User talk:Bbb23/Archive 23

putin

tataral keep edit warring over inserting the mafia state nonsense/false information, can you please do something about it Kalix94 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue of the edit war currently going on and the previous consensus, one of your edits appeared to me to be pure vandalism ([1]).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Putin article history show a similarly bizarre chaining of self-reverts as previously reported in this SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chaosname/Archive#05_June_2013. WP:DUCK if ever I saw one. How long is this CU going to take, he is now disruptively editing the Nazi Germany article. --Nug (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

CUs regularly monitor WP:SPI. There's nothing I can do to speed up the process. You can always add mor evidence to the SPI, though, although I suggest when you make statements like the one above that you provide comparison diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring incident follow-up

Hi, Bbb23. I'm writing with reference to an edit warring incident report I filed against an IP user at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive233#User:50.138.249.164 reported by User:Wikipedical (Result: Warned). You warned the IP at User talk:50.138.249.164#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion. Since that warning, the IP repeated its edit at [2]. Hope you can follow up on this. Thanks very much. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week. It's longer than usual for a first-time block, but given the sporadic nature of the IP's appearances here, I don't see how a shorter block would accomplish much. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of my article on PS4 EMX

I noticed that you deleted my article, despite it being identitical to the page reserved for RPCS3.

RPCS3 is an unfinished project that stands to have an article, yet you deleted mine immediately, despite them both being projects in the works. The RPCS3 PS3 emulator can't even emulate PS3 games so, technically, it's not even what it claims to be. As of now it's only trying to emulate graphics primitives, but can't and is nowhere near being able to play commercial games. Ergo, it shouldn't have an article. So I ask if you are willing to delete it, why you deleted my article, and what your intentions are.

Your article, which was tiny, had nothing in it to indicate significance. However, if it makes you "happy", I've now deleted RPCS3 as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please remove comment

Nascarman1 asked you not to post on their talk page [3], so please remove your comment. NE Ent 02:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

IP tag

Regarding [4]. This one has just been blocked for two years (as sock), so why shouldn't it be tagged? Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's unusual to block an IP for two years, but, regardless of that, let the administrator who blocked the IP decide whether they should be tagged. It is conventionally unusual even for a named account to be tagged as a sock unless the account is blocked indefinitely. It is even more unusual for an IP to be tagged under any circumstances, although I know it's sometimes done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

DemirBajraktarevic block evasion

Hello. It seems quite obvious that indef blocked User:DemirBajraktarevic is evading block using this IP adress Special:Contributions/71.83.239.189. Same articles, same arguments, same pattern of edi-warring. What to do? Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for two weeks. It's apparently a dynamic IP, though, and more may come out of the woodwork. Just let me know if you see new ones. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Testing of 3RR board changes is now open in my Sandbox

Please see User:EdJohnston/Sandbox#What this page is for. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ed, I tested it and it worked, but I had to guess at certain things despite your instructions. So, let me clarify. I have to put the block template on the EW report before I click on Permalink and then block them. Otherwise, the permalink will point to an incomplete report. So, in a sense, I have to lie in a small way by saying I blocked the user when I'm really about to block the user. Is that right?

If I'm right, then you should amend your instructions in a few ways: (1) include something about putting in the AN3 block template first; (2) include something about clicking on permalink and when; (3) (nit) the language you quote should be "Click here to create a new report" - you have it slightly wrong.

Feel free to remove my test from your sandbox. I left it there just in case you needed to see it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I updated the instructions accordingly. My 'work flow' is usually to save the 3RR report I'm trying to close (with the action filled in) and then get around to whatever I said I would do. If you follow a different routine then I can see it might be inconvenient to have to save the report first. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup, my flow is different. Same kind of thing when I block based on sanctions. I block first and then update the log after. However, I do like the permalink concept, so I may sacrifice my precious routine to include it in the block log of the user. Assuming I remember ...--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sasha coen

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sasha coen. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture Copyright

I am trying to add {{Non-free fair use in}} To https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stavros_Damianides_Hyde_Park_Festival,_Channel_9_Stage.png It is my photo and I grant fair use for the proposed article. But I can't seem to edit the info on the page for some reason. Can you please add the copyright info? Ephestion (C) 2014 owner grants fair use for the article Stavros Damianides. Or tell me how via my talk page. Thanks.

You don't want to add that template to the file page. You're not granting fair use; you're licensing others to use what you say is your image. Take a look at WP:ICTIC and then choose one of the free licenses that is acceptable to Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(See also my note here: [5]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC))

Thanks, FP.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You deleted my page: Workmen's Auto Insurance

Hi,

I just got back from vacation and I saw that you deleted the page that I'd been working on. I would like to know what your reason is because I decided to create this page because of many reasons, one of them being that the 1st owner was the same person that created Kelly Blue Book (and wikipedia has a page about them) and now the owners are people well known in Downtown LA (two of them have small pages); which I interviewed to get accurate information and something different that what you can see online. The idea of this page is also because a lot of people confuses Worker's Compensation with Workmen's Auto Insurance and you can't find anywhere any explanation, differentiation about them.

I do not feel that the deletion is fair and I will like to know what can I do to change your mind.

Thanks and I look forward to hear from you soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangonca (talk • contribs) 23:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the article for lack of significance and because of its promotional style. However, if you wish, I'm willing to WP:USERFY it for you. Then, I would suggest working on it to at least reduce some of the stylistic problems. Sentences like "Workmen’s decided to expand beyond California at this point so as not to have all its eggs in the California insurance market basket" are not encyclopedic. I would also cut back on the extensive material about its owners. Additionally, I'd add secondary sources. Finally, once you get it into better shape, you should submit it to WP:AFC to obtain feedback from more experienced editors rather than restoring it directly to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your fast reply! That's great news!! Yes I'll do all you are telling me so that the article becomes Wikipedia appropriate. Quick question how can I get back the article so that I can work on it, I didn't save it anywhere? Or do I have to start from scratch?--Sangonca (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've placed the most recent, although slightly altered per WP:USERFY, version at User:Sangonca/Workmen's Auto Insurance for you to work on.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Great! I'll start working on it right away. Thanks!--Sangonca (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring.

Thank you for the feedback. I am new to this and still figuring out how things work. --Zackmann08 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for coming here, no need to apologize. We all learn new things on Wikipedia all the time. I appreciate your taking my comments constructively.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Verfiability

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your edit, but you seem to be implying that it was improper for me to change the policy without discussion. I was following BRD -- I was bold, you reverted, and now we will discuss (without me re-reverting, obviously, unless/until a broad consensus is developed in my favor). Steeletrap (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You read too much in my edit summary. I didn't think you did anything "improper".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Danrolo sock returned

Helo Bbb23,

201.239.253.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Danrolo's sock) has returned and continues to edit unconstructively as before. Kind regards, --RJFF (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• RJFF, I blocked him for six months this time. We might want to consider adding a new range to edit filter 525. I can't do that. I believe the filter was last edited by Reaper Eternal.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --RJFF (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Question about Last block

The block you made on Joshua Jonathan and Devanampriya. My question was, that it is relevant to report edit warring even after 3 days? The whole incident was 3-4 days or older i think. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Another sock of Danrolo

Helo Bbb23,

186.104.128.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a new Danrolo sock that is adding unreferenced data to some Chilean political parties articles. I say this according to the uploading of Bandera Falange Socialista Boliviana.png in Commons and their subsequent addition in Bolivian Socialist Falange; he even put the flag on the Spanish Wikipedia article (Falange Socialista Boliviana) under IP 201.239.253.57 (the IP that was blocked some days ago here in the English Wikipedia, but not in the Spanish one). Kind regards, --Sfs90 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I blocked him for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

S. Prestley Blake

What made you decide to redirect S. Prestley Blake? It seemed to be an established and appropriate article showing notability of the person. (note-I have no relation with the person trying to create his brother's article)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The other co-founder's article (newly created by a disruptive new editor) was tagged for speedy deletion. Rather than delete it, I elected to redirect it. Then I looked at the brother article, and although it was a little better, there wasn't much of anything that established independent notability. A company may be notable without its co-founder being notable. However, if you disagree, you're free to restore the article before I redirected it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Four small words ...

José Rafael Cordero Sanchez by Anterdans. For your convenience: {{sock|Josercs1|blocked}} --Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam, all done, I should have a script.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And I who thought you were a script! ... You're welcome. The guy is sneaky, he recreated his bio on Spanish Wikipedia too, but moved the acute accent in Rafael, look: es:José Rafaél Cordero Sánchez. We have only had the pleasure of deleting the article 17 times, nothing compared really to his track record on sp.wik: 35 deletions. Within some 18 months. Isn't that a rare high score on the persistence scale? I'm keeping an eye on recreations, including spelling variations not yet utilized, here. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 02:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Restore Los Angeles Post-Examiner

Please restore Los Angeles Post-Examiner so that I can add additional citations to bring the page up to spec. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the article to User:Perfect Orange Sphere/Los Angeles Post-Examiner. After you think it satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines, I strongly urge you to submit it through WP:AFC rather than move it back directly into article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Page for Runway Star deleted

Hello,

Im inquiry is in regards to the page for Runway Star that was deleted, she is a female hip-hop music producer that created the song "Teach Me How to Dougie" the record is an international success that has gone RIAA certified Platinum and has continuously surfaced in pop /urban culture since its debut. The young lady that made the track is mentioned in the performing groups wiki and in media all over the internet.It is very rare that an independent producer creates a piece of work that inspired so many people in this world, and even more rare for that independent producer to be a woman. Not to mention Barack Obama made headlines in the past couples weeks for giving an emotional speech and dancing to the "Dougie" at 1st lady Michelle's birthday.

Please help me with going about the proper guideline to restore her wiki.

Thanks, M.Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefuture2027 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The song is obviously notable, but the subject of your article - and this is not the first time you've tried to create it - is not on its face. Additionally, it's almost all supported by interlocking self-published sources, a few of which don't even work (they time out). You've promoted this person and their affiliates at several articles at Wikipedia, also unreliably sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Judgepedia

The template, with all its parameters and all its uses, was DELETED - see discussion - based on a similar deletion aka stare decisis. Those links can be found at Judgepedia, but the "consensus" at Wikipedia was that NONE of them belong here. There was no discussion about individual parameters on the template's Talk page. That's how things are done now, apparently. If you have a problem with that, you can ask the Admin why he dud what he did, then request a review, and so forth and so on. Shouldn't take you more than a year or so to get through it all. Good luck. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. Your earlier edit summary mentions {{JudgeLinks}}, which was deleted per the discussion you link to. But you weren't removing that template. You removed two external links, both of which simply pointed to websites. Now, you're talking here about Judgepedia, which has not been deleted, and you're not removing it anyway. I can't logically connect anything you say.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you're having problems. The templates were used to provide broader web resources. They were deleted because the consensus was to NOT provide ANY such links in EL. Readers who want such information are therefore now being directed off-site. Judgepedia is the offsite resource for SCOTUS judges, and includes all those sorts of links in their EL. Another example of an offsite resource used in this way, which you may be more familiar with, is DMOZ: see Point 3 in WP:EL which explains the reasoning. In this particular case of SCOTUS judges, DMOZ provides much less than Judgepedia. Such offsite resources are intended to be replacements, and (other than official sites) not have overlaps in listings as that defeats the purpose. Those two links I deleted are in the Judgepedia article's EL, and therefore shouldn't be repeated in the Wikipedia article's EL. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand now where you're coming from, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the two external links you removed must be removed just because the Judgepedia article, which is very long, supposedly has them in it (I didn't verify it). You've been reverted again by yet another editor. The Kagan article EL section is very short. I don't see any need to remove those two ELs based on your rationale. I suggest you take it to the article talk page if you wish to push the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"the Judgepedia article, which is very long, supposedly has them in it (I didn't verify it)." HAHAHA. I clearly said it was in the EL. You stated the articke is "very long", so you obviously went there. You had time to post a reply, and check to see if my change was reverted, but scrolling down to that EL section would take too long? Really? That's your excuse? HAHAHA. Look. Everyone knows you Admins will do and say absolutely anything to support other Admins, no matter what. Congratulations on publicly proving my point. Now you can go tell those sick puppies they owe you one. What a racket. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can see this conversation has stopped being constructive, but, just so you know, the only administrator involved in the Kagan article dispute is me. The other two editors reverting you aren't admins, so it's not clear whom I'm supporting.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Grégori Derangère

Hi! I don't understand why you have cancelled the french's translation and said that's the wrong article. How can we expand this article when I even read this message : This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia. You say that the sources still needed. I don't find english's sources, can we copy those in french? Have a good day ! Isacre (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For some reason - I assume it was an error on your part - you linked at the top of the article to the wrong French wikipedia article. In any event, I don't see why the link was even necessary as an interwiki link to the French article is automatically provided on the bar to the left. More important, you have to include sources for what you say. If the sources in the French article would be reliable here and they adequately support the new material, you can, of course, use them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Contest this deletion

21:10, 31 January 2014 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Astrid Bonten (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

This deletion + reason is inappropriate. It is about a person of importance and influence and the entry is according to the Wikipedia rules. Please explain yourself or undo it. Kind regards, Weipoort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weipoort (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a language problem, but here are some of the promotional (and obviously unencyclopedic) passages in the article:

• Astrid Bonten loves Dutch figurative art from the early 1900s for the sake of its aesthetics. However, Astrid also has a predilection for non-figurative contemporary art, just because she can have wonderful discussions about its meaning and its place in Art History.
• Questions like ‘what is art’, ‘how to make art more accessible’ and ‘how to get people to participate in enjoying art’ are the questions which Astrid covered during her MA Cultural Economics, in which she learned to approach art in a more down-to-earth and pragmatic manner. As the Editor-in-Chief of MAZ Magazine Astrid Bonten continues to address these questions, next to more concrete explanations about art movements, material aspects of art.
• and is married to Frank Renooij, the keyboard player of famous Dutch coverband Habes.

