This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bbb23. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, I am trying to understand the removal or large content on here. Can you please let me know if this was a mistake or intentional? Thanks. Amit (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Intentional. The article had only one "source", an external link that was dead, which I removed. Otherwise, it had zero sourcing. I might add that it has no other articles that link to it and hadn't been edited in over a year and a half since I edited it, which was a year ago (kind of weird your asking about it a year later). The article has only 4 page watchers (one of whom is me). I'm not sure what your interest is in it, but perhaps you could improve it and give it some reason to even exist. Not that you're required to, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Sandom and associated Talk Page".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Nbound (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Userspace to Mainspace
Hello. Wanted help regarding moving an article from my userspace to the mainspace. Will it work? Or will it be acceptable? And would it move the edits performed there to mainspace too? Thanks for your support. Faizan07:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
If you're talking about Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, the move looks okay, but the article needs a lot of work. I edited the article, mainly from a stylistic and MOS perspective. I know nothing about the subject matter, but the article strikes me as non-neutral. I also get the feeling there are copyright violations, although I haven't actually checked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
As you might have noticed I added AN3 reporting to twinkle some time ago now. Haven't got a lot of feedback though, so I don't know if it's function as needed (was difficult for me to interpret the AN3 procedures), thus I ask you if you could validate it's correctness? →AzaToth18:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm still lost. I don't know what an "ARV module" is. When I go to WP:TW, I see nothing about edit warring. I even went to Twinkle preferences and saw nothing about edit warring, at least nothing that jumped out at me or showed up when I did a "find" on "warring". The image you uploaded is too small for me to make out. Maybe if you go more slowly and in itty bitty steps (I'm very literal).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hehe, I'm sorry for being unclear. Twinkle is a gadget which needs to be enabled under Preferences → Gadgets. After activation, there will be a "TW" menu next to the search box. On a user page or a user talk page (of the person you are reporting), you hover over TW and click on ARV, there under report type, you select "Edit warring", you input the page in question where the edit warring took place and click in "load". Now you select the edits that are relevant, enter a optional comment, and click on "Send". For the screenshot, try http://imgur.com/K4oyNS0.jpg for a full screen version. →AzaToth20:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay, now I've found it, and I can see the image better as well. How am I supposed to "validate" it, though?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, this is a bit tough to do in the abstract, but here goes:
There should be a place in the Twinkle dialog to indicate "the previous version reverted to". That's the first thing one is supposed to fill out at AN3.
I'm trying to access that automatically, taking the selected reverts, grabbing the first one, recording the parentid, grabbing the 100 previous revisions, grab the sha1 from the first revision, look through the older revisions to find a revision with the same sha1, if non found, use the first one as the original, otherwise use the one we found. Other than that, I have no idea what "the previous version reverted to" actually implies. →AzaToth00:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't follow your technical explanation. However, I understand the issue, I think. I find this part of an EW report to be the least useful of any of the items a reporter is supposed to complete. That said, I can't change or eliminate it without discussion and consensus. I pretty much ignore it. The reporter is supposed to pick a version that shows that the first diff in the list of reverts is in fact a revert. Usually, that would simply be the version just before the first revert. Generally, a change or a deletion is considered a revert, whereas a pure addition is not. However, sometimes an addition is adding something that was previously deleted, in which case the addition does count as a revert. That kind of explanation usually is found in the comments if the reporter is savvy. I don't think it's what's intended to be placed in this spot. That's all I can tell you. I've never consulted with another admin about this.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The question mark for Page in the dialog should say "The page being reported".
I would change the language in the Twinkle dialog from "Edits which constitute edit warring" to "User's reverts".
The question mark for the reverts should say "Select the edits you believe are reverts".
You can simplify the next part from "Indications of warnings given to subject" to "Warnings given to user".
As for the template, I can see you made some edits to {{An3-notice}}, but my knowledge of how templates work is piss-poor, so I don't know whether it is okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I was about to say something about him, and when I got to a computer you had already blocked him. Do you mind adding your block to the list of sanctions on the sanction page? --Kyohyi (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the belated rely. I reverted your changes to the probation page because there was no warning (you added it to the list of warnings). I have now added it to the sanctions list. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
If you don't know what you did wrong, you have serious problems. You massively refactoredWP:ANI, which, unless it was accidental (hard to believe), was vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Protection needed
The IP sock of Shaushka came right back again, I see you correctly identified him as a sock and rv'd him, but did not block and so he is edit warring again. We urgently need protection on Cyaxares, Gutian people, and elsewhere to limit this disruption and edit warring. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I've now blocked them and semi-protected both articles. So far, in addition to the above two articles, which I have on my watchlist, I also have Template:Yazdânism and Yazdânism. Are there others? A range block may be the best way to go, but I haven't looked at how many addresses it would block, which is a major consideration. They appear to be editing from two different ranges. And the blocks imposed by the other admin and since by me will only last 48 hours, although the semi-protection is for 10 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Shared IP templates
While I do have several issues with the long-term behavior of 68.50.128.91(talk·contribs·WHOIS), I wanted to point out that they are correct, nothing in WP:BLANKING currently prevents the removal of shared IP templates. I have brought up at Wikipedia talk:User pages#WP:BLANKING that I feel the templates for educational institutions such at {{Shared IP edu}} should be re-added as a template which should not be removed (and in fact I am late on restoring it). A few other shared IP templates have been brought up; but those discussions fizzled out before a consensus could be determined. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Heh, I thought it was already there. Are you saying that it used to be there and was removed and has now been restored by Todd? I could swear I remember seeing it at one time.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
It was removed a couple months ago by Zzuuzz ... I had made some comments about it on the talk page when I noticed, arguing for re-adding that the education institution IP headers should still not be removed (I had no strong opinion on the others), but there hadn't been very widespread involvement in the discussion. Still, I agree with Toddst1's full reversal of the removal ... a change to remove it should have gone through a RfC first. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed the ANI discussion ... if I have more comments, I'll add them there to centralize any discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)An RFC to remove it from BLANKING would have been better. There was no real opposition at that point either, so BRD or whatever. That doesn't change that there is no reason to assume that the IP thought he was doing something wrong when removing the template today. --Onorem (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Obewankenobi
Look, I'm sorry, but the reverting is continuing elsewhere. [2]. I've asked him several times not to post inside my posts, and I've reverted him several times, but he won't stop. It's going to be impossible to keep the RfC orderly if he keeps this up for a month. SlimVirgin(talk)01:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Um, you reverted ME SV. Not the other way around. I simply added options to the top of a community RFC which have been proposed in the body and the adding of which is perfectly reasonable. I am not posting INSIDE your posts, for the simple reason that a neutrally-worded RFC does not belong to any single editor. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
It's impossible not to regard this as trolling, as others have said; you've been reverting and badgering there almost continuously since the RfC opened. I've tried to AGF, but all I can say is that you're behaving like a chaos merchant, whether you intend it or not, and your attempt to drag in female genital mutilation is incredibly inappropriate, no matter what defence you erect for it. SlimVirgin(talk)01:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't have time for this. Obiwankenobi, you're wrong, and SV is absolutely right. Leave the original statement alone. If you want to comment on it below it, fine, but the statement does not belong to the world ("If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template."). Your editing is disruptive and may lead to a block on its own regardless of your agreement about the other article. Undo the damage you did at the RfC; if you can't, SV will.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
And, folks, I'm outa here. SV, if you have problems before I return, you'll have to find another admin to help you. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked: June 2013
For your attack on the administrative staff of Wikipedia (" I know a few admins who would no doubt feign sleep to avoid having to use their tools."), I have decided to block you for a period of ... zzzzzzz :) — Ched : ? 21:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Bbb doesn't sleep. I've already suggested they read my academic work, which they brushed off with the old "I don't have JSTOR" nonsense. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
As you say, a number of the culprits in the men's rights situation have been known to make pointy and NPOV-violating edits to the feminism article. I'll not pretend to be familiar with the ins and outs of the sanctions process, but it appears to me that these edits are certainly violative of the spirit if not the letter of what we're trying to do here. --Orange Mike | Talk14:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Very nicely done
What a good, meaty, convincing, detailed, well-presented comment here. Let's see the user repeat their complaints about vagueness and "please substantiate" after that lot. Bishonen | talk16:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC).
I appreciate the kind words (it was actually a lot of work, but I guess that's what they pay us the big bucks for).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, I could tell your text was boiled-down like an ox turned into a bouillon cube. You should get a raise. Bishonen | talk16:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC).
That sounds delicious. I'll bring Bbb's raise up at the next Board meeting where, with a bit of luck, I get to eavesdrop while serving coffee to those crazy enough to be electable. Being a coffee lady can't be much worse than my current job, haha. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I really would prefer orange juice and French pastries. Please let me know where and when the meeting is so I can plan not to attend. You can send the refreshments to a drop-off in Southern California, and I'll have my people pick them up. Thanks, CL.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't let Drmies fool you. He wants to attend those meetings as a board member, not a coffee server. Please note my politically correct terminology. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Marvel Heroes
Barring the fact that Porter as Cyclops has been sourced for almost three months now on the character page, the game in question has been publicly released, and the credits are easily obtainable. Case in point. If a product is already available to the public, and the credits are very plainly visible, does it still require citation? Because if so, wouldn't you need to source all the OTHER roles currently on Porter's page? -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
There IS a reliable source; the developer featurette on the Cyclops page. I didn't add it to the page because none of the other roles were sourced, and because the game is already available for play. But again, the YouTube video isn't the source I'm referring to; the credits themselves are. You haven't answered my question: If some form of media is released (especially one which anyone can download for free like Marvel Heroes), and the credits sufficiently tie characters to their actors, is it not a suitable source?
I'm willing to take this to someone like WP:VG or WP:Comics for a neutral viewpoint if we can't reach an agreement. -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
If it's in the article, it needs sourcing. Just because existing things don't have sources, doesn't mean that whatever you've added gets a free pass. Your best move? Put in good sources (ie; not YouTube, as even credits sections aren't reliable) for everything, as that benefits everyone. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)18:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What you're saying is that you are the source. You've seen the credits. Therefore, you know that to be true. There are instances in which editors are permitted to be the source, but they are rare. For example, in plot summaries, there are no sources for the plot, just the editors who've seen the film or television show or whatever. This isn't that kind of thing. If it were, then an allegation that so-and-so is in a movie can be made by anyone just because they claim to have seen the movie and the credits.
But ANYONE can see the credits. It's a free-to-play game; it's not exactly like they're keeping it hidden. Also, those links you provided don't help us at all, seeing as they don't list the voices themselves. If I tried to use those as a source, I'm 100% sure another editor would call me out on it and revert my edits. And since you brought up movies, there's a LOT of film articles that don't cite their casts because, as you said, "people have seen them". Is there just some sort of statute of limitations as to when it becomes acceptable to add casts without second-party sourcing?
I knew this kind of debate would erupt if I started filling in voice actors. I tried to solicit help from the main Marvel Heroes page before I even made that edit on Porter's page, but seeing as how no one's responded, I'm still SOL at the moment. At this point, considering neither of us seems willing to cede on this point, I really feel like the best course of action would be to bring this topic up at one of the larger WikiProject talk pages. -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point or points, but no matter. I thought I made it clear I was going to let your latest edit stand, so other than pursuing this in some sort of academic sense, we're done.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit war
Hey Bbb. I just wanted to let you know that there's been an edit war going on between two editors, Gruesome Foursome and Prisonermonkeys, at 2013 Formula One season over the past two weeks (see diffs below). It's all over one paragraph. I know nothing about the subject, so I have no idea who's "right". So rather than getting involved, I thought I should just let an admin know about this ongoing dipsute in case anything needs to be done. Thanks.
