User talk:Bbb23/Archive 5

post

I was gonna post a comment but its a waste - uses have different ideas and that is the way the wiki works - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Radcliffe

Okay, you and I seem to have a respectful disagreement about what is notable and what isn't, but I can't seem to let it go. Anyway, I waslooking at the section on the page for Daniel Radcliffe, and I wonder if it might seem more suitable to you if a mention about his interest in religion was included a couple paragraphs down along with things about other things he seems to be interested in, rather than where I had placed it before? Packerfansam (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Packer, I would still be opposed to it because it's just too generic. If he talked about some concrete involvement in religion, that would be more noteworthy. However, if you still want to add it, I suggest you raise the issue on Radcliffe's Talk page and see what other editors think.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Chace Crawford

Hi. You wrote my edit wasn't sufficiently noteworthy and it may be the case but then I'm asking, is his love life really more noteworthy? Is this encyclopedic? I wrote an edit about him sharing an apartment with Ed Westwick because I thought this info was on the same level as his love life. I wonder according to what can someone say "this is notable" and this isn't. - Sofffie7 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Who an actor is dating is more noteworthy than who he or she is roommating with.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hospital

Hiya! I suspect people who work there wrote the promo bit, or someone copy-pasted. As for what you removed (I was about ready to CSD as an attack page), the point I was trying to make was like any other article, it should have content about the main subject... with what Jesanj added as something in the Controversies section (properly balanced with the rest of the article). It is relevant (I've read the reports/news items). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the articles, too, and if the material were to be reinserted, it would have to be cut down and limited to the hospital. For example, the hotspital CEO's resignation, and the comment about the doctor being hired at 3x the normal salary. Those are the only two bits that relate to the hospital. As it is, almost anything that would be added would be disproportionate to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

But of course! :-) That's part of the whole "balanced" part I mentioned above. The relevant sections given proper weight, balanced with all other information, stats, claims, issues, praise, etc, etc. Though, there is also a bit about the hospital not reviewing any of this until after the fact, which is relevant. But, yes, I know all of that. :-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I created Mark Midei. Jesanj (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Do you really think he's sufficiently notable to justify an article?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not experienced with deletion discussions but I looked him up in google scholar and he had several papers with 100+ hits so he seemed to be making progress to Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) on its own. But after all the other coverage I figured that put him over the top. Jesanj (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure Academics is the right category. In any event, I have to think about it when I'm not so tired. If I decide to nominate it for deletion, please don't take it personally because it has nothing to do with that. Besides, it would give you an opportunity to become more familiar with AfD discussions. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the guy, it looks like he's a posterboy for overstenting. It seems Senators wanted to make an example out of him to help the U.S. system save some money on health care. No worries, I won't take it personally if you propose deletion. But if you do, just go a little easier on me over at Federal government of the United States. ;-) Jesanj (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you're lucky I'm leaving in the See also in the hospital article, at least for the moment. I'm kind of on the fence about it as it seems like a subtle coatrack to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not

That's the third time in a day that I've left out "not" in a post or email. Thanks for spotting it. I'm going to have to be more careful.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I know from personal experience how easy it is to make mistakes like that. I actually find some small comfort when others do it because it makes me feel less silly when I do it myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox law school

Bbb, you've commented here before: Template talk:Infobox law school. Care to look at two questions/issues I've raised?--S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--S. Rich (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

my guess

It's just a guess, and not worth discussing on the talk page since there's no sources supporting this, but I'm guessing that Goodchild is leveraging the friendship to gain some press attention for herself, and that the story started with the one walesonline article and has spread from there (much the same way as the idea that WP was being used to suppress the information about him being gay, which is just plain silly if you look at the article history). It's gotten way more difficult to do searches about this since the controversy teapot tempest about whether Evans is trying to hide his past has entered the blog sphere. For what little, if any, it's worth, --Nuujinn (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. The entertainment industry is often more focused on image than on truth. I'm kind of tired of the discussions, although occasionally they are mildly amusing. It is amazing how strongly editors feel about this stuff. Honestly, I don't care that much about how it all comes out. I just wish the these sorts of categories and BLPCAT itself would all disappear.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Judges

You must leave the "United States" or it becomes unclear which court it is referring to. As a legal scholar I know that most people with knowledge of the Court system get upset when they don't see the specified court. So please stop changing the format of the courts by removing the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raprchju (talk • contribs)

You must get consensus for these kinds of changes. There is nothing that is unclear. It is just your view. You are making mass changes to all of the justice articles. You must stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As a legal scholar, I can tell you that it is unclear whether it is the state of federal court that is being referred to, hence you MUST keep the United States. Where is the consensus that decided to allow you to make the large amounts of changes that you have made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raprchju (talk • contribs)

I didn't make any changes. You made changes to long-standing material. I just reverted them, but you stubbornly put them back the way you think they should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Raprchju, at this point, I would suggest you read up on Bold, Revert, Discuss. After Bbb23's revert, it's time to discuss - not time to re-add in the content that's being disputed. Hope you take my suggestion to heart. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Robert, but I think it's too late. It's no big deal, really, putting in the United States part - it's just an unnecessary mouthful. I objected as much to the way Raprchju went about this as to the substance of the changes. Many people watch these articles, and if no one else is bothered by the changes, they can stay in. I thought of raising the issue on one of the Talk pages or at the law project, but it's probably not worth it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Content notability

In another talk page you said "However, all information that goes into an article has to be sufficiently relevant to the article subject and her notability to justify inclusion". Could you please reference a Wikipedia article that mentions something along these lines? Thanks! - 69.143.17.59 (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty self-explanatory. 71.183.68.120 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

69, that's an excellent question and a difficult one to answer. Unfortunately (in my view), whether content should be included in an article (assuming no issues of reliability and verifiability) is largely defined by what should not be included rather than what should be included. See WP:NOT. This essay on relevance helps a bit: "An article that is dense with information only tenuously connected to its subject does little to inform readers about that subject." AND "It is important that the focus of an article remains on its main subject and that information is placed in the appropriate article." However, even the guideline on what Wikipedia is not is inferentially useful. For example, where one draws the line on what is trivial is often a matter of editorial judgment. I would maintain that the Learning Annex material in the Adams article is trivial with respect to her; others could, of course, disagree. In the end, although I'm not sure that 71's point that it's "self-explanatory" is helpful, to some extent the notion that information must be relevant is a matter of common sense. Surely, you wouldn't want to include information that's completely irrelevant to the subject of an article? After that, it's mostly a function of line drawing.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Reeves

Thanks for debunking the complaints of User:Suadehead86 on the BLP noticeboard regarding the Rachel Reeves article, I really appreciate it and it's s shame other editors aren't as neutral as yourself. There have been problems with an IP previously adding puffery to the article and to other related pages though I reverted most of it and explained why it's inappropriate, hopefully they'll get the message. Thanks once again.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do much, but you're welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If it seems like I'm stalking you, I am

But not in a creepy way. I like your editing style so I'm watching what you do to learn. Sometimes I might comment on what you are commenting on. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Adams again

I noticed you undid a revision to the Adams section in the Playmate 1992 article recently. I suspect this is Goddessy again but I have no proof. There was a ban proposal for that user, but it is no longer on the ANI page. Any idea as to what happened to it? Thanks. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If you mean User:GODDESSY, that user was blocked indefinitely for a violation of username policy (the user was Adams apparently) way back in 2008. Do you mean the IP? As an aside, I noticed your request for protection at ANI. Although, you might get a positive response, the usual place to make such a request is WP:RPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes that user and the original sock User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day. There was a ban proposal for both of these users. It got archived with no action. I have no idea why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive717#Ban_proposal_for_User:GODDESSY_.2F_User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It was archived automatically due to inactivity here. The time frame is 24 hours, and I'm not sure if the bot did it properly because I have a mixture of local and universal time on my pages. You could check it out if you wish. Or reraise it on ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Giving up

Just to let you know that you have driven another person away from helping build Wikipedia. Most of your edits on my piece are totally subjective. You know nothing about the subject I wrote about. You know nothing about the information someone interested in the subject would want to know. Yet you inflict your opinion of right and wrong and your style on a piece. It's like a bully in the school yard. I don't need the grief. Nosmoking7 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Stefano Pelinga article/photos

In reference to the article on Stefano Pelinga, I believe I have noted in the article enough information and achievements that the article is more than marginally notable. We can compare my article to other articles written on pool/trick shot champions, you will see that Stefano Pelinga's achievements have either met or surpassed those of his colleagues.

I also mention several reliable sources such as major publications in the pool and billiards sport. They are easy to be found/verified; you can see these articles yourself by visiting Mr. Pelinga's website directly (http://www.stefanopelinga.com). Also, you can contact those publications directly to verify the information, in addition to Stefano Pelinga's undeniable notoriety in such sport.

