User talk:Bbb23

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

Got it[edit]

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

Deletion of Rev. Robert N. McIntyre[edit]

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

Help me understand categories[edit]

Can you please help me understand why you undid the categorization I added to the Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons page?

As far as I can see it's a valid category. I've read through the Wikipedia:Categorization topic, Help:Category topic, and the Category:Sex crime trials page. Not sure where the "article is not supporting the category".

17:39, 13 July 2014‎ Bbb23 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,100 bytes) (-37)‎ . . (Undid revision 616808435 by Soelas (talk) - unsupported cat - must be supported in article, not elsewhere) (undo | thank)

It's a basic rule at Wikipedia that categories must be supported by material in the article. In the first link in your list of reading it says: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." You've provided sources on the talk page, which is not the same thing. What you need to do is develop noteworthy material for the article supported by reliable sources and then you can categorize it. It looked to me like the sources you provided on the talk page were reliable, but I'm not sure that the material is noteworthy for this article as it's really a tangent. Thus, even if you do add material, you may be reverted. It might be best to propose language you wish to add to the article on the talk page and get input from other editors as to whether it warrants inclusion. Getting back to cats, though, the idea is we don't label something without support for the label, and just as with everything else, we can't assume it exists; it has to be obvious from the article that the label is appropriate. I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense now that I look at the title of the article "Suicide of Rehteah Parsons". I should probably see if there's an article related to the ongoing court case and suggest that gets a similar category. Really, what I was trying to do it create an "easy" way of searching for sex crime related events. I think I'll just do it the old fashioned way. This "being bold" looks like it'll take more time than it's worth to accomplish the result. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soelas (talkcontribs) 22:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of notices by blocked users[edit]

