User talk:Bbb23/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Block user?

Warning was not followed at Dialog Control Language User_talk:Btadrian2001#April_2013. Jimmy Bergmark (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for one week. Please let me know if the disruption continues after the block expires. I have the page on my watchlist, but sometimes it's hard to stay on top of these things without the help of others. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Earth100

...has a mentor now. And thus is asking to be unblocked. My opinion is that if you grant the unblock, if should be with extraordinarily strict conditions--i.e., no edits outside of userspace until mentor agrees, any further problems will be met with reblocking and only WP:OFFER on the table, etc. But it's your call as the blocking admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you think he should be able to make edits to article talk space without Hurricane's permission?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The good heart barnstar.
		It took me like about 187 tries to make this thing, .. but anyway. Thank you Bbb ... I really do appreciate how you treat folks as real people. You know the "why" and all ... so just thanks. — Ched :  ?  04:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Awww crap ... I'll fix the damned thing tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  04:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, Ched, I appreciate all your hard work in trying to give me a most unusual barnstar (heartstar?). Anyway, I "fixed" it, although I'm not sure whether you wanted the message itself to be a large font. If it's not precisely the way you want it, you can go ahead and toy with it, but don't forget the substance of the message is far more important than the look. Besides, I think it looks pretty good. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

6WIND

You wrote in the edit summary, "particularly G4": is the article substantially different to that deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6WIND? Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very, I looked at the old one.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Kuyi123w

... is not going quietly into the night! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kuyi123w. JohnInDC (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, the IP is blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Unilaterally Declaring a Discussion "Closed" in Talk (Alex Jones)

Is this appropriate behavior? [[1]]

Though the topic got off to an unproductive start, I think some valid edits can come from it.

I didn't want to challenge the boxing-off of the discussion directly, because I'd never seen anything like it and didn't know if it was an authoritative move or not.

Do you have any advise on this?

Notanipokay (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Having glanced at the discussion, I see that absolutely ZERO of the accusations about this person had a single reference or suggested source - it was all personal opinion. As such, I can understand closing it as a "discussion about the subject", which still needs to meet WP:BLP and non-WP:OR requirements. Of course, you spoke directly to the person who closed the discussion first, right...because I'm sure they would have told you the same thing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Occupation of Aafia Siddiqui

You undid an edit where I changed Aafia Siddiqui's occupation from "former neuroscientist" to "terrorist" and commented that I did not give a citation to my change. I did give a citation, to the FBI most wanted list. The citation for neuroscientist is the one I found questionable. The cited article does refer to Siddiqui as a neuroscientist, but from all information this appears to be her training, and there is little evidence (none cited) that she was ever employed as a neuroscientist after receiving her PhD. Perhaps if determining an occupation is too difficult or controversial, her occupation should simply be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.140.254 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you about the neuroscientist and have removed it. We cannot say her occupation is "terrorist". First, it's not an occupation. Second, it's a legal term, and she was neither charged nor convicted of terrorism.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Editwarring again?

I have to assume you are an administrator on WP. I can find no indication but you had commented on User:G PViB's complaint against User:Wtshymanski at ANI recently. He is now injecting the same edit into AC transformer and I have reverted twice, so far. I not only believe the [edit] is false and unsubstantiated, but should not used in redirect only titles. Could you please advise and/or monitor this? Thank you!. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Tag you removed

My understanding is that you removed a speedy deletion tag from Evolutionary Psychology of Culture which appears to be a recreation with a different title of the recently deleted essay=article Evolution and Culture. When an experienced user starts a PROD, please be a little more careful. Mathsci (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You would have made my life easier had you tagged it properly. Your comments on the talk page of the article were just plain wrong. I just deleted it per WP:CSD#G4.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It was a gibberish essay unfortunately, so there was nothing "plain wrong". It took a while for me, not being an administrator, to discover that it was recreating a deleted article. I also opened an SPI/CU request and will probably ask for full protection of Evolutionary psychology (not a wonderful article, but not one for a new user or users to change in a radical way). Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Mathsci, your intentions were good, but the tag was absolutely dead wrong. If you want to raise a concern about an article and you don't understand speedy delete tags, then talk to an admin before doing anything. I've commented at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The two editors who created this essay-like content are almost certainly the same person. That person is currently causing continued disruption on evolutionary psychology. Mathsci (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said at ANI, I believe there's a relationship between the editors, but I don't know if they are the same person. It's possible, but, if you recall, Jhicks said on the talk page of the now-deleted article that there were four undergraduate students who collaborated on the article, so it's also possible that each account belongs to a different student. I have no idea, frankly. As far as I can tell, the disruption at Evolutionary psychology has stopped. I've removed the hat note, and I have it on my watchlist. If there's further disruption, I'll consider warnings and/or blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albert14nx05y and Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#IP Editor and DRN Volunteer? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

LTA Techwriter2B

I will not change back your reversion here of my undoing of the edits by 70.134.228.56, an identified IP sockpuppet of the notorious LTA Techwriter2B, in the Frederick Forsyth article as you (as opposed to he/she) have now taken responsibility for them. However to understand why all edits no matter how "reasonable" they may seem that are made by this individual are automatically reverted by the community please see Section 2 (particularly §2.2) of his/her LTA page here. This long term abuser has been disruptively editing and wikistalking on WP for eight years (since 2005) using more then 300 sockpuppets (mostly IPs) and was "community banned" for life from the project on July 18, 2010. For that reason any and all edits made by him/her are always reverted as a matter of policy as soon as they are identified irrespective of what they are as doing so has proved to be the only way to keep him/her "in check" and minimize the damage he/she does to the project. Centpacrr (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Centpacrr, I understand and appreciate the points you're making and the policy, and I don't blame you a bit for reverting. The IP made various small edits that weren't really a big deal one way or the other, but the one about the BBC correspondent I felt any reasonable editor would have made, so I just restored it. You're obviously more familiar with this than I am, so if it isn't too much work, could you explain how you spotted the IP? I don't really want to read the wall of text about the banned editor's history. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Spotting this LTA is actually very easy for me. He/she almost always starts a wikistalking attack on one of his/her many victims by making such small, seemingly reasonable, edits to pages in which the victim has been recently active with the expectation that those edits will then be reverted. He/she then starts a "complaint" in one of the many WP forums claiming innocence and seeking redress, etc (see here and here for examples although there are many more). His/her DHCP IPs are always easy to identify because (as does this one) they always geolocate to AT&T servers located in SW or central Connecticut in the general vicinity of Hartford. Centpacrr (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Additional Comment: This LTA often "goes quiet" for a few months to half a year but always eventually returns to his wikistalking practices. This is his/her second virtually identical such attack in his/her current "reappearance" which began last month with one to the article USS Akron (ZRS-4) which he/she initiated with a newly registered (now blocked) sockpuppet "BMCann" a couple of weeks ago. (See entry #14 here for a brief account of that attack and how Techwriter2B was quickly identified.) Centpacrr (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Centpacrr, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your last comments, but I've been off-wiki for hours. Thank you for going to the extra trouble to explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Tim Cook

I don't see why you reverted my edits to Tim Cook when I had sourced them. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There's sourcing and there's sourcing. Your source was insufficient for the one sentence you added, and even more insufficient to add the LGBT category in violation of WP:BLPCAT. The source was not reliable as it's an advocacy periodical. Worse, it's just a list of people that the source has identified as gay. Nowhere does it say that Cook has said he is gay.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Harvey Levin Article

Was it really necessary to delete my comments on the article talk page and block me? I'm assuming that it has been proved that I am not the SP that you claimed that I was. (your explanation for deleting my edit and talk-page section. Since your reason is incorrect, I am undoing your edit to the article's talk page. Also. You deleted my edit to the article for that reason as well, and then you stated an objection to the NEW source that I had added, (an incorrect objection, because I think that you said that I re-posted the same primary source that had already been deleted.-which I did but I also found a neutral source as well). Would you have a problem with keeping further discussions about the Harvey Levin article on the article's talk page? If not, I would prefer to discuss it there.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm cutting you some slack while waiting for the SPI to conclude (nothing's been "proved"). However, I suggest you stay away from the Levin article and the Levin article talk page. Otherwise, I may block you again and for a longer period of time. I'm going to revert your changes to the article and talk page now. Consider yourself warned for the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It was "proven" two days ago There is no reason to revert the talk page and I have not restored the military reference. I am actually working on that because I was incorrect and I did provide an additional/better source but it was still a primary from tmz.com and i agree with you that it would be better to find a different source.

This really doesn't have a lot to do with the military question anyways if you would read my section that you keep deleting on the talk page. I am trying to add more info to the article and you are deleting everything that I am entering.And what do you mean by "Don't touch this page? Are you serious? I'm finding more info. and I already had to wait for the stupid block to expire.You are deleting stuff that has nothing to do with the information that you originally claimed that I was trying to sock back into the article. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Asking you to step back and not edit the page while the SPI investigation is ongoing is a perfectly reasonable request. Declaring that you intend to edit the page anyway will simply result in you getting blocked for a week or two. If a Wikipedia administrator tells you to do something and you disagree, the proper course of action is to obey anyway and to calmly present your argument in the appropriate forum. If your arguments are sound, the restriction will be lifted. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Bbb23

All I was doing was reverting vandalism made by User:‎DachshundsRule. If you can see on WWE Raw, WWE SmackDown, WWE and List of WWE personnel, the user has made changes without requesting to do so on the talk pages. He also renamed the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) as WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

How is that vandalism?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You labeled the other user's edits as vandalism. Reverting actual vandalism is an exemption to edit warring. However, the exemption is generally construed rather narrowly. I don't see how the change you mentioned above constitutes vandalism. You may not like it. It may well be that a consensus of editors would agree with you, but that doesn't make it vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

So, you're saying that what DacshundsRule did was ok? But what about renaming World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) to WWE World Heavyweight Championship? Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying it's not vandalism and therefore neither of you can edit war about it without risking a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that DachshundsRule has started edit warring on the List of current champions in WWE against User:Oknazevad over profile placement. The profiles list links the wrestlers webpage on WWE.com and when list the individual profiles of a tag team, we list them alphabetically. Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Cindysinx

Umm ..could I just ask whether you're really happy with blocking this user in the way you did? The gist of her helpdesk post was a report of abusive vandalism to her userpage by a real-life stalker with a grudge, who sent a gloating email to tell her he'd done it, and an appeal for page protection to stop it happening again. Sure, deleting the promo userpage was the best solution to that problem - no point in protecting something so utterly unsuitable. I'd also concur with removing the unnecessary copy email from her HD post. Maybe a brief explanation about why her userpage was unsuitable and what Wikipedia is and is not? But striking her question altogether and indeffing her for being the subject of a personal attack? I know she wasn't a productive contributor, but her IP stalker must be rubbing his hands with glee at this outcome. - Karenjc 18:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the basis for the block, as you say in a somewhat understated fashion, she was not a "productive contributor" and, in my view, deserved to be blocked. As for the IPs and their attacks, I have no idea who she is or who she says she is, and I don't much care. I saw no benefit to the project to airing all this in a public forum. In my view, the best course was to eliminate the source of the problem. As for the IP, he or she can do whatever he or she likes off-wiki, just as she can. I would have taken a different approach had she done anything at Wikipedia that indicated that she was here to edit constructively.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll bear in mind that help requests under WP:NPA can be interpreted as blockable trolling until the requester has made sufficient constructive contributions. Thanks for the heads-up. - Karenjc 18:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

KikeFolan

I've noticed you blocked User:KikeFolan for his username. Well, he is back under IP:186.149.211.101 and has edited the same way as KikeFolan. Can you block the IP address? Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a typical block, so I don't think WP:EVASION applies.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Bad cop

Thanks for the support. Admittedly I'm not the most experienced with official mentoring, so thanks for early feedback. Officer Hink, over and out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Mark Millar

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding an Infobox photo here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why you asked me, but I "voted" anyway. :-)

ani close

Your close of the LBW thread is timely and reasonable -- especially since, as you note, it's for a block, not a ban. However, since the purpose of a close is to determine consensus of the community discussion, not "supervote" I'm requesting you remove the following comments from the closing statement and move to a statement at the bottom of the thread.

Somewhat reluctantly, I want to comment on two users in this discussion. Konjakupoet should have kept their comments factual and civil. They don’t help themselves by some of the intemperate comments in this discussion. PBS should have reduced his role as an advocate for Little Ben. PBS’s comments, for the most part, did not help.

Thanks, NE Ent 16:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Ent - it's a good block, and a well-reasoned one. I also agree with regards to the positioning of that comment. Also, I'm glad someone has finally, one way or another, taken action, as that thread was beginning to go around in circles (more so than it had been). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just looking at that and doing some of the math myself. I'm actually glad I did the refresh in time to see that you had done the work. Not an easy one to be sure, and I compliment you for being willing to step up and do that. — Ched :  ?  16:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It was indeed a difficult close. Thanks, Ched. As for the comments about the two users in my closing statement, I understand the objection, but, for the moment, I'm going to let it stand as I'm not persuaded that I'm not entitled to make those comments in the statement itself, particularly after having had to read the whole thing. :-) I'm open to changing my mind on that point if I hear something I find more compelling, athough I don't want to turn any discussion here into a mini ANI. One's enough (not counting Drmies's ANI2 - and isn't there an ANI3 somewhere (Dennis?)?). --Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keifer.Wolfowitz is asking someone to review the closure, which doesn't really make sense, as the closure was very well explained. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI: see here, and I would appreciate a reply. -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I prefer not to contribute to that thread, but I'll reply here. I'll repeat your questions:

Of the statements I made above which one do you think most typifies my advocacy for Little Ben? Which one of my comment do you think is the least helpful?

