User talk:Bbb23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshalmiller (talkcontribs) 13:6, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

I very appreciate with your comment Lee788

Some cookies to you!

Good Morning![edit]

Hello there Bbb23! Recently you deleted a few articles by User:Abyssal after I tagged them for no content. They have left me a message on my Talk page asking that I have that undone. This is not, however, a request to do so. In fact, I believe that these articles, even if they were in the middle of some big project, should not have been on the Wiki and left in the sandbox. Please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of the "no content" policy. Thanks so much for your help! Kobuu (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree with you or I would not have deleted them. WP:CSD#A3 states: "Any article consisting only of external links, category tags and "See also" sections" may be deleted per this criterion. As I recall, the only thing in the article was a single reference (and some portals) that was not connected to the body. I therefore construed that ref as the equivalent of an external link and deleted it. In addition, there was at least one other administrator who deleted a similar article. Indeed, all the articles followed almost precisely the same framework. Effectively, the user was cluttering up article space with pages that couldn't even be called proper stubs. He should create them in his user space until they're ready for article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Bbb23, thank you. That is exactly what I was looking for. Basically just the admin support and reaffirmation of the delete. Thank you again. Kobuu (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Help[edit]

help me with this--- en.wikisource.org/wiki/School_Song_of_New_R._S._J._Public_School --prathamprakash29 14:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Damián80[edit]

I notice you were involved in a recent AN3 discussion concerning Damián80. One of the issues that you noticed, his almost incomprehensible English, seems to be an ongoing problem. As a result of this discussion at Template talk:Infobox television I did some cleanup at Marido en alquiler,[2] but he's been fighting me all the way. There seems to be no willingness to even attempt to understand MOS:TV and he's accused me of WP:OWN, as well as making a couple of what can best be described as "dummy spit" reverts.[3][4] I've tried explaining on his talk page and mine but it seems to be going nowhere. He keeps making the same silly edits, like restoring "px" to the infobox (The Lua code called by the template doesn't require it), restoring {{imdbname}} to the prose, restoring WP:REDNOT violations etc. As soon as one thing is fixed, something else pops up. He seems to believe that the way things are done at the Spanish Wikipedia is the way we should do it here, and doesn't want to accept that there is a difference. When he disagrees, he simply reverts. This seems to be similar to Musicfan877's complaint and I'm really not sure what to do about it. It's turning into a long edit war and we don't want that. --AussieLegend () 12:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the user comes out of nowhere, saying "Marido en alquiler" is a TV series, and thus must be edited in the same way they do in the items as "Austin & Ally", "Jessie" and "Sam & Cat". So did this add red links because it has always done it and did not know it could not be done, then do again and I reversed my edits, add links to IMDb because I had seen elsewhere, but this same user told me he can not, so I went back to do, then came yesterday and do what he wants and goes and change the way in which I was working. Come and place a template for others to do what he does not want to do. I'm not saying that fits the translation or to make arrangements, but the section of the cast has always been well edited for years, because I'm on wikipedia since 2012, clearly I'm doing what he does not want to do, and then comes and changes the way I was editing. For from time to time it owned the item, and any issue that I would like him. So as I see that no one does what the template says, I myself went to work in the article, to please him. And nothing seems no issue anything you like.--Damián (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Since posting here there has been another revert without explanation, reintroducing the tables.[5] It really is impossible to collaborate with this user. I'm not sure whether to take this to AN3 or ANI. --AussieLegend () 17:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I think the problem is fixed, I just hope this article will users demanding the same article. Because it's uncomfortable having to do what he does not want to do.--Damián (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. This edit solved a lot of the issues but you reverted that.[6] Since then a lot of edits have been made and it's now necessary to clean everything up for a third time. And then there was this edit that had to be made to again remove content that had no consensus. You've said the article is fine now but you've effectively said this previously, only to revert when somebody dares edit it away from your preferred format. Today alone you've removed the cleanup tag again while problems existed and restored the motto that had already been removed. I was going to do some more cleanup on the article but I really don't see the point because I fully expect to see it reverted, as it has so many times before. --AussieLegend () 04:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Page deletion?!![edit]

