User talk:Bbb23

confused by revert

You reverted an edit I made to a talk page, and I honestly have no idea why. Could you tell me what best-practice I violated so I can act more suitably in future, please? Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have left an edit summary. You copied something the user requested five months ago. Indeed, the user hasn't edited at Wikipedia since that time. Nor was it a well-formulated request.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay. So should I have added a request for clarification, not a helpme template? HLHJ (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Nope, you should have done nothing. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Lokesh Kanagaraj

@Bbb23: In that page Lokesh Kanagaraj they are adding films which have not started filming per WP:NFF. When I am reverting their edits they still continue after some days. Is it possible to protect that page? Theoder2055 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winterbury, Delaware

Hello, can you explain your "delete" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winterbury, Delaware, to me? I feel I was able to rebut the major delete arguments, proving that several were completely invalid, and several others agreed with me, so I do not exactly see how "delete" is the correct closure. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

There was a significant number more well-reasoned delete !votes, and very few editors agreed with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll be bringing this to Deletion review soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

There was no rationale offered in the closure. Can you please specifically explain how the "well-reasoned !votes" correspond to policy? Many seemed lacking. Djflem (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

First, there is no requirement that an admin offer a rationale for their decision. I'm not going to do statistics, but many AfDs are closed with a simple sentence as to the result. Second, AfD is governed mainly by guidelines, not policy; therefore, your (loaded) question about "correspond[ing] to policy" is largely irrelevant. The six editors who !voted delete (not counting the nominator) all pretty much said the same thing, that the amount and kind of coverage was not significant enough for a housing subdivision to pass notability guidelines. There was only one other editor beside you and BeanieFan who voted Keep and that editor has only a small amount of experience on Wikipedia, i.e., 83 edits. (You and BeanieFan, by contrast, are very experienced editors, as are every one of the other voters, including one who is an admin. Before you jump on me, I did not base my decision on the experience level or the status of the voters, but certainly significant lack of experience can be a factor. In this case I did not look at the experience levels of the editors, nor did I know that Pontificalibus was an admin, until now when I got curious.). You're not going to get anywhere with your arguments, so my suggestion is that you or BeanieFan take it to deletion review so the argument that went on for almost a month at the AfD can continue. AfDs are such friendly places, after all.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• When outcomes are clear a simple declaration is fine. But when AfD has run nearly a month weeks after having been extended three (3x) times with a longer discussions, a proper explanation, as provided here on your your talk page, would seem in order. So thanks. Can I quote you?: "AfD is governed mainly by guidelines, not policy". Djflem (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

About a user you blocked

Hi, will you please revoke User:Fireflies-in-the-sky's talk page access. Thanks, Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh wait, nevermind, Drmies revoked his talk page access. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Medical Advantage

The creator of this article has asked for my help, and I am willing to assist in re-creating it to the point where it can me moved to mainspace (assuming notability, of course). Would you be able to userfy the initial draft for me? StAnselm (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The draft was being reviewed by an experienced editor, Jack Frost, who both declined it when it was submitted and tagged it as WP:G11. Jack also warned the user of a COI, which they acknowledged on their Talk page. I don't see why the creator should be able to forum-shop like this. Apparently, the user was supposed to e-mail you the content. Did they?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

No, not yet. StAnselm (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

CIR issues

Would it be fair to say that long-time editors who still deny that Biden won the election have some serious CIR issues? (Not suggesting anything, just asking about CIR.) This relates to NOTHERE, TEND, and BATTLE. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather not deal with hypotheticals.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The opposite of my intent

“ It seems that Protonk is, on their own, demanding that Cmguy be indeffed for anti-White bigotry and that they are unhappy with the fact that DN 99 does not agree with them.”

This is the literal opposite of what I meant. I meant that YoPienso’s claim that anti-white bias was actionable is itself something which should be disqualifying.

I am out and about so I can’t edit ANI on mobile. PLEASE correct the record and stop taking it upon yourself to explain my posts. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I see you "corrected the record" on your own at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

yes, I edited it when I got home, if you must know. Do we have some sort of problem that I’m unaware of? My inclination after being told I erroneously called someone a white supremacist on ANI might be to apologize, not throw off some weird snark. But you do you. I also want to point out you offered this unbidden. Nobody said “hey bbb23 I’m having trouble parsing this short exchange and I somehow can’t ask protonk for clarification, can you step in?” So I really really don’t understand why I am getting this attitude for asking you to correct a totally erroneous claim you made on a high traffic page. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't post anymore here, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Peter Eckersley (computer scientist)

Hi, just wanted to let you know regarding the person's age, the source added to his birth date details how he had his 43rd birthday this year before midsummer's day, making it mathematically impossible for him to be born in 1978. This may be WP:OR, as I indicated, not sure though. Have a nice day! Saksapoiss (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Saksapoiss: You're absolutely right, and thank you for explaining it to me. I've changed the article accordingly. The problem there is no template that takes a range of dates (I'm not precisely sure what midsummer's day is, and in any event the source says "shortly before", which is also vague). Nonetheless, if you take a possible range of dates for when he turned 43, I decided it had to be somewhere between 6/15/22 at the earliest and maybe 8/15/22 at the latest. Anywhere in that range would mean he couldn't have been born in 1978, as you said. No doubt, that is the OR you were referring to. You have no idea how much time I've spent on this! Almost embarrassing really. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