Before I give you an answer, let me give you a brief overview. My sense in reading the long discussion was at times like reading an RfA where some editors "badger" the voters. That's what I felt you were doing. As for your specific questions, they're hard to answer as framed. I found your constant bickering with Konjakupoet to be unhelpful. I understand the issue of WP:BOOMERANG, but you were carrying it to an extreme. Regardless of Konjakupoet's motives, they had brought legitimate allegations about topic ban violations, and that should have been the central focus of the discussion, not Konjakupoet's behavior. That said, the comments of yours I liked the least were when you questioned support votes. For example, you made the following identical comment to Bushranger and Cúchullain's support votes: "I can understand if he has exhausted your patience and you would support a ban, but how have you assessed what the "community's patience" is (as I doubt that 1% of active users will comment here)?" Neither editor answered you, which I also think was telling. I hope this explanation is adequate, even if you don't agree with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see my reply -- PBS (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• @ PBS. As an administrator yourself you know that it is often a difficult task. Those who deal with the various AN boards are often in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position. I know that we all chose to run that RfA gauntlet, and we need to accept the consequences. Yes, there is a "but" coming here. I think we need to be more supportive of each other as a collective group. It is perfectly acceptable and often even a good idea to ask "what was your reasoning" in any given instance, but I think it's also preferable to accept the responses we get. In looking back at that thread which Bbb closed, I can clearly appreciate that much of the conversation there did not belong on an AN type board, but rather would have been better placed at a user talk page. Outside of the 20:0 situations which occur very rarely, determining consensus is a no win scenario. Please consider how you would feel if you were in those shoes, and perhaps consider giving Bbb a bit of good faith. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  18:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI thread on User:Am Not New

MezzoMezzo has indicated you have some experience of the dispute on the Barelvi article, and related articles. Now, I can't remember when and if you did, but I'm getting increasingly concerned that the only admin who has shown anything approaching a consistent interest is User:Qwyrxian, whom, quite rightly, isn't willing to take any action as they are WP:INVOLVED. There has been a notification about an SPI case by one admin, and another admin has come in specifically to refute one point Am Not New made, but otherwise, nada. If you have time, could you have a look please? (Hopefully you understand this rambling, I'm stressed and tired out at present, for non-Wiki reasons!) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Luke, I looked a little bit at the ANI thread and just a bit at one of the user's contributions. At this moment, I'm not going to enter the fray, mostly because I'm recovering from being sick and because of other Wikipedia dramas I'm involved in (would that I weren't). If the thread continues and I feel up to it later, I may reconsider, but that's the best I can do for now. BTW, if you're stressed and tired for whatever reason, take a break from Wikipedia, or at least from the contentious aspects of Wikipedia. Remember, our health and our real lives are more important than Wikipedia. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• It was more that I wrote that in a rush than anything else, and the majority of things causing my stress are now done. I hope you're well again soon, and I can fully understand why you would rather not get involved at present, as walls of text keep being added. I just hope someone does soon! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Farewell

I am sending this message to the users who I have closely collaborated with. I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well, so I have more important things to worry about. I, however, will be here to contribute to some articles that I have worked on. Until then, farewell. With my very best and warmest regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably a good idea for all of us to take more breaks from Wikipedia, but when it gets to a point where you feel you need a break, it's a wise person who acts on their feelings. Best of luck with your exams!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I know people who have gone longer than that without showering. It's all relative.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second here LGR ... I take a shower every single Saturday night .. whether I need it or not. — Ched :  ?  22:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you help in correcting instead of removing the changes?

I am asking this nicely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaofthecross (talk • contribs) 21:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you were really asking nicely, you would not have reverted back to your version.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	For this excellent revert. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Faizan, I meant to respond earlier, but then it somehow slipped through the cracks. So, a belated thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Gentle words

Hi Bbb, Could you please try and have another gentle word with Jeremy Duns (talk · contribs) about his style of interaction with others? Talk:Operation Golden Eye is the latest thread where I've withdrawn from the conversation to avert a slide into something more unpleasant: even when I have pointed him towards policies on (for example) primary sources, article titles etc, I am accused of being tedious, intransigent and unconstructive. It's not outright abuse, but it's not exactly conducive to a collegiate approach either. He is a very new editor and I have tried to explain some of the basics of Wiki to him, but (apart from the endless edit conflicts) my efforts have been called "shrill lectures". A second, equally abrasive approach can also be seen at Talk:Casino Royale (novel)‎. If you are able to point him away from his combative stance (which others also find off-putting) then he could be an asset to the project. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

But SchroCat, you've also accused me of being tedious: 'And you're back to talking—at tediously great length—about the poor start to your edits this morning...' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ian_Fleming

A claim someone's being disruptive tends to sound plausible and is hard to disprove without looking deeply into it - as an experienced editor you know this, and you've learned how to word comments like the one here to push admin buttons. But if Bbb takes the time to read our discusson *in full*, and doesn't simply go by your adept way at presenting yourself as an injured party in complaints such as this, I think they'll see that the person avoiding the collegiate approach here is you, not me.

Yes, you pointed me towards the policy on article titles. And I went through it very carefully and constructively in my response, trying to weigh those criteria fairly. You responded to that effort, which took me quite some time, with a couple of lines saying, effectively, 'Nah.' It's extremely frustrating. The article in question is wrong, and I'm trying to improve it based on sound principles and common sense. And also, as it happens, many years' experience as a professional editor and published author, including on WW2 topics and matters related to Ian Fleming. You're simply trying to raise objections to every single thing I do: Mincemeat, Jenkins, McCormick and this. Your efforts are extraordinarily time-consuming to counter, too, because whenever the argument gets too tricky for you you've learned how to throw needless procedural spanners in the works, by referring to policies you haven't even read properly, demanding consensus discussions and then refusing to give consensus even when proven wrong - or by creating plausible-sounding 'please be civil' appeals or reports to people like Bbb, who you know probably don't have time to look into the matter properly. But if they do, I think they'll see that we have both sniped at each other, but that I'm actually trying to be constructive (and have reached out to you to help me and do the same), while you've just continued to block everything I do and wasted a lot of my time on small edits you haven't properly looked at and have in fact got wrong. Calling you instransigent isn't uncollegiate of me - you are in fact being astonishingly instransigent, repeatedly, and *that* is uncollegiate. Jeremy Duns (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to look at this until tomorrow at the earliest.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, I've read the talk page discussion at Golden Eye (I also made a few mostly copy edits to the article). I wasn't reading it for the merits of editors' comments. I cared mostly about conduct. Jeremy, I think you were behaving better than in other discussions, but you could still improve. You have this notion that you must say something unflattering about another editor if you believe it to be true. So, if you think someone is being tedious, you have to say so. God knows you write enough words that eliminating some words and even some sections wouldn't hurt you a bit. For a writer, you could use a good editor (in the classic not the Wikipedia sense). For example, these two sentences were absolutely unnecessary to communicate your many points: "How tedious of you to respond to my long reasoning in such an intransigent way, without even bothering to take my points on board. Are you intent on wasting an enormous amount of both of our time yet again?" Not only could they have been eliminated, but their presence is what provoked ShroCat's response. Again, you weren't helpful by saying: "Oh, I see, I said you were being 'tedious' - sorry I think you are and were. You replied to my very reasonable, constructive and thought-through response with, in effect, a quick, intransigent, unconstructive 'No'." Let's assume you hadn't originally called ShroCat names but just made a substantive point. And ShroCat's only answer to your point was no. Without resorting to attacks, you could then simply ask ShroCat to explain their "no" response. As I said, I detect an improvement, but try harder to eliminate the comments about other editors. If you can't do it on the first try, use Show preview more. Reread your comments and ask yourself, is this comment really necessary (not is it true but is it necessary)?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Bbb23. I understand what you're saying and yes, I've written some long posts. But if someone responds briefly to dismiss your point it's often very hard to rebut it without being lengthy. 'Removed - no proof' is 3 words. The onus is then on you to prove it, and perhaps that can't be done in 3 words, or 30. If that then receives another 3-word-reply, I think it's unsurprising one might get annoyed and say so! So I think to say I provoked SchroCat is an odd way of looking at it: he provoked me into making that comment. He'd directed me to a policy, which I read, thought about and felt didn't apply. But rather than simply saying 'Doesn't apply', I'd tried to be constructive. I spent about half an hour posting a response, going through each of the criteria in that policy, and I think I was balanced in doing so. One of the things I pointed out was that WP:UCN actually states that Wikipedia often avoids inaccurate titles for articles even when they're more frequently used by reliable secondary sources.

I'm not saying SchroCat had to agree with me, or even respond point by point, but look at how he did: he simply very briefly cited the policy back to me again, saying that because most secondary sources use this name it must be the title, and ignored all the other points I'd made - including that the policy doesn't actually say that. He also threw another policy at me, claiming it was evidence for why Wikipedia favours secondary sources. But that policy also clearly states that primary sources can be used with care if backed by secondary ones. Since then, I've started a new discussion to ask the wider community if we can change the title, and I again explained in detail why I think those two policies and another one support my case, and SchroCat voted to oppose citing the same three policies, in such a way that suggests he didn't even read my rationale before doing so. In the latest discussion at Talk:Casino Royale (novel)‎ he *self-evidently* didn't even read my comment before dismissing my suggestion in a single line, claiming I was citing an unreliable fansite in support of my argument - in fact I'd linked to that site to show how the information I was arguing to be be *removed* from the article continues to spread.

These conversations have become so involved it would take days to read them all, and sorry for yet again writing at length to explain, but from my perspective the gentle words should really be with SchroCat. I've lost my temper, sure, but I think most people in my position would have done, and would in fact have left Wikipedia by now. I've made a series of small, accurate edits to articles and SchroCat, without bothering to check the sources or even read my arguments in some cases, has tried to block them all. So far all my edits have been restored, but took an insane amoint of my time and energy. I think it's clear from his objections to my changes on Operation Mincemeat, Geoffrey Jenkins, Donald McCormick and Goldeneye that he's just determined to block anything I put forward. The Fleming discussion took over two days, and was about miniscule edits. I was sitting chained to my keyboard, tearing my hair out in disbelief at having to counter his attempts to try to find arguments against my edits. If you're determined and experienced enough here you can argue black is white for days and hold up tiny, sensible edits. In doing so, eventually your 'opponent' will get so frustrated that they'll be 'uncivil' and you can then slap something on their Talk page or report them to an admin.

I've been a professsional writer and editor for years, and am used to criticism - but there has to be a sound basis for it. I think my editing skills are evident in post at the top of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ian_Fleming#Fleming_and_Mincemeat When those entirely reasonable arguments were continually dismissed and circumvented in increasingly convoluted ways, I became more frustrated, and more prolix.

I've long been irritated by errors on Wikipedia, but have also avoided contributing to it as an editor because a couple of experiences led me to believe it was overly bureaucratic and inflexible, and would be a waste of my time. The entry on my own career has been repeatedly sabotaged by sockpuppets because, ironically, I've taken a public stance about sockpuppets and other unethical practices by writers. I left it for a while, but eventually decided to try to intervene because this place is so influential - it's where most people find out about anyone. Intervening in a sensible way itself brought me to the attention of a national newspaper (alerted by one of the saboteurs)! But after a lot of effort and discussion, I eventually managed to get support from other editors and, with their guidance and help, it became something sensible and accurate. As a result, one of the editors posted on my Talk page: 'Hope you will stick around and help us out with other stuff.' I decided that was a good idea - why be wholly selfish, and why complain from the sidelines about inaccuracies here when I have some limited areas of knowledge and can help correct them? So I started making small edits to articles I knew about where I saw errors. They were all well received until I made a couple at the Ian Fleming page. I feel a lot of my time was needlessly wasted by someone deeply intent on blocking any changes to that article, and that he's now decided to oppose any change I make or suggest.

SchroCat's accused me of being uncollegiate and impatient. I think he's been extremely uncollegiate to me from the start, and continues to be despite my reaching out on the Casino Royale discussion for us to work together. I've lost my temper as a result a couple of times, but on the whole I think I've been very patient. If he continues behaving in this way, I'll leave. He'll be relieved, and no doubt some of the editors in his circle will be, too - but the pages he knows how to lock up in discussion if anyone tries to edit them will suffer, and Wikipedia will have lost one fairly reasonable, fairly decent-minded published authority on Cold War espionage and some related matters. A small loss, perhaps. But I've found this a depressing last few days here, and I think it's been to the detriment of Wikipedia's stated spirit and the information in several articles. Jeremy Duns (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I read your entire post here. It was fairly easy follow, actually. :-) I'm not sure I have anything new to tell you. I understand that editing at Wikipedia can be very frustrating. Even for people like me, who are much more experienced and more used to Wikipedia's ways of doing things, I often get frustrated. Some of the "problems" are healthy, and some perhaps not so much. That's generally a matter of opinion and many admins and experienced editors disagee. There's certainly no shortage of opinions around here. Usually, what I do as an editor is if I'm too frustrated by a content issue, I just walk away from it. The world is not going to collapse if I'm not involved. The world is not going to collapse if no one "fixes" something the way I think it should be fixed. If it's something truly compelling, where I believe I have a responsibility as an admin to do something, then I grit my teeth and do what I think is appropriate, but even that can be a time-consuming process and frustrating. There's no shortage of processes here, either.

If you want to edit here with less frustration, then you have to do that in a way you can live with and Wikipedia can live with. Just as an example, I've seen discussions where one editor keeps repeating the same thing over and over. Every other editor disagrees with him, but each time he repeats himself they feel compelled to respond. Sometimes no response is the best course of action.

You have to adjust your expectations. Some famous person - forget who - said somthing like, "If you don't expect anything, you'll never be disappointed." You need to be more patient and you can't necessarily expect everyone to spend as much time on a particular issue as you do and then complain when their response, in your view, isn't as well-reasoned or as well-researched as yours. I'm not sure I'm going to convince you of much, but I sincerely mean this as constructive advice based on my experience here, for what that's worth.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

And it's much appreciated. :) I don't mind in the least if people don't spend as much time researching an issue as me - but if they decide to initiate an argument with me claiming I'm wrong (or even might be wrong), I expect them to have at least fully read what I wrote, and to have themselves checked it! I can't see any good reason for deleting a very small edit and *then* checking whether it was wrong. If SchroCat had looked up the already-cited source on Mincemeat before deleting my edits on it he'd have seen in 10 minutes that I was right and left them to stand. Instead, he tied me up for a very long time having to argue it with him. I can recognize several other techniques from WP:GAME.

I think I'm generally a patient person, but there are limits to how much of my life I want to spend battling strangers on the internet to make tiny edits to inaccuracies on Wikipedia! Three weeks ago I was finding it an enjoyable way to spend a bit of time, and I liked that I wasn't just sitting back and complaining that Wikipedia contained inaccuracies, but helping in some small way. This week I'm thinking this takes just too much time and energy, and it's put me in a foul moud, too.

