User talk:Bbb23

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.

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

brian hutchison

hi brian hutchison here...my first time attempting to self update for about a year or two... i liked the resume aspect on the site which was accurate... i defer to your editing expertise completely, but i can attest that i am this brian hutchsion ( formerly brickpiper on here) and also that any updates i did today were correct ( i.e. MY actual credits) i understand a comment you made about wiki pages not being reliable, but i thought the page for my character on person of interest ( saic brian moss) seemed to be created by the network CBS, so i added the link... again, im sure i didnt do it all correctly, but if you are able to reinstate any of the info i added i appreciate it

thanks brian hutchison bhutch3@mac.com www.bhutch3.com

Near East University

The source of the newly added material is the link of university, already given under the text. The new info, which was about the names of faculties and number of research centres, is verifiable from the link of the university web page, already given as a source. There is no reason to move the newly added content. Besides, the newly added information is just a regular information, nothing else. Once the link of the university used, this information can easily be seen on the official web site of the university. If you are going to challange such an information, you must be reasonable in your challange and put forth `really reasonable` arguments.

ANI

Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

FYI

You warned Memills last night at 01:18 (UTC)[1]. Within 6 minutes he made this post to WP:NPOVN[2] followed by this[3]. The whole conversation is worth a read through for context. These posts are targeted at SLP1 and are not just about Evolutionary psychology as evidently Memills wants to cast aspersions about SLP1 generally and in relation to other "topics" ("Let me suggest that an underlying motive, per the above, of these editors is a strong, very strong, antipathy toward certain topics"[4]). Their other interaction is at the Men's rights movement page. He's dragging that issue to NPOVN to poison the well--Cailil ^talk 14:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And that is all followed by this today[5] and this[6] wherein he explicitly links Slp1's disputes with him on the Men's rights pages to the current issue--Cailil ^talk 21:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of all the edits on Memills's talk page as it's on my watchlist, but thanks for the pointer to WP:NPOVN, which is now on my watchlist. I need to think about this some.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There's further abf today. Accusing a "group of like-minded editors" of censorship[7][8]. He is also insisting on comparing Evolutionary Psychology article's and Men's Rights Movement article's to the Feminism article's structure (specifically what HE sees as the criticism section - which is not a criticism section, criticism is included throughout that article). This is part of a consistent attempt to ghettoize sources Memill's defines as negative. In the above NPOVN Mathsci and in the last ANi thread about Memills actions at Evolutionary psychology] there are serious issues with WP:OWN evidenced. Memills has attempted to spuriously identify editors he opposes, and Slp1 in particular, as POV warriors, without evidence and seemingly to poison the well for any dispute resolution attempt. Something needs to be done here, but if you're not comfortable acting I understand--Cailil ^talk 09:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry if I was clear as mud on the TSC case - what ever you do I'm sure it'll be fine. As regards the above see this[9] (and the talk page announcement[10]) by Memills. An edit contra to policy and unless I'm am very much mistaken without consensus.
  More problematically it was reverted by Mathsci who is in conflict with Memills on other articles (i.e Evolutionary psychology). This could start to spiral. Again if you're uncomfortable acting no worries (I can see how this whole issue is a head wrecker and that you've got other things on your plate)--Cailil ^talk 18:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked another sysop to sanity check my action in reporting this and they've confirmed both the need for my action and your ban, from an outside POV[11]--Cailil ^talk 17:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Good decision on revdel discussion. The comments were obnoxious, but no need to wipe them off the record. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Yokesh.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Juan Manuel López (racing driver)

This article was deleted in an AfD in 2010, but I believe the subject is notable. The deleting admin is no longer a sysop (which I discovered after querying this with them), so I was wondering if you could move the article to my userspace? That way, we retain the page history, and I (possibly) can sort it out with less effort/time taken. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. It's at User:Lukeno94/Juan Manuel López (racing driver).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fantastic, thanks. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• In case you're interested, I've finished the re-write and republished it. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Your rewrite looks quite different from the original. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• There was basically nothing there, but the history is intact, and that's the main thing :) Notability should be well and truly established now! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Andrew Bromley

I must add that he also was a teen jeopardy winner and very famous is south florida. Is there anyway you could re-instate the page and I will add to it first thing tomorrow all of the important thing? Or at least give me what was written so I can work on it on my subpage?

Why was this page deleted? It is very possible he will be a noble laureate at the end of this year, and youngest individual to do so for his work with the Newly discovered t-nitroaminyl section of the ras cancer protein. I was working on the page but I am still adding to it each day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adbmiami08 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he may become. It matters what he is now. If you want to add to it each day, you should do so in non-article space. For example, you can create a subpage in your user space and work on it there until you think it's sufficiently notable to be moved to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I must add that he also was a teen jeopardy winner and very famous is south florida. Is there anyway you could re-instate the page and I will add to it first thing tomorrow all of the important thing? Or at least give me what was written so I can work on it on my subpage?