That's almost the entire article. I won't restore the article to article space, but if you want me to WP:USERFY it for you, I will, but then I'd suggest you use WP:AFC so more experienced editors can help you. I don't know whether Bonten is notable (the article was tagged with WP:CSD#A7). It wasn't obvious to me on its face, but I'm not familiar with Dutch sources. I was going to ask a Dutch admin (Drmies) to take a look, but then I decided the tone of the article was unacceptable, so I simply deleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Weipoort, Bbb heeft gerust verstand van de Wikipedia regels. Look, the tone is unambiguously promotional. It is entirely possible that Bonten is notable by our standards, but you can't prove that by linking to this (and others like it), especially if that link is supposed to verify that "She is especially known for her many contributions to and promotion of the Dutch modern art scene"--she wrote it herself! So you're going to have to find secondary sources. I am happy to see that she wrote on Wim Schippers' Pindakaasvloer, though. But this will have to be rewritten from scratch, and bolstered with secondary references from reliable sources. In addition, Habes is not a famous Dutch coverband, and the information is trivial--and that Leiden is "the city where Rembrandt was born and worked", is completely trivial. Leiden is also the city where once a year you get free hutspot, and that's trivial too. Bbb, are you familiar with the concept Arbeidsvitaminen? Here's some for you, and you can hear her benedenijse "r" (from below the IJ) quite clearly. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Bbb, while we're on the topic--use your magic admin tool to look at Klaus Porschka, now deleted as a copyvio of this. Note that the source is MAZ "magazine"--surely that rings a bell. (Speaking of copyright, did Porschka get permission to copy the cover of Tutu? Maybe "artists" don't need that.

  Weipoort, I get the feeling you may have a conflict of interest, and that you are here to promote MAZ and/or its "editor". For the record, that Modern Art Zone was called a magazine, but it's a gallery (too), and there's a clear commercial interest here. One more thing, Weipoort: please don't use Pinterest to source positive commentary in a Wikipedia article. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, thanks for looking at all that. Your conclusion about Wiepoort seems reasonable. As for the music video, as you know, my musical interests are narrow, and popular music videos are something I only watch/see when on Wikipedia. The rest of the time I revert back to my snobbish tastes.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• WEIpoort man, Weipoort. Come on now. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Too subtle for me, Drmies. According to google, poort means port or gate (some other meanings, too, I guess depending on the context). I assume your capitalization was deliberate, but I don't get it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Nope, not subtle at all. You spelled it "wie" (which, if meanings are important, means "who") but it should be "wei" ("meadow", for instance). I noticed it because my daughters often mispronounce the one for the other: these are really unusual spellings for English speakers. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't get it. In fact, I overthought it. A sledgehammer is generally better for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong tag

It was previously deleted and put the wrong tag on accident-it was just deleted and was done by the same person (who I put a translate tag on earlier) Feel free to put the right tag on it, thanks. Wgolf (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Aah, I should have looked at the earlier edits (I have to click on something to see them). No point in retagging. I just deleted it using the same rationale as the previous admin. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Gulf tories

Hi there, I noticed you deleted the Gulf Tories pages. There is a redirect Gulf tories which is still live. I do not know how to delete a page, so am letting you know instead. Thanks! JamKaftan (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Page: Carl McKever

Hi, I was wondering why Carl's page was placed into speedy deletion. This is a poet author who has sold books worldwide and gained reasonable amount of recognition. Is something missing, such as references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amclark121 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If it was speedy deleted, you can be sure reliable references were exactly what was lacking. Generally, multiple reliable sources substantially about the subject are required. See WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't just lacking sources. Technically, sources aren't required to defeat A7. The article didn't say much of anything. It just said McKever is an author, poet, and writer, and a little about his family. What's your association with McKever (you appear to be on a first-name basis)?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Is that a dead giveaway? JFHJr (㊟) 04:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BBB. I am a supporter of his works. He has multiple books out that are being published and recognized worldwide. Google only portrays his works. What type of references are required for poets and authors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amclark121 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much the same as required for any article: secondary sources from major periodicals commenting on him and his work. See WP:AUTHOR for further guidance.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevoras sock

Hi, I have another user who looks like a kevoras sock (similar language, similar editing patterns, created on same day as block, etc) but am not quite sure how to add it (user:V-apharmd) to the archived case here. Could you help with this? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a confirmed sock; I've blocked it and tagged the account.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo, it's nice to have vigilant talk page stalkers, particularly ones with special powers. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

My other special power is making a fantastic Caesar, though I understand that most individuals outside of Canada consider "fantastic Caesar" an oxymoron. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you provided the wikilink; otherwise, I would have thought you were referring to the salad.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Or I could have meant "I make a fantastic Caesar". Context is crucial :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Only if you're older than I thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion: Virginia Boat Club

Hello, I just got a notification that you deleted the page for the Virginia Boat Club (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Boat_Club), citing the following "A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event". I'd like to contest this decision based on a few points.

First, there are numerous similar organizations with Wikipedia entries. Please see the following for examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potomac_Boat_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Rowing_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesper_Boat_Club

Each of these organizations has a very similar history to the Virginia Boat Club. Granted, the initial entry that was created was thin, however that was set to change upon the addition of our full club's history information.

Secondly, addressing the specific language in the criteria definition of "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". As I mentioned previously, the entry that was taken down was thin and did not provide the full breadth of the history of the organization. It will very shortly and at that point, I have no doubt that this criteria will be met.

Lastly, also from the criteria; "with the exception of educational institutions". The Virginia Boat Club, while not providing primary or secondary education, has a long history of providing education about the sport of rowing. For example, we currently have a waiting list of over 100 for our Learn to Row program.

I look forward to reading your response, and hopefully, seeing your agreement with my points above leading to the reinstatement of the Virginia Boat Club entry.

Thank you for your time.

Best,

WMCartro — Preceding unsigned comment added by WMCartro (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What's your relationship with User:Sbamman, and who is "we"?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sbamman is the President of the Board of Directors for the Virginia Boat Club and I am a Member-at-large of the Board of Directors. "We" refers to the Virginia Boat Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WMCartro (talk • contribs) 13:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Editing of articles, particuarly creation, by users with an obvious conflict of interest is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It would be better if it were written by a person who has nothing to do with the boat club. That said, if you really want me to, I will WP:USERFY the article for you, but I strongly suggest that you submit it to WP:AFC when you think it is ready and get feedback from more experienced editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

ani

I've opened a thread here [6] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Civility

Hi! When I saw this yesterday, I was already closed by you. Then I saw this es. I don't think it acceptable. It made me shy to talk further more. Where can I talk about it? Oda Mari (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've left a warning on the article talk page. You should, at least for the moment, ignore the personal accusations and focus on the content that is disputed. If it happens again, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The newly added information made the section neutral and I don't think I need to talk anymore. But thank you very much. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Royal Franchising Group Of Canada

Hi Bbb23,

I'm messaging you regarding the deletion of The Royal Franchising Group of Canada that you did this evening. I believe you have misunderstood me or I have somehow misunderstood.

I received your warning but I'm clueless of what your referring too?

Please undelete our company bio.

Please message me if you need anything from me on my end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bresley (talk • contribs) 02:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not much point in replying to you. You've been indefinitely blocked for making a legal threat. Perhaps your company exists, but I could find no trace of it anywhere doing a Google search, and, of course, you never provided any verifiable references. It's highly unlikely it will ever be restored, even if you decide to retract your legal threat and abide by Wikipedia policies.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hail and Farewell

WP:AN/EW has now fully emasculated WP:BLP and it is with regret I recite Catullus. If a person on television says "John doe is a homophobe" and the TV station is sued for airing the comment, pays damages, and removes the words from everything it can control (including YouTube), but it gets reported in other venues, then Wikipedia is free to repeat the initial defamation as much as it wants because a "reliable source" iterated what the original source felt was defamatory (or at least paid as though it believed it were defamatory about the living person). I find this too big a bungee stretch to consider the policy as anything more than a dead letter. Collect (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Duck

Move Like This
by 28bytes

You deserve it, admirer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Chilean Conservative and Liberal parties ideologies

Why you erase the ideologies of the Conservative and Liberal parties of Chile? --201.239.203.53 (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Puzzling edits by a new account

• Nezir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nwbocploumouic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Are you around? I was thinking of asking for review at ANI, but basically I just need one other admin. See User talk:Nwbocploumouic#Blanking of Nezir. I was thinking of blocking this editor for vandalism, but since he reverted my undoing of his blanking of Nezir, questions might arise. He came to my attention because somebody complained on my talk that he might be a sock of someone else, but I have no opinion on that. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I see serious WP:COMPETENCE issues with this editor. I've reverted a couple of his/her edits as have other editors. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I've left a lengthy comment on the user's talk page. I think it's more likely that what's driving this editor is an agenda rather than incompetence, although there may be some of the latter thrown in. I'm not comfortable blocking him ... yet. I would have done it myself had I not gone out to get a haircut.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

,,I think it's more likely that what's driving this editor is an agenda rather than incompetence, although there may be some of the latter thrown in,, Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwbocploumouic (talk • contribs)

Just to be clear here - your complaint is that not everyone immediately recognized your incompetence as such? VQuakr (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Nwbocploumouic blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Doug, your block looks reasonable to me based on the user's edits after my explanation and warning about G5, not to mention the refactoring of your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems pretty clearly disruptive editing over the article itself, blanking, adding the tag and replacing it after it was removed, let alone the rest of the behavior. Obviously someone who isn't brand new and I can understand thinking he's a sock. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Sauood07's Anantnag village content forks

Thanks for the note on Sandran and Brengi. Looking back I think I must have misunderstood the use of WP:A1. I've been taking the subsequent pages through WP:PROD instead- I just wanted to check this was the right action? Thanks N4 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're sure that the content in the village article is the same or almost the same as the content in the bigger article, you could use WP:CSD#A10. If not, prodding is fine, but obviously the prod can be removed, in which case you'd have to AfD it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring

Hi, Bbb23:

Thank you for your prompt response on the noticeboard. I appreciate your attention. I was wondering what should be done if a user is edit warring, but has not necessarily violated 1RR/3RR. Was the problem in this case just that three days had passed? Just let me know for the future. Thanks again. --Precision123 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

For one thing it's not just one user. Singling out Nomoskedasticity is a bit troubling. There were four editors involved in the mini battle. I just noted it in my comments because it stood out a bit for me. It wouldn't stand out as much on an article that isn't subject to arbitration sanctions. If you were going to report it, I'd go to WP:AE, but I don't think it's sufficiently disruptive to do so. Usually, AE is reserved for a pattern of disruption, an egregious disruption, or a violation of a topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Obviously, I did not intend to single out any one user, but I appreciate your input. Thanks again. --Precision123 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Barrier Communications Incorporated

Greetings,

Am following up with you regarding your speedy deletion action agent a recent new article for Barrier Communication Incorporated? Would like to know what you would like improved about the contribution? Is is our goal to have the contribution improved so that it can pass the needful and have the contribution accepted as genuine and not to be speedy deleted?

Regards, Original Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.45.218 (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please log in, then come here, and please WP:SIGN your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignoranceisnotbliss19

Ping. Tried to be as fair as possible given the user's previous comments. Let me know if there's anything you think I should add/emphasize.

Hope you're well, m.o.p 21:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

m.o.p, given his subsequent comments, it's absolutely hopeless. Nevertheless, I'll let you deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that only got worse. Oh well, what's done is done. m.o.p 03:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, your plan was a good one in two ways. First, it permitted him to respond one more time to see if there was any chance of redemption, and, second, it efficiently dealt with the issue now (based on his response) rather than spend time on it later with no doubt more disruption leading to an indefinite block. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well. Hopefully next time we have better luck. Best, m.o.p 04:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocking

Hey Bbb23,
If you ever block me again, it's probably because I did something to deserve it! :-)
Cheers, B. Fairbairn (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Amazon Eve

On behalf of Amazon Eve I ask that you remove any connection between Amazon Eve and the movie Trans/Formed. Amazon Eve is not associated with the movie.

Thank you for your assistance.