Hello, I just wanted to ask why did you delete the page of the well known Martyr Ziad Bakir? And how come the reason was "insignificance"? Would you please make at least a simple web search for his name? We would appreciate your help creating a page with his name as it is quite important. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziad_Bakir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folleesperance (talkcontribs) 02:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I won't help you. Your editing is disruptive. It's promotional (who's "we"?). You commit copyright violations. You remove tags that you have no right removing. You're not here to improve Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:VeNeMousKAT[edit]

PhilKnight and I are feeling inclined to give this one another chance. As the blocking admin, what's your opinion? Peridon (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Peridon, I respect both your and Phil's views, not to mention Daniel Case's. Go right ahead, and thanks for checking with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

Good point about the Arbcom notification reversals. As a clerk, I verified that all the notifications were made, but did not check to see that they were still on the page. I'll amend my own personal procedure (mulling whether to modify the clerks procedure page). Of the four listed parties (other than filer) two are inactive, Toddst1, and Rlevse. You are obviously aware, and AGK added a note to DS's page that the case is restored. It seems headed for a decline, so I think it would be pointless bureaucracy to restore a notice on two retired editors about the time the case is declined. Do you disagree?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sphilbrick, what you decided is fine. I simply wanted to bring it to the attention of one of the clerks. It was a small point given the direction the request was and is taking. Thanks for taking care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, obviously, if it takes a different turn, will have to revisit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hello, would you be so kind an help me and undo the revert edition by Damián80 in the article Lucía Méndez.

In the past month of May I reverted a vandalism in the birthday date; on August 7 he undid me and caused setting up a wrong date as a result of his action, and now the article has three different years of birth.

I have tried to fix it again, but he undid my editions twice; I do not want to start a edit war and of course not to violate the three-revert rule; for that reason I ask your kind assistance.

The article in es.wiki has the reference, but it is in spanish; you can check it if you like.

Finally an just for the record, I am an administrator in es.wiki and just a non regular editor in this Wikipedia.

Thank you so much for your attention. Eduardosalg (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, pardon me for jumping in, but I saw this note, and I've added the sourced dob to the article. @Eduardosalg: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both. Eduardosalg (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's lovely when something gets resolved in my absence. Thanks to both of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Potcoin page[edit]

Hi

I would like to create a new page about Potcoin. I realise you deleted the last one for reason A7 and I completely agree, it was incomplete and didn't have great sources cited. Before I start on the new page on Wikipedia I will make sure it is first completed offline and will then upload it to wikipedia. I just wanted to let you know first as that last, essentially, 'draft' entry was deleted and this is the same topic.

Kind Regards, Erika Papdi Potcoin Ambassador UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eristas (talkcontribs) 11:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg[edit]

This is with reference to the reversion that you made on 8 August 2013. I had made the change after leaving a note on the talk page in July. In my view, registration as a voter does not confer party membership, and ought to be distinguished as such. Judicial ethics prevent SCOTUS judges from being members of any political party. Thank you for your attention. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean 2014. I responded on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined[edit]

An arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been withdrawn, and that withdrawal has been accepted by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators views on hearing this matter, found here, may be useful. For the arbitration committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23[edit]

I am sure you have a good reason to revert my 2 questions on ISIS Talk page that I made in good faith using the terms used in the UN Security Council resolution (this is verifiable). Can you help me understand the WP rules against my discussion or was it an honest error? Face-smile.svg Worldedixor (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't use the article talk page to express your personal opinion, even if others agree with that opinion. The talk page is to be used to discuss changes to the article, edits to the article, etc. The section header only confirmed what you were doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh I can see how you may have seen it as such. Not a problem. What is in your opinion the best way to ask questions on the talk page to initiate changes to the article, edits to the article about countries that actually support ISIS? Worldedixor (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
If you want to add material to the article and discuss it first on the talk page, then propose the material with reliable sources supporting the proposed changes and hopefully other editors will comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks. I can do that for the 1st question but I was hoping that someone may be able to tell me if they knew of a country that actually supports the Islamic State, publicly I mean. I am aware from our intelligence sources that wealthy individuals are secretly financing them but not their countries. Worldedixor (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
That's dicier, and I'm going to dodge the question for the following reason. Given the notoriety of these events, I think that if there were a country that supported the ISIS, you'd be able to find it in a reliable source. So, I think it's a pointless question. Does that make sense?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes.Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Lighten up[edit]