Recently you undid User:Bishonen's July 2nd change to WP:User pages, on the grounds that someone who participated in the discussion should not have closed. Your action was on 14 July. However, the discussion was actually reclosed by User:Bellerophon on July 12. Can you clarify whether you accept Bellerophon's closure? If so, should Bishonen's update of WP:User pages be restored? Don't rely on me for any of the details, I just noticed the entry at WP:AN/RFC and the apparent contradiction there. Bellerophon is not an admin. Personally, I usually accept closures by non-admins at AN/RFC as valid except in case of ban or block discussions about individual users. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If you look at Bellerophron's closure, it was based on Bishonen's "closure". Take a look at the link. I don't see that as a closure. Indeed, Bellerophon's archival took place 10 days after Bishonen actually changed the policy based on her "declared consensus." And although I don't necessarily have grounds to object to a non-administrative closure, given the issues involved and the fact that this pertains to the use of administrative tools, I think it would be more appropriate for an uninvolved administrator to close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23, it's completely obscure to me why you don't even post on the talkpage to point out that you have reverted me, after those months of discussion, and that you don't accept the close (not mine, not Bellerophon's) of the thread? Just to let people know that there's an issue. As nobody else has registered any objection to my close on July 2, some people might think it was done and dusted, and be interested to know that you don't consider it so. If you're again too tired to answer me, that's fine, don't bother. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC).
I am tired, even more so than before, but I think your point about mentioning my revert on the talk page is a good one. The simple answer is it didn't occur to me. That's my fault. If you think it would be helpful for me to do so now, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted your reversion to Wikipedia:User pages. The consensus is abundantly clear, but if you'd like to revert the closure, I'd be happy to re-close the discussion with the same conclusion - I haven't voted, so you wouldn't have the problem noted in your edit summary (this is a biased closure by someone who voted). Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid procedure for procedure's sake, you could just let it go. --RexxS (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
RexxS, I just left a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I pinged you, so you should be aware of it, but just in case.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Bbb23 - can I just call you BB? You can call me Rexx. I saw it. I didn't intend to load anything but I was hoping that you might prefer to just let the situation lie. In full disclosure, I'm a friend of 'Shonen and have been keeping an eye on her talk page and contributions while she has been on a bit of a break for personal reasons. If you really think we have to have an admin close an RfC about user pages, then I'd be happy to ping Harry Mitchell who's very experienced in closing discussions. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Rexx, I'm probably a little touchier than usual at the moment. No worries about being a friend of Bishonen. Many of my best friends on Wikipedia are friends of Bishonen; I even like her in a less unqualified way. I think we just get on each other's nerves once in a while. I'd kinda like some input on the issue of administrative closures, not just for this RfC but for other complex RfCs like this one where administrative actions are at play. We can wait a bit longer. After all, you already reverted me anyway.Face-smile.svg If you want to shorten my user name, my preference is Bbb, but it's of no great importance.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Bbb it is then. There's no rush, revert or not. Whatever state it's in, it will still be there tomorrow (and tomorrow ...). Given my extreme age and experience of life both on- and off-wiki, I'd be interested to hear why somebody wouldn't think me capable of adequately summarising a discussion (apart from the possible onset of senility, of course). I use admin tools elsewhere, and I can read, so I'm not sure the issue of understanding administrative actions would present an insuperable bar. We can wait and see what folks think anyway. In the meantime, Dougweller has raised the issue of school-blocks which makes me think we're going to have to tweak the wording in the guideline anyway. --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Rexx, I've always found that age, like money, is a fairly subjective matter. I won't ask how old you are, but I remember this one fellow I knew quite some time ago who had a $2M home and made about $400K per year and didn't think he had much money. There are younguns who think being 30 is old. I have no idea whether you're capable of doing a good closure of an RfC (some are quite hard, actually) as I don't know you. Until today I think your user name was just vaguely familiar to me, although I must say that chatting with you has been a pleasure and a nice break from the underlying battle. You say you can read, but at the same time you are apparently British or some variant thereof, so such a claim is dubious at best. There's been one response to my post at the AN/closure request board, and I don't think it's likely I'm going to get much more, so go ahead and close it. I would appreciate it if you would formally re-close it. Given how, uh, blazingly obvious it is, it shouldn't be that much of a burden and it may help keep dementia at bay.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
My age is a matter of record and you can see what I've been up to for the past 65,000,062 years by glancing at my user page. As a dinosaur, I am actually a native of Laurasia, but you can be forgiven for thinking me to be British or some variant thereof. I've now had a stab at re-closing that RfC in the most unobtrusive manner that I could - I hope that meets your expectation, if not your approval. Cheers --T-RexxS (rawr) 19:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a source for your age. I suppose I'll have to accept your word for it. Still, you're not even 65 yet. I thought I had looked at your user page, but maybe I just didn't get past the dinosaur part. "Brilliant" is a word Brits use, at least the way you used it, anyway. I have English cousins, much younger than your advanced age. They use it a great deal. I don't even know what Americans use anymore. I think cool is back in. I can live with that, although I hate "dude". I'm rambling. Your close is fine. I'm not sure what my expectations were, so I can't tell you if they were met. Thanks for being accommodating.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify that Bbb23's reading of my remarks is correct. It was my intent to archive the discussion, for the reasons I explained there, based on Bishonen's close. However, I do personally believe Bishonen's close was appropriate for the following reasons: 1) The discussion had reached its natural conclusion. 2) The comments made in the preceding threaded discussion did not, in my humble opinion, rebut or outweigh the results of the !vote. 3) Obvious consensus is obvious and WP:ANRFC opines that in such cases closure by an involved party should not, in and of itself, be problematic. I will take no issue with anyone who wishes to revert my archival and nominate the discussion for re-closure by an uninvolved admin. As a non-admin, I only close discussions upon request at ANRFC because there is a backlog there. My policy in this regard is to step back if the issues becomes contentious. Bellerophon talk to me 19:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Very sane attitude, Bellerophon.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Dear User:Bbb23, hello! I hope this message finds you doing well. I wanted to inform you that User:Saladin1987, who you blocked three times for POV pushing, has resumed the same behavior at Zarine Khan (see diffs). User:Saladin1987 also is making similair edits on a series of other articles, such as this one, which have caused him to edit war and enter disputes with other editors. Although I restored the material, I thought I would inform you, since you have interacted with this user before. Thank you for taking the time to read this message. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi there. It appears that [Arb12345] is breaching his 1 month block, imposed as a result of sockpuppeting, per [this spi]. In fact he reveals his identity in this edit summary: [[2]] (mention of Panagiotis Kone where he edit-warred with his blocked account & right now he is into stubborn edit warring in Theodoros Kolokotronis).Alexikoua (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a month and increased the block of the master to indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The Deletion of The Creatures (Youtube Channel)[edit]

