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.

What may I add?

I am helping Amazon Eve actress/model maintain her page. She has asked me to add the following as places she has appeared. Assuming I can find a link to the article or the video would I be able to add any of these?

Thank you, as always Greenwayfriend (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Greenwayfriend

• Red Van Man--Pilot Tall Client Lady ABC/Disney
• The Regular Guys Show on 100.5 FM Featured Celebrity Guest Atlanta GA
• Maximum Level Fuji TV Celebrity Featured Story Japan
• RTL TV Celebrity Featured Story Germany
• Access Hollywood Celebrity Featured Story USA
• KCAL 9 Celebrity Featured Story USA
• Las Vegas Weekly Celebrity Featured Story USA
• Inside Edition Celebrity Featured Story USA
• Samantha Woo Featured Fox
• Little Heroes Featured Cinemotion 21
• RTL Television Celebrity Featured Story Germany
• A Current Affair Celebrity Featured Story Sydney Australia
• Sun Rise Celebiryt Featured Story Sydeny Australia
• Today Show Celebrity Featured Story Sydney Australia
• NTD News Celebrity Featured Story World Wide Sindication New York NY
• LXNY (NBC Local Network) Celebirty Featured Story New York NY
• ProSiebenSat 1 Celebrity Featured Story Munich Germany
• iTV Day Break Celebrity Featured Story London UK
• RJP Media/RTL Television Celebrity Guest Jensen Show Hilversum Holland (Netherlands)
• Rob TV Celebrity Featured Story Tienen Belgium
• Lo Show Dei Record Canale 5 Celebrity Interview Milan Italy
• Funny or Die (internet) Featured Guest Los Angeles CA
• KTLA Morning Show Featured Celebrity Guest Los Angeles CA
• E! Talk Soup Featured Clip (KTLA gag) Los Angeles CA
• LXNY (NBC Local Network) Celebrity Featured Story New York, NY
• Penn Speaks Radio/TV (Local Network) Featured Celebrity Guest Jim Thorpe PA
• The Regular Guys Show on 100.5 FM Featured Celebrity Guest Atlanta GA
• TV Show; High Intensity Fuji Television Featured Celebrity Guest Tokyo Japan

• Hi, Greenwayfriend, generally, you can add things she's done that are sufficiently noteworthy to be reported in a reliable secondary source. Forr example, if you could find a Today Show link that she appeared on the Today Show in Sydney, that would NOT be sufficient. Instead, you'd have to find a secondary source (not Eve and not the Today Show) commenting on her appearance. My guess is that most of the appearances you've listed above would not be sufficiently noteworthy to add to the article, but I'd have to see the precise material (to give it some context in terms of her career or life) and the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Olympiacos CFP

Yep, I'll take a look sometime today for you - cheers, GiantSnowman 08:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, I've worked out what happened - originally, the Olympiacos CFP article referred to the parent sport club, with Olympiacos F.C. being the association football division of the sport club. Sometime in July (I can't be bothered to check every diff) a C&P move was done, and both articles became near-identical. I have reverted and will continue to monitor. GiantSnowman 09:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Outstanding, I'm happy to turn it over to you. If you remember to let me know when it's all cleaned up, please do. Thanks. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Matt Bomer

Hi. In what way is Bomer's birthplace unclear? Is the Yahoo! bio that is cited in the Early life section not adequate? Nightscream (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I was going by the internal comment in the infobox and moving too quickly for my own good. I've self-reverted. Thanks for pointing it out to me. My fault.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries. It happens to all of us. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Luke Evans

since the sources I cited for Luke Evans were credible and even though i don't remotely agree with your analysis that my contributions read like a commentary, wouldn't it be better to revise my edits rather than delete them altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivyleaguer (talk • contribs) 06:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, that was two months ago. I'll try to look at it later.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've revisited the two sentences you added. The first about the list of celebrities, given the issues associated with Evans's sexual identity, is jarring and non-noteworthy. As a list, it has no analysis, nothing except a picture and a caption. The second piece refers to Wikipedia itself and has no place in the article. It reads like a blog comment. If you have an issue with my assessment of either piece, you are welcome to bring it up on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Assassination" sock