It is extremely easy to verify that all of the content in my article on Mr. Pelinga is truthful, the mentioned sources reliable and Mr. Pelinga's sports accomplishments undeniable.

As I believe that you are in good faith, I would very much like to resolve this quickly and have my article reinstated in Wikipedia as Mr. Pelinga has every right to be listed, as he is one of the most popular pool champions in the world. Should you wish to contact Mr. Pelinga directly, simply visit his website, and send him an email, or go on Facebook. He is very good about replying to everyone.

Thanks, Distefwiki (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The article has not been deleted. It has been nominated for deletion. If you want to argue against its deletion, you should do so on the discussion page. By the way, it is not your article. See WP:OWN.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Liza Dalby

Hi, could you please give me your further thoughts on the article talk page? I would like to wrap this discussion up soon. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

John, two things. For the moment, I don't have much more to say. I know you'd like me to respond to all your questions, but, that doesn't mean I have to. Second, I don't have the energy or interest to engage in the debate right now. I see some other editors have contributed to the discussion, so hopefully a consensus can be reached.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Leonel Fernandez

Please explain what are the "BLP issues" on the new section. It's aptly sourced, and useful; two editors agree on this. The biography must contain everything, not just selected portions. Notice that the Corruption issue is not addressed at all. You could start reading WP policies before deleting proper information. --Artery Stenosis (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep this on the Fernandez Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What's Your Number?

Why did you remove the release date for What's Your Number? from the infobox? The policy for release dates for films says nothing about exempting future release dates. BOVINEBOY2008 02:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you contribute on this topic at the film project? So far, it looks like it's going your way anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize there was a conversation already started there when I posted this. I'll respond there. (And I don't really want to set up "sides", I'd rather just work up some sort of consensus or agreement either way) BOVINEBOY2008 04:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, you've been very civil and cooperative. I know it's not sides, but we do have differing points of view, and so far your view seems to be prevailing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That '70s Show

The "|last_aired=" field in That '70s Show infobox, The series overview table and the 200th episode entry at List of That '70s Show episodes, the 200the episode article and the 200th episode entry at List of That '70s Show episodes (season 8) all say May 18, 2006, not May 11, 2006. IMDB is not a reliable source for episode information. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's me, not IMDb, that's not reliable. Just left a message on your Talk page. Our messages crossed each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Eric Stoltz

• I am yet to figure out why sortable wikitables are necessary for an article, and want to understand. Thanks. AnonymousAnimus (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sortable tables are preferred (I wouldn't use the term "necessary"). See WP:FILMOGRAPHY. I generally don't interfere if someone creates a new table that is not sortable, but it's not a good idea to change an existing sortable table to an unsorted table. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fillion on The Guild

For what it's worth, here's the link to the episode of The Guild Nathan Fillion did: http://www.watchtheguild.com/. He's in Ep. 6. Even a quick Google search would have yielded dozens of hits -- it's been very well publicized he was appearing on it, since it's the baby of Felicia Day, another member of The Cult of Whedon (as I call it) he's worked with before. The title is "Revolving Doors", which I've added to the article. Drmargi (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the the guild link myself after you reverted. All I saw about Fillion were comments by readers. My general approach to tables is that the source has to be cited or implied by something easy (like a link to our article about the movie or the series). I didn't see either in this case, so I removed it. I still think my approach is sensible and that it shouldn't be up to me to find sources on the web any more than I should have to do that for any assertion. I'll even leave it in if IMDb says so, even though we're not supposed to rely on IMDb. On this instance, as my edit summary implied, I did it as a courtesy to you, not because I really think it should be that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't want to interrupt

But I am in a state where I can't seem to comprehend the stages one has to make to upload a picture derived from another copyright holder. I wonder, can you simplify them for me? I am creating a biographical article, and really want to get this right the first time. Thanks! AnonymousAnimus (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Uploading images? The phrase "derived from another copyright holder" is a bit troubling. The image you upload has to be clearly licensed pursuant to Wikipedia policies.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was with the permission of the author. I want to do everything by the book, and don't want to make any mistakes. Thanks for the help. I appreciate it. AnonymousAnimus (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Forensic Examiner blacklisted

Is the problem with The Forensic Examiner (not a reliable source), or just with the website itself? Because I found the same source elsewhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Originally, the cite in the article was screwed up. The URL to the website was incomplete. When I completed it and tried to save the change, I got the message about the black list. I don't know any more than that, actually. My assumption is you could replace it with a different website if you wanted to.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I'll do that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Barney Glaser

The newspaper article may say "owned", but Glaser actually founded Cascade Acceptance Corporation and served as the President. I am an note holder that Mr. Glaser has defrauded, along with well over one hundred others. I request that you change the word "owned" to "founded and managed", which more correctly reflects that Cascade was a $100 million dollar fund, and not some corner grocery store that Glaser owned. Ricste (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Given your experience, you shouldn't be editing the article. See WP:COI. In any event, Wikipedia can't go by your word - find a reliable source, and I'll put it in.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

By this logic, no Jew should be writing about the Holocaust. No one who lost their home through bankruptcy should be allowed to write about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or mortgage brokers. No African American should be allowed to write about civil rights, nor any woman to write about abortion, birth control, or women's rights. But I understand that, when living persons in Western nations are covered, Wikipedia's primary interest is doing nothing whatsoever that might, in any way, upset that person. SO, I will go away and leave this page alone. It's clear that anyone who wants any facts about Barney Glaser's post-academic conduct will have to look elsewhere. Ricste (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Bbb23! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what I did to deserve it, but thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Stana_Katic image discussion

Could you please revisit this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Swedes Article

Hey, can you please help me out? I am just trying to keep the article factual. Maunus now completely took out the "related ethnic groups" section simply because he can't include the Finns, who are a Uralic peoples and ethnically unrelated to the Swedes, who are a Germanic peoples. Please revert his edit. If you were to just do a 5 minute search online, you will know that I am right in this issue. I am just trying to keep the article factual. Please help me out. TheGoodSon 20:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not really a "section" - it's a field in the infobox. I encourage you to continue your discussion on the Talk page until you feel you've reached an impasse, at which point you can try one of the suggestions I made at ANI. I don't feel comfortable contributing to the discussion at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

Before you revert the changes I made in the article about Vito Roberto Palazzolo please read the explanation first... ;-). As you can see there is now a mediation ongoing. Since you have showed concern in the past, you might be interested in following the process. Take care. - DonCalo (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I did notice your changes but hadn't had a chance to review them yet. When I get around to doing so, I'll keep the mediation in mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Help desk question

I've answered your question at the help desk. I hope that it works for you now. --Slon02 (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It does and thanks very much for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Glen Campbell

Hi, saw your revert on the Glen Campbell bio page. Could you expand a little on your objections? I can provide a number of sources for Church of Christ in Arkansas, Baptist Church in Arizona and Messanic Judism in Arizona/California. I just didn't want to use too much references. Lumdeloo (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realize you had cited new sources and was too hasty. I've restored your version. You may get some flak on some of the issues, but I don't see anything obviously wrong with the material. As a nit-picky aside, though, you should put refs outside the punctuation marks, not inside. Thanks for being nice about my mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I will put the refs outside the punctation marks. Thanks.Lumdeloo (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My mess

Thanks for reverting my accidental rollback. I had no idea I had made that edit. See here. (I'm glad no one took it seriously and waited for my-then-offline-self to notice and correct it, like what I read in another thread nearby or something :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much figured it was an accident as it made no sense. My reversion edit summary about no explanation and no basis was not meant as a dig at you, but just so someone could hopefully understand what I was doing. Maunus was very nice about it on your Talk page. I thought about posting something for you there as well, but decided it was all just an unfortunate blip. Maybe it would've been better to alert you. Anyway, no harm was done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And now we actually have a confirmation that user Kolokol1 is being paid to whiten Berezovsky's reputation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Foundation_for_Civil_Liberties

as you can see from description, this is a firm funded by Berezovski.

