User talk:Bbb23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page.
  • Please include links to pertinent page(s).
  • Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

Got it[edit]

Please check out [1] now— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Sobchak0 (talkcontribs) 21:49 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Rev. Robert N. McIntyre[edit]

Last night I created the page for Rev. Robert N. McIntyre. It was cited for A7. The page was not yet complete but I do believe that person in question did provide significance, especially to the Reformed Episcopal denomination. He not only founded 4 plus churches but also a predominant summer camp run by the denomination. Lastly, he was the author of a major doctrinal publication regarding ministers in the domination and their roles. This is mentioned on the Reformed Episcopal Wikipedia pages and its significance. He is mentioned on almost any Reformed Episcopal historical record and on many websites of the churches as an inspiration.


@AE, been kinda following it, here it is know of Sean, once we butted heads and not in a good way. I have however seen since then the guy, twat that he is, is a pure solid NPOV guy, he is to the IP area, as I am to the one I can`t mention. The guy is a solid editor, and needed in the topic area, do the right thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask Goldwater and Carter what that is.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Indore Sanwer railway station[edit]

Hi Bbb23, i tagged this article for CSD as no such station exists in Indian Railways. You may kindly cross check at or at and other sources. If i had placed CSD tag improperly, please enlighten me. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 23:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Balablitz, thanks for explaining why you placed the tag. The second of the two refs above isn't very friendly - couldn't figure out how to make it work, but I believe the first says no such station exists. The problem is that to delete an article per WP:CSD#G3, it has to be blatant, meaning no room for doubt. I don't normally check those kinds of sources. Doing a simple Google search, I found some evidence that it might exist. Now maybe what I found wasn't reliable, don't know, but, generally, for a blatant hoax, I either find absolutely nothing on a search or just a few hits that are clearly stupid. Even then, I am reluctant to delete a page if I have any doubt in my mind. For example, articles about subjects that are not modern or articles about foreign subjects where I may have to know how to translate to do the search. It's better to err on the side of caution. I hope that helps a bit. I suggest you take it to AfD or even prod it if you wish rather than going the speedy delete route.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Now that I look at it again, the best thing for you to do is to prod it for a reliable source. You'll have to wait, but you'd probably have to wait for a closure of an AfD as well, and at the moment, there is no source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear Bbb23, thanks for a brief explanation and suggestion. The fact is that Sawer or "Sanwer" is a town and an assembly constituency within Indore district and no railway line near this place. See 1, 2, 3. Also the station code, SWR, in that page belongs to Sonua railway station in Sonua, Jharkhand under the administration of Chakradharpur railway division of South Eastern Railway zone. A station code is 2–4 letter code used by Indian Railways to identify an station, to avoid confusion when two stations having similar names. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 07:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
You obviously know more about this than I do, which isn't tough. I see you nominated it for deletion. Maybe you'll luck out and an admin with more knowledge about Indian railway stations will close it with a speedy delete. Worst case, you'll have to wait out the seven days or so. Best of luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear Bbb23, many thanks for your timely suggestion for a prompt action. Lets wait for the outcome. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 12:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

James McAvoy edits[edit]

Hello Bbb23, regarding the James McAvoy page on wikipedia, my last edit has absolutely nothing promoting my page, I added one information to his page and the reference of this information which links to the youtube video where he said what I quoted there. The information is relevant and after I understood wikipedia wouldn't allow to say the name of the source inside the information, I re-edited without the name of the source/page. Please let me understand why is this last editing being considered disruptive editing and how could I include this information according to wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you very much.

