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.

deltasim and the BLP vio

sup man, I never used this before so bear with me ok? I am a friend of realfatrabbit and he got blocked and asked me to let you know that deltasim didn't like the result of the edit war between him and relafatrabbit that you decided. It was about a BLP vio. deltasim I guess went to another admin called jamesbwatson and had realfatrabbit blocked. the admin called jamesbwatson then added back the stuff deltasim added that was the BLP vio which realfatrabbit kept removing and caused the edit war. anyways, thats that, he just wanted me to tell you. thanks man

This is the page about the war that deltasim went to another admin called jamesbwatson to add back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive202#User:Deltasim_and_User:ArealFatRabbit_reported_by_Mephistophelian_.28Result:_Declined.29

oh yeah and the BLP vio and edit war was on kid icarus page

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic now created, you may wish to comment. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you consider re-blocking Zaalbar for an additional 48 hours? A little more than just an hour after coming off of his 24 hour block for edit warring on same sex marriage, he returned to edit warring on Matthew Shepard. This kind of deliberate disruption coming right after his block expires pretty much demonstrates that Zaalbar isn't serious about editing Wikipedia. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I'd rather let the SPI run its course. Zaalbar has reverted twice at Shepard and hasn't insisted since Black Kite reverted, many hours ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued Block Evasion by User:Dannyboy1209

Hello Bbb23, just came by to tell you about this incident Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued Block Evasion by User:Dannyboy1209 of an Confirmed IP Sock (User:92.0.110.196)of Dannyboy1209 which you had blocked earlier. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Can you semi protect Operation Pillar of Defense which is proving irresistible to a blocked user? Ankh.Morpork 22:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I semi'ed another article that the socks were attacking, and I blocked the IP at Operation Pillar, along with another IP, complained about at SPI by Marokwitz. It look quiet for now at Operation Pillar (at least quiet for that article). I'm trying to act quickly but no more than necessary. If there's more disruption, I'll reconsider. Obviously, if I'm off-wiki, you can ask another admin or go to RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Ankh.Morpork 23:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a sock of Dalai lama ding dong. Can you semi protect the articles he is editing? Ankh.Morpork 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I blocked that IP and another rather than semi-protecting. I'm choosing one week for these blocks, but I'm not sure if it's long enough. I suppose I can always extend it. If there's further disruption after the blocks expire, it will be a LOT longer than a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Block

Hi, Thanks for dealing with my unblock request I sent you over the Email, the process was getting a little over complicated. However, honestly, I highly doubt that knowing what you now, you would have given my edit a second glance on that history page list. So I can't respect your decision to stick with the block and let me stew through the process.--Mor2 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

On topic of edit warring on that article. I would point out this recent accumulated revert [1] and the following revert cycle. The revert undid my edit [2] due to "shamelessly blatant propagandizing"?! and at least two other edits, reinstating 'BilalSaleh' removal of sourced content. Disregarding my request to tag issues and the recent activity in the section that led to blocks. Removing my entry with less than informational edit summary, no attempt to discuss, just a righteous blunt revert.--Mor2 (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There was some unusual activity on the article today. The first edit, the one that, among other things, undid your edit, was that editor's first revert of the day and therefore did not violate 1RR. There then followed a series of reverts, but they all related to Carvotta being declared a sock, and your edit got swallowed up in that. Reverting an indefinitely blocked sock is an exemption to 1RR. In any event, that article is a relentless pressure cooker. You kind of have to expect that if you want to edit it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

All I know that he reverted two edits [3] and [4](included mine), both of which are already undid something(stated in the edit summary). If you are saying that it's ok to do multiple reverts of content that is already a subject of controversy, as long as you do it in one cumulative edit, then... respect to the technicalities? I assumed that if I revert his edit and ask him kindly to make multiple edits with consecutive edit summaries or take it to the talk page, I'll be in violation of at least one rule. NM forget it, have a good day. --Mor2 (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying anything about what you call "cumulative" edits, if I understand you properly. In my view, Sepsis II reverted twice. The only issue was whether the second revert was exempt because it was reverting a sock, and although there may be a fine timing issue, I think most would find that it was exempt. As for the substance of Sepsis's edits, you're absolutely welcome to discuss that on the article talk page. BTW, there's nothing wrong with discussing these kinds of issues with admins so you avoid violating policy. Most editors don't do it, but it can be very useful. I personally don't mind discussing these questions with you, but I also know you're unhappy with me, so you could always raise them on another admin's talk page. Entirely up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh

