User talk:Bbb23

Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s).

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's policy by repeatedly deleting relevant sourced content as well as all rebuttals to your indefensible actions--subsequently issuing blank-faced assertive edicts in a bureaucratic tone--while characterizing them as 'trash' (a form of Ad Hominem), as you did at Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and User_talk:Bbb23, you may be blocked from editing. 01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

post

I was gonna post a comment but its a waste - uses have different ideas and that is the way the wiki works - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Radcliffe

Okay, you and I seem to have a respectful disagreement about what is notable and what isn't, but I can't seem to let it go. Anyway, I waslooking at the section on the page for Daniel Radcliffe, and I wonder if it might seem more suitable to you if a mention about his interest in religion was included a couple paragraphs down along with things about other things he seems to be interested in, rather than where I had placed it before? Packerfansam (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Packer, I would still be opposed to it because it's just too generic. If he talked about some concrete involvement in religion, that would be more noteworthy. However, if you still want to add it, I suggest you raise the issue on Radcliffe's Talk page and see what other editors think.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Chace Crawford

Hi. You wrote my edit wasn't sufficiently noteworthy and it may be the case but then I'm asking, is his love life really more noteworthy? Is this encyclopedic? I wrote an edit about him sharing an apartment with Ed Westwick because I thought this info was on the same level as his love life. I wonder according to what can someone say "this is notable" and this isn't. - Sofffie7 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Who an actor is dating is more noteworthy than who he or she is roommating with.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hospital

Hiya! I suspect people who work there wrote the promo bit, or someone copy-pasted. As for what you removed (I was about ready to CSD as an attack page), the point I was trying to make was like any other article, it should have content about the main subject... with what Jesanj added as something in the Controversies section (properly balanced with the rest of the article). It is relevant (I've read the reports/news items). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the articles, too, and if the material were to be reinserted, it would have to be cut down and limited to the hospital. For example, the hotspital CEO's resignation, and the comment about the doctor being hired at 3x the normal salary. Those are the only two bits that relate to the hospital. As it is, almost anything that would be added would be disproportionate to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

But of course! :-) That's part of the whole "balanced" part I mentioned above. The relevant sections given proper weight, balanced with all other information, stats, claims, issues, praise, etc, etc. Though, there is also a bit about the hospital not reviewing any of this until after the fact, which is relevant. But, yes, I know all of that. :-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I created Mark Midei. Jesanj (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Do you really think he's sufficiently notable to justify an article?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not experienced with deletion discussions but I looked him up in google scholar and he had several papers with 100+ hits so he seemed to be making progress to Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) on its own. But after all the other coverage I figured that put him over the top. Jesanj (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure Academics is the right category. In any event, I have to think about it when I'm not so tired. If I decide to nominate it for deletion, please don't take it personally because it has nothing to do with that. Besides, it would give you an opportunity to become more familiar with AfD discussions. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the guy, it looks like he's a posterboy for overstenting. It seems Senators wanted to make an example out of him to help the U.S. system save some money on health care. No worries, I won't take it personally if you propose deletion. But if you do, just go a little easier on me over at Federal government of the United States. ;-) Jesanj (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you're lucky I'm leaving in the See also in the hospital article, at least for the moment. I'm kind of on the fence about it as it seems like a subtle coatrack to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not

That's the third time in a day that I've left out "not" in a post or email. Thanks for spotting it. I'm going to have to be more careful.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I know from personal experience how easy it is to make mistakes like that. I actually find some small comfort when others do it because it makes me feel less silly when I do it myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox law school

Bbb, you've commented here before: Template talk:Infobox law school. Care to look at two questions/issues I've raised?--S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--S. Rich (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

my guess

It's just a guess, and not worth discussing on the talk page since there's no sources supporting this, but I'm guessing that Goodchild is leveraging the friendship to gain some press attention for herself, and that the story started with the one walesonline article and has spread from there (much the same way as the idea that WP was being used to suppress the information about him being gay, which is just plain silly if you look at the article history). It's gotten way more difficult to do searches about this since the controversy teapot tempest about whether Evans is trying to hide his past has entered the blog sphere. For what little, if any, it's worth, --Nuujinn (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. The entertainment industry is often more focused on image than on truth. I'm kind of tired of the discussions, although occasionally they are mildly amusing. It is amazing how strongly editors feel about this stuff. Honestly, I don't care that much about how it all comes out. I just wish the these sorts of categories and BLPCAT itself would all disappear.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Judges