P.S - the editing I'm talking about is "(alternative edit in order to add information without company info)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBackstage (talkcontribs) 01:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edit still pointed to your video and, as I recall, your subscription. It's still promoting your journalism or reporting or whatever is your occupation. However, even putting that aside, the material has no business being in the article. It was a bit hard to follow because I couldn't always hear him, and I don't speak your language, but I couldn't even figure out where he said anything about the "bulge", although I did hear him talking about arousal, etc., and it may have been in response to something you asked. In any event, it's simply not noteworthy. It's trivia. Him joking backstage and about what? It doesn't belong in his encyclopedia article, maybe on a fansite, but not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, let's do it in parts so I can understand this.
1) About relevance: There's a trivia that says "McAvoy has stated that The Goonies (1985) is his favorite film" - So, his idea of what mutant powers he wished he had, is just as a trivia as his favorite movie. Therefore, it's possible to conclude my "trivia" is just as relevant as his favorite movie.
2) About source: The reference points to the video as source, because as far as I understand, you must cite the source of your informations on wikipedia, right? He said that to our media, how could I point the reference of this information not pointing to the video?
3) About content: He says absolutely nothing about "bulges", he simply said he wished his mutant power was to make people around him horny - at 1:48minute of the video ([click to watch]) Also, the video has english subtitles, to everyone that wishes to understand what is he saying during the whole interview.
Bbb23, I hope I enlightened the relevance of this. I don't wish to promote the website or anything, but I do wish to put this information on his page, and since wikipedia demands the source, I'm trying to understand how to put the reference without linking to the video. Please let me know how to do it. Thank you --MissBackstage (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Why do you want to put this material in the article? You create an account on Wikipedia, and the only interest you have is to add material that is cited to your "interview". I don't have much patience with editors like that because they're not interested in improving Wikipedia. They just swoop in, get their own piece in, and they're done, unless perhaps you've done interviews of other people with articles here.
I don't know where bulge came from. I must be thinking of some other article, although for the life of me I can't remember which one. Sorry about that.
I didn't know I could turn on subtitles; that helped, although that was the silliness I remember him saying, just couldn't understand the question. Now I do.
Other trivia in the article or in any other article is not relevant to your piece of trivia. We usually cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for that proposition. That means that even if there is something that violates policy or guidelines somewhere else, that doesn't mean you can.
If what he said is that important, it would have been carried by secondary sources that are perhaps better known than yours. Do you have any?
You've said nothing to convince me that the material belongs in the article. You have been very civil, though, which is the only reason I'm taking this much time with you. But you're also pretty stubborn. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I must thank you for your patience Bbb23, and I'll justify my stubbornness, I promise :) I'm editor chief at Miss Backstage, and we have several interviews, but so far I had nothing relevant to add into a wikipedia page from our material. As a journalist and as a fan, I can tell you the James McAvoy detail I added is extremely relevant to his fans. Just as an example: If you were an X-Men fan, and had an idol playing some character on a X-Men movie, for sure you'd like to know what mutant power he would like to have in real life. So yes, I'm stubborn into thinking that yes, this is relevant to his page, just as the goonies being said as his favorite movie (which is wrong, by the way, it's star trek). It's our first contribution to Wikipedia, yes, because so far we had nothing actually relevant to place in here, and we really would like to do it the right way in terms of wikipedia conditions, but the relevance in this case is something we have no doubt about. This is why I'm being stubborn, I think we have genuine right to add this information, not like adding something stupid like if I had asked what is his favorite color.
About secondary sources echoing our interview, I don't think it's fair to say that, considering we have the proof in video. It's not like we have to prove Miss Backstage is "more famous" on the web to serve as source. It's mere reference, we just have to prove he actually said that, which is in the video. Also, the interview is very fresh, may take a while to echo around the web since it comes from a brazilian channel.
I thank you once more for your patience and I do hope I made myself clear, Bbb23. If you need any more information about our website or myself, I'll be more than glad to email you. Let me know how can we work this out. Thank you once more. --MissBackstage (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason for having another source is not because I'm claiming he didn't say what the material says he said. Rather, a more traditional source (a reputable newspaper, magazine, etc.) would tend to support your opinion that the material is noteworthy. BTW, noteworthiness of material at wikipedia is not measured by what a "fan" wants to read. Again, that's for a fansite, not for an encyclopedia. Fans want to read all sort of things, rumors, trivia, salacious silliness, etc.
You have a few ways in which you can go at this point. The normal way is to go to the McAvoy talk page and explain what you want to add and why and ask for other editors' input. Your objective is to obtain a WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion of the material. If you find you are unable to obtain a consensus there, you can then use one of the dispute resolution mechanisms available for content disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23, thank you very much. Can you tell me if I posted the request for WP:CONSENSUS correctly? Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBackstage (talkcontribs) 19:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