I would like to request that the page "The Creatures (YouTube Channel)" be allowed, and to be created under a new name, The Creatures (Gaming Group). I believe that the group is of important significance in the gaming community, having influenced and affected a number of popular people and games. The group's total subscribers at 8,900,000. I have a vast knowledge of the group, and can contact them if needed. The new article would include information about the group, both in and out of their YouTube. I believe that creating such a page would be fairly helpful to many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnof (talkcontribs) 00:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page[edit]

Dear Bbb23:

You recently deleted my efforts regarding "WORKSHOPS FOR CAREERS IN THE ARTS". I have no issue with that. I'll try again at a later date with more reference information. I'm still learning this process. However, the fact that you deleted it has been "PUBLISHED TO THE WEB" in search engines for anybody to see! I surely didn't expect nor wanted "that" to happen! If at all possible, could you somehow make "that" go away ASAP! I have no idea how long something like that could stay on the web. Its rather embarrassing to say the least. My/our Alma Mater is an historic situation. I want to be neat regarding its display.

Have a great Day!

MARLOWEMARLOWE (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again ...[edit]

Quack, quack. --McDoobAU93 13:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my, I should have looked. My bad. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem, Bbb. I had not seen edits from ShamuAquariums before, and when I saw it was a new user that somehow knew of Wickedangry, that's when the quacking started. :) --McDoobAU93 13:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel: Zionist State vs Jewish State vs State[edit]

Recently, you reverted a change on the Denzel Washington page that was intended to use a more politically neutral reference to the state of Israel. Politically, Israel is a Zionist state, so referring to it as either a "state" or a "Zionist state" is factual, unambiguous, and does not reflect a POV. However, calling Israel a "Jewish state" reflects the Zionist POV that equates Zionist politics with the Jewish identity, and with the political aspirations of all its nationals and citizens. This is not the case, as approximately 30% of its population is not Jewish. In a purely demographic sense, if the term "Jewish" is taken to allude to the ethnicity of its inhabitants, calling Israel a "Jewish state" is roughly equivalent to calling the United States a "white state" (when Hispanics are categorized as "white"). My note of explanation was not intended as political commentary, but rather to be clear as possible on this sensitive topic, and explain the logic behind my edit in some detail.

For these reasons, I'd like to see a more NPOV reference to Israel on this page like "Zionist state" or simply "state". This is supposed to be a page about an actor, not platform for Zionist identity politics. A generic person (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Puting aside your more complex reasoning, I agree that the word Jewish doesn't belong, either, and have removed it. I had no objection to your edit summary itself; at least you explained what you were doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
How could I have done it better? Suggestions welcome. A generic person (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, you're saying that it is a "fact" that Israel is a "Zionist state". Based on our article, that's not how Israel legally defines itself. In fact, again per our article calling it a "Jewish state" is more consistent with their legal definition, particularly because the Democratic part was not in the definition at the time Israel was created. Regardless of all that, it sounds to me like your statement is both overly simplistic and an opinion rather than a "fact". Essentially, though, I wanted to avoid the whole issue by using the most neutral term possible, and, certainly, in an article about Denzel Washington, we don't have to get into a debate about Israel and Zionism.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Santosh Chakraborty[edit]

I had put up an information about Santosh Chakraborty which you deleted. This was my first attempt in creating a page on wikipedia. The link to the page which you had deleted is this [3] . It would be really very helpful if you could tell me why you deleted the page and point out my mistakes for me make a better page in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnjishnuMondal (talkcontribs) 13:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking bluntly, the article was a complete mess. Perhaps some of it is attributable to the language barrier in addition to the lack of knowledge of Wikipedia. In the future, I suggest you use WP:AFC if you want to create an article here. Editors there will try to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ceiling fan vandal[edit]

More of the same from Special:Contributions/Doon_Mayfleet.