I'm not inclined to WP:USERFY it for you. It reads almost like a joke, at least what was there before it was deleted. And what's this picture about? Regardless of the ridiculousness of the picture, it doesn't even purport to be Bromley.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hi Bbb23. There's a thread that mentions you at the WP:Dramaboard. Tis already closed, but I thought you should know. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a good think I go off-wiki occasionally. That way, things can go boom and unboom before I'm back.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment The initial block looks sound, and the EW on Fairy Guy is obvious, but I don't think he needed blocking for that. I read Archcaster's failed WP:SPEEDY as a good-faith attempt to self-revert the page. He realized that his edits weren't working, and self-rev under those circumstances seems like a perfectly reasonable response. Unfortunately, {{db-a3}} is not the way to do it, especially when others are contesting.--R.S. Peale (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

to be clear, I support your BLOCK for his earlier edit warring, and that you didn't actually block for the later, apparently rendered moot with his retirement.--R.S. Peale (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are. Perhaps you've edited at Wikipedia before but using a different account? Anyway, the speedy tagging (twice) looked spiteful to me, and it still does.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dave Phillips

Hello, I'm a Newcomer to Wikipedia who is a fan of the maze work of Dave Phillips. I was hoping to improve his Wiki page and realize that to do so properly I will need to learn so much more about reliable sources, etc, and in general, how exactly Wiki works. It's a little overwhelming at the moment and disheartening to find contributions removed without information as to the reasons, how to avoid future issues, or at least a link to follow to read instructions or guidance.

Would you please point me in the right direction with some guidance and/or suggested Wiki reading so I can further my understanding? I'm not exactly sure why all of the book citations were removed. I am beginning to better understand how a source is reliable or not but examples or comparisons would help and I suspect that Wiki has already covered this somewhere on the site and that I only need to continue to become more familiar with content.

Danachully (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons I asked you about your relationship to Phillips is that you created your account right on the heels of Phillips's wife creating an account and editing the article in a very similar fashion. I apologize if my suspicions are ill-founded, but after a fair amount of experience at Wikipedia, sometimes it's easy to get a bit jaded. Assuming it's coincidence, I suggest you use the article talk page to suggest specific changes. It will be easier to answer your questions when the context is concrete rather than in an abstract, policy-driven manner. That said, R.S. Peale's comments below are helpful..--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not Bbb23, but I suspect the reason the book cites were removed were that they were not acting as meaningful reference to the text they were citing (basic biographical material). They're simply books that the subject has published. A good source would be one written by a third party, discussing the subject. This would be one example: A decent (though not great) source would be one written by the subject discussing his work and maze design as a whole. Something like this: . A book containing a collection of mazes he has created without substantial commentary wouldn't be very helpful, unless there were no other sources available. And for Dave, there are other, better sources. The Wikipedia policy on reliable sources is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. For a more in-depth discussion of usable vs unusable sources (and picking apart borderline cases), you can check out the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Those tend to be disputed cases, but you can get a better idea of what other Wikipedia editors consider good sources.--R.S. Peale (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Backhanded compliment

I must admit that it took me a moment to parse "misusing his tools properly".—Kww(talk) 16:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's like someone who's proficient at committing crimes, as opposed to your run-of-the-mill stupid criminal.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

The appeal got granted. Thank you for all your help. :) --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I could facilitate a happy ending, but the person who truly deserves your thanks is User:Bwilkins. He went to bat for you. I just helped out procedurally and monitored your talk page. As for the future, my recommendation is if you're in doubt about something that might arguably violate your topic ban, ask User:Sandstein before you do it, or another knowledgeable admin if Sandstein is unavailable. And pay attention to Sandstein's advice at AE. Best of luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your warning to Badmintonhist. If he continues stalking me, should I come straight to you, or post at ANI again? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You can come to me. If I'm not available, you can go to another admin, preferably someone who's familiar with the history like User:Black Kite. If no one's around (I can't speak for others but occasionally I delude myself into thinking I have a real life), you can open a new topic at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I must say that I disagree with your statement on the Men's Rights Movement article Talk page here. In particular, you accuse me and another editor of

" ...defying consensus as to what should and should not be included in these articles and pushing an agenda that is clear on its face. Their defense that the "other side" is pushing their own agenda is unsupported by any objective measure."