I'm currently locked in a formal debate on changing the title of the article 'Operation Golden Eye' to reflect the fact that all primary sources and an unimpeachable secondary source make it clear it was in fact called 'Goldeneye' and that it wasn't in any way an operation, or ever called one. That's surely a no-brainer! So if such an obviously sensible change is rejected by the wider community, I think I'll probably conclude that the prioritizing of bureaucracy and procedure over basic common sense is so stifling that it's not worth spending my time here. Thanks for the comments and advice. Yours, Jeremy Duns (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Bbb: much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

RfA

Hello Bbb! Well, I just had a look at your userpage, and got links to RfA Statistics updated by a bot. I want them on my userpage too, to catch up with the updates, can you guide me regarding that? Faizan -Let's talk! 17:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think if you add {{User:SQL/RfX Report}} somewhere on your userpage, you will get the same. Innit clever! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh...Thanks Demi! Faizan -Let's talk! 08:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Afreaka!

You changed this article to a redirect after it was nominated for speedy deletion under criterion A7. The article was about an album, not a band, so that nomination wasn't correct. I want to change this back to an article. Do you have any objection? 24.24.214.15 (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you ask as you've done it anyway. You are correct that A7 was not applicable. At the time, the article had very little material, and a redirect seemed the sensible thing to do. You've added a little more material, but I still don't see too much of any value in it that isn't already covered in the band article. Other than making a few edits to it, though, I'm not pushing the issue at this point. I may solicit input from others who know more about bands and albums than I do. I usually stay away from such articles. It just came up when I was CSD patrolling.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

What Bbb did was perfectly appropriate: articles on albums that are nothing but tracklists should be redirected to the band article, if such exists, as WP:NALBUMS explains. (RadioFan should have known better than to stick A7 on there.) The article in its current state can make a valid claim to notability, in my opinion. It has a couple sources and it's got a lot more information than thousands of other album articles we have. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice

hello bbb....m sorry but i have reasons to believe that you wrote on my talk page...i am new to wikipedia and i don't know much but i cant see your msg...i am sorry to bother u but if your msg was abt a certain page that i edited then (Redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shafaq123 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a report filed against you at the edit warring noticeboard. The person who reported you was required to notify you of the report's existence but failed to do so. Therefore, I did it for them to give you a chance to respond to the report. If you click on this link, you should be taken directly to the report, and then you may comment if you wish. (As a rule, it's not a good idea to publish your e-mail address at Wikipedia.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Barisan Nasional

Hi Bbb, I could use some help at this article, which I've already reported at page protection and Admin incidents noticeboards. Lots of partisan spin from both sides following a Malaysian election. Hope you're well, by the way. Cheers, 99.136.252.252 (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

test

by your command sir. :) — Ched :  ?  18:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL, such a guy. It works, too, not that I ever doubted WK.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

;-D — Ched :  ?  18:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Maduro's article

Why do you claim Maduro's allegations are not noteworthy, even if they are about a murder plot supposedly planned by a well-known former president of a neighbouring country, even if this appears in international news? We are not talking here about Britney Spears's news, but about serious allegations with diplomatic repercussions. --Periergeia (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

We meet again

Any thoughts you may have re: the clean ups that have been reverted at Carolyn Moos and Holy Trinity Diocesan High School would be appreciated. I do have a more general question re: use of a subject's website as a biographical source: I've always taken it as a given that it's not acceptable, but wonder under which circumstances it is. Thanks for any light you can shed, and thank you for the kind words earlier. Best, 99.136.252.252 (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, @99., just to let you know that I won't be able to look at this until tomorrow. I'm about to go off wiki, and I'm trying to clear up a few pressing things before doing so. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb. Editor MisterShiney seems to be so wide of the mark re: both guidelines and consensus that my questions relate not to whether or not the content and tone belong, but as to how best to proceed. At what point are ANI or other venues appropriate? I've already begun threads at the article talk pages and the BLP board. Much appreciated, 99.136.252.252 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the ridiculous material from the Moos article (plus some more) and commented on the talk page. The school article - school articles can be a pain in the ass - is much less evolved, so I've put it on my watchlist. It would be premature to go to ANI. You'd have to build a case of persistent rule-breaking by an editor. There are an awful lot of editors against MS on the Moos article. It's tough to see how he can withstand such a strong consensus. As an aside, I wouldn't template an editor as you did at BLPN. It's common at some forums, but not so much at BLPN. I'd focus on the content only.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed the template, per your suggestion. I got the sense early on, well before the screed about IPs, that editing anonymously helped to fuel this. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this has happened and won't be the last. Experienced editors really should be able to distinguish between "good" and "bad" IPs just as they distinguish between "good" and "bad" registered users. I understand it's harder to see history unless the IP address is static but what you do, how you do it, what you say, and how you say it should give someone a clue.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If people are inclined to make snap judgments over superficial appearance, then perhaps it's best that I don't include a picture of myself when editing [2]. Photo taken last year, as I've trimmed a bit since. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Current vs Recent

About my edit that you undid (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Title_sequence&diff=553658226&oldid=553649294 my changing the section title from "Current" to "Recent"--and your suggestion that any series not considered "current" be moved to the section labeled, "Past". There was a reason why I did that and why what you suggest is not practical. Due to the nature of cancelling and renewing, and hiatus while new episodes are being produced, there actually is no such thing as "Current" for any television shows except for "Currently Airing", and/or "Currently airing new episodes" on television and some on that list are not currently airing on broadcast TV or cable.
That is not taking off-air, like Hulu, NetFlicks, etc. into consideration either, so it is actually a confusing title.
By labeling the section "Recent"-that was as close as I could come to being accurate, that most of the shows on that list were either currently airing, or on hiatus, and also by using the section-heading, "recent"-there is some wiggle-room for questionable and rumored to be cancelled/not-renewed shows.

So-just to let you know, I disagree with your undoing of what I consider to be an improvement, but I am not changing it back at this time. I also do not think that that list is a good place to add rumors about cancellations and news about whether or not the items are being renewed, but if that were the case, it could be more precisely labeled "current", but I don't feel like doing that because I do not agree.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If you wish, you could go to the article talk page and raise the issue to get input from other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit War on the Odin Brotherhood

Hello.

I support the "protection" that has been applied to The Odin Brotherhood page, but could the protection be applied to the page before the edit war? At present, the block is preserving a non-neutral point-of-view.

This page, last edited by Mr Enric Naval himself before his current edit war, is more balanced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Odin_Brotherhood&diff=529294559&oldid=529241558

Thank you.

--Heathenguy (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wrong Version.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I see your point!

--Heathenguy (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sheppane's block

Thanks for taking an interest in the ANEW issue.

Can I suggest though, how about unblocking Sheppane? It's not perfect, but I see today's postings as being an improvement and something to be encouraged. It also looks as if they're someone who might have knowledge to contribute to the articles. Hitting them with a block isn't going to encourage this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not unsympathetic to your point, but I have to enforce the warning. If he requests an unblock, depending on what he says, I will consider it, but, otherwise, it makes warnings empty.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what he's been blocked for? You asked him to contribute on someone else's talk page: he did so. Blocks are (mythically) protective, not punitive. I'm not clear what is being protected here. If his contributions since were harmful, surely they ought to have been reverted. If they weren't harmful (and I see no harm), then what are we protecting? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The two editors were edit warring. I told them initially that they risked being blocked if they continued. And at ANEW, I made it clear that more reverts would not be tolerated. Even helpful edits (and I'm not saying whether they are or they aren't), unless they're exempt, constitute reverts from an edit warring perspective. My block was not punitive. When someone defies a warning, that means they think they can continue to edit war, and a block prevents them from doing that. In other words, edit warring in and of itself is harmful. Now, if Neil says he was confused by the confluence of the talk page comments and those at ANEW, and it sounds credible, I will consider unblocking him.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just had an abusive email accusing me of edit warring (on another article – HTML element, which is almost beyond saving anyway). I don't think it was from the other editor involved there (doesn't look like their style), but it was from someone who was aware of the Donald Campbell stuff and this recent block. It may just be one of the regular stalking trolls, but either way it's not something I'm happy about. I would be really unhappy to find out it was from Sheppane. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Andy, how abusive was it? Feel free to forward it to me if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No big deal, just the usual trolls. I think it was just one looking over the parapet of their bridge and seeing an opportunity for some fun. Unless we can do reverse lookups on gmail addresses, there's no easy way to tie it back. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, Bbb, I can assure you I have sent no abusive email to you Bbb, on this or any subject. I fully understand your perspective re my block, and whilst I echo the comments Andy made above, I respect your right to take a course of action you see fit. I think I may still not be still completely up to speed with Wiki protocol as well. I believe that there is a troll at work here, and would not be too surprised at some of the tactics being applied to discredit my contributions. I'm very happy to have a transparent dialogue with anybody with regards to my WIKI contributions which I am very happy to apply my full name to. ( Sheppane (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC) ) Neil Sheppard

It would be interesting to note the IP address of the troll. ( 11:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheppane (talk • contribs)

Deleted Metro United Way

This page was deleted. Why? It was similar to United Way Worldwide and Blessings in a Backpack. What's the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melody Murphy7 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Your article is not even remotely similar to United Way Worldwide, although UWW may end up being merged. Your article had almost nothing in it. Blessings in a Backpack is marginal, but at least it has one secondary source attesting to what it does. In any event, at the end of the day, the quality is of other articles is irrelevant. I just look at the article that is tagged and decide whether it qualifies for speedy deletion. Yours did.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

More personal attacks

On March 31st, you blocked Maxschweitzer for personal attacks and harassment. He and I worked together a bit after that and I thought that he had taken his block seriously. He's back at it with two other editors.

• Called SarahStierch a secret sexist after she asked him to use edit summaries.
• After Pigsonthewing asked him to stop with person attacks, he asked how to report SarahStierch for discrimination and then says Pigsonthewing and called him dyslexic, all in the same edit.

It's basically the same behavior that got him blocked in the first place. I thought you might want to know. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that the strange screed posted on OlYeller21's talk page in this edit is (near) identical to that addressed to me (as the contents of a Google Doc) by an anonymous user (who has since vanished; or been blocked) on Twitter earlier today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a good summary of my previous run-in with Max. I guess I'm not surprised that he's taken it to Google Docs. Even if the Google Doc isn't verified, a block still seems warranted. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Bizarrely, he's admitted it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You should save yourself time by blocking me permanently. I will never accept discrimination and stalking. Maxschweitzer (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your behavior. First, I'm looking only at your behavior subsequent to your last block, meaning after early April. Second, I'm looking only at issues related to other editors, not articles. Third, I'm not looking at off-wiki behavior. What I've seen are two personal attacks. You attacked User:SarahStierch (secretly sexist). Her response makes sense to me, which was effectively your comments made absolutely no sense. Second, you attacked Andy for being dyslexic, although in the context I have no idea what you mean. Please explain why you said these things to these two users.

Now above you say I should block you indefinitely because you "will never accept discrimination and stalking." Let's put aside the stalking allegation for the moment and just focus on your discrimination claim. Normally, someone discriminates against someone on some basis. For example, one could discriminate against someone for religious reasons, i.e., the someone is Jewish or Catholic or Muslim (just examples).

So, (1) who is discriminating against you? (2) what is the basis? and (3) what is your evidence of that discrimination? Just in case you're not watching this thread, I'll leave a message on your talk page asking you to respond to my questions. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

1. I asked SarahStierch if she was secretly sexist after she waited for me to finish hours of edits and multiple saves on a very incomplete page and coldly told me to leave an edit summary. 2. I asked Andy how to handle discrimination and only received British passive aggression and harassment. 3. I believe SarahStierch is sexist against men. I believe Andy is racist against non-Brits. My evidence is their behavior to me in the past day. 4. If you're asking me to explain these points when they are clearly evident does not bode well for me and I hope to be blocked permanently. Wikipedia is run by amateurs who think they are professionals. Maxschweitzer (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Your response is unsatisfactory in every respect. Not only do you not justify your recent attacks, but you make new ones with the absurd "justification" that they are "clearly evident". I will block you indefinitely (there is no such thing as a permanent block), but it's not because of your request but because of your behavior otherwise and your unwillingness to change.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for everything. And for your kind words on my talk page which brought tears to my eyes. I appreciate all you do! SarahStierch (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm truly glad I could be of some small help. I'm sure you have a great support network, but if you ever need an ear, feel free to come here, shoot me an e-mail, whatever. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

notice

You know you're edit warring on Wikipedia:Edit warring, right? "Being involved in an edit war can result in " blah blah blah. 2 reverts, especially after a statement [3] which could be interpreted as saying you're not going to use the talk page anymore. Not good, and probably not necessary: 280 page watchers. NE Ent 09:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of how many reverts I've made to the policy, and the irony hasn't eluded me.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

More seriously, though, the change was made by Victor without discussion, let alone consensus. My initial reversion put the burden on Victor to obtain a consensus. Just because a second editor agrees with Victor and reverts me is not a substitute for obtaining that consensus. We are not talking here about an ordinary article but about an important policy. I understand that edit warring may occur on any page, not just in article space, but changes to policy are normally held to a higher standard. As for the 280 watchers, they're obviously not doing a good job, are they? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous IP you recently blocked

IP 75.51.171.124 [4] now under IP 75.51.174.240 is continuing their disruptive editing behavior. User:My very best wishes has opened an an SPI. Could you please comment on the Talk:Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union? Thank You so very much in advance. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is also -- he blocked... My very best wishes (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to look at this today. I have a splitting headache and am going off-wiki. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Get well soon! Sure, there are other admins to look at this. Anyway, since I reported everything, this is no longer my responsibility. My very best wishes (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, my headache is gone (yay!), but it's unclear to me what you want. Could you please lay that out for me? Also, explain to me why you want whatever it is. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Partial page protection. The IP is still revert edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union for one week. The IP will still be able to post to the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank You. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Big news!!!