Thanks for blocking that last one. When's the last time I said I really appreciate you being here? Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My gosh, he's relentless. Actually, I think you had similar kind words for me recently, but it's still nice to hear. Thanks for your vigilance.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
He's back this morning: Special:Contributions/Hemdrj. I have requested semi-protection for the four targeted articles. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
God, there's been even more since you left this message, but they've all been blocked by other admins and, with one exception, tagged properly, too. I tagged the one someone forgot.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I need help[edit]

How do I respond to this? Any suggestions? Sorry for bothering you, I clicked on the first experienced editor I saw that was online. Thanks, Lixxx235Got a complaint? 05:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, but refer the user to me as I deleted the article. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding deletion[edit]

Hello. Please undelete Janhit Morcha, which clearly should not have been a candidate for speedy deletion (political party led by a former minister). Deleting the article within 24 minutes (!) after the creator was notified is not ok in these cases, it gives no opportunity at all for reply (I don't spend 24 h/day online on Wikipedia). Such quick deletions should be reserved for blabant hoaxes, test pages and blabant attack pages. --Soman (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletions are meant to be speedy, and there's no time frame for how long an administrator has to wait (there is a time frame for tagging articles with A1 or A3, but that's not applicable here). You have a couple of choices at this point. You can go to WP:DRV and challenge the deletion. Or if you want to improve the article, I'd be happy to WP:USERFY it for you. Putting aside that the article has existed for a very long time (10 years?) with no sources as that technically is not a basis for speedy deletion, one sentence in the very short article that troubled me was: "It is unclear whether the party still exists or if it has reunified with BJP." It's an odd thing to say, particularly unsourced, but it diminishes any claim of significance the article has. Let me know if you want me to put it in your user space so you can expand it and hopefully add some sources to it as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


This is an hour or so before the expiration of my 48 self-sanction for that judgement on my 'edit-warring' (ugly hyperbole for what happened in my view) but it is meant to help me understand that rule, which, if I understand it in its present application means one cannot alter the given text at different points of a page under ARBPIA sanctions twice within 24 hours? It's no excuse for me that that particular page Opertion Defence Edge, is rife with technical infractions of the rule, thus understood. But I now see a further report is being made against Al-Andalous on the edit-warring page. What is disconcerting to me is that where many editors from its inception have quietly edited without reporting what are obvious technical infractions by colleagues who are building a fast-developing page, 2 editors not contributing to the page have twice stepped in and the reports are 'sided', i.e. partisan. If the rule is as I think you state it is, then, to cite just one of many examples in the page history, for today.

Two reverts of prior text within 24 hours, both impeccably warranted.

Again the changes to text are excellent improvements.

1 and 2 are 2 reverts of text written by others in twenty four hours, just as 2 and 4 are two reverts of text given by others in twenty four hours. Perhaps I'm still misreading this rule, but it seems to me that the two selective reports are indicative more of editor-warring calculations, rather than the interests of the encyclopedia, here. The on-page editors aren’t warring, but external reporters are checking what they think are one’s side’s editors to take them to arbitration. I'd appreciate if you could check if my reading is correct of the diffs above, in any case. The editor concerned has done excellent work there, and I'm not reporting him, but asking for clarification on the rule. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Absolutely no desire to report the editor in question. It's both the reading of the rule, and the behaviour of two editors with a substantial history of edit-warring making these two reports that interests me (you need not comment on the latter of course).Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I commented on the latest report as I did on the previous report. That's all I'm prepared to do there or here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Hi Bbb23, thanks for your immense contributions to wikipedia.I demand an explaination on why you rollback the page Olaide Olaogun,I tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of COI policy violation and insignificance of the article. Why not provide an edit summary after the changes?(Wikicology (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC))

Don't come to my talk page and "demand" anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23 is right (from my pov) to ask you not to do this, but I'm a little confused because it seems he did give an edit summary? (which also contained a valid reason) Also, he didn't WP:ROLLBACK your edits, he just undid the last one. Benboy00 (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, Kindly accept my sincere and unreserved apology if you find the word demand offensive. I will always visit your talk page for a request and not for a demand(Wikicology (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC))