Jourdy Silva Business & Legal Affairs Amazing Eve Entertainment LLC 323 487-1066 17252 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 251 Torrance, CA 90504 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JourdySilva (talk • contribs) 14:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You should not be editing the article because of your obvious conflict of interest. I've reverted your edits. What is your relationship with User:Greenwayfriend, who also purports to be acting on the subject's behalf? If you wish to address what you think are problems with the article, you should review WP:OTRS and follow the instructions there.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Féd Poppy

The user you blocked yesterday is back editing as an IP - 128.178.197.61 (talk · contribs). Any chance you could block? Cheers, Number 57 18:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Also just spotted Beiroth Afidavit (talk · contribs), who I strongly suspect is also the same user. Should I take this to WP:SSP? Number 57 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Another one (Nine Thyn Nine Titoo (talk · contribs)) has also just appeared, having edited as 83.228.189.70 (talk · contribs) for a few minutes... Number 57 18:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And as soon as Nine Thyn Nine Titoo stops, FLCJPA (talk · contribs) starts. Number 57 18:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And having gone back to 83.228.189.70 for a while, they've now popped up as Intréac Retropack (talk · contribs). Number 57 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Number 57, this may be more complicated than it appears at first. I've blocked all the named accounts indefinitely. I've blocked the two IPs for one month. I'll get back to Fed Poppy later, although his block will probably change to indefinite. I will open up a report at SPI as some or all of these accounts may belong to a different master. I won't be tagging the accounts as sock puppets until completion of the SPI. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Number 57, I reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soapamalkanmaime. Feel free to add any evidence you think is relevant, even if it doesn't relate specifically to Soapamalkanmaime, whom you may never have heard of.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. They are now back as 130.223.2.2 (talk · contribs). Do you mind if I start blocking them too, or am I too involved? Cheers, Number 57 07:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a month and added them to the SPI. If you think it's obvious, you can probably block them, but that's really a decision you have to make based on WP:INVOLVED. I personally don't "mind", but I don't know what others would think. It might make a difference as to how urgent it is, meaning how disruptive they're being. If you do block any, please add it to the SPI. You're also welcome to alert me here, and I'll look at it and decide whether a block is justified. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nikolai Gogol

Hi, an anon user keeps vandalising the page. Can you please help? Thanks! --Garik 11 (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really except to advise you a little. I don't see what he's doing as vandalism. It looks like nationalist POV-pushing but not vandalism per se. Certainly neither you nor the IP would be exempt from edit warring restrictions based on the vandalism exemption. I'd try to talk to the IP on their talk page, or raise the issue on the article talk page and alert the IP to the discussion. If the IP is intractable, then you're going to have to use dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve it. If they are about to violate WP:3RR, you can, of course, leave them a warning, and report them if they then violate it. Even then, it would be better for you to show that you tried to discuss the issue with them first. Just be careful that you don't violate WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

One last try

Hello, this is my last attempt to get you to communicate. Our run-in last November has had lasting negative consequences on me in several instances, the most recent one being at RFPERM.

Relevant links in chronological order are: [7][8][9] [10].

The issue remains unresolved because you had stonewalled questions, particularly the question of whether the discretionary sanctions notice you issued was (a) a mere non-warning notification or (b) a warning for misconduct or disruption or some kind of wrongdoing. All four attempts to obtain this information from you have failed. I need this information for the RFPREM now. Please don't make me post to AN or start an arbitration case just to get you to respond. vzaak 22:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at WP:PERM, Admrboltz has granted your request for rollback privileges and said they would monitor your usage, apparently based on Ethially Yours's link to the WP:AN discussion that was closed last November. That discussion is what it is, and AdmrBoltz is perfectly capable of reading it and deciding how it relates to your request for rollback privileges. I have nothing new to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for recovering last version of deleted page

Hi Bob, I was disappointed at your deletion of the wiki page of the Kautilya Society for Intercultural Dialogue. The organisation is fighting an important battle to protect the heritage of the ancient holy city of Varanasi in India and would like to bring together voices to advocate the cause and share resources that others can avail of for similar initiatives in their towns/cities. Is there any way to revise the page and propose it again? And is it possible for me to recover the last version of the page since I edited it and did not save those edits elsewhere? I would really appreciate if you could give your advise on how to improve the page and on how to recover the last version of the page on wiki. Please help!! Vrindadar (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I speedily deleted that article in October of last year. That was my decision. The creator recreated the article a short time later. At the end of January of this year, it was nominated for deletiion, and the community determined that it should be deleted. You have already asked Slakr, the administrator who closed the deletion decision, to "recover" the article. I'll leave it up to them what to do, but it appears to me that your interest - and some other accounts - in creating the article is promotional. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting an organization, even one that does good works.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit war notice board

Hi Bbb23. Yes, I know we haven't gotten along in the past, which I apologise for, but I wanted to thank you for your help on the matter I raised. I wonder if you can clarify for me: I'm still confused about that noticeboard. Should issues of that nature (not stictly 3RR) be raised there, or is WP:ANI the correct venue? Agree that I could have handled it better. Any tips are more than welcome. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it was the right board to raise the issue. It's not just for 3RR violations but for edit warring as well. Sometimes it helps to make it clear when filing the report that it's not a 3RR report but an edit warring report.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Brigitte Padilla Garcia

Okay after it getting deleted a few times-I just felt like giving the creator the benefit of the doubt by just putting a prod, none the less it is interesting that the persons name is close to the page they made and they mentioned it is someone they know (family member I'm guessing) anyway I'm keeping an eye on this one for now, just in case something happens. Wgolf (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

First, if you're responding to the post I left on your talk page, I wish you'd respond there because jumping around is a pain. Second, I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. What does this have to do with A3?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you think

about the latest edits here[11]? Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Block due to fighting a sock

Hi Bbb23, i would like your advice whether anything can be done to request clarification of my record, when i was blocked for fighting off a sockmaster (which is still active every now and then). The block of me by the way didn't result from violation of 3RR (i never violated it), but because administrator saw only a partial picture of page history as simple "edit-warring", while i was actually protecting wikipedia article and trying to prove that i'm engaging a sock. Is there a way to clear my name for doing the right thing and actually never violating 3RR?GreyShark (dibra) 18:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Greyshark, I have some real life issues I'm dealing with, and it's unlikely I'll get to this before the weekend. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Greyshark, I'm not the right person to ask about this. If you haven't already, you should talk to Rschen7754, the blocking admin. Rschen is not only a generally experienced administrator but a clerk at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're reverting a sock and go over 3RR, then you need to say so in your edit summary, or use rollback. However, it appears that at the time you were reverting, HistorNE was not blocked (until I blocked them), and likely not abusing multiple accounts, so unfortunately the exemption to 3RR doesn't apply here. --Rschen7754 16:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: I have never violated 3RR, not on that article and not anywhere (and if i did i reverted myself). The reason for that 24h block was "edit-warring" between me and sockmaster HistorNE, even though 3RR was never violated by myself and actually not even by HistorNE (see article history). Your block of both me and HistorNE was an overkill, without getting into details.GreyShark (dibra) 19:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring is not just 3RR; slow-moving edit wars are also just as disruptive and just as against policy. --Rschen7754 20:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rschen7754:, obviously you should not be the one to discuss your own actions. Anyway the criticism is about the fact of blocking and not about yourself. I don't understand why are you discouraging me from just asking a question - this is very much improper on your behalf as administrator.GreyShark (dibra) 09:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Greyshark09, I'm going to call a halt to this. I haven't looked at your behavior or the merits of the block, but I will make a few general comments. After that, if you wish to continue this discussion, you can do so at Rschen7754's talk page, if he's amenable, or in the appropriate forum, but not here. First, the block occurred in September 2013. That's a long time ago for you to be raising it as an issue. I have no idea what triggered your "complaint" now. I also don't know why you came to me. Second, Rschen is absolutely the right person to discuss his own actions, at least initially. If you were to complain at an adminisrator noticeboard about an administrator's action, the first thing everyone would ask would be if you tried to work it out with the administrator. Based only on the age of the block, I suggest you let it go, but that's your call.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the input - it is appreciated and gives me some perspective. Secondly, this is not a complaint, but an advice request for proper way of action, since the sockmaster who had caused this incident has just re-emerged and i'm afraid will cause problems again. I don't want to be blocked every time this sockmaster re-emerges, because administrators don't have enough time to analyze the history of such complex cases, see [12],[13] and probably few more further into the past. Thirdly, i came to you because we have discussed it in general terms a few months ago, see this discussion/incident. I don't intend any action "against" the involved administrator, but simply would like to know whether there are ways to cancel blocks retroactively in case those were wrongly assigned. Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 20:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Violations of SCWGS and ARBPIA sanctions lost in archive

Dear Bbb23, if you have time, i would appreciate if you take a look at those recently archived cases [14], [15], [16], [17]. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 20:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:Banning policy

Hi Bbb23. How can I make the text I added make sense? I tried to clarify that topic-banned users are not blocked unless they breach their topic bans, but site-banned users are always blocked. Should it even be included in the policy page? Epicgenius (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The latter in my view. I think it's clear enough as it stands (note the word "technically"). Site bans are accompanied by indefinite blocks. The only enforcement of a site ban is if a banned editor creates a sock (see the body). However, if you think I'm wrong, you can always bring it up on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buy short

I agree it's a hoax, but not quite blatant enough for CSD. The weather's cold, and our backs should be covered... Peridon (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Peridon, no problem, it's good to get another administrator's input. Thanks for taking it to AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Brokey Yacht Club

You speedily deleted this article although I was under the impression that we were discussing its merits on its talk page (which you also deleted - along with its history). I also had, I believed, remedied its faults and received no indication to the contrary... Can you please reinstate? --Akigka (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, but I can WP:USERFY it. If you wish me to do that, I strongly urge you to submit the article to WP:AFC so you get feedback rather than taking it live directly and risk another speedy deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love to. I just wasn't aware that there was such a sophisticated process for starting articles on the English wp... --Akigka (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh, not sure if I've ever heard anyone call it "sophisticated", but it does provide a collaborative step in the creation process that can be very helpful. Anyway, the article is now at User:Akigka/Brokey Yacht Club.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Akigka (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Rollback urgently needed

[18] Major breakage across articles like Justin_Bieber. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Jude Enemy

Some of the socks you tagged are obviously User:Jude Enemy. I changed the tags. See my contributions list. 88.113.156.129 (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed before you came here. I don't know who you are, but, regardless, I believe you're absolutely right, and I appreciate the changes. I always assumed when I blocked the first editor that they were a sock of someone else - just didn't know who. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

Isn't N. R. Narayana Murthy an Indian?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharun S Yadla (talk • contribs) 21:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not necessary to put nationality in the infobox if the place of birth makes it clear what the subject's nationality is.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors.

Hey, I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of being on a "campaign" for nominating pretty obviously non-notable articles for deletion. I wouldn't have such a problem with this were it not the entirety of the reason you gave for reverting me. I'd encourage you to engage in discussion instead of making accusations in reverts in the future. Inanygivenhole (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The "campaign" comment was well-deserved given your history. The first page you tagged for speedy deletion, Chomskybot, was a long-standing article that had been nominated for deletion before and kept by the community. Yet, rather than take it back to AfD, which would be acceptable if you felt that the first discussion's outcome was flawed, you took it straight to speedy deletion. I rejected the tag with the following edit summary: "I won't delete an article that has been kept by the community in an AfD - you can start another AfD if you wish". No accusation, just descriptive polite guidance, assuming perhaps that you didn't know about the previous discussion. However, when I then evaluated two more articles, all related to Chomsky, that you tagged, my original assumption of good faith vanished. Even then, my campaign comment was rather mild. Plus, I noticed that in your recent contribution history, you have taken other Chomsky-related articles to AfD, including yet another second nomination, as well as adding notability tags to two more. You may be right that some of these articles don't pass notability guidelines. That's not up to me; it's up to the community, but your behavior smacks of an agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Your most recent comment gives your baseless accusation more perspective. You are groundlessly accusing me of going on a "campaign" against Chomsky-related articles, when in fact my edit history shows that it's not that at all: in my usual browsing I came across a fair number of articles with sketchy notability, and it just so happened that the text generation script articles led me, via Chomskybot, to Chomsky's family members of questionable notability. This is the picture that even a glance at my edit history would have shown. As for Chomskybot, I was unaware of the previous AfD, being under the impression that Twinkle checked for that sort of thing before tagging for speedy deletion. I implore you again to assume good faith in the future. Your behavior is rather disturbing for an administrator. What is the agenda you're accusing me of? I'd love to see what you come up with for that. Inanygivenhole (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy decline and the CU endorse

Hi Bbb23.
As I mentioned in the new SPI case, I really don't like doing this sort of stuff. You're right: I was too quick on the trigger to tag the article as a hoax - I should have done my research first. I'd just come back from a brief trip to Tasmania, and was looking forward to writing a few articles about art works I'd seen at Museum of Old and New Art. (Believe the hype: it's an art gallery for people who would never think of going to an art gallery, and it is just... wow.) But that's no excuse.
Something that really annoys me about the "Katrina Villegas" thing is that she or he could write articles about real and notable entertainers from the Philippines, but seems to chose not to.
Thanks again. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As11ley edit warring

