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)

Talk page access[edit]

Hi, Bebe. LardoBalsamico blanked his page and put a {{retired}} template on it. I don't think that's heinous, even if it did also involve removing the block notice. (Which is currently not even an offense; see the consensus in the latest RFC on the matter for allowing users to remove block notices; the only thing they can't remove is unblock requests. Even so, incidentally, I think he should have been warned before tpa was removed, because removing tpa is supposed to be a last-ditch action, reserved for serious abuse. Anyway, he doesn't want to request unblock, he wants to retire. (At least, today he wants to, and I think we should respect it.) Did you notice his edit summary here? I think he was trying to request his user page be deleted, but couldn't edit it, so had to put the tag on talk. And now he can't edit that either… I must say I don't like the situation I see emerging from the talkpage history. Unless you have some strong objection, I'm going to restore talkpage access. No, scrap that, I have restored it. Hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 14:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC).

I don't see any declared consensus, and I doubt there ever will be one. I don't care that much that you restored talk page access, but I'm not crazy about your basis. He was warned in an edit summary: "restore block notice and admin's comment - don't remove it again". Not a formal warning, I grant you, but good enough. In any event, it wasn't my block, so I probably should have stayed out of it unless Callanecc took the position that the notice should not be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
No no, no declared consensus, quite so. 24 supports, 4 opposes (with the last oppose posted on 3 June, the same day the discussion was opened, and the supports still steadily dropping in), and the guideline has been changed accordingly, but nothing's been declared. Perhaps it should be closed as "no consensus". Bishonen | talk 22:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC).
I don't see any change to the "guideline". Looks like the disputed language is the same. My last comment on this, Bish. I'm tired and I'm not up to exchanging barbs with you. Regards (sincere).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Making no comment about the merits of removing access, but I personally see a block and then removing talk page access as separate things (unless it was initially removed with the block) so it's not messing with the block at all. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

So, Callanecc, if I understand you properly, even though it was "your" block, a subsequent removal of talk page access has nothing to do with you. In other words, in this instance, you're leaving me to battle with Bish all by my lonesome. I've had some experience with this. I think it's Bish whatever, me zip.Face-smile.svg --Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Not at all, I was just saying that I see the two as seperate things so there is no reason to check with the blocking admin before you remove tp or email access, unless the user hasn't done anything. If it's in response to further editing/emailing then I don't see a reason to check. Regarding the removal in question, I thought it was a little harsh and a very short full protection would have done the job if necessary. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a little confused[edit]

Hello. I am a little confused about this edit summary from User:HBC AIV helperbot11. It says that you blocked the IP indef but when I look at the block log the the IP I do not see any indef or even recent blocks.

Is this some sort of auto-block side effect? Is the IP really blocked indefinitely? Perhaps the bot is confused?

I am asking because I wrote the initial incarnation of the bot and want to know if it is making mistakes. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell you how the bot works, but my guess is it's an autoblock issue. The bot's edit summary was today at 18:16. If you go to the autoblock list, there are two entries at 18:09 that may be relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Chillum, I just looked at the IP's contributions, and there are some after the bot said he was indeffed. If he was autoblocked, how would he have been able to edit? Now I'm confused, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Very odd. The bot's code has changed significantly since I last edited it so I am not sure. It does seem that the bot should not have removed that IP from AIV. I agree it is likely the side effect of an auto-block, but I don't get why the IP could edit if that was the case. I know that auto blocks of IPs are temporary but I don't think it is that short. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, as I understand the explanation at WP:ABK, the autoblock lasts at least 24 hours (unless lifted). However, each time a user (named account or IP) is autoblocked it resets to 24 hours from that point. Thus, in theory, as long as users continue to log in during the autoblock, the autoblock could continue indefinitely if the original block was indefinite (I believe the autoblocks expire after the original block expires). I'm a very literal guy, so that's my interpretation of the language but it's not as clear as I'd like it to be. All of that is interesting but doesn't resolve the problem at hand.
BTW, it's been nice "meeting" you. I first noticed you on Drmies's talk page where almost everyone goes at one time or another to discuss whatever. You're clearly someone Drmies likes, which, in my book, means something, although Drmies's tastes are more elastic than mine. He even likes me. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been away for a while and it has been really a pleasant surprise how many people are still around from the old days and still recognize me. I am a friendly guy so it is nice to meet you and consider me always open to contact from you. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 07:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


