User talk:Bbb23/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

User:Danrolo evades block

Hello Bbb23,

yesterday you blocked User:Danrolo for edit warring. As you assumed, he continues edit war without logging in. Could you please also block the IP he is currently using: 190.22.150.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and semi-protect the articles National Renewal (Chile) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), People's Alliance (Spain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Democratic Justice Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

In my view, there is no purpose to blocking the IP unless the IP becomes otherwise disruptive. Historically, he uses too many IPs. Therefore, I've semi-protected the three articles for one week. I've also extended Danrolo's block to expire at roughly the same time as the protection expires. Let me know if there's any further disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt action. Unfortunately, this user still hasn't got his message. He has returned as 186.79.25.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), editing in eight more articles and even continuing edit war in two of them. (People's Front for Democracy and Justice and Mauritanian People's Party) I don't know how to answer this. We can't protect all articles that might possibly interest this user. There are too many... Hopefully you have an idea. --RJFF (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

All I can think of is multiple range blocks. I need to determine the most efficient and least intrusive way of dealing with this. I've blocked the IP and rolled back all of his edits. While we're figuring out a more long-term solution, is there any other IP you know of who is being persistently disruptive?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Danrolo knew that purposely editing without logging in is considered sockpuppetry. No one has warned him that he must not try to disguise his authorship. I don't think that he has ever edited in bad faith. He just didn't understand (or didn't want to understand) our rules. Not all of his edits were disruptive, some were useful. I haven't seen him editing for three days. Maybe he's got his message now. --RJFF (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's generous of you to think of things from his perspective, but even if one is unaware of sock puppetry, it's intuitive that when you're blocked you shouldn't be editing. I might also add that many sock masters make useful edits in addition to being disruptive. I have little sympathy for him.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I take back everything that I've said in defense of Danrolo. He continues. Could you please semi-protect Saenuri Party? Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Pipeline Pilot

Hello, I see you deleted the Pipeline Pilot page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pipeline_Pilot&action=edit&redlink=1) due to copyright infringement; can we restore this page and I can remove the link you cite (http://www.scientific-computing.com/products/product_details.php?product_id=817). Please let me know of any other issues. Thanks Nicksfcole (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You may recreate the page, but removing the links cited by me will not fix the copyright infringement. You have to reword the article so it does not copy text from other places or even closely paraphrase text. Two more things. First, the article was originally tagged because it was promotional. I didn't delete it for that reason, but if the article you recreate is promotional, it may get deleted for that reason. Second, you say "can we restore" - who's we? You are not permitted to edit on behalf of a company at Wikipedia. See WP:ROLE. Let me know if you have any other questions--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks bbb23, appreciate the guidance! Nicksfcole (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Leather (again)

Hi Bbb23, I'm not sure if I have to post a notice about this on your page as well or not (or even if I've done the right thing raising the matter at ANI) but: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The article is Stephen Leather. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion without consulting author for edits

I'm new to wikipedia and I'm being frustrated by pages and edits being deleted without consultation that may have been resolved the issue with further editing. How can I get a page un-speedily deleted so I can resolve the claimed issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rggararat (talk • contribs) 03:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like User:Dreadstar has given you good advice on your talk page. It's hard to jump into Wikipedia and immediately create an article. Doing it more slowly and asking for feedback from more experienced users may help avoid the problems you've been having. Also, remember that the researcher you are trying to add an article about may simply not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for an article, no matter how well you write it. The key to notability at Wikipedia is significant coverage about the person from secondary sources. For example, an article in the New York Times that is all about the person and his achievements. Thus, a reference to Plenter's website at the University of Colorado, although it may be helpful for background material, won't help much. It's not precisely a primary source, but it doesn't establish that he's any more notable than any other researcher with multiple degrees. Take a look at WP:ACADEMIC.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your response. I was in the process of building the entry for Mr. Plenter (and using the save page feature so as not to lose information) but was being frustrated by repeated deletes, which I assumed was due to my inexperience with your system. These repeated deletes meant I never had a chance to complete the entry and now it appears I am being blocked from recreating any entry. This is a shame, he achievements are indeed noteworthy. This has been my first experince with Wikipedia and has not been a happy one. The system does not seem to allow for building up an entry before someone who has no idea of the subject deletes it. This is an unfriendly place I am sad to say. Regards, RGG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rggararat (talk • contribs) 15:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I just like to say thank you for reverting an edit made by User:Earth101 in my user page, thank you.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 05:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a while ago, but you're welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You see, i just checked the history of the page...--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 13:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, i just wasn't sure.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 14:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please explain

Looking at this and this, I'd like your explanation of the discrepancy, please. --Pete (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The short answer it was a mistake on my part. If I had been on-wiki when you complained, I would have unblocked you at 24 hours, even though my intention was to block you for 31 hours. The longer answer is that Wikipedia (I think more specifically Wikimedia) was having technical problems when I blocked you, and I had horrible trouble doing anything. Notice my edit summary here. Another unusual thing for me was to post the block to your talk page with a personalized message. I always use Twinkle and a block template, but Twinkle, too, wasn't working, so I departed from my usual practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not complaining per se, just curious as to why it happened. I figured if you said 24 hours, that's what you intended and the 31 was a bug in the system. I had to laugh when someone else came along and rather grumpily pointed out that the block had expired, as if I hadn't already been back on-wiki for some time! --Pete (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Moishe Friedman

Hey guys, as you are both about got an IP sock of Babasalichai on Moshe Friedman Ca none of you block please. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a month, although it's not clear to me that he's a sock of Babasalichai as his all-cap edit summaries seem wrong. Nonetheless, the material he's adding has been rejected as a BLP violation, and he knows it. So, on that basis alone I've blocked him, adding the possible multiple account abuse.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Your interest in History of the Metric System

Hi Bbb23, can you give me a sanity check please, and take a look at Martinvl's recent contributions to that article for me. My reading of them is that he seems desperate to big-up the role of Wilkins, and possibly at the expense of the reliably sourced roles of the other players in history. He seems to be scouring the web to find articles that support his view, then extrapolating generalities from them, rather than simply reporting on the prevailing views across the notable and reliably sourced mainstream sources.

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to follow, not lead, the mainstream view. See if you get that impression too. Stevengriffiths (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to see you back at WP:AN3. I had to close several cases in a row myself, and it was exhausting. Your idea here for the Mar4d/Darkness Shines dispute is interesting and I hope it works. Lately when I give people an option to avoid sanctions they usually don't take it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been a lot of taps on my time lately, which made it difficult for me to spend as much time at ANEW as I would like. As you point out, it is tiring. I've been staring at the Ashrf1979 report, and it's a tough one (passionate nationalism) and I can't decide what to do about it so have done nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note for Ashrf1979. Brand new nationalist editors are usually not that hard to deal with if they are in some area that is covered by discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but I confess I have trouble connecting all the dots (WP:ARBAA2 to the articles at issue).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Per your comment at WP:AN3, it may now be time to issue the block. One further update is that Ashrf1979 left a question for Mohamed CJ. Per his contributions Ashrf1979 has now resumed editing articles but is not answering the AN3 complaint. If you are not convinced it's time for a block, that's OK, I just hope to not let the complaint sit with no action or response. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Autoblock cleared

For transparency, I removed the autoblock from Brocach as it triggered a block here User talk:Tempo River. Nothing in the contributions looked weird (large mobile provider, regional interests match location but no overlap). I wanted you to be aware in case any other shenanigans manifest. Kuru (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kuru.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Look at the IMDB page for Joan Gerber. She died in 2011. Therefore, she doesn't fall into the living persons category. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0314119/

IMDb is not a reliable source and certainly can't be used to support a report of a person's death.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Re

Yes, I am fine with the conditions laid out at WP:ANEW. Mar4d (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mar4d, I've noted it at ANEW and closed the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Still puzzled

Help me understand. Hypothetical situation: User:RandyBully makes a bold change that is unacceptable. User:WikiAngel reverts the change and invites the user to discuss at article Talk. In response, User:RandyBully reverts the revert, leaving a belligerent edit sum.

What is proper course for User:WikiAngel? (Meanwhile, whatever you'll answer, I presume it will invoke a processing delay, of how many hours or days, until the content disupte resolves, and, until then, User:RandyBully "wins" by getting his atrocious edit to stand, for the benefit of WP readers worldwide, and is to that extent also emboldened that his bullying worked, and so likely will repeat it elsewhere.)

What stops this? Why is it "don't revert, even if you think you are right", seems programmed by default, to let User:RandyBully have his way? (At least for however long?)

And why is WP:BRD an essay. (The user correctly pointed out its status as essay, and correctly pointed out he can therefore ignore it. How does one contend with that winning argument??)

The user was correct also, in pointing out at ANI, in his explanation and justification for choosing to decline content discussions at article Talk, that it is hard to get consensus, when said article is little-traffic'd, and there isn't editorial interest enough that multiple editors weigh in when disagreements. He's right. (Is WP:3O the prescribed "cure" for that? Or RfC? [Does RfC even exist anymore? And where does WP:DRN fit?] Which is better? Which has more history of response rate & success? Which venue is noted more for securing an editor(s) who care enough about a topic rather than mediating or managing conflict, which will probably not resolve the content issue?) I've seen RfC, opened by another such editor in same situation, get zero response. I've seen solicitation at Project page, get zero response from Project membership. The user has a point. [A consensus cannot be formed by two opposing editors.] But his conclusion to force his way without discussion is of course the wrong conclusion.)

Thanks. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC) p.s. I'm curious to know, how or why you thought I was a girl?

I commented at ANI. I thought you were female because I confused you with a different editor - sorry about that.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"that's a lot of sourced material to remove without discussion"

I included my reasoning for removing the material in my edit summary. Do you have any discussion you want to add? Do you disagree with my summary? It seems strange to me to revert my edit, not because you disagree, but simply because I didn't make an exhaustive enough case for it before implementing it. johnpseudo 19:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my edit summary. It's a sensitive article, and your edit summary is not a substitute for discussion. You should take it to the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's how discussion works. One person says something (as I did in my edit summary). Then someone else responds to that (as you did not accomplish in your edit summary). If you want to advance the discussion, do so. Otherwise, don't revert another person's edit. johnpseudo 15:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:DeFacto

You blocked this account as a sock of DeFacto, as the sock is still using his talk page I have redirected it to the user page, you may want to revoke talk page access to the sock account. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I know your intentions are good, but I'm watching the page and prefer to leave it as it is for the time being.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Need help

Hey Bbb23, could you have a look at the IP who is accusing me of having IP socks? They are making some diff links (maybe out of ignorance, because that IP only came to WP today) that "cover" their IP; I had to try to make a change in their edit to bring visibility to the IP. At the moment it is the 2nd thread from the bottom upwards at AN/I. Thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

While you're at it, as I see, could you please also correct (if necessary) the indenting of my response to the IP that accused me of using IP socks? I'd be very thankful. Best. --E4024 (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The thread is dizzying. I thought Dragon accused you of sock puppetry, but you refer to an IP (which IP?).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I gave the links to the IP (who constantly changes his IP) in administrators noticeboards , but you deleted some of themDragonTiger23 (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nop. I did not. I can tell you which IP is accusing me; the problem is they make a diff link and include their address into it. They seem to be much more experienced (at least in these strange things :-) than a user who began editing WP today. --E4024 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP is either this or this one (or both :-). Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And this (2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941). (I understand it is basicly this one but I do not know how it hides the IP bluelink somehow so that we cannot reach and see its contributions in WP. Must be a computer operator or something like that at a library (very knowledgeable about Ottoman Sultans :-). There is a person who is not innocent here, believe me; of course other than me. This is why I throw a stone without worries. Please check. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

With your latest change to the thread, E4024, I give up. You and Dragon are on your own. Perhaps another admin will sort it out, but not me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I was only trying to help. (I am a bit impulsive. Remember, Mediterranean.) So I am "undoing" it to show you my good will and my appreciation of your efforts here. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You just don't want me to give up. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, please don't. We need admins who fight "dishonest" manipulation of WP and you are good at that. I appreciate your work and I am grateful to you. Best. --E4024 (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

E4024, I don't understand what you mean about User:2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941. I can see their contributions. They just don't have a user (normal) or talk page (not abnormal).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Now thanks to you I could also reach their TP and leave a message. Very appreciated. --E4024 (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is the same person using different IPs to push his POVDragonTiger23 (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It may be the same person using different IPs, but are they denying that? Lots of times when a person edits, a different IP address is aassigned. I haven't reviewed the dispute in detail, but it seems like a content dispute, and the POV accusations are distracting. Dragon, you posted something at ANI that supposedly shows one of the IPs accusing E4024 of sock puppetry, but the link didn't work properly. Could you point me to it?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happens, just make sure that you don't run parallel discussions both here and on ANI. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

At least this one doesn't make me dizzy. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

True. The lack of indents is annoying, but the lack of yelling is refreshing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

[1] here he is accusing E4024 of sockpuppetry. He is also accusing me of pushing islamic and neo ottoman POVDragonTiger23 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

...I addressed both of those issues on ANI. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the better link, Dragon. I agree that the sock comment and the other comment are both uncalled for, but I tend to agree with Bwilkins that it doesn't warrant sanctions. As I said on the article talk page, you all need to go forward to resolve the content dispute and not insult each other or battle in the article. I'll try to monitor the situation a bit to make sure editors stay focused. Often, the best response, though, to these kinds of comments are to ignore them and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Danrolo sock edit filter

Saw your questions on the AN thread after it got archived. As far as I know, there isn't a way to add an edit filter to your watchlist, you have to manually check the edit filter logs. And, I think we can block any IP's that look like Danrolo. I blocked the most recent IP since he was making edits on other articles that weren't triggering the edit filter. There haven't been any other edits triggering the filter for about 3 days. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 19:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Scotty.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Not that your are involved, but just as information regarding the ongoing saga between Brocach & Laurel Lodged and the GAA.
WP:AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Brocach ignoring discussions and blocks for POV-pushing: time for topic ban. The Banner talk 02:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I noticed it earlier. You might consider moving it to WP:AN as that's usually where bans are requested.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Something completely different