That IP seems to be at least a meat puppet if not a sock of blocked user:Settdigger. I don't have the time and nerve to file a report so I'm just saying although you're probably quite aware of that possibility.TMCk (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it occurred to me. I consulted with another admin who's more knowledgeable about these things than I am ([1]).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As you can see or will see in a moment, I've commented there.TMCk (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

please help/Anne Block

Can you please help me? What do I need to do to work on a version of the Anne Block article that meets Wikipedia criteria? I feel that the version submitted by Deception Passer under the title "Anne Block" was closer to a finished product and thoroughly sourced. Where can I make a case for the article? It appears that the latest discussion I requested took place and was closed before I could comment. Further, I feel that the article was unfarily labeled an "attack" article without any discussion, and the label has stuck. I realize that this is usually the case, but please consider the fact that in some cases, the evidence available does not paint a balanced picture. Consider the Seattle Times front page piece I used as a primary source. The Times is the biggest paper in the NW region, and the investigative team has won pulitzers in each of the last three years. To me, that's a pretty solid source. If the actions taken by the subject reflect on her in a negative light, that doesnt mean that I've written an attack piece. It could just mean that the acts described ten to make one think of the subject in a negative light. I would ask any editor to read the Seattle Times piece and to fish around a little bit. I think it would become apparent that there is more to this than just an "attack".

I am frustrated because there was no constructive criticism regarding the sourcing or the work. It took a long time to compile 30 sources and to write inline citations. It seems like the discussion should be about the merit instead of just deleting the page outright after Block whitewashes it. The sourcing was good. Inline citations, references from the best journalistic sources in the region, a survey of different outlets showing that Ms. Block had been covered by pretty much every form of media in the region, etc.

I want to follow the process and I feel I have located solid secondary sources regarding an subject that meets all criteria for notability. However I feel that the controversy surrounding Block's actions has prevented any discussion about the specific merits of the article. I requested a review of the deletion and the conversation was apparently opened and closed before I even had a chance to contribute. Now all of the discussions say "please do not modify" and I can't find any of my previous work. Much of the dialogue wasn't even about the article it was about Ms. Block's apparent legal threat. The original page had been up for several days, and every day I was working to edit it, improve it, and add more sources as per the direction of editors. As soon as Ms. Block started whitewashing the page, all of a sudden it was deleted and there was never any discussion as to the merit of my sourcing or the grounds of the deletion. It doesn't seem right that as soon as Ms. Block starts whitewashing and threatening, the process is stopped. If anything, her actions only further backup the picture painted by the sources. She is litigious in nature. Almost all of the available sources talk about her confrontational legal actions, all of which have a great impact no local politics, state law, and the economies of the region in which block operates.

Original article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Anne_Block.2FWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAnne_K._Block Better version: "Anne Block" / user Deception Passer Seattle Times story on Anne Block: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2017434837_goldbarreporter06m.html Sky Valley Chronicle Story on Block: http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/ L8incoub3rt (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it's possible for you to create a neutral article about this person, even assuming such an article would satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, I note that you've already approached User:CharlieEchoTango and he hasn't yet responded (he hasn't edited Wikipedia since before your posts on his Talk page, so you'll have to be patient).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would you say that I am not capable of writing a neutral article? I realize its not a finished product, but ultimately the sourcing speaks for itself. Not everything in life is balanced. Almost all of the reporting on Block is about her litigous activities. That's why she's famous. Block's actions or the media coverage of her actions shouldn't, if properly sourced, reflect on the author of a encyclopedic entry. I can defend any individual citation or point, but generalizations are impossible to address in a meaningful way. I feel like editors are confusing the actions of the subject with the article. Block's actions are her own. If I simply cite secondary sources describing her actions, how can that be bad? Any judgement would be on her actions or the validity of the sources. I would much rather have a conversation about the validity of the sourcing in my article. I don't feel I was given that chance. If I can have the copy back, I would appreciate it very much. I have put alot of time into it. Thank you. Deception passer (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you and L8incoub3rt the same person?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No. But my account got blocked anyway. No discussion, no reviewing of my talk page, just a total block. Weak. As I stated on my talkpage and in several other dialogues with editors, I submitted a revision of my roommate's article after Block began whitewashing. I was very open about this, just as I have been open and forthright in stating that my article should be viewed upon the merits of the sourcing. I feel like you avoided my question regarding your subjective and general comment regarding your feelings about my abilities and decided to block me instead. I want my account reinstated please. I think you acted hastily. If you had read my posts or my talkpage you wouldve seen that I had stated that I was sharing a computer and working on the same topic as my roommate. Our goals are the same - to produce an article that is sourced and neutral, or to produce no article at all. Unfortunately it seems like whitewashing, fake threats and petty blocks are the most effective currency around here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.233.42.244 (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"I submitted a revision of my roommate's article after Block began whitewashing". <== So this isn't your work, then.