So, I come to your talk page, and we have a productive discussion, and now you're making work for me. :-) I've left warnings at both editors' talk pages. Perhaps we can avoid any blocks. Thanks for bringing it to my attention (sorta).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Haha, thanks. I was debating whether I should let an admin know or just ignore it. But I knew the problem would just grow. Sorry for inconveniencing you with this, but thank you for handling it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
User:DragonTiger
Since you were the blocking admin on DragonTiger,[3] I thought I should make you aware of statements by DragonTiger about me at Talk:List of massacres in Turkey.
1. Insinuates that I am some how involved in the editing(warring?) on Ethnic cleansing.[4] "It is really funny, how you are now discrediting the source, it is always the same behavior when WP:JDLI. That source is used in the Ethnic Cleansing article to "prove" [5]that Seljuk Turks ethnically cleansed Greeks. Are you now going to say the same things there and remove it, I don't think so." I have never edited the Ethnic cleansing article, how would I know it was being used there? This is an accusation of sockpuppetry.
2. DragonTiger clearly not satified since his first accusation didn't scare me off, states, "...now if you were an honest person, you would remove it from there by using the same arguments, but you are not interested(?),...". Accusing me of being dishonest.
This behavior is typical of DragonTiger to scare off other editors. I have told DragonTiger to cease his personal attacks or I will report him. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
KB, I've looked at the diff in #1, and I think you're reading too much into DT's comments. I don't see it as an accusation of sock puppetry. As to #2, you didn't provide a diff, but I found it. This one's a bit worse, but, honestly, it's not worth getting worked up about. Now, if you want to make a case that DT routinely does this to many editors (not just you), that might be more compelling. But it would take a fair amount to get there, particularly given the controversial nature of the articles involved. It's almost impossible with these articles for editors to remain absolutely civil to each other. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to excuse DT's comments, but ...--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought I could slip that one past you. My brain is addled. It was a great movie, although I'm not sure that KB is interested in this levity.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Nope, we edit-conflicted. Haha. Yeah it was great... I watched it every year when I was little. And sorry KB... no offense intended. Just levity, as Bbb said. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
My apologies for taking so long to reply. I see only two IP edits since protection expired on June 7, and neither has been reverted by another editor, although one looks like it removed the section I believe you're referring to ("Angie Miller's elimination"). That isn't enough to justify protecting the article, and certainly not for a year. I also see no discussion since June 2 on the article talk page about the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
That article is a mess. With the exception of her relationship with Soros, almost nothing in the article is well sourced. Indeed, the only reason there's been so much coverage of her is because of Soros. There are more tags than cites. Rather than focus on trying to clean up the infobox, which should be a high-level summary of what's described (and sourced) in the article, it would be better to work on the body of the article itself, make it coherent, and source it. We shouldn't need a source for her occupation in the infobox. It should be in the body. We shouldn't have an occupation followed by a fact tag in the infobox. Also what it is says in the lead should be consistent with what it says in the infobox. So, if we are going to call her a "small business owner", then we should be calling her that in the lead, not just actress. Why do you want to call her a child actress when the lead calls her an actress and refers to a role she played as an adult? Sure, she acted as a child, but so did Judy Garland, but we still refer to Garland as an actress.
I'm going to change the infobox to read just actress for the moment. I suppose it wouldn't be the end of the world to call her "businesswoman" based on the one line about her business on the west coast, but it isn't a lot of coverage of her activities. If we do that, we should change the lead accordingly. Entrepreneur just isn't supported by the body.
Finally, at some point, if sources aren't found for some of the unsourced material, I'm going to start removing it. We shouldn't have unsourced material in a BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23 could you have a look at User:Metalhead498, they have technically avoided a breach of the 1RR on Men's rights movement today. This user was warned of the probation at this article in March 2013[6] by me. On June 7th they altered text that was changed by User:Roscelse just hours earlier[7] and then again 27 hours later (first revert at 23:21, 7 June 2013[8] and then at 03:16, 9 June 2013[9]). There has been no attempt to engage in discussion by Metalhead498 eventhough a thread is open on this the topic[10]. Even if the 1RR is ignored Metalhead is clearly slow editwarring (which is exactly the type of behaviour that TParis was talking about at the last ANI thread. It should also be clear that this is a single purpose account with a very clear agenda (accusing scholarly sources of being biased[11] or ideological[12][13] and removing them as such[14] - the changing of the text in the last few days is a direct continuation of past arguments (see this talk page post from this May in particular[15]). I would point out that ArbCom have stated clearly in a number of RFARs that single purpose accounts must:
contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.[16][17][18][19][20].
This removal and attitude is indicative of off-site campaigns against the version of that article on this site, and in my view that teh contributions of this user don't reflect the goals of wikipedia and place an offsite view of what wikipedia should be doing ahead of this site's policies and behavioural requirements--Caililtalk13:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I have left a warning on Metalhead's talk page. I'd like to move forward on two fronts to try to mitigate the disruption to these articles. First, I'm going to start considering topic bans instead of blocks. Behaviorally, I think that's more effective. Second, I would like to put formal probation notices on more articles, including Feminism, Pro-feminism, Men's studies, and Men's liberation. There are no doubt more I'm unaware of as, up until recently, I didn't even look at these articles. Does that sound reasonable to you? Do you have any suggestions? My only concern with putting notices on articles is the burden it puts on all editors not to violate 1RR, but I was frankly surprised to see that the feminism article (I haven't looked at all the others) didn't have that much activity anyway, so that lessened my concern.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the notice isn't a bad idea but I think WP:Beans might also apply (i.e don't tag articles tha have not been disrupted). My own perspective on it is that the probation (and 1RR) ONLY applies to *other articles* when & if the edits are made that are related to the men's rights movement - this hasn't happened (yet) at Feminism & Pro-feminism, except for 1 edit by User:TheTruthiness[21], and thus that could lead to confusion. But if more disruption happens at Feminism & Pro-feminism then tag them, but at this point I don't see the issue spilling over (and IMHO the probation still applies even to articles NOT tagged anway). Other articles to watch are Female genital mutilation (I think you've spoken to Obiwan already but FYI User:Ranze began that discussion), Sexism and Domestic Violence but at this point these pages haven't been disrupted so as to require tagging (it's just useful to see the pattern). Also User:Ranze has been editing templates in interesting ways, see: TFD Template Violence Against People and Violence against men's History, again useful to see the bigger picture--Caililtalk20:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The feminism article was disrupted per OrangeMike. The rest of the articles I got from Metalhead's contribution history and, at a glance, looked disruptive. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Given the terms of an unblock you performed, the Swartz trial's page (and talk page) may bear watching. I've tried, here to get the conversation started on the talk page, before the recent stability of the page is put in jeopardy. If past experience is any guide, that may not be enough. David in DC (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I've put the trial article on my watchlist, but I gotta tell you my watchlist is a monster, so if you see the need for administrative action, you should probably alert me. As an aside, don't you think it's strange that the lead in the trial article doesn't mention Swartz's suicide, the dismissal, and even something about the aftermath related to his estate? It's a fairly long article, and the lead has one sentence in it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll alert you if I see problems. I hope I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the appropriate way to break a section out of a main article. At the Aaron Swartz article, we've tried to make the references to the trial very limited, and steer readers who want to know about it here. I had thought this article should be handled the same way, minimal biographical info about Aaron Swartz, with a link to the main article and a focus on the court case rather than on biography. I'll consider how best to change the lede. Thank you for the guidance. David in DC (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It's easier to handle the splitting issue in the Swartz article than in the trial article, although conceptually both should work. You might want to put a hat note in the trial article at the top of the Background section, but I haven't compared the two articles to see how much redundancy/overlap there is and how much of it is avoidable. Those kinds of calls are always subject to debate among editors, anyway, so you may have some push back if you decide something that others disagree with. Not that anyone ever disagrees with anything on Wikipedia. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
There and gone
Apparently, Gruesome doesn't want you or any other admins to see my comments on his talk page[22][23] because he removed them. As I told him, he'd be better off addressing them rather than trying to sweep them under the carpet and hoping admins won't see them. In fact, instead of just removing my comments only, he edited the entire page (twice), including blanking it, to try to make it harder for admins to notice he removed my posts.[24][25] Anyway, hope you had a good weekend. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed your comments before GF removed them. As I'm sure you know (smile), he has a right to do so. Actually, it hasn't been a good weekend (off-wiki stuff), but thanks for thinking of me.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Yep, in fact the first thing I said in the one comment was that he had every right to remove it.[26]. I just think the better option would've been to deal with it head-on by addressing it. Aw, I'm really sorry your weekend hasn't been good. I certainly won't pry, but I hope things improve. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by 24.13.169.19 again
24.13.169.19 has blanked the Chicago Blackhawks vs. Vancouver Canucks section of the National Hockey League rivalries article at least twice without ever stating a good reason for it since you last blocked his account last year, among other nonconstructive edits to articles related to the NHL. Since it looks like he's been blanking his talk page every time someone warns him, there's no point in me leaving a message there. Might be time to consider another block. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree with FlyingPenguin. 24 has just returned and is already disruptively editing again. He made three edits to more hockey articles and all three were reverted within minutes, one of them telling him yet again to stop the disruptive editing. You blocked 24 in December, then he was warned two more times after that for the same thing. He removed those warnings, saying "I get it!" in the edit summary for the second one. At 16:38, 10 June 2013, I warned him. At 00:10, 11 June 2013, he removed it and said "I truly get it this time" in the edit summary. At 00:16, 00:17, and 00:20, he went back to his disruptive editing, making those three edits that were quickly reverted. So obviously, he doesn't "get it" and is just playing games. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
You have removed sourced material form the Men's movement page with the vague justification of "Copy right violation", without discussing it in talk as I requested and where I justified my edit.
Also are you making this edit your capacity as an administrator or a contributor. CSDarrow (talk)
I think you have a responsibility to more upfront with me. Both in what capacity you are acting and the rationale behind your edit. CSDarrow (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
How is that you don't understand what a copyright violation is? You copied the text from the SPLC article into the Wikipedia article. That's a copyright violation. Is that less "vague"? As for my capacity, any editor can remove a copyright violation and warn the editor who committed it. That said, I have the power to block you if you continue, and I will. I have no comment on the restoration of the same material that was previously removed from the article by an editor under a different rationale, but the copyright violation was blatant.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) CSDarrow, what a bunch of crap. Bbb is absolutely correct. It's a blatant copyright violation; it's a complete copy-and-paste from the SPLC website, every single word of it. And since when are articles from the SPLC's website considered a reliable source? I'm not saying they're wrong in what they're writing, but that they are obviously not neutral. More importantly, they obviously do not have editorial oversight like a newspaper or magazine, etc.
SPLC website says: "includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women"
WP article says: "includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women."
SPLC website says: "Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women."
WP article says: "some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women"
76.189.109.155 Thank you for your suggestion they are helpful. As to why this could not have taken to the talk page before issuing me warning and reverting is beyond my understanding. As for the reliability of the SPLC as a source. You should express that view on the Men's_rights page were the 'consensus' is that the word of the SPLC is beyond questioning. CSDarrow (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
If you don't understand why copyright violations are removed without discussion, then you need to stop editing here until you do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I need to take to Administrator Incident Notice Boards, this is approaching bullying imo. Also this discussion should be on the talk page of Men's movement not here. CSDarrow (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
You can do what you like. Bullying is coming here to harass Bbb about something as basic as a perfectly valid warning for copyright violation, and the article talk page is not the place for this: the problem was your particular edit. Now, since I am "involved" (in that I am pointing out that you were wrong and Bbb was right), I won't block you for bringing it to ANI, but I will advise ANI's readership that in my opinion your continued harping on this point (where it is so abundantly clear that you copied content from a website) is disruptive and amounts to harassment, doubly so if you try to create more dramah by bringing this pointless item to a noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Bullying? Are you kidding me? I'm surprised Bbb has been so cordial with you about your blatant editing violation and rude implications. And if you truly believe that your edit needed to be discussed first prior to reverting, then I'm very concerned about your basic editing competence. As far as your threat to report Bbb23 for bullying, I can guarantee you that it won't work out well for you at all. Have you ever heard the term, "Beware the boomerang"? Not only are you completely wrong on this issue, you have been blocked twice in the past three months for disruptive editing in the very article being discussed here. And in case you're not aware of it, Bbb is a highly respected admin with a strong track record. What you should have done in this situation is say, "Thank you for reverting me, Bbb. I didn't realize that my edit was improper." And then I'm sure he would've been more than happy to educate you further on the matter. I suggest you drop this useless battle you're waging, and move on. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately the blocking admin gave "Edit warring: again, on Men's rights movement)" as an explanation. The edit warring took place on men's movement, not men's rights movement, although the articles are clearly related and both on article probation with a 1RR restriction. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh. I'm not sure exactly what that means as the far the block, but I assume you can let the blocking admin know. I wonder if he's even aware that a report was started at AN/EW. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Dont Remove crucial information from S.P.B article
A sincere request to you that dont remove facts and call them fan stuff. You are not an administrator. Your are not sup-posed to remove crucial information pertaining to someone's carrer. Also you are calling me whose fan?My additions were not made by me but was earlier present in the artcile and since they were missing I have added them back. The additions are nioether glorifying S.P.B but instead give out information about his first recording in Knananda, M.S.Viswanathan's impact on his career, his breakthrough in Malayalam. Do not revert unnecessarily. Only fan stuff should be reverted not such crucial facts.Haleveldzc (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You deleted the article on "Graphite_(software)". Are you sure this action was in full conformance of G11?