Honestly, the purpose of the Talk Page is to openly exchange opinions. The issues under discussion have come up repeatedly by a host of new editors, many of whom have been hounded/wikilawered by a handful of editors until they leave. There is no clear consensus on these issues -- exactly what would be expected for an article on a controversial topic.

What is most disconcerting is that Multiple Editor Ownership seems to apply here:

" ...(an article) will often be on the watchlists of only a small handful of editors who revert on sight any changes proposed by newcomers while insisting quite forcefully that their version is "consensus". If the newcomer persists in editing the page, they may be accused of edit warring or disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, targeted with spurious complaints to administrators, threatened with blocks or bans and bluntly told (sometimes even in the edit summary of a revert) to drop the stick. ...A small group thereby could succeed, largely unnoticed, in intimidating a new editor into avoiding one specific encyclopaedic subject or into leaving Wikipedia entirely."

I will solicit some neutral 3rd opinions at WP:3 in the hope of resolving these issues without resorting to bans or censorship. Memills (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The probation applies to WP:3 as well. In any event, your request there was declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Q

Bbb23, do you know a thing Wikimedia communities need currently, or in a foreseeable future? I see users who make useful things and users who make useless things: it is easily distinguishable. But what is more important at the moment? Who needs my help the most? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for reverting the IP on my talk page. I didn't mean to ignore your question from yesterday, but I really wasn't sure how to answer it, so I put it off. Editors at Wikipedia are expected to contribute constructively to the project. However, that can be done in many different ways. We are all volunteers, so we should do what we want to do, as long as it benefits the project in some fashion. Personally, I think we are happier at Wikipedia if we do what we enjoy. So, for some, that's creating new content, for others it's proofreading and correcting errors, for some it's reverting obvious vandalism, and the list goes on. What do you enjoy doing most at Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to excuse: I do not ask simple questions, and I am accustomed to wait for a reaction. I enjoy to work together with editors who improve the project. I enjoy to make things that other users cannot do or are reluctant. I enjoy to bash useless editors who mainly create a noise, make a waste in an industrial scale, and engage in pettifogging; you do not like this my answer, but it is true. I enjoy to help users to become helpful ones, of course. Recently I “lost” a dispute at Commons, but I am not embittered about this. I found guys that are more competent that me in these domains.

I feel that the community, unfortunately, wastes its resources for a chaff. A plenty of attention is poured to the glitchy VisualEditor, whereas an extremely useful ArticleFeedbackv5 is next to abandoned. The people produced and still produce miles of discussions on insignificant amendments to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, whereas my idea of labelling many redirects as “unsafe” is virtually ignored (example), and many users create more and more links that eventually may become dabs; nobody cares that it will make significant problems in the future. Hundreds of man-hours were spent in discussing various “RfA reforms”, whereas quality-related problems receive only a limited feedback. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread closure

Just a minor clarification - at WP:ANI#Legal threats by User:Wordsindustry, the closure says "Utterer of legal threats indeffed and threats redacted by User:Barek."

However, I didn't redact anything. The threat at the help desk was redacted by Looie496, and the disputed material in the two pages brought up by the maker of the threat was redacted by Canoe1967. However, their threat still remains on the named user-account talk page at user talk:Wordsindustry. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more careful. I've corrected it; let me know if it's not okay now.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Like I said, a minor thing. Just wanted to be accurate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, precision is a good thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral RfC notices

Hi Bbb. I responded to your remark on the ANI page regarding your view that my RfC notices were non-neutral. Owing to my regard for you, I am interested in hearing specifically why you think that (but don't want to clutter the ANI thread with OT remarks). Feel free to respond on my talk page. Even if we don't agree that it was non-neutral, I expect your remarks will be helpful in some respect. Steeletrap (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment here is more helpful than your comment at ANI, which I just responded to with some asperity. Why don't you take a look at WP:CANVASSING and, playing devil's advocate, see if you can guess what I think is wrong with the notice?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment article

Which template is the right one to notify editors to check talk before editing an article that is entered for dispute resolution?Wzrd1 (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve. You haven't taken the article to dispute resolution. What do you believe is disputed in the article? Generally warning people to go to the talk page before editing the article is kind of odd, and I don't know of a template that does that. Nor does it make a great deal of sense unless the article is subject some kind of sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's up on the dispute noticeboard now, awaiting attention. Meanwhile, there were edit attempts that quickly were reverted. Rather than confusing uninvolved editors, it would be good to have them know up front that there is a dispute in progress. As for the wrong template, WP:Oops Defense.  :) Wzrd1 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a template, {{DRN}}, that is intended to be placed on the article talk page to let people know about the discussion, but it's not intended to be used in the article itself. I've put it on the talk page, though, FWIW, although it's not particularly helpful in my view (I don't like the way it reads). Also, you can't link to the discussion, as far as I can tell, since DRN changed the way they structure discussions (from a TOC of threads to separate pages).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the DRN template on the talk page, somehow I missed that one when looking for it. Should it also be on the article or is it sufficient on the talk page? The reason I tried it on the article is in my earliest days editing, I got bit upon when the article was in DRN and I failed to read the talk page first.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As the template itself says, as well as the language it produces, it can't go in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Got that from your response. Looks like we were editing close to the same time. I wonder if the template can be changed to reflect the way the discussions are structured now? I'll have to play with it a bit to see on my test wiki.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