Thanks... That's a bit more clear. :) Kuru (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit War

My favourite edit war warrior admin (you blocked me twice :-) I hope you had a beautiful Christmas. Wish you a very happy New Year. Users RS4815, VecihiHürkuş and Dr.K. seem to be in a fierce edit war over Turkey. FYI. --E4024 (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The war appears to be over as Vecihi Hürkuş has been blocked. Before being blocked, though, they came up with a doozy of an edit summary ("Stop using Wikipedia for pathetic irredentist masturbations"). I wish you a happy blockless new year with nothing but polite, clear edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I had not seen that that user was blocked but I doubt the war has ended or that they were the only warrior. BTW thanks for your good wishes. I have always known to be a very polite person, although since I began editing WP I have had some difficulty biting my tongue. (Please don't ask me why. :-) All the same your words come just after I have given a clue of repentance. Peace. --E4024 (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Human rights abuses in Kashmir

Half of the page Human rights abuses in Kashmir was deleted by User:Darkness_Shines before you marked it as protected. The user deleted it as copy pasted but failed to prove from where it was copy pasted. You had to check the edit summary but you didnt rather you destroyed the work of others. I‘m requesting please see the edit summary and the talk page and act as it desires. Thank you. MehrajMir (Talk) 17:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's a policy issue, locking an article does not endorse a particular version sought by one of the editors. The material that DS removed was recently added by you. If there's a clear consensus to re-add some or all of it, that can, of course, be done after the lock expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well the page is going to unlock today. I‘ve proved all the accusations as baseless, answered all their questions, fighting it at my own I still haven‘t any support. I request you please judge the content on the bases of neutrality, relevance and sources so that my hard work is not going to waste. Thank you. Happy new year.  MehrajMir (Talk) 09:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Offense / Offence

Not sure about American spelling, but according to Wikipedia: Offence (law), a violation of the penal law Offense (sports), the action of engaging an opposing team with the objective of scoring Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just the vagaries of problematic articles created by geocentric editors. Just look it up in the dictionary. I assure you that "offense" is the correct spelling in the modern American legal system.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Now I just need to make some shanges to the page on Aluminium! (jk) Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think offense (regardless of spelling) is the wrong word here. According to , an offense appears to relate more to a misdemeanor. Money laundering seems pretty clear that it is a crime, not an offence. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In modern American federal law, the word offense is generic and doesn't just relate to misdemeanors. However, if you wish to replace "offenses" with "crimes", that would be acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Will do, and will add a reference on the talk page.Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. What kind of reference, and why would you add it to the talk page? Do you mean just an explanation of the change?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an explanation of the change on the talk page - is that not right? Wanted to maintain transparency. Was that redundant?Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I see what you did - no problem at all, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank You For The Advice!

Bbb23,

I'm sorry about all that. I realized that I skipped the help pages on Wikipedia. From now on, if you guys give me the chance, I'll try to improve. I did not mean to send in all that. Since I was not familiar with Wikipedia, I thought it was the right thing to save often. I have read Wikipedia's help pages and will try to follow it. Thank you guys for giving me the chance!

Chipuchu (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about correct application of BADEMPHASIS?

If you have a minute, I'd like you to join this discussion: User_talk:Belchfire#Confusion_about_correct_application_of_BADEMPHASIS.3F

It concerns this edit of yours: [5]

Belchfire-TALK 02:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in joining the discussion. I suggest you skip the crap about banned editors, allegedly pointy edits, etc., and just focus on the content.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

gen+gen : of+possessive

Could you explain your rationale for preserving the possessive marker ('s) after the genitive indicator "of", specifically in the clause "he compared the comedian's rise to that of Adolf Hitler's"? Typically the double genitive is used when the plain "of" might change the meaning inappropriately (as in the different meanings of the phrases "a picture of Hitler"/"a picture of Hitler's"), and in specifically idiomatic phrases. There are several "of N's" phrases that are specifically ungrammatical, not only in formal written English, but even in conversational English (with, of course, some variation).

As opposed to a phrase like "friends of Hitler's" (which I judge as grammatical), the phrase "that of Hitler's" does strike me as one of these ungrammatical phrases. There are several such phrases that are discussed in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language as fitting into "Alternating patterns of complementation", perhaps most broadly showing a pattern of ungrammaticality when the the noun preceding "of" is not one that is materially owned, and is more in a relationship of association with the following noun, if it is a single quality or relationship that is being identified.