Hi. I believe that As11ley made be restarting the iOS 7 edit war with this edit. Another editor approached me about it on my talk page and I thought I should pass it along. gsk 19:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

consider undeleting Ron Eschete

Hi Bbb23. Im requesting that you restore the Ron Eschete article if it's possible. My citation abilities are weak and I was hoping someone else would do it rather than have me do it the old way that gets written over anyway. Ron Eschete is extremely notable and has many mainsteam media links available. He is arguably the best living block chord style jazz guitarist in the world. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.238 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Zzzzjazzzz created the article. I'd rather you log in and make the same request. I won't restore it, but I would be willing to WP:USERFY it for the registered account.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok Bbb23 I'm logged in. Go ahead and WP:USERFY to my account User:Zzzzjazzzz. Thanks — Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it's done and located at User:Zzzzjazzzz/Ron Eschete. After you finish working on it, I strongly suggest you submit it to WP:AFC rather than move it directly into article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Russian-speaking Ukraine

Thought I'd let you know that since the page protection expired the same editor is back making the same edits. Perhaps protect for a longer duration, 6 months to a year? Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The last one was six months. I did a year. I came close to making it indefinite, but at least we won't be bothered by it for a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Maduro

The official term was on 8 march. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panam2014 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your saying it doesn't make it so. The body says March 5 and is sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

[19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panam2014 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your source is in conflict with the sources already in the article. I suggest you take the issue to the article talk page if you want to discuss a resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

We could talk in the discussion page of Maduro. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Links Air

You deleted the page on Links Air. Is there a reason as to why you could not have even put up a message indicating the page would be deleted and asking for comments *before* deletion for perhaps a week or so rather than deleting purely on your own opinion ? Pmbma (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're confusing two different deletion processes. The article was tagged by YSSYguy for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD), which doesn't require a discussion unlike WP:AFD. The decision to delete such a page is made by an administrator after it's tagged. The only problem I see now is YSSYguy should have notified you, the creator, of the tag right after they placed it. Per the template, notifying the creator isn't required but it's generally considered good practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Mike Harmon Racing

I don't think this was a G5 case. The redirect was created by Candleabracadabra (talk · contribs), who isn't blocked or banned... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I restored the page and undid my closure at RfD. Honestly, I'm not sure I understand the history. I have a little trouble understanding the "tags" (not sure what they're called) wiki adds to certain edits. For example, there's an arrow and the words "Redirected page" next to Candleabracadabra's edit. Then there's an arrow and the word "Created" next to the sock's edit (second edit). I believe I mistakenly thought that the page had been deleted and then created by the sock, although there's no history indicating a deletion in between. Another possibility is I simply didn't notice when I was cleaning up after the sock that he hadn't made the first edit and my eye just went to "Created".

I'm not sure if you came here simply to point out a technical mistake on my part or because you also felt there was a good, independent reason to restore the page, but rather than go back and forth, I just restored it based on the technicality. BTW, I don't suppose you know of a page on Wikipedia that explains those "tags". Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about explaining the tags, but I see what happened here - Candleabracadabra created the redirect, then the sock came to change it - but used (this sort of bracket) for the link instead of [[this one]], which meant the software thought an actual page was being created instead of a redirect. My coming here was to ask because of the G5 thing, was all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Tags may help. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Luke, but that isn't the right kind of tag. However, I found that the little arrow next to the word "Create" was clickable (who knew?), and it took me to WP:AES, which not only explained what happened here but killed some assumptions I've been making for a long time. You learn a lot cleaning up after socks. As for Bushranger and Candleabracadabra, my apologies for messing up.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Kgalagadi Breweries Limited

Hi, is there any way I may be able to edit and correct the deleted article - I agree it was a stub, I had hoped that the Botswana community may have helped contribute to the article. The company is a significant one in Botswana terms. I have only visited Botswana once and found little about the company on the internet and so decided to start the article. The tag Wikipedia:SD was applied without reasons given. How do I get access to create a better article that might survive future deletion attempts.

If this is not possible - no worries - I will contact an editor in the Botswana community to make a better attempt! &Brew^t@lk 20:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I can WP:USERFY it if you wish. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

L32007

Hi Bbb23, hope all is good with you. Just drop you a line re: User:L32007. He's made a number of problematic edits particularly to articles he considers political. He also made this comment[20] to ANi, in which he states "They wouldn't be doing vandalising pages to promote falsehoods if they weren't feminists". He's also started adding material to Feminism and Sexism. Feminism also had more men's rights advocacy added to it by User:Cmguy777 - there maybe something going on off-site (again). Just thought I'd let you know. As usual I'm not going to be able to keep much of an eye on this (I'm down to 1 day a week wikipedia time - due to work pressures)--Cailil ^talk 14:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Instacart page

Hello, my name is Alison and I work in Marketing at Instacart. Instacart is a legitimate and popular same-day delivery service in the United States. We are growing very quickly and expanding to 14 new cities in 2014. Right now, we service the SF Bay Area, Chicago, Boston, Philly and DC. Our model is based on crowdsourcing efforts to make sure that customers get their groceries from their favorite local grocery stores. Customers can use our desktop, Android or iPhone apps to order groceries from more than one store. Our Personal Shoppers will use their smart phone Instacart apps as grocery lists to shop for and delivery groceries in as quickly as one hour!

I would like to re-open and edit the page that you deleted. Please email me if you'd like to discuss further.

Cheers, Alison50.196.166.93 (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Alison, you'll first need to read about Conflict of Interest, the fact that Wikipedia will never allow you to promote your business via an article, and more importantly the fact that businesses must meet minimum notability standards to be included in an encyclopedia. Since we're not a business directory, not all businesses - especially up and coming ones - meet our strict requirements. Someday when your business does meet them, someone completely unrelated to the company will write something without any prompting at all. DP 21:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Alison, what is the relationship between you or your company and User:Randhirreddy, the creator of the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U question

Do you know who is supposed to move a candidate RfC/U to certified after it gets two signatures? Is it me (the opener) or someone else? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Instructions_for_this_page --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Neil: "The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it."--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but was unclear who actually confirms it's certified. I guess it's me but that's kind of odd as everything else on Wikipedia is double checked by an uninvolved editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is outside my area of knowledge as I've almost never gotten involved in RfC/Us or their procedures. What makes you think there's a confirmation? Maybe one of my talk page stalkers has some additional guidance for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It has to be moved from the "Candidate pages" list to the "Certified pages" list. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, and as I read it, that's certifying it, which means the sentence I quoted applies. Unless there's something I'm missing. The instructions, obviously, could be worded better, but that's true of a lot of things on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I thought signing the RfC/U was certifying it. I've moved it to the certified list. If I messed up, I'm sure I'll hear about it. Thanks for your guidance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to tell anyone who criticizes your action that this (certifiable) administrator in his boundless ignorance led you astray.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Desysop! Desysop! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletions and block

Hi Bbb23 - I have just tagged for speedy delete Salle Mauro Fencing Academy once again under G11. I notice that this page has twice been rejected at AfC, and previously deleted under both A7 and G11 twice, but the user responsible for it keeps creating it again. Last time, you warned the user they would be blocked if they kept creating inappropriate pages. I will assume good faith, but as I am not familiar with previous versions, I don't know if this user has any regard for the feedback they are receiving. Can you check out the page, and consider blocking the user? Thanks Dfadden (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If one believes the user, they are a high school student and probably have no clue as to what they're doing. For the moment, I've salted the article rather than blocking the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

CSD

I was equally puzzled, I'm afraid. Clearly the deletion was accidental, and I remain unclear as to how I achieved it. Obviously clicked on a wrong link somehow, but where I do not know. Heartfelt apologies are in order. I had thought I had restored it, but did not realize that the talk page was gone. It must be somewhere? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page is restored; I am truly puzzled here. If it is possible, as it clearly is, to hit the wrong link and delete the category page, I cannot see how I could then have gone on to delete the talk page, which as you know requires a further manoevre. I do not know how I achieved this effect; it was, as I trust you appreciate, accidental. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If you delete a page, it asks you if you want to delete the talk page, too, and that takes additional steps, but you can delete any page based on G8 without any more steps than any other criterion. In any event, I have no idea what you did, either. Perhaps you were sleep deleting? In any event, I never suspected you of nefarious motives. I just didn't want to restore the talk page without talking to you first.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Fretted Instrument Guild of America deletion

Hi Bbb23, I fear that you have been used as a means of retaliation by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The user and I have butted heads lately and although I've attempted to make peace, this has now seemed to escalate this Users contempt and harmful activities to Wikipedia.

Rather than post a tag or post a message that an article needs improvement, it was just deleted literally while I slept. There is a significant time difference between HW and myself. So the result is that an article about a long-standing and notable non-profit organization that promotes the musical arts has been deleted seemingly without review or discussion.

I would appreciate if you would restore a copy of the article to my User space so that I can make improvements to it and sufficiently clear up any issues with it. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I didn't delete the article based on WP:CSD#G12, I've now looked at the links provided by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on the now-deleted talk page, and I agree that it is in fact a copyright violation. Therefore, I can't restore it to your user space.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing or just parts? Given even an hour or so, I'm happy to paraphrase everything. If nothing else, could you restore the sources so I'm not starting from scratch? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The only "sources" were a dead link to the organization's website and another dead link to the Guitar Foundation's website.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, got it, thank you. I did not realize that the article was in such a bad state. The organization's website has changed and has a new domain. Thank you, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Paul Easter

After PE asked how he could get someone to write the article, I mentioned (besides much other advice) a number of possibilities including sandbox, reward board, and paid editing - I did sign my post. Then he emailed stating: "...i feel it is corrupt as it as been suggested said that i could pay a editor on here to add the film to Wikipedia". Not seeming to realise it was I who suggested it... I don't think he was intentionally socking. Just ignoring/not reading all advice, policy, etc. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a "you are blocked until you read this and pass this simple test" block. Jim1138 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Socks can be unblocked like anyone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Won't miss. Jim1138 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your block of User:Marek Wolf

I have to say that I think your block of Marek Wolf (talk · contribs) for a week was heavy-handed. I had already left him a message urging that he accept and respect the community conventions on referring to his own published research, and it is by no means clear that 46.205.82.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is Wolf himself as opposed to a misguided friend, colleague or student. Your block rationale was "edit warring at Cramér's conjecture logged in and not logged in and self-promotion". He was not edit warring logged in; he was only edit warring logged out if he is also each of the IP addresses, and I see no evidence of that, only a suspicion; and self-promotion in the sense of adding references to one's own published work is not normally blocked in this way. I fear that the result is that an active mathematician who might, with a little guidance as to the norms of Wikipedia, have become a valuable contributor in the area of his own expertise is now most unlikely to be willing to continue to contribute.

Could I suggest that as a gesture of good-will you rescind the block and explain just how and why his conduct is unacceptable? I feel that the point has been made and that a gesture of good-will may enable him to find out how to contribute constructively. I have already offered to review any material relating to his own research that he might wish to add.

For the avoidance of doubt, as the lawyers say: I have met Wolf at conferences, and been to some of his talks: but I have no personal or academic connection nor any other communication with him except what you see on-wiki. Deltahedron (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If he makes an unblock request, I'll review it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the sort of situation, and response, which turns academics and experts off contributing. Is that really what we want? Deltahedron (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to post something on his talk page encouraging him to make an unblock request. As I recall, he doesn't "talk", at least not here. Even if I wanted to unblock him, which at this point I don't, it wouldn't do much good if he's not interested or paying attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Deltahedron (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

indirectly referred to you

I mentioned you (as "the blocking admin") here. Since I am making a claim about your view (namely, that your block of me was based just on a technical assessment of my actions, and not based on the behaviour of the other party) I should note that here so you can correct me if I have misrepresented anything.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion and block.

Can you please look at Software evolution process this is an article that duplicates an existing subject. Article creator is removing and or modifying the template. Has been warned several times for posting article copy to rtalkpage and also talkpage comments to article. I'm getting tired of reverting, I was considering it vandalism. 09:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry!

When i use the stupid third wheel on this mouse sometimes it clicks and randomly closes a page or clicks links :/. Sorry. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I assumed it was accidental. The editor above has been blocked by another admin for sock puppetry. I deleted the article per A10.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's been a busy night, I think our friend Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smauritius ‎ is back too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI -- New user account

Hello Bbb23, I saw that you deleted Bagus Kresna Murti as CSD:A7 and thought that you should be aware that User talk:Bagus Kresna Murti was created by me through the ACC process under AGF. I'm keeping an eye on the account, and figured you might like to as well. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

World Mission Society Church of God

There has been some contention from IPs and throw away-accounts over the referenced 2012 end of the world prediction. While I can't find a primary source to back it, I did find one 2013 source from the church seemingly denying it ... here ... or rather, they seem to imply that "the other guys" have made a wrong interpretation of a book and "we never said it should be understood that way". Has my head spinning. Look at it at see if I'm synthing here. Just trying to include their pov and hopefully reduce warring. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a contentious article. In fact, it was so hard to make it a well-written neutral article I gave up on it and took it off my watchlist (it was left over from my pre-admin days). The issue of the world ending is one recurring theme, and I tended to revert editors removing that comment, more because of the probable motives than for substantive reasons. In any event, I'd rather just leave it in your hands. Even if your head is spinning, it's still no doubt far more level than 99.9% of the users who edit the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I roll with the MLA

"To indicate a dash in typing, use two hyphens, with no space before, between, or after. (Some word processors have a dash, and you may use it instead of hyphens.)" Gibaldi, Joseph (1998). "Dashes and Parentheses". MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing. Modern Language Association of America. p. 73. ISBN 9780873526999. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, as you know, Wikipedia generally doesn't give two hoots about outside style manuals. Instead, we have our own often unintelligible MOS. Take a look at MOS:DASH and see what you make of it. The only thing I'm fairly certain of is we're not supposed to use two hyphens instead of a dash, but whether we should use an emdash or an endash, and whether there should spaces around it is not something I've studied or want to study. All that said, do whatever you think best with Alice Besseling. It's a nit, and I won't question your judgment. I hope everything is well otherwise. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Things are fine, thanks, except that I had to have my home PC redone after a Vista crash. I now have Windows 7, but lost all my software and passwords. At least I kept my data and don't have to retype everything when I file my taxes. I hope you and yours are well as well. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, Windows 7 is an improvement over Vista.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, but not much, haha. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dumb question, but could 10.4.1.126 actually BE the bot?