In the link on the bottom of this page you can see, that Kolokol is their "Foundation's news project"

Doesn't it have clear resemblance to Kolokol1's nickname??? Of course it can be a mere coincidence, but it's up to you all to judgeDeepdish7 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Copied from userpage.--v/r - TP 15:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

TP, I was just about to do this when you did it for me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What are talk page stalkers for?--v/r - TP 15:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Deepdish, the website is in Russian. I'm not going to translate all the pages to figure out what it's all about. You are making significant accusations against the editor and against Berezovksy. My Talk page is not the place to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop editing Jeff Frederick page until mediation complete, or provide specific objection on each omission or deletion of content on that page

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_September_2011/Jeff_Frederick Vabio1 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edit warring is going to probably result in a block. The fact that you took the article to mediation doesn't change the rules of editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Troy Davis case

Thank you for taking charge of the Troy Davis article. This is going to be a difficult week in the article. Thanks for being aggressive with those who want to edit it for ideological reasons. Your being in charge is most welcom, but please consider locking the article if things get out of hand. A week from now, this article will be completely forgotten. Kind of like a medium hurricane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.135.139 (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the power to lock an article. I'm not swure about "taking charge", but I am watching the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I came here to thank you for fixing my citations. I knew my formatting wasn't the best, but wasn't sure how to fix it. By the way I'm not a noob to this case; my family and I have been blogging about this for four years http://www.loveshade.org/blog-mt/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=troy+anthony+davis. Alden Loveshade (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please be mindful about conflicts in editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas

I reverted the latest - see the talk page - and warned the IP about 3RR. You were wise to step back and go to Talk - let's hope the IP understands the way things work. Although the latest version was better than the earlier, it's still not appropriate the way it is - too much extraneous explanatory detail, and too long a quote. Let him find a secondary source analyzing this, which might be more appropriate here. Tvoz/talk 19:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Given the IP's post to the Vargas Talk page, which I have not yet responded to, I don't think it's likely the IP understands how Wikipedia works or is even interested. Seems clear from the article and Talk page posts that the IP has an agenda about employment and immigration.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Adriana Ferreyr

Could you please tell me what is poorly referenced by quoting the persons own submission to a supreme court? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William de Berg (talk • contribs) 17:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:BLPN makes it abundantly clear what is wrong with the material you want to add and the sources you are using. In particular, read WP:BLPPRIMARY.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And when I used a verified secondary source ie Reuter's News Agency it was allowed to be deleted. Get a grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William de Berg (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The assertion you put in was not supported by the Reuters source. It's also not material that belongs in the article at this point anyway. It's premature.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

So could you tell me why the text is allowed to say that her ex-boyfriend is Mr G Soros, but I am not allowed to say that she is suing him for 50 million USD?--William de Berg (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong objection to mentioning the lawsuit itself, although it would have to be carefully worded and couldn't include things like the police investigation. It would have to be restricted to just she filed a lawsuit, when, and what the basis of her lawsuit is. A battle between the lawyers as to the facts is not appropriate, and it could only cite secondary sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sir / madam The Ferreyr page has recently been flagged to be rescued by user Northamerica1000. He/she (though I'm leaning towards the masculine) has done so, but made no comments whatsoever. Is this normal? Faithfully --William de Berg (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

William, I've posted a response to your question on Northamerica's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Error

That's fine, I'll do it in a second. Besides, everyone makes mistakes, even someone with the highest IQ known in the land.--The Master of Mayhem ROAD AHEAD CLOSED 19:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Done it, so I will stalk random Robot Wars Wiki pages :D.--The Master of Mayhem ROAD AHEAD CLOSED 19:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffalo City FC

Following further representations I have relisted this debate. Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Curiosity, though, compels me to ask. Did you relist because a second person asked, or did you relist because of the second person's reason?

One more question. In your view, would it be kosher to add to my nom the silly phrase (my opinion) "doesn't meet WP:GNG" to avoid further complaints? Or would it be okay to say that in a comment in the relisted discussion? I just don't want what some perceive as a technical flaw with my nom to be distracting.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably a combination of both. I believe that anyone, admin or non-admin, who closes an AfD should be responsive to the Community's reaction and when you get two polite, reasoned requests then that is persuasive!

I would add a non-bulleted but newly signed comment below your nom along the lines of "For clarification, perhaps I should add that the article also fails to meet WP:GNG." That way it doesn't compromise those editors who commented on the basis of your original nom. HTH. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I added something like what you proposed (my own wording) to the discussion page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Buffalo City FC AFD

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buffalo_City_FC

Just to make clear, my response to Ravenswing was not a normative judgment about your nomination. Rather, I'm disagreeing with his opinion that a mal-argued AFD even could be a basis for speedy closing it. causa sui (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but I sense from subsequent points made by others that my to-the-point style nomination is, uh, perhaps not customary, and that although I think it's obvious, I should also say something along the lines of "fails to meet WP:GNG". I was frankly surprised at the reactions on this point, but hey.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN

I think someone should report Deepdish7 to this arbitration. Off2riorob (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm now lost. When it comes to arbitration forums, I'm out of my depth as I haven't educated myself as to how that works here. I also see that another editor has suggested WP:AE at ANI. Enforcement of what exactly? He says WP:DIGWUREN, just as you do, bu I don't see the connection. I just wish an admin would take a hand in disposing of the ANI topic, one way or another. I'm not sure whether their recent silence is a function of disinterest, waiting to see if there are any more developments, not feeling any pressure because Deepdish is currently blocked, or some other reason. I think it's shortsighted to believe this is all going to get better if we take care of Deepdish. The underlying problems go deeper than one editor with control problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A decent article neutrally stating both sides of the story is the ultimate solution. First is to apply to have him placed on notice ...

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

Or having requested assistance we can remove the article from our watchlists and wait for the rope trick to do its business. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• - User_talk:Deepdish7#Blocked_indefinitely - update. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Rob, when I saw that the ANI topic had been archived, I posted a message at User:Lifebaka's Talk page because no one had taken any action. Lifebaka then unarchived it and blocked Deepdish.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

UCLA LAW

Greetings. You have removed a line of text from the UCLA School of Law article. Your reason for removal is that the statement contains hyperbole. Opinions, when held by a significant number of people, are valid components of an objective encyclopedia article. Moreover, the opinion contained in the (removed) statement is directly cited to the U.S. News World Report source. This is, unfortunately, the only authority cited consistently within the legal community (and outside it) in support of "law school rankings", which rely largely on "reputation" scores assigned to the schools by lawyers, judges, and academics within the legal profession. Please see: USC Gould School of Law's article for a nearly identical statement. If you have an issue with this analysis, or, if you feel that you are warranted in removing my edit, I look forward to working with you on reaching an intelligent and rational resolution to the disagreement. Refusal to discuss your edit with me will result in my taking it up directly with Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapost2012 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Take it up with Wikipedia? Oh dear.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Aapost, USC does indeed have similar hyperbole (added last month by an IP). Thanks for the heads up. I've removed it from that article, too. Wouldn't want to treat the two schools differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Quote

Actually I did need the cite as a direct quote should always be cited at the end of the sentence it appears in. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but it's not as problematic an omission as no cite at all, and although I agree with you (I'm generally in favor of repeating cites after each sentence even if it's not a quote unless the material is wholly uncontroversial), I just found it amusing that there was already the same cite in place after the subsequent sentence. Your diligence on this issue does you credit.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. After all this time of working in certain areas of the project, it's automatic. And the article does you guys credit, it just needs some tweaking.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR

I know you're acting in good faith with the Troy Davis case article, but I must note that you have made over 11 reverts in less than 2 hours, many of them on essentially the same content, and none of these reverts are exempt under the 3RR. I obviously am not going to report you, but it's something you ought to keep in mind. JimSukwutput 00:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Please note that you have broken 3RR on Boris Berezovsky. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ga - reviewing

Have you considered helping in this area WP:GA - there is currently a big backlog - we could work together , I am looking for a joint reviewer to work with ? Wikipedia:Good article nominations - 23:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Somehow your name got lopped off the signature block, Rob. I'm struggling with your request because on the one hand I'd love to work with you, and it would expose me to an area of Wikipedia I know little about. On the other hand, it's late in the day, my eyes are burning from staring at the monitor all day, I'm exhausted from Wikipedia (what with the Troy Davis case article yesterday and now the Berezovsky mess), and the thought of doing any additional work makes me want to assume the fetal position. How about if I ponder it a bit when I'm less tired? Any idea of how much work would be involved? I generally take my responsibilities and commitments very seriously, so I would be reluctant to say yes and then find it's too much for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We can move our main energy to this area for a couple of months, let the other areas drop off a little. It is a low stress/minimal fetal position area- Tomorrow we can discuss, together its easy work. Give it a try, two a week, ponder as much as you like..... its more of an enjoyment than a responsibility/commitment. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Rob, I've glanced at WP:RGA to see how the process works. I don't see anything about joint reviewing. Is it common? How would it work?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in reviewing policy and guidelines against it, we could just take the assessments and share them - you could do , prose and Mos compliance and neutrality, and I could do factually accurate and verifiable and stability and images and we just update as and when whoever is available. It was just an idea to get some experience in a new area of contributing, after a few we might feel confident to do them alone. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A. Prose quality:Pass/Fail

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:Pass/Fail

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources:Pass/Fail

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:Pass/Fail

C. No original research:Pass/Fail

Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects:Pass/Fail

B. Focused:Pass/Fail

Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias:Pass/Fail

Is it stable?