You are the one who reverted my edit without even an attempt at explanation. This is not appreciated. By what authority are you intimidating me with blocks? Do you own Wikipedia?--71.39.6.142 (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are non-neutral and inflammatory, and your edit summaries and other comments are even worse. As I stated on your talk page, if you persist, you risk being blocked. If you really think your edits have merit, propose them on the article talk page, but don't add them to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Drmies[edit]

Hey, I'm not sure you intended to to this, but it's considered bad form for a third-party to remove one editor's comment from another's talk page, as you did at User talk:Drmies. betafive 01:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also bad form to template a regular over a comment that was not in any way a personal attack. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Arguably so, but it's not a policy violation (as removing another editor's talk-page comments from a third-party's talk page is.) Who asked you again? betafive 02:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"Who asked you" is not a good way to address anyone on this wiki. I've noticed that you appear to be trying to pick fights with people, which isn't part of building the encyclopedia. Please consider having a nice walk, a sandwich, or something that makes you happy. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I was asking seriously, because your suggestions aren't helpful. Look, I'm not trying to pick fights with people, but content and policy disagreements happen. I don't know why some choose to turn them into interpersonal issues, but I'm not responsible for the actions of other people. betafive 03:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Beta, I've seen instances of editors A and B posting to a talk page or ANI at the almost exact same time. A posts first, B then posts, but in the process B's post causes A's post to disappear. Done it myself on one occasion and had at least one case of an editor doing the same to a post of mine....William 03:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware. I'm not accusing User:Bbb23 of maliciousness, but it's still careless. betafive 03:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
If a glitch happens and material gets removed without the (second) editor being informed, how is that careless? Are you expecting every editor to review a diff of every edit they make, after making it, to check that there has not been a glitch? Or something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't there have been a conflict warning? betafive 03:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, Betafive, I have no idea - and still don't - what happened. I started off trying to fix something that Drmies did inadvertently when he edited his talk page. It was some gobbledygook, and it looks like his fingers slipped or something. I had his edit and an edit window open side by side and carefully restored what had been there before Drmies accidentally changed it. I didn't look at my edit immediately, but I noticed a short time later that the byte change made no sense. So, when I looked at my diff, I saw I had removed an IP's comment, I have no idea how I did that. Still don't. So, I went back in to restore it. I suppose after the first fiasco, I should have looked more carefully at my restore, but I didn't scroll down far enough to notice that at the same time I had removed your comment in restoring the IP's comment. Again, I don't know how this one happened. Usually I can figure these things out, but for the life of me I can't. Again, my apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
No, betafive, edit conflict messages do not always appear, and therefore some of your comments are unfair and should be retracted. Not that it's a big deal, but, it upset some people, so, it was a problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
My apology still stands, Betafive, but the comments by Demiurge and others with regard to "unreported" edit conflicts are true. I've seen it happen. It just never happened to me twice in succession, so it was a bit off-putting for me. Anyway, my suggestion is you move on, but you don't have to retract anything as far as I'm concerned if you don't wish to.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries, water under the bridge. If I offended you, I'm sorry about that; I certainly didn't mean to imply it was anything other than an honest mistake. betafive 00:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Hello. This is Jayson37373737. you deleted my page for no reason. That was my loveliest work! For this, I am going to try to delete my account and start a new website. Thank you. Jayson3737373737 11:08, 17 August 2014 (GMC)

SPI CLerk page[edit]