I edited the Jordan Belfort article, principally to remove grandiose claims that were cited only to his memoir, to add citations to more recent events, and to remove material that was future-tense when written (e.g., "in 2014 Belfort will...) and which did not come to pass.

You reverted the edit because you said it contained original research. It didn't.

I pointed that out, and you reverted the edit again. This time you didn't complain that it contained original research, but instead that it was not viewpoint neutral.

What gives?

Quite a few people have complained that the page seems to include an excessive amount of PR for a convicted fraudster. If you think my edits were either original research, or violated viewpoint neutrality, then you should identify in what respect that's the case. Reverting the entire page to restore PR material, junk claims about events that never came to pass, and the like, serves no purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talkcontribs) 03:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor editors[edit]

Hi Bbb23,

I had to edit and subsequently request oversighting of parts of the recent discussion at WT:RFA. If an editor who's a minor reveals their age (without knowing that we routinely advise young editors not to do so in the interests of their own safety online), please don't repeat it.

Best wishes, — Scott talk 09:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Scott, I noticed it later (by chance). I find it somewhat dissonant that we permit anyone to create an account, no matter how young they are, that they can broadcast their age, but then we're not allowed to mention it. At the same time, I didn't intentionally contravene policy when I included the age. It simply didn't occur to me, and although I think it reads better with the actual age, it's certainly not a big deal one way or the other. Thanks for the heads up, and I'll try to remember in the future. I noticed the age was oversighted on the user's user page; at least there's some consistency in the actions. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I totally didn't think that you did it on purpose. As far as I know, we always try to zap such mentions wherever they happen. It's a little awkward when it happens after the fact in a conversation, but talk pages are a bit weird more often than not. :-) — Scott talk 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


I responded on my talk page but you never replied so I'm posting the question here:

I have no idea how the text "walking with another man" is controversial in any way, or WP:COATRACK (I checked COATRACK and based off those rules there doesn't seem to be an issue with that particular phrase being in the article). Maybe you can enlighten me where I'm wrong here, thanks.

Also is the NY Post considered a reliable source on Wikipedia? Ifinteger (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

To your second question, the answer is, not for material about living people, no.
To your first question... why would you want to put that material in the article anyway? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Demiurge1000, I left a much less concise answer on the user's talk page. Thanks for chipping in.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I saw that just after I posted the above. Reassuring that the answers overlapped somewhat on the key points :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23 I'd like your response to recent comments on the Richard Quest talk page. Removal of that phrase probably falls under WP:CENSOR since it would not be equally applied if Quest was with a female. I believe users would not be removing that text if that was the case. Ifinteger (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll let others respond to your points on the talk page. My only recommendation to you is that you behave. Perhaps you should edit another article that causes you less grief.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23 it doesn't cause me any "grief". I'm just trying to prove a double-standard that by repeatedly removing text which is not controversial or UNDUE you are only confirming. Quest is now openly gay (which is why the text is not UNDUE) and if it was a heterosexual couple you wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it. I also responded to Collect on the Quest talk page, take care. Ifinteger (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


I see you are back on-wiki, and active in the 3RR board. Would you mind reviewing the report I filed with regard to Sepsis II? Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was actually looking at the report when you posted this message, but I have an appointment and must leave for a while. I may be able to revisit it later if another administrator has not already done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
ok, thx. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

AmosAce Bangla[edit]