No edit wars, etc:Pass/Fail

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:Pass/Fail

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Pass/Fail

Overall:Pass or Fail: On Hold

Hmm, I don't have a problem trying it, but when we issue the actual review, how would we show that it's from both of us? I'd feel uncomfortable not disclosing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers: User:Bbb23 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:Off2riorob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I will look a bit more later, regards. With the size of the backlog and length of time some users have been waiting for a review I can't see there being objections. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine objections, either. Hey, the nominator is getting two for the price of one. Will we be able to sign the review that way? As long as we're both shown on the review, I have no problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We can sign the final judgment like that but after the opening and review post we would just sign as individuals. I could choose one and do half of it and email you the details and you could finish it and post it to the GA page. Thinks that I think you do better than me would be , grammar, sentence structure and punctuation and such like (you have corrected me on those before) and MoS compliance for lead and general layout. Any ideas on one to start from the list? Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations - Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, what do you mean by the "final judgment" (sounds so legal)? I'd rather you point me to a place maybe on your sandbox rather than using e-mail. I'll warn you in advance I get very hung up on details and mechanics, so don't be surprised if I'm nit-picky and ask lots of questions about process, etc., which, as you can see, I'm already doing. :-) How about Magistrates of England and Wales? I know a fair amount about legal issues, although very little about non-American legal systems. It'd be interesting for me, at least. One thing against the Magistrates article is it's very long, which as a first might be a poor choice. Another possibility is LatinoJustice PRLDEF. Do you have any preferences?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, your silence could mean that you simply haven't gotten around to responding, or it could mean that you're already put off my over-fussiness. :-) If you've had second thoughts, don't worry about offending me - you're free to change your mind. I'm not pushing you to respond, either, it's just that you're generally very quick, so I wondered - no hurry and no worries.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I am currently a bit multi tasking, and reassessing after your comments. A subpage would be fine, better perhaps. As regards choosing one, I do think less complicated at first, but interest is important as we are here to enjoy ourselves, and I think a little understanding of the topic is also important. I will have a look and get back to you shortly. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Magistrates of England and Wales has been waiting almost two months. It is large but together it should be ok - if you like I/you can ask the nominator if he objects and let him know as its the first review to allow a bit of leeway in regard to time expectations. - "final judgment" was a bit over egging the position, all GA reviews are open to reassessment and review themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're okay with it, fine, you can ask the nominator. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, cool. I am going to ask him tomorrow, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked the nominator - User_talk:InExcelsisDeo#Magistrates_of_England_and_Wales - I notice he has been inactive for a month so unless he replies the nomination will either need removing or another user would have to take on the corrections as required...Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the asking, and it was smart to look at his contribution history.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

InExcelsisDeo hasn't responded to your message. Nor has he made any edits since then. Shall we consider another? LatinoJustice PRLDEF? The nominator of that article is active. Something else you prefer?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am still interested to help in this sector, so , no objections - I can ask/offer or you can..? Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You did such a good job last time asking. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

OK - I will offer/ask tomorrow, best. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Toluca Lake edits

See: for a place to comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

I've already commented a couple of times (see higher up on the page).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

IMDb not reliable?

Hi Bbb23, You say that IMDb is not a reliable source on your recent edit to John Beal (composer). IMDb is the premiere dbase for information about people in the entertainment business. Is there an article somewhere on Wikipedia that states that IMDb is not to be considered a reliable source? I've also had a few editors claim the NYTimes and LATimes are not reliable sources, so please forgive my question. Please help me out here, as IMDb is sourced thousands if not tens of thousands of times in other Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBob47 (talk WikiBob47 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC) (forgot to sign before)

IMDb is not considereded a reliable source for biographical information in particular because IMDb is more like a blog than a source in that anyone can post to it. Take a look at WP:RS/IMDB, Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_40#IMDB.2C_again, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Is_IMDb_a_reliable_source.3F, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_96#IMDB. There are endless other discussions about IMDb.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I get from the discussions that people generally accept the credits - which are typically posted by the studios and vetted by the IMDb staff before posting (I have personal experience in this area) but not so much the triva and bio sections, where my source was found. Thank you for pointing this out. I also enjoyed the humorous suggestion that while IMDb has paid editors checking all the information coming in before allowing it to be posted, Wikipedia has volunteer editors reviewing things after they have been posted, and that some might infer a difference in reliability. (he says, ducking) Peace! WikiBob47 (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Just one more point. As the first link I listed says, I wouldn't even trust the credits of IMDb when it comes to upcoming films. The problem with upcoming films in general is that the cast members often change, particularly before something starts filming, and sometimes even after that. When I look at upcoming film articles on Wikipedia, I don't let anything in that isn't sourced to a reliable secondary source. It's sometimes a bit of a circus with people adding unsourced information, no matter how many times you revert their additions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing to remember about IMDb is that the credits are all carefully vetted by the IMDb staff before being allowed. Most often they are submitted by the studios, but even then all credits are carefully scrutinized. It can be agonizing getting a film properly posted because of the vetting. WikiBob47 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, I haven't found the upcoming film credits to be very reliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	For your endless efforts to fix Wikipedia issues that have serious real life implications. Not here to care about lawsuits; here to care about real world damage. Thank you again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Demiurge1000. I'll take the liberty of moving this to my user page after a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Shannon Wheeler article

Thanks for the edit on the article about Shannon Wheeler. I've been approaching this in a perpetually novice way and don't want to step on any toes, especially ones that could contribute. (I know the subject of the article, but I am not wanting to use Wiki as a promotional ground.) Although it was/is a true statement, I had taken out the information about Wheeler's twins being 12 years old because they're actually almost 14 years old now and would cringe if an interviewer or reporter used that information as still true. And Wheeler himself generally leaves out detailed family information. That said, it seems like people would like information about the kids on the article. Would you mind if it's changed to "teenage boys" rather than giving a specific age? That would shut me up about that for a few years yet. Tamdao22 (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the reference to their ages at the time (2010) per your request here and at WP:BLPN. That way you don't even have to reraise this a few years from now. Thanks for being cooperative.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again. As I said on WP:BLPN, the result is better than I had requested. I'm sure the boys will be pleased. Tamdao22 (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

berggruen

please respect the sources and referances available to construct an articles, wikipedia is not a medium to advertise nor to promote living persons with unrealistic claims... --86.173.211.194 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I award you this for your sound BLP intervention. Nice work. WilliamH (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, William, kind words from you and criticism from the IP - I must be doing something right. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

fanning

I really do think fanning, as a co creator or co founder or whatever should be mentioned with a link to his wiki page -currently Parker is mentioned three times, with an internal link in fannings Bio although it is only in the Sean_Fanning#In_popular_culture section - those guys seem to have fallen out in real life... Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. I just didn't like the way it was done by the IP. Even Fanning isn't the "founder", but a co-founder. Either I'll take care of it a little later, or you can if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

that whole , co founder founder, rings a few wikipedia bells - its clearly what they call semantics - I was just looking for a position that would be acceptable to them both so as to stop the disruption of the Bio. - When the disruption of the biography is greater than the possible benefit from any related content addition that is the time to resolve it with a compromise or a block, I will leave it to your qualified assessment - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on your update of what the Fanning article actually says and the context (I read it) AND after considering some more, I don't think we need anything more in the Parker article. The Napster article (which is linked to, of course, in the Parker article) mentions the Fannings. I think that's the right place for all this. Let me know if you disagree.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sheen's agent

Sorry Mark Burg is Sheen's manager, not agent. My mistake. —Mike Allen 04:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not as problem - thanks for the update.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Davis

Once the screaming rush has slowed down, let's start looking at seriously improving this article towards GA at least. I think the rush is slowing out of sheer exhaustion, and then it will be possible to seriously look at the prose and structure without a great deal of drama. I've worked on controversial articles before and helped advance them (Natalee Holloway, Jena Six), and it just takes time, good wiki skills, and a great deal of patience.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to help, but first I'll have to find the time, develop the skills, and curb my impatience. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

it takes practice.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin F. Shively

We had an edit conflict while each of us was trying to repair the damage here! I suspect I may have undone your good work, so rather than me adding further to the confusion would you like to check the state it's in (and the copyvio) and see if we have the right solution yet? Please message me here if you want and I'm happy to do the work if you'd rather. BW, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'll watch the article (and the IP) for a while. It's one of those stub articles where all the information was taken from the congressional bio and then reworded to make it more readable and to wikify it. The US bio has actually no copyrightable expression as it's virtually a list of facts, but even if we copied some of the text verbatim, there would be no copyright vio because it's a US government work.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's over to you then. Sorry again for the confusion while we simultaneously tried to do good works... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Bill Gates