If it was, I'd be happy to rewrite the article to make it confirm. The original text of the article would help - do you have access to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.104.212.36 (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
If you log into your account and make the request again, I will WP:USERFY the article for you, although, frankly, it wasn't much of anything. A few sentences, no sources, and written unencyclopedically.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Your behaviour on Wikipedia and Joan Gerber
Judging by your recent lack of interest in the Joan Gerber page, take it that you agree that find-a-grave is an adequate source for Gerber's death? I would like to inform you that my edit conflicts with you, the oligarchy on your side, which was symbolised by those snarling hounds you got to attack me, and last but not least your sarcastic and antagonistic remarks towards me, does not make me believe that Wikepedia is a place where all you have to do is insult someone and police the page he is editing. No, my friend, Wikipedia is all about helpful information (maybe the same kind of information you would find in a library) and blocking my edits may have seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but what would you call a person that keeps someone alive beyond all reason (by the way, thinking that someone who has passed away to be alive is a symptom of several mental illnesses) doesn't seem right at all. It seemed like something of an insult to her daughter and friends (and why were Nancy Cartwright, Pat Fraley and Rob Paulsen statements on his podcast not considered reliable sources, they worked with her and kept in touch). All in all, your edits could be considered a violation of Wikipedia:Battleground. For example, Philip L. Clarke's ref for his death is Jack Angel releasing the news on his Facebook Page.Radiohist (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Whoa, easy tiger. What about my behaviour on Wikipedia? What about all the people who find being declared dead wrongly a lot more problematic than being declared alive wrongly?
More to the point, you do realise why oligarchy is the best form of government? (No word games with "aristocracy" here, please.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Radiohist, I simply didn't notice the edits to the article of a few days ago. Findagrave is not a reliable source. Neither is the one added by BMK (tributes.com). I've backed out both.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
@Bbb23: For my part, thanks for clarifying the unreliability of those sources. I certainly agree that it's vastly preferable to incorrectly imply that someone is still alive (because we don't provide a date of death) then it is to positively but inaccurately state that someone has died who is actually alive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
You are not one to talk, because while I have reinserted things on other people's talk pages, you have removed things from other people's pages. What is the dfference? You still didn't answer my question. I would like to know why were my edits removed and not the others.Radiohist (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. I have removed edits from other users' talk pages only when I felt justified in doing so based on Wikipedia guidelines or policy. As for your question, your comments are frequently disruptive, but your last comments had crossed a line for me, so I removed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey Bbb, in regard to this now archived thread, sure. I was being overly precise, perhaps. Do you mind writing up the ban and log it, if you have a minute? I'm not sure I have the brain power today. Thanks, and there's a barnstar and maybe some fresh eggs in it for you. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm happy to do that for you. I'm going to assume it's a 3-topic ban and describe it that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
List of AFF Talents
Hi. Would you think that List of AFF Talents would meet the criteria of A3 speedy delete? It doesn't have really have any content and just contains links. Personally i am not sure. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a lousy article, but I'm not sure about its eligibility for speedy delete, particularly as a list article. The most conservative approach would be to leave the prod tag up and see what happens. If the tag is removed, you could AfD it. You could try tagging it for speedy delete, but I would let another admin make the decision as to whether it should be deleted. I've just blocked the user as they ignored my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
It has a PROD on so i will leave it for now. Good on you for blocking him. He did recreate this article before you blocked him. He even restored the speedy delete template!! Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Bbb23. I've just commented on the ANI thread about User:Zvazviri - At first glance, I didn't see too many issues, but I've took a closer look and there does seem to be some copyright infringements. I see you're editing them out now - Can I leave the warning/blocking to you as well? Cheers, RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter23:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Ryan, I didn't comment at ANI because I was too busy trying to clean up the law firm article. I'm not sure that what the user has done is blockable. They appear to have an agenda and they're also not very good at editing. One article they created was deleted per G12, but I'm not sure what else they've done that infringes (other than maybe the logo, which I've removed from the article). The article, although poorly crafted, is probably notable. I'll keep my eye on the article and on the editor, but I don't intend to take any action at this point. You're free to if you believe it's warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Couple more things. The user hasn't edited in three days, and based on their history, they don't talk.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
At first glance, I didn't think there was much substance to the complaint either, but when you check some of his bigger edits (2000 characters +), there's a few issues that probably need looking at further. I'll give you an example from this diff;
Issue one
His edit: "Led by young and vibrant team of advocates, East African Law Chambers has attracted clients from all sectors and industries, not only working in Tanzania but also in Kenya, Uganda and Zambia, among other African countries."
From cb-lg.com: "Led by young and vibrant advocates who have achieved a strong reputation in the legal market and profession, East African Law Chambers continues to attract new clients from all sectors and industries. Our lawyers’ track records show that we have invaluable experience of not only working in Tanzania but also in Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, among several other African countries."
Issue two
His edit: "ounded in October 2003 in Uganda, AF Mpanga Advocates has established itself as a leader in corporate and commercial transactional advice, banking and project finance, mergers and acquisitions, civil and criminal litigation, real estate and intellectual property."
From afmpanga.co.ug: "Founded in October 2003 in Uganda, AF Mpanga, Advocates has firmly established itself as a leader in corporate and commercial transactional advice, banking and project finance, mergers and acquisitions, civil and criminal litigation, real estate and intellectual property."
That's just one diff as well, and I'm fairly sure there's a few more just on that one edit. Anyway, if you could take a look that would be most appreciated, but no worries if you can't - It's just that I'm going to bed shortly! Perhaps a small warning might be appropriate. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter00:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you're gonna do extra work, the least I can do (smile) is warn the user, which I've done. I, too, am about to go off-wiki, but I'll try to leave a comment at ANI before doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are Fladrif, log in and do what you wish as long as it doesn't violate policy. As far as I can tell, your talk page access has not been revoked. I have no way of verifying you are who you say you are. --Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
You're (i) editwarring and (ii) being a perfect ass over another user's talkpage. Is that confirmation enough, Nimrod? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.198.193 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your message that I have added too many films to the categories shot in Maryland and shot in Baltimore; I am working with both intimate knowledge of these films and cross-referencing IMDB and the Maryland Film Office and the Baltimore Film Office web sites to confirm that all films had significant shooting in these areas. I am well aware that just because a film's narrative is set in Maryland it may not have been shot in Maryland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.225.223 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
At Wikipedia, everything has to comply with internal policies and guidelines. Whether something is true according to you is of virtually no significance. So, if you want to add these sorts of categories to articles, you first have to put material into the body that supports the cats. That material has to be noteworthy and reliably sourced (IMDb is not a reliable source).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
A few more voices experienced in NPOV editing would be useful at the Tea Party movement moderated discussion. I appreciate it's a big ask, and no worries if you find you haven't the time or inclination, but your opinions are respected and valued, so input from you would be helpful. The article has made great progress over the past month, and is heading in the right direction - though there is still some work to do, and there is an ArbCom case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement) held in suspension over this article, and the Committee will be reconvening at the end of the month to decide what to do. SilkTork✔Tea time12:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, SilkTork, I haven't decided whether I have the time or wherewithal to help out, but I'm not quite sure where you and others are in the process and what you expect of new helpers. I've read the top message from you, but that's from May 22. The body consists of a LOT of hatted discussions and a few that aren't. Maybe you could short-cut this for me a bit and tell me what tasks I could perform. To the extent it's relevant, I'm below average when it comes to knowledge about the Tea Party and political movements generally. My "talents" lie in neutrality and precision.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The dispute over the article is that it either contains too much negative trivia designed to disgrace the Tea Party movement, or that there is an image-cleansing attempt to keep out important factual negative information. A lot of material has already been removed from the article - much of this has been displaced into sub-articles where it can be fine-tuned. But there is more to be done. The current discussions are at the bottom of the page. Editors propose edits, and contributors discuss the edits to find consensus. When consensus has been reached, the edit is actioned. What would be helpful is if you could look at the proposals and the following discussion and add your input so that there is a new and independent voice. You could also look over the article and propose suggested changes yourself. Most of those involved have been involved for some time, so the arguments tend to go round in circles and no progress is made. There needs to be some pace injected into the process so that the bulk of the article is cleaned up before the end of the month - which is approaching fast. My experience of collaborative editing, is that if there are good editors involved, then much can be achieved in a week. I have approached several experienced and respected editors regarding this matter. SilkTork✔Tea time09:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. At the moment I'm not feeling very respected or motivated, but I will revisit it tomorrow, my off-wki life permitting.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Rather than threatening people who have broken no policy, could you either conclude that ANEW issue properly, or commit the matter to an uninvolved admin who would be willing to do so.
You have posted a message that suggests " Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page": please inform me as to what page is more appropriate than ANEW for seeking adjudication on a 3RR breach.
You have recorded a false result on that report: although the user was temporarily blocked, that had nothing to do with the edits that breached 3RR.
As you have threatened me with a block, please identify the rule that I am accused of having broken.
I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to you, Kevin. WP:ANEW is an administrative noticeboard. Obviously, it is used by all editors to file reports and to discuss the merits of the report. However, it's rare for a non-admin to change the result of a report in a header. You're certainly not the first person who has complained about the disposition - or lack of disposition - of a report in the body of the report, but that's quite different from changing what an admin says is the "result". In your first edit, you commented and changed the result. I reverted back to the original result with this edit summary: "adding a comment is okay but changing the "result" is not". I then responded to your comment. You obviously were not satisfied and commented again. I left a "final" comment in the body and closed the report. It is in my discretion to close a report to further discussion. You reverted my disclosure and AGAIN changed the result. It was then that I left a warning on your talk page.
Your edits at WP:ANEW were disruptive. They were also misguided. Not all reports are "ruled" on at ANEW. Many just go away on their own and are archived. Some editors, like you, are unhappy with that, but that's the way it is, like it or not. For you to force the issue repeatedly was completely inappropriate. I asked you to move on, and that's what you should have done then, and it's what you should do now.
Finally, some of your statements above are silly. I don't have to refer anything to an "uninvolved admin". First, I wasn't and am not involved. Second, there are lots of admins who patrol ANEW, and any one of them can do whatever he or she wants without a "referral".
Your statement about the template is hardly worth responding to. The language is part of the template. You must know that, and it's not always perfect language. Really.
Last, the result was not "false". It was true when it was written, and it's not required that I "update" it. Except for indefinite blocks that are never lifted, all blocks end. This one ended as well. If I had done anything, I would have simply left a note at the bottom to indicate that the sock block was lifted after extensive discussion with others, but I would not have changed the result. Nor would I have said anything about the edit warring claim.