You must leave the "United States" or it becomes unclear which court it is referring to. As a legal scholar I know that most people with knowledge of the Court system get upset when they don't see the specified court. So please stop changing the format of the courts by removing the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raprchju (talk • contribs)

You must get consensus for these kinds of changes. There is nothing that is unclear. It is just your view. You are making mass changes to all of the justice articles. You must stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As a legal scholar, I can tell you that it is unclear whether it is the state of federal court that is being referred to, hence you MUST keep the United States. Where is the consensus that decided to allow you to make the large amounts of changes that you have made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raprchju (talk • contribs)

I didn't make any changes. You made changes to long-standing material. I just reverted them, but you stubbornly put them back the way you think they should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Raprchju, at this point, I would suggest you read up on Bold, Revert, Discuss. After Bbb23's revert, it's time to discuss - not time to re-add in the content that's being disputed. Hope you take my suggestion to heart. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Robert, but I think it's too late. It's no big deal, really, putting in the United States part - it's just an unnecessary mouthful. I objected as much to the way Raprchju went about this as to the substance of the changes. Many people watch these articles, and if no one else is bothered by the changes, they can stay in. I thought of raising the issue on one of the Talk pages or at the law project, but it's probably not worth it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Content notability

In another talk page you said "However, all information that goes into an article has to be sufficiently relevant to the article subject and her notability to justify inclusion". Could you please reference a Wikipedia article that mentions something along these lines? Thanks! - 69.143.17.59 (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty self-explanatory. 71.183.68.120 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

69, that's an excellent question and a difficult one to answer. Unfortunately (in my view), whether content should be included in an article (assuming no issues of reliability and verifiability) is largely defined by what should not be included rather than what should be included. See WP:NOT. This essay on relevance helps a bit: "An article that is dense with information only tenuously connected to its subject does little to inform readers about that subject." AND "It is important that the focus of an article remains on its main subject and that information is placed in the appropriate article." However, even the guideline on what Wikipedia is not is inferentially useful. For example, where one draws the line on what is trivial is often a matter of editorial judgment. I would maintain that the Learning Annex material in the Adams article is trivial with respect to her; others could, of course, disagree. In the end, although I'm not sure that 71's point that it's "self-explanatory" is helpful, to some extent the notion that information must be relevant is a matter of common sense. Surely, you wouldn't want to include information that's completely irrelevant to the subject of an article? After that, it's mostly a function of line drawing.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Reeves

Thanks for debunking the complaints of User:Suadehead86 on the BLP noticeboard regarding the Rachel Reeves article, I really appreciate it and it's s shame other editors aren't as neutral as yourself. There have been problems with an IP previously adding puffery to the article and to other related pages though I reverted most of it and explained why it's inappropriate, hopefully they'll get the message. Thanks once again.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do much, but you're welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If it seems like I'm stalking you, I am

But not in a creepy way. I like your editing style so I'm watching what you do to learn. Sometimes I might comment on what you are commenting on. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Adams again

I noticed you undid a revision to the Adams section in the Playmate 1992 article recently. I suspect this is Goddessy again but I have no proof. There was a ban proposal for that user, but it is no longer on the ANI page. Any idea as to what happened to it? Thanks. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If you mean User:GODDESSY, that user was blocked indefinitely for a violation of username policy (the user was Adams apparently) way back in 2008. Do you mean the IP? As an aside, I noticed your request for protection at ANI. Although, you might get a positive response, the usual place to make such a request is WP:RPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes that user and the original sock User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day. There was a ban proposal for both of these users. It got archived with no action. I have no idea why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive717#Ban_proposal_for_User:GODDESSY_.2F_User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It was archived automatically due to inactivity here. The time frame is 24 hours, and I'm not sure if the bot did it properly because I have a mixture of local and universal time on my pages. You could check it out if you wish. Or reraise it on ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Giving up

Just to let you know that you have driven another person away from helping build Wikipedia. Most of your edits on my piece are totally subjective. You know nothing about the subject I wrote about. You know nothing about the information someone interested in the subject would want to know. Yet you inflict your opinion of right and wrong and your style on a piece. It's like a bully in the school yard. I don't need the grief. Nosmoking7 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Stefano Pelinga article/photos

In reference to the article on Stefano Pelinga, I believe I have noted in the article enough information and achievements that the article is more than marginally notable. We can compare my article to other articles written on pool/trick shot champions, you will see that Stefano Pelinga's achievements have either met or surpassed those of his colleagues.