....from Downton. Your take on these accounts would be appreciated:

• CarolineHeldman (talk · contribs)
• lisawny (talk · contribs)

Both appear to be WP:SPA, and writing articles about one another. The Heldman article is replete with unsourced anecdotal content, and perhaps merits a COI tag. Probably both meet notability guidelines, so I hesitate to bring this up at the COI noticeboard, but an experienced eye is appreciated. Thanks, 99.136.252.89 (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only one article that both are co-writing. They apparently know each other. I've edited the article, although it needs more work because there's too much material that doesn't belong or is sourced to self-published sources. I also added a COI tag. As for notability, Drmies knows more about academic notability than I do; did you ask him?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The second piece I was referring to is only being incubated: [2]. I haven't dropped Drmies a note about this yet, preferring to let him enjoy a '99-free' day. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I missed that. I doubt Drmies would be bothered by a note on his talk page. I think both of us enjoy hearing from you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. Very best, 99.136.252.89 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bbb; I've followed up on your comments at Drmies' page. Feel free to have a look also at Charles Eisenstein, where the puffery is persistent even post-page protection. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:EscapeX

Actually, they did NOT revert me - You're the only person to revert me on that page. The user just blanked most of their talk page because they didn't like what they read and wanted it to go away. I reinstated portions of it so that there was some thread to what I was asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.54 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I let your new section stand, but if EscapeX removes it, however they do it, let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Publicity over WP

List of beauty contests article is full of external links (to various beauty contests) from within the article text; I suppose this is not permitted. I am trying to eliminate those links but it is a very tedious work. Got any tools to tackle this? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I should know more about tools, but I don't. You could start with WP:TOOLS and see where it leads you. Or a talk page stalker here may be able to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He's baaack!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Croonerman]] New user account and editing with the Ip that was blocked. I've reopened the case and also think I found a sleeper sock User:Zappaman which I didn't add as I doubt we can prove it through checkuser but again there's an account who's only edits are involved with Evans, whic also coincidently were centered around a time when he had a cause to promote...this time the Senate run. Maybe if you could look at teh deleted version of Brian Keith Evans and see if the writing styles were similar or any other similarities you can see. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

 Confirmed [[3]] can we block the socks with ip included? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You probably already know by now; it's all been done. Usually, the administrator closing the SPI takes care of that. I would only have to do it if I was prepared to block based on WP:DUCK.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't actually I thought the checkuser did it..Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a history before the copyright infringement?

Concerning this I recall looking at the history of it, and different people edited over time. Is there an older version of the article that was not copyright infringement? Bill Gates gave them 1.5 billion dollars [4] and they get coverage in Google News as well. Dream Focus 20:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That delete was somewhat difficult because it seemed to me to at least be able to pass A7 if it hadn't been such a blatant copyright infringement and written like a publicity piece. I noticed that the advert tag had been in place since I think October 2011. I'll take another look at it to see if there's an earlier version that is clean, although my guess is it might be a stub. I'll update this after I look.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of versions, so I only spot-checked different ones over time, and they're all pretty awful. Almost all of them contain copyright infringement, although perhaps not as pervasive as the version I deleted. Most of them have sourcing problems. Most are written like soapbox pieces. I'd WP:USERFY it for you but I'm not permitted to do so when there's an issue of copyright infringement. If you're interested, you could recreate the article from the ground up. Frankly, I don't think it would be too hard to create a reasonably good article that just gives facts and sources about how the organization works. Putting aside the laziness of copyright infringement, I think some editors get caught up in the good the organization apparently does and get carried away (read unencyclopedic).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You should probably delete the redirects [5]. Ryan Vesey 20:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Ryan.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hi. Would you mind taking a look at the ANI thread on Media-hound- thethird? He seems to have made a legal threat on his talk page. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, Basalisk took care of it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I closed the discussion. FWIW, I don't see it as a legal threat, but I have no problem with Basalisk's action.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Jordan Baker-Caldwell Article

Hello, my name is Allan, I am writing to protest the deletion of the article on artist Jordan Baker-Caldwell. He is an African American artist with articles and information about him and his work abound; I and my group were in the process of adding more information to his article when it was deleted. I would apreciate any help on how to steer the article in the right direction or what to do to list our sources to prevent this. Also, I am frustrated as there seems to be a bias excluding African American Artists form Wikipedia, I have seen articles about world renowned artists, within the public sphere for 30+ years in some cases, that were likewise deleted or put up for speedy deletion with the same ease, who were also African American. I am at a loss as how to remedy this, and ask that you put said article back, and consider the apparent racial divide.Allandiamond (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please omit the racial accusations from this - it's not constructive. The article was deleted because it satisfied the criterion for deletion (see WP:CSD#A7). As I understood your comment on the talk page of the article, you had more secondary support to satisfy notability and you wanted "more time" to add it. That's not the way it works. You write an article that meets Wikipedia's standards before you post it to article space. Article space is not a sandbox. So, one way you could work on this is to use the article wizard, which walks you through the creation of the article. At the end of the process, assuming you make it that far, you can move the article to article space, but you can also get feedback from other more experienced editors as to whether the article is ready to be moved. For example, I recently created an article and I spent a lot of time working on it in my sandbox before I moved it to article space. Writing articles isn't easy, at least not for most people.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

New Orleans crime family

Thanks very much for your quick action on this. [6] Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Must have been unpleasant for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

ANEW discussion re: Py0alb

Would you mind providing some resolution to the ANEW discussion here? From my point of view the user I have reported is failing to acknowledge what has happened, and is throwing all sorts of accusations around. I am happy to receive directions as to my own conduct if that is necessary, but it seems to me that we need a third party to make it clear to one or both of us who has transgressed and who has not. Failing that, I fear that Py0alb will continue what I believe to be unreasonable editing. in2itive (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished, and your creation of the new article allowed Py0alb to escape sanctions. I have left a stern warning on their talk page (already deleted by them) and closed the report at ANEW as warned. If there is a problem in the future with their conduct, please let me know. There are only a couple of things to advise you about. First, don't use the word vandalism in edit summaries. Your comments outside of edit summaries are quite civil, but the word "vandalism" should be reserved for clear vandalism. Also, I didn't go back and look at the history of the war and your warnings. Generally, you warn an editor of EW and 3RR after they have made a 3rd revert because a 4th revert would violate 3RR. Then, if they make a 4th revert, you may report them to ANEW. One notable exception to this is if you are reporting an editor for a slow edit war where there was no breach of 3RR but evidence of edit-warring over time. If you have any questions, please let me know. By the same token, if you feel Py0alb is violating my warning (you'll have to look at the history of their talk page to see the warning), you may also let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your action and for your advice, much appreciated. in2itive (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just another thought - would it be appropriate to reference the result of the 'edit war' somehow on the indoor cricket talk page? Or does the edit history and lack of subsequent reverts speak for itself? in2itive (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to talk about such stuff on an article talk page. It should be reserved for user talk pages and appropriate noticeboards. Otherwise, it sounds too much like personal criticism, which is never conducive to content discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, wasn't necessarily suggesting we lay the whole case to bare or anything. The talk page simply displayed the early debates and no resolution to them, so a new editor might be confused as to where things are at. I've added a brief description of the status quo to the talk page here. Happy to be guided by you if this in any way inappropriate. in2itive (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Those comments seem okay to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

SPI

You should file an SPI report on Duhon and Brodey. Just checking the contribs of both users for five minutes I found this:

-both had an intense interest in Hollywood North between June 11 and June 12 2011 and made multiple edits

-both had made several edits to Estella Warren on 10 June 2011

-beginning in May 2006 both had began an interest in Stephen Colbert spanning the majority of that month

-on 17 January 2013 Brodey edits the Mexican-American War and on 18 January 2013 Duhon edits the Texas annexation which has a link to the Mexican-American War page in the first paragraph.

-24-25 July 2012 Duhon undoes edits to Beatrice Rosen 4 times within 24 hours, and there is no further action on Beatrice Rosen until on 27 July 2012 Brodey edits Beatrice Rosen 3 times

-I bring up Enes Kanter's height and weight listings on Wikipedia and how they are not congruent with his NBA profile on the Valanciunas Talk page on 20:34 30 January 2013 to Duhon, and at 22:01 30 January 2013 Brodey changes Enes Kanter's height and weight to match his NBA profile.

-throughout 2006, both Duhon and Brodey seemed to be concerned with the cleaning up of "lingo" on the Borat Sagdiyev page.

This is five minutes of random looking for suspicious congruences. I'm sure if you file an SPI, and scrutinize closely you'll find that there are a lot more dating back 7 years. This is just some proof that there is some substance to the sock suspicion.RoTi37 (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Lesley Gore edit

In this edit you removed an addition with the edit summary "copyright vio".

While it is almost always the case that YouTube links, when embedded, are copyright violations, and this would be no exception, this was used as a reference, to support the addition of the information. The IP editor has written to Wikimedia, asking why it was reverted. I think this is a mistake, and YouTube is allowed as a ref, even if not allowed as an external link.

See WP:YouTube. While YouTube is singled out as a link to be avoided, I believe that means in the context of an article link or external link, where the expectation is that the reader would click on it.

I accept that YouTube would often be unacceptable as a reference, due to it not being a reliable source. In this specific case, it is a professional doing an interview, so I think it should be allowed.

The Essay Wikipedia:Video links strongly discourages YouTube links in most cases, and arguably, includes this case, but that essay doesn't distinguish between links used in main articles and references. Surely we do not mean that material subject to copyright cannot be referenced in a reference, we do that all the time with print material, such as the NYT.

If you disagree, let's discuss.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The reference cannot be used based on WP:LINKVIO. Your analogy to the NYT is flawed. When we use the NYT as a reference, we are linking to material where the copyright is owned by the NYT. When we link to this kind of YouTube page, we are linking to someone posting a video where the copyright is owned by someone else. For example, when the YouTube video is posted by the copyright owner (you can usually tell that because it's an official channel of the copyright owner), that would be okay. In this instance, it's unclear where the video comes from, and we must err on the side of avoiding the violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I catch the distinction. So I either have to find evidence that the YouTube upload was authorized, or I need to find an authorized version, or I need to find an authorized transcript.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Something like that. I'll reserve judgment until I see what, if anything, you come up with.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not optimistic, I left a message with the uploader. Will see what they say.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I tracked down the original source. here

It looks like this is by the copyright holder, so I'm thinking the edit can be added back with this as a ref. Wanted your thoughts before proceeding. If OK, while it would be easier to do it myself, I intend to contact the editor who made the edit - I believe his only edit ever, and urge him to do it, as it might encourage him. Obviously, if I do so and it is reverted again, that won't help, so I wanted your views first.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of the page: "Copyright is owned by Cox Media Group Ohio and WHIO-TV. Please contact the University Archives and Special Collections at the University of Dayton to inquire about permission to use this video." As I interpret that, the copyright is not owned by the University of Dayton, but by the TV station and its parent. At this point, it's not clear to me whether we can link to it. I'm going to ask someone else and get back to you. Please be patient. Regardless of how this turns out, your efforts on behalf of the editor are commendable.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm I thought WHIO was a campus station, but I don't now know what led me to think that, maybe because of the notice indicating one should check with the University of Dayton about permission. It seems odd that one would contact the University of Dayton about permissions to use something owned by someone else, but maybe there was some collaboration.

There's no rush, so I'll let you take the next step. Thanks. Could I ask for a talkback, so I don't have to keep checking back? You're in my watchlist, but it is far too long, and I haven't managed to trim it back yet.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(smiling) Absolutely.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I see that this has gone forward since I was asked to weigh in. :) I agree that WP:LINKVIO means we cannot link to content that is likely to be a copyright infringement even as a reference, but it frequently isn't necessary. Sources don't have to be available online, and if you can cite the interview or what have you, you satisfy verifiability even without the link. (For example, you can cite a documentary film without having to link to a pirated copy of the documentary somewhere. :)) One concern with sourcing anything to a video hosted on Youtube, however, is that republishers may not be reliable - I recall (but alas have forgotten the details) one discussion about a lengthy series of videos excerpted from a single source there. There was some concern that the excerpts may been edited in such a way as to slant the overall impression left by the original film. While I might not use a Youtube video for that reason to source controversial information, with a fact like this, I don't think that would be a concern.

In terms of the Digital Dayton copy, I myself think it would be okay to link to that page. We wouldn't embed the video or download it for our own usages, and I don't think there's strong reason to suspect that they are hosting it in violation of copyright. I checked their "About", and I don't even find a prohibition against deep linking (which isn't forbidden by our policy but might have ramifications for the user who placed the links.) In an excess of caution, I checked the primary university TOS, and they explicitly permit such links: "The right to create active hyperlinks to any portion of the Web Sites is granted, so long as the active hyperlinks and associated context do not portray the University and/or related originators in a false, offensive, derogatory, or otherwise misleading manner."

Most importantly, it gives all the information necessary for a full citation. If I saw a link to that website hosting that video, I would not remove it, but even if somebody else does, the information should be retainable with the source information provided. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MRG.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey even better, when I click on the link following the "Finding aid" it brings me to this page with a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license. Now I just need to form the reference correctly. I was thinking the Digit Object filename might be a DOI, but it appears not to be. I can create a ref though.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Moonriddengirl, for your usual in-depth assistance. @SPhilbrick, I see that the Gore article has not yet been updated. I'm going to let you handle it, either by yourself, or with the original editor, however you think best. It's been a pleasure doing business with you; I love collegial, collaborative discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

27.33.143.93 and personal attacks

In late 2012 you gave 27.33.143.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a final warning about personal attacks. Clearly the user has learned nothing and continues with abusive editing, e.g. the three most recent contributions to Talk:Hells Angels - "You can GTFO, wannabe scholar. There is already sources in the article which contradict that nonsense. The source was also not acceptable for reasons already stated. You also just rambled on about a load of nonsense. Don't trust what the "Hell Angels" say? Fine MF, there is a reference from the black community saying the same thing, with pictures. I don't trust what you say, because you're a prejudice A-hole". Time for action? --Biker Biker (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeing you were offline I took it to WP:AIV and the editor was blocked for 48 hours. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Great.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Tax choice

Hi, can you please lock tax choice again? SPECIFICO is again removing entire sections of reliably sourced material without bothering to share his concerns on the talk page. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the history since the lock expired, it looks like you are edit-warring with multiple editors, including SPECIFICO, Arthur Rubin, and Famspear. I see from your talk page that your behavior is being discussed. Hopefully, that will be enough to get you to stop. Otherwise, you risk a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Language issues - Reply

Hi there BBB, AL from Portugal here,

I have to agree with your observation, my only defense is: when i come across a message/IP from a given country, my automatic response is to reply in the "appropriate" language. I am ready to provide an adequate translation if/when required.

