User talk:Bbb23

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

Your unexplained reverts of my edits at Black Swan

Regarding your recent reverting history at Black Swan (film), you and the other editor have failed to provide sufficient rationale for the reverts, even though I have explained my reasoning for the inclusion of quotes from one of the individuals at the centre of the controversy. Please see WP:REVEXP and WP:ROWN for the proper etiquette when reverting. Saint91 (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Black Swan (film), Talk:Black Swan (film)". Thank you. Saint91 (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Herzog body-guarding

All uploaded on the 2 Jan - looks like promotional creation to me - see commons - I nominated a couple for deletion, as require evidence of permission, they are all cut and copy paste imo - lets see if the uploader will send the otrs declaration. Youreallycan (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I was also thinking I had seen this previously - as I was getting vague memories of having seen the picture before. I think it was under the title of the business - The Bodyguard Group - perhaps ask the admin User talk:SchuminWeb, or, as he is not very active, any admin to have a look how similar this article is to the one that was deleted. Youreallycan (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I've asked User:Beeblebrox. We'll see what your memory is like. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

damn it, double bubble - I asked Todd,here. We could have bets on which one replies first , hehe. Youreallycan (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, the requests are different, though. You've asked Todd to review the deleted article - I asked Beeblebrox for a copy of it. Of course, I provided Beeblebrox a link to this discussion, so he may be looking over our collective shoulders. Don't worry, I'll let you take full responsibility. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

lol. I'm logging of hopefully I won't wake up with a "you have messages" template and a link to some noticeboard report with all my usernames in neon lights - ciao amigo. Youreallycan (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Biophysicist's E-Book

Two of those three e-books you just deleted were in the article up until the recent edit war, from publication until 30 December 2011. Crowsnest did most of the editing during that time. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Youvan&oldid=468678612 .

Also, the most recent User that was banned made no legal threat. They simply stated fact that Youvan has several multimillion dollar settlements. Coming in from Commons, for the first time, my reading of this is that there is a conflict between the biophysicist and Crowsnest, including a financial position by the latter in ocean wave power and an association with MIT.

On Commons, Crowsnest attempted to delete one of the biophysicist's figures that sets an early priority date for structure in the genetic code, now used as the 4th figure in Genetic Code with 600,000 hits per year. Another editor pointed out that it was most likely a carry-over of a Creation / Intelligent Design / Evolution debate from this encyclopedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Genetic_Code_Structure.JPG Drawit4u (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Now there is an image of a letter at Commons from the biophysicist. We are trying to get him to delete it, but other than a fairly weak argument on Scope, it is going to appear like censorship.

So, I ask you to turn back the article to my most recent edit before your revert, protect the article, and let's save the foundation a lot of time and money. This is going to get ugly. Drawit4u (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You may start a talk page for me or answer me here. Drawit4u (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just found this, too: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Genetic_Code_Structure.JPG - a seemingly unnecessary apology from the biophysicist to Crowsnest after he won the deletion debate and the figure was kept and while not saying one word in his own defense. Drawit4u (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I spent 2 months researching Kris Herzog,

I spent 2 months researching Kris Herzog, the world he lives and works in is primarily reported on by media sources like TMZ and TMZ.com, CelebDirtyLaundry, LickAblecelebs.com, RadarOnline.com, etc.... I also included more mainstream ones like; Los Angeles CBS 2 / KCAL 9, People Magazine, US Weekly, Life and Style weekly and several others listed on my Wikipedia page, which combined have published over 247 stories about Herzog, his Book, My True Hollywood Story and/or his company, The Bodyguard Group over the last 4 years. As for Independent, since over 50% of the stories on TMZ and TMZ.com do NOT show Herzog in a good light, I would say they those are as Independent as you get. The 21 Independent and verifiable sources I list include several national news media outlets like: Los Angeles CBS 2 / KCal 9 which have aired 2 News Anchor Sharon Tay in depth news investigations about Herzog (re Mel Gibson) for a total of over 10 minutes of air time, it was then re run nationally and internationally. Herzog has been the central figure in over a dozen national and international news stories in just the last 4 years and that is far more than thousands of others who currently have pages on Wikipedia. Herzog owns the only company in the United States that gets jobs for free for U.S. Navy SEAL team members and others. Herzog was a key and central figure in some of the biggest news stories of 2009, 2010, 2011, Mel Gibson and Herman Cain. Herzog's story is noteworthy and as 50% or more of the news stories I have sighted DO NOT paint him in a good light, this is clearly* NOT** self promotion, advertising or an auto biography.

• • TMZ calls him a criminal, etc....

I just found out all the charges were dismissed and expunged, after an initial plea deal, 3 years ago, basically, it was stay out of trouble for 3 years, which he did and the charges would be dismissed, which they were, I went down to the court house and paid the court records fee, I just got the results today. It was ALL over a verbal only altercation with the Paparazzi. When you Google search: 1. Kris Herzog, 2. Kristian Herzog or 3. Kris Herzog Book, you get millions of results and Herzog has a higher standing and more noteworthiness than thousands of *people that currently have Wikipedia pages. Like his contemporary Gavin De Becker. who currently has a Wikipedia page. I have never met or spoken to him and only started this project to learn about Journalism and Wikipedia. Amanda, NYC Student — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aad351 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Trickle charging

You can start adding references to it as well as anyone. Deleting great chunks like this is pointless make-work for everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but when an article is unsourced and tagged for almost two years, then the unsourced material must either be sourced or removed. It's not my burden to source the article. The editor who created the article - or anyone else who cares to - can look for sources. Wikipedia is founded on verifiable reliable sources. Without them, it's just someone's opinion, not an encyclopedia article. Your reinstatements of the article are contrary to policy. I will revert one more time, and you can either leave it alone or find some sources yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not sorry, you're just another editor with more interest in finding excuses to exercise policies in order to flatter your own ego than you are in building an encyclopedia. Or are you going to hide behind your no doubt vast list of created articles on baseball or pokemon?

Read the contribs history - I'm the dumb schnmuck who cleans up after edits like yours. If you didn't waste so much of my time on crap like this, I'd get to do more of it. However you don't give a damn about that, about an encyclopedia, or even about the almighty "article quality" that you hide behind. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)