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.

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)

Hi![edit]

Hi, how are you? To keep up the good work here. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 05:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"How are you?" I mean, Bbb23. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 21:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Allen, frankly, I don't understand why you leave these sorts of messages on my talk page. AFAIK, I have never had any interaction with you. You left a similar message on Ponyo's talk page. In addition, you have this very odd subpage, User:AllenHAcNguyen/Friends, where you have this list of editors who "love" you and one of your favorite shows. Perhaps some administrators get a little jaded over time - and apparently you are young - but these sorts of posts, as innocuous as they may seem on the surface, are sometimes construed as trolling. Honestly, I think you would be far better off editing articles than spending your time this way. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

I can't deal with this anymore. No matter how many times I till this user to stop making personal attacks, assumption against me, and putting words in my mouth he just keep doing it. It has been impossible for this "discussion" to continue when he is doing this. Through this discussion this user has:

1. Accused me of playing a "word game" which is irrelevant to the "discussion".[1][2]
2. Stated that I don't know much about what's being discussed.[3][4]
3. Accused me of not reading the links he has provided[5][6]
4. Accused me of not reading his replies[7][8]
5. Accused me of being unable to read[9]
6. Accused me of putting words in his mouth[10]
7. Accused me of lying[11][12][13]
8. Accusing me of making "fun" of him[14]
9. Accusing me of making personal attacks[15]
10. Stated that I have no respect.[16]

I gave him one final warning for him to stop today but he choose to ignore it. Pretty much each of his replies have been poor imitation of mine. They did not really contribute much anyway. I would greatly appreciate it if you could please do something about this. AcidSnow (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've looked through some of the diffs above and I don't see what I would call personal attacks. Rather, I see a heated content dispute with neither of you happy with the other. If you don't think the other editor is contributing much to the discussion, then stop discussing with them. Nothing compels you to respond just because they say something. If there's a dispute that spills over onto the article, then you need to seek content resolution elsewhere (as I believe has been suggested by others).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Well first I would like to say I am not here to "Wiki lawyer" or anything like that since I don't know a lot about Wikipedias policies. Anyways, according to WP:PERSONAL it states "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.". Seeing how he stated I have no respect, have made "fun" of him, accused me of making personal attacks, being unable to read, and that I have lied I would assume take these fall under as such as "remarks about the user" and not "their contributions/content on Wikipedia". Anyways, I have requested an RFC so feel free to drop on in. AcidSnow (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I would stop but he is still making accusations against me which is kind of putting a dent in my character (how others see me). 20:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Galerie Gmurzynska[edit]

Thanks for taking care of matters on Galerie Gmurzynska.

Given the length of protection, and given that the current state of the article is that the lede is mostly made about talking about them being investigated (and given that the article does discuss the ownership of the Galerie, and thus this becomes a WP:BLP issue), I wonder if it might be wise to cut this down to a stub for now, rather than leaving it in this state. (Please note that I have neither been editing either for the all-promo version or the all-attack version; this isn't so much a WP:WRONGVERSION matter as a BLP concern.) Not being an admin, I cannot make this edit myself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Nat, I don't see it as that big a problem that it requires removal. Mostly it's about problems with the gallery rather than the owner. The owner would be posssibly involved by implication. Still, I understand your concern, so I have two suggestions. One is to make an edit request on the talk page and let another admin evaluate it. The other is to take it to BLPN. If there is a consensus for removal, I would be willing to remove it at that point.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the recommendation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention on this matter Bbb23. I note that this organization is once again using multiple IP addresses to restore its own self-promotional version of this page and to suppress publicly available, widely-documented material about its history. I have taken on board your comments and edited to produce a version which does not lead with the current VAT evasion case and which includes a reasonable version of the other side of the "edit warring". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammophone (talkcontribs) 21:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Accusations by Stoney1976[edit]

Hi, Bbb23. You blocked User:Stoney1976. However, there is still problem with some of their comments. Namely, the problematic topic is Talk:Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing#Consensus_vs._Meat_Puppetry. This issue was raised at Stoney's talk page and I explained there the background of my communication with user:Alexbrn. However, instead of removing their comment, Stoney1976 repeated this and made a new accusation alleging that me and/or Alexbrn are COI editors. I know that every editor has a quite wide of rights about their talk pages but could you please review and, if possible, remove this section from the article's talk page. I know that after eight years in Wikipedia one should have a quite thick skin, but there are moments when that kind of things feel little bit too much. Beagel (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it, but, honestly, I don't see why it bothers everyone so much. Based on what Stoney says, it makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I fully agree with you, but as I said there are moments when that kind of things feel little bit too much. Happened just to have one of these moments. Beagel (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Dev Team 6[edit]