edit warring[edit]

You can see there is a discussion in the talk page of Economy of Pakistan to seek a dispute resolution, but even after your full protection on Economy of Pakistan and Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction some sock IPs have continued to edit war in those articles and they won't listen to any dispute resolution. Is it possible to semi protect these two articles? This would lessen the possibility of edit war. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I semi-protected Economy of Pakistan for two weeks. However, there's been only one edit to the other article, which is not sufficient to justify protection. Let me know if things get worse.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop harrassing me[edit]

Why do you keep deleting my edits to my talk page? Why won't you explain? Are you going to block me for asking like you did last time? Sepsis II (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you not want people to know that I am harrassed by socks? Is that why you keep deleting their edits off my page? I want them to stay, it is my talk page? How come you never discuss issues with me only revert and yell at me? Sepsis II (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It is your talk page but only within certain limits. The problem is not that I won't explain or discuss issues. Nor do I recall ever yelling at you. Your idea of discussion makes it almost impossible to talk to you reasonably. You're so full of self-righteous anger you can't see straight. You rarely answer a direct question with a direct answer. Your comments are laced with attacks and inflammatory rhetoric. If you don't let go and try to behave in a more cooperative manner, you'll end up being sanctioned yet again. How will that accomplish any of your objectives? You've had a week to calm down, and you haven't managed to do that. Perhaps you should take a voluntary break to gain some perspective.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yelling, blocks and threats, same thing. So, can you answer my question, explain the threat you left on my page, why can't I restore my edits on my talk page? What exactly is wrong with the edits? Please stop assuming bad faith. Sepsis II (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The majority of the edits (the sock stuff) was put there by a blocked proxy sock. They were removed by Mike V. You apparently want them to remain to make some sort of WP:POINT. The edits were disruptive and they shouldn't remain just because you want them to be broadcast to anyone who looks at your talk page. Apart from that, why would you want this gem to remain: "You're such a fucking snitch. You don't need to go tattling on admins because of my userpage. Dick." I didn't even look at the history to see how or who placed that on your talk page. Unfortunately, you're acting in bad faith; I'm not assuming anything, and yelling, blocks, and warnings are not the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
If my page is covered in attacks from socks I would then hope that my SPI reports would be taken more seriously and that if a sock was to file a report against me on a board the admin would take a look at my page, realize the new account making the report was a sock and would dismiss the case. Sepsis II (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Your hope makes little sense. You edit very quickly, so although you're welcome to continue this discussion if you wish, I won't be able to reply tonight. I'm going to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this polemic? Did I really make posts similar to that? Sepsis II (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That's quite something, Sepsis II. They even have subpages devoted to their views. I'm not sure what to make of it, honestly. I'm going to have to think a bit about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't expect anything done about it; I've brought it to the attention of admins before. An IP topic banned editor posting hateful, ignorant, anti-Palestine messages, that's what wikipedia is for. Sepsis II (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
To whom did you bring it up before, Sepsis?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:ARE and other places, but it's been a year so I forget, let the polemic stay, I'm about to be banned for calling a blocked sock a sock, I'm sure you'll be happy, one less editor, have the lines of decreasing editors and increasing socks/coi accounts crossed yet? Sepsis II (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, I may be misunderstanding this complaint or dispute, but I would ask this. If I added a note on my talk page that I preferred vandalism not to be removed from it; and if I then reverted edits made in defiance of this request, then, excepting certain obvious exceptions (BLP violations etc), would my reverts really be vandalism?