LOCKED

Hi Bbb23. I hope everything is well with you and yours. I apologise for the disturbance but I wanted to ask you if you know what "LOCKED" means when applied to a user. More specifically, when I hover over the user link of MilesMoney, pop ups come up describing the account thus. What is the reason? Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You're never a disturbance, Dr.K. I have no idea whu you're seeing locked when you hold your mouse over the link. I don't see it. Nor does it make any sense to me. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers knows. If not, you could ask at the Help Desk. Many of the editors who assist there are very knowledgeable about technical issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Dr.K is not referring to his account, but MilesMoney's account is Locked. New account. Dave Dial (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Dave, I'm not following you. I know Dr.K. was talking about the Miles account, but he said he got an unusual pop-up when he hovered over the Miles link. I don't see any pop-up that says locked; only a pop-up that shows User:MilesMoney. The Miles account is relatively new, but it's auto-confirmed. What does "locked" mean in this context, and why does Dr.K. see it and I don't?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• This sometimes shows up when you hover over a link to a user's user page or user talk link (you must have the navigation pop-ups gadget enabled). It means the account is under a global lock - the account is basically completely disabled on all Wikimedia projects (even from logging in), and the action is usually done in the case of cross-wiki abuse. Only stewards can perform locks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This particular case appears to be a mistake. I talked with the stewards about it and the account was unlocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@bbb23, I see the "Locked" popup too, but I have no idea why you don't. @Jasper Deng, thanks for the explanation. I thought it had something to do with the IP the account was using being locked from the projects. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Thank you very much Bbb23 for your welcome. :) FWIW this is the output of the pop ups (I have them enabled):

User:MilesMoney ⋅ actions edit history most recent edit move page what links here related changes unwatch talk page edit talk new topic ⋅ user ⋅ popups 21 bytes, 0 wikiLinks, 0 images,0 categories, 16 hours old LOCKED, 164 edits since: 2013-07-16

"LOCKED" is in italics. I will ask at the pump. Take care Bbb23. It is always a pleasure talking to you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, as I was editing the above reply the "LOCKED" disappeared. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Post (edit conflict). Many thanks go to Jasper for his assistance. That was some fast work. Thank you again Jasper. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. No idea how or why it happened and didn't even notice. MilesMoney (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad it didn't last long. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand everything everyone has said (I've been off-wiki) except one thing. When Miles's account was globally locked, how was he able to log in to Wikipedia (he said he didn't even notice)?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Miles returned to editing today at 21:13 UTC. According to Jasper the unlocking happened prior to 19:31 UTC. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

According to his history, he edited at 06:58 and then at 21:12. So, the lock and unlock must have both occurred during that gap.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Rick Remender

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, again. Sorry to bother you, but another photo (more like a new set of photos) has been found and uploaded, and added to the choices in the discussion. A new issue is which photo those who participated before that photo was added would have favored had they seen it, so I'm requesting that all those who did so view the photo and indicate whether or not their favored photo has changed. Thanks, I really appreciate. Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is authentic irony/Martha Stewart

We have had many arguments about the fates of Joan Gerber, Philip L. Clarke. BTW, most recently Valentin De Vargas has joined this list, because he died on June 10, 2013, and guess you will not accept his death reference either as it is find-a-grave.com. Won't argue about the either one of them because you have not provided Wikipedia with one hard piece of evidence that these people are alive. You reverted the Talkin Toons podcast where Rob Paulsen and Nancy Cartwright mentioned Joan Gerber's passing, you reverted the Jack angel announcement concearning Philip L. Clarke's passing and you will surely revert the find-a-grave reference about Valentin De Vargas' passing.

But, would like to direct your attention at the strange case of Martha Stewart, the actress who about a year ago had a article from reliable source published saying that he had passed away, however facts have risen supporting her being still alive.

Please comment. Irony is complicating our editing Wikipedia. Radiohist (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the remnants of her unreliably sourced death from the article. As far as I can tell, the source used was a blog post that has since been removed from the website.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Now then..