Sorry for any incovenience --AL (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify (or clariFRY?)..

• I was ok with no indef right now
• I suggested the we re-set the 6 months civility restriction
• I stated that Fry cannot expect us to "forgive" like this again

...were we not arguing the same thing? (at least the first point) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh (section header). I think we are in agreement on the first two points. I was uncomfortable with the third. It's an understandable and not atypical point, but in this case I thought it was perhaps unnecessary. I think we come from different perspectives. Yours is more uninvolved (not in the policy sense but in the English sense) and objective, whereas mine is based on an opinion I formed of Fry during the creation of the conditions. Actually, both perspectives are probably valuable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Downton Abbey and unfortunate resemblances

If you're becoming disenchanted with the third season, then I probably won't spoil things by noting how much he reminds me of him [7]. More cultivated, of course. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say I wasn't going to continue watching; in any case, I would be outvoted by other members of the household whose standards aren't as high as mine. Are you saying that Chambers's physical appearance reminds you of Stevens? I think Stevens is better looking. I'd never heard of Chambers, but I've now edited our article, mostly cosmetically. It's a little better written than some of our other criminal articles, but I didn't verify all the sources. BTW, I didn't actually yell at the television; just spoke out loud bitching about how ridiculous most of it was. I do that during The Good Wife, too, although I'm still "forced" to watch it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Here, too. Ms. 99 (as always, sounds like I'm referring to Barbara Feldon) likes those shows, so I've followed her lead. I've had similar problems with the credibility of plot lines in the Good Wife. There's so much jumping of the shark, presumably to maintain ratings, that at some point one becomes reconciled to unlikely situations and vows to enjoy the actors' craft for its own sake, rather like marveling at the technique of Rubens in some overblown subject he was commissioned to paint. Yes, Stevens reminds me of Chambers, whose macabre claim to fame was unavoidable headline news at a time when I was living in the area. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ahh, that brings back memories... [carry on, carry on] —Theopolisme (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Good Wife plot lines are pretty outrageous, but it's the legal stuff that drives me bananas. I don't expect it to be accurate, but it's in another universe, and, unlike say Ally McBeal, it's not intended to be satirical. Some of the acting is enjoyable, the lead particularly. I used to get a kick out of Kalinda, but the subplot with her husband was too much for me. Will is a total nebish, but I enjoy Diane (fun actress). Alan Cumming is truly disappointing - if he childishly snarls one more time, I'm gonna smack him (back to your Jerry Springer note).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Unsourced trivia alert: a cousin of mine is Kalinda's dialect coach for the show, and also worked with Julianne Moore on Game Change. Now, as for the inevitable decline of western civilization (Springer-wise), I thought the end of days was nigh when he showed up on NY tv in the late 80s. Little did I know that was just the beginning. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

With the addition of the WWW, the advent of streaming, and the ever-increasing use of cell phones, we can now decline so much faster. Here's to more devices, faster connections, and the disappearance of brain cells!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I need to blame rapid technology for the dissipation of my mental faculties. Hmmm. Perhaps Wikipedia is at fault. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to assume based on your comment that you're no longer in your 20s. I was referring to the premature disappearance of brain cells, not the usual degradation that occurs gradually over our life spans. As for "fault", I decided a long time ago that someone or something else is always at fault. Using that "logic", Wikipedia is certainly a candidate, along with undercooked vegetables.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't surprised by tonight's plot twist, but felt awful all the same. Damn fictional doctors. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you mean last night's episode, we haven't watched it yet. We watch almost nothing in real time. The last episode we watched was from the week before (Tom comes back from Ireland and weeps).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not giving much away to say that the weeping's only just begun. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

After the maudlin ending of the episode the week before, it doesn't surprise me. As for fictional doctors, my usual gripe is fictional lawyers and fictional judges (actually whoever writes The Good Wife must really detest judges as they are the wackiest caricatures I've ever seen).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Tv dramas sometimes have a fondness for the wackjob judge, which further complicates the chances for jurisprudence. We're watching Anatomy of a Murder, which features one of the more pleasant characterizations of the bench. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We watched the baby episode. So, why do you say "damn fictional doctors"? Is the dispute between the snob doctor and the country doctor completely implausible (I don't know enough about the medical issues to have an opinion)? I had to get a rag out after the episode to wipe the tears off of the TV screen. Even Thomas was crying (sincerely, too, apparently). In any event, I thought the most important principle to be derived from the episode is prostitutes (or former prostitutes) can't cook. I never knew that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Primarily I was expressing my exasperation with the characters, but even as I had much the same reaction you did, the contrivances annoyed me; one could see which track that train was heading down. It was a tough one to watch, but the many strands of melodrama are a bit conventional in the telling, and tax credibility. Or in other words, it's beginning to look like an old fashioned soap opera to me. As for hookers, perhaps there's only so much one can be asked to do well. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the show jumped the shark in terms of dramatic credibility when Matthew miraculously became un-paralyzed. But I still watch it. Speaking of fictional doctors, my favorites are the ones on Nurse Jackie. You can tell that the show's creators and/or consultants include at least one jaded and bitter nurse, since the physicians are hilarious if hyperbolic caricatures of arrogance and incompetence. MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

@99, I think it's become more and more soap operaish with each episode, although some are worse than others. As for prostitutes, I think it depends on how much one's paying. Don't they have job descriptions and performance reviews like so many other working stiffs (heh)? @MastCell, the whole evolution of Matthew's character has become ridiculous, and marriage to Mary hasn't helped. As for fictional doctors, I don't watch medical shows, so I see doctors only when they are incidental to some other show.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Abiah Jones

Hello there. I am Starship9000. I noticed that I can no longer create the page Abiah Jones and I wonder who protected that page from being created? --Starship9000 (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I did. You created the article three times, and each time it was deleted for the same reason (WP:CSD#A7). Jones is not sufficiently notable to justify an article here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, one thing I know about here is that she fell from the Giant Wheel at Morey's Piers during her school trip. That is a thing I know about here. Is there anything notable about her besides that? You protected the page because it was deleted because I was not specific about her? --Starship9000 (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not enough to make an article about her (or the event) notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Any websites about her?--Starship9000 (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked; it's "your" article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, friend

I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page (User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad

I don't have a strong grasp of the reliability of many Arabic news sources so am asking this to have a better understanding. This is about my lack of knowledge, not any prejudice. The entire world has unreliable news sources and the US perhaps more then most. I just usually have a better grasp of which Western sources are more or less reliable.

I was curious about which part of the reverted edit [8] was not "notable" since there were several parts. I am inclined to think that a reliable report of a first lady's pregnancy in the midst of a warzone may be notable. Was the reversion because of the Al-Akhbar source and the fact that The Guardian article used Al-Akhbar as their primary source?. Was it that the original source was not reliable enough? I do support you also removing yet another link to the discredited "Rose in the Desert" copyright vio. I'm just looking for clarification. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Veriss, you're trying to keep me honest. You're right; I used an axe when I should have used a scalpel. I've added back in the pregnancy report (reworded). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply. So now I'm back to wondering if Al-Akhbar is a reliable source or not. Do you have any leads I could track down? Veriss (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know a thing about it. You could take to WP:RSN and hope you find someone who is more knowledgeable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Good tip, thanks. Veriss (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• I looked over the article for Al Akhbar (Lebanon) and found this statement: "The New York Times has criticized it for 'too much reliance on single sources, and news pages that often show a loose mingling of fact, rumor and opinion." " I decided that it was not a reliable source and will remove the assertion she is pregnant from the Assad article. I won't clutter the WP:RSN with a request unless the original editor protests. Regards, Veriss (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly a reasoned approach. In addition, if she's really pregnant, there ought to be other sources supporting it. It's a sensitive enough issue (about a BLP) that I think we need high-quality and/or multiple sources. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. Though since the editor has protested on the article's talk page, I feel that we should take our discussion there. Kind Regards, Veriss (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Marcospace - Bits and pieces

Hi there BBB,

can't say that i am pleased with your approach in this user's talkpage, reverting me twice when: 1 - i provided the translation required in the second time; 2 - you are not directly involved in any of the items discussed therein. My words may not have been the "best in the bunch" in the case it seems, but what i meant is that he was welcome to return and contribute (is he not?) if he ceased his bickering against nearly all of the WP guidelines (can't teach him that if he does not want to, he's 30). He's not BANNED is he? If he is, then yes, my words were poor and i apologize, if he is not then where did i go wrong? There is a difference between banned and blocked, is there not? People can reform eventually and become model editors no?

If you could reinstate my message (without the last controversial bit if you want) i'd highly appreciate it, but why would you do that after reverting me twice? Out of respect for you, i won't reinstate it myself unless you allow me (of course sans the "do create another account" part!), but i'd be very displeased if you thought ill of me, i don't tolerate vandals and their ways, i don't encourage them, i try to be nice to everyone but my bipolar condition often gets the best of me, especially when dealing with the damn trolls. Therefore, it hurts my feelings to have my well-intended action deemed "inappropriate". In NO WAY did my words to Marco mean "Continue socking man, i won't tell anyone, and we'll continue talking in Portuguese if we want to". If you got that impression, again i apologize.

Attentively, from Portugal - --AL (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, AL. I do not think ill of you. Indeed, based on our short acquaintance, I like you. But even without the "controversial bit", I still think your comment doesn't belong on the user's talk page. Remember, you're really talking, not to Marcospace, but to Raulseixas, as that's who Marcospace is. Raulseixas was blocked indefinitely in May of last year, although he was reported as early as 2010. He's not just a sock master. The motives behind his socking negatively impact Wikipedia. What is it that you find so constructive about both Marcospace's and Raulseixas's edits that you want to encourage him to return? I stand by my removal of your comment, but I have no objection if you want to run it by another admin to get some more input. And there's no need to apologize. I know we're disagreeing here, but we're doing so respectfully, which is good and healthy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe it was because of the same language we share and the fact that i remember it well it was i who first got to talk with this person after he "went all cylinders in his first year", removing/reverting stuff and not talking to anyone, i'd like to think i helped him (sort of, i know) fit in.

But that's OK mate, i REALLY understand your wiki-motives and approach, this is indeed disruptive behaviour. --AL (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Scholes

Maybe you could do something about the IP edit on this article and the user behind it. If that's not too much to ask. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 3 months, but I feel compelled to comment on your approach to this. First, you should have taken this to WP:AIV. It doesn't appear to me that you have, but it's hard to check the history of the board given how active it is. Second, your comment on the IP's talk page ("Any admin worth their salt who can just ban this IP address? No, didn't think so.") is offensive. Moreover, it's not even in your best interest as it's more likely to tick off an admin rather than permit him or her to look at the situation neutrally. I know I had to push that comment out of my head as I looked at the IP's history, and it wasn't easy to do. My ultimate conclusion was that this IP, who according to Geolocate is static, has almost never made a constructive edit in their history, and the only reason they haven't been blocked since 2010 is because they edit sporadically. Their edits are disruptive and drain resources that could be better used elsewhere. So, I blocked, and I made it long enough to have some effect.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"First, you should have taken this to WP:AIV" Sounds like you're passing the buck here. You're an admin, right? I brought it to your attention for some action. Which you have done. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But you're NOT supposed to randomly choose admins - some would perceive that as "shopping for a friendly admin". Besides, Bb could have been away for a week, and the problem could have continued until you forum-shopped somewhere else. Always go to the right place the first time, and AIV is usually the fastest (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not randomly choosing an admin - I'm choosing this one. Can you point to the policy that specifically prohibits this? If BB was away for a week, then there should be a notice to that affect, otherwise, what's the point in him being an admin? Amazing how another admin pops up after the event too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Admins, per the admin policy, are never required to use their tools. Therefore, asking a specific one to do something is ridiculous, and inappropriate. They are also not required to advise you or anyone that they will be away for a week. You've been a reasonable editor for awhile, but you seem to be getting yourself into a snit for some bizarro reason, and it's certainly not making you look good (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you BWilkins, but in this instance somehow I don't think Lugnuts thinks of me as a friendly admin. :-) In any event, I did what I thought was right for Wikipedia, regardless of Lugnuts's approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup ... he's certainly bringing additional attention to himself (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

EscapeX Edit wars starting up again

Hi there. Please can further action be taken against EscapeX? After being banned, his first action when coming back was to reinstate his disputed edits to 3 articles (the ones discussed on his talk page). This time, he's been using false/misleading edit summary text to make it look like he's come round, but in fact it's just a straight copy/paste of what he tried to put in before. All the points/arguments/policies have been made very clearly to him, but he just keeps ignoring everything and putting his content back against consensus. It should be noted that This Is It (concerts) had been Protected until 8 February, for incorrect introduction of the word "tour". It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.54 (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I've left a warning on their talk page. Please let me know if there are further problems (also, try to give me links to the articles so I don't have to dig around).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I'm not the only one editing those pages. I have not been giving out false/misleading edit summaries. Compare [this page] to [this page]. I do not ignore the policies. Where does it say in Wikipedia that we can't use "featuring"? If anyone is ignoring everything, it's that IP user. I tried compromising with him but he won't listen. None of this would've been happening if he hadn't made those edits in the first place. EscapeX (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have asked to have the page(s) locked - both should be under a 1revert sanction after there vacation. - left note on both there pages.Moxy (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Looks to me like User:Scottywong took the right action in blocking both editors. This was partly my fault for "forgetting" that the IP had been blocked for the same behavior, so I should have warned or blocked both of them, not just EscapeX. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And again after ban

Please see List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson - the user seems bent on having every song using exactly the same word, even when it's not appropriate (although this time it's a different word to before, so at least they seem to admit they got it wrong in the previous edits). Possibly, English isn't their first language (see also their use of the word "tour" on the non-touring concerts linked above). Another possibility is that they're just being vindictive against me, or otherwise that it's just some sort of joke. Otherwise, I'm at a loss to know how we should proceed.

