User talk:Bbb23/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hughes

Hi - you dispute this statement, "Hughes had not been charged or interviewed." why is that? - have you got a citation that says he has been charged, or interviewed - please consider added a citation required template rather than removal. Youreallycan 01:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please consider throwing a modicum of judgment here - he will never be charged - there will never be even any civil charges - there is no evidence at all - prior to reporting the alleged crimes, the complainant first sold her story for as much financial gain as possible. - my father's attorney says that the complainant doing that was the end of any possible legal action - by the authorities or through civil action. Youreallycan 01:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I never like changing one of your edits, but you can't state something you derive from what is not said in a source. The cited source doesn't say what you're saying. Essentially, although plausible, it's just your conclusion. To state a negative, you have to find a source that directly supports the negative. Adding a template seems pointless.

As for your second point, that may or may not be true, but it's not up to us to edit the article based on that premise.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reports at al that he has been interviewed? No - he lives in Hongkong - I will remind you of your false addition in a year from now - Youreallycan 01:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd forgotten how quickly you edit. I don't understand what you mean by "false addition", but I'll wait for March 2, 2013. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You won't like my comment to you in a year. Your false addition is your refusal to allow my simple truth statement with your verification objection. - Youreallycan 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

hey

If you have the time, please keep an eye on Grant Cardone. It keeps popping up with concerning BLP problems, as in this diff. Thanks, Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Kevin, I've edited the article and commented at BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated... figured it would be a good idea to get someone with more BLP experience than I have looking at it, since it was getting a bit revert warry. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim Dalton

Hello, you wanted clarification on the date you added to this article, here it is http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ec_ctte/abc/report/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckquackquack (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Duck, sorry I didn't get to this until today, but I just haven't had the time. I've updated the article with the correct date and commented at BLPN. Thanks for the reference.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Infidel

Why did you undo my edit to "The Infidel" justified by the comment, "Unneccessary, I don't even remember it". http://escc.se/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=148 This is censorship - the film portrayed an Imam as a thoroughly decent human being, a nice portrayal. Alanmoroney

Don't be silly. This has nothing to do with censorship. I'm just trying to ensure that what you're adding is correct AND is necessary to the plot. The source you provide is hardly reliable. And when you edit articles, put in an edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It was because of your comment "unnecessary (don't even remember it))". Firstly "don't even remember it" is not exactly a justification for changing an edit, and "unnecessary" - we ll it was an important part of the film, showing Jews, Muslims, Christians and everybody else as being very tolerant and civilized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.201.91 (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As I'm sure you noted, I ultimately left in your edit, although I reworded it for style and brevity. With film plots, "don't even remember it" makes some sense because unlike almost every other part of Wikipedia, we don't require sources for plots. Instead, we have to rely on the good faith of editors who've seen the film. So, after you insisted on the edit, I poked around on the web to refresh my memory (I did see the film), and satisfied myself that you were correct about it being in the plot. I assure you my reversion, though, had nothing to do with issues of religion - I never look at edits on Wikipedia in that way. Hopefully, you're happy with what's in the article now, and we've resolved everything.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yes happy. And thank you for taking the time to explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanmoroney (talk • contribs) 22:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hugo

Hi - Are you an official representative of wikipedia? I don't understand who you are or why you keep removing my edit including of the additional cast members Mike Eaves and Andy Pask. It is a fact that they were in the film in several scenes. I know first hand. They also feature in the book about the making of the film. Karenviolin (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)karenviolin 20:03, 10 March 2012 (GMT)

You want to add to the cast people who appear in the film as musicians and have no speaking roles? Even if you could reliably source such material (a blog is NOT a reliable source), it would be wrong to have them in there. And what does this comment mean: "but were booked through Isobel Griffiths Ltd Orchestral Contractor"? Are you associated with that company?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm sorry, you seem very angry. I don't mean for you to be upset by my trying to contribute to this encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. I am merely trying to contribute information that others (even if not yourself) may be interested in. If you are an official representative of wikipedia please can you advise me appropriately on this matter. If not, then please can you let me know what your authority is so I understand how I might work with you effectively to resolve this. In answer to your question, yes, I would like to add to the cast people who are acting the part of a traditional 1930s Musette band. I don't understand why they should have any less importance than any other cast member. In context they are Django's band, and they are playing specific instruments and performance styles to be historically accurate to the Musette band of the period. I have no connection with Isobel Griffiths Ltd, I just know that they are the orchestral contractors in the film, and as a music enthusiast myself I contacted this company first hand to identify the musicians in the film, as to me (and probably hundreds of others like me) they were relevant and interesting cast members. Karenviolin (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)karenviolin