I trust I have answered all your questions, although I doubt you are satisfied with the answers. It's highly unlikely I will respond to any further questions on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Unblocked
Hi, Bb23. I've reviewed your block of Ohconfucius and unblocked him. (Sorry I can't wait to discuss, I'll be out of the house in minutes and there wouldn't be anything left of the block by the time I return — he's had to wait a good while for review.) He made one revert here and another 12 hours later, here. That doesn't look like blockable edit warring to me. The two other, consecutive, edits that removed content don't count as reverts, as you know. In a bit of a rush, Bishonen | talk06:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC).
Notice: If another admin wants to comment on this topic, they may. Any non-admin comments will be reverted regardless of their merit.
Bishonen, the block was justified. Here is the sequence of events:
This report was filed at WP:ANEW by an uninvolved editor. The report was against Fangorn-Y. However, in the report, the reporter said, "I also warned User:Ohconfucius, but they have not edited the page again since the warning."
I reviewed the contribution history of Edward Snowden and determined that both Fangorn and OhC violated WP:3RR.
The reporter's comment about OhC not reverting after a 3RR warning was placed on OhC’s talk page is correct, although an experienced editor shouldn't require such a warning. Nor is a warning required to block. However, I might still have been influenced by the reporter's statement except that OhC reverted a fourth time and then in the same minute warned Fangorn of 3RR. Talk about chutzpah. To see that, unless you have diffs broken down by seconds, look at OhC's contribution history at 16:15 June 15 (UTC).
I should have blocked both editors, but I took into account other factors (which I won’t go into here to save space) and blocked only Fangorn.
However, I warned OhC on his talk page, which you must have seen, here. The warning was as clear as it could be. OhC was told that if he reverted again in the article in the next 5 days, he risked being blocked. OhC did not respond to the warning.
OhC reverted after the warning here. Although it was a violation of my warning, it was a pretty small revert, and I reluctantly elected NOT to block him for that revert.
However, this second revert was much bigger. I blocked him a few minutes afterward, and in the block log I put edit warring and "reverting after warning".
Thus, the block was for reverting after my warning. The warning, by the way, is similar to ones some frequent patrollers of ANEW use. I believe this kind of warning was first used by User:EdJohnston. The OhC warning is a variant on the warning I usually use, but I felt it was the most appropriate given the circumstances. As I'm sure you know, actions based on edit warring reports are often based on a significant amount of administrative discretion.
I am troubled by what you did. If you didn't have the time to follow policy, you should have left it for another admin. I understand that you can't consult with me if I'm not around, although at the time you didn't know that, but even if you couldn't consult with me because I was off-wiki, WP:BLOCK requires you to take it to WP:AN. The only exception to that is "unambiguous error", and I this doesn't come anywhere close to that. At best, it's a disagreement between you and me as to the merits of the block. Putting aside policy, I would have been satisfied if there had even been an administrative consensus (at least one or two other admins who agreed with you) to unblock on OhC's talk page rather than at AN. I respect you as an admin, Bishonen, particularly your independence, but in this instance, honestly, your actions rankled.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Ohconfucius e-mailed me early in the morning, my timezone, to complain that his unblock request for a 24-hour block hadn't been reviewed in 16 hours, and to ask me to look. (He didn't ask me to unblock.) I don't know if he messaged anybody else, but I could see that indeed it hadn't been reviewed. I should mention that he's not a wikipal of mine. I've certainly seen him around, and I see he knows Bishzilla… I may have interacted with him some time, but I can't recollect doing it.
I had maybe nine minutes before I had to leave for an appointment that would keep me away for some hours, so there was no question of waiting to consult with you or to ask for consensus on AN; just time to review the article history in what I thought was adequate depth, and to make a decision. If I hadn't had enough time for the history review, of course I wouldn't have acted at all. I regret not being able to consult (consult anybody at all, not just you), but I don't regret what I did under the circumstances. It seemed the least bad alternative, and still does. I do hate leaving people hanging like that. Do you know if it's normal for Category:Requests for unblock to work that slowly? I 'should have left it for another admin'… absolutely, per the rules, and if the system had been working. But it had been left for that vague other admin for too long.
You think I must have seen your warning? Heck no, I wasn't browsing Ohconfucius' talkpage. I didn't look at the log either, which would, dammit, only have taken a couple of seconds and would have been useful, because there you mentioned a warning, and so I would have seen the warning. (You didn't mention it in the block message.) But it wouldn't in the end have made any difference, because now that I've seen the warning, I actually don't think it was proper. A 0-revert ban…? IMO ArbCom does that (they don't do it often, as it's kind of extreme), or possibly AN. Not one admin acting on his own, EdJohnston or not. I've tried to find support for unilateral bans per admin discretion altogether, because I've felt like imposing them myself often enough, but I never did find any.
I do agree with you about Oh's previous behaviour, reverting and warning the other party in the same minute. That's not good at all. You could have blocked him for gaming at that point, I think. Gaming is always blockable IMO, and the 3RR policy explicitly says so. But you elected not to. I don't agree with blocking him 29 hours later, obviously then not for 3RR, but for breaching your "ban". Plus, it's rather a stretch to call those later two edits, that you blocked for, "reverts". I'd call them normal editing.
Yes, it's a disagreement. Your block certainly wasn't an "unambiguous error". But I thought it wrong, and, again, thought unblocking + a hurried note was my least bad option. It's always easier to do nothing. If we take that road, nobody gets to complain, since we're volunteers. That's an argument that serves not only for me but for you too: it would have been easier for you to do nothing, but you chose to do what you thought right. So did I. Bishonen | talk15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC).
Patrik Selin
Hi, I noticed that you edited Patrik Selin about a month ago, rightfully removing a bunch of PR puffery. I'm doing some digital PR for Bodog, the company Mr. Selin used to work for, and he is no longer employed there, having left last year. Since my direct editing would violate WP:COI as I'm being compensated, I was wondering if you could take a look at this [32] and if you deem it worthy, remove references to his current employment there. Thanks. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your sensitivity to the conflict issue. I've updated the article. Let me know if it looks okay to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
At least one of us is on top of this. :-) I removed the infobox as the only thing that would remain is his name. I also changed the lead to be "former" CEO. If there's anything else I missed, let me know. (The article really needs work, but I don't know who's going to take the time to improve it.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
It has occurred to me to nominate it for deletion for not being notable, but I'm walking a fine line operating here already and that might be a little much for some people. Bodog has asked me if the lead can be changed to not name them, and just say something like "Patrik Selin is businessman, formerly in banking and more recently in online gambling." They don't mind if they appear in the article body, but they don't want to be so closely associated in the lead. I thought it sounded like a reasonable request, so I passed it along. Is that possible? I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to do that. However, if you wish, you could broach the subject on the article talk page and ask for input from other editors. I would disclose your conflict, though. As for nominating the article for deletion, I have no opinion, although the bar is fairly low at Wikipedia. There, too, if you do so, (1) you should disclose your conflict and (2) don't forget to look at WP:BEFORE. AfD discussions can get contentious.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked Toby, but I suggest you address the question by the other editor on the article talk page about Toby's edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
JWA links
Hi. You reverted a number of edits by User:Tja5280, which were external links to articles at JWA.org. I took a look at the site and the articles and it seemed to be a reasonable candidate for an external link from those articles. Other than the possible SPA issue with that user, what was your objection to the links? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
When a new account comes here and does nothing but add ELs to a particular website, it's disruptive. In this user's case, they had been notified on their talk page about problems with the ELs and failed to respond. They just kept chugging along. See WP:ADV. If you believe that some of the links were appropriate on some of the pages, you are free to restore them. However, I'm not sure that links to other encyclopedias add much value to our articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You're right in most cases, but what was contributed in this case appears to be constructive. Five articles I looked at at random were well-written by well-educated authors and reasonably well-edited. It's not really my field, but, on the face of it, the site appears to be a high-quality source. Links to them provide the user with more additional info than the average actor's IMDb link, for example. I don't see how I would choose which links to exclude, as their collection is much smaller and threshold of notability likely much higher. It seems like any link to their bio articles from ours would be beneficial. I'll leave a note at a relevant WikiProject asking for more input here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Sultanate of Rum
Would you consider protecting Sultanate of Rum? An IP has been removing references and referenced information to push his/her own opinion. The same IP has even posted a fake source on the talk page.[33] Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a fake source[34], "Even when the roman Turks became politically independent, it remained a colonial extension of Sunni Islamic world which had its centers in Greco-Turkish culture." -- Constantinople and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire, Lewis Bernard, page 92.
There is no book called "Constantinople and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire", nor does that quote exist on page 92 of "Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire".[35] The word "Greco" only appears on page 126. Neither does the words "roman Turks" appear within this book.
This quote is real, "Even when the land of Rum became politically independent, it remained a colonial extension of Turco-Persian culture which had its centers in Iran and Central Asia." -- Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire, Bernard Lewis, page 29.[36]
Apparently the IP believes me to be "Persian"? With edit summary and talk page statements, "Contrary to nationalist dogma..."[37][38]
Calls the sources I have presented on the talk page "bullshit", "Can't understand why you tell bullshit about us."[39] It is quite clear this "editor" has no respect for sources that do not agree with his opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
And now, since the IP can not/will not bring any published source(s), I've been called a racist and demagogue.[40] "You are &%$!? demagogue. Another reason why Europe must reappraise his deeply rooted anti-Turkism. I just do explanatory work to your turcophobic statements go review your history. Instead to defame and misinform the people with such pseudo-arguments. Many people have morbid perception about us Turks and it is the reason why we still live in an apartheid between europeans and muslims europeans. We Turks belong to the european familiy of peoples and that is NOTHING what I claim nor a personal view who is "tagging article" but a proven truth. Not only is it unhuman to treat us like second class europeans, in fact it is a racial libel." --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
KS, I've given the IP a final warning. Let me know if there are any further problems. Thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I am restoring the referenced information that was removed by that IP. I have waited since June 16th for the IP to produce any published sources to support his/her opinion. Currently, the IP has posted ZERO sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You make me sad
"If another admin wants to comment they may. Any non-admin comments will be reverted regardless of their merit. (my emphasis)"? Are you kidding me? Posting a statement like that is by itself conduct unbecoming of an administrator. To state out in the open that constructive, good-faith comments from non-admins are not welcome is simply disgusting. You are not the same editor I came to know here and supported for adminship. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Joe, I'm sorry the notice bothered you so much, and I can understand why as it's unusual generally and for me. I don't want to comment too much on the reasons for the notice as to do so would kind of open up the can of worms that the notice was trying to prevent. So, I'll just say two things and then let it go. First, the topic related to a disagreement between another admin and me about a block and an unblock. I knew that if I posted what I did without the notice, it might spark a fair amount of chaos. Indeed, I reverted (as promised) some of the comments I anticipated. All I wanted to do was to have a discussion with the other admin and because the subject involved the use of administrative tools, I didn't object to other admins chiming in. Second, the reason I said "regardless of their merit" wasn't to prevent good-faith comments from non-admins. It was to avoid having to decide whether any comments were constructive or not constructive. So I was in a sense trying to be even-handed about it. I hope that helps a bit, but it's fine if you still think I was out of bounds. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Dick Cecil, Al Thornwell and Ted Turner formed a group that purchased the failing Colorado Caribous franchise in 1978 of the NASL and moved it to Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium for the 1979 season and renamed them the Chiefs. While this failed attempt at soccer in the deep south was a blip in the Ted Turner biography as a whole and not mentioned in the wiki, nonetheless he was an NASL executive.(see ref here [1]) My point obviously being, that just because this info isn't in Turner's wiki-bio doesn't mean that the Category:North American Soccer League (1968–84) executives should not include Turner. Since I try to refrain from cyber-disagreements where editors change each other's edits, I'd ask you to please revert back to my edit of Ted Turner, if you think my case for his inclusion in the category is just. Thanks and have a great day! Creativewill (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your coming here rather than reverting. Unfortunately, the general rule is that categories must be supported by material in the body: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." (WP:CAT). Now the "rule" is a guideline, so theoretically it can be overriden by a clear consensus. To do that, you'd have to go to the article talk page and open up a topic on the issue. I would be against it, so I'm not going to restore the category, but I can't speak for other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Like I alluded to, the way many people behave on wikipedia seems childish to me. It's so much easier to discuss things, rather than fight. As a side note to your comments above... perhaps you should also consider removing the Atlanta Thrashers executives category from the page for the time being, as I see no mention of that franchise in the Turner article either. I think the bigger point I was trying to make by inclusion of the NASL category though is that Turner has had a hand in nearly every pro sports franchise in the Atlanta market at one time or another (Braves, Hawks, Chiefs and Thrashers). Maybe the Ted Turner bio needs a section added called "Sports team ownership" or expand the baseball to "Atlanta Braves and other sports team ownership", because in this regard he is very much like Lamar Hunt, Wayne Huizenga and a few others. Just a thought. Glad to have a civil dialogue as well. -cheers- Creativewill (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Sheldon Solow
Why did you just delete all my work? If you're confident that "the image is a copy-right violation" then you are welcome to remove it, but why did you revert the whole thing as if you own the article? It's not an advertisement like you think, I'll now simply go over it and make sure it looks more neutral. Yambaram (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted my edits again because of lack of reliable sources. I forgot to add this link to the article, which I took a lot of information from - look at my version and you'll see that every statement is backed up by that source.. So is that good enough now? Waiting for a response this time, thanks Yambaram (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Your new source is not reliable; it's mostly a blog and partly derivative of other unreliable sources. It can't be used in support of anything. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems funny that the Cardiff Singer of the World wiki page could make similar assertions without references (ever think to check yourself? Would've taken 30 seconds...) and since I updated this literally as the award was announced, it was perhaps rather hasty to revert edits? Anyway, the source is now linked to. Have fun trawling through it, it will take you about an hour.