Team Lloyd Irvin

I have not entered anything defamatory.

Everything posted is absolutely true. Defamation requires the information to be false. If you do not want the truth posted on Wikipedia then that page should be deleted. Warisart (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I probably shouldn't have used a template, which is why I added my own comments afterward. Putting aside the legal issue of whether the material is defamatory, the material is prohibited by policy. If you believe the article should be deleted, you are free to nominate it. My only concern is policy violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the information is absolutely true and is not defamatory because of being true. I have nominated the page for deletion. It is a blatant advertisement and removing negative things that have occurred makes it even more of an advertisement. Warisart (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your AfD after I posted my comment above. A friendly suggestion: normally AfD is a test of notability and is decided by consensus based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In the reason you give for your nomination, you would do better to focus on those guidelines rather than your somewhat hyperbolic comments. Even if you're right that the article should be deleted (I have no opinion at this point), you undermine your credibility by your own nominating remarks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried really hard to clean up a page that was constantly being vandalized, and it keeps being reset to an advertisement that is completely unbalanced. It contains no references to third party information and any negativity about the organization is constantly removed (even when referenced properly). It should be deleted. I have changed the nomination to reflect that. Warisart (talk)

Mezzo

I think this edit by Mezzo is somewhat problametic. It appears he is attempting to make takfir on Barelvis when he says their early leadership was non-Islamic. But i do respect your judgement nonetheless and i noticed you noticed it too. Pass a Method talk 21:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I kind of dealt with the whole thing on a somewhat superficial level from a content perspective as I don't know much about it. On that level, the other editor's conduct was clearly more disruptive than Mezzo's, even though, as I said at ANEW, some of Mezzo's edits and comments appeared problematic. Ultimately, it was a judgment call on my part, but I expressly left it open to other admins to take further action if they felt it was warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

MetadataTouch deletion

Hello,

You have deleted the page MetadataTouch due to "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I read the criteria, and I don't think it fits. The article wan on a software product, but I wrote it in an encyclopedic manner from a neutral point of view. Please restore the article. Dipru (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The short article was borderline. The tone was not unduly promotional (one phrase was a bit much), but the language came close to being a copyright violation as it fairly mirrored the product website. I'm going to stand by my decision. However, you can take it to WP:DRV, or it's possible that one of my talk page stalkers will take a look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese

Long time no see. Sorry to bug, but can you look ate the recent edit by Roscelese on Maafa_21. She is intent on attributing the actions of one person to a group [9]. This issue has been raised on the talk page [10]and she fails to discuss, but rather edit as she likes when opinions differ. Unfortunately, based on past behavior I find her actions are designed to provoke more than improve the article.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the material you reference above is no longer in the article. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI close

You closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Procedural/canvassing issue in ongoing RfA with the comment that "it's now closed." What's closed? The RfA is still running. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Staberinde noted that Dirtlawyer had not notified anyone of the ANI topic. Without deciding whether anyone had to be notified, I said, "No need to notify anyone as it's now closed." "it" refers to the ANI topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Barelvi

I expect your further cooperation in improving Barelvi Page Article which is disliked by some section.Many People regularly tries to put Negative Info about this movement.If u have time may i suggest u something from neutral point of view regarding this Article?Non constructive edits have lead this situation there.I tried a bit aggressively to tell others that people are editing it according their agenda.Msoamu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't intend to become involved in content disputes on the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

GWB

Looks like we're at it again. . . . — Bdb484 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've dealt with it, on the article, on the editor's talk page, and at ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Chris Messina "Stage" section deletion

You reverted edits I made on the Chris Messina page (Chris_Messina)(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Messina&action=history), including the creation of an entire section called "Stage". I am a newbie at wikipedia editing, and perhaps do not understand the policies fully. I was not sure that citing was needed in this kind of section, as it does not appear to be needed in the similar Filmography and TV sections. Requiring it for this section seems to be an additional burden not required in those other sections. That being said, I have sources for the entire section. Considering that the section took me quite a bit of time to gather and assemble from various and numerous sources (as well as quite a bit of time to format as a newbie), I would prefer if I would be allowed to undo your reversion with the addition of posting a 'citations needed' flag in the Stage title section. This would allow me to continue to edit the section actively, providing and filling in the sources I've gathered over a reasonable period of time.

Could you please offer me your consideration in this matter? I believe this section is an important section that adds new content to the page; content that documents significant stage work Messina did prior to his TV and Film work. This most complete list of stage work does not exist in any other place, as it has been gathered through sizable and original research that I have conducted over a period of time from various sources (theatrical listings, reviews, and database sites, etc.). It is an original researched list that has not been compiled in any one place until now. I would appreciate your consideration and allowing me to complete the documentation on the page as I have suggested - as I know of no other way to maintain the formatted list that I had created, so as to insert the necessary citing links into it as needed.

In addition, as a newbie, I'm finding it difficult to understand the correct format for citing an external link, which these sources are in most all cases. Might you be able to offer me a suggestion, or point me to a link that suggests the correct and best form for such links, so I can cite them correctly? Thank you for your kind consideration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miggseye

Here's what I suggest. Go back to a revision where your section is in the article. Edit that version and copy the section. Then paste it into your sandbox. That way you don't lose it. In addition, you can work on it there until it looks good and is sourced, and then you can re-add it to the article. As for citing it, it is cited just as anything at Wikipedia. Look at WP:CITE. Just create inline footnotes using the ref tags and the {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} templates as appropriate.

With respect to your comments about the filmography not requiring the same sources, this is more convention than policy. If a film has an article on Wikipedia and the article supports the fact that Messina is in it, it doesn't need to be sourced. Even if there is no article, if I look at IMDb and see that Messina was in the film, I generally accept it unless it seems off-the-wall. Now, IMDb is weird at Wikipedia. It is not considered a reliable source because it is editable by anyone just like Wikipedia, and most experienced editors don't like it if it's used as a citation. That said, some kinds of material from IMDb are more reliable than others, and that includes films, etc., that have already been released (upcoming films are less reliable). The problem with stage stuff is it doesn't have the benefits of all those things, and, therefore should be sourced in a more policy-compliant way.

I hope all this makes sense. If you have more questions or would like some help, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, THAT'S what the Sandbox is for! Thank you for the very wise and sensible suggestion.

I do have one other question. In regards to formatting this new section - to put Stage work in a "Filmography" section seems correct in the sense of being a similar listing of works of an actor, as are those indicating Film and TV work. However, Stage work is not "film" and so the term "Filmography" seems odd. What is your take on this? It seems to me appropriate that Stage work be added to the same section, with perhaps the current heading "Filmography" being changed to "Filmography and Other Work" or Filmography and Other Performance Works". Or is there perhaps a different way of handling this? It doesn't seem right to put Stage work in a separate section, as the clear intent of a "Filmography" heading generally is to include the lists of works of a particular actor. Any thoughts on this?--Miggseye (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question, and there's no good answer. At least, the articles are not consistent. So, I'll just give you my opinion. I think all the actor's works belong in one section with subsections for each kind of work. So, I would call the main section "Works" and the subsections "Film", "Television", and "Stage".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Also thank you for your coaching earlier re:citing. It made it much clearer for me to be able to complete it quickly and efficiently through Sandbox. Much appreciated.Miggseye (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at the newly revised Stage section I created and telling me whether your thoughts? I'm thinking one of the following two things should be done:

1) While accurate and complete, including the theater information in the notes column may be distracting (and perhaps not necessary for the majority of people interested in this article). I could delete the theater info (the information would still be available to anyone drilling in and clicking on one of the references) and then the notes column would carry more not worthy info, for example Messina's Broadway debut

OR 2) I could include the theatre information in a separate column, and the notes column again would carry more noteworthy info. In this case if the theaters remain in the article I could add links to each theater, which provides some rich links. All in all, I'd appreciate your feedback as this is my first major contribution to an article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miggseye (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the theater and production column, so I'd keep both it and the Notes column (don't forget that if you say something like Messina's debut, you have to support that assertion with a source). However, don't use imbedded URLs for those companies that don't have Wikipedia articles. Also, leave off the place. Putting all the refs in the Notes column is not a good idea, in my view. If you want to have a references column, I've seen that done, but then nothing else should be in the column. What about combining the opening and closing dates into one column called "Run" or something like that? That would save space. Also, not to be a pest, but you still have a problem with accessdate. Every ref should have one and it should be "current". Finally, all the play names should be italicized. I'm glad you're enjoying the work. It'll be very helpful to you if you continue editing here and tackle other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Just saw these comments tonight. I have corrected the access dates in the ones that I had included them. Will go through all references and make sure they are present. Still getting the hang of things. Thanks for your formatting pointers. Like the "Run" idea. Will italicize all of the Play Names. Will revise again. Not clear on when to use imbedded URLs and when not to. I cited a link adjacent to "Messina's debut". I guess the preference is to use a Wikipedia link or a cited note rather than embedded URL? When is it OK to use an embedded link? Don't understand what you meant when you said "leave off the place". Thanks for your input. I made content additions to the FILMOGRAPHY as well, noting awards. Would appreciate any suggestions formatting or otherwise. I noted Awards that Messina was winner of. Also noted when the Film won a best picture or equal, as I believe that reflects on the cast as well. After I get the formatting, sourcing and content tight in the works section, I may take a whack at development of the narrative section above, as it needs some work. But first things first. Thanks again. Be well. Miggseye (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Miggseye (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of stuff to tell you about (I've looked at your latest changes):

1. You should never use imbedded URLs. If there's no wikilink because there's no article and it's necessary to point to the company's website, then you should include a ref and stick the bare URL in there (even though that's also frowned upon as "link rot"). Generally, you just don't do anything. I'm not sure where our guidelines say not to use imbedded URLs, but I'm 90% certain it's discouraged. Maybe I'll ask someone.
2. "leave off the place": you don't need to include the location of the theater (e.g., NY, NY).
3. You started editing the filmography. Don't cite to IMDb. It just isn't done. For those films for which there is a WP article, it's not necessary. And even for those without, as long as the film is listed at IMDb, you don't have to source it. The only time a film needs to be sourced, in my view, is if we have no article AND there is nothing listed at IMDb, so there's no way to know it's true.
4. It's not conventional to have lots of notes about the character (e.g., Ira and Abby). I wouldn't include it.
5. There's a way to cite to a section in a Wikipedia article. You generally should not use an imbedded URL (see Shoe books). Try to figure out how to do it if you can from reading up on it. It'll give you good practice hunting down Wikipedia guidelines, which can truly be daunting for a newbie, and even sometimes hard for an experienced editor. The central problems are (a) it's not always intuitive and (b) not everything on the same topic is in the same guideline. If you can't figure it out, ask, and I'll help you.
6. You started putting awards in the notes. That's a good idea, but you have to do it in the way it's normally done. Look at other articles for help with that. There are templates and conventions and wikilinks (sometimes) to articles of the award giver.

I think that's enough for now. I'm glad you seem to be enjoying this. It's not often that I go to this much trouble to help a new editor, but you're a pleasure to deal with.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. And advice. Your are very pleasant as well and kind to lend a hand. Will address all points you mention, as well as earlier reference citing errors. Looking to complete this and have it meet WP standards. Nothing like a job well done, eh?Miggseye (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Bit confused

Re this. {{Db-attack}}, for better or for worse, automatically blanks the article. (I'm not sure what markup trick it uses, but I tried to add the AfD template after it, and that didn't work.) I'm just unclear, based on your edit summary, as to whether you were declining DC's CSD (←palindrome), or objecting to the auto-blanking. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite a palindrome. Think of it as declining the CSD. It took me a bit to understand what was going on, but the G10 seemed a circumvention of the AfD discussion. I also think it's a stretch to apply a G10 to an article like that. It doesn't attack a person. It doesn't attack an entity. It arguably attacks a rather large diffuse group of people, but that's kind of what the article is about in the first instance. Let an admin (not me at this point) decide how to close the AfD discussion when that's appropriate. Remember, there's nothing wrong with editing the article, just blanking it or removing the AfD tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) And yeah, I agree. As I said at the AfD, I was tempted to G11 as blatant POV-pushing, but decided against it. Besides, I would've missed out on the great SNOWstorm this AfD is now turning into, which is always nice for morale. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned you

At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 13‎‎. Obviously I don't think you did anything wrong, but, for whatever reason, I felt like humoring him. Now go hang a salami; I'm a lasagna hog! — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, although I would have preferred your not mentioning me. FWIW, I commented. It doesn't really matter - it's going to go nowhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. :( Figured it was best to be as forthcoming as possible from my side, to make sure I'm in the clear if I wind up having to take this to ANI. I suppose commenting on possible policy violations by others, even if just to say that I don't feel they occurred, was going a little overboard. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement: Origin of the Name

RE: The_Zeitgeist_Movement

Hi Bbb23 -

I think we should re-add the "Origin of the Name" section to the page that was reverted on 12 February 2013 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=537841382&oldid=537444139).

The name of the movement contains a word ("Zeitgeist") that is not often used or understood. As such, I feel that an explanation of the name is both relevant and helpful.

As for the 'copyright vio', the TZM orientation guide is under a Creative Commons license, as evidenced here (http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/creative-commons-license) and here (http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/uploads/upload/file/15/TZM_Defined_-_Essays_1-10.pdf), so there is no copyright violation.

Could you please re-add the section on my behalf, or tell me how I can do it myself?

I've included the section below for reference.