Virtual communications can be tough, but I'm not angry. These two musicians should not be included in the cast of a film article at Wikipedia. We don't include the entire cast of a film. Someone who has no speaking role, except in rare circumstances (they play a mute or something) would not be included except maybe if they were otherwise notable. So, if Martin Scorcese appeared in the film, he might be put in the cast. Hitchcock used to appear (as a cameo) in all his films, although I don't know if he's included in the film casts on Wikipedia, or if it's something that's just noted in his own article. If you feel there's something truly notable about musicians appearing in the film in historical Musette bands, then you'd have to find secondary sources that comment on it. Otherwise, it's simply not noteworthy, even though it may be of interest to you and some others. I hope this message comes across as less "angry".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, much less angry, and slightly more helpful :-). I'm starting to understand. Out of interest, why isn't a full cast listed, and why not? Is this a "rule" of Wikipedia. Personally I think this is as noteworthy as other information, for example where it says in the references to real-world history section "The station shown is modelled on the Gare du Nord, but with the belfry from the Gare de Lyon, the clock—and approximate location—from Orsay (now a museum), and the facade and elevated railbed (with respect to street level) of Montparnasse. Other elements are taken from Gare de l'Est and Gare d'Austerlitz." What is the secondary source for any of this? (so I understand what I must identify as a secondary source). What I believe is notable about the role of these musicians in the film is the style Djangos band are playing in in the cafe is the hot club de france style - clearly visible as a musician through the percussive style of the macaferry rhythm guitar and bass. Playing in this style is a real-world reference to the legendary band known for the birth of Jazz - the Quintette du Hot Club de France. This band first played in Hotel Claridge and the members also included Django's brother Joseph Reinhardt (Mike Eaves) on rhythm guitar, Stephan Grappelli on fiddle (Joseph Paxman) and Louis Vola (Andy Pask) on bass. This visible musical reference is as notable and relevant in its styling to real world history as the visible architectural reference in the styling of the station/clock. I only included Mike Eaves and Andy Pask in my addition as they are known musicians in the 21st century also, whereas Joseph Paxman isn't. The Joseph Reinhardt character was even given a moustache and wig to look like him, as Mike Eaves is bald, and yet has a wig and moustache in the film and looks just like the Reinhardts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenviolin (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of this is hard to explain. Wikipedia has a rather intricate structure of policies and guidelines. On top of that, there are some relatively standardized practices. And then finally there is editorial judgment. With respect to the Musette stuff, there is actually a guideline, WP:CASTLIST, although despite the guideline, it's almost always presented as a list, and it doesn't do a very good job of guiding editors as to which actors to include and which not to. I think you'd be hard-pressed, though, to find any experienced editor on Wikipedia adding the two musicians, though. You could also start a discussion on the film project's talk page if you want other editors' opinions about film articles. See WP:FILM. You could, too, start a discussion on the Hugo Talk page itself. As for your point about the two railway stations, you are absolutely right - there needs to be a source for that material, and as soon as I finish writing here, I'll take it out (although some might just tag it). Wikipedia is not an easy place to learn, so it may be a while, depending on how much time you want to spend here, to learn a lot of this. Your explanations of why the Musette material is of interest, btw, is fascinating. What you'd need to do is find secondary sources that say it and then put it in the production section. Wikipedia is strongly anchored to verifiability.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Gosh, that is a lot to learn. I naively assumed it would be a lot more straightforward than that. It says anyone can edit and so I took that on face value and edited away. Are you just someone who's very experienced in all this, or are there an army of you who are allocated pages or topics to monitor? So off I go to find my secondary sources now. Just to save me some time wasting here, what would count as a verifiable secondary source - for example you said before blogs are not....

Anyone can edit is absolutely correct, but unless you know what you're doing, generally small edits for new editors is safer. I don't want to discourage you from editing here, nor do I want you to think that you can only make small edits, but just letting you know that, even when you only want to help, it can sometimes backfire.

Here's something about reliable sources, but I've placed a Welcome with more links on your Talk page. Generally, reliable sources are not primary (meaning you couldn't say X won an award and cite to X's website), and are published in periodicals that have controls like fact-checking. So, a blog is not a reliable source because anyone can say anything and who knows if it's true, whereas The New York Times is reliable because it is controlled by professionals.

As for me, I consider myself a moderately experienced editor. Editors are not assigned articles to monitor, but many of us watch certain articles. See WP:WATCH. I happen to watch the Hugo article, among hundreds of others (too many, really).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I beg you to answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:94.36.35.48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.35.48 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

EUCLID (University)

Hi Bbb23. Appreciate everything you've done to protect the EUCLID page from edit warring and POV pushing. I wanted to make you aware of my comment here in hopes that you might review my comments and take a moment to implement what you feel is fair or continue further discussion.

King4057 (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. Thought I'd dip my toe in the water and see if you could hash this out with me. I realize there were some concerns about reliable sources in the sandbox draft, but the clarifications I bulleted (see below) are all based on pre-existing citations. Do you have a minute to discuss these with me and we can work through each one?

A five year old citation was used to claim EUCLID is on the unaccredited list in Maine, even though they are not on the current list.
It’s misleading to only say that EUCLID is “unaccredited” in Oregon, even though the very same citation also says they are “approved for use.”
Citation 7 is much more complex than the article text indicates. For example, it says that degrees from foreign institutions may be accepted if the applicant can prove they've received a similar education.
The "degree mill" comment was associated with a very authoritative source, but according to the citation it's from a contributed article by two authors pushing their books about degree mills.
I also take issue with the fact that EUCLID's own 24-page letter was only used as a citation to reiterate Accredibase's point of view, rather than to balance the article with both sides of the dispute.

User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Gosling

This issue has NOT been decided yet, you put your opinion in now wait for the outcome. Pumkinhead001 (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

About corrections on "Cosmopolis"

Hi, Bbb23. I'm the user who posted the latest contributions on the casting and crew of the film Cosmopolis.