I also mention several reliable sources such as major publications in the pool and billiards sport. They are easy to be found/verified; you can see these articles yourself by visiting Mr. Pelinga's website directly (http://www.stefanopelinga.com). Also, you can contact those publications directly to verify the information, in addition to Stefano Pelinga's undeniable notoriety in such sport.

It is extremely easy to verify that all of the content in my article on Mr. Pelinga is truthful, the mentioned sources reliable and Mr. Pelinga's sports accomplishments undeniable.

As I believe that you are in good faith, I would very much like to resolve this quickly and have my article reinstated in Wikipedia as Mr. Pelinga has every right to be listed, as he is one of the most popular pool champions in the world. Should you wish to contact Mr. Pelinga directly, simply visit his website, and send him an email, or go on Facebook. He is very good about replying to everyone.

Thanks, Distefwiki (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The article has not been deleted. It has been nominated for deletion. If you want to argue against its deletion, you should do so on the discussion page. By the way, it is not your article. See WP:OWN.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Liza Dalby

Hi, could you please give me your further thoughts on the article talk page? I would like to wrap this discussion up soon. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

John, two things. For the moment, I don't have much more to say. I know you'd like me to respond to all your questions, but, that doesn't mean I have to. Second, I don't have the energy or interest to engage in the debate right now. I see some other editors have contributed to the discussion, so hopefully a consensus can be reached.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Leonel Fernandez

Please explain what are the "BLP issues" on the new section. It's aptly sourced, and useful; two editors agree on this. The biography must contain everything, not just selected portions. Notice that the Corruption issue is not addressed at all. You could start reading WP policies before deleting proper information. --Artery Stenosis (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep this on the Fernandez Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What's Your Number?

Why did you remove the release date for What's Your Number? from the infobox? The policy for release dates for films says nothing about exempting future release dates. BOVINEBOY2008 02:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you contribute on this topic at the film project? So far, it looks like it's going your way anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize there was a conversation already started there when I posted this. I'll respond there. (And I don't really want to set up "sides", I'd rather just work up some sort of consensus or agreement either way) BOVINEBOY2008 04:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, you've been very civil and cooperative. I know it's not sides, but we do have differing points of view, and so far your view seems to be prevailing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That '70s Show

The "|last_aired=" field in That '70s Show infobox, The series overview table and the 200th episode entry at List of That '70s Show episodes, the 200the episode article and the 200th episode entry at List of That '70s Show episodes (season 8) all say May 18, 2006, not May 11, 2006. IMDB is not a reliable source for episode information. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's me, not IMDb, that's not reliable. Just left a message on your Talk page. Our messages crossed each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Eric Stoltz

• I am yet to figure out why sortable wikitables are necessary for an article, and want to understand. Thanks. AnonymousAnimus (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sortable tables are preferred (I wouldn't use the term "necessary"). See WP:FILMOGRAPHY. I generally don't interfere if someone creates a new table that is not sortable, but it's not a good idea to change an existing sortable table to an unsorted table. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fillion on The Guild

For what it's worth, here's the link to the episode of The Guild Nathan Fillion did: http://www.watchtheguild.com/. He's in Ep. 6. Even a quick Google search would have yielded dozens of hits -- it's been very well publicized he was appearing on it, since it's the baby of Felicia Day, another member of The Cult of Whedon (as I call it) he's worked with before. The title is "Revolving Doors", which I've added to the article. Drmargi (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the the guild link myself after you reverted. All I saw about Fillion were comments by readers. My general approach to tables is that the source has to be cited or implied by something easy (like a link to our article about the movie or the series). I didn't see either in this case, so I removed it. I still think my approach is sensible and that it shouldn't be up to me to find sources on the web any more than I should have to do that for any assertion. I'll even leave it in if IMDb says so, even though we're not supposed to rely on IMDb. On this instance, as my edit summary implied, I did it as a courtesy to you, not because I really think it should be that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't want to interrupt