I have never opened an RFC it states on the page to ask for help and someone will help so I'm doing that for the second time. Will you please guide me to what I'm missing? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to restrain myself, partly because of my previous positive interactions with you, but you're being incredibly obtuse. First, the process page tells you to include "a brief, neutral statement of the issue" (bolding in original). Do you call your lengthy statement brief? Neutral? That's the most important thing you're missing. It also tells you to code the RfC (yours ended up in unsorted). In my view, you should have coded it "policy" as that's the category closest to what it is. Forget about all that. Why don't you step back, take a break, do whatever? Pushing this is not going to help you, and don't tell me you're doing it on principle. You should know by now that one's own view as to what's important at Wikipedia is worthless unless there is a sufficient number of other members of the community who agree with you. But I don't think this is going to get through to you, more's the pity.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely that more then my opinion is needed, that's why I included the community and not just the checkusers and clerks. I thought if it ends up just being me then hey that's the way it goes. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I just have a big problem with hiding behind email walls. I'm a big enough person to say what I mean on wikipedia and it bothers me when others can't back up their own opinions. I am more so hurt by the rationale behind then not being able to help out. I will let you know that in my personal life I was raised a Jehovah's Witness because I had a rough youth I was trying to reform and go back to the religion, well I didn't know that they had canceled the meeting that day and were remodeling the kingdom hall. This is an event when people are encouraged to help and donate time, but because I didn't have a specific rank within that congregation I was turned away. I never went back after that because it seriously hurt me that people willing to help was treated so callously. This situation is a lot similar except in this case I just wish I had the respect from people to actually say what they feel and not hide behind. You can believe what you want. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry about your childhood experience, and I have little doubt in your sincerity, but Wikipedia is, like so many things, not always "fair". Think of it like applying for a job and you're turned down but no one will tell you why. It's frustrating but there's not much you can do about it. Also, it might help if you don't think of this as a lack of respect but a conventional practice that isn't going to change just for you. In other words, you're not being singled out. Anyway, no matter what, I hope you feel better. It's easy to forget on Wikipedia that there are real human beings with feelings lurking behind these posts. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR repeated actionable misconduct[edit]

Hi, Bbb23. I go to extreme lengths to avoid any violation of 1RR [7] as not to irritate anyone. P123ct1 was warned about the 1RR restriction in the ISIS article like we all have been warned, yet it repeatedly engages in reverts that violate the 1RR restriction. Since 15 August, starting with [8], its has made 2RRs or more on a daily basis. Also, its edit summary says "reverting self" when it technically was reverting my edit in a 1RR article. This is one example [9] by which it has reverted me [10]I invite you to take a quick look at its edits and take the appropriate action to minimize disruption. Thanks Worldedixor (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please also take a look at Corriebertus. While I am completely in agreement with its edits, it has violated 1RR starting with [11] and [12]. Enforcing the strict policy on everyone equally will minimize disruption to other editors who may not agree with its edits. Worldedixor (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm addressing only P123ct1 because you added the other just a few seconds ago. P123ct1 has never been officially notified of the sanctions. I have now notified them. If I recall correctly, I declined to sanction you when you violated 1RR because you had not been officially notified, although notification is not required to sanction someone for violating 1RR. I have no comment on the merits.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
User:P123ct1 thought that the "reverting self" edit was their 1RR edit - I did . P123ct1 is clearly aware of 1RR and trying their best not to break 1RR. So far the policy has been applied equally - no one has been blocked. User:Corriebertus did break 1RR - 2 edits with 10 minutes between. Editors need to be reminded to check to see if anyone has edit if they are going to revert twice in a short period of time, Even a minute's delay can end up with an editor breaking 1RR - it's tricky in a fast moving article. It is much better to ask why a fact tag was added, or remove it with a comment saying "this is already in the reference" than to call it disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


Thanks Bbb23. Worldedixor (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure why admin Dougweller is justifying P123ct1's 1RR, but we can assume good faith for now as to his non-bias in favor of one editor until we notice a pattern. I just want to point out the verifiable fact that [13] was made many hours (not minutes) after [14]. I also initiated a discussion on cn requests on the article Talk page. I am asking for no further action on Corriebertus unless Bbb23 deems it necessary as an uninvolved admin in the best interest of WP. Worldedixor (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


The "repeated actionable misconduct" in the heading is threatening language that in WP I could well imagine is "actionable" in itself! :D .I went to Dougweller yesterday about the "reverting self" edit he refers to above, concerned that it brought me to 1RR. This was his reply:-