Bbb23 I saw you just deleted all of the content I added to the page regarding Adam C. Gray. Your explanation was that the information was "excessively promotional" and that "sourced "negative" material was removed. I understand restoring the "negative material", but I fail to see a distinction between a page that promote negative stories about a person (ie the one you restored) vs one that is positive. The only real difference is that the negative stories have been added over the course of a few weeks while I tried to summarize the other stories in one go. Everything I added was legitimately sources from real news organizations, so I failed to see how it does not qualify as legitimate information. If I utilize the stories you restored, but also add back in the parts I wrote, would you be satisfied with the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev Team 6 (talkcontribs) 04:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that you are a new editor and your only interest thus far seems to be in the Gray article. The article's history is one of WP:SPAs editing the article from opposing and non-neutral viewpoints, meaning that one SPA likes Gray and tries to remove anything negative about him and another dislikes Gray and tries to add negative material. This kind of editing is unhealthy and disruptive to Wikipedia, and it's my role to prevent it. What's your interest in the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I am interested in the article because it is relevant to where I live, and I am a student studying political science and the use of online media. I believe using Wikipedia as a repository of negative articles about people some editor's do not like is not the purpose nor the spirit of the site. As it stands the page in question has been used to report quite literally the only 2 or 3 negative news stories that exist on the internet about this person. If you don't believe me I invite you to do a quick search. This is obviously what the previous editor has used the page for. There also happen to be numerous positive stories about this person, which I summarized and referenced from legitimate news sources. I do understand your choice to restore the "negative material", but if the page can be used to post negative stories, surely it can also be used to post stories that happen to be positive as well? I have made another attempt to edit the page taking your concerns into account. Please let me know what can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev Team 6 (talkcontribs) 05:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
For so many years, you are making good decisions and running all administrator boards. You really deserve this! Bladesmulti (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
That's very kind, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

M8[edit]

Cab you revert this back to the correct dab page? Bearian (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Are country clubs and suburban developments really Notable population centers?[edit]

Re Abacoa and Country Club at Mirasol, I understand the argument that these are essentially towns, but I'd counter that barring any official recognition as a Census Designated Place, or a popular conception in the media of it being a discrete location, then it's just a collection of houses owned by one company, and should fall under the Notability requirements for business/corporations, and accordingly deleted if they don't show N.

This came up because an AFC submitter for Draft:Evergrene_Country_Club_Community is upset that (paraphrased) "how come all the other country clubs get to advertise on Wikipedia, but my draft is getting declined?"

I dunno, do we need to add something to Wikipedia:Notability (populated places) about commercial residential developments needing to either meet GNG or N:CORP? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a notability issue in this instance. Therefore, I would raise it at WT:CSD.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Note that rather than Prod Abacoa, I cut out the unduly promotional stuff, and put in some decent citations from books about urban planning and the like. I'm not saying the topic is invalid, just that it should be incumbent on submitters to prove N; and I still think Abacoa is a corporation more than a town. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I have been invited to this discussion because I declined the CSD on Country Club at Mirasol for the same reason that it do not meet the A7 criteria. I feel this is still a populated area it may be managed by a corporation but the article is not about the corporation as much as the land area. WP:GEOLAND states that a land area without legal recognition will have to meet WP:GNG which I believe this article may struggle with, however With the age of the Mirasol article it may be better served with a WP:AfD, as I am under the belief that CSD should only be used on newer articles less then a 1 year old after that it has passed some level of review and then should be discussed about it's removal.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sand hills, Florida[edit]

  • This link is at least 50 miles away from the location claimed in the draft, the intersection of state 77 and state 20.
  • This is around 15 miles away and on the wrong side of I-10.
  • This place is near Weeki Wachee, a couple hundred miles away.
  • This website may be about the same place, but makes no mention of any organized communnity, nor is it the same name. Digging deeper into this page, it mentions many lakes, but none named Sand Hills. The editor does not refer to any conservation efforts, nor does the conservation page make any mention of any incorporation plans.