Let's talk removing the AA ban as a whole. As was said on AE, these types of bans are supposed to be simple, and this issue simply isn't. Let's look at my history. Disregard the last block; it was a joke. Before that, well, you know the whole story with Sandstein's ban. It was the result of reporting someone who broke the same ban. That's not what the AA is for. And, like this, it was removed early due to good intentions.

Now that we got those out of the way, I will point at that I went 9 months without an AA2 issue. And the ban has been in place for over a year. Since 25 July 2013. Ironically, Snowy blocked me on the date of my AA2 ban anniversary. Perhaps it means something. When the ban was first place, there was need for it, I won't lie. And now it's just a joke. Serves no purpose, no need. I have been doing my best to contribute under sanctions for over a year. Now I want to do so freely. Will you grant me my freedom, Bbb23? TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to give a brief overview of my three AA2 "violations" in the past year.

1. The recent one. We've been over this, it was horseshit.

2. Sandstein's. As we have already been over, not only did I not know that it violates the rules, but this also fits what Coop was saying in AE, about how bans are supposed to serve simple purposes and confusing edges. I think we can infer the ban currently isn't serving it's intend purpose anymore.

3. For calling User:E4024 a racist and a vandal. However, he in fact turned out to be both of those things and created a huge resume of over 100 violations of such before he was finally banned and blocked. Coops still owes me an apology to this very day. And if that isn't good enough for ya, well, it was seven months ago, which exceeds the amount of time you want to wait.

Overall, I have not ever been truly given a chance to prove myself as an editor in over a year ever since the ban was turned indef by Coop (at the recommendation of a hostile editor, not Coop's own idea). I say give me that opportunity and let me show how much I've changed. You shouldn't judge me for how I react to getting blocked over 2 weeks old bans. That will piss anyone off. Removing the ban gives me the first opportunity I need to show how I've changed since it was first given. Going away for another half a year won't. I've more than served my time. If I cannot edit AA2 articles, I have no reason to be here. You might as well block me for that long. And there we go again, getting blocked for no reason. I'm not the problem anymore. The ban is. Get rid of it, and everything will be solved. TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with me? I've got a ton of work to do and no ability to do it. Why not help me out? TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack and you know it ("What would be the basis of the block?"). Where is the logic in me getting a worse sanction for a block that shouldn't have been made? The funny thing is, its now as if Sand's block was never removed. Are you gong to remove the ban or not? You have no reason to doubt that I can edit Armenia-Azerbaijan articles peacefully, as none of the recent conflicts really have anything to do with that subject. Once again, the ban is serving the wrong purpose. The only way we can truly know if I can edit these articles is to let me. To do otherwise would mean to not assume good faith. TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just a couple of quick comments, but I won't be able to respond to your core concerns until later. Your comment was a personal attack, and you shouldn't infer otherwise based on my question to BWilkins. Stop following me around to see if I'm doing things other than responding to you. It's childish at best, and it won't help you. You're not blocked. Why don't you do some constructive editing rather than obsess over your topic ban and my response to your requests?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm obsessing because I want to do constructive editing. I don't have the passion or knowledge to edit much else. There's actually worse things I almost posted but didn't through self control. Sorry I'm agitated, it's stressful to be so behind on work and to not be able to catch up. Do you really think I'm a threat to articles that actually have something to do with Armenia and Azerbaijan? It's been well over half a year since that's happened. If you let me edit them, I promise I won't make you look bad by doing something stupid. I'll make you look like a genius for trusting me when no one else would and articles will be better written because of it. If you won't do it for me, do it for WP:WikiProject Armenia. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As you've no doubt gleaned from reading the discussion at User:EdJohnston's talk page, I am not going to lift your ban. Your only path to removing the ban is through an appeal at WP:AE. There's a strong consensus from several administrators that you should wait at least three months, but preferably six, before appealing your ban at AE. Taking it there now would be foolhardy because you essentially have a preview of what would happen. I'll address some of your comments:

• I don't know where you get the idea that you have gone nine months without any problems. Your block log alone tells a completely different story. Just looking at the recent history - and putting aside the blocks that were lifted - you were blocked for one month in October 2012 for violating your topic ban. You were blocked again in December 2012 for three months for abusing multiple accounts. From that point until the block at the end of June, which was later lifted, was 3.5 months. Even assuming you didn't violate your topic ban during those 3.5 months, which I think is debatable, it does not amount to nine months.
• Your belief that the ban should be removed so you can prove yourself, and to do otherwise is not good faith, is backwards. The burden is on you to prove that the ban can be removed. A ban is not imposed and then simply removed because the editor says he'll do fine.
• Your statement that your only purpose in being here is to edit AA2 articles is disturbing. Find another purpose. Find a way to edit articles constructively without violating your topic ban. Find a way to behave better with respect to other editors. If you can't do that, you really have no business being here.