Hi, I saw this, then this and when I did a geolocate on 10.4.1.126 it looked it was one of those IP ranges that could actually wind up being an internal IP or something. I don't think I'm articulating this in a way that makes sense, but I wondered if the IP actually IS the bot, but somehow it's been logged out or there's some other behind-the-scenes Wikipedia business that has resulted weird, though presumably legitimate edits? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Cyphoidbomb, I'm guessing you haven't seen Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Possible_bot_malfunctioning.3F or User talk:10.4.1.126 or User_talk:Legoktm#Legobot or ... Well, I'm sure you get the point... "known" issue. ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 03:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13 Oh dear GOD no! I would never pollute my mind with Administrators' noti--aw never mind. Just trying to help amidst what I interpreted as confusion. I shall go back to monitoring SpongeBob vandalism... I am sorry one and all. {{pistol to own skull}} Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Murry Salby

I'd prefer you lock the stub as that is policy for BLP violations (there are many noted and none disputed there are issues). Proposed neutral additions should be on talk. Protecting an attack page (in which the current form, it is) is not a good practice. I didn't blank the article, I stubbed it per WP:ATTACK policy of a notable person with a skewed BLP article. Regardless of the AfD discussion, policy (and decency) requires a stub. If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person. --DHeyward (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to add biography information, including an entire section on his impressive list of positions held. How can we make that happen? I was in the middle of those changes when the lockdown occurred. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox is preferred while stubbed. [Eventualism does not apply] to BLPs. --DHeyward (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, I'd rather hear what Bbb23 thinks. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is very negative, but that doesn't make the statements in it BLP violations. Generally, an obvious BLP violation is a negative statement that is unsourced or unreliably sourced. Obviously, there are instances where there are what I would label BLP problems that make may the article less BLP-compliant, but not violations sufficient to administratively remove them (consensus can do so, of course). As for adding material that would make the article more notable - and apparently in Sportfan's view more balanced - as I said in my comment, you can do that through protected edit requests on the article talk page or by listing them on the AfD page. The closing administrator - and other editors in the deletion discussion - will no doubt take that into account.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's policy. "Very negative" doesn't sound "fair". It may have gotten a little better but the the person's main notability isn't the negative material expressed in the article. Just being sourced does not alleviate the burden of NPOV. The burden is on the person claiming it is not a BLP violation to show how the current version is neutral and fair. The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. It should be stubbed and the process you outlined above for adding material should be followed. --DHeyward (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The article's lede – both sentences of it – are rather problematic from a BLP standpoint. Saying that a scientist with a lengthy career is "known for" something that, as far as I can tell, he has never published a peer-reviewed journal article on raises a red flag. (The statement is supported by two not-very-good sources: a column by James Delingpole, an outspoken climate change denialist; and a column from an Australian tabloid. Neither source discusses Salby's career in a broader sense; both are grounded in a conspiracy theory over his firing, and both authors have their own personal axes to grind on climate change issues.) Juxtaposing the first sentence of the article (which ends with mention of Salby's firing) and the second sentence (talking about how he is "known for" his particular stance on anthropogenic CO2) creates a very strong but very badly-supported suggestion (an implied synthesis, contravening policy) that Salby's firing and his recent opinions on certain aspects of climate change are a) related; and b) the only significant and important aspects of his career. That sort of suggestion shouldn't remain in a BLP at all, and particularly not as its entire lede.

The bulk of the rest of the article focuses predominantly on the blogosphere-stirred conspiracy theories over his firing. His career prior to moving to Macquarie University in 2008 is missed (save for two books from a three-item bullet list of publications), eliding three decades of work at UC Boulder. As I noted in one of my comments on the article's AfD, this problem comes as no surprise; the article started out as a vehicle to relate the conspiracy theories about Salby's firing, and it is very difficult to fix such WP:COATRACKs without stubbing and starting from scratch. I hope this clarifies the glaring BLP issues, and that you will revert to the short stub version [21] pending a rewrite of a WP:BLP-compatible article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is a pending edit on Talk:Murry Salby which might help here. I think his two textbooks could be expanded on, and I'm not sure how to address the hundred + scientific journal articles. Many of them are highly cited. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• maybe separating the recent-ism with his overall career? Really he has to pass a legitimate climatologist with peer-reviewed work to be notable as a sceptic. There's lots of deranged persons we don't have bio's listed that are sceptics. The case for "why him" needs to be made. --DHeyward (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, everyone seems to agree that the current viewable version is largely negative, and I have done as instructed and made an edit request on the talk page to rectify what is undeniably a BLP problem. The edit request is uncontroversial material to help add some balance to the article. Could you take a look and consider making the requested changes? Thank you in advance. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Folks, if we were talking about an article that was not at AfD, I would not have locked the article. However, although I understand TOAT's comments about the lead, I don't see this as a major issue while the AfD is pending, whereas I believe a wholesale slashing of the article (stubbing it) is unwarranted and problematic for the purpose of the deletion discussion. If the article were really that bad, it would have been speedily deletable as a WP:CSD#G10. It was originally tagged for deletion as an WP:CSD#A7 by DHeyward, which clearly it is not. However, if I had thought it was a G10, even though it has not been so tagged, I would have deleted it on that basis.

I have no problem with the article being edited to make it more notable and/or more BLP-compliant, but given the rather fervent and passionate views by the two editors involved, I would need to see a consensus for the changes. Otherwise, I'm the one making a decision about controversial content changes, and I don't want to do that. I thought about blocking the two editors for edit-warring rather than effectively prohibit other editors from touching the article, but I suspect DHeyward would have raised BLP as an exemption, and we would have gotten nowhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Bluntly, you're applying the wrong test. When determining whether or not to remove biographical content from an article, you are not required to personally make a final determination on your own. For the initial removal, WP:BLP requires immediate action when faced with any reasonably-expressed good-faith concern that the content may violate the policy. While there obviously isn't universal agreement, it is certainly clear that a number of competent, experienced editors have expressed exactly those concerns.

It is then policy to allow as much time as necessary for a consensus to be reached on whether or how to present the challenged content in a WP:BLP-compliant manner. We don't carve out exceptions to WP:BLP for ongoing AfD discussions. (If someone wants or needs to link back to a dubious version of the article in the AfD, it is easy enough for them to do so. As well, the ongoing protection is probably more harmful to the AfD process than stubbing, as it prevents any meaningful improvements or additions to the article during the week or so it runs.) The process called for by WP:BLP is emphatically not to protect the article with the challenged material in place while waiting for a consensus to revise or remove it to develop on the talk page.

Finally, you seem to have overlooked an alternative administrative approach. As you've already noted, blocking DHeyward wouldn't have 'gone anywhere' because he would have raised the BLP exemption to WP:EW in his defense—and that's the way that BLP is supposed to work. Since you're aware that DHeyward had made a plausible, good-faith assertion under BLP, you presumably would have known not to place an expected-to-be-immediately-overturned block on him, and blocked Sportfan5000 for edit warring and violation of WP:BLP—thereby stopping the edit war. Frankly, you could have just warned Sportfan5000 that continued reverts violating BLP would not be tolerated; if he paid attention than neither blocks nor protection would have been required at all.

As far as I can see, the administrative action you need to take with respect to this article is either stubbing the protected article to comply with the very clear instructions in WP:BLP, or lifting the page protection so someone else can do it for you. If there's a third option that complies with the very non-negotiable terms of WP:BLP you're welcome to it, of course, but it is not readily apparent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually making the edit request sitting on the talk page since the beginning of the protection would immediately resolve the alleged concerns. The negativity is all sourced, and isn't overly negative. As has been noted, a few word choices would make the difference needed. In any case a more neutral version has been proposed and despite many requests no one is doing much but arguing about other controversies tied to the person. Seems to me we can do the obvious first, make some tweaks if needed, and allow regular processes take place. DHeyward was being overly antagonistic, and has worked to get the article deleted, that effort seems to be failing. I was in the middle of bringing the article into compliance when the lock went down. Sobeit. Let's now make the uncontroversial edit asked for that everyone seems to agree should take place so things can more easily move forward. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be going in circles here. I have nothing of any great significance to say that I haven't already said. Just a small comment about TOAT's apparent inference. I said that DHeyward would probably raise BLP as an edit warring exemption. I didn't say I agreed with it a as a defense: "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." If a report was filed at WP:AN3, putting aside the AfD issue, different administrators would react in different ways as we have discretion to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, I considered raising your page protection issue at ANI and decided not to but before that I put it on BLP noticeboard where I specifically asked for other eyeballs to prevent an edit war. You would have blocked me after I requested help which would be quite unheard of. I obviously disagree that a block would have been warranted. I tried multiple methods to hide the information (including hatting), and not being an admin I can't delete history. I considered G10 but the information is all sourced and BLP says to stub otherwise notable people, not delete them, if the article is not balanced or fair. The only other route was notability from consensus. I don't think it's obvious that he wasn't an A7 with the state of article (no claims of any significance, just a fired prof that lectured about his own views on global warming) and I don't think the article will ever present him as an above-average professor meeting . The notability criteria listed at AfD are not why he was added to WP. Personally, I believe he was created so that he would meet the blue-link criteria for the List of Scientists that Oppose Mainstream consensus on global warming (bio created 3 days prior to addition by same author). Had the list not required blue links or not existed at all, this article would never have been written. That is indeed the essence. AGF prevents me from raising that as a concern, but as a BLP it's history should be at least understood and the article watched to make sure the notability reasons he is here make up the bulk of his artcle, due weight and all. --DHeyward (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why you deleted Saeed Shad article page

Why you deleted Saeed Shad article??reason?Balochi tamur (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There may be other criteria that justify speedy deletion, but I deleted it because it was a copyright violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Article's been recreated by User:Balochifilm (i.e. Balochi tamur socking in the most blatant way possible). I'm too involved to touch it, but a couple of blocks wouldn't go amiss. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Block extension of User talk:Balochi tamur

Had to extend User talk:Balochi tamur block for an extra week. He has been evading the block through several IP addresses and continued posting to Haneef Shareef and Saeed Shad. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Alexf. Feel free to make the block indefinite now or later. It's conventional to block a sock master for a few weeks on the first block rather than indefinitely, but if the master is disruptive enough, the block can be longer or indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Indef was considered but having talked to him in his talk page before I felt originally he was a young misguided SPA editor with a lot to learn. After extending the block I learned more about the socking, including block evasion in several IP addresses which I also blocked. Decided to leave him as-is and wait for his answer or next action. Invited him to comment on his user talk page. No doubt one more transgression will earn an indef. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrian civil war sanctions

I thank you for your warning. I've given up on the issue, hoping some other editor or administrator would be able to make that other editor follow Wikipedia policy on unreliable sources and POV pushing. And I am not going to be involved in the dispute any longer. I apologise if my actions caused trouble and will be more careful in the future to not let the situation get out of hand as it did. Once again, I apologise! EkoGraf (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I meant to respond to this earlier, but ... It speaks well of you that you acknowledge the problem and intend to be more watchful in the future. The Syrian civil war articles are a minefield (no pun intended), and it's easy to get carried away, despite the existence of the sanctions. Thanks for your message.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Corona Monroe

Trying to develop a wikipedia page for user CoronaMonroe who is a real person with a biography and no different than Top Cruise, so why did you delete the total of two paragraphs that I submitted this morning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoronaMonroe (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been deleted twice (first by another administrator and then by me) as having no credible claim of encyclopedic significance. Although I didn't use another basis for deletion, it's also promotional, which is subject to speedy deletion based on WP:CSD#G11. Are you Corona Monroe?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passed

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting for restoration

Sir, just before an hour of deletion, another admin. advised me to edit the content to meet wiki rules and assured me to request for undeletion of the page Arjuna Gamang if I try for proper edit and I have started the job leaving a note on the talk page. So would you please reconsider me giving some time to work on the article by restoring it . Hpsatapathy (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't restore it, but I'll WP:USERFY it for you if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

sir, Thanks for your brilliant gesture. I would like to gladly concede your view for moving the article to user subpage.2. Hpsatapathy (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is now at User:Hpsatapathy/Arjuna Gamang. You had a page by that name, but there wasn't much in it, so I figured you wouldn't mind if I replaced yours with the article before it was deleted. I strongly suggest you submit the article through WP:AFC once you think it's ready.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir,I must thank you for maintaining neutrality throughout the process.