But I am in a state where I can't seem to comprehend the stages one has to make to upload a picture derived from another copyright holder. I wonder, can you simplify them for me? I am creating a biographical article, and really want to get this right the first time. Thanks! AnonymousAnimus (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Uploading images? The phrase "derived from another copyright holder" is a bit troubling. The image you upload has to be clearly licensed pursuant to Wikipedia policies.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was with the permission of the author. I want to do everything by the book, and don't want to make any mistakes. Thanks for the help. I appreciate it. AnonymousAnimus (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Forensic Examiner blacklisted

Is the problem with The Forensic Examiner (not a reliable source), or just with the website itself? Because I found the same source elsewhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Originally, the cite in the article was screwed up. The URL to the website was incomplete. When I completed it and tried to save the change, I got the message about the black list. I don't know any more than that, actually. My assumption is you could replace it with a different website if you wanted to.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I'll do that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Barney Glaser

The newspaper article may say "owned", but Glaser actually founded Cascade Acceptance Corporation and served as the President. I am an note holder that Mr. Glaser has defrauded, along with well over one hundred others. I request that you change the word "owned" to "founded and managed", which more correctly reflects that Cascade was a $100 million dollar fund, and not some corner grocery store that Glaser owned. Ricste (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Given your experience, you shouldn't be editing the article. See WP:COI. In any event, Wikipedia can't go by your word - find a reliable source, and I'll put it in.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

By this logic, no Jew should be writing about the Holocaust. No one who lost their home through bankruptcy should be allowed to write about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or mortgage brokers. No African American should be allowed to write about civil rights, nor any woman to write about abortion, birth control, or women's rights. But I understand that, when living persons in Western nations are covered, Wikipedia's primary interest is doing nothing whatsoever that might, in any way, upset that person. SO, I will go away and leave this page alone. It's clear that anyone who wants any facts about Barney Glaser's post-academic conduct will have to look elsewhere. Ricste (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Bbb23! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what I did to deserve it, but thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Stana_Katic image discussion

Could you please revisit this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Swedes Article

Hey, can you please help me out? I am just trying to keep the article factual. Maunus now completely took out the "related ethnic groups" section simply because he can't include the Finns, who are a Uralic peoples and ethnically unrelated to the Swedes, who are a Germanic peoples. Please revert his edit. If you were to just do a 5 minute search online, you will know that I am right in this issue. I am just trying to keep the article factual. Please help me out. TheGoodSon 20:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not really a "section" - it's a field in the infobox. I encourage you to continue your discussion on the Talk page until you feel you've reached an impasse, at which point you can try one of the suggestions I made at ANI. I don't feel comfortable contributing to the discussion at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

Before you revert the changes I made in the article about Vito Roberto Palazzolo please read the explanation first... ;-). As you can see there is now a mediation ongoing. Since you have showed concern in the past, you might be interested in following the process. Take care. - DonCalo (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I did notice your changes but hadn't had a chance to review them yet. When I get around to doing so, I'll keep the mediation in mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Help desk question

I've answered your question at the help desk. I hope that it works for you now. --Slon02 (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It does and thanks very much for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Glen Campbell

Hi, saw your revert on the Glen Campbell bio page. Could you expand a little on your objections? I can provide a number of sources for Church of Christ in Arkansas, Baptist Church in Arizona and Messanic Judism in Arizona/California. I just didn't want to use too much references. Lumdeloo (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realize you had cited new sources and was too hasty. I've restored your version. You may get some flak on some of the issues, but I don't see anything obviously wrong with the material. As a nit-picky aside, though, you should put refs outside the punctuation marks, not inside. Thanks for being nice about my mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I will put the refs outside the punctation marks. Thanks.Lumdeloo (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My mess

Thanks for reverting my accidental rollback. I had no idea I had made that edit. See here. (I'm glad no one took it seriously and waited for my-then-offline-self to notice and correct it, like what I read in another thread nearby or something :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much figured it was an accident as it made no sense. My reversion edit summary about no explanation and no basis was not meant as a dig at you, but just so someone could hopefully understand what I was doing. Maunus was very nice about it on your Talk page. I thought about posting something for you there as well, but decided it was all just an unfortunate blip. Maybe it would've been better to alert you. Anyway, no harm was done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And now we actually have a confirmation that user Kolokol1 is being paid to whiten Berezovsky's reputation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Foundation_for_Civil_Liberties

as you can see from description, this is a firm funded by Berezovski.