I have foolishly reverted myself today (with intervening edits by others). Is that my 1RR for 24 hours? --P123ct1 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
P123ct1, afraid so unless you revert your revert. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I promptly reverted my revert and assumed I was clear. Secondly, I didn't think adding a "cn" tag counted as a revert. I am happy to stand corrected on either or both points. I have not hear from Bbb23 yet. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P123ct1, I will tell you what I tell all editors about reverts in the edit-warring context. Technically, any change to an article or the restoration of material previously deleted is a revert. However, administrators have discretion on what they characterize as a revert, and you shouldn't assume that administrators will always agree in any particular case. Contrary to what some think, we do not operate as a single entity. The more minor the edit, the less likely - but not guaranteed - it will be called a revert. For example, if you add a comma or remove a comma, the vast majority, if not all, admins would not label that a revert except in the rare circumstance that it fundamentally changed the meaning of the sentence. Certainly, it's safe to say that fixing a misspelling would not be called a revert. As for your specific question about tagging, you might be shocked to learn how many edit wars are over tags. Yet, in your case, if the tag is brand new (I didn't check), it shouldn't count as a revert because it doesn't change anything in the article; it is a brand new addition. Finally, remember that when you're editing articles that are subject to sanctions, whether they be community or ArbCom sanctions, your edits are going to be scrutinized more closely, so you should be extra careful. Also, with truly gnomish-type edits, ask yourself if it matters whether you do it or let someone else do it or at least at least wait until the 24-hour window has clearly elapsed. It's not urgent, is it? It's a shame we have to operate in this way, but that's the problem with editing controversial subject matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Self-reverting does not count as a revert per WP:EW, so you can do that as many times as you like and still revert one more editor on that day. CodeCat (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification about self-reverts; it has put my mind at rest. Bbb23, thanks for your explanation as well, particularly about tags. I am surprised to learn that even they can be so controversial! I will obviously have to be careful about any I make in the future. But it does sound to me as if copy-editing really isn't possible in controversial articles with 1RRs. Many new entries in the ISIS article are written by users whose English is not their mother tongue and the grammar can often be awkward and straightening it out can involve quite a lot of minor changes. Obviously the golden rule is not to change the sense, and I haven't met any trouble over that so far. I always think of the reader first, and the ISIS article is getting many thousands of hits per day, so I feel obliged to make it readable. I also didn't realise how much latitude admins are allowed in applying the 1RR rule. I have been quite concerned that I might have been reverting inadvertently after this issue was raised by Worldedixor, and now feel reassured. Thank you again for your help. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
PS My revert at Worldedixor's (8) was made with consensus. I took the matter to the Talk page first, and let the required 24 hours after placing my "cn" tags pass before removing that passage. I was extremely careful about this. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Question on gnomish editing, eg case changes, and what counts as a revert. Maybe it should have been on the 3RR talk page but as it is Admins who interpret this I went there. I am concerned about the fact that small changes are necessary to keep an article in shape, especially with new editors who really don't understand what to do or may have poor English. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Solj[edit]

User talk:Jacobkennedy is back to socking. There's no need for a sock investigation since he has already admitted it. AcidSnow (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

AcidSnow, if you mean the IP, I've blocked it for a month. What's "Solj"?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I meant sock. Anyways, thanks! AcidSnow (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for semiprotecting Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism; that's one fewer disruptive editor Binksternet and I have to deal with there. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

2013 in Vatican City[edit]

Hello, I've notice that you've deleted this page, is it possible for me to create again this page or maybe 2014 in Vatican City, beacause we can put a lot of things, for example in french fr:2013 au Vatican or fr:2014 au Vatican Olivier LPB (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That page was deleted a very long time ago per WP:CSD#A3, i.e., there was nothing in it of any substance. I'm not clear what you're asking me. You don't need my permission to create real articles, but I suggest you do it through WP:AFC as it doesn't appear that you're a very experienced editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Your Jordan Belfort Reverts[edit]

Dude, please stop reverting relevant, reliably sourced material without explanation. If you have a beef with the material then take it up on the article's talk page, that's where I'll look for your response.67.40.211.28 (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Tagged for A3[edit]

Hello Bbb23. I tagged article Kollegova Daria for speedy deletion under criteria A3 because of this reason.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A3 specifically addresses articles with only infoboxes in them: "Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet the criteria mentioned here." So, when I see an article with just an infobox, it depends on what's in it as to whether I delete it. If you were to transfer the information from the infobox to the body of the article and it was deletable per A3 (e.g., just a repeat of the subject name), I'd A3 it. If it had information that was more than that, as in this case, I will not, at least not under that criterion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos[edit]

Khabboos is back. His new account is Krish8. It fits his usual activities and edit summaries. AcidSnow (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo took care of it. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, take care as well! AcidSnow (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)