Hi! You blocked some socks and reverted some sock edits at AmosAce Bangla. There seems to be a new one there, who removed the speedy deletion tag that, rightly or wrongly, I had placed on the article since it was sockpuppetry right from the start. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, I can see why you're suspicious, but I don't feel there's as much for me to go on as with the other three blocked accounts. The new account also branched out into areas never touched by the other three. My suggestion is that you open an SPI and ask for a CU. If you do, let me know, and I'll endorse the CU as a clerk. Make sure you put in as much evidence as possible. Just because I know the history doesn't mean others looking at the report will. Don't know if you've ever opened an SPI before, but if you need help, let me know. Meanwhile, two more things. First, if the user becomes disruptive, either on the Bangla article or anywhere else, let me know. He doesn't have to be a sock to be sanctioned, although generally he should be warned. Second, take the article to AfD and avoid the whole speedy delete problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Bbb23, sound advice all of it. Yes, I've started a number of SPIs; I just don't know the history here, so may let this one ride, given that you are not yourself convinced. AfD it is for the page. Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
(Sticking my nose in where it may not belong) Mon.mukherjee is a  Confirmed sock and has been blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Ponyo, you are welcome to stick your nose into anything at all. I can't think of an instance where it doesn't belong.Face-smile.svg Thanks much; saves everyone a lot of trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I saw that, Ponyo; many thanks to you and to Bbb23 too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd hate to see a sock account be given a free pass due to SPI being a notoriously painful process for most editors. Sometimes it's easier just to look the other way, we all do it at one time or another! I'm happy to step in and help. Oh, and Bbb23, with it being the end of the work day and tomorrow being a holiday, I look forward to sticking my nose in a beer in the next hour or so. Cheers,--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
We don't get a holiday until July 4. Lucky you and enjoy!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Men's rights sanctions[edit]

Hi Bbb23, we have a problem related to men's rights at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force. This was set up last year as a gender gap task force. A couple of accounts have recently joined who are arguing that "systemic gender bias" on Wikipedia applies to men too. There is therefore an RM discussion about moving the page to "gender gap task force" to clarify the scope.

I'm not familiar with the men's rights controversy, but I see you were an active admin in that area, specifically regarding the sanctions. Would you mind keeping an eye on that page and applying warnings or sanctions if appropriate? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Madison McKinley[edit]

Bbb23 & DangerousPanda - It looks like it is happening again with a SPA. Someone really wants this article to remain as is despite the obvious problems with it. I discussed the issues on the Article's Talk Page. It's still poor with new problems added now: "Her popular film role"!? Non-references used as references. Can you please take a look? Based on a Google search and the references cited I'm not sure the subject even meets WP:ENT. Thanks. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Jersey92, I took the liberty of moving your comment from AN3. You can't keep going back there with reports of possible new socks. There are some significant differences between User:Cristine nickol and the blocked socks. She's been around for a while, and she at least appears to have gone about this in a methodical way. She also left a message on the talk page, and your response wasn't particularly helpful as it didn't elaborate on the problems in the new iteration. I'm not as familiar with the article as you are, but in looking at Cristine's changes, the main issue that stood out was her use of unreliable sources, namely McKinley's website, and some website that I have no idea what it is that has short blurbs about movies. She also used a website that is clearly a tabloid as a source. I can't see my way to blocking her at this point as a sock, even though her editing is bad. I'll continue to watch the page (I noticed her edits before).--Bbb23 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


This: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AmirSurfLera was closed prematurely, I believe. Please see related discussion here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_Huldra and the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#IP_area_still_being_swamped_by_sock. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not reopening it. I'll let WP:ARE take its course as to any sanctions that should be imposed on any editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Incorrectly tagged socks of User:HoshiNoKaabii2000[edit]