I recognize adding this information without any specific basis, al least no other than the ones from the movies's link to IMDb or the info. dossier to the right side (Sarah Gadon and Mathieu Amalric, for instance). Now, having said that, I see myself in the obbligation of asking: Is there not enough confirmation than that? I mean, if you look closer at the film poster to the top right, you can see clearly the names of the main actors in the movie, including of course Gadon and Amalric, along with many of the crew members and the rest of the information about the film.

If there's anything you'd like to reply on this, feel free in letting me know. As free user of Wikipedia, my only goal on this site is to participate in the process of free information in the most constructive way as possible. In the end, is what separates us from the usual and common vandalists, I guess.

Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.162.246.227 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant to reply to you yesterday and then forgot. I added Gadon and Amalric to the Cast section based on the poster. I couldn't add the other material without a source (if it's at the bottom of the poster, there's no way I can make that out, sorry) Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, again. Hahaha, NP man, it's ok. I appreciate the reply. Thanks for the updates.

Now, about the rest of the information on the poster, I found another on Google that might help: Cosmopolis Poster. I know: It's freaking huge, haha. However some additional info. is clearly at display. It's very complete, but don't ask me if it can replace the other poster, 'cause I don't have the slightest idea on how it could be done.

Oh, and I almost forget. I've been searching pretty much everywhere and apparently it's confirmed: Cronenberg is not producing. To be honest, I'm not very surprised considering his previous experiences on self-financing projects, which many turned out to be failures in terms of both budget and box office (Spider? Anyone?).

Anyway... I hope your reply, whenever it's possible. Best Regards!

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Bbb23. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

USG

Please see all citations for USG in the discussion. If you have any other citation please cite.RmanB17499 (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Addressing Arab "First Ladies"

Are you aware of any Featured or Good articles that cover actual or quasi Arab First Ladies? I think we can use them as a model for standardizing how we present Syria's First Lady's name in her article. The current state of the article is unsatisfactory but I understand that you have refrained from making major edits in that regard due to the strong statements on the talk page. Veriss (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It'd be great to improve the page, of course, and it would be particularly nice to discuss material that is less controversial, if that's possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Just stopping by

Hey Bbb2 - it's the IP (68.100......) from the Asma al-Assad page. I finally registered. Just thought I'd let you know, since you, "...think[s] that registration should be required to edit articles". I figured you should be aware that I am not leaving; I have simply registered. See you on the page. ;) Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the heads up, and I think it's great you registered. Very pretty user name, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Come by the Talk Page

Hey Bb - Come by the Talk Page. I have re-drafted a suggestion for the "Early Life" aspect of Asma al-Assad so that confusion is rectified. I don't know who wrote the "Early Life" but it was slightly sloppy. Let me know what you think and if it's a go, lets apply the changes as necessary. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit War

Are you kidding me? So you've been online and just watching this unfold?? I have told the brat to refer to the Talk page. She isn't listening. So come again??? Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I was out for a while and didn't come back until both of you had gone back and forth a number of times. As I noted on your Talk page, there is no way I can warn the other editor without warning you as well. You both have to pull back and deal with this in another way. And don't call editors names - it really doesn't help and can get you in trouble. I'm really trying to help AND to be fair.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What is there to be fair about? I thought we had to get consensus before posting? Have I not told her multiple times to talk/discuss on the Talk page? And between the edit war between you and I, why has this "editor" not been blocked? Have you seen her grammar? It's God awful. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If you'd just calm down a bit. Wikipedia has all sorts of policies on these issues, and, naturally, it's better to get consensus before adding controversial information to an article (and sometimes even not so controversial), but things don't always work that way. And when they go awry, we have to deal with it BUT still stay within policy. WP:3RR is one of the more bright-line rules on Wikipedia, and with very limited exceptions, edit-warring will result in a block. The fairness is that even though I disagree with what the other editor was doing (which is why I reverted twice), I intentionally pulled back to avoid edit-warring, and you, as an editor here, are subject to the same policy. As a more experienced editor than you do, I feel I have certain responsibilities, that's why I felt that if I warned one of you, I had to warn the other.

Anyway, the other editor has agreed to stop edit-warring, so let's move on and deal with any issues on Asma's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Let's do that. We need to address the source for the "liberalising" tidbit. We'll talk on the Talk page. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And one more thing in terms of my "watching this unfold" - I watch over 800 pages on Wikipedia and occasionally I have a life, too, so sometimes you just can't expect me to react that quickly. If I had seen what was happening when it was happening, I would have tried to step in before it got so out of hand, but I didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

To carry on from our conversation yesterday, did you author the first part of the "First Lady" section? If so, do you remember your source? I read through the sources, and source 10, by the National Post seems pretty close to what the page has down so far. Especially this part, "...celebrated for taking progressive positions on women’s rights and education, raising funds for good causes..." I do think this needs to be addressed. Please advise. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