Kind regards,

Jeremyhoke (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Jeremyhoke

Jeremy, thanks for the link to the copyright license. What I would do is take what you had, pare it down (it's too long), and try to weave it into the History section (note that the first sentence of that section already says something about the name). I don't think it needs its own section. I'd rather let you do it as the impetus to add it comes from you. Let me know if I can help.

Just so you know, that article has a very controversial history, so you might get some pushback from other editors if they think your edit is inappropriate. If that happens, the best thing to do is to go to the article talk page and ask people to discuss your changes. Whatever you do, don't battle over it in the article. For guidance, look at WP:BRD and also WP:EW.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the Name

According to the movement's orientation guide, the name "The Zeitgeist Movement" has no relevant historical reference to anything culturally specific and is not associated with anything else known before with a similar title. Rather, the name is based upon the semantic meaning of the two terms it contains. The term "Zeitgeist" is defined as the "general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era," and the term "Movement" implies "motion or change." Therefore, The Zeitgeist Movement is an organization which urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.[11]

No talk about Downton

But if you've got time for some mind-numbing detective work, I present you Awoods88 (talk · contribs), who's made hundreds of contributions in the last few months, of the press release variety, and quite under the radar. I've tagged the relevant articles, left the user a note, and copyedited one, Ray Sharma. Really like the photo on your user page. So many places I'd like to visit, and neither time nor funds. Must learn how to do insider trading. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my, that's a mess. I wonder who he works for. I tagged the Fashion Boutique article for speedy deletion. I hacked the Sharma article. I haven't had a chance to tackle the XMG article. BTW, you should feel free to remove any copyright violations from any article. You might want to remove the copyright tag from the Sharma article now - I think I got rid of all of the violations.

That was one of my favorite hikes. We were staying in Hope, Canada, and it was kind of a rainy trip. When we went to the park, it rained almost all the way over. Once we got into the park, the rain stopped, and the clouds started to lift. The setting for the hike felt like we were in heaven.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Qworty's followed up nicely on these as well.

I'm an east coast brat, but many years ago summered at a (then) girfriend's family camp in the Rideau Lakes. Closest I've been to forsaking the creature comforts, wouldn't do it again now, but it was wonderful. Walked along the path one morning and greeted a porcupine coming toward me. Not a mountainous landscape, but beautiful. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We love hiking. Most of our vacations include at least some hiking, and almost all of them are to non-urban spots. But we like to be comfortable and we don't camp. Sometimes I think about backpacking because I'm sure we miss a lot by not going deeper into the wilderness, but then I think how much work it would be (and what a coward I am), and I push it out of my mind. In my view, there's nothing like the combination of a wonderful place to stay, great food, and beautiful scenery. If we backpacked, I'd have to give up two of those three things.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. We find nice houses on the Maine coast each year, for a few days or a week at a time; not long enough, but this time of year I bank on the memories. Sometimes I'd like to do the way north thing, but without the dying in a canoe part. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-related issue to AN3

Over the past month I've been dealing with Blackgaia02 (talk · contribs) who kept posting unsourced information to a similar page. You can see my discussions with him/her here, here, and here. From these conversations, other conversations in the past, and as evident from his/her user talk, it seems that Blackgaia02 gets too emotionally attached to whatever he edits.

Last night, in regards to the Animegirl14 edit warring, I started a discussion on the talk page, and invited three editors, including Blackgaia02 to participate. Only one person responded, so I decided to see if the others had edited. That's where I found this response. I honestly do not know how to respond to this as it will only result in another emotional outburst from Blackgaia02, and it will only serve to prove that Blackgaia02 does not have the emotional maturity to be a part of this project, even though his/her edits are generally constructive and done in good faith.

TL;DR would you mind speaking to Blackgaia02 for me?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done so; I hope it helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Not making a new thread, Animegirl14 is now socking as Animefangirl14 (talk · contribs).—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick check

Hi Bbb23, just grabbing the last admin to post at ANI, hence I know you are online. this request looks okay to me. Can you spare 60 seconds to just see there's nothing I've missed? Many thanks. If not I'll grab someone else. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It would take me more than 60 seconds as I'm not that familiar with the procedures. Would you mind "grabbing" another admin? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Chat

I want to remove the "United Church of Canada" from the lede of the same-sex marriage article because it is a domestic/national organization which is inappropriate for a global article. Am i allowed to make this edit considering i edit warred there previously? Pass a Method talk 08:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The edit-warring block is relatively old (November 25, 2012). However, I don't remember - and am not going to look - what the edit-war was about. Assuming it wasn't about what you want to do now, I don't see a problem as long as you don't war over your removal. Of course, if you're at all concerned that your change may present a problem, it never hurts to raise it on the talk page before editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of content

Hi there, I saw that you nominated an article we wrote on Spreaker for a speedy deletion. Perhaps i did not follow the guidelines correctly and would like to rectify this. Can i re-submit it? Also, why was it considered spam? Many thanks in advance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonia.Maffeo (talk • contribs) 08:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the article because it was too promotional. The article has been deleted four times (I was the fourth), the first three times for other reasons, although the first three versions were quite short (yours is much longer). You can try to recreate it, but I strongly urge you to (a) tone it down (avoid phrases like "They shared the same vision of allowing people to go live from everywhere in a very easy way." and " It is a safe space where users can freely express themselves among fellow broadcasters." and "Spreaker offers additional features to users with paid subscriptions.") and (b) provide secondary sources supporting the application's notability. Although (b) is not strictly required to pass a WP:CSD#A7, it helps make any claims more credible. Beware of the fact that the more times it's recreated and deleted, the more likely an administrator will prevent its recreation completely (see WP:SALT).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for info! We'll follow your advice and attempt a rewrite. Tonia.MaffeoTonia.Maffeo (talk)

User:SwediePie again, now WP:Sockpuppeting

Three days after you blocked SwediePie, an IP showed up making edits that I deduced to be edits made by SwediePie.[12][13] Then SwediePie showed up three three days later to make the same edit that led to her block. (I use the word "her" in this case because I'm certain that the editor is female.) We had a new exchange of words on my talk page, but five minutes before I replied, a "new editor" showed up to make the same edit as SwediePie while defending SwediePie's edit; this "new editor" also made an edit similar to the IP's. (The choice for both user names is why I'm certain that SwediePie is female, by the way.) I noted the sockpuppeting in the article's edit history,[14][15] and later mentioned it at SwediePie's talk page. Like I told SwediePie, instead of going ahead and starting a WP:Sockpuppet investigation, I decided to report this to you to see if you will block her on a WP:DUCK basis. And I'm not as certain that SwediePie is that IP, especially since a different IP is shown as her in my talk page edit history (though she may be IP-hopping), but it's highly likely that it is. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's been dealt with by User:Alison, no?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I did think it was a possibility that she would take care of it since she watches my talk page. It's still not as clear that the IP is SwediePie, since it's not blocked.

Anyway, I appreciate that you took the time to look over this. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Article moves

Hi there. Would you be kind enough to process my requested moves for these 2 articles ([16] & [17]) ? According to the BBC, a letter from the PM's Office instructs that "The Gambia" is the official name with "The" always capitalized. I believe this is uncontroversial, the Beeb is a very reputable and reliable source. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Fry, I feel uncomfortable moving the pages given the history (particularly the discussion in 2010 about the issue that reached no consensus). It also has an impact on the Gambia article itself. I think it would be better to obtain a consensus for the moves.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephen M. Cohen

You complained about my first edit and requested that I find other sources. After finding the Forbes Article without doing an edit, I Open the talk page for discussion on a consensus with an ending date of Feburary 10, 2012. At no time were you a part of this consensus.

In the consensus discussion, I stated what I planed on editing. Wikipedia editor Nomoskedasticity wanted a second source on why the summary judgment case was so important. I was only able to find legal opinions and therefore agreed to leave it out of my edit.

When the time period ended I did my edit. You immediately jumped in on my edit stating that my source was a blog. However, if you had looked at the article and not the talk page you would have noticed that I put in the actual article [18] this article was not the blog and it was published on January 19, 2013.

I mean no disrespect but it seems to me that you do not want anyone editing the Cohen page even when it is properly sourced. Maybe a arbitration request is the proper way to resolve this.

I am a new editor and I am trying to make sure of the accuracy of the information with a neutral point of view as I do not have a conflict of interest.

I now understand why so many editors have left Wikipedia according to the article "Criticism of Wikipedia" subsection, "Complaints about administrator abuse." I find myself wondering if Wikipedia really wants new editors who follow the rules set by Wikipedia. Vanessamx (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't be able to respond to this until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That is ok, please enjoy your night. Forbes deleted the article however I was able to find it again at [19] and you have to search Cohen. Vanessamx (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vanessamx (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Bob: I will get back to you in a few days to discuss this issue. I have the flu and as soon as I am well I will get back to you Vanessamx (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you're sick, Vanessa. I hope you feel better soon. (It's Bbb or Bbb23, by the way.)--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hello Bbb23, You deleted a page "speedy deletion" that I was creating/editing about Raja Nawathe. I request yo to kindly reinstate the article. There is little information available on this film director/producer - although his film has received a National Award for best feature film in 1956. I would like to throw some light on this movie maker. Personally, I have no connection (family, or otherwise). Hence I'm totally taken aback that it was deemed unfit for Wikipedia. I am not misusing, or abusing, nor am I doing this for personal gain.

Please reinstate, I earnestly request. Thank you. Pictowrit (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)pictowrit

All you had in the article was an infobox.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I was in the midst of editing; I admit, had not saved the rest of the matter... will you reinstate? :) Thanks. Pictowrit (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)pictowrit

There's no need for me to "reinstate" as you've alraedy recreated the article. It doesn't look speedily deletable now. However, it would be helpful if you could do a little work on it to add secondary sources in support of the material. Also, I'd get rid of words like "stupendous". They're not very encyclopedic.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Abiah Jones

Please unprotect the page Abiah Jones because I really want to recreate it. Is Jones notable? --Starship9000 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your closure at ANEW

here is a little flawed mate, can you take a look at my comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Also see here[20] Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

wondering

Hi,

Thought I would ask you about something, since you've been working on the New Pages. I was working on cleaning up an article when another editor tag bombed it. The article is Don Gilmore (producer). I didn't write it. I was just trying to fix it up when it got bombed. Do you think the tags are over the top for a new article? When I removed some of the tags that I had fixed, I was reverted and warned by the editor for edit waring. Am I in the wrong? Thanks! Star767 (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The tags appear to be legitimate. I don't see that you've "fixed" any of the problems the tags relate to. Until you do that, you shouldn't remove them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the section "Production Credits" that is tagged as a BLP violation is referenced i.e.Don Gilmore - Credits : AllMusic

I don't see how that section violated BLP. Also, I don't see any Wikipedia:Bare URLs. I thought it was not good practice to tag bomb an article like that. But that's ok. I won't worry about it any more. I was just trying to help out. Star767 (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I upgraded the refs and removed the linkrot tag. I moved the allmusic ref to the top so it's clear that it supports the list (don't know if it does and don't know if allmusic is considered a reliable source) and removed the tag. I put in one cat and removed the tag. Editors often use BLP tags just because the article is about a BLP - doesn't mean that it necessarily violates BLP in the sense of putting in negative information. Don't get discouraged. Helping out is good.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I've been making sure each addition is referenced in the article. (The reference supports everything! - And allmusic is a reliable source for this type of thing.) Best wishes, Star767 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

IL & Wikidata

This is a technical data that I know nothing about. So please look at this message from User:Addshore to User_talk:SethAllen623#Wikidata_and_Interwiki_links . Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Even for Wikipedia, I'm not sure how they could have made the implementation of wikidata any more confusing. Take a look at this topic at WP:AN. Note that it says that you can remove interwiki links from any page that is "linked to a wikidata item". Note also that if you look at the Supreme Court page now, you'll see that the wikilinks are there and the "edit links" link at the bottom of them will take you to the Supreme Court item (list). So, at least for this article, I see nothing wrong with the removal. If for some reason a wikilink is missing from the wikilink item, I believe the proper thing to do is to add it to the item (not to our article). Of course, I haven't compared the "old" list with the new one. I hope this makes as much/little sense to you as it does to me. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

. Many thanks. (Even if I know even less than I did a minute ago!) – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I need you to look into this

Hi,

I need your feedback, please don't ignore the request. User:Darkness Shines is again behaving unreasonably this time on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. Our terse conversation can be seen here; it won't take long just go through the discussion. He wants to include a assertion that is not supported by the source. He wants a third opinion. It's a black and white issue. The assertion is not supported by the source.

I would have taken this to RSN or NOR but these topics relating to Kashmir and Human rights abuses have a knack of becoming pariah. Just tell me what to do. Please don't abandon the issue. He btw got out of a week-long block recently. Thank you in advance.. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 03:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the dispute is geographic. In the quote from the source, which you very nicely posted on the talk page, it mentions two items: (1) Chhattisgarh in India's Northeast and (2) that corner of the subcontinent. I don't know much about it, but I looked at our article, States and territories of India. Assuming it's accurate, Chhattisgarh is in the central part of India (#5 on the map), and Kashmir and Jammu (#10 on the map), which are apparently one state, is in the northern tip. If the source is saying that Indian forces used children only in Chhattisgarh, the material is irrelevant to the article. As for the second part ("corner of the subcontinent"), I wouldn't call Chhattisgarh a "corner" as it's surrounded by other states. But even if it's a corner, the source says it's in the northeast. That's a bit of a stretch. It's definitely east, and it's barely north (center seems more accurate on a vertical line), but, in any event, I don't see how that "corner" can include Kashmir.

Without another source, I would say the material should not be included. You can point DS here if he's willing to consider my analysis a third opinion (obviously, it's not a formal one).

