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.

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Bbb23,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, the evidence phase of the case is now open, and as a listed party you are encouraged to add evidence. Evidence that is not brought to the attention of the arbitrators risks not being considered, and the evidence phase will close on the 2nd of February.. If you do not wish to contribute evidence to the case, the committee may consider your response in the initial case request as your evidence; if you wish to take this option please let me know and I will convey it back to the committeee. If there is anything else I can do to assist on this case, please let me know. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

Web Applications (SequenceDiagram.org)[edit]

Hi, you previously removed and article about a Web Application. Are you saying that applications written in Java are more interesting to readers than applications written in JavaScript? Isn't one of the corner stones of Wikipedia that it isn't biased, the reason I read Wikipedia is because it doesn't include personal unreferenced opinions, just straight information. More and more applications are Web Applications. HTML5 is a framework for creating applications just as Eclipse Modeling Framework or any other framework out there.

Is it your opinion that Web Applications shouldn't be considered when people are choosing an application to work with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staffanp (talkcontribs) 09:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how my opinion about web applications has anything to do with the deletion of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


Because you deleted the article before I had a chance to contest it's swift removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staffanp (talkcontribs) 01:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the nature of speedy delete, which is why it's called speedy. Sometimes an admin gets to it before the creator.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for answering. I understand from your answers that I have to discuss the topic of Web_application's having the same importance as non-web-applications elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.14.106.81 (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello Bbb23, I would like to request for your assistance on an article I created about a music artist Jefferson Yap. The person in the article is very notable in the Singapore music scene and is arguably the top saxophonist in Singapore. However, the page has been nominated for deletion with other users saying there is not enough references to prove the person is notable. Could you kindly advise me on what I can do to resolve the issue? Thank you so much! Jackchee (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Look at WP:MUSICBIO. Many of the criteria are slanted toward pop (or even jazz) musicians, but it includes classical as well. According to the article, Yap covers all three spheres (saxophone is an unusual instrument). Overall, WP:GNG rules. Remember that the sources supporting notability must be reliable. Saying that a particular person is "arguably the top saxophonist" in a particular country is a hefty claim. If you can't back it up, don't say it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) While you wait for a response from Bbb23, this could be of help Wikipedia:Subjective importance Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 09:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

This comment you made about me at ANI "The two principal users who suppport it are not here to improve the article or the project." really got to me, I'd appreciate if you could explain why you feel this way? Thanks. - Lips are movin 12:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, your edits seemed focused on a very narrow range of related pages. You seemed to work in conjunction with that other editor (forget the name - the one with fan in it). Your views appeared to be biased based perhaps on your own personal taste. And your attitude towards other editors when they did things you disagreed with was combative. That said, I hadn't reviewed your entire editing history, so my "analysis" was superficial and mostly related to the ANI thread at hand. A word of advice, though. Don't let my comments rankle. Just work on becoming a good editor and try to listen to others when they disagree or even criticize you. You don't have to accept everything others say, but listen with an open mind. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Wikipedia is still very much the learning curve for me. - Lips are movin 16:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblock template[edit]

Hey Bbb23. Hope all is well. I happened to see your recent edit at User talk:Cwobeel. Though technically the declined unblock request might not be removable, when the person clears out their whole talk page (except for the retired banner) that is a hint that they won't be continuing to ask for unblock. In cases like that why not let it go. If they file any new unblock request then it has to come back, though. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, might as well be flexible, builds character.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
+1 for common sense > bureaucracyTwo kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 18:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay[edit]

Sorry yeah I shouldn't of removed the speedy, I was just feeling a bit strange about it I guess as I never have gotten one. Well thanks for the notice anyway. Wgolf (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Investigation update[edit]

I have provided additional information regarding my SPI - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr._Lama . ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Cwobeel said And yes, you can answer here if you want, but thread with care, as my patience is running pretty thin with you... which is an endorsement that I can respond. I am not sure why you reverted it, but did you Cwobeel's invitation? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I saw his last edit summary but didn't see he'd apparently changed his mind. I restored your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
No worries - he'll remove it if he wants. I think he is reasonably upset over the incident, but I harbor no ill will towards Cwobeel. I picked an edit which was simple to explain and show for readers. I do not want to antagonize the situation, but I also still seek to correct misconceptions and such. Thanks for the self-revert, I know you were trying to help. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I toned it down more and streamlined it for relevancy. Ugh... I miss my NRHP and silent film articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Reason[edit]

Hi Bbb23! I know it's been a while so how are you? Anyways, do you mind lookimg over this? It's a bit old since I just got back. Thanks you! 13:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're continuing the discussion with the other user? I don't see the exchange between the two of you as constructive. If you're still concerned about the content of the article, then I suggest you get other editors involved. Also, please sign your name, not just the time, so I don't have to look at the history to see who posted here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Valguard Deletion[edit]

The pages was deleted because it was seen as promotional and not notable, however the article followed all the criteria outlined by section G11 to NOT be deleted as it maintained a completely neutral point of view, in addition notability was shown in the section of the article outlining the recent robbery, which was reported by the news (which was linked to as a reference) Because of this I politely ask you to reconsider the deletion of this article. In addition if the position that this article is promotional is still maintained, may you please outline what needs to be changed to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkfloydfan97 (talkcontribs) 17:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted once before in December by a different administrator. In my view, the newer version is worse than the older one. If you wish, though, I'll reluctantly WP:USERFY it for you. I then urge you to go through WP:AFC so you get feedback from more experienced editors about the quality of your material and the notability of the company. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I have a copy of the article, thank you though. I'll submit it as a draft and see what I need to improve, any quick reasons as to why you think this article was worse than the last one? I didn't see any guidelines which I broke (It fit the rules in G11 and A7). Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkfloydfan97 (talkcontribs) 20:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The section called "Services" reads like an advertisement as to what services are provided. It is sourced only to the company's website, which is generally not considered an acceptable source. The section called "Recent Armed Robbery Intervention" is blatantly WP:UNDUE. One incident involving a Valguard security guard, and you blow it up into tremendous proportions. Also, a great deal of the material is not at all supported by the cited source, which reinforces my belief that you are affiliated with the company (an obvious WP:COI); otherwise, how would you have so much insider information as to what happened at the robbery and to the guard afterwards?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

request to restore page[edit]

