned. This highly improbable conclusion should be justified by highly compelling reasoning; but instead, the reasoning the admins offered was fallacious and internally inconsistent.

The obvious inconsistencies in the admins' reasoning behind my ban sheds light on the need for more transparency. Most strikingly, the "team" who said I should be banned doesn't even know the evidentiary standard they used to convict me. (I shouldn't have said they were "lying" when they claimed they did have such a standard--that's the PA you banned me for--but the alternative explanation is actually less charitable to them.) I know this because when the SPI was initially dismissed--a fact that banning admin absurdly seems to have forgotten--the admin said the standard needed to convict me was 'beyond reasonable doubt.'Later--when they reversed themselves and convicted me--they said the standard they used was "reasonable likelihood." Steeletrap (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is my final comment. You'll never get anywhere going to the WMF, but you are welcome to try. Your understanding of so many things is so flawed, I would have to provide you with a list, and I'm not going to take the time. I can't help you. And please don't post here on this or any related issue again.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Guidance on possible [sock|meat]puppetry

Greetings. You've already seen WhatsYourPrice (since userfied to User:Fateinourstars 91/draft). I did some poking around to SeekingArrangement and OpenMinded, all owned by Brandon Wade, and noticed that there are a some apparent SPAs devoted to adding promotional edits to the group:

• Fateinourstars 91 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Genericsn987 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Bling2bling (talk · contribs · logs)
• SeanHoade (talk · contribs · logs)
• 007 diamond (talk · contribs · logs)
• HoadeSean (talk · contribs · logs)
• Esain88 (talk · contribs · logs) (This edit even copies Bling2bling's sig...)

I don't know if the combined effect of the edits rises to the level of blockable abuse or if the puppetry merits a report at SPI, so I wanted to run it all by you for a second opinion or at least to get these links collected in one place. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 17:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Finngall: I'm not prepared to block without an SPI, mainly because there are too many of them (some are pretty obvious, but I don't want to do piecemeal blocking). I think it would be a good idea for you to open an SPI. BTW, Bling2bling is the oldest account, so when you open it, that should be the sock master. Let me know when it's created. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Finngall ^talk 03:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Caspar John Hare

Dear Bbb23, why was the page on Caspar John Hare deleted? He's on the faculty at MIT, he teaches edX's Massive Open Online Course on Intro to Philosophy, his book was chosen as one of Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles, has done a successful AMA on reddit, ... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezinnen (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the article didn't say anything about any books he'd written or any "awards" he's received. Indeed, other than saying he's an associate professor at a well-known university, there wasn't anything in the article that established any encyclopedic significance. And the line "He is the heir apparent to his father, Michael John Hare, 2nd Viscount Blakenham" was hardly helpful to a serious article. That said, if you want me to WP:USERFY it for you with the understanding that you will submit it through WP:AFC so experienced editors can evaluate it before it goes live again, I'm willing to do that. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Fuad Viento

Hello, this article is about me and I want admins to delete it.--Azerifactory (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I wondered why you tagged it. Do you have any idea why it was created by a sock puppet? The master created it on the Azerbaijan wiki. You could always nominate it for WP:AFD, but you'd have to explain why it doesn't meet WP:GNG. I'm curious. Why do you want it deleted?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Azerbaijan wiki one is up to date. But you are right, I should just change the name of it and fix the errors.--Azerifactory (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:IDriveAStickShift & One Magnificent Morning

Page protection, as you've done before [30], works as long as its in place. I've given up tagging the IPSocks as it just seems to give further attention to this already obsessed [31] individual. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)