{{tps}} Midsummer is June twentysomething. DMacks (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Protonk

Just wondering if you've noted the actions of this editor, who appears to have begun (at 0453 UTC today) systematically and selectively undoing various of your reversions and other edits, apparently due to their disagreement with you concerning Cmguy77. Seems like sabotage to me. General Ization ^Talk 05:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted their edit here, with a good faith summary. But it does seem odd. BilCat (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

There's absolutely no way that's all good-faith. They are taking out their frustration by going on a blind revert spree, and in the process doing lots of damage. They seem fully aware of what they are doing and intent on getting themselves blocked (see history of their talkpage). DMacks (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow, they appear to have some real problems. I'm surprised no one blocked them. Talk about a meltdown. The weird thing is I sincerely don't understand why they're so angry at me. I get that they think I misinterpreted their comments at ANI, but I prefaced my inferences with my own confusion about what another editor called a sub-thread. Even now I don't think my interpretation was unreasonable as the remarks were lacking in precision (and I tend to like things spelled out). Even Protonk said "I apologize for being terse and too vague." I don't know Protonk, and my comments had nothing to do with any preconceived notion of them. The only thing that struck me at ANI was their use of vulgar language (fuck and shit), which I'm not a big fan of. I didn't realize until now that they used to be an administrator until resigning a year ago. Oh well, this is unfortunately life at Wikipedia, and I doubt it will ever change.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I had my finger on the 'block' button but then saw the behavior stopped and they might have simply walked away after a particularly bad venting (based on their userspace edits). I've been chastized for blocks that have an appearance of cooldown/non-ongoing-damage from long-standing editors, so wanted to see others' thoughts. I have no objection to any sort of block. But also no time at the momemt to deal with it further. DMacks (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Looks like the reversions lasted about 35 minutes and that they didn't do any more after being warned by Vanamonde.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't realized they were a previous admin either when I left the warning. The extent of the meltdown is what led me to leave a few messages after that. They went silent after a few angry talk page posts; I hope this means they took my advice to step away for a bit. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Symon Sadik. They are confirmed sock but no action taken yet. I think they should be blocked. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

EW noticeboard

Why did you do that? Stoarm (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you know what "stale" means?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I was not rude to you, so why are you talking down to me? I simply asked for an explanation. You're an administrator, so I'd appreciate it if you'd talk to me in a civil manner and without condescension. Not that it matters, but I'm probably old enough to be your grandparent. The editor made those last two edits immediately after you blocked me (and with the edit summary, "Enjoy your block"), so I was unable to report it on the noticeboard until the week passed. You gave me relatively no time to even respond to the noticeboard report because you blocked me so quickly. So, are you saying an editor is free and clear to continue edit warring whenever someone he is having a content dispute with is currently blocked and has no ability to respond or report? Stoarm (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying that the report is too old to be considered, regardless of the reason why it is filed so late. And I have not talked down to you, or been condescending, or uncivil. If you still disagree as to the content, then use dispute resolution to resolve it. There's been no discussion on the Talk page since last January. That would be the place to start.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Being a wiki "Parole Officer"?

Is there any possible setup where I could be a "Parole Officer" or something similar for User:TatiVogue, under certain limitations for the user(no or minimal building of "fictional" pages in userspace) for example? I'm fairly experienced (joined in 2006), but I don't know what sort of things could be done. (And that user would of course need to agree to it, I haven't spoken to them). (And honestly, the reaction to being blocked has been *somewhat* mature)Naraht (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's kind of you to want to help the user, but there is a significant maturity problem with the user, and, to their credit, they seem to have accepted that if they want to edit Wikipedia in the future, it may be quite some time before they are mature enough to edit constructively, so I think you should let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

True. I will, however, make an open offer to User:TatiVogue that if they have something that they feel should be edited, that I will respond to suggestions on their userpage.Naraht (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be unacceptable. They cannot edit by proxy while blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Point taken.Naraht (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:ADMINCOND

I have contested your administrator action in a two-party edit conflict where you applied policy to only one side. In accordance with WP:ADMINCOND, and pursuant to Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances_by_users_("administrator_abuse"), I am expressing concern directly to you here. I believe a good resolution would be unblocking Jirka.h23 to enable all parties to continue the discussion in an orderly and civil manner. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If the user wants to make an unblock request, that's up to them, and at that point another administrator would review the request. Unblock requests by third parties (you) are generally frowned upon.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

My apologies

I don't know how the heck I grabbed the wrong diff – too many irons in the fire, I guess – this is the correct one, but when I clicked on one of those links it shows the domain is available. I cannot find the publication Asian Tribune anywhere online. Other than my goof, why did you decline it? Atsme 💬 📧 14:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a long-standing article and I don't think amenable to A7. You're welcome to AfD it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)