This image, will appear on the commons MAIN page on June 10 2013!! Please view it on that day! The flower was photographed and grown by me, and is now also considered a Quality image! --✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 05:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A question about blocking?

hi Bbb23, I was wondering if you could explain to me how blocking works. For example, if an IP editor was making continuous disruptive edits to a page, would this be enough to warrant blocking the user? Thanks in advance for the help. JayJ47 (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It would depend on the edits. Disruptive is ambiguous. Perhaps you could give me a concrete example.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers

I hope you're feeling better. I did give your the day off yesterday, saddling Drmies with the drama instead. Best, 99.136.252.252 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I noticed that before going off-wiki yesterday. Thanks for your consideration, and I am feeling better.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• If....you're game, no heavy lifting involved at Vilayat Inayat Khan, just a stubborn COI and promotional agenda. I can't continue or it'll be edit warring. Thanks, 99.136.252.252 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Off-wiki legal threat from blocked user User:Maxschweitzer. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Smurfmeister

I've seen the ANI thread, and would like to comment: it appears that this user has acted in exactly this manner since 2007, and I think an admin needs to advise him about civility and WP:NPA. I've noted this just from looking at their talk page, and of course, it's probable you already had anyway. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't plan to take any further action unless something new occurs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23. The user's block has expired and they have used it as an opportunity to try restart the dispute - here and here. There is also cause for concern that they evaded their block using an IP on Miranda (TV series) (the article where the edit war began) - as these two diffs with matching edit summaries demonstrate. diff1 diff2.Rain the 1 21:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed earlier the comments they left on the two talk pages after their block expired, and they're not really personal attacks, more like insisting it wasn't their fault. I'm not inclined to take action on it. As for the IP's edits while Smurfmeister was blocked, you're probably right, but because I didn't catch it while they were blocked, I'm uncomfortable imposing sanctions now. However, I have reverted the changes. We shouldn't be citing to other wikis anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hi Bbb23, I am not sure if this should be reported to 3RR or ANI since this involves a floating IP (not Jacob Peters, this is probably someone else). This guy, 67.239.39.21, violated 3RR rule yesterday, and I gave him a warning (talk page). However, he reappeared again, now as 67.239.55.78 to edit war in the same article, but mostly in Victims_of_Communism_Memorial where he places this thing and violated 3RR rule again. Based on their edits, this is a disruption-only account... Sorry to bother you, My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I blocked both IPs for 3 months. However, it's not clear that the same person won't come back as a different IP. I was trying to avoid semi-protection because so many articles were involved, but let me know if there's more disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! However, Jacob Peters just went berserk by multiplying his IP accounts [5], [6]. Something should be done about this; maybe a block in a wide range of IPs (75.51....) or semi-protection of several pages. My very best wishes (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And now this. Perhaps these two guys know each other. Meatpuppets? My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Socks of Gogdygody (talk · contribs)

Hi, looks like the sock farm is just increasing. [7], [8]. Would an SPI be worth it as I do see quite a lot of discruption in Rajnikanth as well? — Abhishek  ^Talk 08:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I blocked four accounts. As far as I can tell, other accounts were CU-blocked because of the edits at Rajnikanth.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Dead

You have erred in this [[9]] he was declared dead albeit a half year ago. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Kunwar Amar

Any chance of you taking a look at the BLP issues being created by an IP and a newly-registered user at Kunwar Amar during the last 24 hours? I am 99% sure that the new user is the IP. Both have had warnings/explanations but the info has just again been reinserted. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sigh, it feels like all I do is block socks. I blocked the registered account for a week and the IP for six months. Supposedly, the IP is static, so it's hard to tell who should be labeled the master, but I'm going to take the approach that the registered account is the master even though it was only just created. I may tag the accounts later. I've put the article on my talk page, but feel free to let me know if there's any further problems (I have so many articles on my talk page they sometimes get lost in the traffic jam). Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, and I understand. I've no idea how the article ended up on my watchlist but it is prone to fancruft and BLP violations. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Guidelines Revert

I was notified that you had reverted my edit on WP:Talk Page Guidelines. My edit was correcting a typo. Were you actually also rolling back Apteva's edit? If so, okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Please see Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Use of non-English language on own User Talk page. It would be better to participate in this discussion instead of reverting. Apteva (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Tissa Abeysekara

tissa had tthree mirages |spouse = Suvinitha Koongahage(1965-1973), Pushpa Meewella(1975-1987, Asanka Monarvilla(1988-to date) and five children children = Aparna Nirmohi, Noriko Maduwanthi ,Charulatha Swethambari, Svetlana Kamalocini and Dimitra Amithodana don't remove this corrected fact. you have rights to remove it if somebody make a challenge . there is no way to put citations . but facts are corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.136.250 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you want to add biographical material to the article about his wives and children to the infobox, even though you have no sources in support of the material (and it's not covered in the body). That's simply not possible. If the material is not verifiable, it cannot be added. Please don't reinsert it without reliable sources. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

hi friend,,please read the article. i am a daughter of tissa. i know the verifiable of these fatcs.http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2007/06/10/imp08.asp how do you say those information is incorrect. please add that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.134.208 (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps with four of the children. Do you have another reference for the other children AND for the wives? Also, just so you know, when I add the material, it will be to the body of the article, not to the infobox. Generally, children are not listed in the infobox unless they have Wikipedia articles themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Mike12225

Hi there; you have blocked this user for vandalism, and for possible sockpuppetry. I feel that sock- (or meat-) puppetry is blatantly obvious purely on the basis of editing behavior and account creation timing, but I honestly cannot see any vandalism (not on this account, although present on the others). The block is clearly correct, so I am in a sense nit-picking, but I would appreciate a heads-up on the alleged vandalism. It can make a difference, as you obviously know, when considering an unblock request. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Not an easy question to answer, actually. I was looking at the whole picture of Mike's and the other editors' edits, and I was having trouble defining the problems with Mike's edits themselves. I couldn't decide if they were incompetent, intentionally disruptive, child-like, or something else. For example, why did Mike add this? Remember, one of the other editors involved was User:Barri123. Then there was the sequence of edits to Yintan's talk page where Mike was supposedly trying to remove vandalism, yet all he did was shift material around (repeatedly). And what is this gibberish? And then this edit, which followed on the heels of Barri123's nonsense. Honestly, I still don't know what label to put on these kinds of edits. What stood out was that Mike had nothing constructive to offer the project. You're welcome to make up your own mind as to what it all means. Let me know if you figure it out. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I am only borderline computer literate, so am not able to assess if the edits relating to high- and low- evels and languages are sense or nonsense. Certainly, as I already said, the puppetry is blatant and the vandalism from the other edits is obvious. He claims them as his friends, editing the same articles together by choice and inclination, and all starting about the same time. Hmmmm. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks very much for your consideration on the matter at WP:ANEW. I don't know whether it is up your alley or not, but we could use more commentary on the talk page of 2012 Benghazi attack, if you are interested. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Nadia Boulanger's 90th Birthday Celebration at Fontainebleau

Hi Bob, I attended a concert last night featuring Aaron Copeland and remembered my summer at the Fontainebleau Ecoles des Beaux Arts where Nadia Boulanger presided in 1977. I found my journal and edited the Wiki article to include the grand celebration of her 90th birthday August 13, 1977. Because I am new to Wiki, I'm not sure how to cite this reference, but I was there. My journal is not published, but may I still cite it as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane tn (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Diane, you can't use your journal because it's not verifiable or even reliable. It's not that I doubt you, but Wikipedia has rules that material must be sourced to something authoritative that someone else can check. If you have access to a library with newspapers that go back that far, perhaps a French newspaper, that could work. I've done a little poking around online and found a few references to her 90th birthday celebration, but not with the kind of detail that you wrote. I'll see if I can cobble something together from what I can find. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I still have the sunglasses I bought in Fontainebleau in 1989. Please do what you can to help the lady. Bbb, I'm watching some Star Trek movie, with invisible enemies and photon torpedoes. I think I just saw some character press some buttons, one of them marked Bbb23. Is that possible? Drmies (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I did help the lady. Indeed, I went above and beyond, but I updated her on her talk page, not here, because I figured she'd be more likely to see it. See what you think of what I did to Nadia Boulanger. Do you think it's too much? There are Bbb23's everywhere pressing buttons. However, they're all clones. You have to make sure you're dealing with the real Bbb23. Hey, I thought of you earlier today when I watched a concert performance of La Boheme recorded last month in Amsterdam. It was on YouTube (not a copyright violation, either). I didn't see you in the audience, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well done, thanks. That article is a mess--the referencing is a nightmare. Yes, I missed that concert. Also, I have no idea what "La Boheme" is, besides a piece of music. I could look it up in Wikipedia, I suppose. But I do appreciate the thought. You know what, I often think of Dennis when I pick up baby Liam to put him in his crib. I wonder why I do. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

La bohème is an opera by Puccini, probably one of the most famous Italian operas ever written. In case you don't recall, I'm an opera buff. The lead soprano is a young woman who hales from Southern California and with whom I have a non-personal connection. Classical music articles are often very messy from a sourcing standpoint. On a postitive note (so to speak), they are rarely vandalized. However, lots of people add unsourced material, and it becomes a battle royale to remove it, one I often lose, actually. Diane, to her credit, approached me in a very respectful and civil fashion. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't have done all the work I did to help out. Many editors scream at me that I don't know what I'm talking about and they know everything. Sometimes, I go to User:Antandrus, an admin musicologist and a very decent fellow, and ask him to assist. He at least has access to lots of books, and I don't unless I'm willing to trek to the library (one time I actually did that). Plus, he's more conciliatory in dealing with unruly editors than I am. I recently went to him about the Boulanger article regarding a referencing/lead/body issue, but I don't think he's had a chance or the time to do anything about it, and I gave up on the fight I was having (with maunus, strangely enough). It wasn't about this party business but about her famous students.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This might be why. Or is it just when he is being cranky that I come to mind? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, Dennis. Part of it is that I'm usually pretty sleepy when this happens. Maybe I'm thinking, half-groggy, "Well, if Dennis frigging Brown is all about Editor Retention, why doesn't he fucking come over here to put this child to bed?" BTW, I still really appreciate that edit. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Help?

The user's literally just said, "you might as well block me now so as the administrator that responded, surely there is something you can do....Gobbleygook (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas seems now to be beating a dead horse at King of Hearts talk page ... Collect (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Literally? Drmies (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Likely so. Viriditas made this edit [10]. Even after seeing this at his SPI report: Unrelated, entirely different continent.. It is rare that people on entirely different continents, editing in the same timeframe, are the same person. I hasten to point out that my interaction with Gobble was to revert his edits on a page - this is not a matter of POV or me backing his edits, but of actually following Wikipedia policy here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• @Drmies - I've been known to talk to my computer screen from time to time .. of course my dog always looks at me like I'm a real wackadoodle when I do that .. but meh. — Ched :  ?  15:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas has been blocked for a week. If he wasn't hounding Gobbleygook, he was certainly hounding King of Hearts. I closed the ANI report. Drmies is assigned the task of creating warning templates (4 levels, please) for abusing the word literally. Ched has misinterpreted his dog's conduct. All dogs look at their masters like they are wackadoodles (great word) because ... well, because we are.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb, you're always on my case for my supposedly knowing everyone. Well, I don't know Viriditas. I do know Collect a little, and I'm glad they're not my neighbor in some dispute over a fence or something. My dog is nothing like me--well, we're both delicious and lovable, but in other respects we're very different. When she was young she used to drink beer and eat wings with me, but she lost her taste for beer after her first birthday. I'm not one for making templates--Bongomatic is the one for that. Happy days to everyone. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Writ Keeper/uw-lit1 User:Writ Keeper/uw-lit2 User:Writ Keeper/uw-lit3 User:Writ Keeper/uw-lit4 Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • LOL. Let me know when you use them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Need to reblock an editor

You took action here but that did no change the editor's behavior. See here: What a a waste of everyone's time. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know - and anyone else reading this - I blocked the editor for a week based on the report at ANEW before I saw your message here, not that there's anything wrong with your alerting me to the problem here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Redlink

You undid my edit on Amber Rose Revah due to: no redlink. What is a redlink please? Lord el puss (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A wikilink is when you put double brackets around words so the reader can click on it and go to a Wikipedia article. If the article exists, the link is blue; if it does not, it is red. There is no bright line when it is appropriate to red-link a title, as you did here. A rule of thumb is if you think an article is going to be created or if you want to encourage the creation of an article, it is okay to red-link it. Otherwise, you don't. In this instance, I didn't think a red link was appropriate because it's a short film from 2009 that probably would not justify an article. (Take a look at your signature block just above. It is red because your user page doesn't exist. If you create your user page and put something in it, your signature will be blue.)--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello Bbb23! I have copied your design of userpage for mine. No doubt, you handle a lot of cases everyday, but I expect you have not forgotten me. I have learned a lot from you. Just came here for asking about any reservations regarding the userpage? Faizan 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Faizan, nope, I haven't forgotten you. I have no problem with your copying the design of my user page, although I'm surprised you would want to - it's kind of bland compared to most. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

But that's the best! We are here for building this Wikipedia, for its improvement, therefore, as you have contributed so much, still you have not disclosed any of your personal stuff, so I, just as your silent follower, redesigned userpage for getting more substantial contributions. Thanking you once again! Faizan 11:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion

70.19.122.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has changed IP addresses and is editing as 65.88.88.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I don't know which board, if any, would be appropriate to report block evasion, so I hope it's not inappropriate to bring it to your attention, since you blocked the IP a few hours ago. - SudoGhost 16:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to come here. I blocked them for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

edit warring

Bbb23, I don't understand why User:Refusecollection is allowed to continue to edit war. I took your words in good faith and apologized. But that was a one way street as Refusecollection is apparently exempt from your requests and is still reverting other editors. Is the 3RR rule a just pretend rule and doesn't apply to him for some reason? Farrajak (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23. I'm following Farrajak here and I hope I'm respecting correct protocol in doing so. What Farrajak has declined to mention is that the sole edit on the page in question since our agreement yesterday evening was to undo one of Farrajak's edits that had just been reinstated by a third party (Epicgenius). I informed Epicgenius of the discussion on the edit war page so that he/she could join in with his rationale. He/she has since done so, explaining that his/her intention was merely to restore the page to its former state. As it currently stands, the page is exactly as it was prior to the "edit war" and exactly as it was at the time of yesterday's agreement. I can assure you that I have no interest in pursuing an "edit war".Refusecollection (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