Sure. As Ben said, I didn't rollback your tag, I undid it with an explanation. Tagging an article for speedy deletion based on an alleged COI is not a valid reason. As for the subject's "insignificance", I think there's enough claim of significance to withstand an A7. That doesn't necessarily mean the article is notable per our guidelines, and you're welcome to nominate it for deletion so editors can discuss its notability. I agree that the article is very poorly drafted, and the COI is obvious, but that doesn't necessarily make it un-notable as the article could always be improved. Before nominating it, I suggest you do your own research per WP:BEFORE. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Iman sen[edit]

Hey, I notice that you recently deleted this page. I was just wondering if you could also salt the title, to stop repeated recreation? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Benboy00, I feel a little uncomfortable doing so as I just tagged another promotional article the user created. Let another admin do it if it's recreated. You might consider filing a report at WP:SPI regarding User:Sahojroy. The account was created shortly after User:Imansen. It's possible they're not the same person but related to each musically so to speak. It might also be hard because you can't see deleted contributions. Shojroy's only edits were to the now deleted article. Sorry I can't be of more help. If it is recreated again, though, and the deleting admin doesn't salt it, I'd be willing to do so at that point. Let me know if that happens. As an aside, I'm not crazy about your user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I will probably change that at some point, it's just that I had a rather unsettling confrontation with a "seasoned" editor who made some pretty inappropriate remarks, one of which being that he was my "enemy" (their words, not mine). Benboy00 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Generally, putting that sort of thing on your user page just allows stuff lke that to fester. Better for you and for Wikipedia just to let it go. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axelle Despiegelaere[edit]

Hey, would you mind closing this AfD? LADY LOTUSTALK 11:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Indian Christians[edit]

People - anons in particular - keep adding huge numbers of BLP violations to List of Indian Christians. That list is subject to PC1 but, amazingly, reviewers are accepting the violations even when they include mirrors, circular refs etc. What the heck can I do about a situation such as this? We have incompetent contributors and incompetent reviewers, so PC isn't working as it should! - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, one of the miserable things about PC changes. I've removed PC changes and semi-protected the article for a month. It's hard to tell how long it should be protected.
While I have you here, if you were to rank Indian sources for reliability, what would be the top three and where does India Times fit into the ranking? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. If we're moving back to semi-protection, we probably need indef because the violations have been going on for years and too few knowledgable people seem to have the thing on their watchlist and/or understand how BLP treats religious belief. Anons etc can always propose additions on the talk page.
Do you mean The Times of India? I've never even heard of India Times. And do you mean news sources rather than any sources? - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
As for the protection, the article has never been semi-protected before, only the PC 1 added in 2013. I'm not comfortable putting in indefinite semi-protection. How about we wait until the month expires and see what happens. You're probably right and I'll have to re-protect it and for longer, but at least we'll have a log record of escalating durations.
You're right, Times of India, that's what I meant. Do the ranking in news sources and then perhaps explain a little more about "other" sources so I get a feel for it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The most reliable English language daily news source is without question The Hindu, while The Times of India is sometimes referred to as the Toiletpaper of India because of the drop in standards that has gone on there - it is becoming more and more like a British tabloid in nature, if not necessarily in format: concentrating on sensationalism, gossip, showbiz etc and often neither checking stories properly nor reporting them in intelligible English. (As a minimum, the degree of ambiguity that they often show makes deciphering things a nightmare). A bit of a shame, but there you go. Alas, other than The Hindu, the same applies to most other Indian newspapers and they all regularly recycle each other's content, without acknowledgement and without any attempt to check it for accuracy. I don't mean syndication or agency releases here, I mean plagiarism.
The Hindu, ToI, India Today, Daily News and Analysis, Hindustan Times and NDTV are probably the most widely cited Indian news sources on WP, with Tehelka often used for muckraking exposes etc. Business Standard and Economic Times also pop up quite a lot but are subsidiary publications of the first two mentioned. For serious stuff, rather than fluff articles about actors etc, I'm never very happy if The Hindu haven't reported it and I think you'll find that many other experienced contributors in the subject area also harbour similar reservations about the relative reliability.
I'll get back to you about other sources - I've lost my mouse pointer for some reason while typing this and need to reboot. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Sitush, your computer takes an awfully long time to reboot.Face-smile.svg --Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I kept meaning to return here and didn't. WMF should develop a simple reminder extension but they should test it fully before deployment and make it opt-in rather than opt-out.
Regarding other Indian sources, what you have to watch out for is oodles of bias masquerading as reliability, even among academia. For example, many universities in Orissa, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu are publishing/employing people who are basically out to promote claims of glory relating to their states. Accreditation seems to be relatively easy to obtain and there are numerous private universities of dubious merit, not to mention a burgeoning industry in faking degrees etc. Equally, many works written by Brahmins are distinctly reactionary and promoting theories accepted only by themselves. Analogous issues arises with Dalit writers and, of course, there are huge problems with Hindu vs Muslim. In addition, India has a vibrant Communist/Marxist community and has attracted people of a similar bent from around the world. While some proponents might be considered reasonably mainstream (eg: Gail Omvedt and Kathleen Gough are non-Indian Marxists who have specialised in the region and have garnered respect), many are not.
Generally speaking, I don't think that the academic standards in India are anything like as rigorous as can be found elsewhere, one obvious example being the extent to which plagiarism and outright copyright violation is tolerated. Of course, not everything is bad but sorting out the wheat from the chaff can be a nightmare. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow. I'm going to have save your points somewhere. I'll never remember them otherwise, and they are invaluable. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Re-reading what I said above, it might appear that I am very dismissive of Indian sources in toto but that was not my intent. The very worst sources for Indian stuff are those produced by the Brits prior to 1947, and the Brahmins whom they indulged. It is, however, generally a more tricky area than might usually be found when things are referred to WP:RSN. IIRC, Talk:Adi Shankara had quite a discussion about how Orissa-based sources were skewing things - but it is late and I need my sleep. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Broken Crown Games, LLC[edit]