PS, someone else actually made the assertion that she was the first woman to win, that's why there were multiple IP addresses. It wasn't just me posting.
77.97.23.235 (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
That's really very funny (the part about her being the second person in history and "trawling"). Thanks for clarifying the part about the IP addresses; that was an assumption on my part. I did finally check myself, but only because otherwise I figured you or someone else would just keep adding the unsourced material. My job (I'm an administrator) is generally to enforce compliance with Wikipedia policy, not to fix the content in articles. As for updating the article the moment it was announced, there was no urgency to do it. Everyone (not just you) thinks that Wikipedia has to be udpated as soon as the news hits the streets. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, although sometimes, unfortunately, it acts like one. Contacting me back here was fine, but generally if I leave a note on your talk page, I "watch" your talk page so I can reply there. Not important, though, you're just trying to be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Michael, given that GB fan has established that the brief article was a copyright infringement (which I missed), it can't be userfied. And as BWilkins said, why would you want to resurrect the article anyway? Finally, the whole thing strikes me as pretty weird. The article was created by User:Axelabs, a relatively new account. You, on the other hand, created your account back in 2007, and your first and only edit is this one to my talk page. What's that all about?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd hate to break it to you, but the first 2 sentences in the last paragraph in Pitt's header sound terrible. I'm talking about the lines having to do with past and current relationships. It just sounds awful, I'm sure that can be worded better.Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to take a stab at editing it if you think it can be improved. The only reason I reverted your edit was what I said in my edit summary. Honestly, material about actors' relationships are almost always a mess. BTW, the Pitt article is a featured article, so we have to be extra careful as to what we include and how it's articulated.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, I just wanted to point out it seemed very poorly worded. Personally, I think the only relationship that needs mentioning in the header is his current relationship. I really don't see any reason why mentioning his past relationships in the header is important, they are already in his personal section. It's just repeating the same information. What do you think?Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you have two choices. One would be to boldly change the lead the way you think is more appropriate. If someone reverts you, you should then go to the talk page (in other words, don't revert back). The second choice is to open up a discussion on the lead on the talk page without making any changes to the article itself. I agree with you that it's poorly worded as is, but it's harder to decide what should be included, even if it's better written. If asked my opinion, I would probably remove the entire paragraph from the lead. I would certainly remove the part about the children and I'd pare down the Paltrow/Aniston material to almost nothing. But that's just my opinion; a consensus would be better.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean; reading the decision, I was under the impression that the ruling explicitly overturned the Cal Supreme Court's holding that California state law allowed initiative sponsors to defend the law. But if you do not believe that is the case (along with whatever changes you may believe would be better), feel free to change it. Instead of doing a blanket revert, just alter the parts you think should be changed. Then we can have a discussion about it. --haha169 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a revert is a revert, regardless of whether I revert only part. Where did you get that impression from?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Moved from Men's rights movement/Article probation
I agree. What we really need is a talk page of the talk page. :-) I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with this now. As I recall, I addressed Mike's comment somewhere else at the time.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Eh, if it's been addressed, then it's been addressed. No need to re-address it. I don't think we need a talk page of the talk page... I think that would lead to Yet More Useless Complaining. I could be wrong, though. KillerChihuahua19:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight. It is apparently consistent with Wikipedia policies, not a slur, not at all sanctionable, and generally entirely fair to apply the hate-inducing label "Misogynist" entire unspecified sectors of the MRM. However, a factual summary of sexist remarks by a certain journalist is fringeism, and OrangeMike thinks it should be sanctioned.William Jockusch (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Fact: Other people want to discuss topic Y (white space)
Fact: Topic Y is discussed elsewhere, where it belongs.
Now when people continue to discuss Y against my expressed wished, why would you use it as a reason to close the complaint? In fact, I do discuss Y on the MOS talk page, and there is no mention of blocking anybody, just a content debate. How could this be a reason to ignore BMK's behaviour?
Thanks for the heads up. Why is she now editing not logged in? I don't think I have anything useful to say that I haven't already said, but I'll add comments about her registered account and about WP:IDENT.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Earth100
Regarding the conclusion of the SPI, do you think talk page access should be restored? The socking was the deciding factor in my removing it, but I'm not quite motivated to restore it, since he was basically denying everything. --Rschen775407:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe the trigger for the revocation of the talk page access was the recent activity of Earth200. It has now been confirmed that Earth200 is not Earth100. Therefore, I've changed the tag on Earth200's talk page to match the recent SPI. However, I'm leaving the tags on Earth100 and Earth101's user pages. WilliamH said that Earth101 was stale, but Earth101 was blocked based on a CU back in December 2012. Therefore, I'm going to assume (I suppose I'd have to ask DeltaQuad to be sure) that Earth100 and Earth101 are the same individual. My feeling is you should restore talk page access because the revocation was because of Earth200 and Earth100's bombastic reaction. If I were to guess, I'd say that Earth100 will probably say something in the future to justify revoking again, but I don't think it's fair not to restore it at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Just going to throw this out there, as I was at one point asked to mentor and participated in a discussion ... he reminds me a lot of User:Starship9000, who was blocked after not improving through my adoption course and frequently asking to be let free. I doubt they're socks, but they are similar. Starship was indeffed, and then eventually banned across the wikis. I worry that Earth may follow that path if he finds an alternate project (i.e. Simple). Just my two cents. Restoring talk page access can't hurt ... at the end of the day, WP:DENY could come into play. GoPhightins!12:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk page access was restored. And Starship9000 was globally locked, not blocked - meaning that he cannot login. His IP has also been globally blocked a few times, and blocked on Meta too. --Rschen775416:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Need file undeleted
Can you please assist me in bringing back an SVG file to Wikipedia. The issue is the article Arms of Canada. For years we have had a highly detailed accurate SVG of the image under the name File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg here on Wikipedia under a non-free use rationale. Then last night it was replaced with a horrible version from Commons, and the SVG got deleted. Naturally that Commons file was not accepted, but because the SVG was deleted, now the article is using a blury PNG version of the image which you can see there now. Please use your admin powers to restore the SVG under it's non-free use rationale. Fry1989eh?18:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Fry. Unfortuately, you're out of my depth. Even assuming I can do what you wish, I'm not sure I'm supposed to. I recommend you contact User:Moonriddengirl, a wonderful admin and a copyright guru.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, sorry to bother you but User:William Jockusch has just opened an RFC to remove sourced content at Men's rights movement, on the basis that:
As a reader who happens to like the idea of men's rights, this sentence feels like a slur aimed at me personally.[42]
This user has already been blocked for a 1RR breach (by you) and this attempt to WP:CRUSH well sourced content they don't like using process is the thin end of the wedge. Would you have another look--Caililtalk18:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Templates and VisualEditor
Hey Bbb23
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
I personally think it's downright weird, but I do see some material (old) about it at the Wikimedia Foundation website. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers knows more. Otherwise, if I were going to take it anywhere, I'd take it to WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Great, feel free to update the section again, but you need to put the source in the article, not just in an edit summary. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You taught me something new
Hi triple B. I just wanted to thank you for teaching me something (without even realizing you were doing so). You made this revert. When I read what the edtior had changed, my immediate reaction was, to put it bluntly, "WTF". Haha. So I thought to myself... If I had made that revert, what would my edit summary have been? Honestly, I don't what the best thing to say is when someone makes edits that are simply non-sensical. But now I know, because of you: "These are not helpful changes". Simple, courteous and on-point. And it made me laugh, too, so that was a bonus. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I try to judge each edit on its merits. In this particular case, my sense was the editor was trying to be constructive, so I didn't want to bite her head off, but it was hard to come up with a policy-based edit summary, so that was the best I could think of. BTW, I enjoyed your self-revert on the MOS:LQ business - very decent of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly... the editor obviously meant well, and technically didn't violate any policies or guidelines. It was just one of those shake-your-head kind of edits, which makes it more difficult to decide what to say. So nicely done. As far as my self-revert, thank you for saying that. It's funny because I used to see editors being reverted a lot by experienced editors for putting the period inside the close-quote for a partial quotation. The edit summary was always similar; that the period should only go inside if it is a complete sentence being quoted. But in studying the relevant policies again, I found there's quite a bit of gray, so I said to myself... Bbb is far more experienced than me, so I'll go with his judgment on this one. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Eh, you deserve it... once in awhile. :p Wow, OrangeMike just got hammered by some admin named Jehochman in the help desk discussion. I had to respond because these attacks before Mike's even had a chance to reply are ridiculous. I barely know the guy, but I would defend anyone's right to have a chance to discuss a problem before they're reported or insulted somewhere. Anyway, I hope you have a great weekend! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi! One editor asked for a proof that Moni Aizik was Carlos Newton's teacher. I provided the proof. Why did you remove it? Romayan (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Then you inserted more puffery in the form of multiple pics with questionable permissions. BTW, why are you accusing this editor of having a personal beef with Aizik like you did here [43] with me? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Romayan for toning down the language and Niteshift's removal of the picture and other refinements, the article looks okay now. @Romayan, the only thing your inappropriate post to Niteshift's talk page indicates is that you have an apparent conflict. I suggest you avoid baseless accusations; they'll only get you in trouble. And treat lightly on the article in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Saw it
Triple B, what are you doing and why are doing it with that tone?[44] I left an edit summary explaining I'm discussing it at Todd's talk page. Do you hate me now all of a sudden? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Heh, ironically, I didn't even notice it was you. Don't edit war over the template until and if the issue you raise is resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
LMAO... you didn't know it was me? I was like why is triple B being mean to me all of a sudden. Whew. I'm not edit warring. Although it was put back by the same admin - 6 weeks later - as retaliation for my participation at that ANI, I said I have no problem re-adding it if there was a consensus to require it. But my understanding from the very long discussion about it a few weeks ago that there was in fact not a consensus, and that admins were not supposed to battle over that particular template. Interesting, he puts it on my page (no other admin did so), yet doesn't do it for all the other IPs he comes across. So can you remove it until we finish our discussion? And I saw you moved it back to the top but there are no policies that say it has to go at the top. But can you please remove it for now? I asked Jayron to be a neutral middle person. I didn't want to ask you since you're my friend. Well, wikifriend. I honestly can't believe that Todd chose to start this battle with me over that template, long after we had gotten past that whole mess with IP 68, who, ironically, quit right after that. Haha. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Those templates always go on top, and, frankly, there's no reason why it shouldn't remain there. Nor is there any real reason other than your suspicions why it should bother you. In any event, I strongly urge you to leave it alone. You've raised this issue in multiple places, and some of your comments (not the ones here) are not going to help you. You get too carried away in these things.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Todd just removed my thread, with no response. Probably because he saw you re-added the template. Let's be real about his B, he put it back for retaliation, pure and simple. And the last thing I want to do is argue with you about this stupid template, but there is nothing that says it has to go at the top of the page. I'm trying to be reasonable. I'm saying fine, you want to put the stupid template on my page, ok... but I don't want it at the top. Nothing says I have to have it at the top. So can you compromise with me on this and revert your last edit, and we'll put an end to this matter? :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Placing the template on an IP's talk page is permitted. An IP may not remove it without violating policy. The template always goes on top and it serves its purpose better if it's on top. Although policy may not expressly prohibit you from moving it, it reduces the effectiveness of the policy to do so. If you look at a few of the IPs on this list, you'll see that the template is at the top of the talk pages. I just sampled a few, and don't waste your time trying to find a contrary example. You're making too much of a fuss out of all this. If you don't want to be sanctioned, you're going to have to learn to (a) pick your battles more wisely and (2) when you pick a battle, don't go overboard with it. I am not going to respond anymore to you on this issue. Let it go and go make good edits to articles - a much more constructive use of your time.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
What is your problem all of a sudden? Injecting yourself in a battle over a template that didn't involve you? Why? And there's nothing that says that it has to be at the top of the page. So I'm moving it. You want the damn thing on my page, fine. What's with you today? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Btw, do you know how ridiculous this looks? I mean, I've gone like six weeks with no template and have dealt with many admins during that time, yet no one has put a template on my page. All of a sudden, right after I participate in that ANI, Todd returns after all this time to put it back on my page. And don't tell me you don't know why. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
You probably know that
your name is being kicked around here [[45]], but if you don't, now you do. This does not address the issue that you might not care about this sort of thing, but there you have it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
the editing pattern and general behaviour looks very similar to Danrolo's, so I had the same suspicion as you. However, IP User:190.75.114.11 who is very probably identic with Alcastilloru, is based in Venezuela and Alcastilloru's focus is on Venezuelan parties, while we know that Danrolo is based in Chile. Therefore, I am unsure. Nevertheless I think that Alcasstilloru should be blocked for repeated edit warring. He/she got a very last warning from User:EdJohnston last week, but still continued to edit war at A New Era and Justice First. And I have not reverted the last edits yet (which I should, given that they are unsourced, as usual). But if I do, Alcastilloru will again re-instate their version for sure, and I do not want to fuel the edit war.