Have you read about meatpuppets?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Block legal threats

Hello. I am still confused as to how Anne Block's legal threats have resulted in the page deletions (my version was "Anne Block") and the block on future articles. It seems like this is rewarding her for threatening legal action and punishing the authors who attempted to research and write a difficult but relevant article. I am attempting to go through the correct procedures. Block simply whitewashed the articles and threatened me/wikipedia/anyone else. I don't think that this should prevent me the ability to work on an article. In fact, since this is what Block is famous for, it seems like it is even more important to write the article. This is a person with 20 open lawsuits against government and 11 pending recall attempts. This is a person who bankrupted her own town to the point that it is dis incorporating. She threatens litigation in every instance. It's why she is notable. Take a look at this, her latest threat related to wikipedia.

I know I can write a neutral, sourced article. I just need the opportunity and for someone to work with me on it. Her threats are empty - Inline citations from strong secondary sources protect everyone from liability. Which is probably why Block constantly deletes sourcing. Please take a look at the article the Seattle Times wrote on Block. I need an editor to take a little time to understand the situation and to give me some guidance. I also need my article text and sourcing back - it was all deleted.

Can you help me get the text from this article back? I will no post again until I have buy-off from an Admin. If I can't achieve that, then I'll leave it alone. Thank you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Block&action=edit&redlink=1

Deception passer (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to wait for User:Panyd's response to your post.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Deception passer (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Zero Dark Thirty

Hi, Bbb23. You have protected this article before, and it may need protection again. After a couple days of relative quiet, several editors have now resumed repeated reverts without engaging in productive discussion on the talk page. Could you please take a look? My recommendation is that you pick your favorite "wrong version" and then lock it down until the major concerns are properly expressed and resolved. (You are going to upset several editors regardless of which of the three recent versions gets protected; disclosure: I have edited the article recently.) I'd also like to see a stern admonition from you to the effect that everyone falling silent until the block expires is not an acceptable way to "address" the problem. Any ideas you have on this would be welcome as well. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've locked the article. I don't get to pick my "favorite" version, but in this case, as I explained on the talk page, policy dictated that I not accept the version at the time of the lock. I've left an explanation and advice on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't seriously recommend that you pick your "favorite" version, Bbb23, and I wouldn't do so. I am well aware that Admins are instructed to implement blocks on an article without regard to the current version. What I did recommend is that you —— pick your favorite "wrong version" and then lock it —— note the emphasization-quotes around the "wrong version" text. All I was saying was that whatever version gets protected, you are sure to be accused of picking the wrong version to lock - the implication by disgruntled editors being that you have "played favorites". I didn't recommend that you play favorites.

That being said, you were 100% justified in your concerns about certain wording being too close to wording from a source, and locking in that wording would most certainly have been problematic. Thank you for your prompt attention to the matter. I'll keep my fingers crossed that the major issues can be hammered out before the block expires. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Sometimes, much as I enjoy humor/mild levity, in serious situations it can be misconstrued. No worries.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

My humor/sarcasm can definitely be misconstrued, as I'm learning -- and I don't fault you for that; I need to work on clearer and more direct wording.

Two direct questions for you regarding (Reverted to revision 511199286 by Arthur Rubin: version prior to copyright infringement and potential BLP issues. (TW)):

1) If copyvio problems was the reason for rolling back to previous versions, why to Arthur Rubin's version, when AzureCitizen's version is more recent and also does not contain the copyvio text?

2) If Arthur Rubin's version was selected instead of AzureCitizen's because of "potential BLP issues", could you specify what those BLP issues inserted by AzureCitizen are? I honestly am not seeing them.