I'm not sure I understand your reason for removing the nationality parameter. The template suggests not using it if both nationality and citizenship are filled in and the same. In this case, citizenship is not used. Could you shed some more like on your reading of this? Kuru (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the template documentation is confusing. My view is that nationality is never needed in an infobox unless the person is of a different nationality from where they were born (and their other-country nationality is reliably sourced). The template doc gets bogged down in the issue of nationality vs. citizenship, which, frankly, doesn't even make any sense to me because I don't know what the difference is. The Wikipedia article, Nationality, states in the lead: "Nationality is membership of a nation or sovereign state, usually determined by their citizenship, but sometimes by ethnicity or place of residence, or based on their sense of national identity." But if you read the more detailed section on the issue in the article, none of it is sourced. Thus, I've adopted a somewhat stretched, commonsense interpretation of the documentation. If you want to read debate on this issue, see [1], [2], and I'm sure there are others. As to Gates himself, ask yourself what the source is for saying his nationality is American? If the only way you can answer that is "because he was born there", you've pretty much proved my point. I'm not going to war over this, but I really think it's pointless to include the field in articles like Gates's.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have a position or a real care; your edit summary just seemed to contradict the actual template documentation. If your opinion is actually that we don't need to use the parameter since it is obvious, then that makes more sense. Bill Gates is probably a bad example, however: I can find thousands of sources that specifically label him as "American". I can absolutely see the case for other BLPs with limited sources where this would be a much more difficult task, and people have added the information simply because it is "obvious". Interesting. Kuru (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly, the distinction that the Wikipedia article makes - and with which some editors agree - is that you can be a legal citizen of a particular country but identify with another country. Even assuming that such a distinction belongs in an infobox, the idea would be to use the Nationality field when that identification is other than the country of birth. Frankly, even if I were to go along with including such a thing in an infobox, the field is misnamed and should be clearer, something like "National identification". In any event, sure you can find articles that label Gates as American because he is legally American. The whole thing is circular in a case like Gates. The source would have to be some sort of self-identification in which Gates says, "Not only am I American by birth, but I also think of America as my national identity." Kind of fatuous, isn't it? I stick to my conclusion that the field doesn't belong in the article, but if I haven't convinced you to remove it, I suppose it will remain. It's not like it's doing any real harm.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Winston

Unfounde accussations of libel are a cheap shot. Please do not vandalis ethis article, or its' discussions again, or further action may follow.Pawelmichal (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Svidersky

(Don't want to get off-topic on the other AfD page) Yeah, what made me "cringe" was the last sentence in the lede stating that "The widespread expression of grief over Anna's death by strangers around the world was compared by The Guardian newspaper in Britain to that seen after Diana, Princess of Wales' death." Which is complete crap. One writer for the Guardian doesn't define world-wide sentiment, and the appropriate way to present that quote in the article would be "Tim Jonze, writing in The Guardian, stated that...". It's not like it was an editorial position of the newspaper. And when one writer (a music columnist apparently) states a bit of hyperbole doesn't make it true. I know, truth doesn't matter... LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes

Please don't post crap like this...

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Sherlock Holmes (2009 film)‎. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's complete rubbish, you were being completely counter productive in what you were doing. I was changing dates to suit the country of origin and you were undoing the work I had put in, which, in my oppinion, is an act of vandalism. My edits were constructive and just needed to be improved a little, not just undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.86.28 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of John Smelcer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Smelcer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bill Young

I'm not trying to interject any POV into Bill Young's earmarks edit, but just saying his children are employed by people he has given earmarks and it's not illegal is a non-story. The major issue is that one of his sons was given a job by a SAIC that requires security clearance with only a GED- that's the kicker. The other son is actually qualified for his job. Leaving that detail out makes the story not worthy for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nader1992 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The article already says that Young has given earmarks to two companies that employ his sons. The rest is unnecessary and POV. Plus, your wording is not well-supported by the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Bologna AfD and BLP2E

As you knew would happen, this bit of flippancy on my part, which I regret deeply, results in several Keep !votes saying BLP2E does not exist, and it gets worse. While almost all, thankfully, of these people also state they don't believe it violates BLP1E either, so hopefully I haven't screwed it up too much, and all the Deletes state the obvious, that it is WP:BLP1E if you had any suggestion for a way for me to clarify that I was inappropriately joking, or fall on my sword some way, I'll gladly do so. Sorry again. LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you shouldn't feel bad. I noticed your apology, and it was nicely done. As I have personally learned, AfDs can be very contentious, and it is amazing how riled up some editors get. Some get very nit-picky. Some get very aggressive. Some get downright nasty. If it makes you feel any better, I nominated an article for deletion not that long ago where I didn't cite a policy or guideline for the nomination. I just explained the reason in English. I was beaten up by some editors who called my nomination flawed because of that, even though it was crystal clear what the my basis was for nominating the article, and adding the general guideline (WP:GNG) wouldn't have added anything to my explanation. So, that said, here's my advice. Be really careful what you say in your nomination in the future. Don't be humorous. Don't be casual. Approach it like a dry argument before a judge. You can always be a little looser if you choose to respond to !votes later in the nomination, but the nomination itself sets the stage, and if you leave yourself vulnerable by doing it in an unorthodox fashion, you may get punished for it. In this instance, I doubt it will affect the outcome anyway, so forget about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Frederick Page Edits

I'm trying to figure out how it is commentary by quoting a federal quote ruling that bans on corporate contributions for federal election activity are unconstitutional when the topic is Frederick's company paying a fine for a violation of federal election regulations. Zeamays posted the information about the FEC purposely to make Frederick look bad (he didn't post anything about Frederick getting a speeding ticket or the fact that he raised a lot of money for the Republican party). This FEC information came straight out of Frederick's opponent's opposition research in the current election. It seems unfair that he can make such vast edits 40 days before an election, especially since the vast majority of content on the Frederick page has been there for years. Anyway, if the FEC information is to remain, it seems fair and reasonable to include not only did Frederick's company pay a fine, but that had the followup court decision to Citizens United occured before Frederick's company paying a fine, there would have been no fine in the first place. I am not trying to provide commentary, but to simply provide the full story and picture. The fact is, yes, Frederick's company paid a fine, but did so for something that at least one federal court has ruled is legal. In the last edit that was made, responding to your concern that the statement was too broad, the statement was tightened down and limited purely to what the news artcle reported -- and in fact quoting the article, thus there is no commentary -- it's just the facts.

Similarly, regarding the VA Free stuff, there is no controversy with any of the other groups listed in terms of those groups working for the interests they claim to. For example, there is no doubt by anyone that the League of Conservation Voters is working for enviornmental issues; nor the Right to Work Committee working to support right to work laws. People may disagree with enviornmental concerns and they may disagree with right to work laws, but no one would sugggest that either of those organizations (for example) does a poor job on their stated interests. VA Free is quite different, as there is some valid debate regarding VA Free truly representing the interests of businesses. I provided a reference to that and tightened up the statement so that it was no longer commentary: "There has been some controversy regarding Virginia FREE ratings." From the reference, can you not agree that this is true? If so, it is a statement of fact, not commentary, and is relevant to the article and providing a fuller picture.Vabio1 (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You are using "facts" to provide WP:SYNTHESIS for your views. You are using the article as a WP:COATRACK to imply that somehow other events make historical events in Frederick's career look better. For example, if you want to say that the FEC's actions fining Frederick would not be upheld today, then find a source that includes Frederick in it, not just a source that talks about the law. You claim your edits are neutral beause they are facts supported by sources, but they are facts that are only relevant to the Frederick article if the reader makes an implied connection, which is not supported by the source. This is what makes many, if not all, of your edits problematic and generally impermissible. In any event, this discussion should be occurring on Frederick's Talk page, not on mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have some comments about Vabio1's assertions about my motives, but will place them on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard page. --Zeamays (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Even in advance of reading your comments, I place no credence in Vabio1's assertions about editor motives. Indeed, they undermine his other arguments.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

AB

You're right. I didn't notice. I've reverted my last contribution, which is the most I can do. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

Removed the lines I've added and cleared other parts I've restored. Madhawar (talk)

Unfortunately, I just left you another warning because you also removed material from the Shooting section, as well as sources in support of the material. Please be careful about your editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:HELPDESK

Ha! DMacks (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Dell'olio

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Nancy Dell'Olio. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Was that the same guy?