Hi Bbb23, the page for 'Broken Crown Games, LLC' was deleted under the A7 tag, with additional notes from your account stating "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: some G12 (". Could you shoot me a message with more specific corrections / why the page was additionally marked with the G11 designation? The page is actually modeled from other game developer pages (in particular, "Big Fish Games") to PREVENT any possible interpretation of the page being "promotional" - and the page I submitted was strictly informational (no sales links, or anything of that sort). The only link the went to their site was a reference link to their "About Us" page to support the information being stated - and that link was for some reason was marked as "G12" - but I'm not sure how when writing about a company and including a reference to that company could be considered "copyright infringement"? Could I get a bit of feedback on the original article text or at least have the original article text returned to my drafts so I can somehow rework the page for submission? Thanks! --TYohe 17:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As the supposed founder of the studio, you have an obvious conflict of interest. It's highly discouraged for people affiliated with a subject to create articles about them. You'll have to read more about WP:COPYRIGHT infringement, but it's obvious infringement to copy and paste from a website into a Wikipedia article.
As for promotional material, here are some examples:
  • This hard sci-fi universe is the original brain-child of studio founder, Tyler Yohe
  • The studio's humble origins trace back all the way to a simple, turn-based video game prototype
  • Eventually, the Broken Crown Universe was born
  • Eventually, with the team now too large to consider this a hobby project, Tyler and Chris decided to make things official by registering the studio as an limited liability company in January of 2013.
The kind of material in the article is hardly encyclopedic. It's more like a colloquial history of your and your partner's experience. That kind of stuff belongs on a website about the studio or even on a fansite but not in an article here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of article Vulcan Tire[edit]
Hello, it looks like you deleted this article a few months back citing A7 as the reason.
This business is significant because:
It is one of the first online tire retailers having started selling online in 1997.
The first tire retailer in the world to accept bitcoin.
Has received industry awards,
Thanks for your time. Tireguy (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Looking at the old deleted article, I would say that Bbb23 made the right call. Websites like facebook, bizrate and such are not adequate to demonstrate that a business meets our criteria at WP:CORP. For the most part, they aren't even acceptable for sourcing facts. Being the first to accept Bitcoin, for instance, is an interesting factoid, but by itself doesn't make it "notable". You should read the link I provided and become more familiar with that criteria. If it does meet it, you can create the article in user space, then ask Bbb23 to review that new article. He is pretty flexible that way, as long as the article does indeed pass that criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that simply being listed on is not notable. However being selected as by Bizrate as a Circle of Excellence Award winner is notable. The 2013 Bizrate Circle of Excellence Award was earned by only 133 online retailers, representing the top 2.6% of the Bizrate Insights North American Network. Tireguy (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • "only 133 online retailers"???? "Only 133"? It is to laugh. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

my page deleted[edit]

Trophy.png my page deleted
Hi there I have created my page today. I have involved in political activities in Azerbaijan. My readers wanted to see my wiki page. I would like to add more information about me .