(As a procedural aside, DS's block is irrelevant to this issue. He was blocked for personal attacks. I don't see any of that here.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I would if MRT had given the full page to ya, it is a shame when people only read as far as suits them. Just after the bit about kids being used by Pakistani militants would be "In these conflict areas also it has been reported that children have been recruited by state-backed anti-insurgency forces with the full knowledge of Indian authorities." So it is supported. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't follow what you're saying, DS. I don't see anything about "Pakistani militants" on the talk page. And where is your quote in the book - after "corner of the subcontinent"?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You have to read the entire page to see the context mate. Can you access a proxy server based in the UK? If so you can see the page on GBooks.[21] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW "corner of the subcontinent" refers not to the North east, but to the entire region. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any idea how to access a UK proxy server. However, to make your point, you're going to have to be clearer and quote more from the book. As for subcontinent, you're forcing me to learn stuff (smile). According to our article, the subcontinent includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka. Assuming that's accurate, I'm not sure what "corner" means, but it sounds like it is better support for the material than I had at first thought. Couldn't you perhaps find another source for this so the material would be more clearly supported?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I can find another source sure, will get to it later today. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Great.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Till then can I revert the inclusion of the material?? It is a tad contentious assertion and is being used in inappropriate context. The source says, ″children as young as 10 are reported to be used by Pakistan-based militants in Jammu & Kashmir as messengers and couriers, but some have also been used to throw grenades and plant bombs.″ It is DS's synthesis for the nonce that says Indian government is using children as messengers in kashmir. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrator, do something for heaven's sake. See this. Darkness is unnecessarily making it seem like an edit-war. What on earth is going on? The source doesn't say that India government uses children in Kashmir. I have the source online here. Read it yourself please. Anything beyond that is an abject synthesis. DS, on 10 February 2013 said, "I can find another source sure, will get to it later today." He didn't add the source. Now he is edit warring again. Please stop this. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

DS, I assume you're reading this. My read of the page provided by Mrt is that it isn't clear enough that the Indian forces are being used in that particular area of India. Without a clearer source, I'd remove it. I'm not going to enforce that because I'm offering this as a neutral opinion, not as an involved editor. I'd like to remain uninvolved from an administrator perspective. In that vein, both of you are edit-warring, and if that continues, it's likely to lead to sanctions for both of you or a lock of the article. Finally, as a nit, the word is "spies".--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sighs heavily. "The case of child soldiers is not new in India. Since there are several non-state armed groups fighting on the ground of ideology, ethnicity and linguistic, regional, religious and poverty. These armed groups have recruited child soldiers. In addition to the non-state armed groups, there are cases of children being recruited for the state security force as well. In a province of India, five-year and ten year old boys are found serving the state police57. The following information reflects the situation of children working as child soldiers in India. The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) reported that currently, at least 118 of India’s 604 districts are facing armed anti-state activities. In all of these conflict-affected districts, child soldiers are being recruited by both parties to the conflict (ALRC: 2007)58. Children and youth are involved with insurgent groups in a number of states including Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkand, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Jammu and Kashmir" Will that one do? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Where is that quote from, DS? I don't see it on page 106 (is the page linked to by Mrt not complete?). If the quote is from another source, how come it isn't cited in the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I told you finding another source was easy, I just did not have time to get around to it. Will cite it in a bit. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you run the source by Mrt? It would be helpful to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There are some things I would like to clarify right-away.

1. I frankly don't want to undergo any sanction. I don't think it is needed against me. I will tell you why. Yes, I am involved in an edit-war. But it's only because DS blatantly defaulted on the agreement with you that he will provide a better source. If sanctions are not punishments and only means to avert any edit-war in the future, just make the edit yourself or ask somebody else to look into it and the matter is solved within minutes.
2. He didn't provide a better source in almost two days. Forget running the newly posted source by me, DS didn't even try to respond to my approach amicably.
3. "In a province of India, five-year and ten year old boys are found serving the state police" - The quote, as probably any one will be able to notice, isn't specifying which province it is. Hence, it's not any better than the previous one.
4. Where is the link or the source of the quote?

Many questions remain unanswered and DS's muddling excuses and aplomb don't solve any of it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• That is it for me, as is obvious nationalism over comes truth. Darkness Shines (talk)

Take some action

Do something! The page has been protected because of content dispute/edit-warring and I am in favor of that. That's not the problem. The problem is the redundant gridlock that DS has yet again managed to impose over a fairly open-and-shut case. He has claimed repeatedly to delay and obfuscate the solution of the issue. Each time the futility has been exposed by me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Here he demands that the page be unlocked by asserting that he in fact has a source with him but he didn't post on the talk nor did he try to discuss the source in the WP:ORN. Also Bwilkins believes that DS is heading towards an indef block. Amatulic suggested that I take it to ORN and I did, albeit after much trepidation. All in vain my ORN report, just as I anticipated, is sitting duck there. Now I have exhausted every method what do you expect me to do?

  The page is protected and the assertion is still there. Now as it seems DarknessShines has attained his goal simply by filibustering. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You are getting on my tits now. 1st, I made no demands on RP's talk page, I asked. 2nd what B said on his talk page has no bearing on this. 3rd READ "The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) reported that currently, at least 118 of India’s 604 districts are facing armed anti-state activities. In all of these conflict-affected districts, child soldiers are being recruited by both parties to the conflict" Is Kashmir a conflict-affected district, I would say yes. The quote supports the content. And as it comes from a report by the Conflict study centre, it meets RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The quote you posted above, right? Of course you would say yes but we are not allowed to venture our inferences. It doesn't specifically say that Human rights watch has accused Indian police of using children as spies or messenger in Kashmir. Read the issues I raised above. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Read what Mr. T. Paris wrote on Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir before stretching it further. I am sorry, but it is your synthesis. Don't be egoistic about it please. I am not indicating — even for a second — that that claim is false and I also doubt that Indian agencies are using children but your source just isn't saying so. We are not allowed to fling our own guesses at our readers. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't add me to the name throwing. Just give it a rest for a minute and let me try a different approach with Darkness Shines. This isn't about egos, it's about different points of views and there are logic-based ways to deal with it. Just sit back for a minute. Bbb23 is already distancing himself so he can remain the 'uninvolved administrator' so I'm going to get involved as the third opinion.--v/r - TP 17:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, please don't abandon the topic. I respect your judiciousness and hence I resorted to your talk page. Please comment on Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr T, TParis gave his opinion, and, just glancing at all the posts on the talk page, it appears that you simply don't agree with it. I have nothing to say at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What I am doing is not disagreement, it's less than that on my part. I don't understand the reason behind his shift in views, that's all. Okay I accept if you don't wish to take part in that discussion. Thanks for your efforts. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael Crain

Hello Bbb23, Could you please point to the discussion for consensus on merging Michael Crain into 2013 Southern California shootings I am unable to locate it. Thank you Mlpearc (powwow) 05:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There was none. I redirected (not merged) it on my own.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, What are your objections to reverting ? Mlpearc (powwow) 20:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The redirect was not an administrative decision. You may do whatever you think is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a link to the discussion: if archived, search for "Michael Crain". It pre-dates the discussion here, as well as my involvement, and is still active. FWIW, consensus seems to lie with Bbb23's redirect. Any input there is welcome. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what I was trying to say here Bbb23, Thanx for everyones help. Cheers, Mlpearc (powwow) 03:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why delete Abine?

I was just curious as to why you deleted my article about Abine. I had said on the talk page that I was going to improve the article and that I just needed a few days' time. I didn't get a response on that page and so instead when I come back to improve my article it is completely gone. Could you please reply so I can seek a resolution to this? I am not angry, but rather slightly irritated that no one listened or responded to me. alexanderao (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

New articles have to meet a minimum level in various areas or they are deleted. You're not supposed to reach that level after they are in article space. They should already be at that level. Do you know how many editors say they are "working on it"? There are many ways to create pages in Wikipedia, either in your user space or through WP:AFC, that permit you to work on them without making them live. Abine had no credible claim of significance and it was promotional ("became famous" & "huge hit" & "millions of people use"). It is possible that the article can get past an A7/G11, but in the state it was when I reviewed it, it didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Note this has been tagged as G11 again by me. We should probably open an SPI I see at least two different accounts and IPs involved. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed my own tag and redirected to product instead, since the company itself seems to have no standalone notability beyond it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have deleted it per G11 (the promotional stuff that was in the previous iteration had been removed). I probably would have deleted it per A7, though, even though you didn't tag it as an A7. The redirect is okay, although you might want to look more closely at the software article. It can't be deleted per A7 because, as far as I can tell, it's software. If it literally runs on the web, then it could be A7'd, but I suspect it has enough to get past an A7. That said, I'm not sure if it be kept on an AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the software meets WP:GNG at least, given the sources there. Unfortunately WP:NSOFTWARE languishes as an essay, so I tend to avoid it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have started working on the article again and I'll post it when it is ready. After it is posted, you can tell me if I have done a good job or not. alexanderao (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

How dare you?

...change what I said to what I meant? NE Ent 16:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Natural chutzpah.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Susanknowledgeguru and personal attacks

I have become aware that User:Susanknowledgeguru has placed an attack against me on her user page. I would like to have it removed, but I do not wish to rile them up any more than they already are. Could you please talk to them and explain that I am not attacking them, but their argument, and that there is a difference between the two. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the post on her user page. I'm going to remove it as it's inappropriate. If she wants to ask me about it, she can. Thanks for your sensitivity to the issues involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of IndieGameReviewer.com unwarranted

Hello

I created the page for IndieGameReviewer.com last night and was going to continue to develop it today. Although it may seem like it is just about a website, the name actually covers a collective of writers and media producers who have contributed learning content and interviews with important figures in the game industry and also work with younger developers to improve their games before they reach market. There is no reason why it should not be included alongside other sites listed in this category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_review_websites

Did you actually view the interviews created by the portal? It goes far beyond mere marketing and provides a valuable addition to the canon of insight into a fast growing sector of the arts and entertainment industries.

Please reverse this move so that the Wiki page can be developed further.

ArchKali (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow ...if you thought that "article" was worth having on Wikipedia, you have yet to read WP:GNG, WP:RS, or even a paper encyclopedia in your life. That was pure, unadulterated crap unfortunately not an appropriate article in its most recent form. That "collective" is non-notable "writers" and "media producers". What WP:SPAM (✉→BWilkins←✎) 02:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was going to be nicer about it, but, @ArchKali, in my view, the A7 tag was well-founded.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Glenfiddich...making spades a spade for centuries (✉→BWilkins←✎) 02:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I'm a fan of your bluntness, BWilkins, but "pure, unadulterated crap" was a bit over the top in response to a new editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am a fan of bluntness too, but yes, I am a new editor, and I was literally in the first stages of piecing together the new page before it was marked for deletion.I was still aggregating and assembling the information and hoping to expand, refine and cite in order to substantiate what was there. I barely got the chance. Furthermore, the subject matter is similar to a large number of similar "sites" that already have a presence on Wikipedia. Please explain why any of the sites listed in the category I referenced above are worthy whereas this one is not. Also "or even a paper encyclopedia in your life" sounds like it was written by a 14-year-old with a vendetta. I would appreciate fairer treatment here. Indeed I feel that BWilkins aggressive response is unwarranted

To offer some credibility - the site ini question is represented here: http://www.pixelprospector.com/the-big-list-of-indie-game-sites/

and here http://arcengames.blogspot.com/2011/03/ai-war-lots-review-on-indie-game.html

And is frequently referenced at http://www.indiegamemag.com/indie-links-round-up-heptastyle/ - a published magazine, alongside other sites that are allowed to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia.

How, for example did what I create differ from something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMGN ArchKali (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're supposed to create an article that is worthy of inclusion here before you move it to article space. You can create it in your sandbox, or on any subpage you wish in your user space. Once an article is in article space, if it's deletable, which this one was, it will be deleted. Assuming you are inexperienced, a better way to go is to use the article wizard and submit your article to WP:AFC so you get feedback before the article goes live. As for other articles, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; I'm not going to get into an extended discussion with you comparing your articles with existing articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok well then can you kindly provide the deleted content so that I can develop it in the sandbox. "I'm not going to get into an extended discussion with you comparing your articles with existing articles" - noted. ArchKali (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the article (with all of its history) to a subpage in your user space. After I moved it, I removed the speedy delete tag, the categories, and the non-existent image. You're not supposed to have main space cats in user space. If you eventually move the article to article space, you can then add categories to it. Let me know if you have any questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, for your time and explanation(s). Your far more reasonable response and tone is appreciated above all. I hope that Wikipedia does not ever stoop to the same sort of bullying tactics to which too many internet communities fall prey. I will do better with the page.

ArchKali (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry ArchKali, I will admit that my response was slightly "aggressive" - however, that was in direct response to your aggressive postings regarding the article. You will find that if you had approached Bbb23 - or anyone - politely and non-aggressively in the first place, you would have got the more informative response first as opposed to later. Phrases like "Did you actually view the interviews" are accusatory in nature, and suggest that neither the nominator NOR the deleting admin know how to read. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I appreciate that, but the nature of text communication is that it is difficult to read the other's tone. I certainly was not being aggressive. When I asked if the deleter/moderator actually viewed the interviews - it was a sincere question because they are high caliber and with legitimate figures - professors at Carnegie Mellon, etc talking about more than the mere purchase and sale of games (though I would imagine that that in itself is not cause for disqualification). That is all - I sincerely hoped that in viewing those materials before making a judgement on the legitimacy of the subject that formed the page, that it would not so readily be dismissed as "pure unadulterated crap" and SPAM.

ArchKali (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23 and BWilkins I wonder if you can look at this page and provide any comments or feedback on how it is developing with an aim towards me getting it ready for publication. How might you break down the content into sections, for example?