I have no problem blocking again. I'm pretty cold blooded on that kinda thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Almost definitely the same person (based on timing and tea bagger stuff). Another admin already blocked the IP for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Kids Are All Right TV Series

I started a discussion on that talk page about our back and forth on the tv adaptation. Please respond there.Schnapps17 (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Your thoughts re: several issues I brought to noticeboards yesterday were greatly appreciated. Yet the warnings strewn on my talk page by well-meaning contributors raise the unavoidable existential question: Who needs this? Cheers, 99.137.209.90 (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's a personal issue you have to decide. I do sympathize. I've become increasingly more involved in editing Wikipedia and have more than occasionally been plagued by thoughts of leaving, or at least taking a break, because of bouts of stress and contentiousness. However, there are many positive things about Wikipedia. There are a lot of bright, dedicated editors. Some of the less contentious discussions are often illuminating. And I am pleased with whatever small contributions I make to a resource that is so widely read. So, on balance, I've adopted certain coping mechanisms, which, admittedly, don't always work but at least help to mitigate the stress. Anyway, you accomplished something here. The damage by the student editor has been removed, the editor has been blocked, and hopefully he will either give up on Wikipedia or, as the blocking admin stated, contribute in a constructive way in the future. I'm not real optimistic, but I'm a cynic by nature. Whatever you decide going forward, best of luck to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

All well said. I think that cynicism in any arena of human discourse is warranted, though it grows out of our unreasonable expectations of what ought to be. I'm far happier writing articles for publication than acting as a gadfly here, because there I'm engaged in the dissemination of thoughts and ideas, rather than policing misconduct. And though I've contributed to Wikipedia for far too long, I still maintain a greater trust in the printed page than the virtual one. Color me anachronistic. Best wishes, 99.137.209.90 (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you're better off doing what you do and I'm better off doing what I do. Personally, my strengths are in analysis, interpretation, critiquing, and procedure, more than in creation. Which is why I don't write articles (although I think about doing so, if only to experience it) but only edit them. As for the Internet, I'm hopelessly addicted to it, warts and all. And as to trust, as implied by my earlier post, I don't trust the virtual or the printed page. I started questioning everything when I was 5 years old, and I haven't stopped since.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything you've said, as well as your facility of expression, suggests you'd be remiss not to write articles; analysis, interpretation, critiquing, and procedure are all intrinsic to the process. All that's required then is the easy stuff: determining the subject and researching it. As for trust, I don't mean the unquestioning acceptance of what's written, but the likelihood of historical longevity of the medium. And yeah, I've always been inclined to question, not only the world, but, especially as I grow longer in the tooth, my perceptions of it as well. I know less than I ever did. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Benedict Cumberbatch

With respect to the time he and his girlfriend broke up, the first time I revised it simply because I know March 2011 is not correct info. His PR publicly released such info via Daily Mail in March 17, 2011, but did not indicate the time they broke up in that article and there were already several sources indicating that the split happened last year. It's a bit careless that you just un-did my revision without checking up the fact first. It seems that you don't closely follow his work and news.

As to the part in connection with the GQ Actor of the Year, I was almost quoting GQ's wording, which can be found in the reference page I cited and Cumberbatch's acceptance speech video, in which included Jamie Cullum's introduction speech, which, of course, was prepared by GQ: http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/men-of-the-year/home/winners-2011/video-benedict-cumberbatch-actor-of-the-year-jamie-cullum I don't think GQ will have any issues with the wording I used as they won't consider their wording is puffery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxine4931 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. The first is that the GQ award is hardly an important award. Therefore, it's questionable whether it needs to be even included in the Wikipedia article. However, rather than taking it out completely, I cut down their puffed-up reasons for giving it to him. I didn't cut that down because you were being unfaithful to the source, but because it's too much for such a nothing. The second issue is sourcing. You can't make assertions in an article unless it is supported by the cited source - it can't be based on "simply because I know" as that is original research. I don't need to follow his work to maintain the integrity and verifiability of the material in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Charli Sheen

Hey I'm sorry for being a pain but I did write an explanation under my recent edit to Charlie Sheen's page and quite a long one but for some reason it didn't come up on any computer. So I'm just going to say my reason: Technically he didn't do any acting in the roast so I don't understand why it is under "Acting career" and we already an "Other ventures" section so I don't understand why we need another. I just want to talk to you about that and what happend just get back to me when you have the chance. Thank You. I'm No Winner (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Other ventures section is for ventures by Sheen (like his tour), not for a roast. The reason I put it under Acting career is because the roast is a commentary on his career. It shouldn't go just in the TV part because it's a commentary on his career as an actor, not just a TV actor. I can see putting it somewhere other than in the Career section, but then we'd have to create a new section just for that one thing, which is even more prominent than the subsection (Other) I created. It isn't easy to sort out, frankly, and I'm open to suggestions, which you can do here or on the Sheen Talk page (not sure if anyone else other than us is all that interested, but you never know). Thanks for your explanation, though. I appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Black Swan revert

Hi - Thanks for reverting the ref. I don't know how that self-revert happened since I haven't been to the page today until now and saw it in the history. Hope my account hasn't been hacked! Cheers Shirtwaist ☎ 02:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I figured it was just a mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cherney

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Cherney, you may be blocked from editing. --Moscowrussia (talk) 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Cherney, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Moscowrussia (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He's now been hit by a boomerang. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Shockingly good shot - I am in support - Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

S Parker - napster

• 24:35 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAFUAgDJTEU&t=25m22s - Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

GA work

Needs a little work - on hold for seven days - Talk:Magistrates of England and Wales#GA Review - although there are no deadlines - if a reviewer can see a little improvement ongoing the seven days is only a vague deadline ... - together we might be able to get it there - the nominator is still inactive, thoughts? Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Jezhotwells now involved? Wouldn't it make more sense for us to do the other article? Whatever happened with that?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I got a bit distracted over the last couple of weeks, I am still interested in that. - As regards this one, yes Jezhot has done the review of the Magistrates article, but as we noticed the nominator is inactive and without someone to do the repairs the GA will fail. Off2riorob (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis W. Chiu

To respond to your query: I would not say that this person is completely non-notable; he has has some accomplishments, for which somebody could argue in favor of keeping the article. However, I did not find him to be notable according to our past outcomes. Anyway, this was not a clear-cut case as some had argued. So in such cases, I "vote" weak delete. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Network Template TFD 2

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_7#Network_templates. A new discussion about the same templates has been restarted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_19#Network_templates_2. Feel free to express your thoughts at the new discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Duminda Silva

Hello. I thought I'd contact you first before taking the issue to WP:BLPN. You have removed a lot of referenced material from the above article with these edits. I understand your reasoning - he wasn't convicted - but the material was supported by reliable sources. Are we not allowed to say "X was charged with Y" on Wikipedia? Do we have to wait until they are convicted? Is there no way re-inserting someor all of the content that was removed?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at a previous discussion of this material on BLPN here. If you want to selectively reinsert material to the article, I suggest you propose what you want to add (text and sources) on the article's Talk page to make sure it does not run afoul of WP:BLP before editing the article itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

Hi, Bbb23. By my count, you have performed five non-consecutive reverts on this article within the last 24 hours. This is a potential violation of WP:3RR - while copyright violations are exempt from this rule, please do not make any further reverts at this time. If you have not done so already, could you please specify which content you feel to be in violation of WP:COPYVIO? Thanks. SuperMarioMan 16:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Vanessa Redgrave

Well, declaring sources "poorly" is not enough. Writing "BLP issues" in the es is not enough. All in all four words you used in your es. That is poor, and undersourced. -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an edit summary, not a thesis. Take it to the Redgrave Talk page if you think the material is relevant and reliably sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, es is four words max. Let's twitter, that's more substance! -DePiep (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your question on my talk page

Hi Bbb23, I've just remembered that I did not respond to your question on my talk page; please accept my apology. Your question came at a time when I had very limited opportunity to edit and I had mentally determined that I should try to respond to you within a day or two, but I failed to do so.

It is sometimes very challenging for checkusers to respond to requests that involve directly linking accounts/editors to specific IP addresses, and sometimes our responses to such questions can be convoluted so as to avoid doing this. The privacy policy gives us very limited latitude to link the public information (username) to the private information (IP address); usually, the level of disruption involved needs to be egregious and harmful on its face, such as a registered user logging out to insert obvious vandalism or to continue an edit war, and even then we will try to work around making a direct link if possible. In this particular case, while one could consider the actions of the two registered accounts and the IP address to be somewhat "pointy", there was no evidence of using multiple accounts to make substantive edits to the same article, or to support each other in an ongoing discussion; in other words, there wasn't evidence of sockpuppetry, although the question of whether it was appropriate for one of the "accounts" to claim ownership of another was a reasonable one. (I'll just note that as a community we almost never question things when a registered account "re-signs" a post originally made by an IP, so it is hard to complain when the IP "re-signed" a post by a registered account, in an apparent effort to make it clear that the person behind both was not speaking with "multiple voices" in the same discussion.) My intention was to close the SPI request in a way that made it clear that there wasn't socking, but that the "accounts" were operated by the same person. I realise this all sounds rather complicated. There was no intention to "protect" any person or account in managing the SPI case the way that I did; and should the community have decided to propose desysopping of Khukri through a request for arbitration, I would have recused on the discussion. Speaking personally, I think that this is a classic example of a situation where important and valid concerns were brought to the community's attention, but the manner in which the concerns were raised almost completely distracted the community from the crux of the issue; it was an own goal that could reasonably have been anticipated. It is a recurrent issue: generally speaking, the community is much more inclined to address the behaviour of individual editors than it is an overall policy or practice that affects large sections of the project.