Thanks for the explanation. So many political parties, and I didn't think that Danrolo was that picky about which party articles he edited. I'll think about it. As for the edit warring, you might want to contact Ed as it was he who warned the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Undeletion Request
Hi, you deleted my user page on 17 April, when I was a bit disenchanted with WP and subsequently took a wiki break a month ago. I'll be be rejoining Wikipedia for the time being but I was wondering if you could please reinstate my old user page? Thanks. -- Jodon | Talk22:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Done - Was wandering by and thought I would help. You just need to revert back to the old version, the history is now restored. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER22:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
User AmericanDad86 has some issues with you apparently
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I didn't know whether I should have asked the topic question from an uninvolved admin or from you, exactly because you were involved; so, I thought I do it anyway. Here is the story.
A user whom you previously blocked – User:Dogmaticeclectic – is doing exactly what he was blocked for. In this diff, he has done the following edits:
Removed <ref name="KB149662" /> which I added earlier
Removed | standard = [[OLE 2.0]] which I added earlier
Added back a lot unused parameters which I removed earlier to improve readability
Look, I do not care the least about the edits themselves. (I can ignore item #3 completely because it does not affect the rendering of the article and turn a blind eye on the first and second because they are negligible damages.) What I care about is that these edits are pointy, but I still fail to get the point. My question is: Apart from not giving him ammunition or excuse for edit warring, what else should I do?
Dogmaticeclectic, what you're discussing on the talk page has nothing to do with the edit you made. For instance, you removed a reference, and Codename Lisa may well ask why--you need to explain yourself on that talk page. Besides, your edit summary says "Restoring changes to infobox previously agreed upon", and there's nothing in the talk page that indicates any kind of agreement on anything. Finally, Codename Lisa, this claim of vandalism is of course completely spurious, and I hope someone has pointed this out already. Finally, as far as I can tell Dogmaticeclectic edited the article in January 2013, long before you did, so they can hardly have hounded you over there. So yeah, I'm uninvolved: this isn't hounding. The article talk page does not explain the edit. You all need to stop warring and start talking, like grown-ups. Hey Bbb, nice to see you. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi. Yes, we had a discussion about vandalism. Dogmaticeclectic said it was not vandalism and I believed him. (It appears there was a Wikipedia rendering bug the evaporated shortly.) So, yes, like I have said a thousands of times so far, I am sorry. However, there is something for you: shortly afterwards, Dogmaticeclectic himself accused someone else of having vandalized another article and no matter how much several other editors – including myself – told him, he refused to let go of the accusation. Eventually, he got blocked for one week.
So, no, I don't have it: You are uninvolved, yes, but I am afraid not equipped with enough info. When I was new to Wikipedia, I learned a lesson: Inserting myself into other people's affairs without invitation and proper knowledge of what I am dealing with has the risk of inflicting immeasurable hurt. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for chiming in here, but I just thought I'd let you know you're not alone Lisa, I did the exact same thing as you. But apparently stepping in on someone else's behalf is a big no no on WP. In my case it led to a vortex of disillusionment with WP and ended in a wikibreak. While I can't say it won't happen again at least I can arm myself with a little more experience and knowledge of what goes on here. Sometimes WP is a playground, sometimes its a battleground, either way its a beast that if you don't tame it will swallow you whole. Sorry again for chiming in. -- Jodon | Talk17:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Drmies. Although it may not be apparent from looking at this article, Lisa and Dogmatic have a fair amount of history on other articles, not to mention on each others' talk pages. Also, unfortunately, Dogmatic (look at discussion higher above on this talk page) has a history of edit warring and not really grasping how the policy works. All that said, if the two editors are going to continue to edit the same articles, they're going to have to learn how to get along with each other. More discussion on the talk page, particularly civil discussion, would be a good start. Taking the word "vandalism" out of your vocabulary when dealing with each other would also be welcome. Otherwise, editors may be sanctioned, but, worse, the articles suffer.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. If you are not satisfied with the ordered of the messages that occurred as a result of edit conflict, I won't mind if you move them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not that I don't care, but I didn't notice (too much stuff on my watchlist), and the violation occurred way back on June 13. Plus, he hasn't edited at Wikipedia at all since then. Sanctioning him at this point would serve no constructive purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't imagine how anyone can edit on Wikipedia with a touchpad screen. Thanks for letting me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
A disturbing pattern
Now that some time has passed, I would like to discuss the issue of the Microsoft Office 365 article. It is quite clear that you have been vociferously defending User:ViperSnake151's version of the article against those editors (myself and at least one IP editor) who dare oppose it. I would like to know the following:
Why are you doing this?
Do you not realize that administrators are not to take sides in editing disputes?
Have you even read the talk page, and if so, why have you seemed to ignore the discussion there?
Why did you claim that I had made three reverts when it was extremely obvious that I had only made two?
Do you not realize that removing content without proper justification is, if not outright vandalism, definitely controversial editing that must be supported by consensus?
You're welcome to ask me questions, but you'll have to find a less charged, confrontational way of doing so if you want answers.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Very well - I do see that the questions seem to be like that. I'm not sure how to rephrase them in such a way, but do feel free to respond in a more relaxed manner.
However, I would like to add another question at this point: Even if you did not consider the other user's editing to be vandalism, you should have taken into consideration that I did think so, so why did you not attempt "to find a less charged, confrontational way of" stopping what you considered to be an edit war without blocking me? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Mainly because you had been blocked twice before for edit warring. Secondarily because your contention that the other user's edits were vandalism wasn't credible, at least not to me. At some point you have to come to grips with the fact that your perception and others' perceptions of what is allowable are not the same and that perhaps you are in a minority. You can cling to your views if you wish, but in doing so you risk increasing problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
You're not addressing the perception of taking sides, though. You previously semi-protected the same article, preventing an IP user with the same views as mine with regards to the edits in question from editing the article. I don't mean to be rude, but it seems to me that you are using your position as an administrator to enforce the view of a single user against the consensus of two. (You're also not addressing the more general issue of consensus being required for blanket removals of content, but this issue seems more important to me.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to get into a protracted discussion on this, but the idea that I am pushing one particular content point of view over another is silly. I don't even remember the content issue, and, with some exceptions, I rarely block editors for edit warring based on content. Much of the time I don't even know or care what the article is about. I'm just concerned with user conduct and preventing article disruption. Most edit wars are about editors who sincerely believe they are right. Then, when they are blocked for edit warring, they argue how they were right. That's just not how Wikipedia works. Self-righteousness won't get you anywhere. If you strongly believe that you are right about something, you must convince others of that. If you can't, you have to let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that I was "right" at all! I'm arguing that my editing was supported by consensus (two editors against one), while the other user's wasn't, yet you ended up blocking me instead of the other user.
One more thing: I would ask that you not rely on WP:TW (or other users' reports, for that matter) to determine what is and what isn't a revert in your blocking decisions. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Two against one isn't a consensus, and consensus is not an edit warring exemption. When I evaluate whether someone has edit-warred, I always do so independent of anything except my own review of the history and the policy definition of a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
A general scenario
I would like to ask you about a general scenario. Suppose that a discussion took place at an article's talk page, where multiple users agreed on including particular content in (or excluding from) the article, with the exception of a single user. Later, that one user comes along and repeatedly reverts the change that was clearly backed by consensus. Another user who was involved in the discussion attempts to restore the version of the article that is clearly supported by consensus, but because interest in the change had died down since the discussion, this one user is forced to do so repeatedly. For some reason, this latter user gets blocked for edit warring, while the former one doesn't.
I'm not comfortable answering hypotheticals. Sort of like advisory opinions by a judge - not generally a good idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Yet this is precisely the situation that occurred in this case. It seems to me that you're basically saying that you have no idea what I should do, which may put me at risk of being blocked again in the future. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
If you want to phrase it as a real-life situation, then do so, complete with diffs, connecting all the dots.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
What's the use? You'll almost certainly just come up with some other excuse to avoid actually explaining your actions. You know - or should know, at least - quite well what transpired on that article. If you were simply uncertain about certain aspects, you would ask about those, but asking me to retell the whole tale - particularly when I essentially did so above (admittedly without diffs, but those are incredibly time-consuming to obtain) - seems to be a simple stall tactic to me.
Come to think of it, even if I did do this, you would almost certainly use your statement above that "[t]wo against one isn't a consensus" - a statement that is not supported by policy.
The bottom line is as follows. From WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus arising from a rational discussion based on policy and common sense is the Wikipedia ideal. However, the practical reality of editing falls short of the process described herein in a little more than 1% of articles, generally concerning contentious subjects. In 2012, a group of researchers studying Wikipedia disputes reported: 'Debates rarely conclude on the basis of merit; typically they are ended by outside intervention, sheer exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance of one group.'" It seems clear to me that you are doing everything possible to ensure that things actually become worse in this regard. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You are essentially asking me weeks after the block to dig back through your history and explain why you were blocked. Several admins declined your unblock requests, agreeing with the block. The last one revoked your talk page access because you kept making blatantly meritless unblock requests. The June block was the third in a series of edit warring blocks, demonstrating a clear history of misbehavior on your part. All of these blocks are related to your conduct on the Microsoft articles. If you want to avoid being blocked again, if you're in doubt, don't revert. Any admin who sees you reverting on those articles with your history may see it as a pattern. When will that end? At some point in the future, the blocks will lose their recentism and won't be held against you in the same way. I'm done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
1RR applies to the infobox template?