In the link on the bottom of this page you can see, that Kolokol is their "Foundation's news project"

Doesn't it have clear resemblance to Kolokol1's nickname??? Of course it can be a mere coincidence, but it's up to you all to judgeDeepdish7 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Copied from userpage.--v/r - TP 15:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

TP, I was just about to do this when you did it for me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What are talk page stalkers for?--v/r - TP 15:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Deepdish, the website is in Russian. I'm not going to translate all the pages to figure out what it's all about. You are making significant accusations against the editor and against Berezovksy. My Talk page is not the place to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop editing Jeff Frederick page until mediation complete, or provide specific objection on each omission or deletion of content on that page

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_September_2011/Jeff_Frederick Vabio1 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edit warring is going to probably result in a block. The fact that you took the article to mediation doesn't change the rules of editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Troy Davis case

Thank you for taking charge of the Troy Davis article. This is going to be a difficult week in the article. Thanks for being aggressive with those who want to edit it for ideological reasons. Your being in charge is most welcom, but please consider locking the article if things get out of hand. A week from now, this article will be completely forgotten. Kind of like a medium hurricane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.135.139 (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the power to lock an article. I'm not swure about "taking charge", but I am watching the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I came here to thank you for fixing my citations. I knew my formatting wasn't the best, but wasn't sure how to fix it. By the way I'm not a noob to this case; my family and I have been blogging about this for four years http://www.loveshade.org/blog-mt/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=troy+anthony+davis. Alden Loveshade (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please be mindful about conflicts in editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas

I reverted the latest - see the talk page - and warned the IP about 3RR. You were wise to step back and go to Talk - let's hope the IP understands the way things work. Although the latest version was better than the earlier, it's still not appropriate the way it is - too much extraneous explanatory detail, and too long a quote. Let him find a secondary source analyzing this, which might be more appropriate here. Tvoz/talk 19:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Given the IP's post to the Vargas Talk page, which I have not yet responded to, I don't think it's likely the IP understands how Wikipedia works or is even interested. Seems clear from the article and Talk page posts that the IP has an agenda about employment and immigration.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Adriana Ferreyr

Could you please tell me what is poorly referenced by quoting the persons own submission to a supreme court? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William de Berg (talk • contribs) 17:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:BLPN makes it abundantly clear what is wrong with the material you want to add and the sources you are using. In particular, read WP:BLPPRIMARY.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And when I used a verified secondary source ie Reuter's News Agency it was allowed to be deleted. Get a grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William de Berg (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The assertion you put in was not supported by the Reuters source. It's also not material that belongs in the article at this point anyway. It's premature.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

So could you tell me why the text is allowed to say that her ex-boyfriend is Mr G Soros, but I am not allowed to say that she is suing him for 50 million USD?--William de Berg (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong objection to mentioning the lawsuit itself, although it would have to be carefully worded and couldn't include things like the police investigation. It would have to be restricted to just she filed a lawsuit, when, and what the basis of her lawsuit is. A battle between the lawyers as to the facts is not appropriate, and it could only cite secondary sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sir / madam The Ferreyr page has recently been flagged to be rescued by user Northamerica1000. He/she (though I'm leaning towards the masculine) has done so, but made no comments whatsoever. Is this normal? Faithfully --William de Berg (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

William, I've posted a response to your question on Northamerica's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Error

That's fine, I'll do it in a second. Besides, everyone makes mistakes, even someone with the highest IQ known in the land.--The Master of Mayhem ROAD AHEAD CLOSED 19:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Done it, so I will stalk random Robot Wars Wiki pages :D.--The Master of Mayhem ROAD AHEAD CLOSED 19:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffalo City FC

Following further representations I have relisted this debate. Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Curiosity, though, compels me to ask. Did you relist because a second person asked, or did you relist because of the second person's reason?

One more question. In your view, would it be kosher to add to my nom the silly phrase (my opinion) "doesn't meet WP:GNG" to avoid further complaints? Or would it be okay to say that in a comment in the relisted discussion? I just don't want what some perceive as a technical flaw with my nom to be distracting.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably a combination of both. I believe that anyone, admin or non-admin, who closes an AfD should be responsive to the Community's reaction and when you get two polite, reasoned requests then that is persuasive!