ArchKali (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I still see no suggestion of notability. It exists. It does something. It's not notable. Focus on that first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with BWilkins. If you can't satisfy notability, it doesn't matter how you lay the article out or other stylistic details. Even if it gets past an A7, it would probably be deleted through some other process. Take a look at WP:WEB for more information about notability of websites. The key is significant independent coverage of the website by reliable sources. None of the sources cited in the article in its current state satisfy those requirements. Either they're not independent, or they're not reliable, or the coverage is not significant, or a combination of some or all those things.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad Sabir Shaikh

Asserting that someone is head of a national association is an indication of plausible importance, and A7 does not apply. Please use AfD, which is the proper way to delete it. (Especially as PamD, an ed. I much respect, thinks they can source to prove actual notability,) DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that if Pam can make the article she should make it from scratch. This was an autobiography created by the subject who then made the two companies as seperate pages. I tagged as promotional because all the article did was say he was the chairman of a company and the websites. i disagree with DGG in this regard however believe that if pam wants to create the article it should be done by her, restoring the two line article it was seems counter productive Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, sorry it's taken me so long but I've been off-wiki (real life and all). I didn't delete it per G11 because certainly the content wasn't promotional, regardless of who created it. I still don't think that being the president of an association and the CEO of a company gets past A7, but CSDs are often more discretionary than most people realize. DGG, if you want to restore it, go ahead. Thanks for your courtesy in contacting me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Vincent Moscaritolo

Didn't Vincent Moscaritolo include the claim that he is VP Engineering of Silent Circle (software)[22] or some similar assertion of importance? Although I only briefly glanced at the article, I think the A7 CSD was probably inappropriate and request restoration for further improvement to include such an assertion of importance if it is missing, and, at your discretion, prod or AfD listing, please. Neo Poz (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, being the VP of a software company is not enough to get past an A7.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

He is also the author of "Silent Circle Instant Message Protocol" which has 1,880 google hits for me, including in at at least several mainstream secondary news stories. The CSD for A7 says, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." (Emphasis in original.) Please either reconsider the speedy deletion or restore it to my userspace. Neo Poz (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't be able to get to this until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the article to this subpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Neo Poz (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Miguillen edit warring

Would you be so kind as to revert the changes by Miguillen on Coats of arms of the autonomous communities of Spain? The article has been in it's current state for nearly 2 years, then Miguillen recently came here from Spanish Wikipedia to change the renditions because he thinks they're wrong. I reverted him once and posted on the talk page asking for sources. As usual, he didn't provide any, but rather makes nonsense posts claiming "just because they're prettier doesn't mean they're right" (essentially), and then reverted the article to his preferred renditions again. He makes very few edits here (in fact he only made 15 in all of 2012), but has a history of coming here to change renditions of Spanish coats of arms to ones he thinks are better. He never posts sources and for that reason his changes should be reverted until such time he does. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, he reverted himself after a bit of nudging on the talk page, so nevermind. Thanks anyways and sorry to bother you. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that his edits and my comments on the talk page crossed. However, it also appears that after 5 consecutive edits, he made no changes at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Schwartz

There's still an ongoing AfD about this article. I'm glad the simulaneous one is now over, but please review the article and jump to the other AfD discussion referenced atop the page. It will show why the talk page material needs to stay put while the still-pending AfD is playing out. I've reinserted that material to the talk page, with point by point responses. David in DC (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your response and won't reinsert the talk page material. Do you think the whole thing should go to AN/I, as Yoworo has asked on the AfD page? David in DC (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it to ANI based on "implied legal threats". I don't know if there's another basis to take it to ANI, but keep in mind that ANI is not a friendly place unless you have a really good case - and even then.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Again, thanks. David in DC (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, help me

I'm Japanese and I formed a band recently in Tokyo, called Angel Soul. We performed in nightclubs and restaurants in town. I am a composer, violinist and pianist. I'm trying to spread a little more since the beginning of my career. So please, let me use the pages of Wikipedia so I can have a biography that I'm building right now. Thank you for your attention. I'm kinda worried, I have plans soon to come to my career and thought already writing them on Wikipedia. About my biography... - Alex Bega (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/alexbega) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XandyBega

Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting your career on the Internet. Generally, it is not a good idea for a person to write their autobiography as an article on Wikipedia. It is hard for you to be objective and neutral, and you have a clear conflict of interest. Most new editors who come to Wikipedia just to write an article about themselves find that the article is deleted per WP:CSD#A7 (notability) or WP:CSD#G11 (promotion). Even if the article survives an early speedy delete, it may be deleted later if it doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I deleted your article pursuant to A7, and it was not a close decision. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted information on CMU

Dear Bbb23,

you deleted some information. The information was retrieved from curacao registry and then from the case. problem is this gentleman is perpetrating fraud.

This information need to be in the page to protect potential students from fraud that is being committed. I am a victim of such a fraud and lost my parents life long saving. Please help me fix the information so that there are no violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmutosteustatius (talk • contribs) 18:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're in a position to edit the article. You have a serious WP:COI because of your personal situation. Wikipedia articles are not a place for you to air your legal grievances. The information you added to the article violated multiple policies at Wikipedia and cannot be reinserted. Some of the policies/guidelines are WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:N, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:COATRACK.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

How can I get help with paid editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmutosteustatius (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That depends on the cause. Most Wikipedians consider paid editing to be horrifying, and an abuse of the community - how does one get help with that? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing it out

It's me again. I know, it never seems to end. Msoamu, the editor with whom I fell into conflict, brought things to WP:ANI. You didn't seem to take sides and were honest even in your criticism of my own editing, so you'd be a good neutral party to comment on the proposed solution in the "Proposal" subsection. Look at it this way, as irritating as it might be to hear about the same conflict again, your comment could help bring a solution which would solve things and prevent it from being a problem again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

User Talk:71.221.253.95 & Orly Taitz

I see that you blocked User:71.221.253.95 from editing his own page, I added a comment to it that I'd be willing to work with him on the Orly Taitz article if he worked through the appropriate channels. So if you want to direct him to someone with similar personal feelings on Ms. Taitz but who understands WP:BLP, I'll be happy to take that role...Naraht (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw your comments on the IP's talk page. I appreciate your willingness to help, but I fear that this particular editor is unredeemable. However, I could be wrong and you're more than welcome to try.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the editor may be. But as far as I'm concerned making that offer is one of the steps that needs to be done at some point...Naraht (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Bbb23,

Good copyedits on Mohammed Nizamul Huq. I was wondering if you could tell me about what you think about the developments at David Bergman (journalist). Thank you, Crtew (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going off-wiki shortly, Chad, and won't be able to do that until tomorrow, at the earliest.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hansen Site

Would you mind if I unprotect this page? Perhaps you'll remember its appearance at WP:AN3; Heironymous Rowe reported The long road homw for edit-warring for repeatedly attempting to remove it, and you protected it, saying "The other choice was to block both editors. I know diddly about the merits of the content dispute, but battling and screaming at each other is not the way to resolve it." TLRH is edit-warring against standard practise with US archaeology articles (besides H. Rowe's comment about it being a WP:POINT/WP:STALK violation, both of which I've checked and can see to be true) and is basically disrupting things; H. Rowe is trying to maintain article content in the face of disruption, so page protection I believe to be overall unhelpful. Talkback or reply at my talk page, please. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to do what you think best. Thanks for your courtesy in asking.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome; unprotected, and thanks for your response. The designation that The long road homw was trying to remove is a national designation applied to all US archaeological sites and is thus highly important to include; this is the first time I've ever seen someone object to its presence. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As you noted, when I protected the article, it was a procedural move on my part as I know nothing about the content or what is standard in these sorts of articles. I trust your judgment and leave it in your capable hands.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Mohammed Nizamul Huq

Bbb23,

Could I ask you to intervene at Mohammed Nizamul Huq? Edits are being reverted with no good reason. Crtew (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Other than a BLP vio, which I already explained on the talk page hours ago[23] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please double check with the titles I just provided because I'm not sure which is your first or second source. Also are you getting the entire copy from your source?Crtew (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You did an excellent job at reviewing the issues brought up and I pleased with the process. But you've given me more to do ;-) Thank you, Crtew (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad (about your being pleased). As an overarching issue, you should keep in mind that we should always err on the side of avoiding WP:BLP violations. Thus, if an editor first reverts you, that's when you should discuss the problems on the talk page, not in edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Isabel dos Santos

Hi Bbb23, I have seen your participation in above article. Thank you. I must advise you that contributor User:Zorglub is editing this article in favour of the corrupt regime there, meaning he eliminates parts of it, that might be negative for the ruling party MPLA and their representatives, so please be careful about what he is doing. Cruks (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Jacob Arabo

Hi Bbb23 - I saw his edits also, but this time he did find some decent references and kept the hyperbole to a semi respectable level (see the first efforts!). My repeatedly trained reflex screamed Undo also, but parts do seem to be salvageable. The subject is noteworthy and even notorious in NYC - just last week he got robbed, and it made all the news! I'd hate for his friend's effort to be completely unappreciated. Best--Nixie9✉ 03:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to salvage what you can, but make sure the sources are reliable (my recollection is they were not) and there's no hyperbole. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Shallowgravy

I need a check.

The above has a second template - {{Catwoman}} - they'er more than willing to ignore BDR and just bull the rtangental material in be cause "the character (Catwoman) is mentioned in the article".

Yes, there is a discussion, but at this point they are back to the "Argue to undo my bold edit" point.

Since you handled the last one I thought I ask you...

- J Greb (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should add my two cents to this or not, but here goes - There has been a line of discussion on the Template talk:Catwoman for some time and after a certain point J Greb stopped adding to the discussion for a few days, so I saw no harm in adding some of what was discussed to the article, as is suggested in Wikipedia:BRD, the article was then reverted with no talk or explanation on his part. This has been rather confusing since, once again, it leaves us with no way of moving forward. I would encourage you to take a look at the talk page and, if you could, help me see if I'm getting my point across with civility and perhaps tell me what I might need to do in the future to keep the conversation going and resolve problems.- Shallowgravy (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you should add your two cents. It helps me understand your perspective. That said, you're essentially repeating the same behavior in this template as you did in the other. When an editor reverts you and a discussion is begun on the talk page, you should continue the discussion in the hopes of reaching an agreement with the other editor (as with the last one, there are only two of you). You haven't convinced J Greb of the soundness of your position. That means your options are the same as they were in other template. You have to get others involved in the process through dispute resolution. As an aside, your comments are perfectly civil. I don't believe that J Greb is accusing you of incivility, perhaps just stubbornness (although that cuts both ways). One more thing related to WP:BRD. In my view, BRD gets a bit confusing when you reach the Discuss and Bold (again) sections. It's not clear, at least not to me, what you're "permitted" to do and what you're not. Remember, as much as it is cited, BRD is an essay, not even a guideline, so it has only so much power. Also, remember above all that edit-warring never solves a dispute and can get you into trouble if you do so. I don't want to block either of you (one can be blocked for edit-warring even without breaching WP:3RR). It may take more time to do it the "right" way, but it has to be done.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon - edit-warring

Hello Bbb23,

I don't like to be a snitch, but you gave User:Nick.mon a last warning against edit-warring, and he pledged to never do it again, but his resolution has held for only three days. He has done it again: at Five Star Movement, Democratic Party (Italy), The People of Freedom, Left Ecology Freedom. He has rekindled a long ongoing conflict with User:Checco. --RJFF (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Transliteration forms

Transliteration info is available now at Talk:Mohammed Nizamul Huq.Crtew (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Zakir Naik Wikilink

Well, Can you give me a link to an article where they say "no wikilinks in quotes"? As you did in this revision Faizan (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTYLE ("Items within quotations should not generally be linked").--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Larry Klayman page

I would appreciate it if you would confirm that the edit I made today to the Larry Klayman page conforms to policy. Thank you.BigDog2012 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, BigDog, I appreciate your coming here to ask. I reverted your change, but, honestly, it's an unusual case. Normally, we would be considering whether Klayman had ever been convicted of child abuse or some kind of child-related offense. Here, we have a finding by a judge upheld on appeal in a divorce case - and we're reporting that finding. Instinctively, I don't like it. If I had to support my instincts with policy, I would first say that it's not relevant to his notability and therefore shouldn't be included per WP:UNDUE. Second, the implication of the finding is that Klayman may have committed a crime, which means that WP:BLPCRIME applies, which would generally bar the material from inclusion. The finding by the judge is in a civil case and is not held to the same standard of proof as a criminal case. Thus, even though a court made the finding, the finding wasn't subjected to the same scrutiny that would be true in a criminal case.

As in all BLP articles where the issue is not clear, we should err on keeping the information out. That said, if you want to include the material, you can either take it to the article talk page, or you can go directly to WP:BLPN and solicit input from others.

As an aside, please read WP:CITE. The way you cited the newspaper article was not correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

for 'unblocking' me.... 8-) Peridon (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't want to see the imaginary block on your non-existent block log to go unchallenged. So now you have an imaginary unblock rectifying it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Awoods88

Hi Bbb, I don't think Awoods88 (talk · contribs) gets it. Maybe further discussion is merited. Cheers, from 99 on vacation, sort of. 166.147.120.151 (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should help you until you revisit your priorities and discuss Downton Abbey with me. Harumph. And what does "sort of" on vacation mean (if you can say)?

On the less important Wikipedia issue, it would help if you would pinpoint what Awoods88 is doing wrong. Since he was warned by me on Valentine's Day, he's only made a handful of article edits, all to Don Carmody, part of which were reverted based on copyright violation. Nor has he created any new inappropriate articles. The main thing he's done is engage in a content discussion at Talk:XMG Studio with you and Qworty. Your last comment there seems to imply that Awoods has made "ltierally dozens" of inappropriate article edits since he was warned ("fresh start"). Putting aside the merits of the content dispute, that doesn't seem quite accurate. Am I missing something?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Business first: you're right. I was referring to their 'old' history, and interpreting the recent discussion as a continued attempt to find a way of restoring unsourced and/or promotional content, i.e. respecting the rule of your warning, while nibbling away at the same bone. Frankly, my take is that they're incapable of writing an original sentence that isn't promotional, even at Carmody, which I undid some of. But that's me.

On working vacation, but away from my 99 keyboard. Sickened by the final episode of the Kennedys, er, Downtown. Jesus, do they have to kill off all the young ones? The pundits say that Mary will be more interesting now that she's single, but I don't buy that Matthew would have been so careless. Meh. 166.147.120.172 (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The ultimate outcome of Awoods may be inevitable, but right now I'm not prepared to intervene.