especially this part.. shouldn't you be explaining NPOV to this editor bbb, not conniving with her to produce a puff piece Sayerslle (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"conniving"? Now, there's a nice word. I try to explain things to all sorts of editors. Very few listen. Sometimes, even I don't pay attention to myself. Back to conniving.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Bbb2, I'm completely fine with the latest edits made on the page. However, I still vote against the usage of the "Marie Antoinette" comparison. I believe that was a fair concession made and agreed upon; the media comparisons of Princess Diana, Carla Bruni vs. Marie Antoinette. Lastly, you mention balance. What imbalance is there? I believe from your comments that you have agreed that Asma al-Assad needs to be kept separate from Bashar al-Assad and the current events in Syria. Yes, they are married, but no text has proposed that she is making orders for any of the current events in Syria. If anything, her silence has been the hot topic. And, in regards to the alleged shopping escapades, again, it is unauthenticated. The page, as it stands, is neither here nor there. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Etoiles, please express these views on the article talk page so the discussion can be in one place. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Bbb2, I just re-posted on the Talk page with a few edits. I will only be addressing you, however. And, I'm sorry you're having to bear the burden of such ignorance. Ignorance often repeats itself, as it is shown in history. As you recognize, even if "300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake." Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for cooperating, Etoiles, I'm waiting to see if anyone proposes any actual textual changes. BTW, I think you meant to say, "What imbalance is there?"--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, I have fixed the typo and made the edit as necessary. Oops! This is exhausting, I must say. In my real life, I just avoid belligerent people all together. I'm just realizing now, that Wikipedia does not really monitor such loose cannons. Thanks. I shall wait along with you, as I have no proposed text changes. Still watching the Bashar al-Assad page; I'm hoping they have a more intellectual group of editors there that can discuss things of substance. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Bbb, I have made edits to the changes you made. I noticed you were the editor who decided to use "tarnished"; I find that overkill. Perhaps "tarnished" would be very appropriate for the subject's husband, but the subject's only apparent and accurate contribution (or lack of) is her silence. That is, of course, enough to change and adversely affect her image but not enough to "tarnish". I think that could easily be up to the individual's POV. I have listed the changes, as well as a explanation on the Talk page. But I wanted to let you know as well, since the changes I made were to ones you had made. Let me know if you have any questions. Take care, Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I won't be able to comment on this until the earliest late tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Do you really think this constitutes vandalism? (Because you say so here.) It seems to me like an unsourced but good faith attempt to update the article. – hysteria18 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL, totally my fault, I read it too quickly and thought the name "Crooks" was the word "crooks". I've reverted the warning on the IP's talk page (with an apologies edit summary), but there's still the issue of the material the IP removed. Please fix it however you think best, and thank you for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pitt edit

Thank you for explaining the conflict. Your edit is appreciated. I'm fairly new. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 22:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was hard to put it all in an edit summary. I'm glad it made sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Davis and the IP

Aren't the notes on the IP's page bit on the heavy side? Seems to me that the IP is doing pretty well:

adds good evidence of being a Tufts alumna
adds ho-hum (but not bad) evidence of being a book editor

While the latter is not satisfactory, I wouldn't rush to revert it and I certainly wouldn't term it "edit-warring". -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the Davis article is a puff piece. I suspect the IP is related to the subject. I think most of the sources in the article are terrible. The only good source the IP added was the Tufts source, which I even embellished positively. All that said, I suppose my notes may be a bit much, although I confess I'm curious as to how the IP will react. Admittedly, I don't have a lot of patience with these sorts of issues, i.e., SPAs, IPs with probable conflicts, stubborn insistence, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the article was a puff piece. I wouldn't be surprised if the IP were related to the subject. I don't think much of the sources myself. However, the Tufts source is good (for the use made of it). And you reverted addition of a link to a company that, in some detail, advertises the biographee's services as a book editor. This would be inappropriate as evidence for a claim that she's outstanding, richly experienced, etc as a book editor, but as evidence for a simple claim that she is a book editor, it looks good to me. ¶ Experienced editors need patience with this kind of thing, or else they and WP look unreasonable or even vindictive. (Believe me, I have experience of dealing with real puffery.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I respect your advice and your experience. I must say, though, that many times in the past when other editors have counseled more good faith, I have correctly predicted that good faith wasn't warranted. At the same time, there have been a few instances when I was wrong. I tend to look at as a cost-benefit analysis in terms of how much time do I spend being more patient vs. how often it reaps rewards. I have to decide how to prioritize my time on Wikipedia, and I already spend a LOT of time here.

I hope you noticed that I did take your initial advice to heart and posted something more conciliatory on the IP's Talk page.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with me. I really do listen and consider what you (and others) say.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Aford2526

Hello Bbb23, I don't understand why are you removing all the important parts of the entry of "Meherjaan"? What did you find unencyclopedic material to this article? If you know this film has been the most talked about contemporary Bangladesh film which is important in many ways, and already has taken an important part in Bangladesh's history. And if you follow other movie pages in wikipedia, here the same format has been followed. --Aford2526 (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Just the copyright violations alone are flagrant. Wikipedia takes copyright VERY seriously. I wouldn't even think about reinserting that material.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please help to develop this "Meherjaan" page instead of keep deleting it?

I think this administrator is a racist or biased based on his administrative history.--201.248.68.11 (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't soure what way

what do you mean 'don't source that way?- on the asma al-assad article. who cares if a few words are quoted exactly- this obsession with changing a few wodrds for the sake of what , 'originality' just petty minded fatuity -- i dont see the point. you talk like youre some sort of authority - youre just another editor same as me. Sayerslle (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully not.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. keep neutral, pal. Sayerslle (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

To your ANI question ....