I would add a non-bulleted but newly signed comment below your nom along the lines of "For clarification, perhaps I should add that the article also fails to meet WP:GNG." That way it doesn't compromise those editors who commented on the basis of your original nom. HTH. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I added something like what you proposed (my own wording) to the discussion page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Buffalo City FC AFD

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buffalo_City_FC

Just to make clear, my response to Ravenswing was not a normative judgment about your nomination. Rather, I'm disagreeing with his opinion that a mal-argued AFD even could be a basis for speedy closing it. causa sui (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but I sense from subsequent points made by others that my to-the-point style nomination is, uh, perhaps not customary, and that although I think it's obvious, I should also say something along the lines of "fails to meet WP:GNG". I was frankly surprised at the reactions on this point, but hey.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN

I think someone should report Deepdish7 to this arbitration. Off2riorob (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm now lost. When it comes to arbitration forums, I'm out of my depth as I haven't educated myself as to how that works here. I also see that another editor has suggested WP:AE at ANI. Enforcement of what exactly? He says WP:DIGWUREN, just as you do, bu I don't see the connection. I just wish an admin would take a hand in disposing of the ANI topic, one way or another. I'm not sure whether their recent silence is a function of disinterest, waiting to see if there are any more developments, not feeling any pressure because Deepdish is currently blocked, or some other reason. I think it's shortsighted to believe this is all going to get better if we take care of Deepdish. The underlying problems go deeper than one editor with control problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A decent article neutrally stating both sides of the story is the ultimate solution. First is to apply to have him placed on notice ...

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

Or having requested assistance we can remove the article from our watchlists and wait for the rope trick to do its business. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• - User_talk:Deepdish7#Blocked_indefinitely - update. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Rob, when I saw that the ANI topic had been archived, I posted a message at User:Lifebaka's Talk page because no one had taken any action. Lifebaka then unarchived it and blocked Deepdish.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

UCLA LAW

Greetings. You have removed a line of text from the UCLA School of Law article. Your reason for removal is that the statement contains hyperbole. Opinions, when held by a significant number of people, are valid components of an objective encyclopedia article. Moreover, the opinion contained in the (removed) statement is directly cited to the U.S. News World Report source. This is, unfortunately, the only authority cited consistently within the legal community (and outside it) in support of "law school rankings", which rely largely on "reputation" scores assigned to the schools by lawyers, judges, and academics within the legal profession. Please see: USC Gould School of Law's article for a nearly identical statement. If you have an issue with this analysis, or, if you feel that you are warranted in removing my edit, I look forward to working with you on reaching an intelligent and rational resolution to the disagreement. Refusal to discuss your edit with me will result in my taking it up directly with Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapost2012 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Take it up with Wikipedia? Oh dear.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Aapost, USC does indeed have similar hyperbole (added last month by an IP). Thanks for the heads up. I've removed it from that article, too. Wouldn't want to treat the two schools differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Quote

Actually I did need the cite as a direct quote should always be cited at the end of the sentence it appears in. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but it's not as problematic an omission as no cite at all, and although I agree with you (I'm generally in favor of repeating cites after each sentence even if it's not a quote unless the material is wholly uncontroversial), I just found it amusing that there was already the same cite in place after the subsequent sentence. Your diligence on this issue does you credit.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. After all this time of working in certain areas of the project, it's automatic. And the article does you guys credit, it just needs some tweaking.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR

I know you're acting in good faith with the Troy Davis case article, but I must note that you have made over 11 reverts in less than 2 hours, many of them on essentially the same content, and none of these reverts are exempt under the 3RR. I obviously am not going to report you, but it's something you ought to keep in mind. JimSukwutput 00:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Please note that you have broken 3RR on Boris Berezovsky. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ga - reviewing