Perhaps someone is being mis-represented here, but to me there does seem to be a problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This is signicantly more complicated than just removing comments from a talk page, but without going into all the details, which I'd rather not do, there's a difference between reverting vandalism and reverting the edits of a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

New sock[edit]

Remember this? They're back. [2] --NeilN talk to me 19:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Certainly has a unique style. Indeffed and both accounts now tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Corso socks[edit]

Just FYI, Mei09494049300909 is not the master sockpuppeteer. Looking at this article's history reveals many more throwaway accounts. And searching for "Lee Corso" revealed this vandalism done last year. --NeilN talk to me 02:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think he was, but at that point I just wanted to block the accounts and tag them based on what I knew at the time. I've since found out (with some help) who the master is and will be retagging the accounts tomorrow. Gotta go to bed. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Jorge Elorza Copywrite infringement[edit]

I didn't think information from this person's own website would count as copywrite infringement. Can I delete the relevant copywritten material instead of rewriting the entire thing? It couldn't be more than a couple sentences and deletion of as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncataldo (talkcontribs) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The person who wrote the material owns the copyright. My recollection is it would require more than just deleting "a couple of sentences". If you want to recreate the article, I suggest you write the whole thing in your own words. I also urge you to submit it to WP:AFC so you can get feedback from more experienced editors about the quality of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I can rewrite it. It wasn't much right? I figured other people would fill in after I got the basics. Thanks for the heads up. I don't want to be sued or anything if they try to make it themselves and see that someone else used their own website as a source. I'll submit it again when finished and I'll certainly check out "".

I have one question about WP:AFC though. I thought I had to submit it there in the first place when I made the thing. Is there something else on that page that could link me with proofreaders or something? I think that'd be a lot better for me instead of sending it off and crossing my fingers like this first one I made. It's not as easy as finding sources and making edits but now that I've started I need to be good enough to finish. Thanks for the feedback and for any response in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncataldo (talkcontribs) 02:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The idea is you submit it to AFC, and if the reviewer points out problems, you try to fix them, and then resubmit it. It's an iterative process. If you conduct yourself responsibly and respectfully, I imagine editors who patrol AFC will be more than happy to help you with any questions you may have.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Desibabe and vandalism to Dan nainan page[edit]

I want to thank you for blocking User:DesiBabe from edit the Dan nainan page. If you see he has used the talk page to communicate his thoughts on his edits me and other wiki writers disagreed with his argument.

He also copied and paste the text of the statement stating that he blocked onto my talk page.

What can be done about desibabe, for I fear that when he is unblocked he will continue trolling. more so he has created the account for the sole purpose of vandalism the dan nainan page, please check his contributions.

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week for resuming their past behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Doug Lehmann[edit]