In short, I still don't see it. An article about the geographic feature may be appropriate, as there are a couple GNIS references to different geographic features in Florida called "Sand Hills", however the only one in Bay county is a volunteer fire department. There is hardly enough to move an article about a place into the encyclopedia. No census records, no indication of a post office either current or historical, no GNIS record. By the writing, I am thinking we may be dealing with a kid here. Do you have a suggestion as to how I might help him, and did you find something i didn't? John from Idegon (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you until now. I wouldn't assume the editor is a kid. His contribution history indicates he's interested in things related to Florida, which makes sense based on what he's said. Regardless of all your evidence, I use G3 per the specific language of the criterion, meaning the hoax has to be blatant and obvious, and this one just isn't. Regardless of that, this is a draft. It has not been moved to main space, so it's only subject to deletion for a handful of reasons (G3 is one of them), but why worry about it even if it is wrong? It's doing very little harm, if any. I'd just let it go unless it actually does get moved to article space, in which case I'd AfD it and present your case. If you feel like it, you could examine Ben's other contributions to see if there's any indication of vandalism or otherwise disruptive edits. I didn't do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit-war advise[edit]

I had been blocked by you recently for 72h. You had given a warning to the other editor also and noted that he does not get a license to revert. But he reverted after 24h. I added my comment on article talk page now and I have tried to add a trimmed down content with reliable reference and it has been immediately reverted by him with no talk page comment and he again posted a edit warring notice to me. The content I want to put back was in the article for more than at least six months (with same reference) and was not even added by me to begin with. He had replaced it with exactly opposite meaning content, which I had opposed. I am fine if he so dearly wants to insert his new content, like I said in that edit war section also. But his insistence on keeping the old referenced content also out while he repeatedly self declared "consequently I shall revert" on talk page is not helpful to me. The content is referenced to reliable source TOI and The Hindu and was in the article for at least six months. Relevant section User_talk:AmritasyaPutra#Edit_warring_again_on_M._S._Golwalkar. --AmritasyaPutraT 15:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the 'context' (the talk page section) does matter in considering this incident. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I am putting together a summary of what happened after the block, as well as an explanation of how I see things. The talk page discussion is entirely relevant to the editing behaviour because my contention is that AmritasyaPutra has been using reverts as a substitute for meaningful discussion on the talk page. The talk page discussion made progress only after it became amply clear to him that the reverts cannot proceed any further. Kautilya3 (talk)

Draft:Legal Challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]

Has reappeared. I see you deleted this once before. I know I declined it at WP:AFC. Fiddle Faddle 11:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Panda deleted the draft. I blocked the new IP and increased the block of the previous IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Persib Bandung[edit]

Hi, Can you change this page move to semi-protected? Thankyou. (Tommy (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC))

I semi-protected the page before you posted here. It will be semi-protected for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but i think not yet, can you move to semi-protected page forever? Example such as Inter Milan. Thankyou (Tommy (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC))

No, there's no justification for such extended protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"No, there's no justification for such extended protection." ? Not that. I mean, move to semi-protected like pages Inter Milan. (Tommy (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC))

Sorry, but I apparently don't understand you. Regardless of how Inter Milan was protected, the effect is that it's permanently semi-protected. Again, that's not justified for the Persib Bandung article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem the effect is that it's permanently semi-protected. And why not justified for the Persib Bandung article? I hope you want to move to semi-protected. Thankyou-- Tommy (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's the first time the article's ever been protected, and the disruption is not sufficient to justify permanent protection. And I think that ends this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company[edit]

Hi Bbb23. I was trying to think of someone I could ask for a fourth opinion of sorts without any possible appearance of canvassing. Since I don't know your position on BLP/privacy or anything else, I thought you would be a good person to ask.

A few editors have, after being notified by me, agreed to remove the following sentence from the McKinsey & Company page, where I have a COI:

For example, according to an article citing public tax records, a senior partner in McKinsey's Norway office earned 67 million NOK in 2011, or between $11 and $12 million USD.(source)

Each time the sentence and/or some related material is removed, it has been restored by user:My2011[17][18][19] in a kind of slow-rolling, mild edit-war over the last year and a half.