--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please give my other comment a reply too, because it was before you made this. I never at one point said I went nine months without "any problems". I said I went nine months without a AA2 violation. I'd argue I went ten. I'd say 17 December 2012 was my last real fuck up, but let's be honest, the 27 October 2012 block, which led to the December one, was a little biased. I really think I moved on from my actual AA2 issues on 1 August 2012, which was a year ago. From then on, I mostly was a victim of the "broad interpretations". I think I've proved I deserve a second chance after all this time. And I do other things for sometimes, but I'm so behind on AA2 shit that it can wait. Besides, I tried editing other stuff before, and that led to Sandstein's block because of those damn broad interpretations. I tried, and was betrayed. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I really hope you'll start getting back to me sooner. Soon I will have both college and a job eating up my time and won't even be able to try to catch up in work. Shit, I probably could have finished it by now. TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going off-wiki now. I don't have time to continue this discussion tonight, but I want to be clear. No matter how much discussion we have, I am not going to remove your ban. So, although I'm willing, within limits, to address at least some of your issues, you need to focus on what you're going to do here with the ban in place.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I had an idea last night. Give me the sport exemption back. I don't see a reason to take it away in the first place. This gives me the opportunity to get almost all of my work done and be an active editor, and if things go well for a couple months, lets remove the ban. How about that? TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Not only will I not unilaterally remove your ban but I won't reduce its scope. Anything that involves making the ban less restrictive will have to be appealed to AE. In case you're curious, though, I agree with the rescission of the exception. Indeed, you're fortunate that the ban hasn't been expanded to include categories, as was suggested by one admin at AE this last go-around.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand that you own the ban now. You can do anything with it. If you agree, please do it. Again, don't do it for me, do it for WP:Armenia. I won't go to AE again. I can think of at least three users who are immune to WP:GOODFAITH that will be there in a matter of minutes. You are my only hope. TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read the discussion on Ed's talk, you should understand that the consensus was that I could not remove or reduce the ban as the "owner". Whether the scope of my ownership is dictated by policy or simply by what makes sense, the end result is the same. And think about the implication of saying I'm your only hope. That means you believe a consensus of administrators would not do what you want. Generally, in a consensus-based environment, one admin cannot act against a consensus of other admins. BTW, I'm continuing to respond to you because I understand your frustration, but at some point I'm going to call a halt to this discussion if I deem it's no longer constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I did read it, he said you can do whatever you want; removing it outright at this moment would only "raise eyebrows" of some. If you think I can be trusted to edit sport articles, please let me. Remember, the last block had to do with the Sandstein block mistakenly being thought active. Because of one admitted-wrong thing Sand said, everyone assumed it was AA related, and also assumed getting rid of the sports exemption would simplify things. But it had nothing to do with it! AA2 articles have nothing to do with actual Armenia-Azerbaijan politics. This is that "ban not serving its purpose" thing talked about. Also, I hope you don't feel that the sport exemption was unique for me. It has been done for others too. TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can I redirect WP:WIKILAWYERING to this conversation? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, BWilkins, welcome back to my talk page. You were missed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Re; Edit Warring

Hi fellow editor, Thanks for your comments on the edit warring regarding Diet in Sikhism. I think I may have reported in him in haste however. I've been editing Sikh related and other India related articles for a while now and they are a tortuos process. The problem I come up against (as with any religious based articles) are the differences between those people who are motivated by dogma and people like me who are trying to get the article encyclopaedic and based on WP:Reliable references. With India related articles there is another major issue, and that of WP:Competence. Many of the contributors have English as a second language. Although I spend a lot of time in India, I was educated in the UK, so understand the problems a lot of these contributors have. This does not help however, in trying to get article up to a Wikipedia standards. I do have other administrators to help me from time to time, but they lose patience with the articles for the above reasons I have highlighted, however, I'm pretty determined to hold up the standards of wikipedia. Many editors from the Indian subcontinent want to WP:Censor the articles, but I strongly believe in the guiding principles of wikipedia and WP:NPOV being central. Damdami Taksal is an example of this. Therefore, I would appreciate any help from administrators like yourself in ensuring standards are maintained. Thanks SH 11:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Canada but I also understand the Guru Granth Sahib in Gurmukhi I do cite all my resources and I am open to change and compromises why do you have a problem with me? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Mail OnLine

Has a brand new editor who seems to think it wise (having only 12 edits total at this point) to link "soft core pornography" as a Wikilink in that article multiple times. There is the off-chance that this is the same person who tried sticking in the "child porn" links in that article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That's my view as well. I removed that link. Were there others? I've also warned them. Their user page comments are suspicious as are their comments on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Bye bye.Account1000000 (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would you add such a link?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Count Iblis