Your input on these, especially the "BLP" thing, would be greatly appreciated and would probably help to considerably advance the discussion about these issues on the article Talk page. A response on that page would suffice. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather not comment on your questions. I'd like to leave myself out of the content issues as much as possible so I can act administratively if needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you "I told you so" ... ah, heck, yes I am. You locked down the article, and the discussion on the Talk page screeched to a halt. As I requested above: "I'd also like to see a stern admonition from you to the effect that everyone falling silent until the block expires is not an acceptable way to 'address' the problem." *crickets* Well, the article is unlocked now, and I've added some of the content back that was deleted with the last revert (note: I kept your edits intact). Will there be productive discussion, or just unexplained reverts as before? I'll reiterate my request that you do what you can to get editors engaged in discussions. As for my part, I'm going to somewhat throttle-back my edits on the article-side, and observe. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand your points. First, it's not my administrative role to force people to discuss on the talk page. I encouraged them to do so, but I'm not your spokesperson and don't have to word my advice the way you wanted me to. Second, there's been little discussion on the talk page since the lock by anyone, although, to your credit, you did try to frame the issues. Finally, what entitled you to add some of the content back without discussion? You just put it back the way you thought it should be. Thus far, no one appears to have objected to what you did, so there's no reason for me to consider it as another protracted dispute, but it appears to be inconsistent with your views on how these things should be played out. Finally, there has been a small tug-of-war between AzureCitizen and Belchfire, but at this point, just as with your edits, I don't see it rising to the level of requiring any administrative action. Throttling back your edits is good, but if you really want to help improve the article, try posting more to the talk page in an effort to reach a consensus on the content issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To your first point: I agree 100%, and thank you for the actions/encouragement you performed. Second and Third points: I cannot conduct a discussion in a vacuum. I explained my edits, and I asked the two contesting editors (North & Belch) to let me know what their concerns were. That was three days ago. Belchfire and North8000 both simply stopped discussing, and North did worse: refused to discuss because he felt his NPOV concerns should be obvious, and didn't need to be explained. Three days later, in the absense of further objection or even response, with my "efforts to reach a consensus on the content issues" left dangling in the wind, I added content -- as every editor is entitled to do. I'll be raising more discussion on the Talk page, as I intend to propose some content trimming. Haven't looked at the article, or the recent tug-of-war yet. My request that you "get editors engaged in discussions" was contingent on the revert-wars firing up again; I didn't make that clear. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Violation of unblock condition

It appears that Scientom has violated the condition of their unblock as described here [2]

Please see the message I left on Scientom's talk page [3] asking them to self-revert. I will wait for a self-revert, and ask that you do so as well. I wanted to bring this to your attention instead of engaging in EW like behavior, however if they fail to self-revert I would hope you would make an inquiry. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your inquiry into the matter. I resisted my initial inclination to revert but raised the matter at Scientoms page and here first. I plan on restoring my edit if no response is forthcoming. This is a "heads up" courtesy notice for you. Thanks.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you were wrong to revert Scientiom. You made the first reversion on September 7, and now you've reverted again. Just as I unblocked Scientiom early, I also unblocked you early. And in my unblock I said: "I'm unblocking you with the understanding that you will stick to the talk page of the article and leave the article alone." I don't see these reversions as appropriate for either of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain consensus was to remove the undue phrase. If someone else disagree's they are welcome to remove it and I'll let it be until the RfC closes.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your response misses the point in the same way that Scientiom's response does. It doesn't matter what you think the consensus was. You should not have reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, I never agreed to not edit the article. But I will revert myself if you feel strongly about this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in that you made no express promise. However, as I pointed out, my unblock was predicated on your leaving the article alone. And, honestly, I don't understand why either of you cares that much whether those two words are in the article or not while the discussion continues. It's such a lot of drama about so little. Perhaps that's hard to see when you're so involved in it, but if you try to step back for a moment ...--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As a sign of good faith I self reverted and you can wait for Scientom to explain him/herself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

IRC cloak request.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Frédéric Bourdin

Just out of interest, the material which was removed as unsourced by (admittedly a block evading individual with an extreme COI) a user, appeared to be supported by the link in the edit summary. I am good at missing things in these circumstances but could you illuminate it for me? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't quite figure out whether the phrase about the film was supported by The Telegraph, but certainly the part about his grandfather was in the newspaper article. However, it was troublesome because it was based on a quote from Bourdin himself. In my view, that's a violation of WP:BLPSPS, point #2 ("claims about third parties"). In other words, we would be effectively permitting Bourdin to say anything he likes about any other individual and then report it in our article, just because the quote was reported in an otherwise reliable source. Does that make sense to you?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Just want to notify you that i have responded to the discussion on this talk page. Kingroyos (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Brad Birkenfeld

Hi - this man just received a 103 million dollar award from the IRS - i'm horrible at writing wiki articles but i promise you people are going to be looking this guy up a lot very soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.97.216 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Natalie Bennett

Dear Bbb23 Teacross is again editing on my page, and their work has since been partially cleaned up, but I would still suggest that the additions remain not from a neutral point of view. Your additional help would be much appreciated. Regards, Natalie Natalieben (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)