My2011's argument (My2011, please correct me if I am mis-stating) is that I am trying to censor or hide criticisms regarding McKinsey's high salaries. My argument is that the short blurb is not a sufficient source, nor should we focus on the salary of any one individual, especially when profile stories in USA Today (citation 65), WSJ (citation 60), BusinessWeek and the Financial Times all estimate most McKinsey directors earn between $1-$3 million. CorporateM (Talk) 22:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Somaliland[edit]

Do you mind doing something about his latest edit on the Somaliland page as it's source misrepresentation and POV? None of his sources mention that 50,000 people died (even then the number is disputed) and the only article that even mentions "indiscriminate" is a partisan website. This edit is also what broke 3RR and the image that he never received consensus for. I would also like ask you to look back at the 3RR Noticeboard for my most recent reply and that of Middayexpress. Other than that, I greatly thank you for your assistance! AcidSnow (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I tried to neutralize it. However, some sources do give a 50,000 figure, but it's often partisan and/or non-specialist ones. I think the number should be sorted out on the talk page. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I left it alone because I thought it was actually mentioned on the BBC article but it turns out it was not. I have gone and removed that part since it's unsourced. AcidSnow (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

Some weeks ago, I was involved in an editing dispute with @Lugnuts: which resulted in a EWN report, and the requirement by yourself and @EdJohnston: that I enter into dispute resolution or be blocked. The intervening time has been caused primarily by medical necessity and family obligations, but also, I confess, by a certain amount of procrastination and avoidance of an unpleasant task. I've done very little editing in the meantime, but I have thought about the issues involved in the specific conflict, and the situation in general. Since I'm not certain that I have the energy to participate in a drawn-out formal RfC, I'd like instead to offer a compromise.

The issue at hand concerns the formatting of Reference or Notes sections. I would like to suggest as a compromise a pledge on my part that I will no longer add the sub-heading "Notes" to a References section in which there are no other sub-headings, such as "Bibliography" or whatever. I will also, in general, try harder to not get caught up in edit-warring.

I will monitor your talk page for comments on my proposal. BMK (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I need to hear first from Lugnuts. More important, I hope you're well or at least on the mend.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
"I would like to suggest as a compromise a pledge on my part that I will no longer add the sub-heading "Notes" to a References section in which there are no other sub-headings, such as "Bibliography" or whatever. I will also, in general, try harder to not get caught up in edit-warring" Sounds good to me. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
"More important, I hope you're well or at least on the mend." Yes, thank you, I am "in process": two steps forward and one step back, but hail and hearty for the most part. BMK (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The above statement from User:Beyond My Ken appears to fulfil his promise in the 3RR complaint of 20 September. He is agreeing now that "I will no longer add the sub-heading "Notes" to a References section in which there are no other sub-headings, such as "Bibliography" or whatever." My understanding is that this agreement would be enforceable by admins. Others who commented in the same 3RR report say that BMK has sometimes actively reverted page format to make changes that he considers improvements but may not be considered so by others. I don't know if that part of the dispute is fully resolved. Others who commented in the original 3RR report were User:Glrx and User:Betty Logan. I have pinged them in case they wish to add anything. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Admin EdJohnston's statement "My understanding in that this agreement would be enforceable by admins" is totally unnecessary, as in 9+ years here I have never gone back on a pledge to change my editing behavior.
  • Admin EdJohnston's pinging of uninvolved editors to comment on other issues outside of the specific issue involved in the EWN report, after the filer of the report has agreed to closure, appears to be an attempt to turn this discussion into an unofficial RfC/U, when he is fully aware that I am unwilling to participate in an official RfC/U.
  • For the edification of admin EdJohnston, user Betty Logan has been a constant critic of mine ever since I filed an SPI which showed that he or she was a sockpuppet of user WalterMitty and user Melody Perkins. CheckUser data was stale, but to me the behavioral evidence was conclusive. The closing admin disgareed, calling it "suggestive but not conclusive" and declined to block because he found no disruptive behavior in Betty Logan's editing. Since then, any time my name come up, Betty Logan is certain to pop up and give her spiel.
  • Given these factors, I request that admin EdJohnston block me for the edit warring complaint the amount of time he was considering doing then, in spite of the intervening time period, which was of my own making. I will still stand by my pledge, but I cannot stand by when my honesty, integrity and honor is impugned, and an admin attempts to turn a legitimate discussion into a kangaroo court. BMK (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)