Forgive me. Not wanting to clutter ANI further, I just wanted you to see the situation with the mediator [1] and [2]. If you look above my posts, you'll see she's still ignoring a MedCab case she had been on last week. Mediation is one thing; completely ignoring the editors is another. So I doubt she'll stick in her oar at the ANI ... but I don't have to say I didn't try to get her to look at this!—Djathinkimacowboy 02:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I admit I didn't review closely the entire mediation, but it looked like LR was responding at the mediation itself. I'm not familar with this mediation, so I really don't know how it works. BTW, what makes you think LR is a she?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest you review a bit. Oh, the rest doesn't matter. LR has never denied being a female. It happens. I'm a male and my signature suggests to everyone I'm a woman. I don't care. Thing is, I was always misjudging LR and I have apologised to LR for giving her a rough time. That's not the issue. The issue is the disrupting editor who is driving many of us nuts.—Djathinkimacowboy 17:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hey good job! Glad to know that you are still watching Arabo, I see the "delete the unsavoury section about him" forces are back, it's been a while! Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what it is about these kinds of cycles on Wikipedia, but at least the crap makes me appreciate the lulls.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin Hosking

As you will see I have reversed and edited the article about me. I have explained why in the comments. If you wish to reverse any of the edits I would be grateful if you could refer them to me and to an administrator. I appreciate that you have prevented some of the malicious editing of the article but it remains unbalanced and the last edit made it worse. To include defamatory material about a Company with which I am involved and not to include positive links and awards is not acceptable. I have removed the defamatory material and have not attempted to insert the positive. Thank you for your attention to this, it is genuinely appreciated and I fully accept that you do not have the background which I have into why the attacks are occurring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.8.189 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Bbb23. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 11:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

BLPN and Martin Hosking

Hi Bbb23, thanks for you post and vigilance on the MH article but I think you may have jumped the gun in your evaluation of my edits. Please check the BLPN for details. Meanwhile, I look forward to working together. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Keith, it's very kind of you to adopt such a pleasant tone after my somewhat overharsh comments at BLPN. I've glanced at your subsequent posts at BLPN, but I wanted to let you know I won't be able to respond until, at the earliest, tomorrow. I've been playing catch-up after returning from a wikibreak, and I was tired when I posted at BLPN and, after just going through my way-too-long watchlist, and am tired again.

Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, thanks for your reply. I understand you were in a rush. It happens to me too. BTW it seems we may not agree on this issue on the MH talk page but I look forward to working together anyway. WP is all about collaboration and I see you are a dedicated editor and together we'll make things better one way or another. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Keithbob, ironically, I've been more often on your side of this discussion as I tend to be more protective of BLPs than many, but in this instance, I think what we're reporting is fair, albeit negative.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As you know I have been supportive in general of your editing of my biography but having now fully digested (as much as I can) the policy around BLPs I would be grateful if you refrain from further editing until you have had a period of research and reflection on the issues. I also can appreciate we get tired but on a number of occasions in the talks sections I feel you have moved from a NPOV and are no longer compliant with the policy on BLPs. Your reference to the issue as relating to "baby porn" while I understand was only a shorthand is not acceptable given the seriousness of the issues. Likewise it is I feel not appropriate to try and warn me off the article as clearly I am authoritative source and also am trying to work very hard within WP (and the BLP policy accepts I may make a contribution). Again, I do fully acknowledge and appreciate your stepping in when the issues were most heated. If at any stage you felt there was a legal threat directed towards you, I apologize, as that was certainly not my intention. 220.245.205.26 (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I never felt you threatened me with legal action. I thought you came very close to threatening Wikipedia. As for the rest, I've pretty much commented on the issues you raise, and I don't think there are any legitimate BLP issues associated with the article. You would do better to suggest changes to the article rather than make them yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to address the BLP issues directly and explicitly in the talk section. I have raised the points there. But being specific:

Why coverage of the HH is of such materiality that it is worthy of 30% of the BLP?
Why it is more material than the 100s of other links and articles related to me and to RB?
Why this does not create a materially unbalanced biography in contravention to BLP policy?
Why a sensationalist story based solely on tabloid headlines (ie the 2 about children's clothing) is included in the BLP, again in contravention of BLP policy?

Until you can address these issues, despite sometimes good work, I cannot feel you have met the basic requirement of trying to create a BLP that is "very neutral in tone and contents, and written with regard to the highest quality of fairness and sourcing, beyond the normal standards". I think you do need to address them before making reinsertions as material has been removed for good reasons and the onus of proof is on you before reinserting (as per normal policy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.205.26 (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop posting about these issues here. You are active at the Hosking Talk page and at BLPN. No need to duplicate your arguments here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

WQA

I can give you more specifics regarding my question at WQA, but, as I said there, I was hoping for general policy advice without getting mired down in yet another discussion of Fae's recent behavior. If you realley need diffs or specifics, I'll provide them here with the hopes of not getting bogged down in discussions about Fae specifically.LedRush (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I responded at WQA.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ranina Reddy

Hi. The Discography Details in the Article of Ranina Reddy had lots of data. All these have proofs. Its a List of all the Songs Sung by her so far. It has been Edited by you. Please revert the Edit as references were given. The Discography needs to be there for the singer..Thanks Vithurgod (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The Discography Table is a List of all Songs Sung by the Singer. This is an Indian Singer and all Indian Singers have their List of songs sung as their Discography!! Please check other Indian Singers. Discography is part of Wikipedia. The same Explanation has been given in the Talk Page of the Article. Vithurgod (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You're going to have find sources that are reliable to back up the material AND something to justify having a discography in the first place other than "it's used in other articles" (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Billy Zane