See Talk:Syrian civil war where the {{ARBPIA}} template has been in place for some time. This implies a 1RR restriction. What do you think about {{Syrian civil war infobox}}? It is the source of the infobox for the Syrian civil war article but the infobox doesn't mention Israel as of this moment. There is an open AN3 complaint about edit warring on this template, and I'd like to know if 1RR should apply. To add to the confusion, today someone redirected the talk page of this template to Talk:Syrian civil war, which does have the ARBPIA mark. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
That is the most content-laden template I've ever seen (and only very recently created). First, I think 1RR should apply to the template. Second, I don't think the talk page should be redirected to the article talk page (which was only just done). Because of the content in the template, perhaps there should be some linkage between the two talk pages, but I think each should have its own. Third, if you want to apply ArbCom sanctions based on 1RR, I think it's in your discretion to do so, but you should probably take into account whether you think the sanctioned user had warning. Finally, if we separate the two talk pages, we should include a sanction notice on the template talk page. Even if we don't separate the templates, we should have an edit notice for editing the template itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Learnupon (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
Hi there. We had a page deleted because it was deemed to be a promotion rather than an article. Having talked to the reporters of the issue, we have rewritten the page to be more article like. (Link to talk page is here, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Werieth). I wanted post an article about LearnUpon similar to the other pages here (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_learning_management_systems), so hopefully we get it right this time. Should I just post the page back or is it better to somehow send you the content of that page first, maybe using the sandbox page? Thank you for help, much appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendannoud (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Who are the "reporters of the issue"? If you mean Werieth, who I believe tagged the article, they discouraged you from creating an article about your own company. Who is "we"? Are you working on this together with someone else at your company? Role accounts are not permitted at Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, the sandbox version and the latest deleted version (you recreated the article after I deleted it) are pretty much the same, and yet another admin deleted it. I looked at the sources you put at the bottom of the article. Most of them are self-serving sources (your own website, promotional websites, press releases). One of them is a puffed-up review of the software with most of the information provided by you. The link to the Sunday Business Post doesn't work. It goes to a page in which the software isn't mentioned as far as I could see. The two list sections (Additional information and External integrations) are useless. They have no encyclopedic value. Even assuming you could get past a G11 (the basis for the deletion), the article would still probably be nominated for deletion on notablity grounds. Indeed the article might be tagged as an CSD#A7. Generally, A7s are not permitted for software, but when the software is web-based, there's a gray line, and some admins will delete it on that basis.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the response and clarifying for me. I still don't really understand why the other articles on the same page that I wrote on are still standing in that case. I think that based on your feedback, they should all be deleted. My reasoning for querying this was because the original complaining users mentioned we could re-establish the page if it was somewhat more article like. I originally copied the same layouts and formats thinking it was okay to use the same types of sections and headings for the article. I guess not, and I won't bother you any further with that. With regards the We reference, we refers to me and the other wiki users trying to get the page re-instated, so myself, Werieth and Newsjunky12 who mentioned that the page would be okay if it was more article like. Thanks anyways.
I believe both article are subject to probation sanctions. I've formally added notices to that effect to both talk pages, and I've created edit notices for both article to alert editors who edit the articles. The user himself has not edited since July 1, and you did not notify him of the sanctions until July 4, so I don't think user sanctions are appropriate at this time. Let me know if there's further disruption to the articles. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed in this edit at User talk:76.189.109.155, you changed the dynamic ip template information. I question the value of these templates outside of the .edu and .gov, and I certainly have no objection to removing the city mentioned in the template as it could easily change depending on how the ISP assigns their IPs. But, I am curious why you changed it from Road Runner to instead state the parent company Time Warner Cable Internet LLC. Everything I see says the IP is registered to the Road Runner Brand, and not shared with the broader Time Warner Cable IP pools. Do you know if Time Warner Cable does share the IPs registered to its various brands?
Again, not objecting to anything specifically - more of a technical question as I'm not familiar with the IP assignments and usage of the particular ISP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I changed the template because the parameter for the organization was unorthodox. I wasn't sure if I should leave it Road Runner or change it to the actual company who owns Road Runner. I don't know if there's any guidance on that point, and I certainly would have no objection to changing it back to Road Runner. Geolocate says Road Runner, but when you do a whois on the IP and you get the range, it says the range is owned by Time Warner. As for the more general issue of whether these templates are useful, that you'd have to bring up on the template talk page or some other broader forum to invite community input. This particular use of the template has been contentious because the IP himself has been the subject of scrutiny (you probably know that), so I certainly wouldn't want to remove the template altogether. I just thought the wording should be changed to conform to standard practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I won't be able to look at this until tomorrow. I notice that you've left a similar message on Amatulic's talk page. They may be able to get to it sooner.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I object to the above comment as improper WP:CANVASsing. I have generally thought highly of Bbb23's contributions but this is NOT an appropriate solicitation. If Somedifferentstuff is trying to resolve a content dispute (as I believe he/she is) then he/she should seek an appropriate WP:DR avenue. If he/she is seeking administrative intervention then he/she should go to WP:ANI. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no intention of commenting on the talk page. I have never edited the article, and I'd rather keep my administrative options open to me if the need arises.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, James Valenti (American opera singer) could use an extra pair of eyes. An SPA who is almost certainly his publicist has twice attempted to add the most appalling puffery to the article, eg. [54]. I've left comments on Talk:James Valenti and on the editor's talk page [55]. Hopefully they'll get the point, but I'm not too sanguine. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I've put the article on my watchlist. However, if something gets past me (my watchlist is too long), feel free to post a note here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Really? How was the first edit a revert? Also, please don't block Sopher. His revert of my edit was clearly an accident, and I knew that.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
In your first edit you removed Kurdish Supreme Committee from the Belligerents section of the infobox. You also removed the Kurdish National Council and the Kurdistan flag image next to it. Obviously, that material had been in there earlier. It was removed on July 3 by Sopher 99 (the material you removed plus even more). It was then immediately restored by Lothar. So, you tell me how your removal was not a revert (and try reading the policy before you answer).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This is untrue. I reverted the wrong person, but the editor I reverted undid it only 3 minutes later, well before I knew of my mistake. Furthermore anyone reading the edit summary could see I was trying to revert Lothar. Sopher99 (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclinced to agree with Sopher that they screwed up but couldn't self-revert because it was too late. All I can say is to please be more careful in the future, Sopher. I noticed in an earlier sequence of edits by you that you did something you didn't intend to do ("oops deleted column one commanders"). In that instance, you immediately corrected yourself. Perhaps you should move just a bit more slowly to avoid mistakes, particularly given the area in which you are editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Reconsider
Hi Bbb23,
Could you reconsider your approach to User:AlabamaBluesProject? Keeping in mind that there is a human behind that username, probably editing in good faith? Perhaps an unblock, a short explanation of what they did wrong, and a recommendation to change their username, would work better than slapping them down with no warnings. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Floq, there is a real person behind every edit here. Many edit in good faith; some do not. In the case of new users whose only contribution is to create an article promoting whatever they're interested in, whether it is a product, a company, or a non-profit organization and whose user name is the same as the thing they're promoting, I delete the article and block them as I did here. The vast majority of the time, that is usually the right course of action, at least in my view. And it doesn't require a warning. In the small minority of users who are either truly interested in editing generally at Wikipedia or who actually want to create a decent article here despite their obvious conflict, they have an opportunity to request an unblock and convince someone other than me that they should be able to change their user name and be unblocked. Anyway, that's my thinking, and I'm fairly certain it's the thinking of many other admins, although you might disagree with all of us (being god and all :-) ). Anyway, your comment rankled a bit, perhaps because I have a thinner skin than usual these days.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how to continue this conversation without rankling further. I deeply, fundamentally disagree with this approach, and I think it violates the blocking policy, and (more importantly) is wrong, demeaning to the newbies, and contributes to our bad reputation. I hope you'll reconsider that whole general approach, then. At least... at the very least... consider using {{softerblock}} instead. I don't care what other admins do; I expect very little of them. I guess if that rankles, that's a good thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
These comments didn't rankle. You're just disagreeing with me and saying why. Without getting into the more complex merits of what the "right" course of action is, why do you think a softerblock is any better? They're still indefinitely blocked. The burden is still on them to defend themselves to get unblocked. And if they have created a promotional article, isn't it misleading to everyone to say they haven't?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, first, I'm not saying {{softerblock}} is a good solution, I'm saying it's better than {{spamusername}}. A good solution would be to not use templates on likely good faith users at all, and to ask them to get a rename rather than block them first, and politely explains about COI and CSD#A7 and all.
Here is what {{spamusernameblock}} says (sorry, can't figure out a way to make it format neatly):
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.
Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?
Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.
What can I do now?
If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. [[Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names|Bbb23/Archive 17]]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.
If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.
You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you.
[[Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names|Bbb23/Archive 17]]
The difference is showing them respect, and not throwing red X's at them, and not making them beg, and not automatically assuming it is spam (which implies bad intent), vs. didn't-know-any-better promotion. One is more likely to result in good faith editors sticking around, one is more likely to lead to good faith editors saying "OK, well fuck Wikipedia, then". It's easy enough to block them if they continue to promote, and if not, we may have gained an editor, and (more importantly) we have treated someone with more respect. And for obviously bad faith spammers, you can keep on as you've been doing and I won't care. It's the unwillingness to try to differentiate between good faith editors and bad faith editors, to assume the best until shown otherwise, that bothers me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I am speaking with this user, who seems to genuinely be trying to create a good article on this project. I would like to change the block to a softblock to allow the user to request a username change. – GorillaWarfare(talk)21:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I often found myself wondering which of the two to use, and decided on the "softer" one, as more appropriate in most cases. I'll have a look at this blues project, though I may have a COI, having just had dinner with a board member of the Alabama Roots Music Society. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
How to avoid deletion?
Hello Bbb23,
You just deleted the page Imageware - a very short description of the place I work.
Please advice what is wrong.
/IngeAndresen
It's generally not a good idea for editors to create articles about themselves, friends, relatives, or companies with which they have a affiliation as they have an obvious conflict of interest. In this instance, there was nothing notable about the company that justified having a Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia is not a repository of articles about companies just because they exist.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. IngeAndresen.
Nuanced challenge
For a requested move that presents intriguing issues to the closer, look at Talk:Boulenger's Cape tortoise#Requested move. Show me a 3RR case that's harder than that. Of course, the answer may turn out to be 'No consensus,' a boring but defensible closure. These animals occur in South Africa and Namibia, so should we accept South African names per WP:UCN even though the names aren't familiar elsewhere? The participants are all very experienced. But perhaps you'd like to try a less complex case for your second move closure :-). EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Ha. I'm too tired for new challenges, nuanced or otherwise. I just cleared out ANEW, including writing a thesis on edit warring. I also had to give a long explanation to an editor why I recently blocked them for breaching WP:3RR. At least I know what I'm doing there, unlike the Byzantine world of move discussions and some sadist who writes instructions for masochistic admins. I'll probably get around to my second RM closure later (an easier one, I assure you). At the moment, I have to do some "real" work. Thanks for helping me out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
There may be a minor issue here, the guy who was edit warring has said on the talk page he will no longer discuss, and that he will revert anything he feels is not to his liking. Which essentially means everything I have done, what options do I have? I have a DRN request open, but he says he ain't gonna discuss. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
What is going on here? DS has habit of twisting things. I am repeatedly saying that let me and others allow to include all sides of story, do not remove existing contents. He can add his version. But he is hellbent on removing other side of story and wants only his version in article. BTW, current version(after revert by Qwyrxian) is that of Rahul Jain, not of DS. Rahul Jain had just collected contents of DS and had inserted in article without his knowledge. DS will curse Qwyrxian for restoring it. Current version includes old stuff which DS don't like. He is going to wipe out it. Let me see NPOV of you admins when he starts removing other side of story. neo (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yogesh Khandke, since you mentioned this on my talk page, do you want me to respond and give an explanation for my actions, or would you prefer just to hear Bbb23's uninvolved analysis? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yogesh, it looks to me like you have a question for Qwyxrian, not for me. If you're complaining about my closure, there are many times in which a discussion is closed where one or more of the participants would prefer that it remain open. I made a call that continuing the discussion would achieve nothing and that it would be inappropriate to do so considering the objectives of the OP and of ANI itself. I see nothing to make me change that call.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Bbb23 I'm not complaining, I suggested that you consider the arguments I've presented. It seems that you have and stand by your earlier action. That is fine with me. Qwyxrian I hoped that Bbb23 would perhaps reconsider his closure after giving another look at to the issues I presented. He says that he is happy with his closure. So that is all for the moment. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Mind weighing in on this current issue?