But you are pursuing an edit war. You aren't abiding by "yesterday's agreement". Just foolish me is doing so. It doesn't matter what the rationale of Epicgenius was. Other editors are perfectly free to edit that article. It's only you and me that were edit warring.
If Epicgenius is editing to maintain your version, then that's meatpuppeting or something to maintain "your version". You are insisting that "your version" of the article is the only one allowed. That's very wrong thinking. You're not supposed to enforce "your version" by edit warring or by enlisting the help of other editors to maintain "your version". It's not "your" article. Farrajak (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• It sounds more and more like I'm the only one who has to abide by the "seven day" rule. What's the time frame for Refusecollection to show in some way that he's not getting a free pass? And will you require Refusecollection to apologize and all that B.S. or is it only me that was foolish enough to do that? Farrajak (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've retracted my apology and I'm sorry I ever made it and took the rule seriously. What a waste of good faith. I ask you to retract the 24 hour block of Refusecollection as a meaningless gesture that just reinforces his behavior, since I am the only one who was abiding by the rules to begin with. Please undo it. I just makes me seem all the more stupid. Farrajak (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Kuyi123w

This disruptive user, whom you indef blocked a couple of weeks ago along with an anon sock, has found another IP to edit from: Special:Contributions/2.33.44.237. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kuyi123w. You may want to extend the block to this one too. JohnInDC (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Another, 2.33.44.147. I filed a new SSI report to help maintain a consolidated list. JohnInDC (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

special:contributions/2.33.233.126. JohnInDC (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Nexusfirs - created 3 days after prior IP block, same fractured linguistics & interests. Highly suspicious, but I'm not in a position to make extensive comparisons or file an SSI report for a couple of days at least. I note it for you in case you want to look into it or act sooner. JohnInDC (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Found time for an SSI report, at above link. JohnInDC (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I just got on-wiki a few minutes ago, and I've been looking at the new editor's contributions. So far, it looks like it's a fairly solid match, but I want to keep reviewing them.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please. Best to do it right. JohnInDC (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I blocked at the same time as a CU confirmed. The behavioral evidence was overwhelming, and he was continuing to edit, so I wanted to prevent further disruption. Many of the edits are dreadful, including creating new articles. Are you going to go through them and deal with them appropriately? You can revert anything you like, even without an independent basis, but you don't have to revert. You can also tag new articles per WP:CSD#G5. I can help if you like. For example, I can delete new articles without having to wait for the tag. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he created only one new article; I've deleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm on the road and not easily able to edit, but I see you cleaned up a good bit already. Thanks. We may have a chronic problem here, sigh. JohnInDC (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, most of it was fairly easy to do and uncontroversial, a little bit like washing dishes, not challenging but it gives you a good feeling when the kitchen is all clean. And I'm afraid you're right - there will probably be more. Please let me know when you spot new ones because the pages he touches are not necessarily pages I watch.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Alexikoua's block

Hi Bbb23. I just saw Alexikoua's unblock request and upon investigation I did not find any recent reverts on their part at the article where the edit-war occurred. Meanwhile the other editor was reverting simple addition of one-source and POV tags on top of all the other edit-warring they committed. Could you please check Alexikoua's unblock request? Thank you. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dr.K., it's always a pleasure to hear from you even though in this instance I disagree with you. It's never a good idea to report another editor for edit warring if you yourself have been edit warring. That was the case here. Plus, the unblock request is not optimal. Alex promises not to revert anytime in the "near future" (whatever that means), but it appears he doesn't understand what a revert is based on the first part of the unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. Thank you for your kind words. It is always a pleasure talking to you, under any circumstances. It is also fine that you disagree with me. I may even agree with you on the quality of Alexikoua's unblock request. The only thing is, as far as I am aware, Alexikoua has performed no reverts in the article concerned in the past two days. Therefore he has not edit-warred during the time he made the report at 3RRN. I would only ask you to verify this by looking at the article history. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Alex filed the report at 21:54 14 May. If you look at his contribution history on the article before the filing, you can see how many edits he made prior to the filing. That history, of course, doesn't break down what is a revert and what isn't. However, this series of edits was a revert. In addition, he continued to revert after he filed the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23. Fair enough, I can see your point. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone should also formally warn DragonTiger of WP:ARBMAC sanctions. Athenean (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to ignore you Athenean, but I'm not sure whether I want to warn them or not. It's a little odd to do so after edits to an article that doesn't have any notice on it about the sanctions. Perhaps I'm being too rigid, but there you have it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't mean to pester you, but what to do about this guy? He is extremely tendentious, my experience from the talkpage is that it is impossible to discuss with him. He rants and filibusters and launches into personal attack after personal attack without yielding an inch. Did you see what he wrote on his talkpage after you blocked him? It is precisely for users such as this that aribtration cases are designed for. Please advise. Athenean (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What concerns me the most is that this editor uses section headers for personal attacks. Look at the section header he used at ANI to attack his opponents, accusing them of covering-up massacres and using their ethnicity to further attack them. In terms of personal attacks it doesn't get any uglier or nastier than that, yet it still stands at ANI unmodified. Section headers should not be abused this way. This behaviour coupled with his edit-warring and his COI removal of POV, and one-source tags from the article which he created point to a very serious case of POV-pushing and battleground mentality. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• It seems to me that you are conflating two issues here. The first is whether Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres should be subject to WP:ARBMAC, and the second is whether DragonTiger's conduct warrants additional sanctions irrespective of discretionary sanctions. On the first issue, you're going to have to help me understand why the article should be subject to ARBMAC. Assume I'm ignorant about geography, history, etc. I looked at the article, and I started clicking on many of the related wikilinks, and none of the articles I linked to had any notices of being subject to ARBMAC. So, please explain why this one should be. On the second issue, I'm not going to impose additional sanctions unless there is a blatant policy violation that permits me to act unilaterally and without warning. Otherwise, you're going to have to go through the normal channels to obtain sanctions. I did remove the material he posted to his talk page and I threatened him with revocation of talk page access if he persisted, but that's as far as I'm willing to go at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Bbb23. I think there has been a misunderstanding. I just made a general observation in response to Athenean's comment about ARBMAC. I simply wanted to voice my concern about this editor's actions independently of ARBMAC. Since my comment was independent of ARBMAC there was no conflation of the two issues on my part. Also by making my comment I did not want to imply that I was seeking additional sanctions against this editor from you or anyone else. I just wanted to remark that section headers anywhere, including at ANI, should not be used to brutally attack other editors based on their ethnicity. I hope this clears any misunderstanding. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarifications, Dr.K.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you also Bbb23 and my apologies for imposing. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bbbr23, I am sorry for my tone but I really suspect that there are certain pov pushing edits done to the article and that is why I added an explanation with the diffs, I understand that the tone against the users was not good but the diffs are certainly necessary so I will add it back to my talk page. And may ask you if you ever read what I wrote before you completely removed it because it seems you were pressured by the above to remove it. Thanks it was very nice to talk to you.DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

AN3 closing on 10 May 2013

Please clarify your closing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive213#User:Reyk reported by User:Unscintillating (Result: Declined).  Spat is defined at m-w.com as "a brief petty quarrel or angry outburst".  Spat is not policy-based terminology, and seems to reify something that to my knowledge does not exist.  The issue of other forums was something I [discussed] with the admin who hatted the discussion in January, but the issue here is edit warring, and this is the edit warring noticeboard.  In April, I had reopened the discussion at WT:ATA#April 2013, with the result that consensus rejecting the essay was again confirmed, as it had been previously in December 2012 and in April 2011.  In this discussion at WT:ATA, not a single editor supported Reyk's viewpoints.  This is not a complicated case.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to add. I suggest you let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

In my previous post I objected to reifying the idea of a "spat", and now there is an "it" that I am to let go?  The "it" that you would have me to let go, from my viewpoint is patient support for our policies and guidelines.  My position regarding this essay is one that is supported by consensus, most recently affirmed in April, as Qwyrxian wanted to see in January.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Not following

[11]? Haven't removed any sanctions, just added Qworty's and removed some excess stuff. NE Ent 20:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something. I thought your removal of "excess stuff" was removal of sanctions - a couple if I recall the diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No. There was a block that was overturned at AE and ED J noted a declined appeal, but no change in sanctions. NE Ent 20:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock of (21sayriuo)

Hi Bbb23, just letting you know I unblocked User:(21sayriuo) who you blocked because the block justification was invalid. However, they may be a sock, in which case they'll be re-blocked. I've asked Wizardman to take a look at User talk:Wizardman. Dcoetzee 23:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see they've been reblocked as a sock, but I don't see why you think my block basis was invalid.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I see now they've been tagged but not yet reblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant kidnapping?

I noticed and reversed your frankly bizarre edit of the Dorothy Reitman article in which you removed a well-sourced reference to the kidnapping of her infant child in the late 1950s (incidentally, this was also the event that first brought Dorothy Reitman to national attention). You described the incident as "irrelevant" to an article on the mother. If you really think that position has any merit then I invite you to remove any reference of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping from the article on Charles Lindbergh. You can find the specific section here: Charles_Lindbergh#.22The_Crime_of_the_Century.22. 67.70.37.55 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reversed your edit as your justification makes no sense. If you still wish to remove the kidnapping reference please discuss it at Talk first and I'll open an RFC for general comment. I can't imagine that the general wikipedia community will see how it's justified not to mention this in a biography but if you want to argue your case then go ahead - but you should argue your case and convince others of its merits first before the information is removed again. 67.70.37.55 (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Persepolis F.C.

Hi! You have blocked Persepolis from un-Admin users. Now you can see Admins works!! In first team squad, we have two captains!!! Mohammad-Nouri was Vice Captain so after the retirement of Ali Karimi he will be captain not Hadi Norouzi. It's good now???? Why blocked the page? We can solve our problems. It's not good. Tabarez (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I get you're unhappy. I don't understand anything else you're saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I said Admin users have edited Persepolis and you can see their worked at the page. See First team squad. It's not correct and We can't edit and correct it? Understand? Tabarez (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A bit more. I don't see any recent changes by admins to the article. Regardless, if you believe that something must be changed in the article while it's protected, you can use {{Edit protected}} on the talk page to request a change to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

DragonTiger again

Not only is he reverting-warring again [12] [13], which are reverts of these edits of mine[14], [15], he also re-posted his attacks against me and Alexikoua [16] on his user page. What am I to do here? WP:AE? WP:RfC/U? Please advise, I am at my wits end. Athenean (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I figured this might happen. I've blocked him for one week. I haven't decided what to do about the compilation of negative information on his talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this, appreciate it. Athenean (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Improper editing of talk page

I just noticed that 68.50.128.91, who is currently blocked, has improperly removed or changed prior comments on their talk page on May 21. (They made 11 edits to their talk page that day.) For example, they edited this comment by you, thus changing your intended message. That is an extremely inappropriate edit and a clear violation of the TP rules. As you'll see on the talk page log, the editor also changed several of their own comments after they had already been replied to, thus changing the context of the discussions. One cannot simply change something they wrote after others have already replied to it (unless it's extremely minor and won't affect the context at all); they can only strike the comments. Although I defended this editor's right (actually, all editors) to edit their own talk page per WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED, I made clear that it must not violate any policies or guidelines. An interesting, quirky fact, as you well know, is that an editor can totally remove another editor's comment (as long as it doesn't violate WP:OWNTALK or WP:REMOVED), but they cannot change someone's comment. So basically, you can remove what someone said from your own talk page, but you cannot change what they said. Anyway, you will also see towards the end of this thread on the IP's talk page, that I talked to them about the importance of having a good reputation as an editor and treating others in a civil manner. I thought progress was being made. Until I saw their May 21 talk page edits. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed it when it happened, and I'm aware of the guidelines about removing comments vs. changing them. They had just been reverted a couple of times for violating WP:TPOC. In the last set of changes, though, they mostly removed comments, and only in a couple of instances changed other editors' comments (mine was the worst :-) ). I decided to let it go and not revert them. For whatever reason, they apparently just want to keep the conversation between you and them and get rid of everyone else. Must be nice to be popular. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad you were aware of those edits. Had I known that, I wouldn't have written you. Haha. I have no doubt that the reason they wanted to talk to me only is because I was defending an issue that helped their cause. And that's fine, but I did make it clear to them that I was not defending them per se. Intstead, I was speaking for all editors, as I explained with this edit. Btw, that's not the type of popularity I want. :p --76.189.109.155 (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Help...

...requested with user Lifes Answer, and an incoherent self-published work, Circle of Life - Collaborate Masterpiece. Thanks and cheers, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Figuring you're probably hiking all over the northwest, I've also contacted the copyvio expert Moonriddengirl for assistance. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hardly, mainly suffering from insomnia. I'm glad to see the article was deleted, and I use the word article advisedly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it--happens to me far too often. Let's ascribe it to having minds that are too active and brilliant to follow conventional needs. Like sleep. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Louis Cole

Hello Bbb23. Ever so sorry if this is in completely the wrong place. I am new to editing Wikipedia, although I have had my account for some time and made changes in the past. I am just wondering, what was the reason for reverting my edit to the Louis Cole article? Did I do something wrong? Thanks Slsslssls —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I dunno about "wrong", but generally we don't add trivia to articles, and Cole's musings about what he would have done "if" are of little importance to anyone except maybe Cole. Also, you should always try to write material neutrally. You shouldn't use the subject's first name. You should refer to him as Cole. Also, saying he would "love to be traveling" sounds like a fan magazine, not an enyclopedia. I hope that helps answer your question.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Why should I 'leave it alone'? Is that a threat?

Give me a policy based reason for shutting down the discussion please. --Onorem (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The talk page of a blocked user is intended to be used to discuss the block or an unblock, not for an extended unrelated discussion about talk page guidelines and WP:BLANKING, mixed in with criticism of various editors. An admin shut down the discussion. I agree with it. A non-admin should not reopen it. It's not your call.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The talk page was blocked because of a BLANKING issue. How the hell are you supposed to discuss it if it's shut down for that reason? Catch-22? Nope...just admins protecting admins. I'm done. --Onorem (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

MarkBernstein's 5-day article-ban

If you find the time and have the inclination, it would be good for the project if you could reach out to this user, who appeals to have been greatly demoralized by your warning / block threat / temporary article ban.

You wield the mop, I know you must deal with lots of these cases, while I almost never deal with behavior problems. So, it's only in this context that I suggest something like a pure 3RR warning alone might better suit the interests of the project in this particular case.

In this particular event, I see a good faith user who was doing his best to maintain restraint during a very heated edit war fueled by a tendentious editor with a history of multiple blocks on the subject. MarkB's attempts at maintaining restraint may have failed him, and he may have crossed the 3RR line-- but he's a valued editor we want to keep as part of our project.