Best Regards, Ashum Ashumov Nashcapitola (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not the way it works at Wikipedia. If your "readers" want to read about you, create our own website or blog or whatever.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Short semi-protection?[edit]

Hello. It seems your most recent fan has an unlimited number of IPs over a wide subnet. What do you think about me putting a semi-protect on your talk page for a few days?

If you think this will disrupt your work with new users then we can just keep blocking the ips. Chillum 18:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It look like you were two steps ahead of me. Chillum 18:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, only in terms of semi-protection. Thanks for being so vigilant. (I just semi-protected Siddheart's talk page.)--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello. I am not sure what to make of Nyttend's position. Regardless I was wondering what you thought about me unblocking Harmony944?

It seems odd to me that a long term editor who should know better is unblocked when a newer user who perhaps did not fully comprehend the policy remains blocked.

I will make it clear that the unblock does not validate the actions that led to it or invalidate the reasons for the block. I will watch over the user's talk page and respond to further trouble.

If you think this is not a good idea then I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Chillum 22:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have mixed thoughts, Chillum. There's a fair amount of irony here because I should have blocked Ryulong for longer because of his block log but chose to make the blocks precisely equal. At the same time, Harmony's post-block behavior was beyond the pale, even though, as I stated at AN, that technically has nothing to do with the block itself. Also, I think it will inflame Nyttend to unblock Harmony. I suppose I shouldn't let that bother me (I don't believe I've ever been that aggressive before when speaking to a fellow admin), I hate creating drama unless it serves a constructive purpose. So, I suppose the question is if unblocking him based on fairness outweighs all the other considerations, and I don't know if there is a right answer to this. My guess is he's going to get himself in trouble at whatever point he can edit again, but that's my usual cynicism rearing its ugly head. You know, Drmies once said at AN3 that a decision I made was painfully fair. I try very hard to be neutral in all the things I do, although I will often not extend good faith when others do.
I know I'm rambling a bit but hopefully you can make some sense of the jumble. I think we should at least talk about it a bit more before you decide what you think is right. Obviously, you don't have to do what I think. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it is you had 3 choices. Block nobody and let the edit war continue, block one editor and not the other when both were engaging in edit warring or to do what you did. The other two options simply did not make sense. This was a content dispute where both sides lost their cool and earned themselves a block.

FFS it was an edit war on if there should be a meaningless section break in a heated discussion about if the page name should have a colon. I don't know if there is a place keeping track of the lamest edit wars but this one has to be a contender.

So far as I know Nyttend had a strong opinion about Ryulong's block but decided not to act in this case due to lack of evidence. It is not something I am concerned about. If Nyttend decides he wants to start discussing these things I am all ears.

I am glad that you mentioned Harmony944's post block behavior. This is certainly a factor worth considering. Given that there is not much remaining time on the block and the fact that we had to gag his talk page I think we can just leave it to expire on its own. Chillum 23:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is always choice #4, "let another admin handle this" but if all the good admins did that the hardest choices would be made by our worse admins. Good work on taking on a difficult case. Chillum 23:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to be clear, my calculation at AN as to how much time remained on the block was incorrect, and I've stricken it. There's about a day left. If that's what you mean by "not much remaining time" - and even if it's not - I'm happy to defer to your "uninvolved" good sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I looked it up when I saw your error, before I could mention it you had fixed it. A day is not that long. Chillum 23:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Well. I see Ryulong is unblocked. If anyone knows how to get sucked into an edit war with an ___ editor like Harmony, it's Ryulong. Now, Ryulong did not get much more obnoxious than they usually are in such situations, so I suppose the unblock is OK--Harmony certainly kicked it up a notch. See, Bbb, that's why we pay you the big bucks. Chillum, what'd you wanna come back for? :) Drmies (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I missed the intelligent discourse. Chillum 23:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
(giggle) I didn't know you when you were here before, but I'm glad you're alive and kicking now.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Block of User:AdmiralMeow[edit]