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but could you please change the tags listed under TDFan2006 and Nick UK took a falldown in 2005 to HoshiNoKaabii2000? Both of those "sockmasters" were both confirmed to be sockpuppets of HoshiNoKaabii2000, which means that the accounts listed in the links that I provided above were labeled incorrectly thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The accounts are tagged properly by Callanecc. I have no idea what else you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, can you please block User:TDFan2007 indefinitely? Even if it isn't a sock of HoshiNoKaabii2000 (which is rather likely because of the naming similarities and the mobile edit/web tags), it is still an obvious impersonation attempt of another user, as well as a VOA account. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
No, and, btw, you should not be altering tags on your own. Doing so and then coming here after the fact isn't good enough. God knows you've been warned often enough. You're just lucky I'm not in a blocking mood at the moment. Can't you control yourself?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Shrian Samuel[edit]

You deleted this as promotional, but there are 3 references at the bottom demonstrating notability, so in response to a plea on IRC I've restored it and moved it to Draft:Shrian Samuel.

By the way I finally had time to muck about with Baron du Potet yesterday. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about reverts[edit]

Hi, I have a couple of quick questions about reverts and 1RR: 1) Is all deletion of material considered a revert? 2) Is making small NPOV changes to language considered a revert? 3) Is it acceptable to add information to the article even if I've already made a revert? Thanks. Wikieditorpro (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You should read the definition of a revert in the policy. Assuming no exemption, deletion of material would be a revert, small changes would be a revert, but adding information that has never before existed in the article would not be a revert. That said, administrators have the discretion not to count a technical revert depending on its nature. The most obvious example is if you fix a typo or you delete a word that shouldn't be there, like deleting "is" from "The time is is now". In the controversial area you edit in, I'd err on the side of caution.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, Thanks for that. Wikieditorpro (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Levitt Robinson Solicitors page[edit]


Please advise why this was deleted. You did not provide an explanation and I cannot see how the two categories for speedy deletion which you cited would apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKVIII (talkcontribs) 23:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Quite possibly the most promotional article about one of the least notable law firms I've ever come across myself. Two individual admins thought so after 2 non-admin editors noticed. Please don't create it again the panda ₯’ 23:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Namrata Sapkota[edit]


Last month, I created an article Namrata Sapkota who is an actress of Nepal. But, you deleted for A7. Actresses are notable, aren't they? Also, I think I had added well references showing significance of the subject. I wanted to create the article again but the sources are limited with those which were added initially. Can you please provide good suggestions on this matter on my talk page? — Ascii002 Let's talk! 02:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ascii002, actors aren't automatically notable. As for recreating the article, I suggest you use WP:AFC. In that way, you'll get feedback from experienced editors about any problems with the article. Also, although I did not delete it per WP:CSD#G11 (promotional), try to keep the promotion in the article down. Sentences like "Namrata Sapkota is a new beautiful actress in Nepali movie industry" are not encyclopedic. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


I just gave you a click thank you for a recent decline for a 3RR, - I guess I better explain that it was not so much for the decline as for the line "This is all an incredible waste of both of your skills as experienced editors, not to mention administrators." Full support. Look at Komm, Heiliger Geist, Herre Gott and Symphony No. 8, to mention just two of all too many examples. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda, I'm glad you came here because I turned off those thank things so I'm not notified. If I could, I'd remove them from my interface, but, so far, the powers that be have dictated that I have to live with them. I made a few copy edits to Bruckner's 8th. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you see the talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You mean the Bruckner talk and the discussion between Nikki and you about the infobox? If so, now I have.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I see no reason, no reason, for celebrating Canada Day by changing information which was in the article for seven years, which follows the example in the template documentation exactly - no reason other than keeping me busy. I let many things go as if I didn't notice, but a major symphony: I had to react. I won't revert. The term boomerang was just mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
see also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't comment there myself, I reached the limit of two comments per infobox discussion which the wise arbitrators imposed, - a blessing most of the time. Grammar question: should it be "my alleged long history" or "allegedly long history" as an infobox warrior? - See also Sparrow Mass where it started (the battle that darkened Easter 2013 for me, page protection and all). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Question on deletion of Bass, Berry & Sims[edit]

Hi. As a new editor, I'm trying to understand why the article on Bass, Berry & Sims was deleted, or more specifically why it met the criteria for speedy deletion. I thought that the article and topic met all of the criteria under WP:GNG and the article was specifically requested by Wikiproject Tennessee. It was certainly incomplete and needed further content, but, from WP:Notability:

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

Would it be more appropriate to write the full content before posting? If so, what is the purpose of creating and marking an article as a stub? --Xpctr8 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The best approach is to create the article in your user space and then submit it to WP:AFC. In that way, you'll get feedback from more experienced editors as to whether the article can be moved to main space and, if not, why not. Stub categories are used for all sorts of articles, anything from one-line articles to ones with several paragraphs. Being labeled a stub doesn't necessarily prevent an article from being deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


I requested full-page protection several times this week, but they have not stopped edit-warring on 2001 Bangladeshi-Indian border skirmish. Please have a look that who is on 3RR, and whether protection is needed or not. Regards. Faizan 17:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Faizan, I blocked both users for 72 hours and disposed of your request at WP:RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


I was wondering why you were so generous, but now I understand your hesitation. Had I not already voted, I would have taken some action myself. I had checked all their contribs, which were very, very obvious trolling to me. Because it is a close RFA, I understand the hesitation, but that is also why it is tempting for socks, as one trolling might make a difference in the outcome, and they score a victory for vandalism. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

In anything but an RfA, I would have removed it (I haven't voted, either), but there's such controversy surrounding RfAs, I figured commenting was better for the nonce. I may still be able to strike it, but I'm waiting. The percentage of the RfA is at 82, which isn't all that close these days, and if it does become close in the next few hours (seems unlikely), I'm sure the crat will give the vote no weight.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you are showing reasonable prudence here. Actually, this is one of the closer ones as of late, which have been 90+ or WP:NOTNOW. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Unequivocal and Chris Crocker[edit]

Are you an administrator? This user keeps making mass changes to Chris Crocker without any sources. Unsubstantiated claims were reverted by two different editors. Block him and requesting temporary protection for Chris Crocker. Backendgaming (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've commented on the matter here and here; the Chris Crocker article is certainly an article to keep an eye on. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

An awful lot of admins involved in this problem. I'm a bit more concerned with the socking issue, although I'm unfamiliar with Benjiboi. There was a similar edit by one of his socks on March 13, 2014 (removed "one-time" as it wasn't "former" at that point, although he left in the internal comment). Alison has the power to take action on that if she chooses, although anyone could reopen the SPI. Backendgaming, you might want to fix the report at WP:AN3 (did you look at it after you created it?). You've provided no diffs or comments for administrators. Finally, Flyer22 has requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP, so something should be popping soon. I'll watch it a bit - not sure if I'll take action or not. I wish users like this one would talk (not counting edit summaries).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 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.

Assume Good Faith[edit]

I left you a message on the Administrator's noticeboard asking you to retract your claim that a report that I filed concerning a 1RR violation was "obviously retaliatory." Wikieditorpro (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis II[edit]

I would like to ask you to reopen the [Sepsis II] matter. As a 1RR under Discretionary sanctions I think the Administrators Noticeboard/3RR was the wrong location. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement being the appropriate location in my view. I feel that ARE might have actually put the situation under further scrutiny. I'm not sure but I do question if posting this there and then contacting you stacked the deck for a predetermined outcome. I wonder if perhaps if this was raised at wp:are if it would been questioned if this was perhaps vexatious. A question I'm not sure would have been asked in AN/3RR. There can be a penalty for this at WP:ARE. It may have still resulted in a block for sepsis II but it also may have resulted in a ban for Kipa as well. It may have also resulted simply in a warning for Sepsis II.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not sure but it actually may have resulted in a longer block for Sepsis II.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
If you want to take this up at WP:ARE, that's up to you. I have no intention of "reopening" the matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought it would be polite to ask first. I'll do that. Thanks.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies[edit]

I missed the section at the top of AN/3RR that said 1RR can be put there. I missed that. WP:ARE wouldn't I don't think be the appropriate place to go. I certainly apologize for the misunderstanding.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


@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 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)