Hi, I'm the person who corrected the spelling of Billy Zane's character's name in "Silence of the Hams". I can assure you the correct spelling is indeed "Jo Dee Fostar" with an A, as you can see from this screenshot: http://content.internetvideoarchive.com/content/photos/125/000526_37.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.249.78 (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the T-shirt doesn't prove anything and cannot be used as a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Here you can see the DVD cover. On the left, right below the pictures, you can see the character's name is "Jo Dee Fostar": http://www.copertinedvd.net/I/Il%20silenzio%20dei%20prosciutti.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriele cannizzaro (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the two of you have convinced me. I did some searching and found Jo Dee Fostar in other places, although not in any great sources. Go ahead and change it if you like - I'll leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also sent a request to amend the information on IMDB. I understand the confusion, since the correct spelling is supposed to be "Foster". But in Italian, when you read "Jo Dee Fostar", it sound like "Jodie Foster" would in English, while if you read "Foster" the sound is different. That's probably why they went with that weird spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriele cannizzaro (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I date Ted Turner

Hi. I do date him. There are several references to this on the Internet, some of which I have cite before, but they keep getting deleted. What kind of reference should I cite? Thanks. Elizabeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizadewberry (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Something that comports with WP:RS. For example, a major newspaper. And even if you could cite to a reliable source, which I seriously doubt, you'd have to justify its inclusion in the article on relevance grounds.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm about to post a link to a recent story in the Hollywood Reporter. It's relevant because I've been with him for seven years, and I'm part of his life. I'm not sure how much more justification you need. It's just a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizadewberry (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you block me? I posted the sentence withy a link, but it's not showing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizadewberry (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit and put my reasons in the edit summary (it's in the history of the article): "not source-compliant, lacks foundation or context, not noteworthy". Unfortunately, you put it back in.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

My source is compliant with Wickipedia's guidelines. I hope you'll allow it to stand. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizadewberry (talk • contribs) 20:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I won't. It is a jarring comment with no foundation in the middle of other material. There are no other examples of Turner's "dating" anyone in the section, so it stands out like a sore thumb. There is also no justification for inserting it in the article as you are not a notable person, and whether Turner is dating you, or was dating you, is of little or no encylopedic interest. Finally, you should not be adding material about yourself as it represents a conflict of interest and is severely frowned upon. I ask you to respect these points and cease coming on Wikipedia with the sole purpose of adding your social life to the Turner article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've read the conflict of interest guidelines, and I have to respectfully disagree with you. I'm not promoting my interests or excessively citing myself. I'm contributing one neutral fact that has appeared in many other published places. Whether I am notable is a judgement call, and I think you have made that judgement without any information, the same way you seriously doubted that I would be able to be source compliant.. I have published four novels, all with major publishers, and it's relevant to the story because I'm part of his life and have been for many years. I was actually understating my role out of a desire not to look like I was promoting my own interests, but surely you don't claim that we have to be legally married for the information to be considered relevant. Elizadewberry (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you want to insert this "one neutral fact"? Let's assume hypothetically that we were to add this "fact" to the article? To do it properly, as I said, we'd have to give it some foundation rather than just stick it in as you've done. According to a recent article in The Telegraph, you are one of four women with whom Turner shares his, uh, time ([3]). Not that you get to dictate what does or doesn't go into a Wikipedia article, but purely from a personal point of view, would you like to open up that romantic can of worms? This is just tabloid material, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I confess to not understanding your motives, but I urge you to just let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

{{{3O}}} I have asked for a third opinion.

I don't see anything in the guidelines that lead me to believe that you have to understand my motives. And your tone is disrespectful. Please just let this go, as there is no guideline you can point to that justifies you raking it out because you don,t like it or understand it. Thank you. Elizadewberry (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm volunteering to give the requested third opinion about this. I will be back with an opinion soon. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

That Ted Turner currently shares his time between four girlfriends is reliably sourced and, in the context of the section in his biography about his personal life, it is interesting and relevant. It is also clear that it is not a secret. It should be included in Wikipedia.
This means including information about him having four girlfriends. Including information about one without mentioning the others would be misleading to our readers.
Taking into account our policy WP:BLPNAME, I take the view that the four women concerned should not be named in Wikipedia, unless we have reliable information that any one of them is a public figure to a substantial extent. As private individuals, they have a right not to expect their romantic relationships to be detailed on Wikipedia and naming them would not add any significant value to Wikipedia.
This includes Elizabeth Dewberry, even though it may be that she has no qualms about being named. Because this is the Internet, there is no way of knowing for sure that User:Elizadewberry is the genuine article. I see no reason to doubt this, but it is better to be safe than sorry.
Elizabeth, you should avoid directly editing the article. This is not a rule, but it is good Wikipedia etiquette because you are personally involved. You should instead ask for a change to the article by posting at Talk:Ted Turner.
For what it's worth, I agree that some of the comments made above are impolite. Saying something like "you are one of four women with whom Turner shares his, uh, time" would obviously be considered rude in real life, and it is no less rude to type it on the Internet. Formerip (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this. My responses:

I don't think it's sufficiently relevant. I do agree it's reliably sourced (although that wasn't the source Dewberry was using). I don't think it should be included in the article.
If it goes in at all, yes.
Not sure about this one because the source makes a point that Turner is willing to name Dewberry. Plus, Dewberry is the one that got all the notoriety in 2007.
Same as 3.
Yes.
Actually, I think some of my comments weren't as nice as they could have been, although frustration is a reasonable defense even if not a reasonable excuse. Funnily enough, the particular comment you selected wouldn't have been one of my examples of impoliteness. I would have said it in "real life", too.