Again, please accept my apology for the delay in responding to your initial question, which I should have done at least a week ago. I'll have limited access over the coming few days, but if you have any follow-up questions, I'll respond by November 2 at the latest. Risker (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Risker, thanks very much for the apology and the detailed explanation. Although I realize that any action taken against an editor has to be grounded in policy, the issue of which policies applied in this situation were not clear. At the same time, assuming the IP was Khukri, the issue for me was deception by an admin. I suppose I could have taken it to arbitration, but in reading the comments of the other admins, I decided it was a long shot that anything would come of it, and my time would be better spent doing other things.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Jamie Leigh Jones

There are reasons for some of the changes I made in the article. First, the list of defendants as listed is an incomplete list. I included the defendants that were involved in the final court case, as are mentioned in the articles. All defendants should be listed or the wording should be changed. If a partial listing is stated, I think the defendants I included are the relevant parties. It is very misleading to say one of the employees were charged since several were.

As far as the first doctor finding that there was no damage to her chest, it was stated that Jones did not complain about chest pain and specifically that implant damage wasn't noticed, but not that there was a chest examination and no injury was found. Later doctors visits did discover chest damage. The doctor didn't find damage, but appears to not have looked (whether or not she looked for chest injury isn't actually stated). Searching for an injury and coming to the positive conclusion that there isn't one is different than stating that an injury wasn't a conclusion made. Perhaps a more thorough explanation of her injuries should be included (like the frissuring and bruising in apparently the vagina and anus, the fact that it was a pectoral capsule torn, not a torn muscle, and that there were some bruises found on her) but also may become too explicit. But there was no finding that she had "no injury to her chest" in the citations.

If one of the findings was consensual sex, it is not listed in the articles. What is stated is that two of the original claims were not upheld, which made the other claims moot. That is very clear. These can also be looked up in the original complaint filed to start the civil lawsuit. That was the legal conclusion made, determined by the jury. If consensual sex was part of the final findings of the jury, that isn't supported by the articles (other sources would be needed to confirm such a statement, as its mentions in the articles are in my opinion far too vague to be listed as one of the jury's findings).

Also, I made additions that I thought were relevant. The defendant's criminal record seems to be specifically what was referred to in the next paragraph, as "his" life not being on display. If that quote is included, I think his criminal background of violence against women should be included as well. Otherwise, quotes from the two sides, in my opinion should be removed.

Her being in Hot Coffee, I'm not sure why that shouldn't be included.

174.134.132.118 (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I went back and added some summaries that I should have included. I suppose it isn't good to make unexplained changes. Also, I read previously when the findings were changed. The one I saw completely removed that they found that she wasn't raped, which I did not. That appears to be what was specifically the finding by the jury. I didn't go back and read the whole history. Anyways, I hope all that makes sense. I mean, technically the finding is that the burden of proof isn't met to prove rape, but I suppose that goes without saying. 174.134.132.118 (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Take to article Talk page. Who are you anyway (other than a WP:SPA)?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I see, that's where I should put that kind of discussion. I just saw that this article seemed to have glaring errors. I don't usually edit anything, I just saw that the article didn't entirely match the source materials and went ahead and made changes. Although the article as it does seem to have somewhat of an agenda, so I'm not sure why you keep changing back to that, but I'll put discussions like the ones above in the articles talk page. 174.134.132.118 (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Martha Wilson

Thanks for being bold and trimming the article way back. Could you comment on the article's talk page for the education of the article's two primary authors, who are students and new editors? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, I've become a teacher. :-) I did what you asked (partly because it's you), but don't you think this whole thing would be better off in a sandbox?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and I agree that the article could be developed in a sandbox and that's how I develop new content myself. On the other hand, bringing it to maim space brought it to the attention of experienced editors, so it's a mixed blessing, I guess. Thanks for your kind words toward me, as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23 - please justify your edits to CueCat record

Bbb23, as Patent Intellectual Prosecutor directly familiar with the record of this device and its history, I am updating the information here on Wiki. In the world of Patents, other patents and ideas are fostered and created by adding to the historial record of technology and devices that have impacted the Intellectual Property record. All the facts in the posting of the CueCat history (the one I was editing upon) are accurate and factual. Your changing of the record and reverting back to an innaccurate history of the Cuecat are in direct violation of Wiki use policies. Your chaning of the record from accurate to factually incorrect are unjustified. Please explain why you have changed the references. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factiod (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You're going to get yourself blocked by your edits. You have a conflict of interest in editing the article. You have arguably made legal threats to another editor. Your edits are sloppy and unencyclopedic. I suggest you take any concerns you have to the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Show me

Show me exactly the place in policy that says the content you removed here is a copyvio. Risker (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:LINKVIO ("if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work"). As I understand it, it is never permissible to link to a YouTube video unless it's clear that the video is placed on YouTube by the copyright owner itself (like an official channel of the broadcaster). Here, the person posting on YouTube is just a user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And how hard would it be to have written a message to the other user saying "The section of the copyright policy that I am referring to in removing the Youtube link is Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works." The template that you used did not explain what your issue was with the link; it just threatened a very longtime user with blocking for having a different interpretation of policy than you have. Please use your words rather than using templates; and if you must use templates, they should refer to exactly the issue that is causing you concern. Risker (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

But, Risker, I didn't post that notice right away. First, I redacted the link and said in the discussion, "I've redacted the YouTube link as a copyright violation." Then, when he reverted me with an edit summary that said only "No", I reverted again and cited WP:LINKVIO in my edit summary. Then, he reverted me with the following aggressive edit summary: "Until I'm blocked, friend, because the way you act is intrusive, from "warning" IPs for good-faith edits to lording over the article to censoring a link that contributes to the thread.. I suggest leaving it be." Even though I had clearly pointed him to the correct policy. It was only after that last reversion that I reverted again and posted the tag on his Talk page. In fact, I reverted and wasn't going to post a tag, but I decided that if this ever rose to the level of a block request (he practically invited a block in his edit summary), I had to create a record of warnings. I really don't see that I've done anything wrong with respect to the copyright issue and this editor, and I'm surprised you're "reprimanding" me. I also don't see - and have never seen - how the policy could be interpreted in any other way.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You've missed what I'm saying. Templates and messages in edit summaries don't count. Edit summaries are notes for people to understand why you did what you did when they go back to the history after the fact; they are not intended to be interpersonal communication tools. You were debating with one person, communicate with them like a person. This makes a huge difference; I'm pretty sure even if you're not finding this a pleasant conversation, at least you know I'm thinking about you and how to help you improve as an editor and I'm not just leaving a bot-like message for you.

With respect to the Robbins issue, aside from the fact that it is at best a trivial point, the fact that there is contradictory sourcing for the statement means it needs to be left out at this time; leaving it in is a BLP violation. The IP has a point: just because one cannot provide a weblink to a source does not mean it is not a reliable source. Risker (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This conversation has been very hard for me, actually. At the risk of making a personal comment, I have been very upset since you began it. Although your tone in your last response has softened, you initially didn't approach me like an admin trying to help me, but more like you were accusing me of being wrong about policy and therefore wrong about tagging. You shifted the burden from the editor who committed the copyright vio to me who was only enforcing policy - and all in a most peremptory tone. Indeed, your edit of the other editor's Talk page to remove my tag calling it a "spurious warning" supports my reception of your comments. (BTW, I don't think you should have removed the tag. And if you wanted to remove the tag, you shouldn't have called it "spurious" unless you actually disagreed with the policy application.) I didn't miss your point, but you put me in a very defensive posture from the get-go, and I felt I had to defend myself.