Hpsatapathy (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Seeking clarification

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

---

Since I don't want to get blocked for 3RR ever again, will you please explain what constitutes a revert? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: "You changed the text in both paragraphs of the lead. Those changes constitute a revert. Some editor or editors wrote that language. You undid their "actions" by changing it." Are you equating copyediting with reverting? Is this a revert, IYO? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Remember, a revert is changing information on a page, and that include edits that you might not think of as disruptive", but per WP:RV: "Reverting means completely reversing a prior edit, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously." So how does this support your position that any changes to existing text constitute a reversion? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:RV is an essay. To the extent there is any inconsistency between the essay and the policy, obviously the policy trumps the essay. I don't actually see much inconsistency except that WP:RV introduces the notion of a "partial reversion" (which you omitted from your quotation of the essay definition). If you still don't understand, talk to another administrator because I haven't been able to get through to you, and I don't think spending any more time on the issue is going to help.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this a revert, or a copyedit IYO? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't count that as a revert in an edit-warring report. Not sure copy edit is the best label to ascribe to it, but it's not particularly important.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this a revert or a copyedit? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Both. I wouldn't count it, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you say that I reverted four times, but refuse to name those specific diffs? I thought that was a requirement for blocking based on WP:3RR. At my talk page you said that the edit at 17:31 was a revert. Will you please explain how this is a revert? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Your position on this seriously confuses me, and I don't think we've ever gone around on circles for this. I use what some people consider to be an excessively strict definition, in that I don't care whether the editor intentionally undid a previous edit or how long ago the previous version was, if I can identify a previous version of the article that used the wording that the edit created, that edit is a revert. That's still a long way from what you seem to be using. Can you explain to me how you define a reversion, and what your policy basis for that definition is?—Kww(talk) 23:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If an earlier editor or editors wrote something in the article, a change to that material constitutes a revert per the definition in the policy. That doesn't mean, however, that administrators don't have discretion not to count what technically constitutes a revert. Obviously, context matters, and, perhaps less obviously but not suprisingly, administrators may disagree on how to exercise their discretion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If consensus has been established, the "revert" would actually be of the revert of the new change.[22] It is not a revert to change the prior text of an article. Doc talk 02:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The only definition I can find for "revert" is in WP:EW, and that uses the word "reverse". It used to have a definition much closer to mine, but someone seems to have simplified it. Regardless, not all changes are reversals. Are you using some other policy as the basis of your definition?—Kww(talk) 03:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I use the definition in the box: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." The word "undoes" is also used in the lead (not "reverses"). That said, I don't think the complete sentence with the word "reverses" ("A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.") is any different in meaning from the sentence in the box and in the lead. BTW, I'm going off-wiki shortly and so will not respond to further comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

We'll need to take this up later, then, because it appears to me that you are way off the reservation. Neither "undo" nor "reverse" would support the concept of "any change". "Any change" makes no distinction between reverts and edits, and we certainly distinguish between edit warring and editing.—Kww(talk) 03:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The underlying question is whether GabeMc should have been blocked at all. I think it was a good block as he had personally attacked an editor with whom he was edit warring, calling him a meatpuppet, and he had disruptively filed an edit warring notice. So there was edit warring with some arguable number of reverts, a personal attack, and a disruptive notice filed. It was a good block. Binksternet (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, is one time calling someone a meatpuppett really more derogatory and disruptive IYO than repeatedly calling someone a bully? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the block, and I'm not quibbling with it. This is just a part of the underlying reasoning that appears to be wrong and to have the potential to set some bad precedent.—Kww(talk) 13:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You did both, see User talk: STATicVapor#Stop bullying me. You also referred to multiple editors as meatpuppets in this edit summary, just for disagreeing with you. STATic message me! 20:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, if calling someone a meatpuppett is a personal attack then the policy should not be named WP:MEAT. How is anyone going to cite that guideline without committing a PA? Had I called you a "f---ing jerk" there would be no issue, right? I think that mislabeling a good-faith edit as vandalism, as you did here is as bad as accusing someone of meatpuppetry. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23, you said I made four reverts, but my first and last series of edits are copyedits that introduce new material that wasn't in the article before, so can you please explain how this edit and this edit are reverts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• When I decided our dialog was unproductive, I suggested you find another administrator who might be able to communicate more effectively with you. You apparently are now taking advice from another editor (not an admin) while you're also discussing the possibility of an WP:RFC/ADMIN. My view that any further dialog beween us would be unhelpful hasn't changed. After I leave this comment, I'm going to close this part of the discussion as I did the one above, so please don't comment here anymore. Good luck to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Jose Rafael Cordero Sanchez ... again

Further to User talk:Metropolitan90#José Cordero Sánchez: he is back and makes new variations of the article title by moving the acute accent, this time José Rafael Corderó. Will you deal with Yorgelis Delgado and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josercs1? Two of the three socks have user pages copied directly from User:Ubiquity. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 23:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Haiwei Dong

Both you and @Gogo Dodo: have deleted this page only for it to be recreated again .... can you review it again and if (as i think it does) still meet the A7/G11 then can you delete it and WP:SALT it (since this is the 3 creation). (x-posted to Gogo Dodo). LGA _talk^edits 06:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

LGA, I've deleted and salted it, but I have a few comments. First, I generally don't speedy delete an article I've speedy deleted before. I let another administrator handle it. Second, you should have retagged the article for speedy deletion. That said, I made an exception to my "rule" and deleted the article even without a tag. The article contained large amounts of copyrighted text. The editor is clearly a WP:SPA and is here only to promote this person. I've left warnings on the user's talk page about the copyright and promotional issues (he deletes stuff from his talk page, but the history will be there).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

3RRN block mixup

Hi Bbb23. I hope everything is well with you and yours. Since you are a 3RRN admin, I bring to you a rather odd event, which imo has resulted in the block of the wrong editor: Pinkbeast. I understand this is simply a mistake but since Callanecc appears to be offline, I bring it to your attention so that it can hopefully be resolved. The details are here. Thank you very much. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Iowa hospital entry deleted

Our recent attempt to add an entry for the not-for-profit hospital Skiff Medical Center in Newton, Iowa was deleted. The reason listed was promotion/advertising. However, as you can see on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hospitals_in_Iowa), a great many Iowa hospitals have their own pages. How can a page be created for Skiff in line with these organizations, including Grinnell Regional Medical Center and Mary Greeley Medical Center? 69.66.30.170 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to discuss with me the merits of an article deletion, you're going to have to log in as the account that created the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for unblocking Pinkbeast, and for the way you logged it. —rybec 23:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Rybec, these days it's nice to know that someone likes something I do. Now if I could only figure out how to transform virtual baklava into real baklava, I'd be all set.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ping pong at WP:ANEW

The longest dormancy period by this IP was from 01:23 on the 5th to 00:48 on the 8th, or nearly 48 hours. Are you saying we ought to simply wait for more disruption to occur before taking action? Are you using me as a ping pong ball to be whacked between two players (AN/I, where there already is a discussion and AN/EW)? The reason those on AN/I have been hesitant to conclude the IP's edits are disruptive independent of edit warring is due to the lack of (not naming names) WP:COMPETENCE in editing climate data; if they had at least much competence as I had or were meteorologists, this would have not been protracted, and a push to block such IPs on sight would have already been made. Instead there is this willingness, sickness, in fact, to be complacent with IPs. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I missed this when you first added it, sorry. That said, I'm not sure what it is you want me to do. I can tell you for my part, at least, the fact that the other user is an IP is irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I wanted a block of at least a month or a promise to take action should the IP continue to stir up trouble. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 01:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Maxx Fordham

Please do something as the user is totally out of control now. He is changing comments at user Launchballers talk page. And he has been harassing me all day. Several users have tried to reason with him without any progress. Please take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-Protection removed early

The one-week protection tag you placed on Washington Redskins name controversy was removed about a day early by a bot. Not that it makes a great deal of difference, but I was wondering... By the way, thanks for the help. FriendlyFred (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

FriendlyFred, bots remove templates after protection expires. As far as I can tell, that's all that happened here. I assume the protection expired when it was scheduled to do so (the bot's removal was well after expiration).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep an eye on a user?

I want to know if you could keep your eye on a user that is currently editing Belle Knox. It's BetterThanSuchAsYou. I don't know if they have bad faith or if their edits just happen to come across as such, but it did make me sort of a little leery about what they were putting down. It was a little POINT-y. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll look at it tomorrow. I have to go to bed now. It's the middle of the night, and I'm exhausted.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, as I'm sure you already know BTSAY has been blocked twice for edit warring at Culture of Canada and a related template (brief trip to ANI triggered the second block). It seems obvious to me that they have an agenda. Knox isn't necessarily the target. It's some sort of morality, anti-porn, sex offense position. My guess is they will eventually be disruptive enough to be indefinitely blocked, but time will tell. The user was already on my watchlist (because I blocked them the first time), but, as you know, that doesn't notify me when they make contributions, unfortunately. FWIW, I've put the Belle Knox article on my watchlist, but I kind of doubt the user will continue editing that page beause it's only peripherally connected with their purpose for being here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's what I figured, but I wanted to check in here just to make sure that I wasn't being a helicopter mom over the page. Thanks for keeping it on your watch list! Hopefully they won't do anything else to it, but it's nice to have another set of eyes on the entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bbb23, noting the final BLP warning you issued to this user, I wonder if you review this subsequent edit made by the same user. Were I not involved, I would block this user indefinitely for serial BLP issues, but I am involved so my perspective may be coloured. CIreland (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've sent you an e-mail. I guess I can comment here, but I'd definitely recommend taking a look at their current edits, as they don't seem to be acknowledging any of the warnings given anywhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I was away from Wiki for the last few days. Wonderful how things get taken care of in one's absence. The user was blocked for 72 hours for BLP violations, and I tend to agree with OhNoitsJamie, who declined the user's unblock request, that the user is lucky the block wasn't longer. As I said earlier, I doubt the user is capable of editing constructively, so, barring a major self-reform, an indefinite block later is likely.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

our old friend

[[23]] is our old friend evans. It's readily apparent in how he writes, formats references and history of self promotion. I don't think we need to bloc the IP as it appears to be the only edits but keep an out of for it to return. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, but, either way, I restored the edit (edited by me). It's not much of an article, and his announcement, as reported by a secondary source, should remain.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

His block

I am don't think he should be blocked for only edit warring, but for that and the several personal attacks that I revived on my talk page. AcidSnow (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like you did combine them since it's an "indefinite block". Thank you anyways! AcidSnow (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dude!

For your edit on Supreme Court of the United States. Appreciate it. Teammm ^talk
_email 02:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Request on your injection on The Gurdjieff Journal

You previously redirect this article after it was tagged for CSD about this time last year. The creator of the article has restored the article recently, essentially the same content outside of the addition of several non-free images and a list of issues. As this is essentially the recreation of "deleted" content, if I take your redirect as that, there's no reason this should not be speedily redirected back to William Patrick Patterson (as you did before). However, as to not to step on toes, I wanted to make sure if, as you recall, this was what you had intended last year, and whether you want to be the one to do these steps (I can do it if you can't but feel that's the right step). If it is redirected, that redirect may need to be fully protected to prevent recreation without review. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Masem, the article was originally tagged A7 and A11. I felt it met both criteria but a redirect was more appropriate than a delete. The article isn't the same as it was a year ago, but the added list of issues does nothing to increase the notability claims in the article, and, indeed, the intro to that section is again promotional ("The aim is to unflinchingly explore the many levels of the spiritual in an endeavor to separate the real from the pseudo-real."). Thus, if I were looking at the article again, I'd do the same thing I did based on the same rationale. That said, except in egregious circumstances or obvious editor misconduct, I tend to avoid deleting an article I deleted before. I generally leave it to another administrator to make an independent determination. I'm not sure whether there's policy on that, but it seems a sensible and healthy thing to do. Bottom line: do whatever you think is best.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about your definition of a "revert"

There is a discussion regarding how you define a revert on Wikipedia, and thus how you also define violations of the three-revert rule, currently taking place on Jimbo's talk page. Since the consensus there seems to be that your definitions are too strict, I thought you might be interested in responding to the accusations being leveled there. Jinkinson talk to me 04:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Juan Terranova

Hi! Could you please explain to me how this subject is at all relevant?