I'm sure you didn't intend to do anything other than a straightforward 3RR warning to serve as a reminder of that policy's importance, but on a human level, I worry it's created the impression that when an out-of-control user attacked a good-faith user, the project "sided against" the good faith user. That's not how I see it, but I worry that's how it was felt, on a human level, to the user in question.

Our editor community is getting smaller and smaller-- I don't know you've noticed since you're in the thick of things, but as purely a content editor, I definitely notice it getting a little quieter and a little lonelier around here than it used to be. Incidents like this-- where one bad apple can cause others to become demoralized, is one of the contributing factors.

Anything you can do to prevent editor attrition in this case would be great. I don't think it takes any change in how you handed things at BLP:N, but rather just a few words of welcome might go a long way to reassuring that an editor's presence is welcome and wanted. We all make mistakes, and we all get warned for those mistakes. I just want to make sure our warnings don't cause a burnout if we can avoid that.

Leaving all this in your capable hands. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your plea on behalf of Mark is commendable, Hector, but I don't intend to do anything. I've been following the discussion on Mark's talk page, and I find Mark's reaction to my offer wrong-headed and immature. I can't speak, of course, for any accumulated emotional baggage associated with the other editor and the article, but my offer was an alternative to blocking him, which I could have easily done. I've occasionally not sanctioned an editor who breaches WP:3RR. It always depends on the context. But the hardest thing to do is to sanction one editor for edit warring and not sanction the other. In this instance, I found the other editor's conduct to be far worse than Mark's, which is why I sanctioned them, and partly why I imposed a relatively long block. But Mark not only breached 3RR, he seemed to refuse to acknowledge it. And now he's in a major sulk over the whole thing. I have no idea how valuable he is to the project, but that doesn't excuse clear policy violations. Ironically, my usual offer is seven days, not five, but I lowered it because of the circumstances. I'm sorry, Hector, I'm sure this isn't the answer you wanted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want you to deviate beyond your usual procedures in terms of sanctions; I'd just hope we could look at the 'meta-message' we're sending here.

"now he's in a major sulk over the whole thing"-- diagnosing this problem means we're half-way to its solution. Your warning triggered a major loss of morale-- a "major sulk" to use your words. I feel like that creates in us the obligation to reach out to the user and undue the unnecessary damage.

That said, not everyone has the temperament to provide this kind of post-warning counseling. I know I wouldn't be a wikipedia admin if you paid me, precise because it take such a special person to both objectively mete out justice AND to kindly rehabilitate the good-faith from their errors. I can't blame you if you are better at the former task than the latter-- I don't think I could do either job.

Just make a mental note if this situation does result in attrition, as I'm sure you will. I'm sure it's annoying to tr to prevent attrition-- we ask police officers to write speeding tickets, not therapize motorists who've been ticketed. But doing admin work requires equal parts of both-- rule enforcement AND community-building.

IF it turns out you, in your own estimation (not mine), have lost enthusiasm for both parts, then you might in future consider recusing yourself to other admins who might, in your own estimation, do better at hand-holding with editors who have been harassed. I know that there are a lot of "ifs" and a lot of "in your own estimations" in that sentence, because it's not my place to critique your actions-- I haven't submitted my name to RFA, I never will, and so I haven't walked in your shoes. No reason to think I'd do any better than you're doing.

I just know that the current trajectory is that the tendentious editor will return within a week, fully energized, while the good faith editor is considering leaving. To the extent we won't or can't alter that trajectory, we are "letting the terrorists win" to use the phrase of our time.

And yeah, one editor is just one editor-- but this is a systemic problem-- drop by drop, we're hemorrhaging our editor community.

See ya round the office, good dialogue, thank you. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I just posted to AN3, but I hadn't read the discussion here. Oops. Perhaps it invalidates my argument, but I basically agree with HectorMoffet and would ask you to reconsider your position and consider reducing MarkBernstein's sentence to "time served" or a bit more (proposal: 3 days). I think he rightly feels like he very much got the short end of the stick for trying to help out the community, and I can understand why he was reluctant to accept the voluntary penalty. (I think there was some confusion on his part about the precise letter of 3RR; I know there was on mine!). Operating under my false understanding of 3RR, at the time you made the offer, I considered that were I MarkBernstein, I might have said, "go ahead and ban me, I'd rather not voluntarily accept a punishment I know to be wrong" (kind of like how an innocent person may decline a plea bargain with a trivial sentence in favor of accepting a guilty verdict, because they don't want to admit to something they didn't do). The analogy may be inapposite because of the actual 3RR rules (rather than perceptions thereof), but I think it captures the emotional situation. Thanks for your consideration. Sorry for not reading here first. jhawkinson (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been times when an editor would not accept the conditions. I then blocked them. To edit successfully at Wikipedia, an editor must understand the rules. It doesn't bode well for Mark if he doesn't want to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, he did accept and abide by the penalty-- he's not editing the article you told him not to edit. So I wouldn't class him as an anarchist just yet. :) . I think he didn't understand he crossed a line, but having been warned, he doesn't exhibit any inclination to disobey the warning. I think he's just understandably upset that, despite having been the victim of a tad bit of harassment, he was still chastised for a technical foul made in apparently good faith. Dude's not a barbarian, he just didn't see the foul line. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Trial of Conrad Murray

Hello Bbb23 - you reverted my "See also" additions to the trial of Conrad Murray, which included links to two other physicians who were known to administer drugs to celebrity patients. Please explain your rationale. - Thanks, Froid (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. Doctor Robert is a Beatles song whose lyrics involve a "pill doctor". You really think that's relevant? Max Jacobson was a pill peddling doctor. That's not what Murray was. Jacobson was never tried for anything. His license was revoked because he was running a pill operation. Murray was convicted of the equivalent of being criminally negligent with respect to one patient. I don't see any relationship between Jacobson and Murray to justify a see also. And making that connection seems non-neutral to me. On another topic, I see you're trying to clean up the article. I wish you the best of luck in that. Your comment that the article needs a lot of work is absolutely correct. I've hated that article since I first saw it, but by the time I did, it already had that ridiculous format, and I was unwilling to spend the time to fix it. If you're willing, that's great.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Bbb23 -

RE: Stabs at improving the Trial of Conrad Murray article - As you see, I can only deal with the article in fits and starts; it's such a mess, it's exhausting even to glance at!

RE: "Doctor Robert" - Your feedback was useful and informative; others may also have the mistaken impression that "Doctor Robert" Freymann and "Miracle Max" Jacobson were merely pill-pushers. In fact, the subject of the "Doctor Robert" song has been well-documented - e.g., by Paul McCartney himself - to be Dr. Robert Freymann, who was notorious for administering amphetamine-laced vitamin injections to celebrity clients. Same goes for Max Jacobson, whose well-referenced Wikipedia Biography states: "Dubbed 'Dr. Feelgood', Jacobson was known for his "miracle tissue regenerator" shots, which consisted of amphetamines, animal hormones, bone marrow, enzymes, human placenta, painkillers, steroids, and multivitamins."[8][9] - NOTE: The bold/italics emphasis is mine

8.^ Bly, Nellie (1996). The Kennedy Men: Three Generations of Sex, Scandal and Secrets. Kensington Books. pp. 103–104. ISBN 1-57566-106-3.

9.^ Richard A. Lertzman & William J. Birnestitle (May 2013). Dr. Feelgood: The Shocking Story of the Doctor Who May Have Changed History by Treating and Drugging JFK, Marilyn, Elvis, and Other Prominent Figures. Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1-62087-589-6.

Accordingly, I've updated the "Doctor Robert" article to include this well-referenced section: Identity of Doctor Robert. I realize that section can be trimmed, and I promise to do so ASAP [but can't now, I actually have paid work I must attend to]. I've also added the following statement to Trial of Conrad Murray#See also to specify the connection and avoid the appearance of bias.

Cheers, Froid (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate all the detail, but I'm afraid I still disagree with the propriety of including the two articles in the See also section. What I'm going to do is to open up a topic on the issue at WP:BLPN. That used to be my stomping ground before I became an admin. I am much less involved now in content issues unless they are a blatant violation of policy. The See also section is hardly a sexy issue, so it may not grab any of the regulars there, but you're, of course, welcome to contribute to any discussion. I'm not going to revert your changes. We'll see what others think if they care to express an opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Close of a 3RR you commented in

I hope you don't mind my closing this with semiprotection after you had already commented. In my view, if one party is socking while the other isn't that gives enough margin to justify an action. In any case, I tried to nudge the complaining party to recruit more contributors to the article talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the right close to me; thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Restore

Triple B, please put my comment back that you removed. You have no right to do that. And the talk page needs to be unprotected. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick correction

Bbb23,

You closed a 3rr dispute with {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} , however, you mis-spelled "archive bottom", so, the archive extended to the bottom of the page. I've corrected it for you | here . Just wanted to alert you that this had happened and why.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I even did a Show preview, but I didn't scroll down far enough. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Gulshan Grover

Hi I have added some awards and nominations for Gulshan Grover - please don't remove them - I have added references too to back the same. He is famous Thanks appreciate you help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjay5385 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed them again. Until you can justify adding these awards and nominations, you must stop adding them. You are violating copyright policy, which is serious at Wikipedia, with some of the refs to YouTube (see WP:LINKVIO). You are adding honors that are sourced only to images. You are adding honors that are not noteworthy and sourced to a primary source instead of a secondary source, meaning that someone other than the award giver recognizes that the award means something. You are adding the same award twice, and you are poorly formatting some of it (all caps). You are obviously a fan; I don't know if you have any other connection to the subject. I suggest you take your views to the talk page of the article and open up a discussion about the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

AN

There is a discussion at AN in which your name is mentioned. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Queen of Sheba

Six reversions in ten hours against two different editors? How would you describe it?—Kww(talk) 18:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It was a battle between two editors with one brand new account "supporting" Til Eulenspiegel with one revert. I wouldn't describe that as a consensus, and consensuses generally are not established by article battles, but by discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't counting the sock, but gave some credence to IcarusVsSun.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not that it entered into the equation for me but the sock wasn't blocked until after my blocks of the two editors. I suppose we'll just end this as disagreeing with each other.

Do you know why each time you post here, at the bottom of my talk page is: "Citefout: De tag <ref> bestaat, maar de tag <references/> is niet aangetroffen"? I get rid of it by purging the page. Do you have some mystic connection with the German Wikipedia? :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's because that message is suppressed in talk space by a bizarre template specific to the English language interface to English Wikipedia, not in the MediaWiki software where it should be. Since I use the Dutch interface to English Wikipedia, the error message doesn't get suppressed. When you purge, the error is reevaluated, and your preference for American English causes the American English error message to display. Since it contains suppression logic, you appear to have cleared the error by purging. There are a few other editors that leave similar trail of French and Japanese error messages behind them when they edit broken talk pages, and it's a clue to what they use as their interface language.—Kww(talk) 21:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh. I should've realized it was Dutch, not German (double a). I speak a little German, no Dutch. Do you mean you set the Internationalization under user profile to Dutch? Why Dutch, because of the time you spent in Bonaire? --Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The way I keep my second languages current is by performing different tasks in them. I tend to do e-mail and Wikipedia in Dutch, general around-the-web stuff in Japanese.—Kww(talk) 21:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Good for you, very disciplined.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"Spoken to nicely"

They asked once, as far as I can see. Maybe you saw one more request than me? But anyway - many thanks for your wise words and swift action at ANI. I can't help but feel that it was all wholly unncessary to take the discussion there? Nor do I feel it's wholly resoved for all the contributors. Never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right. He asked you just once - my apologies. I don't think it needed to be taken to ANI, either, but it wasn't gaining much traction at BLPN, and my guess is 76 felt frustrated by that and escalated it. I think your last point is well-taken as well. These kinds of things are difficult to control. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I responded to him twice, the second time in great detail with all the relevant policies linked to. This page shows the last version of our disussion. Yet he posted a third comment, which contained the most aggregious BLP violation. So it was only after that third comment, that I pursued th matter elsewhere. I'm sorry, but it's vital that we do things properly with regard to claims about living people. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Bbb23, but I feel the question I raised was not a continuation of the discussion at ANI about Martinevans comments. I asked you an administrator, did you think the article violated BLP? If that is a question I should be asking elsewhere then my apologies. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "the article", and the issues here are complex. I determined that the comments at the article talk page violated BLP and removed them. That is what I did as an administrator. Asking my opinion about a hypothetical is okay, but I'd prefer not to get into it. If you want to discuss BLP policy, you could try WT:BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I meant that if Martinevans123 had violated some rule on presumption of innocence, then the article itself (in particular the sentence I highlighted) must also have been in violation. Thanks for your suggestion, I've created a contentious BLP recently and know how tricky they can be, but as I agree with Martinevans123 in this case, there would be little point in me raising it further. Cheers again. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been some kind of misunderstanding

Hi, i'm Angelicality, one of the users involded in the incident regarding the image being used in the mestizo article. I come here just to further inform you about this particular case:

The user Theryx wanted to remove that image multiple times without giving any good explanation to do so, first he said it was because the ethnicy of the people wasn't stated in-image text, but then i told him that his motive was non-sensical, because if so, 90% of the images used in wikipedia (like the ones used in articles such as Grizzly bear or Whale) are original research, due the lacking of in-image text.

Then he accepted his mistake, but started removing it saying that not all the people in the image looked as mestizos to him [17], to which i clearly explained to him that the footnote clearly stated that the crowd was "primarily" not "totally" [18].