As for the underlying problem, I've already commented on the article Talk page about these issues. I stated publicly that the warning I posted on the IP's Talk page was "harsh" and I would have reverted it had the IP not already removed it. I also commented at some length on the sourcing issue. I have stopped insisting on my point of view and have not touched the articles since. And I agree that the whole thing was relatively trivial. That, I confess, is a bad habit of mine - I can get equally riled up over something trivial as over something more important. Anyway, I've backed off, and I believe I've mitigated any damage I did with respect to the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You know what, Bbb23 - you're right. I was too harsh in the way that I expressed myself, and I'm sorry I came across so strongly because your point about the link was valid, just as Riggr's was about the reliability of the source, and the BLP issues. Both of you (yes, Rigrr Mortis too) forgot that there is another option, one that is widely used, that could provide the reader access to the "reliable source" even though it is probably a copyvio; it is by providing the url without linking to it, like this. (example only - take a look at the code) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&action=edit&section=85 This is acceptable; it gives only the url, but does not link the project to the potential copyvio. This technique might come in handy in the future. Peace? Risker (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Peace, absolutely, thanks for your comments. Moving on to your point about providing the URL but without a link, that seems like a dodge to me. When we provide a link to a copyright violation, we are arguably contributing to the infringement by doing so. We are not direct infringers. Whether we make it easy (by providing a link) or make it a bit harder (by providing only a URL that someone could copy and paste into their browser), I still think it would be unacceptable from a legal perspective and only avoids the policy prohibition by reading the policy so literally as to reach, as they say in legal circles, an absurd result. Has there ever been any discussion of this option? You say it is "widely used", so I'm curious.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Heck, I live in Canada, where our Supreme Court just made a ruling relating to linking that would easily have allowed this link; the court decision being used in the policy isn't all that closely related to the issue at hand and, being a district (or lower) court decision, cannot be considered "settled" law. Another district court could come up with an entirely different ruling, and I suspect there are several other cases that go in different directions that could potentially result in a rethink on this policy. I'm not in a position to do the research, but I'll see if I can prod someone else into doing so. For another perspective, let me ask you this: would you have been persuaded that Tim Robbins himself denies being in that film if you had not seen that link? Would you have insisted on keeping the material in based on the Ebert link if not for that url? These sorts of links are more common on talk pages to discuss exactly these kinds of issues; I pretty much agree that an url only would be very borderline for an article itself. Risker (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually haven't checked the "law" recently on these issues (in the U.S.), but my assumption is a "legal" policy like this one is at least partly crafted by Wikimedia lawyers. If not, it should be. As for your question, believe it or not, I haven't looked at the YouTube video. :-) Finally, one of the things that surprised me most about your beginning this conversation is my experiences with other admins, who have taken an extremely hard line on YouTube links, whereas you seem to be much less sympathetic to the policy overall (e.g., calling a URL in an article "very borderline"). Please let me know if your prodding results in any discussion of the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the WMF lawyers have had absolutely no formal involvement in the development of that policy; their contribution would have been advising the Board on the policy related to non-free content. Indeed, other projects have very different policies related to non-free content and "copyvio" compared to ours. (If we were to look at the project policies on a continuum, we're somewhere in the middle on NFC, and pretty hardline on copyvio.) As to my thoughts about youtube links, one of the factors I consider is whether or not there is reason to believe that the link is posted against the wishes of the copyright holders (e.g., evidence of prior takedown requests), what statement is made by the youtube uploader (e.g., many state 'I do not hold the copyright on this'), whether there appears to be a tacit agreement on the part of the copyright holder to make the material available (I've seen many youtube videos with comments from the copyright holder thanking the uploader, or discussing the content in a file, which would constitute tacit agreement). We know that anything related to Oprah has been subject to takedown orders, for example, and most currently-running TV shows will issue takedowns at least until they've released the season on DVD. In this particular case, we also have reason to believe that the copyright holder will post the content himself in the near future, so there is no reason to add a link to the youtube material; we can wait another day or two in order to link to the better, less controversial version. At the same time, one of the more serious issues that we have on the project is the insistence on including material that we have good reason to believe is not correct, simply because it exists in a reliable source, while the "correct" information (which in many cases, is the absence of information) may not have been published. How, exactly, does a person "prove" they weren't Punk #2 in a film, if someone like Roger Ebert says they were? These are actually fairly serious errors, and the constant reuse of Wikipedia material results in these errors being perpetuated. Some are nuisances, but others can be quite harmful, and we can't predict which is which. "Write something on your website" is not the right answer here, though that's what many BLP subjects have been told (and plenty of people would refuse to accept *that* as a reliable source too). Well, that's probably enough pontification for one lunch hour. :-) Risker (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I found your self-labeled "pontification" quite interesting, particularly about our policy vs. other Wikipedias' policies, and the involvement (or lack of it) of Wikimedia. In this particular instance, if Robbins says he wasn't in the film, I would favor taking out the material from any table and then commenting on it in the two articles in the body. Sometimes, I favor secondary sources about people over self-published sources when it's possible that the subject might mirepresent what happened (like an actor's age), but in this instance, I see no good reason why Robbins would lie, and Ebert could easily have been mistaken. After all, it's just Ebert saying it looks like Robbins - maybe it was someone else who looked like Robbins.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Cue cat suggestions

Hello Bbb23, I see that you have both commented and modified the records of cue cat. I have posted on the discussion section for cue cat, items which I feel should be considerd for updating. Would you please join all of us who are contributing to this record and add to the commentary? Thank you (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

I am confused. I came to Bbb23 to follow up my cue cat request but see a kink directly below this for sock puppet, which is what Bbb23 did to me today and was lifted. But I am confused it states you are Cullen as well? Help me understand please. Anyway thank you for looking over my suggestions, bit please don't use the meat term if you would. Thanks (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

I am Cullen328, and am a completely different editor than Bbb23. I am free, just as you are, to converse on this talk page at any time, as long as it is for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. I suspect that there is sockpuppetry (use of multiple accounts by a user for a deceptive purpose) going on here, but I don't have the tools to prove it. I think that most experienced editors here would agree that my suspicions are reasonable, but we shall see. If I am wrong, I will be quck to apologize. Shalom. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Proofplus, I didn't "do" anything to you. I don't have the power to impose a block or an autoblock based on anything, including alleged sock puppetry. And as I commented at WP:ANI, there is nothing sexist about the term meat puppet, and I and others will continue to use it when we believe it to be appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ran kurosawa

Hello, I see that Ran kurosawa is back at Net Talk Live!. Given recent and similar developments at CueCat, I suspect ongoing sockpuppetry although, of course, I can't be 100% sure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Cullen, my recollection is WP:SPI took no action on the reports. If you haven't already, you might want to revisit them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional help on Occidental Petroleum article

Hi Bbb23, thanks for your help and feedback on the disputed material in the Occidental Petroleum article. I have proposed an additional revision in a drop box on the article's talk page addressing some WP:NPOV concerns with content in the history section after discussing it with Ocaasi and Cowboy128. However, as Ocaasi and Cowboy128 have not been very active recently, I was hoping you might be willing to review our discussion and provide any feedback or changes you may have to the revision I proposed in the hopes of gaining WP:CONSENSUS and addressing concerns surrounding any WP:COI. I don’t mean to take advantage of your good nature, so feel free to let me know if you are too busy with other projects or simply not interested. Thanks again! CBuiltother (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to follow up as to whether you’ll be able to help out on this or if there is another editor or project you might recommend I go to about these revisions. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cherney Bio

Bbb23 you are vandalizing the Cherney bio under the premise that it is "poorly" sourced. Would you please be so kind as to explain to the Wiki community as to how The Jerusalem Post and Reuters are poor sources? Thank you. Moscowrussia (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What's your problem

What's your problem with that category? This is the 2nd time you've removed it from an article I put it on. It's sourced. CTJF83 21:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Where in the article does it talk about it?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Where in the article besides one time does it say he was born in 1979? I have reliable 3rd party sources backing it up. It's very rude to just remove categories and it pisses off the other person. CTJF83 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you believe the birth year is not sourced, you can challenge it if you wish, but that has nothing to do with your categorizing articles without something in the body to back it up. See WP:CAT ("Categorization must be verifiable: it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."). Andy also properly removed the category.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure I provided a source. CTJF83 21:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, where in the article does it say anything about Levine and LGBT activism?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - (edit conflict) hi - yes, the source you provided in your edit summary, calls him an advocate for gay rights. Personally I don't think that supports adding him to the Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States - an activist, a notable gay rights activist? I agree with Bbb23 also that BLP cats should not be added without clear cited content support in the actual body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[3] Also, I'll add stuff when I get around to it about him criticizing American Idol for it's views on being openly gay. All it would have taken was a few seconds for you to search Google to see all the results. How much do I freakin need then for your approval of the category, Off CTJF83 22:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You really need an attitude adjustment. It's your job to add reliably sourced information to the article to justify the addition of a category. It's not my job to do your work for you. This is my last comment on this issue. Take it somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

kate winslet

Please do not use these funky templates. These will not help you! You are being quite ignorant reverting my edits on Winslet when infinite resources they have ended their marriage. I expect more from a Barnstar, however I do encounter many who are just tagged as one and do not really match their reputation. The choice is yours. I had requested to take it on discussion but the barnstar simply ignored it.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you respond on the article Talk page rather than pontificating here?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

DBSSURFER, we realize that you're a newbie here, and we're being quite patient with you, but you're in violation of several policies and guidelines, most obviously edit warring. If you persist, you're just going to get blocked. You should be discussing this on the article's talk page, and you should be providing sources. Right now this is unsourced. Now stop discussing this here and take it to the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, I have fixed the article and hopefully this will put an end to the warlike and offensive atmosphere caused by our newbie editor. He's been in trouble for this type of behavior before (attacking and belittling others). Let's hope he can learn from others. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Frederick White

Thank you for your participation.

Since I referred this to the BLP chat page, it has stabilized and improved!

Papaloquelites (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm glad I was able to rewrite the section (and do a few other tidies to the article).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of FRIENDS as FA

I nominate friends as a featured article.Beacause you are one of the most contributors of the article, please help me in the nomination procedure.--nijil (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what help you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)