(Dewberry can't respond right away because she was blocked for edit-warring.)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

3rd Opinion clerk

Hi. I'm from 3rd Opinion, though I realize User:FormerIP ~~has claimed he that will provide one, as well~~I see he commented before me, my mistake. As User:Bbb23 has mentioned, User:Elizadewberry is blocked for 31 hours, so she will not be able to contribute to this discussion.

I've signed up an account on [4] and my understanding is that only Lead Editors, which there are 3, can moderate profiles much like wikis; this includes pictures, contributions, posts, videos, etc.. The problem is: is whosdatedwho.com reliable? I tried to identify who the Lead Editors are, and they are hand picked, so what is that process? I could not figure out.Curb Chain (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, CC, you lost me with your comment about the website. Is that somehow relevant to this discussion?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. When you recently edited Angela Knight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

IP question

Yes, User:75.61.132.26 is me, thanks for catching that. Do you have a question about an edit?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe I reverted one of your edits because there was no explanation and an IP changing protocols on a Talk page is weird. Then, when I looked at the contribution history, I saw your name "signed" to one of the Talk page changes. Good thing, too, because I was pondering on what to do about what I thought was a renegade IP. Anyway, I know that policy doesn't prohibit you from not logging in, but it would sure be helpful if you did. Failing that, it would be better if you could make it clearer what your user name is when you are using an IP address (something prominent in the edit summary maybe). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me?

Hello, thank you for the help. I can't write the books Il sex appeal di un cotton fioc and Altre libertine. Cronache incensurate di una vita in fuga? Can you help me with the page Andrea Lehotská? What I can do for multiple issues? I try news sources? --82.51.0.209 (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a couple of suggestions for you. First, and most important, try to find secondary sources that discuss Lehotská in greater depth rather than just one sentence about this film, this video clip, or this TV appearance. That's why I put in the "resume" tag in the article. It will also assist in establishing her notability as the subject of a Wikipedia article. Second, when you add material, try to copy the style and grammar of the other statements. I assume English is not your native tongue, but if you model your sentences after the correctly worded sentences, other editors (like me) won't have to go in and reword your edits every time. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Answer

You have my answer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PANONIAN#English PANONIAN 04:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hilary Rosen

Thx for your help, especially putting the correct notice on the user's page. I don't blame you for feeling intimidated, particular with the possible self-promotion issue. I am very skeptical discussion alone with resolve the issue-- these people specialize in honing their public self-image, they probably won't stop just cause we ask nicely. but here's hoping :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. The "I feel intimidated" was intended to be facetious.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Left you a note at Requests for page protection#.7B.7Bla.7CAndy_Whitfield.7D.7D. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The difficulties of the TB template. I read your note, thanks. I will do what you ask (more work, he whines).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I KNOW! It sucks to be the good guy. Tell Niteshift I said hi. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

RfA

Any interest? I think you would do a great job. Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Me too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Do it. The Interior (Talk) 01:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

+++ Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm supposed to be a virtual, detached, neutral editor, but I'm touched. Thanks very much for your endorsements. User:Drmies said something similar recently. I'm tired and about to log off for the day but will give your suggestion careful thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing problem

I appreciate your intervention and I assure you my intention is purely in the interests of the site. Please keep watch of events between both of us however, I dislike being told I have a fetish which I have now been told twice[5]. There is no need for this, I was once blocked for a few hours for a lesser remark which I made once - not twice. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience and ability to admit your own mistakes. New editors are tricky, some rapidly become exceptional editors and your best ally in a discussion. This was a borderline case, and my goal was to avoid getting the admins involved since both of you goofed up in a couple of ways. I'm hoping he is really reading some of the stuff I linked, and I hope you try to help him out a little. He is very new, 4th day, and many people don't "get it" this quickly because Wikipedia is more formal than forums and other websites. I'm hoping he will calm down and become an asset here, and as bonus, you got to learn a few things about the guidelines ;) Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 00:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis, a couple of comments. I wouldn't worry about his use of the word fetish - I don't think it means much in context. The best thing for you to do is to try to work out the content issues and ignore the other stuff. If you make an effort to do that and it fails, then at least no one can say you assumed bad faith and didn't even try. Finally, although I agree with a lot of what Dennis says, I'm not so sure he's all that new. The account may be 4 days old, but I suspect he's edited before as an IP. Just so it's clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. Many new accounts have edited previously before deciding to open an account. Although some of his style is that of a newbie, other aspects are not. Anyway, that's a minor point. As Dennis said, take the high road and see what happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just got round to reading these comments. Thanks for your support (both of you) and I hope to make a clean start once this new editor comes back. I'm happy to discuss all objections to articles. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