However, he just continued saying that the people in the image didn't looked as mestizos to him (when they clearly are) with the problem being that in my talk page [19] he admited to not know how mestizos actually look like, because he apparently lives in a place where there are no mestizos at all, regarding that, i wrote a response in his talk page [20] telling him that not all mestizos have to look the same and asked him to stop his disruptive behavoir, I also backed up my point with aditional images of mestizos, but the only thing he did was to ignore it and delete it [21], then I restored it in hope of him starting a civilized discussion with me [22], but he just removed it again. [23]

Aditionally I have to point out that i'm not the only one who finds it's behavoir to be disruptive [24]

I write all this because it's important for me to make you know that i'm not the one being uncivil and violating wikipedia's guidelines as you might initially though, Theryx7 is. It's also important to keep that image up because it's perfect to show how variated mestizos can be nowadays. I hope you change your mind about me and also your mind about this issue which is important for me. Thanks in advance. - Angelicality (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts as an uninvolved editor: You have two choices here: The first is to discuss the matter on Talk: Mestizo, which you have not yet tried. This choice has several advantages, as it complies with Wikipedia's policies, and may end up with a result you like. The second choice is to edit war against Wikipedia policy, failing to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. This is your choice so far, which won't produce a good result and may end up in a block preventing you from editing Wikipedia. I recommend that you abandon the second choice and embrace the first choice. In the end, the choice is yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As Cullen states, you need to discuss the content dispute on the article talk page. Your view of policy and Theryx's view can be hashed out there, but I would avoid accusing others of violating policy and just stick to expressing your own views as to what is correct and why. If the edit war resumes after the lock expires, anyone battling risks being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi I'm theryx and although the user Angelicality continue advocating a particular point of view about the image, I respectfully say that I am in total disagreement with the user Angelicality since people from Colombia appears in the image but the image doesn't say the ethnicity of these people for this reason is more appropriate to use images of people who know certainly that they are mestizos. But if Wikipedians prefer to continue damaging the article with dubious information then you have freedom to damage the article because I'm tired of fighting to avoid further damage to the article with this image of dubious veracity.

Surely the world will enjoy from reading an article so bad, and with an included irrelevant image. --Theryx7 (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

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

---

Thank you for your help with the BLP issue. Although I expected just the BLP-violating portions to be redacted (not removed). There were some legitimate, allowable comments contained in some of the content you removed, but I do understand your reasoning in how you handled it. In any case, I appreciate your understanding and making clear that BLP rules are there for a reason. Have a good week. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just removed a comment you made at BLPN after I closed the discussion there. I understand your wanting to respond to MONGO's attacking comment, but please let it go. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand you removing my last comment, but it was indeed being posted prior to the close (edit conflict), and more importantly it was in response to a personal attack. Mongo's comment had absolutely nothing to do with the issue. So, for fairness, I would ask respectfully that you either restore my comment, which was indeed being typed as your apparently closing, or remove Mongo's comment, also. I'd be satisfied with either option. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but just so you know... when I posted that final comment, I did not get an edit conflict message; it posted it the first time I clicked to save it. So right after I posted it, I was surprised to see the thread blued-out. Haha. Anyway, just wanted you to know. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe you as I looked at the edit times.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyway, I don't mind if you keep mine removed if you'll remove the other editor's also. All it contained was a personal attack, just like the one you removed here a few seconds ago from that editor. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored your comment based on the circumstances. Hopefully, it will now remain closed, and we can all move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully. :p Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, the edtiors are apparently unaware of the contentious history between you and I. ;) In it, you are referred to by Mongo as a "clueless admin" and that I have many admins to "aide and abet" me. And for the third time, Mongo has called me a "a ban evading IP troll", and also an "IP coward". I'd ask that you please read the discussion and handle Mongo's behavior accordingly. He's launched these insults all over the place... BLP/N, AN/I, at Martinevans' talk page, and on your talk page. As I'm about to post this, I see that Mongo has posted yet another insult about me. If you can help to stop this, I would appeciate it. I have stayed out of it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Btw, in that discussion I linked to, you'll see that Mongo claims to have been an admin. He said, "I never become an admin again...I was always well known for typing the obvious, regardless of the consequences". If that's true, it makes his behavior even sadder and more difficult to understand. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

76, I don't have time this evening to look into this. I gotta go eat and will be off-wiki until tomorrow. If it makes you feel any better, I've been called a troll, too. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to put the kids to bed. Way past bedtime. I'll guess we'll have to leave with me being a ban-evading troll and you being a clueless admin. :p --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

IP...if you register a username you'll more likely be taken seriously. That may not seem fair, but it is the way things work around here. Also, seeking avenues to get someone sanctioned almost every few days doesn't do much to help your situation either...instead of trying to drag people to AN/I or elsewhere, why not try talking to them instead of at them. About the only thing I'm seeing in your editing is efforts to go after others, wikilawyering, forum shopping and arguments...its all there in your editing history. Also MONGO is in all caps, thanks...hugs and kisses.--MONGO 02:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on your childish and hostile personality, and the fact that you're apparently obsessed with me - most of your past dozen or so edits are insults about me on several different pages - it's no surprise that you get so offended when someone doesn't type your goofy name in all caps. And it's nice to see that you at least admit that you discriminate against IP editors. For the record, you are more anonymous than me; I show my IP address, while you show nothing more than your shouting name. I suggest you read WP:HUMAN. But of course you won't, and instead will simply mock and disregard it in some way because you know it's right. For the record, that editor and I went back and forth multiple times where I nicely detailed the issue and provided the relevant BLP policies. Now if you had taken a few mintues to check the facts, you'd already know that. And you'd also know that he continued posting BLP-violating comments, a total of three times. Others have told him the same thing. Look, he lost on the issue because he was wrong. And now he (and you) feel this need to whine like little babies because no one talked to him "enough" and patted him on the head. Be a big boy and get over it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I'm not taking any action against MONGO for his comments. Some of them may be unjustified or misguided, but they are not sanctionable. Everyone has had a chance to vent a bit here in this charming discussion, but I'm calling a halt to it. Again, everyone should move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Rob Ford article

Compromise edit was instantly rejected by Alaney2k [25] with a claim I "did not read the cite" <g>. I fear we have a person who has not comprehended WP:CONSENSHS and preers to show a crime than to show the fact that a video was offered for sale - which is what the sources provide - I am still unsure the entire section on "substance abuse" is proper in the BLP for sure. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been watching. Dennis locked the article again.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your denial of the addition of content, I've responded to your denial on the talk page. --Oakshade (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

On the Ford BLP, I was not asking for an edit - but a consensus that the compromise edit currently in place be accepted by the other editors, As you may have noticed, it seems to be "my way or the highway" on Alaney2k's part ... rejecting any modification of the extensive and UNDUE section which he has produced there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• You folk seem to be cooperating reasonably well on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert why?

Why did you revert the edit on my talk page? [26] It looks like a good faith thank you from a new editor. RudolfRed (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to restore it. I suggest you look at the editor's edit history if you think they're editing in good faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ohwrotcod

Thanks for your input with User:Ohwrotcod. I've just filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ohwrotcod#27_May_2013. While still banned, s/he appears to have edited as an IP editor. I do not know whether this was in confusion over his/her new-found blocked status or a more deliberate block evasion, and the case is an odd one (s/he removed a malformed AfD tag -- I know you shouldn't remove AfD tags, but this one hadn't been done properly, as far as I can make out). Bondegezou (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the new IP address used by Ohwrotcod and reverted the changes from the article and the talk page (if you want to fix the tag or remove it or whatever, that's up to you). I've also increased Ohwrotcod's block. I commented at the SPI you created. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and feel free to do so in the future as I don't watch the articles Ohwrotcod is interested in.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Have educated myself on what to do with IP-started AfDs and taken action on the Zagreus article. Will let you know if I see any further block evasion. Bondegezou (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I've unblocked all based on timing arguments made by Ohwrotcod on their talk page. Feel free to let me know if there are problems, but what he said about the timing made sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems sensible, although I'm not happy about the endless AGF-violations and combativeness! Various people are now trying to engage with Ohwrotcod on his/her Talk page in a positive manner. Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I read all the comments. Best of luck to all of you. As an aside, I find sometimes the best way to defuse aggression is to ignore it, as opposed to commenting on it or responding in kind. Not always easy to do, but it often works, and, if nothing else, it makes you look good. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Carolmooredc has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Ok, I'll flatter you now. Obviously need to take a little break from that particular article. It doesn't pay enough!! :-)†

Nice, Carol, thanks. Let me know if you find an article that pays more.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Care for a second cupcake? (Or perhaps some {{WikiScotch}}?) Then please take care of that other one! (Or I might go overboard on the Scotch.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What "other one"?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you might have been following it. WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Canvassing by User:SPECIFICO. Some of the same parties are involved. (And as long as it remains open it is a target for more disrespectful comments.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm reminded a big purpose of noticeboards and anis, etc is to wake people up that they are really annoying the heck out of others and thus hopefully chill things out! Only in the cool light of day do I see that I really did have two different complaints, content and behavioral, that were too evenly balanced. Live and learn.

I should be more patient with newbies cause I was hell on wheels my first couple years and not always "getting it". But it's still frustrating to see newbies with a frequently Soapboxed POV trying to discredit someone's whole economic/political career because of a few poorly stated phrases they aren't likely to use again. At least I've been pretty good about not trashing BLPs too much, even when I don't like someone; too busy defending far too many other BLPs from attack!! (Will study some of these new editing arbitrations and restrictions related to BLP.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Re closure, I wonder if begging you (compared with bribery or simple asking) would have prompted a faster response. Indeed, I was tempted to prostrate myself, virtually, in order to get it resolved. Bbb23, if you won't take a virtual reward, I'll stand by to fulfill any other request you need. Thanks so very much. – S. Rich (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the response was delayed because after I asked you which one, I went off-wiki and didn't return until now. Sometimes, real life beckons. Now if the Wikipedia interface would just work properly for more than 5 minutes ... I swear; I cannot edit like this. I couldn't even get through my watchlist, which, admittedly is way too long, but usually I manage. So much crap is not working, I'm about to give up for the day. I now have to sign by typing in the four tildes because there's no damned button.-Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"10 is a bit much and would suggest in the future being more selective" - good enough for me. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, Carol. You're very gracious, and it's appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris Duckworth

We've been here before with this one: series of unreffed edits across the day today culminating in an egregious bit of unencyclopedic trivia. I've put this back on my watchlist and maybe you could too, as I'm not going to be around much over the next few days. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he's still on my watchlist, but I just got on-wiki, and there haven't been any edits to the article before today for about 2.5 months. Thanks for taking care of the problem. Hopefully, he'll give up again and go away for a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The material has come back and he's got himself a user name. Johnlp (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That actually helps us keep track of him. I've reverted the edits and warned the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Human Development Index

Hi Bbb. On the Human Development Index article there is some IP editing that is fairly disruptive. Please have a look. Thanks. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Normally, you should go to WP:RFPP with something like this, but I've saved you the trouble and semi-protected the article for five days.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb. I'll take it to RFPP in the future if necessary. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

DragonTiger23's use of edit summaries

Hi Bbb23. Yesterday I reverted DragonTiger's unsourced change of height of the columns of Hagia Sophia [27]. Subsequently I added a citation of the maximum height [28], only to become the recipient of multiple attacks through edit-summaries by DT: [29], [30]. I find the reasons for these attacks completely unjustified, not that any attack is justified in the first place. Second the abuse of the edit-summary field for attacks against other editors is particularly problematic because the target is almost defenseless and cannot change them or readily reply to them. I ask for your assistance, if you have the time and the inclination of course. Thank you. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've warned the user. Let me know if there are any further attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bbb23 for taking the time. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI closure

I am very distressed by your latest edits. I do not see any policy that indicates that 1) correcting blatant misrepresentations of remarks (in the context of loaded personal allegations) and 2) calling attention to personal attacks is inappropriate to do on another user's talk page. Carol's original warnings referred specifically to harassment; it isn't harassment to do those two things. Please keep the ANI open to give me a chance to demonstrate that my conduct specifically consisted of those two things; i.e., that it was defensive and did not constitute harassment. I do not see a policy justification for your swift decision, according to which it does not matter whether or not I did the two above-things. I see nothing wrong with letting the discussion proceed. If you disagree, please let me know where/how I could appeal your decision. I would also appreciate if you could cite a specific policy justification in favor of your decision. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You should have kept this discussion in one place. Another admin has already agreed with my actions. I suggest you drop it. If you wish to persist, you can open up your own topic at ANI, but ANI is an unforgiving forum if you have an insufficient basis for requesting sanctions. I don't have the time right now to dredge up policy on this issue, but it's clear to all experienced editors at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't request sanctions on you. I don't think you're acting in bad faith, and am not even certain you're wrong (though I think you are). I just request a review of my warning. My question remains: if I can demonstrate that my comments met the two above conditions, should I be sanctioned? If so, I understand your decision. If not, I see no reason why I shouldn't be given a chance to demonstrate that my comments met those conditions. It's important to note that Carol's previous "warnings" specifically related to charges of harassment. Steeletrap (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The sanctions I was talking about were your bringing a complaint against Carol, not against me. As for my warning, it was a minimal "sanction", and I wouldn't fret much about it. As for policy supporting the proposition that you should not post to a user talk page once they've asked you not to, it's standard practice at Wikipedia. The policy that best addresses it does so more in broad brush than in clear language. "Harassment, threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project." (bolding added by me). "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing "suspected sockpuppet" and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment." (bolding added by me). Both of these quotations comes from the harassment policy.

It looks like Jezebel's Ponyo has given you some helpful advice on your talk page. I did look at some of the talk page discussion you cited on your talk page. I'm not going to spend the time to determine myself whether you edit in a non-neutral manner. I'm just going to assume you don't. That said, here's my suggestion on how to handle Carol's comments. Don't respond to them. You're arguably being baited, and the more you respond, the worse it will get. Plus, none of the discussion seems constructive. Just focus on your edits to the article and whether they are reasonable and why. Ignore everything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful remarks, Bbb. I have dropped off the Hoppe page to avoid further provocation. Without trying to re-litigate the harassment question, I agree that the talk page posts were stupid and unconstructive. One thing I've learned in my short time here is how important it is to control one's temper. I'll work harder to do that moving forward. Steeletrap (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Learning how to control one's temper is a major positive, particularly if you're inclined to edit controversial articles. A couple of good rules: (1) never edit anything when you're angry and (2) if you're posting to talk pages (user or article), use Show preview a lot and reread your post with an eye to cutting out anything that even arguably impugns another editor. Generally, you can communicate what you need to without sentences like "You're wrong" or "That's simply false" - and both of those are fairly mild.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you check this

Appealing your recent block Memills has (rightly) said no diffs were provided. Can you check my understanding[31] of the block so that reviewing admins have a clear picture. I've been involved in and following this topic for years and it took me a minute to see the 1RR here--Cailil ^talk 11:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Also it might be worth noting that Evolutionary Psychology (which is related to the edits at Masculism) is a hot topic for this user see: here & here--Cailil ^talk 12:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This user is a real problem for many reasons. Their block log and their comments on their talk page, both preceding the block (the conversation with Slp1) and after the block indicate that they believe their POV trumps Wikipedia policy. BTW, thank you for providing such a precise description of the violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Regarding the issues unfortunately Memills is not the only user in that category CSDarrow's description of WP as 'cultural marxism'[32] since your block speaks volumes to his understanding of this project--Cailil ^talk 17:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There's some irony here. The reason I was looking at Masculism was because of a foolish post Memills made on CSDarrow's talk page. I didn't even know the article existed. Nor was there a report filed at WP:ANEW, which is how I usually get involved in sanctions-related edit wars.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me

I had always assumed that reverting different material wasn't a violation, likely since most of the time, it is a tit for tat reversal and you seldom see someone breach a 3RR/1RR restriction by reverting completely different material in a relatively uncontentious way. The policy is a bit more rigid than I thought, which isn't a problem for 3RR where we can be more flexible in enforcement and where protection is more often a better solution, but that isn't always the best for 1RR. I'll probably still be inclined to warn first just like you did there (unless there are aggravating circumstances), but I did learn something important today. Thanks. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 01:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to help you for a change; you help me so often.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Howard for Admin!