Cheers.camr ^nag 17:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What does relevance have to do with WP:CSD#A7? Also, an article can be non-notable and still not subject to speedy deletion. If you think Terranova is not notable, take it to WP:AFD.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks, hounding, tendentious editing

Dan just made this personal attack, which I reverted and he has now restored. Within the last few hours he's confronted my work at no less than four articles, including Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Jimi Hendrix, Axis: Bold as Love, and Electric Ladyland. Will you please help? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that as a personal attack. As for the hounding at other articles, I didn't look at that. You'd have to take it to ANI. Without expressing an opinion one way or the other as to the merits in your case, hounding generally is a tough thing to demonstrate.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that it's tendentious editing to dispute that Sgt. Pepper is a rock and pop album the same day that you dispute that Jimi Hendrix played psychedelic blues-rock? Is this really a good-faith effort to improve articles or to harass me? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've edited those articles before--you don't own them, GabeMc. All I did was point out material that was clearly unsourced--the genre field in infoboxes, you know, the same thing you've been hounding "my work" at articles in the past few days which were actually sourced? ([24], [25], [26], [27], ...and accusing me of bullying) FTR, I've never removed any of the personal attacks you've littered throughout at Talk:Sgt._Pepper's_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band#Edit_warring_by_Dan56. It's kind of lame to try to tattle or gripe about another editor's actions when you've behaved similarly (WP:BOOMERANG). But neither of us have been hounding or making personal attacks, now have we? Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, you're currently the "genre master" at how many pages exactly, 25, 30? If you revert almost every change made to the genre field at that many pages you are going to get reverted yourself once in awhile, especially in light of your low accuracy rating. Within a few hours, you confronted my work at every album article that I regularly edit except one. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleting National youth council of Macedonia

Dear Sir

I am writing because of your recent deleting of the the wiki-page of the National Youth Council of Macedonia. I would like to ask you to revert this action due to the following reasons: The national youth council is not a private organization but a national level platform which represents the voice of organized youth in the country. It has the only legal terms to represent young people and it is important for each country's national youth participation mechanisms. Within Wikipedia there is an opportunity for such structures to be presented so their work will be known to the wider youth community. It also offers a space to ask for accountability from the Youth Councils and the governments and it improves democracies. Similar pages exist on Wikipedia and include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Council_of_Ireland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Council_of_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Council_of_Latvia

It is clear that the deleting of the page about the National Youth Council of Macedonia cannot be justified under "no explanation of significance" as it represents a unique country related structure and has great significance for youth democracy processes worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manevskizstefan (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't restore it, but if you wish, I'll WP:USERFY it for you. Then, you can work on improving it and submit it to WP:AFC where more experienced editors can review it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop Blocking the William Lane Craig Page

This is a page for a professor of philosophy. The page has for too long described him as a "Christian Apologist" in the first sentence. Not only is this redundant with what is said in the second sentence, it is insulting to the man, since it portrays him as someone who seeks to defend an agenda instead of as an academic. His page at Biola gives a more accurate description, and Wikipedia should follow such a description. The employer is the highest authority. Please let biola's description stand. 2601:0:B080:49C:1CD1:157B:712C:19BE (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox television episode

There are some issues with proposed parameters for {{Infobox television episode}}. I've left a message at WT:TV about this but unfortunately the templates used in the TV project draw little interest, even though they often cause us grief. Because of this I'm approaching experienced editors directly, with a view to getting some more input. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Infobox television episode provides an introduction to the issues. Your attention would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you further explain the A10 Speedy Deletion of Goodcents Subs & Pasta's

I was checking to see if a certain fast food chain called Goodcents Subs & Pasta's had a page on Wikipedia. I was bummed out it wasn't but instead was speedied for A10 because it duplicated the topic on Casey's General Store. The problem is that Mr. Goodcents Subs and Pasta's are not related in any way at all to Casey's at all per it's article and the Goodcents History found here at http://www.franchising.com/mrgoodcents/ I am planing on finding more sources for this page to be created. I amwondering what existed on this page before it was deleted so I don't violate the Wikipedia Licenses if I recreate the article. I may need to revert the mentions of Casey's in it as that is not any way related to Mr Goodcents. Please userspace the article if needed. Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 17:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sawblade5, I'm reluctant to WP:USERFY it as there's too much misinformation. Some of the deleted article relates to Casey's and some of it to Goodcents, but the worst part is some of it isn't obvious. My guess is the editor who created it, Popcorn700, used the Casey's page as a template and did a sloppy job. I think you're better off starting from scratch. There's less risk that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Retaliation

You seem to like to attribute malice to me, and I am not sure why. If I incorrectly formatted the list of people who have been notified, thats fine, but it was not done as retaliation for anything. How is my notification on their talk page not a notification? Also note that I did not revert their revert, even though it was in violation of the WP:1RR, instead giving the editor the benefit of the doubt. Brian95620 (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's see. You are new here. You have only a handful edits and all of the article edits are to A Voice for Men. PearlST82 reverts you and you run to the probation page to log a notification. It's hard to accept good faith when confronted with that set of facts. And PearlST82 did not violate WP:1RR, whereas if you had reverted their revert, you would have. You figure out why your post to their talk page was not a legitimate notification. Perhaps you should read policies and instructions more carefully, particularly before jumping into controversial areas of this project.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

So being new is somehow wrong? You might want to rethink that. I reverted vandalism on (22:20, 17 March 2014), PearlST82 reverted that revert at (12:56, 18 March 2014‎), 14 hours and 36 minutes later. This is the policy in place that I believed was violated. If this policy only applies if the same editor has reverted the same material twice within 24 hours, then clarifying the policy to say that would be helpful.

"Another community discussion was initiated and consensus was reached to limit reverting on the article to WP:1RR until October 20, 2013. The discussion and closure can be found here until October 27, 2014. Any editor reverting any material, even if it is completely different material, twice in any 24 hour period (+/-) is subject to being blocked without warning."

Legitimate notification? I used both the provided example(from you), and provided template. While mine may not have come across as polished an expert admins would have, it can hardly be said that the editor did not get notified.

Last time we spoke, you thanked me for remaining civil, and I found that odd. Now I understand it better. Brian95620 (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. You quote the material from the probation page and then you say that PearlST82 violated 1RR. As the material says, he has to revert twice. It has nothing to do with the material reverted. He only reverted once (as you did). Your notification was wrong. Read the probation page. I don't remember thanking you for being civil (sorry), but I never said you were uncivil here, and I don't know why you found it "odd" at the time. Were you not civil?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The quoted material does not say that the same editor must have done the first revert as the second, only that an editor can not revert a material covered by that policy a second time within 24 hours. My intention was not to get this person sanctioned, I preferred to work this out and notify them of the policy, and thats why I left it for them to do themselves. I don't know why the editor felt like I shouldn't have removed vandalism, but another editor has come along and cleaned it up, so the issue is closed.

Sorry, you thanked me for remaining polite, not civil. I was tired and working off my memory of our conversation from December. I always to try remain civil, and disliked the attribution of malice, especially since that was far from my intent. Have a good day. Brian95620 (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

To save Bbb some time I figure I might clarify something for you Brian. First is 1RR, revert rules apply to an editor on an article, not the content of the article. To explain, 1RR means that you as a person can only make one change on this particular article within a 24 hour period. At that point you are at 1 Revert, if someone else who has not edited that article that day undoes your work then they are also at 1 Revert. If you re-instate that material in the same day you have gone to 2 reverts and have broken the rule. Does this make sense? The rule is similar to the general site rule of WP: 3RR with the only change being one revert instead of three. Second Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and accusing someone of vandalism when it does not fit the meaning is considered uncivil. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hostile editor

Hi. GabeMc is being pretty hostile towards me, again, after I posed a pretty simple question at Talk:Are You Experienced, where I wanted to know why he had removed a review quote from one of the article's sections. His response to me included ripping the reviewer's credibility (which, as I showed in a past argument, shouldn't be questioned as far as rock criticism goes), and continuing to accuse me of "POV pushing" (which he did five times in that past discussion, and numerous times before at other articles). He's been blocked not too long ago for making personal attacks, and since I can't effectively communicate with him (without being insulted or accused of something), I was wondering if I could get your thoughts--either an opinion on the question I posed at Talk:Are You Experienced, or what to do in general when I have to deal with this editor in articles I'd like to edit. Dan56 (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan's been harassing me ever since he started several disputes at AYE in January. For his recent disruption at Sgt. Pepper see here. FTR, Dan has started disruptive content disputes at every article I've worked on since January, including Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Jimi Hendrix, Are you Experienced, Axis: Bold as Love, and Electric Ladyland. For other recent content disputes in which Dan is a driving force see: Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I give editors some latitude to thrash out differences on my talk page, but only if it's constructive. I don't see you as interested in resolving your differences. You're just complaining about each other's conduct. I'm not another WP:ANI. So, if you want to complain about the other's conduct, please go to the real ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Catan

Thanks for deleting Republic of Catan (again). FYI, I have opened a SPI on A06jk2 if you could check out when you have time. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:TopazHurricaneHwy101

You might be interested... Peridon (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Heh, it took me a moment to absorb what had happened as my eyes glued to "my" acceptance of the request, and I thought I don't remember doing that. I'm glad he's egalitarian, though. As I'm sure you're aware, he then forged your name. Thanks for the heads up, Peridon.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen such arrogance on this site! The only thing preventing me from putting in a formal ban request is that I don't know how to.--Launchballer 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Such arrogance"? Neither Peridon nor Bbb23 are that arrogant  ;-) DP 22:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about Topaz.--Launchballer 22:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not the first forgery I've seen, but it's the first one where they've done it twice, having both 'unblocks' up at once. He's probably learned now that posting templates and unblocking aren't the same thing. (As a very new admin, I made the same mistake...) Peridon (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about "I'll have to create another sockpuppet" - he need not have any further affiliation with the site!--Launchballer 22:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Meatpuppett?

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

---

So, do you still think that its a personal attack to accuse Staticvapor of meatpuppeting for Dan? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I'm not sure about your interpretations of policy, as nobody seems to agree with you. FWIW, that's the fourth page where Static has "intervened" in Dan's favour in disputes with me this month: Unapologetic, Wikiproject:Albums, Sgt. Pepper, and AYE. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Besides obstructing me and protecting Dan, what interest does Staticvapor show in psychedelic rock albums? Like Dan, they improve jazz and r&b albums articles, but they don't show any history of improving or editing articles in this genre except to support Dan. I'm curious, what's your working definition of meatpuppettry? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

To question Bbb23's interpretation of policy is quite laughable. I have not intervened anywhere. I have had Unapologetic and the Wikiproject page (where I was involved in the dispute first not Dan), was invited to the Sgt Pepper discussion and was led to AYE via another discussion. Just because everyone disagrees with you, does not make them meatpuppets, sad how I have to repeatedly explain that to you. Another thing that goes without saying, I edit hip hop and rock articles, never jazz and hardly r&b, so that is another thing you are wrong about. You make statements without knowing any facts frequently. STATic message me! 00:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• So, you don't see this as following me and Dan to yet another page he's never edited to support Dan? What interest does Staticvapor have in a Hendrix album other than supporting Dan against me? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

◔̯◔ STATicVapor was invited by John, who reached out to his talk page. Dan56 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not an invitation, Dan; that's an edit warring warning. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

◔̯◔, "could you contribute to the ongoing discussion at Talk:Are You Experienced" sounds like an invitation, Gabe. Dan56 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Static reverted in your favour and more than an hour later John warned him about edit warring. IMO John is asking them to discuss versus revert. As I said before, your understanding of policy is confusing. Static showed up to an article that they had never edited before and reverted to your preferred version more than an hour before John asked them to discuss at the talk page, but you somehow interpret that as an invitation to the dispute that they had already entered into an hour earlier. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Supporting the consensus that he is a reliable source for reviews at WT:ALBUMS, not running around supporting Dan56. Stop being paranoid. I love how you ignored everything I said in my post, because all your points were wrong, yet again.. Asking "them", he asked you too as you are the one that started all this. Technically that page needs to be restored before your bold change was made. STATic message me! 01:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The FA version did not include the BC cruft. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

◔̯◔ The link in your "you don't see this" comment was to Static's voice of support at the talk page, which he made after John had invited him. Dan56 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, are you saying that this edit occurred before this edit and this edit? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see, its just the wrong link but you knew what I meant and that's what I'm talking about with you. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not that I don't enjoy all of Dan's pretty icons and the incredible congeniality of this discussion, why don't you all go back to John's talk page where you've had a running "discussion" for a couple of days. John seems to be (a) more patient than I am and (b) more knowledgeable about the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Az-507

Thanks for your block. I've now given him (and 2 other editors) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 sanctions warnings and handed out more blocks. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug, I'm not as used to thinking about WP:ARBAA2 as other arbitration cases. I'm glad you took care of the notifications.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I'd forgotten also but saw a notice on one. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, about things...