Thanks for handling this. I totally whiffed the notification. I appreciate you pointing that out, and I'll take care not to make that mistake again.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Catherine Curran[edit]

The are additional problems with this user:she marks her edit as minor and she tries to promote herself [4](the article as far as can see is not authored by her)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

She doesn't say she's the author; she says she is the work, which makes no sense. Is this a one-time thing or something she does frequently? Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding of the template, but it is odd. Odder still is her editing history. If you want to start someplace, begin with her user page and look at each inistance of it from a long time ago until it was blanked by an IP. Her interest in P-I articles appears to be very recent. I believe the "minor" business, which is unfortunate but not uncommon among some editors, also goes back to pre-P-I days. And she doesn't mark all her edits as minor, although clearly she misuses the tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible sock[edit]

Don't think Siggasonswein has ever signed his posts and now we have [5]. --NeilN talk to me 22:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, I can't block based on one edit that isn't more obvious than this one. New editors often don't sign their posts. I'll try to watch, though. Let me know if you see anything more. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, not asking for a block, just a head's up. --NeilN talk to me 22:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated. But then again I appreciate your consistent and constructive hard work here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It's his sister. --NeilN talk to me 13:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh lord, I wonder how big a family he has, and are they all like him? She hasn't done much yet, though. I think I'm going to wash my hands of the whole thing at this point, Neil. There are so many capable people advising him, including you. I'm going to hope they'll keep him in check. He appears to be on an editing binge in many, many articles. If you ever think administrative action is justified, let me know. Otherwise, I'm just not up to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't resist. I just looked at the Wentbridge article, and it looks to me like he's getting almost everything he wants. The article reads like an essay on Robin Hood with some tangents about the place. Frankly, I don't understand with everyone watching him that he's able to continue his agenda, but I'll still stay out of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As with many things on Wikipedia, the "Hey, wait a minute..." phase may take a while to kick in (as it has done now). --NeilN talk to me 14:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a bit cryptic for me. The only things I noticed this morning - and I didn't look much - were that Scott complained at Yngvadottir's talk page, that Yngvadottir is still being way too nice to Scott (from my perspective), and that the "sister" is now editing in tandem with Scott. That sister story, btw, is very convenient. The oft-used denial from socks is "my brother did it". Here we have a preemptive "my sister did it". My guess is if a CU were done it would confirm the technical relationship, but then we would be told that they (1) live together AND (2) they share the same interest in Robin Hood. Gimme a break. The only thing in Scott's favor is I'm not sure why he would need another account to be disruptive when he seems to do so well all by himself and with no shame, just occasionally a little lip service cooperation to demonstrate "good faith".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to your comment about him able to continue his agenda. Sometimes it takes a while for interested editors to respond to changes. There's now activity on both the article and talk page. My guess is that the current content will eventually be significantly trimmed back. --NeilN talk to me 14:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy adminship anniversary!!![edit]

Wikipe-tan mopping.svg
Wishing Bbb23 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Anastasia (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleting Emmy Collins[edit]

Hi, I am going to restart at "Special:Mypage/Emmy Collins. [to]develop the article with less risk of deletion." And, as I spent an hour creating the article, can I get that deleted info back?

05:20, 22 July 2014 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Emmy Collins (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event))

Thanks Neillien (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Neillien, I put it at User:Neillien/Emmy Collins. I took the liberty of making some minor copy edits to the article. Once you have improved the article, I strongly urge you to submit it through WP:AFC rather than just take it live on your own.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have noted your comments with regard to edit waring on the bennett lebow page. I need clarification on the issue of whether the first third of the article needs proper citation. There are roughly 3 paragraphs of material without any citation whatsoever. Should this material be removed as being unicted?

Thank you.

Algyx0262 (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)