Have you considered helping in this area WP:GA - there is currently a big backlog - we could work together , I am looking for a joint reviewer to work with ? Wikipedia:Good article nominations - 23:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Somehow your name got lopped off the signature block, Rob. I'm struggling with your request because on the one hand I'd love to work with you, and it would expose me to an area of Wikipedia I know little about. On the other hand, it's late in the day, my eyes are burning from staring at the monitor all day, I'm exhausted from Wikipedia (what with the Troy Davis case article yesterday and now the Berezovsky mess), and the thought of doing any additional work makes me want to assume the fetal position. How about if I ponder it a bit when I'm less tired? Any idea of how much work would be involved? I generally take my responsibilities and commitments very seriously, so I would be reluctant to say yes and then find it's too much for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We can move our main energy to this area for a couple of months, let the other areas drop off a little. It is a low stress/minimal fetal position area- Tomorrow we can discuss, together its easy work. Give it a try, two a week, ponder as much as you like..... its more of an enjoyment than a responsibility/commitment. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Rob, I've glanced at WP:RGA to see how the process works. I don't see anything about joint reviewing. Is it common? How would it work?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in reviewing policy and guidelines against it, we could just take the assessments and share them - you could do , prose and Mos compliance and neutrality, and I could do factually accurate and verifiable and stability and images and we just update as and when whoever is available. It was just an idea to get some experience in a new area of contributing, after a few we might feel confident to do them alone. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A. Prose quality:Pass/Fail

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:Pass/Fail

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources:Pass/Fail

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:Pass/Fail

C. No original research:Pass/Fail

Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects:Pass/Fail

B. Focused:Pass/Fail

Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias:Pass/Fail

Is it stable?

No edit wars, etc:Pass/Fail

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:Pass/Fail

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Pass/Fail

Overall:Pass or Fail: On Hold

Hmm, I don't have a problem trying it, but when we issue the actual review, how would we show that it's from both of us? I'd feel uncomfortable not disclosing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers: User:Bbb23 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:Off2riorob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I will look a bit more later, regards. With the size of the backlog and length of time some users have been waiting for a review I can't see there being objections. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine objections, either. Hey, the nominator is getting two for the price of one. Will we be able to sign the review that way? As long as we're both shown on the review, I have no problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We can sign the final judgment like that but after the opening and review post we would just sign as individuals. I could choose one and do half of it and email you the details and you could finish it and post it to the GA page. Thinks that I think you do better than me would be , grammar, sentence structure and punctuation and such like (you have corrected me on those before) and MoS compliance for lead and general layout. Any ideas on one to start from the list? Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations - Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, what do you mean by the "final judgment" (sounds so legal)? I'd rather you point me to a place maybe on your sandbox rather than using e-mail. I'll warn you in advance I get very hung up on details and mechanics, so don't be surprised if I'm nit-picky and ask lots of questions about process, etc., which, as you can see, I'm already doing. :-) How about Magistrates of England and Wales? I know a fair amount about legal issues, although very little about non-American legal systems. It'd be interesting for me, at least. One thing against the Magistrates article is it's very long, which as a first might be a poor choice. Another possibility is LatinoJustice PRLDEF. Do you have any preferences?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, your silence could mean that you simply haven't gotten around to responding, or it could mean that you're already put off my over-fussiness. :-) If you've had second thoughts, don't worry about offending me - you're free to change your mind. I'm not pushing you to respond, either, it's just that you're generally very quick, so I wondered - no hurry and no worries.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I am currently a bit multi tasking, and reassessing after your comments. A subpage would be fine, better perhaps. As regards choosing one, I do think less complicated at first, but interest is important as we are here to enjoy ourselves, and I think a little understanding of the topic is also important. I will have a look and get back to you shortly. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Magistrates of England and Wales has been waiting almost two months. It is large but together it should be ok - if you like I/you can ask the nominator if he objects and let him know as its the first review to allow a bit of leeway in regard to time expectations. - "final judgment" was a bit over egging the position, all GA reviews are open to reassessment and review themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're okay with it, fine, you can ask the nominator. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, cool. I am going to ask him tomorrow, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked the nominator - User_talk:InExcelsisDeo#Magistrates_of_England_and_Wales - I notice he has been inactive for a month so unless he replies the nomination will either need removing or another user would have to take on the corrections as required...Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the asking, and it was smart to look at his contribution history.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Toluca Lake edits

See: for a place to comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

I've already commented a couple of times (see higher up on the page).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

IMDb not reliable?