Hey I just wanted to let you know you beat me by a second. By the time I hit revert I edit conflicted with yours. And with pretty much the same edit summary no less.:-) Kumioko (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you think? Is he just clueless or something more sinister?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I assume its someone just screwing around but not really sure. At the very least they showed a lot of courage...I guess they didn't see what happened to mine. Rofl Kumioko (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiki HQ Bbb23 only wants to post bad stuff not good stuff on people. I am teaching social media for philanthropy. I will recommend to philanthropy organizations to stay away from Wiki else their brand and economic value gets destroyed. If Wiki can't create economic value attaching yourselves at the top of folks' and organizations' Google searches, then what good societal value are you. Wiki attaches itself at the top of folks' and organizations' Google searches, saying in technological arrogance and narcissism, "it is our way or the highway'! Out here on Main Street, nobody I am talking to likes this at all but you guys. That's the essence of technological arrogance and narcissism in this age nowadays. We users are very upset at Wiki about this notion. And you're not listening to user satisfaction of your existence. This is a classic prescription of becoming "non-existent and irrelevant soon" by another possibility of a better way. Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 Eleventh Edition, Wiki is definitely NOT! I will definitely teach this to my students in my classroom.

I have read your "plain and simple" guide. The blocked edits added only 4-5 awards and an extensive list of sourcing references, as you Wiki HQ Bbb23 requested of us. Since it looked more truthful and credible, still remaining as "plain and simple", Wiki HQ Bbb23 got mad and rejected everything actually requested. Is this "plain and simple request then rejection" policy guidance of Wiki HQ now. Rewrite your policy and rename it. Wiki Users are totally confused by Wiki Policies of technological arrogances and narcissism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivermcgee (talk • contribs) 01:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm going to let your rant remain on this page, but you need to settle down. Who are you? You and the various IPs who have been editing the article keep talking in the plural ("we" and "us"). Are you claiming to be McGee or some group of people associated with him or what?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a legitimate Wiki user with a legitimate user compliant and dispute with Wiki HQ Bbb23 taking my presence on Wiki so personally. No Fair! And minimizing my legitimate user compliant in the spirit of freedom and independence of this country as an insulting mere ranting justifies my above compliant of Wiki HQ arrogance and narcissism culture. My article is NOT the rantings of a misrepresentation of misrepresentations and I absolutely don't appreciate it as a legitimate Wiki user being implied as such. The blocking of me imposed by Wiki HQ is an insulting smack in my face as a legitimate Wiki user. No Fair! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivermcgee (talk • contribs) 04:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The encyclopedia does not have an economic agenda. We don't charge for our services and we don't even take advertisement money, everything is done on a donation basis only. I would urge you to move on to other more productive things because at this point, you are upset and will only lead to another block for disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a WP:POINT. can you show us how BBB23 has been inappropriate with diffs. You can easily find this in the history pages. If you can post them here maybe I can help explain why it wasn't allowed or attempt to help you get it included. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I was productive until Bbb23 order me to do work which I did. Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 Eleventh Edition is an encyclopedia. I have several. And I am a potential donor being insulted. I teach and partner with hundreds of other potential donors across philanthropy. Yes we agree. I have been insulted here. My life is not a misrepresentation of misrepresentation on Wiki. I am not trying to prove a point on Wiki. I did the work of the point of my life's facts third-party sources as instructed my editor Bbb23 at Wiki HQ. I have worked through the history page. I can't post anything on the history page because Bbb23 Wiki HQ has blocked me from participation in the "free" Wiki park. I can't even make a donation?

You can certainly make a donation and you haven't been blocked from editing or you wouldn't be able to post here. I don't see where he is insulting you? Also what do you mean when you say misrepresentation of misrepresentation? Can you phrase that differently? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Responder please read history and assist to correct the injustice here:

(cur | prev) 20:59, 21 May 2013‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,782 bytes) (-6,246)‎ . .(Undid revision 556068065 by 198.228.216.160 (talk) - proxy server) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:58, 21 May 2013‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (11,028 bytes) (0)‎ . .(Protected Oliver McGee: edits by IPs using proxy servers ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)))) (undo) (cur | prev) 07:35, 21 May 2013‎ 198.228.216.160(talk)‎ . . (11,028 bytes) (+6,246)‎ . .(Undid revision 556028294 by Bbb23 (talk) we must respectfully strongly disagree did huge amt of research to legitimately ref. all aspects of the article to Wiki norms of education career awards pls stop) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:23, 21 May 2013‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,782 bytes) (-6,246)‎ . .(Reverted to revision 555305801 by Donner60: so much puffery, resume, non-notable awards, no secondary sourcing. (TW)) (undo) (cur | prev) 14:51, 20 May 2013‎ 198.228.216.28(talk)‎ . . (11,028 bytes) (+8)‎ . .(documented & substantiated all statements of Oliver McGee article with Wiki HQ directed & required third party sources, citations, and references to Wiki article standards & requirements) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivermcgee (talk • contribs)

Responder a largest majority of the size of the "plain and simple" Oliver McGee article is the "Reference" section, containing the required third-party sourcing, which Wiki HQ Editor Bbb23 required two references on every statement to be found and posted. When we did the entire work was delete and access blocked. No Fair!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivermcgee (talk • contribs) 05:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The problems I see involve that all the things being added isn't nec. notable awards. Having a Wikipedia page does not we will report every minor thing they do. Now if he won a Pulitzer instead of being listed as an influential individual we would definitely document that but the additions I'm seeing is more the type we'd see inside a job interview or resume. We strive very hard to promote a NPOV on all things and the flavor is just a bit off with what you were trying to accomplish. I recognize it took a lot of work cause that was a lot of references you tried to add. I don't think BBB23 is picking on you. I think he's doing what is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. If you are still concerned try the BLP Noticeboard it will get more editors to look it over and help expand or make it more balanced. Take care with editing in this subject though because it would appear you have a conflict of interest and while this doesn't preclude your involvement it will be met with scrutiny. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong about the notable nature of all the awards. Google or Wiki the National Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award, or the USA Professors of the Year Awards, or simply read the third-party sourcing provided and you will see how notable the awards are. Plus, top-ranked university articles discussing the awards inside their publications have been provided. If there was a misrepresentation on anyone's part, that would constitute academic misconduct. This is not legitimate in higher education circles. So, I can't make misreprsentations on Wiki online for open public consumption, else that constitutes academic misconduct. I am paying full respect to Wiki standards here of just the "plain and simple" facts, using the highest protocols of academic standards of publication here. Instead, Wiki HQ Bbb23 says to these stiff standards of archival journal publications and editorship, reject this, delete it, and block it. No Fair!! And asking me to be GIVEN a Nobel Peace Prize or win a Pulitzer Prize smacks of Wiki IRS blocking nonsense not justifying further comment or response back. So let's try to respect legitimate Wiki users giving you guys respect as Wiki HQ Editors. We all know there is an injustice going on here that needs to be corrected somehow to a compromise. No Fair!! I am a legitimate Wiki user and a potential donor here!

Ok so you should should try the BLPN board it is a board that deals with Biographies of Living People, it's your best avenue to see what the site consensus is. And btw we don't have a Wiki IRS or Wiki HQ, not sure what you mean there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to stay with my legitimate Wiki user complaint about this injustice to be corrected as a legitmate Wiki user and potental donor harmed here. Wiki has a philanthropic stewardship obligation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivermcgee (talk • contribs) 06:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok that's your choice, but the place to do that is the BLP noticeboard, not here. You can make the complaint there, and if any action against BBB23 needs to be done it will be. Given the situation I don't think it's going to happen but you never know. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 your revision and blockage is wrong and unjustifiable here with all due respect. I have provided in my "plain and simple" revision the other night (at your specific instructions and request of me as a legitimate Wiki user) twenty-five "verifiable or even reliable" third-party sourcing not just ten as you are forcing here. "It's not that I doubt you," but "Wikipedia has rules that material must be sourced to something authoritative [c.f., university articles, broadcast media, newspaper and magazine publications, media outlets] that someone else can check", which I have provided in all 25 references that you have blocked Bbb23. "If you have access to a library with newspapers [which I do] that go back that far [which it does], ... that could work." Sometimes ones own words Bbb23 can be quite persuasive! Are your own words Bbb23 persuasive here for you please? Let's find a path to compromise here Bbb23 please please please. I am an honest man. I am not interested in misrepresenting anything or anyone here. I am an accurate man. It's my vocation. I am a legitimate Wiki user respecting the "Wiki park" and you Editor Bbb23. Aren't your own words Bbb23 persuasive here for you please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivermcgee (talk • contribs) 06:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't wish to have my name placed on BLP Noticeboard, please remove my name from there please - I did not ask for this my God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivermcgee (talk • contribs) 07:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you add it there? The notice board is just to ensure that the BLP's are presented fairly and gives you an avenue to protest if you think the article is slanted one way or another. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The protection of the "article" was because a number of anonymous IP's were adding material that violated our biography of living persons requirements for sourcing, and were therefore quite possibly hazardous to the subject of the article. In other words, it was protected to protect the subject from possibly false or embarassing additions. Please remove the chip from your shoulder as you move forward and recognize how difficult it already is dealing with vandals, let alone when the subject of an article tries to take creative control (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oliver, thank you for bringing your tone down a couple of notches. I'm puzzled, though, by a couple of things you've said. First, as far as I can tell, your name is not at WP:BLPN, so there's nothing to remove. Second, you appear to be quoting me and I don't know what you're referring to. Can you point to where I said these things? I think you're talking about things I said to another editor about a completely different article. As for the the McGee article, some of the things Hell in a Bucket says above are very helpful. You should pay attention. Putting aside the conflict of interest you have editing your own article (I'm assuming the IPs are you but you've never confirmed that), the article has problems the way it is now, and it had even more problems the way you were editing it. I just removed a copyright violation from the article because you or someone else copied and pasted material from a website. That is a very serious violation at Wikipedia.

But even if the copyright violation were fixed, the article reads like a resume, not like an encyclopedia article. In the version before the current version when a great deal of new material was added, it was worse. It was more like a resume, but now including a bunch of awards. All of the awards were sourced to primary sources, and many of them are non-notable. Sometimes an award is inherently notable. For example, if an actor gets an Oscar, that's automatically notable, and you can source it to the Oscar website (primary source), but for awards that are not inherently notable (usually ones that we don't even have an article about), you have to at least cite to a secondary source so that its importance is recognized.

That brings up another major defect in the article. It lacks secondary sourcing. It needs more major publications (newspapers, magazines, books) that talk about McGee, as opposed to things that are press releases from colleges or organizations that promote a particular agenda. For example, the first two references in the article (Fox News and CNN) are a little better. The Fox News broadcast isn't great because it seems like an opportunity for you to tout your book, but at least it's a major media outlet, and just that they had you on the show means something. The CNN piece also isn't great because it's a CNN blog, it's short, and it doesn't say a whole lot, but, again, it's a blog from a major media outlet, which helps a bit. By contrast, the History Makers website and the Howard University press release are probably both acceptable sources, but they just help with your resume, not with coverage about you and your work that has any depth.

The reality is that you simply can't be trusted to edit the article neutrally and within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It would be SO much better if you followed the advice of WP:AB and restricted yourself to the talk page. Then, you could propose additions to the article and other more experienced editors (without conflict) could review them and decide whether they should be added. If they object, you would be able to discuss why and hopefully come up with something that is acceptable. You'd have to be more civil with everyone though. This is a collaborative project and yelling at people and accusing them of agendas is unconstructive and will get you nowhere. You probably won't believe me, but I have nothing against you personally or what you do or your politics. I don't even pay attention to those aspects of an article unless policy issues are raised by the language. I'm just interested in making sure Wikipedia's policies are not violated and that people who edit here abide by those policies.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've left another message on Oliver's talk page as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks we are done. Please remove my copyrighted name associated with you in respect to your stated Wiki copyright policies above, as you've requested.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivermcgee (talk • contribs) 20:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hamid Algar

According to WP:BLPN (here) there is consensus about NOT using "spat" in this article. I wonder I can revert this edit that violates that consensus given the message you had left in my talk page. By the way, how come the other party did not receive this warning?--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be careful about reverting. I noticed the change to the article but haven't had a chance to review it. Until and if I do, I suggest the talk page. The reason you received the warning is you've never been warned before; the other editor was warned in 2009; a second warning is unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed Marshall's and blocked him for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Following your sugestion

Hi, just telling you that I created a new section in the talkpage of the article about mestizos on wikipedia [33] let's see how this turns out, however, if Theryx7 ignores it like he did with my comments on his talk page I will add the image next week, is that ok? Angelicality (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

What you might also want to do is to invite Theryx7 to comment at the talk page. They may not be aware you posted the comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2

Can you restore the indenting on the SPA votes please, since you put it there originally? There's an IP insistent on removing them, and I'm not willing to get blocked over this. However, the IP needs blocking: they've opened a WP:POINTy DRN against me, they've tried indenting out my vote, and they've also claimed I have a COI on my talk page (which I removed). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the block, looks like GB fan beat you to the reverting. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, if I'm going to block, I usually block first before reverting as that prevents another revert by the about-to-be-blocked user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• That makes sense. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)