My apologies for bothering you again about this kind of thing in such a short span of time, but I thought you would be the right user to ask about this. User:ViperSnake151 is edit warring again - this time at Features new to Windows 8. This user ignored my request - expressed in the edit summary of the single revert I made - to take the issue to the talk page, and instead reverted a second time. If I revert again, well... let's just recall that you blocked me for two reverts before. I have issued an edit warring warning to the user, but what should I do about the content dispute given the refusal to discuss? (Note that the user has edited since the warning and has ignored it as well.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I did indicate my intent in the edit summary on the second revert, saying it was trivia. The positioning of titlebar text is not a feature notable enough to be listed on the article. It's fancruft for Windows fans. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
But that wasn't over just one line. Those were wholesale changes you made just because you didn't agree with them, plus you've drawn the ire of me and other editors for your tendency to get into these content disputes to begin with. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Both at this article and Microsoft Office 365 it was actually you who unilaterally made significant changes - specifically the removal of large portions of content. Just because you feel the content doesn't belong doesn't mean you can simply remove it without obtaining consensus at the talk page first - and it definitely doesn't mean you can have editors who disagree with the changes blocked just because you manage to somehow fool multiple administrators (who apparently cannot see the forest for the trees) into being on your side! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You're taking it way out of proportion, considering the trimming of content throughout the article and one sentence as being one and the same. Plus you're trying to also showing scrutiny towards my use of resources that are provided to all editors. You also incorrectly believe that all edits require consensus, no matter what the situation. This is why WP:BOLD exists. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
All of those sentences - except those so general as to be obvious - are lies.
The bottom line is that you should be blocked out of fairness, and not blocking you is a violation of WP:EDITWAR: "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues." If this administrator - who has now been made aware of the current issue - decides not to block you, a clear statement is made by such possible inaction: that the administrator is willing to violate Wikipedia policy. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
My gosh, Dogmaticeclectic, you come here and ask a civil question, and then you descend into insults and accusations. I'm not going to answer or even comment on everything you've said. I'll just stick with the content dispute at Features new to Windows 8. You handle it like most content disputes, on the talk page, and if that doesn't work through one of the available dispute resolution mechanisms. Given that you and ViperSnake appear to have an interest in similar articles, I suggest that both of you approach this in the most constructive way possible, avoid commenting about each other, and focus on the content.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23 just wanted to make you aware of this[58] by a very sporadic user of Wikipedia User:Ummonk. He's left a number of posts to a select group[59][60][61][62][63][64] advertising his proposed wiki project " where [they can] work together to prepare material and arguments to respond to people who try to apply double standards to articles about men's rights.". Some background Ranze has proposed a men's rights wikiproject. I've asked 7 questions. Yesterday Pudeo added text to my questions and criticized me for using the terms he added. KC blocked him for this. A few hours before that Ummock showed up and created this. Ummock has made a few edits about PRISM (surveillance program) and Russian soccer this year (totaling 6 contribs). Its been 15 months since they edited WP if we exclude those six contribs[65]--Caililtalk12:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
We're getting into unfamiliar territory for me, Cailil. Until your post, I didn't even know there was a WikiProject Council (sounds vaguely sinister). I'm more troubled by Ummonk's "double standards" statement at Memills's talk page than anything else. I guess he decided that wasn't a great idea when he created the project and made the intro, goals, and scope far more neutral/positive-sounding. Are there any rules that prohibit creating projects that are not intended to improve Wikipedia? Does it matter if the creator of the project has "bad" motives as long as the project and its members conduct themselves appropriately? Where do you want to go with this?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I had to go off-wiki after I commented, and I'm only back for a bit. However, it occurred to me that if KC is going to interpret the probation sanctions as including pages like the proposal page, it would also be reasonable to include the project page (if it survives), not to mention the over-the-top comments by Ummonk on so many user talk pages where he is recruiting members who he thinks are similarly biased.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Well in terms of the unfamiliar territory as far as I can see (I've been around various wikiprojects since I started) its only a problem if something concrete happens. So starting a wikiproject for something/anything is fine. Using it to create a consensus bubble isn't. Making it exclusive to people who share one's POV isn't. Using it to co-ordinate a list or create a list of go to BRD filibusterers ala WP:EEML is the most inappropriate thing. If that happened or looked like happening I'd take it to MFD myself. But my own perspective on this instance is that we're having an influx of sporadic, relatively new and/or single purpose accounts around a topic (again) to create their own space to counter what they perceive as "the other side". A men's rights wikiproject is a good idea as long as its 100% on board with helping improve wikipedia, but NOT as a rallying post to a select few who are/want to fight against perceived double standards. In short keeping an eye on this might be enough and as you say the Probation will apply to the project pages. In terms of Ummonk he might need a little guidance he has little WP experience but again an eye on it might be enough--Caililtalk11:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
WMSCOG page
Hello Bbb23,
Thank you for your assistance during the editing process of the World Mission Society Church of God page. I just wanted to let you know that I plan on starting the 3O process regarding this page but deleted the bullet in the meantime as it is not part of this church's history. Thank you! Sticks830 21:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Sticks830
Bbb23 - We received a 3O regarding this edit, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God. (under History section) Therefore, I deleted the bulleted section regarding the dispute on the WMSCOG article. I just wanted to touch base that I did not delete it before the 30 process, so that I would not be blocked for disruptive editing. Thank you. Sticks830 15:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Sticks830
I am trying to properly sign my posts! Why are you so quick to think I am doing it intentionally! It shows my name anyways so it's not like I'm hiding something! I do the four Sticks830 16:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC) but it doesn't appear as the other users. Can you please explain to me how to do it correctly and HELP me instead of getting angry with me? Sticks830 16:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Sticks830 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticks830 (talk • contribs)
When you edit a talk page, you should see above the edit box and to the left some symbols. The leftmost symbol is a "B". A couple of symbols to the right is a pen or a pencil. If you put your cursor over it, it tells you it's for signing. When you are done with your post, and the blinking cursor is right after the last part of your text (usually a period). Click on the pen symbol, and it will add a couple of dashes and four tildes. The four tildes is what causes the signing. The dashes are just to get a little space. For more about this, read WP:SIGN. Try it here in response to this message and see if you can do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. --Sticks830 17:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Was that correct?--Sticks830 17:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticks830 (talk • contribs)
Nope. You're typing in the dashes, your user name, etc., yourself instead of letting the computer do it for you. You need to click with your mouse on the symbol. If you can't do that, then type in four tildes (a tilde is ~). Typing in a couple of dashes before the tildes is optional. The markup language transforms the tildes into a sign and date/time stamp (and your user name and talk page will be automatically wikilinked, which doesn't happen when you do it). Try again.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. Now?Sticks830 21:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticks830 (talk • contribs)
All I'm doing is putting the four ~ after the last character I type. Or, pressing the pen button afterward. I'm not sure why it's still not working..Sticks830 21:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticks830 (talk • contribs)
Okay, I have an idea. Click on Preferences in the upper right of any page. You'll immediately go to your preferences at User Profile. Look toward the bottom of that page, and you'll see a section called Signature. That should show your default signature. There should be nothing in the text box just below that. And the check box below that ("Treat the above as wiki markup") should be unchecked. If it is checked, uncheck it, and if there is anything in the text box, remove it so it's blank. Then click on the Save button at the bottom. Let me know what happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that may have been the issue because I had "Sticks830" in the text box, and also the box below was checked. Let's see...Sticks830 (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Terrific! And I apologize for being sharp at the outset. Just so you know, it wasn't because you weren't signing properly. It was because you reverted sinebot's changes to sign your name. That made no sense to me, but now it does. You thought you were helping, but I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Comes from being a bit jaded. At least we sorted it out. There's another thing, by the way, that will improve your posts if you're up for it. Should be easier than the signing problem. Usually, when editors have discussions on talk pages, each editor indents their post a little bit from the last post so it looks like a threaded dialog. This is particularly helpful when there are more than two people involved in the discussion so one can see who is responding to whom. So, the first post starts flush left at the margin. The reply is indented by putting in a single colon. The reply to the reply is indented by putting in two colons, and so on. It looks much better. See WP:INDENT for more. To test it out, you can reply to this by putting two colons as the first characters before your text (I have already replied to you with one colon). Then, when you clickon Show preview, you should see your post indented a bit to the right of mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting the page Wadi’a Maswadeh
I wont to thank you for deleting the page Wadi’a Maswadeh!!!
You didnot answred to my questions in the talk page and directly deleted the page!! it is a miss respect!!!
As I know Wikipedea is not a personnal website and respect is an obligation here!
Hi! I noticed that you blocked a user over the edit warring on Daniel Morgan Perry. I noticed that after the original editor was blocked, an IP reverted the article to its original state. Now this doesn't necessarily mean that this is the other editor, but it is a little suspicious. Can you look into this? I'll request a page protection for it- I don't want to just do it myself, as I feel that would be overstepping my bounds in this instance, as I was involved in the editing process and dispute. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)04:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't block the editor; User:GB fan did. Hard to be sure whether the edit was block evasion. The IP geolocates to British Columbia, and the registered account uses British/Canadian spelling. That plus the IP's edit summary makes it likely, but an admin would have to make a judgment call to connect the two. I wouldn't take any action because I've edited the article, and short of something glaringly obvious, I'm WP:INVOLVED. If you want to take it up with the blocking admin, you can.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It is possible it was block evasion, but since it was one revert and the time frame between the revert and now, I do not think anything needs to be done. If it continues we can readress it. GBfan17:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Opera articles
I just read your remarks on proposed arb case Infoboxes. "Why are opera articles more complex?" is not the question. "Why are operas treated like composers?" is one. "Why are composers treated differently from painters?" the older one. There seems to be a history of project classical music not wanting any infobox for their composers and performers. Now project opera stepped forward creating an infobox for operas. When I insert one, those who don't accept one for composers term it controversial and/or remove it. I have a link to a list of such operas in my post, and a link to trying to find an agreement. The case caught me by surprise. In case you don't me yet, I helped to make Kafka a success, with an infobox, naturally, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Gerda, thanks for the clarifications. I only "know" you (I think you left out the word "know") indirectly through Ched. It'll be interesting to see whether the arbs accept this as a case.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Quite some time ago I saw Don Carlos at the Met with Domingo. When I was buying tickets, Domingo himself strolled up the plaza to go into the house. It was freezing (maybe twenty degrees farenheit), and he was wearing an open shirt and a sports jacket - no coat or even a muffler. The man is invincible. It was a great performance. Now if only he could conduct as well as he can sing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Quite some time ago he conducted La boheme at the Met and I sat second to last row, stage like a stamp, but excellent acoustic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Was it the Zeffirelli production? I saw that production and it was stunning. I think the best opera house acoustics are generally the European houses. The absolute best was at Bayreuth.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Done - Was wandering by and thought I would help. You just need to revert back to the old version, the history is now restored. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Darkness Shines (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