Hi, I don't think this was an "implausible" redirect given this. GiantSnowman 18:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, GS, I take the view that if the name (Doug Lehmann) isn't mentioned on the destination page, it's not particularly helpful. If the reader typed in that name and was redirected to that article, how would that be helpful?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
True, but it isn't very hard to add a mention to Doug Lehmann on the Peter Lehmann page, is it? Admittedly I should have done so when I created the redirect... GiantSnowman 11:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we're talking at cross purposes. When I deleted the redirect, it was pointing to Deaths in 2014. There's no mention of either Lehmann on that page. I'm assuming you're talking about your destination page, Peter Lehmann (winemaker), which is how you created it. There is a mention of Doug on Peter's page (brief, but it's there). It looks to me, in hindsight, that User:The Drover's Wife's change to the Deaths article was either misguided or disruptive as their edit summary makes no sense. Would you like me to recreate the redirect as it was when you created it? Feel free to do so yourself if you wish; now that I think (smile) I understand it, I have no objection.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't realised the redirect had been changed! Yes, please restore it, I will update the Peter Lehmann article. GiantSnowman 11:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Just checked - I created the redirect on 30 June; at that time 'Doug Lehmann' was already mentioned on the destination page! @The Drover's Wife:, please can you explain your actions here? GiantSnowman 11:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
At the time I created the redirect, the Deaths in 2014 page contained information about who Doug Lehmann was and how he died with sources. The Peter Lehmann page didn't mention him at all. Mentioning the words "Doug Lehmann" on the Peter Lehmann page still makes that page more useless than a redirect to the Deaths in June 2014 page unless it at least contains that much information on him. If the article being redirected to were one on the wine company, or if the Peter Lehmann article at least had the most bare bones of useful information, I'd be fine with that. I'd also be fine with speedy deletion. However, if an intentionally useless redirect is reinstated, I will revert it to one that at least contains useful information on the subject. I don't believe in intentionally spiting our readers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"The Peter Lehmann page didn't mention him at all" simply is not true, as my diff above shows... GiantSnowman 12:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I read through the article and missed it - it was that tangential. It still contained less information than the page I re-redirected it to. If the dude isn't notable enough for an article, that's fine, but I have a real bugbear about people creating intentionally useless redirects. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Drover, if you were going to change the redirect, you should have done it to Deaths in June 2014, and that article does have Doug listed, but the entry makes no sense (it appears to say that Doug is Peter). For the moment at least I've recreated the redirect with Peter as the destination. That can be changed, but I would recommend discussing it on the redirect talk page, not doing it in the page itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have restored the original redirect and updated the Peter Lehmann article. GiantSnowman 12:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Much better. If we're going to make redirects, we should be providing helpful information, not going "I see a red link so I'm going to redirect it to something that looks vaguely similar to the actual subject" - and now we do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad everyone's happy now, but in the future, Drover, at least make your edit summaries accurate. I misread the entry in the June article. It doesn't say that Doug is Peter, just says he was a vintner at the winery.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The edit summary was accurate as I then read the article. Forgive me for missing the incredibly tangential reference in the article at the time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The Drover's Wife, by the very limited power vested in me as an administrator, I hereby forgive you. You may celebrate your act of redemption with a glass of wine.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 Isla Vista Killings[edit]

Hi Bbb23, I asked earlier today on gender bias task force page, if an ongoing dispute on the 2014 Isla Vista Killings article might be covered by MRM sanctions, and apparently, the page was completely locked down today by an admin, due to edit warring regarding the category "violence against men". This edit war has recurred multiple times, and the category itself (and some of the comments on the talk page} seem connected to MRM, so was wondering if you thought the current dispute was a case where sanctions might apply or if warnings of possible sanctions might help resolve the situation. When you get a chance, could you take a look? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it but no promises. I'm kinda tired of MRM at the moment; it's exhausting.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand. The talk page discussion is very long and exhausting as well. There seems to be no end to the content dispute regarding category "violence against men" for this article. In past, one or two editors have been highly involved in the ongoing edit war, and particularly disruptive, but now, the edit war is spread out over so many different editors, and no one editor seems particularly disruptive, so I'm not sure sanctions would even apply to anyone right now anyway. If they would apply in the future, it seems possible warnings might help prevent future edit wars regarding this category though. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Question of A7 revert on "A Conspiracy on Jekyll Island"[edit]

Hi, a quick question. I've been trying to patrol new articles and want to understand what the correct procedure is. You reverted a speedy tag for "no indication of importance" on this film. Per your note, I see that film is not specifically listed in the A7 criteria, but it also seems to me that this article clearly fails WP:NF. Would it, in your opinion, be eligible for a 7 day non-controversial deletion? Would it need to go through a full AfD discussion? What is the correct action here? Thanks, -Xpctr8 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think it doesn't meet notability guidelines, Xpctr8, the best process for this kind of article would be AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)