Hi Bbb23. Long time no see. :) Sorry for bothering you again, but since you are a 3RRN expert I would like to ask you if you could please check into the case of Count Iblis who got a 10-day block for edit-warring. I personally think the block length is ridiculous but I would like a second opinion from an editor whose opinion I respect. The Count has also asked for an unblock with no response so far. There are a few other satellite issues involved but they seem to have been resolved. If there is anything you can do to resolve this, I would really appreciate it. Although I am acquainted with the Count, my stake in this is the length of the block which I find offensive for editors in good standing. In fact I am not even asking you to unblock the Count. What I am after is if you could modify the length of that monstrous block which not only sends the worst message possible to reputable editors but also discredits the blocking process. I would also understand if you didn't want to get involved for any reason at all. Thank you again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the  On hold unblock template wants a parameter for the blocking admin's name, right now it goes to a blocked dummy user :P ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

(laughing) Thanks, I fixed it. I assure you it's no comment on Finlay. If anything, I'm the dummy. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If I wasn't the dummy, I'd create a magic thing to do it automagically, with automobiles(whoops, I'm too tired) automagic. T13 may know how :) ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Charmlet, you rang? What do you want done automagically? Technical 13 (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• What's wrong with you, T13? You're supposed to figure out what Charmlet wants automagically; you shouldn't have to ask. :-) Simply put, Charmlet wants you to replace all the templates at Wikipedia with ones with no parameters. The templates themselves will figure out what the user wants and just do it. And you can call it Templates for Dummies.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification / Request for Peer Review

You wrote on my Talk page that you have sanctioned me for "this edit, which has a misleading edit summary and intentionally defied consensus." I do not see how it was misleading -- I described each of 3 edits I made and the rationale for each. You appear to have done this at the request of user Cailil above. There was discussion of the topic related to my edits on the Talk page, and, once the discussion appeared to have diminished, I made relatively minor edits to add sentence prefixs (such as adding "According to feminists.. " and "According the men's rights movement activists..."). Far more nuanced and cautious than simply BRD.

Further, your accusation that my edits on the Talk page were disruptive was previously strongly challenged by two editors, here:

disruptive? Seriously? Someone posts a thoughtful critique of the prevailing dogma and you call it disruptive? Why don't you let the eds here discuss in peace without your warnings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What a shameless load of hogwash, Bbb23! Badmintonhist (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than being disruptive, my comments on the Talk page have been relevant and substantive, and are aimed at improving the article -- especially making it more NPOV. I have also made several requests for third party review of this article, including third opinion and peer review. My comments have been civil, despite occasionally uncivil comments directed at me.

Your administrative actions on this page appear to me to be wikilawyering and are quite antitheetical to the mission and spirit of WP. They clearly violate WP:Censorship.

I have noted that your administrative actions have been directed at editors who have challenged the feminist interpretations of the Men's Rights Movement in this article. You have labeled their discussions on the Talk page as disruptive, and you have sanctioned several of these editors, some of whom have left WP in disgust. At the same time, you have implicitly supported a like-minded group of editors who have essentially established Multple Author Ownership and who come running to you when they wish to silence open discussion on the Talk page. The purpose of Talk pages is for open discussion to improve the article. Shutting down discussion with bogus claims of disruption, as you have done several times, is inappropriate.

This type of administrative behavior is antithetical to the mission of WP. I am afraid that AGF has its limits, and mine has been reached with respect to your quite biased administration of this article.

At the very least, this article andits Talk pages, as well as your administrative actions related to this article, deserve a peer review by neutral third parties, if not a mediation review. Memills (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want from me, but I'll address some of your points.

• Any action I took was independent. Editors are entitled to come here and alert me to what they perceive as problems. Whether I act and how I act is my decision; I don't act by proxy. Specifically, the MRM articles and many of the editors who edit them are on my watchlist. Although I may miss something, particularly if it's not directly related to MRM, I tend to be relatively on top of what's going on.
• Your persistent talk page comments were disruptive. I warned you of it. You not only persisted but you transferred your POV to the article in defiance of clear consensus. This is not new.
• The policy WP:CENSOR is irrelevant to the issues here. What you're really trying to say is that I and others are trying to stifle your perspective. You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you like, but you have no entitlement to express those beliefs at Wikipedia if they do not serve to improve articles. This is a collaborative environment, and your agenda, even if shared by a few other editors with the same agenda, is not acceptable if rejected by the community. Equally important, it's been pointed out to you that your viewpoint is not supported by a preponderance of reliable sources. Yet you continue to push it.
• WP:PRG is clearly not the forum for this article. Did you read the material at the top of PRG? The kind of dispute you have with the other editors would normally be handled by an RfC. However, in this instance, there is no need for one because enough experienced editors have repeatedly rebutted your contentions to make an RfC an abuse of the process.