Hi Bbb23, You say that IMDb is not a reliable source on your recent edit to John Beal (composer). IMDb is the premiere dbase for information about people in the entertainment business. Is there an article somewhere on Wikipedia that states that IMDb is not to be considered a reliable source? I've also had a few editors claim the NYTimes and LATimes are not reliable sources, so please forgive my question. Please help me out here, as IMDb is sourced thousands if not tens of thousands of times in other Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBob47 (talk WikiBob47 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC) (forgot to sign before)

IMDb is not considereded a reliable source for biographical information in particular because IMDb is more like a blog than a source in that anyone can post to it. Take a look at WP:RS/IMDB, Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_40#IMDB.2C_again, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Is_IMDb_a_reliable_source.3F, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_96#IMDB. There are endless other discussions about IMDb.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I get from the discussions that people generally accept the credits - which are typically posted by the studios and vetted by the IMDb staff before posting (I have personal experience in this area) but not so much the triva and bio sections, where my source was found. Thank you for pointing this out. I also enjoyed the humorous suggestion that while IMDb has paid editors checking all the information coming in before allowing it to be posted, Wikipedia has volunteer editors reviewing things after they have been posted, and that some might infer a difference in reliability. (he says, ducking) Peace! WikiBob47 (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Just one more point. As the first link I listed says, I wouldn't even trust the credits of IMDb when it comes to upcoming films. The problem with upcoming films in general is that the cast members often change, particularly before something starts filming, and sometimes even after that. When I look at upcoming film articles on Wikipedia, I don't let anything in that isn't sourced to a reliable secondary source. It's sometimes a bit of a circus with people adding unsourced information, no matter how many times you revert their additions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing to remember about IMDb is that the credits are all carefully vetted by the IMDb staff before being allowed. Most often they are submitted by the studios, but even then all credits are carefully scrutinized. It can be agonizing getting a film properly posted because of the vetting. WikiBob47 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, I haven't found the upcoming film credits to be very reliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	For your endless efforts to fix Wikipedia issues that have serious real life implications. Not here to care about lawsuits; here to care about real world damage. Thank you again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Demiurge1000. I'll take the liberty of moving this to my user page after a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Shannon Wheeler article

Thanks for the edit on the article about Shannon Wheeler. I've been approaching this in a perpetually novice way and don't want to step on any toes, especially ones that could contribute. (I know the subject of the article, but I am not wanting to use Wiki as a promotional ground.) Although it was/is a true statement, I had taken out the information about Wheeler's twins being 12 years old because they're actually almost 14 years old now and would cringe if an interviewer or reporter used that information as still true. And Wheeler himself generally leaves out detailed family information. That said, it seems like people would like information about the kids on the article. Would you mind if it's changed to "teenage boys" rather than giving a specific age? That would shut me up about that for a few years yet. Tamdao22 (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the reference to their ages at the time (2010) per your request here and at WP:BLPN. That way you don't even have to reraise this a few years from now. Thanks for being cooperative.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again. As I said on WP:BLPN, the result is better than I had requested. I'm sure the boys will be pleased. Tamdao22 (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

berggruen

please respect the sources and referances available to construct an articles, wikipedia is not a medium to advertise nor to promote living persons with unrealistic claims... --86.173.211.194 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I award you this for your sound BLP intervention. Nice work. WilliamH (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, William, kind words from you and criticism from the IP - I must be doing something right. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

fanning

I really do think fanning, as a co creator or co founder or whatever should be mentioned with a link to his wiki page -currently Parker is mentioned three times, with an internal link in fannings Bio although it is only in the Sean_Fanning#In_popular_culture section - those guys seem to have fallen out in real life... Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. I just didn't like the way it was done by the IP. Even Fanning isn't the "founder", but a co-founder. Either I'll take care of it a little later, or you can if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

that whole , co founder founder, rings a few wikipedia bells - its clearly what they call semantics - I was just looking for a position that would be acceptable to them both so as to stop the disruption of the Bio. - When the disruption of the biography is greater than the possible benefit from any related content addition that is the time to resolve it with a compromise or a block, I will leave it to your qualified assessment - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on your update of what the Fanning article actually says and the context (I read it) AND after considering some more, I don't think we need anything more in the Parker article. The Napster article (which is linked to, of course, in the Parker article) mentions the Fannings. I think that's the right place for all this. Let me know if you disagree.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sheen's agent

Sorry Mark Burg is Sheen's manager, not agent. My mistake. —Mike Allen 04:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not as problem - thanks for the update.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)