Hey, Bbb, about your block of Daveandbusters1345: inserting links to YouTube videos of ceiling fans is apparently a thing trolls do; it's happened quite a few times before (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ghhgjjf/Archive and things like Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_140#Ceiling_fans?). It might be better to just hardblock, rather than softblock, but I just wanted to check with you before doing anything. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, I found out about this user because GB fan is on my watchlist. On the face of it, I thought the argument between the user and GB fan to be patently silly, but I was too lazy to investigate it, whereas a soft username block was easy. If you've determined that a hard block is warranted, go right ahead. Frankly, I find his answers to the standard questions on his talk page to be perfunctory and unconvincing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, after looking at the block settings, it looks like you actually already hardblocked them, so I guess we're good. I'll just leave a note on the talk page for other people considering the unblock request. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain to me why it looks like a hardblock. I read WP:HARDBLOCK and am not sure I understand it as there are so many permutations and, in my view, so little clarity. Just so you know, when I block someone, I generally do not change the default settings of the block form - and I didn't here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, but the default settings are those of a hardblock. A softblock is basically unchecking all the boxes in the blocking form. By default, "Block account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used" are checked; this means that, when you block someone, the software will prevent them from creating another account to evade the block, and will also automatically block any IP addresses that user has used, should they try to edit while logged out to evade the block. A soft block does neither: the idea is that, since the only problem with the account that one would softblock is their username, they should be allowed to simply abandon it and create a new, presumably policy-compliant username without needing to go through the unblock process. That's why the softerblock template talks about creating an account with a new username: the soft block is supposed to allow them to do it. Make sense? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

WK, didn't you tweak those settings for me at one time? Very useful. I always wondered why we blocked for a user name and then, by default, didn't allow them to get a new user name. Amazing, but I actually remembered (correctly) being sideways involved with that ceiling fan nonsense--a miracle at my advanced age. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was just about to explain that; you edit-conflicted with my explanation of it, funnily enough. I wrote a script that will allow one to specify the default block settings for each block type (so that, if you choose {{softerblock}} from the menu, it'll automatically uncheck all the boxes to make it a soft block). It's User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/blockDefaults.js; you can install it in your vector.js in the usual way, of course. Once you do, you'll see a little sentence appear in the block menu that says "To adjust the default settings for the different block types, please go to this page."; That page is where you can set your preferences for each block type. It comes with some more specialized default settings, including automatically changing it to a soft block when one selects {{softerblock}}, but you can customize it any way you like. Lemme know if you need help with it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WK, not really. I used to block promotional usernames with {{Uw-spamublock}}. I was criticized for being too harsh, although my critics could not come up with a time when that template should be used (pet peeve at Wikipedia are templates that people effectively say should never be used). Does usage of that template change the default settings of the block form, or are the settings the same no matter what the basis of the block is? We don't make it easy for administrators, do we? And back to the softerblock. My understanding is it still requires an unblock request and someone who asks the standard questions as to what the user will do at Wikipedia after the account is renamed. So, bottom line, I don't really understand what I'm supposed to do and in what circumstances - and it doesn't help that administrators disagree on these issues. If there's a "correct" way of handling all this, (a) the block form should be tailored based on the kind of block and (b) the correct way should be documented as policy, or at least a guideline. Drmies, I will let you know when you have reached "advanced age". Clue: you're not there yet, so you'll have to find other defenses when you can't remember something.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, my script above will do exactly that tailoring, but no, if you're not using my script, Wikipedia will not change the default settings based on the template used on its own. But no, the softerblock is not supposed to require an unblock request. Look at the wording of the template: 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 and 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 ... all say that an unblock request/standard question/etc. are not required by the subject of a softerblock. That's why it's considered "less harsh" than a spamublock. The difference basically is that softerblocks are for people who are editing more or less reasonably, but their usernames themselves suggest that their account is a role account; e.g. accounts that are evidently tied to a company or position (e.g. "User:Coca-Cola corporate account" or "User:Pepsi sales manager") rather than a specific, actual person. The idea is that their edits by themselves are okay, so they already understand the answers to the standard questions and that Wikipedia isn't for spam: they just need to tie their accounts to themselves, not their company or position, so we don't force them to seek an unblock. If they have a bad username and their edits are spammy, then we give them a spamusername hard block. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, WK, you may not agree with everyone else, but at least your explanation makes some sense. In the future, I'm going to exercise discretion as to which template to use when blocking someone with a promotional username. Sometimes it's obvious to me. Other times, it's not. For example, when an editor uses a company username and creates an article about the company that is A7- and/or G11- eligible, and that's the only thing they do, do you use spamublock? It becomes a little easier when they do other things besides just create the article, i.e., advertise the company on their own user page, add entries to other articles, recreate the article after it's been deleted, etc. Anyway, I'll ponder this a bit more and decide which template to use when. At the same time, I will take advantage of your script, and if I need help with it (likely), I'll let you know. You're a good fellow to take the trouble to continue explaining things until it finally penetrates this literal thick head. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically, the rule of thumb I use is this. I ask myself, "if this person didn't have a bad username, would I still have an issue with their edits, from a promotional perspective?" If yes, then hardblock (spamublock). If no, then softblock. So, in your example, if they've made an article that's G11-eligible, then hardblock, because that's a spam problem regardless of whether their username is a problem or not. Most likely a hardblock if it's A7, too, although it would depend; if they made an honest effort to be neutral with the article, but they're just not notable yet, I might consider a softblock (though I might still hardblock in the end; depends on the case). If they're just making factual corrections to their company's article or something like that (e.g. changing 2010 figures in their infobox to 2013 ones, with a source), then I'd softblock them, since they're not showing any sign that they don't already know the answers to the standard questions. I don't know how good a fellow I am; I just kinda do stuff and try to be helpful. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much the only time I block users for their username is when I'm evaluating articles at CSD. Therefore, it sounds like what I used to do was what you would have done.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

((Fans are back! See Tory Ailes 243 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

My, my, a wiki thicket. I'm just waiting to hear from WK for his view on tagging them and what to do about the disconnected SPIs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Xmas card

Fiddle Faddleis wishing you a Merry Christmas (quite possibly a White Christmas.

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim! (talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday wishes!

Bbb23, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays! I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Wikipedia together! Keep rocking on! :) Salvidrim!, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim! (talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Shaku india

You made comments on my editing of Mughal-e-Azam. Pl note that all my editing have been done after talking to the authority on the matter. I have discussed the topic of Mughal-e-Azam with the original producer also the producer of the colour version i.e. Sterling Investment Corporation Pvt Ltd. (Shapoorji Pallonji group)

Therefore, I would appreciate if do not make derogatory remarks about my comments. And if you still do not believe me, let us jointly send a mail to Sterling Investment and ask them the facts and correct the same. User:Shaku india talk 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Who (song)

Leave the article for this page alone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadji87 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Collapsible Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth

Ok. Following the discussion, could you also revert the contribution of User:Der Statistiker on Template:Collapsible Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth and block this page. The official name of the region is Ile-de-France and nothing else (cf INSEE document). Administrator Callanecc already block the other page with "Ile-de-France". Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radarm (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Attack accounts

(original title was: User:Writ Keeper sucks‎)

Considering that these are clear attack accounts, should we really be tagging these socks? --Rschen7754 08:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the tags. Just please explain why the fact they're attack pages changes the equation. It's not readily apparent to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, these pages now come up in search results whenever someone searches for those users... and the fact that those account names were globally locked and oversighted is important too. Creating those userpages defeats the purpose of the oversighting, no? --Rschen7754 09:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So, you're saying that not only should the tag be removed, but the page should be redeleted and that will prevent the page from being discovered in a search? I understand that, but it's not clear to me what was oversighted, and I have trouble seeing the global lock and how that is relevant. Sorry to be dense.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's quite a stretch to justify a "BLP" deletion concerning a non-notable Wikipedia editor. If User:Doc9871 is a homo were to surface, I would not think BLP would apply. Doc talk 09:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I never said it was a BLP deletion. --Rschen7754 09:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A little bit you are, with G10. Deleting a sock account page (denying tracking of it as well) based on it being an "attack page" because a user's name was disparaged? I do not agree with this. Doc talk 09:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

From the summary: "(G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)" Note that it says or not and. --Rschen7754 09:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

An attack page it still isn't. Preserving records of sock accounts for others to analyze is not something that should be hindered like this. It's evidence not just for admins to analyze: and admins come and go anyway. I do not think this is an attack page by definition. Doc talk 09:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's unpack your statements a little bit. What you are saying is that 1) we must tag all sockpuppets, no matter what, 2) the usefulness of all these sock tags for tracking down all these sockpuppets is more important than treating our contributors with dignity (which by the way, speaking as someone who is a SPI clerk and steward, it generally is not very helpful), and 3) this gives free reign for sockmasters to create the most vile and disturbing names, or names that leak personal information, and then we must tag the accounts, explicitly failing WP:DENY and WP:HARASS, and possibly our wmf:Privacy policy. I'm sorry, but that is not a Wikimedia that I want to contribute to, or that anyone wants to contribute to. --Rschen7754 09:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say any of what you just said. You might have inferred it from something I said, but I said nothing of the sort. Doc talk 05:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Per the m:oversight policy, stewards can lock+hide attack usernames, or local oversighters can block+hide attack usernames, out of courtesy for the people being attacked. This is for the same reasons that we revdel edit summaries where users are attacked. This means that the account names disappear completely from all public lists. But when you create a userpage with the attack name, that kind of defeats the purpose of that courtesy hiding, don't you think? Furthermore, when we reach a certain number of socks, we don't always tag them, or even list them on the SPI page, per WP:DENY. Tagging is not mandatory and never has been, and should not be done in cases where tagging would be an obvious negative, such as when the username is an obvious attack. (And yes, I can verify with my steward hat on that those account names were hidden globally, and it's not a leak of private info since those names were obviously recorded somewhere else). --Rschen7754 09:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to spell that out. I totally agree, and supporting contributors is very important for the health of the project. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Rschen7754, I'm not sure I understand all the technicalities, but I understand the concept better. I can see you deleted the user pages, so there's nothing left to do. I'll note this for the future when I'm clerking a report or even blocking on my own. Thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Mattersight Corporation

Since you show up in the deletion log: I noticed some six hours ago a new user trying to AfD and at the same time speedy tag Mattersight Corporation. I reverted and left them a polite message asking, if I could be of any help. No answer. Now a new user pops up and smacks a G11 on it, and a {{Spam-warn}} on the talk page. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 01:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting conundrum. I removed the speedy tag. Bbb can, if he likes, block the two SPAs--I already met my quotum for this month. Bbb, I'll leave the decision to possibly protect the article to you as well; an argument can be made for it. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Hello, I would like to discuss as the person who flagged the article. I noticed that several references are links to material—such as news releases, an annual report, several articles—written by executives who represent the company. Several references are duplicates, one is a broken link. I ask that the sources be reviewed, because I believe as they now stand, are not of the correct quality to establish notability. There has also been debate on Wikipedia about whether publicly traded corporations are inherently notable, and the consensus has been that public status does not mean automatic notability. Thank you, Delade 22:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • And you are? And your relation to KentalTX is? Drmies (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I tried to log into my other account and had trouble resetting the password so created a new one. I apologize for the confusion. If I've done something against Wikipedia protocol I truly apologize and would appreciate any help you can offer redirecting this discussion. No need to take any big, serious Wikipedia action.. just seeking discussion and some clarification. Thank you,Delade 10:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, I'll watch the article and both users. At this point I don't see any immediate need to take administrative action. The two accounts (socks or meat) have apparently withdrawn. If that changes ... --Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the help with SweetBabyGirl06! --GentlemanGhost (converse) 21:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

JJCC Deletion

Hi! I am the one who created the article JJCC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JJCC). Although it is already deleted, I still want to request for you to un-delete it. I already added an explanation on the talk page before it was deleted but I will explain it again. I believe that JJCC is significant enough to have a wiki page. JJCC is a Korean boy band who debuted in March 20. Although they are relatively new, they were already mentioned in major Korean media sites, and even in the USA (the New York Post). They became known because of Jackie Chan, producer and manager of the group. He is responsible for forming their group and they are under his company. They already performed live in a major music show in Korea and they will release a yet-to-be revealed album in March 24. Besides music, two of the members had been guests of two different variety shows. All of these are included in JJCC wiki page. Here is one link to confirm my statement: http://nypost.com/2014/03/11/jackie-chans-k-pop-boy-band-to-release-debut-album/ . I hope you will re-try to think of whether your decision to delete it is the right thing (although I am not saying that you're wrong). Thank you!

PS: I'm not sure if approaching you in your talk page is the right thing to do, but if not, I'm sorry.001Jrm (talk)

Hi, Jrm, coming to my talk page is great, not to worry. Frankly, I think the NY Post article is more about Jackie Chan than it is about JJCC, but ... I won't restore the article. However, if you wish, I'll WP:USERFY it. Perhaps you can find more about the band that will help the article be kept, at least past the speedy delete stage. When you're ready, you can submit it to WP:AFC so other editors can give you feedback about whether it's ready to go live. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It's probably my wrong choice of link that made you decline. haha. Anyways, thank you for reviewing the article and I accept your decision. I would also want to ask you to WP:USERFY it. I'll just re-edit the article and add more about them. Thank you for guiding me! I appreciate it a lot! :) 001Jrm (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. It's at User:001Jrm/JJCC.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again! Have a great day!001Jrm (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by Til Eulenspiegel

He after making 5 reverts,(or 9, including his IP) i.e. removing content with reliable sources[28] and adding his own original research, Til Eulenspiegel claims that he hasn't even seen any sources.[29]

This is also up on edit warring noticeboard. Please check. 111.125.201.50 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't need to bring this to me. An administrator will evaluate the report filed at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The SPI

I just want to register my disapproval over the outcome of the Atlatictire issue. A confirmed multiple sockpuppeteer, who, after being blocked twice for personal attacks against a user, posted additional attacks on his talkpage, and then created attack socks to evade his block and continue spouting profanity against the user he was blocked for attacking (e.g. "sociopathic fuck"). He was blocked for 10 days. Really? -- Director (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

He wasn't very nice to me, either, on his talk page. The standard block for a sockpuppeteer is two weeks. It's true sometimes they are indeffed right away, but that's usually when the account has been shown to be eligible for an indefinite block aside from the sock puppetry. I understand your dismay because it was personal with you, but I'm uncomfortable changing the block unless he creates new puppets, in which case, as NativeForeigner stated, the account will almost certainly be indefinitely blocked. I know if it's my decision, I will do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for your reply. -- Director (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)