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

RPA at Aaron Swartz talk

Removed personal attack at Talk:Aaron Swartz. (“I understand your close personal connection with the MIT police.”)

A likely bystander casualty here is Mightyhansa, who’s a newcomer to this BDP. His one contribution got summarily reverted by MarkBernstein, who’s telling him (and other newcomers) not to link to the police department whose officers arrested the article’s subject. Never mind that the article mentions the department five times. The arrest doesn’t seem to have had significant consequences for anyone, he argues.

(“No reason to link to the MIT police; they're not important to this story. … They were simply running an errand, and their involvement seems to have been brief and inconsequential.”)

I’d like to suggest that some newcomers (such as Mightyhansa) would hesitate to assert that they don’t understand the more knowledgeable editor’s argument. And they may not want to associate themselves with someone who’s said to have a close personal connection with police — a connection that’s apparently too embarrassing for the more knowledgeable editor to spell out. They may just choose to disappear. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 08:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 08:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Mark's view about the link is clearly wrong based on the guidelines. Indeed, the term should be wikilinked twice, once in the lead and the first occurrence in the body. As for his comment to you, it's not clear to me that it's a personal attack. It's probably inappropriate, but I'm assuming it's based on your user page, perhaps in conjunction with other comments you've made? Don't know. I wouldn't worry too much about Mightyhansa. You restored the edit. Content disputes are kind of a way of life at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Abelson report, released today, makes it clear that the MIT Police involvement was brief and peripheral, serving briefly as an intermediary between an MIT department and law enforcement agencies with the expertise and resources to proceed -- expertise that MIT police lacked. Dervorguilla has been extensively connected with MIT Police for years, and almost all his edits at Wikipedia involve some aspect of their work or the activities of "The MIT Crime Club". Many if not all of the mentions currently in the article stem from his additions, and he has worked zealously on their behalf. That he is clearly COI with respect to the MIT Police is evident from his edit history and from the user pages of his account and of his alternate account talk. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Even assuming Dervorguilla has a conflict, the term should be wikilinked based on the linking guidelines. A claim that a particular entity's "involvement ws brief and peripheral" has nothing to do with wikilinking. I suppose I can see how you might think otherwise, but your argument is not guideline- or practice-based.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Shookallen88

Hi, thank you for your input at 3RR. The user in question has gone right back to making the same edit once his block expired and his entry on the talk page amounts to him threatening that he will never stop doing it until he gets his way. He did this same thing at Fast & Furious 6 which was why I opened the first 3RR discussion about him and I ended up having to give up there because he was blocked and came back doing the same thing. He clearly does not take the blocks seriously. If he continues to do it should I let you know? Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Shookallen88 just edited disruptively again and posted this saying that he will not stop. I endorse further action regarding his conduct. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Revdel at ANI

I assume your revdel at ANI was to Daufer's edits. Just so you know, it looks like most of what he wrote is still visible in [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. I'm not sure if you'd want to do anything about those or not, but I thought I'd let you know. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Revdel problem

Hi, Fred, I rev/deled a number of contributions by User:Daufer at this discussion at ANI. However, apparently, I need to do more, but I can't figure out what. See this post on my talk page. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I have them all; just nonsense anyway. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI regarding User:carolmooredc

Hello Bbb. I request that you chime in again here. I know it is cumbersome to read all the context. But with so much back and forth banter, we really need a little admin feedback. In any case, I hope your day is going well! Steeletrap (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just clarifying: My saying "Best to stay away from BLPs until whatever doesn't tick me off so much. " was not a promise to Steeletrap to say away from North as I immediately wrote back to her when she asserted that. Also I was not the one objecting to keepng it open, though it was getting rather tiresom.

I have unwatched almost everything but seeing things like ANIs against me for comments that are so much tamer than some of the things I saw said about others on that ANI and elsewhere does tend to make me stay in the fray. At least a whole lot of people were drawn to both the Hoppe and North pages and commented on the bad behavior I saw; we'll see if it has any affect.

If only editors paid more attention to previous BLPN and NPOVN and WP:ORNs, maybe I wouldn't get so frustrated. But I can't save Wikipedia singlehandedly from what may be the inevitable conclusion of so many abused BLPs without sufficiently effective/proactive Wikifoundation Leadership. If only they could hire 100 part-time admins and give them a little extra power to watch over these problems. There must be some way around the legal impediments that might save the Foundation from eventual legal blowback. Whatever... User:Carolmooredc 19:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)