I believe they're killing off those actors who don't want to appear anymore. I don't care about Matthew much; I was tired of the character. The whole finale, though, was a bit much, although it's hard to say anymore what counts as "a bit much" in what increasingly is drivel. At least the costumes are still fun. Does any woman appear in the same outfit more than once, or even wear the same jewelry?

Better hope Drmies doesn't catch you using "meh".

Hope you're vacationing more than you're working and that wherever you are is more interesting than home.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Drmies drinks ales I never heard of; I think he might have a home brewery going. They do moonshine down there, after all.

I'm a sap to take the Downton story line to heart. It's silly, but a truffle of a pleasure.

Visiting family, working this weekend. Miss my gal and my dogs, but love the people I'm with. 166.147.120.145 (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

5 year watchdog

FWIW, my "watchdog" has had me in his sights for nigh on 5 years now <g> even though I avoid going to any pages he edits. My original User:Ikip run-in was about the hundreds of "bilateral relation" AfDs ... but he found a bunch of editors to notify with a hundred or so edits to join his crusade (some of which indeed turned out to be socks of his or of others). Including some "Wikipedia Review" types as well, and some real characters (one using "dildo" in his name). Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Escalation

I'm sorry to bother you again, and I am now aware of the canvassing policy (I wasn't before), but things are escalating across multiple articles due to the efforts of the three editors I mentioned (Msoamu, Shabiha and Hassanfarooqi). I am now clearly being accused of belonging to a "terrorist organization," in addition to still constantly being ascribed to ideologies (namely Salafism and Wahhabism) which I have expressly said I don't agree with and fear personal/professional repercussions should my IP address ever be tied to such accusations. The timing of all these accusations really leads me to believe that this is not only coordinated among them, but specifically in reaction to my personal concerns. I would really like something done about this as soon as possible, whatever it is. I don't want to feel that I am putting myself at risk simply by logging in to Wikipedia. Some of the info is at WP:ANI. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of full disclosure, I posted similar messages on the talk pages of User:In ictu oculi, User:Lukeno94, User:Qwyrxian and User:Jimfbleak. I did so because I feel part of the issue is the exact timing that all this is occurring, and would like to increase chances of someone intervening as soon as possible. Hassanfarooqi made a clear threat in one of his comments as shown at ANI and I don't want to find out what that threat will be. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is, of course, the veritable definition of canvassing ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Mezzo, putting aside the canvassing issue, I have a similar reaction to Qwyxrian's in his tentative response on his talk page (so many places, Mezzo, it's a bit much): do you have some diffs to support your "escalation" ("terrorist organization")? I don't want to go hunting around for them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

He heavily insinuated that I am a part of some "terror organization" here, and then made a vague threat here. I apologize if this looks like canvassing, but I am receiving threats and being accused of very serious things, all in a short span of time; what else am I supposed to do? Nobody seems to help unless I act out like this, and I fear that if I don't act out and things like this continue, my IP address' association with such keywords could have real-world repercussions. I don't want to specify what those are but suffice to say that, for the first time in almost seven years of editing, I literally fear that using Wikipedia could cause real-world problems for me. That's why I posted on "the talk pages of concerned editors," per the "Appropriate notification" section at Wikipedia:Canvassing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

So he said your edits make it look like you have a POV, and then CLEARLY told you to stay of his talkpage or he'll retaliate: that means don't edit with a POV, and avoid his talkpage like the plague. That's not a "vague threat", it's a pretty clear "leave me alone" threat. How in the world could he have your name put on some list - unlike some of us, you don't use your real name at all. Of course, him asking you to give your real name might violate WP:OUTING, but you're doing youself no favours by feeding him (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

After reeding DFTT, I think I get what you mean about the "feeding" issue. I nominated some articles he created for AfD, and was under the impression that informing him with a template was a rule. Regarding my name on a list, I didn't mean to insinuate the user would do it. I'm talking about my IP address being on some watch list due to some of the specific accusations I mentioned at WP:ANI; I guess it's my fault for not being clearer. There is some more detail there, which I didn't mention here, though perhaps I should have; the ordeal has upset me somewhat and I suppose I didn't make the best choices. Regardless, I do stand by my lack of comfort with the user and the accusations at this point, hence my asking for help. Again, I'm sorry for any trouble from my direction. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

How would he get your IP address? That information is not accessible to him. Normally, you *should* notify them of AFD's, etc, although in cases where he has specifically asked you to leave him alone, it becomes a bit messy. The more prudent thing to do might be to have someone else either AFD it and/or notify him so that it doesn't look like you're merely following him around nominating everything he does for deletion - that would tend to cheese someone off (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Mezzo, I agree with some of what BWilkins says but not all of it. There are an awful lot of issues that are being mixed up here, and it makes it hard to give you a coherent answer. At this point, Hassanfrooqi has been blocked and hasn't said anything since being blocked, i.e., complained or requested an unblock (he esssentially invited the block anyway). The ANI discussion is still outstanding, and I don't know if I or another admin will take any additional action on the proposal to warn all editors, assuming no one comes up with an alternative proposal. Only you an evaluate your real-life issues, not us, and as Qwyrxian said on his talk page, your real life is more important than Wikipedia. BWilkins is right, though; normally, a user has no acccess to another user's IP address(es) unless the user somehow connects them to himself. The easiest way to avoid that is never edit Wikipedia unless you're logged into your account.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's definitely a complex issue, with deep roots in the past. With regards to canvassing, I'm keeping an eye on the discussion myself, so any notification about new events just makes me go back and check again. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your patience. I've calmed down, and it does seem that I overreacted to the personal comments. It seems I have a lot to think about...at the minimum, perhaps a Wikibreak is in order after the issue is resolved. I need to sleep on this for a bit. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly interesting

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Polllilur - now editing as User:Baeer. Peridon (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I commented there.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Sandbox

I would like to ask that a deleted work (deleted by Hal9000W) be recovered so I can fix problems with the document. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth57 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your request makes no sense, but I assume you're talking about the article of yours I deleted. It cannot be restored as it was a copyright infringement.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hassanfarooqi

• Sorry, this person's attitude annoyed me, and I responded in a way that was probably not a good idea. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• I understand, but it's best to let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Help Needed

I was dragged into ANI by MezzoMezzo.I have not lodged a complaint about him.It was between him and Msoamu.I dont know canvassing and did not do it ,I did not troll either.Iam simply creating Articles and trying to edit them with NPOV.I have been called Barelvi Barelvi many times, a terminology disliked by Sufis.PA are common on me.I have not replied in the same tone.I have seen incitements and then reactions in case of other editors.How can I save from these disputes. Shabiha (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that Shabiha entered himself into the ANI discussion with this edit, a day before I mentioned Shabiha. He wasn't dragged into anything. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Issue not solved

"There's no reason to leave this open for Strangesad to use as a soapbox or to further discuss the content issue." What I said about the content issue was a response to what others--mostly admins--said about it to me. Strangesad (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Vodka

Might be worth it to leave Poeticbent's 3RR report on the board because there were at least two IPs doing the same revert earlier in February. If they come back my guess is that semiprotection will be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I restored it and put in the result. Are we using ANEW as a to-do list? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If what nation invented hummus is an ARBPIA issue then vodka deserves to be in ARBEE. Though of course we hope it is all settled now. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

God help you if you drink vodka while eating hummus.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your efforts

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For the time you put into picking apart messy conflicts and still being objective when assessing error, even (or especially, as you helped me in more ways than one) when some of those errors happen to be mine. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mezzo.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

I am much obliged for your neutral and objective decision in this case.Thank You very much.I request you to kindly watch some Islam related pages like Barelvi Sufi Salafi Wahabi if you have time. Shabiha (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Shabiha, if you believe any of the involved editors have violated the warnings issued by Qwyxrian, feel free to let me know. Also, if you need some guidance in avoiding violating your own warning, feel free to let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting article edit

I have agreed not to edit the article for a period of time, but this edit should probably be removed before then. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've done it for you. I'll stick that page in my watch list. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Bloomex

Hello Bbb23, I am owner of Bloomex, the floral company operating in Canada, Australia and USA. We employ 200+ people and do quite a volume in floral deliveries. We have an article on Wikipedia, which does not reflect the truth about company or operations mainly due to efforts of CliffC and bots he creates. Any success to combat him are ineffecgtive due to his experience as Wikipedia editor and obvious luck of interest from Wikipedia public to Bloomex. The main issue is Controvercy page. In my opinion it has to be assessed WP:UNDUE and by then removing that long and deformative text maintained by CliffC. I have put my version as "During its growth stage company attaracted certain amount of customers complains. It was reflected in Toronto Star and CBC Marketplace "

You are very trusted and experienced editor and I would like to ask your help in either removing article completely or leaving it with set of true facts reflecting many years of work, customers we served and dedication and hard work of employees. Sincerely Dimitri Lokhonia Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dimitri. Before you go yelling that what I'm saying here is rude, don't waste your time:

You're the owner. You have a conflict of interest. You've never ever read that page. If you have, you must not have comprehended it.

Wikipedia does not care about truth. Wikipedia cares about verifiablility of content. UNLESS you can provide sources that explicitly say that the content we have is wrong, then you will not get it removed at all. It is not undue weight. Undue weight would be if 10% of sources covered the controversy, and the rest (90%) covered nothing of the sorts. Fact is, 90% of sources are covering your company's controversies, and there are many. So it makes sense that our article mostly covers the controversy. Your version of "certain amount of complains" first of all is not grammatically correct. Secondly, it would be not giving it due weight, as the vast majority of sources cover the controversy. The two sources you provided go to prove you are wrong. You provided two sources that cover the controversy. Since even you can't provide any sources that don't cover the controversy, then we will continue to have it in the article until such time as you can prove that a majority of sources do not cover your controversy. I'm sorry that this may be hurting your business. But maybe instead of trying to erase it from the history books (NOT what Wikipedia is for, we are for recording history) you should try to learn from the controversy and then fix it. Then maybe when your company actually gets covered in a good light in newspapers can we change the current lean of the article. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear gwickwire and CliffC, I will appreciate if you leave me and company alone and will not participate in edit warring. I know you point of view, but unfortunately it does not reflect the true picture. Let other people decide about the correct content of the article Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You edit warred against consensus. Just because you own the company doesn't mean we do whatever the hell you want. Especially because you're now doing what's called Forum Shopping (Here, another talkpage, talkpage of article, DRN, COI noticeboard) for a good response. YOU WILL NOT GET A RESPONSE YOU WANT. Your company made mistakes, they were reported on in reliable sources. We report on what's in reliable sources. Therefore, we report on the mistakes. Sorry. Not our problem now. Fix your company, get some new newspaper articles about you, then come back. I'd like to apologize to Bbb23 now that this had to come to his talkpage. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Dimitri, here are my comments, in no particular order:

1. Don't accuse editors of sock puppetry as a means of getting what you want. It can be perceived a personal attack and can be grounds for being blocked. If you have solid evidence of sock puppetry, feel free to report it at WP:SPI.
2. The article is locked until March 9. It is unlikely that any content in it will be changed during the lock.
3. As the owner of the company, you should stop making changes to the article, particularly the kinds of changes you've made. If you have suggestions, you'll have to restrict yourself to the talk page.
4. If you think the article should be deleted, once the article is unlocked, you can nominate it for deletion. Remember, though, that articles are deleted because they don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, not because the company or the owner of the company doesn't like what the article says. Also, bear in mind that it has been through two previous deletion discussions, one in 2009 and the most recent in 2010. Usually, something has to have significantly changed to renominate it for deletion. I didn't look at the state of the article in 2009, but it doesn't look like too much has changed since the 2010 discussion.

• @gwickwire, a couple of comments. I understand you're frustrated, but don't yell at Dimitri or use such strong language ("whatever the hell you want"). Also, telling him how to run his business is inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• --Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, thank you for your detailed response. I fully agree with you on that. I started the discussion on your talk page because you were the one who converted locked article to the old edit. The article was edited by me on March 1st and it was approved by outside Wikipedia editor. Then CliffC and gwickwire reverse the edit to the old one disregarding the opinion of the other editors who made point of view on the talk page of Bloomex. I will appreciate if you find time to look into history of the issue possible to provide your own edit to the article, Sincerely, Dimitri 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.10.181 (talk)

Bbb23 already looked at the article. He reverted your edits because they are wrong. We didn't disregard their opinions. 90% of them say that it should be in the article. You're the one who's forum shopping for an opinion you like, and it's not going to work. I'd also like to apologize if I've seemed rude, but it seems to me like you (Dimitri) are not hearing the overwhelming consensus and many other editors (including Bbb23 and other admins) saying that it belongs in the article. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Lech Kaczyński/disruptive IP

212.14.57.130 is back at the same old after their block expired. Mind to take care of again? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

you are removing papers that have been published in ACM for no reasonable reason.

Bbb23,

I am trying to establish a record of your contineous removal of 4 papers that are VERY RELEVANT to the perfect hash function subject.

Please note that all papers are reliable sources and NOT SPAM as you claim. You are editing and removing without a review of the subject.

If insist that all these changes be reinstated immediately.

Sincerely, Amjad M Daoud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daoudamjad (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've let you a templated warning and a personalized warning on your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vital articles

I have one problem with your solution.

The lock isn't long enough. It should be for forever so that no edits can be made without consensus pbp 01:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite locks are rare, and, in this case, I'd be reluctant to put admins in the position of having to determine consensus in perpetutity.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

hey

it is a report someone wrote something else ontop of it..can you restore it? Baboon43 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies; I fixed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sammarinese Constitutional Assembly election, 1906

Thanks for your intervention. Could you also restore the link to the article on {{Sammarinese elections}}? Cheers, Number 57 01:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if I think this is a waste of time cauesd by a usual edit-warrior without sources, but with a lot of time to spend in the internet and wikipedia, I added some sources in that tak page. If nobody will show opposite sources (as it will be so, because official sources are clear) within 7 days, I'll realize we only wasted time today, and I'll delete that article. Bye! --Barlafus (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware, you don't have the authority to "delete" the article. I wouldn't redirect the article if I were you, even after 7 days. If you think the article should be deleted or redirected, then nominate it for deletion. Your attitude is unhelpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)