Dear Team, Here request regarding page deleted Ashfaq Chishti. As wikipedia required refrence for the page approval I submitted there but suddenly page got deleted. Please go through Big website of urdu poets and restore the page. The page really not associated with any kind of advertisment. Refrence http://www.rekhta.org/poets/ahmad_ashfaq

Thanks and Regards, Anjali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjali.sitapur (talkcontribs) 05:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What's your relationship to User:Ashfaq.chisthi and User:Ramsha.fatima?--Bbb23 (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Which Chart Can Be Used?[edit]

Hi, you recently decided the verdict for my user report, [1], and I was wondering if I'm allowed to go back, and start using the original chart, rather than the other person's chart? Thanks. Bbfan23 (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Salty Batter/Bridge Boy sock[edit]

I put the requested diffs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bridge Boy. I would be willing to let this go as a "fresh start" after 2-3 years since the old sockmaster was blocked, but the new sock has returned to exactly the same pattern of disruptive editing, so there's no change in the old behavior. It's a classic example of block evasion.

I don't really believe the person behind these accounts has been inactive for 2 years. A checkuser would probably turn up other socks. I only notice this guy when he goes back to motorcycling related articles, but he has had other interests in the past, such as turning Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force into a battlefield. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Reason for Deletion of Minus33[edit]

Hello. Can you please elaborate on why the Minus33 page was deleted? It is extremely similar to the SmartWool page that currently exists on Wikipedia. Please explain how their page is significant and ours is not. Additionally, the company's nearly 100 year old history in the wool and manufacturing business does provide credible importance to the subject. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurrierField (talkcontribs) 20:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What's your relationship to User:Csexton25?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

British Nigerian Education Section[edit]

Hello BBb23,

Nograviti here, I want to explain that I was acting in good faith when I reverted midday's changes on the British Nigerian Wikipedia page.

The education section has been unchanged for many years until he took it upon himself to change it.

He has made more than 3 edits and it appears that he has made 1 main edit with an additional minor edit to quickly build up a case for 3RR.

As I explained I only logged in today to ask him to not engage in original research and gain consensus before making changes. I also contacted him on his talk page and he merely removed my section, edited the page again and raised a 3RR against me?? Then chose to insert flimsy explanations for his edits which I will detail below.

The Camden report he cites is for only one borough in the city of London, it is not a national level report. It is akin to using data on the Jewish community in Manhattan and trying to say that is representative of the group at a national level in the USA.

Also with regards to a 78% figure he or she is unhappy is from a well known publication the Economist. Secondly the older figures are probably the best material available as they directly recording academic figures for British Nigerian children.

I will withhold from editing the page, but could you please revert his recent changes as in truth I think the user is being disingenuous about his intentions.

All of this seems like a convoluted attempt to replace accurate data with poor sources and general data on African attainment in Britain. Nograviti

My focus is on user conduct, not on your content dispute. For content issues, you'll need to get other editors involved to discuss the dispute. As an aside, I strongly suggest you only edit while logged in, and don't use the word "lies" when referring to another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Point taken but how else do you then point out when an editor has been dishonest? In the meantime, would you be able to revert his changes? Because as it stands there is now inaccurate information on the page, cited as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nograviti (talkcontribs) 21:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't say that another editor is "dishonest" any more than you say they lie. Just skip it and focus on the content. No, I'm not reverting anything. I'm not injecting myself into the content dispute. If you really want to edit successfully at Wikipedia, you're going to have to learn to edit collaboratively and abide by policies in doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A courtesy[edit]

Could you provide me a copy of the article Bice Valori you recently deleted per A7? I plan to recreate it, very soon. My best, Cavarrone 15:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's now at User:Cavarrone/Bice Valori.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The River (Greece) and edit-warring[edit]

I acknowledge I violated WP:3RR, though I did not do it with the intention of violating that policy. I just tried to prevent the user from disrupting the article, since I had already seen that:
1. He had engaged in warring and disputes with other users (namely Alakzi).
2. He consistently tried to add the "center-left" ideology on the article, on the basis that "the party is S&D and subsequently it is center-left", which is a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS.
3. He refused to participate in the discussion on the talk page, which other users entered and agreed upon that "center-left" was to be left out (yet he insisted on adding it anyway).
4. He refused to listen to any of the warnings issued to him both by Alakzi and myself.
5. He insisted on reverting our reverts on the basis that we were doing vandalism, which I considered an offence since I already explained him why the "center-left" option should not to be added there (yet he still kept from refraining on his behaviour).

This said, I do recognize I should not have reverted his edits that many times and just reported him outright (I considered him a spammer/vandal because of his insistence on adding the same info in such a manner repeated times, ignoring warnings and accusing others from vandalism; I thought the 3RR did not include reverts of edits going against Wikipedia policy). Anyway, as you say, I'm an experienced user, and I should have kept from entering in such a foolish edit warring. I'm sorry about that. Impru20 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)