Jump to content

User talk:Bbb23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.7.198.193 (talk) at 00:23, 16 June 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Caution
  • Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page.
  • Please include links to pertinent page(s).
  • Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

American Idol (season 12) protection expiry

Could you extend protection for American Idol (season 12) for one year as the protection is going to expire by 19 hours time? The IP editor has going to continuously remove the controversy section. ApprenticeFan work 06:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

re: adriana ferreyr

Why have you undone what I wrote for Adriana Ferreyr's occupation?74.101.128.155 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Careful guys, are we sure Cluebot doesn't parse joke blocks as well as joke warnings? :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the lack of a template. :) — Ched :  ?  21:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men's rights sanctions and feminism article

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 | Talk 14:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 | talk 16:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]
Oh yes, I could tell your text was boiled-down like an ox turned into a bouillon cube. You should get a raise. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just find a reliable source to support it. The YouTube citation above can't be used as it's a WP:LINKVIO.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
(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.
Anyway, I see you've added it back in with a different YouTube link; I believe that one is acceptable, assuming they own the copyright to the video. Just so you know, I went and found a couple of other sources that aren't videos: the announcement of the game and the launch of the game.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

It looks like the two editors have also been edit-warring at 2013 Monaco Grand Prix over the past week.

--76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

User:DragonTiger

Since you were the blocking admin on DragonTiger,[1] 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.[2] "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" [3]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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Turkeys and tigers and bears... oh my! :p --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO... you found the Turkey. Sorry, when I read that post I immediately thought of the yellow brick road. I couldn't resist. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not a problem. Thank you for your insight Bbb23.--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metalhead498 & Men's rights movement edits

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[4] by me. On June 7th they altered text that was changed by User:Roscelse just hours earlier[5] and then again 27 hours later (first revert at 23:21, 7 June 2013[6] and then at 03:16, 9 June 2013[7]). There has been no attempt to engage in discussion by Metalhead498 eventhough a thread is open on this the topic[8]. 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[9] or ideological[10][11] and removing them as such[12] - 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[13]). 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.[14][15][16][17][18].

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--Cailil talk 13:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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[19], 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--Cailil talk 20:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

United States v. Aaron Swartz

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

There and gone

Apparently, Gruesome doesn't want you or any other admins to see my comments on his talk page[20][21] 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.[22][23] Anyway, hope you had a good weekend. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yep, in fact the first thing I said in the one comment was that he had every right to remove it.[24]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your vigilance. I've blocked the IP for a month.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mr. Bbb. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men's movement

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)

Take your pick.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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"
So, yeah, take your pick. Give me a break. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Admin Board Submission

There is an submission to Admin Notice boards that concerns you. CSDarrow (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN/EW

Hi Bbb. :) There is a discussion at AN/EW regarding CSDarrow, in which your name was mentioned. So I just wanted to make you aware of it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, CSDarrow has just been blocked for a month (prior to the AN/EW being addressed). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I dropped the blocking admin a note. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I didn't raise it but he didn't notify you, so I am. Stalwart111 07:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate deletion of Graphite (software)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

OleOla is NOT the boss

Oleola is using multiple accounts Dudek1337 this guy is hitler and threatens us, only his point of view is good. HE makes fake accusations before deserves permanent ban for sock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertspierre750 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has Hitler been reincarnated, or did he survive the unpleasant events in Berlin in 1945, and live to the ripe old age of 124? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

This user keeps adding this information: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Newton&diff=prev&oldid=559983381 to the Lee Newton article. I addressed the user about the situation on June 7, to stop adding the information. He added it again, by reverting my edit. He has reverted my edit twice now. I reverted as well, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Newton&action=history. To not violate the three-revert rule, that you warned me about a few months back, I'm asking your assistance and judgement about what the user is adding. Thanks. Soulbust (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Syngmung (talk · contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Feedback wanted

Hi, I am trying to invite users to read my argument for the yyyy-mm-dd date format and what they think of it. If you have time to kill, would you please take a look at it? I'd appreciate it very much. Avengingbandit 22:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zvazviri

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, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That [[25]] was inappropriate

It is within my right to have my talkpage blanked, but for the block notice. It was inappropriate to revert. 75.7.198.193 (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
You're (i) editwarring and (ii) being a perfect ass over another user's talkpage. Is that confirmation enough, Nimrod?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=560088579"