RfA

You mean about perfection? It wasn't really about you but about RfAs and admins generally. Like PumpkinSky, I think Wikipedians expect too much from prospective admins in RFAs and treat "imperfections" in existing admins too harshly. If you were confused, do you think I need to reword it to be clearer?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I caught the meaning. Entirely agree, by the way. We're not allowed much (if any) latitude when it comes to mistakes. Just be prepared for that. Antandrus (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:(name redacted)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I wouldn't worry too much at this point. I have been involved in settling some very heated debates, I expected some would return in new clothing. I have faith that the people here will sort out any potential problems with mysterious editors showing up to vote, or at the least, give those !votes the proper weight they deserve. Making too big of a deal only makes it seem more effective than it really is. Dennis Brown ® © 23:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I hesitated before posting on your Talk page because in some ways it wasn't really my place to do so. However, although you're a big boy and can take care of yourself, I still felt it put you in an awkward position. Finally, I saw it as inappropriate harassment. I wanted to actually revert it but decided there was no guidelined basis for doing so. Anyway, I don't think my comments made it worse (feeding the troll). That might have been true had I done so at the RFA, but not so much on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you didn't do anything bad at all, but I'm looking at the long game. A temporary snub on my page isn't going to hurt me considering the source. Dennis Brown ® © 00:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I closed up the thread on my talk page under WP:DENY. I could smell this was a sockpuppet, I just didn't know who, and started tearing through the logs. I *knew* that someone would go digging. In this case, Elen had the biggest and shiniest mop in town, went to CU and dug up the name. If I had gone negative on him, it would have looked like I was attacking him because he voted to Oppose me, which was the bait he was putting out. I just wasn't going to bite. And as to my "articular development", a dictionary would have told him that the phrase refers to joints, not article creation. I could tell I wasn't dealing with a genius. We aren't done with these, I'm sure, since the areas I work in are hotly disputed, I just have to remain cool and collected and let the admins do their job. I'm still shocked and flattered by how many supports I'm getting. Might push me into WP:100, which is not what I expected at all. Dennis Brown ® © 02:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Part of the reason I posted on your Talk page was precisely because of what you say ("if I had gone negative on him"). As for Elen, I'm constantly amazed at the ability of some admins to ferret out the back story. True, she has tools I don't have, but, even so, the long memories of some admins is a valuable asset to the project. I noticed the "articular development" phrase, too, and found it amusing - I kept picturing you giving physical therapy to Wikipedia's creaky knees. Heh.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Date ranges

It is standard practice. It's in the MOS. 87.254.86.149 (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is non-standard practice and contrary to style AND the infobox templates. For example, see {{infobox person}}: years_active: "Date range in years during which the subject was active; only if birth and/or death date not known. Use the format 1950–2000, or 1970–present if still active; note the use of an en dash.". Please stop editing the articles this way until you understand how this works. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This advice is contrary to the MOS, and only there because nobody has ever looked at the MOS on how to do it properly. It is not a considered evaluation of the available options. 87.254.86.149 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please point me to the part of MOS you think supports your position.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Other_date_ranges 87.254.86.149 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Although this does rather make it clear that you've not really looked at this page. If so, I would appreciate it if you educated yourself before reverting rather than afterwards. 87.254.86.149 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a good way to win friends as a new editor here. First, the infobox changes are inappropriate because of the documentation in the templates themselves - that trumps anything in the MOS guidelines because it's more specific. Second, please provide the actual language in the MOS that supports your position for changes that are not to the infoboxes (I think you made changes to section headers as well).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've provided a direct link to the text; it consists of a single sentence. I'm not sure how pasting it here will help. If you want, I can also procide a direct link to the section above it to which it refers. Secondly, your consistent reverts of my good faith edits has a higher burden responsibility; it is you that must earn my friendship, frankly. 87.254.86.149 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am not a new editor; I prefer to edit ~anonymously. However, I can see that this is colouring your judgement. 87.254.86.149 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I would revert the edits in the same way if you were an admin. However, my interaction with you post-revert would be understandably different.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is this the sentence? "Dates that are given as ranges should follow the same patterns as given above for birth and death dates." If so, that doesn't support your position. I've noticed that other editors have also been reverting your edits. Perhaps, you should heed the advice of many instead of clinging to the notion that only you know what's corrrect.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The format I have given is the same as the patterns ffor births and deaths above. "-present" is the thing explicitly spoken out against in the section. Have you actually read it? Nobody has spoken againt my postiion after actaully having read the section 87.254.86.149 (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

To the extent it matters, the word "present" doesn't even exist in that section.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, but it does not matter. The intention that dates should be as I have done them and not as they were is clear. 87.254.86.149 (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You're going to have to find some consensus on your position as it seems to be "clear" only to you; otherwise, these changes will continue to be reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies!

I didn't know what dupe meant until you put it into context and I saw what you did. I thought you were randomly removing comments at first. My apologies.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Temporarily Online} 18:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries, seeing an editor remove someone else's comments always raises a red flag.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg - Atheism

Can you please explain why you reverted the revision i made? User:Lacobrigo 02:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought I did a fairly good job in the edit summary. Still, not even that long ago, on yet another fight about what to put in the infobox about his "religion", an admin came up with an elegant solution, which was nothing. He doesn't have a religion. As for him being an atheist, it is covered in the body. And, as I said, Jewish doesn't require a wikilink - see WP:OVERLINK ("Avoid linking plain English words.").--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)