Let me add, however, that if the phrase were referring to accomplishments and it referred one among several accomplishments, I would hear "an accomplishment of Hitler's" as a grammatical construction.

Do you stand by your edit? I stand by mine, but would like to hear your case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.242.34 (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's an impressive post. I'll consult with someone else and get back to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Bwilkins changed the text back to your version. I've now reread it and decided I was wrong in the first instance. Happy editing!--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of quotes on conversion therapy

Rather than edit warring, let's take this quote dispute to the article talk page. I started a section at Talk:Conversion therapy to discuss this, please discuss there before further reverts. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look a couple of sections up, you'll see that I have no plans to become involved in the content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Userpage Shield
		For meritorious defense of my userpage from vandalism by means of Speedy deletion tagging on 23 December, 2012. Many thanks!. Cdtew (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could help, Clark.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Maybe before you advise me to use the talk page, you should check the last post on the talk page. I had already commented, HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR WIKIPEDIA HARD. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Captricity page

Hi, I created a page on Captricity that was deleted by you. I would like to make a page that better conforms to the standards and is allowed to remain. I did read the style guides and it seemed to conform, but I must have missed something. Could you possibly provide me with more feedback on why the page was removed so that I can improve and avoid the same mistakes again? As you can see, I'm new to Wikipedia, though I have experience with other wiki-based encyclopedias in the past. Any advice you can give would be great appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and help. AMS135246 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It was a combination of two things. First and foremost, it read like an advertisement. The Phrase "quickly and cheaply" and the "while often compared" sentence in the lead don't bode well for the rest of the article. The History section was way too personal from Chen's point of view, reads like a fansite. It was also part of the second reason, which was copyright infringement - you either copied or closely paraphrased text from the company's website, which is not permissible. The Products section also reads like an ad of the various "features" of the products, again with phrases like "currently available for free". It doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, but more like an extension of the company's website.

You need far more secondary sourcing. Of all the sources you had, the best was the launch award. I have no idea whether it was a notable award, but looking at the award's website, it looked reasonably reliable. In contrast, the pandodaily looks more like a personal blog and therefore not reliable. The remainder of the sources were all self-published and add very little, if any, value.

So, if you want to continue trying - and I don't want to discourage you - keep any new articles as detached and neutral as possible; dry may not be interesting, but at least it will get past the speedy deletion stage. Stick to facts. Don't even think about copying from websites or anywhere else. Concentrate on secondary, reliable sources, references that comment on the subject, rather than the subject commenting on itself. The more prominent the source the better.

I hope that helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hey Bbb23 - Happy Holidays! There is an unblock request up at UTRS where User:Pathologyresident5 has agreed to no longer link to any of their research and instead work on various medical articles. Would you be ok if I were to unblock and monitor them? I would of course make it a bright line requirement that any future promotion or linking to their work or clinic would lead to an immediate re-block of their account. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, thanks for checking. Have a safe and happy new year!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring: Løverne

The creator of this article, Biker No 1 is avoiding SD tags and deletion s by continually recreating this page, along with MC Lions. Thought I'd bring it to your attention. Cdtew (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Acroterion seems to be dealing with the situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Iranian Space Agency

God only knows why but an IP posted on my talk page to look into a content dispute here. Looking over the page history Scythian77 has been reverting IP's at will for over a year. Since 24 April 2011 he has reverted this edit 28 times, and these reverts are his only edits to the article[6] He calls the IP's vandals and sockpuppets. The content is sourced and a quick Google shows plenty of sources to back the edit. What is the best course of action? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You left a note on Scythian's talk page, which was a good idea. According to one of the edit summaries, the issue was discussed a couple of years ago, but, even if true, that doesn't justify reverting these recent edits that are sourced to 2012 references. Frankly, Scythian should discuss the content on the article talk page rather than reverting, but the IP is also in danger of breaching 3RR. If you like, you can point Scythian to this discusion. They should know better than to toss terms like vandal and sock around without strong evidence, which appears to be lacking here, certainly on the issue of vandalism. The IP is now using the vandalism label as well, no doubt defensively.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I also posted on the article talk page, and let the IP know about 3RR. I will let Scythian know about this post as well. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I appreciate that you are trying to reduce drama, but the boomerang proposal had garnered no opposition, so at this point the consensus is actually in favor of a block. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If another admin disagrees with me, fine; otherwise, a punitive block is not going to happen. No more opening cans of worms. Please spend your time doing something else (no implication of bad faith, btw).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Why did Automatic Strikeout accuse me of trolling regarding cancer? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Block of Drmies

Well, I disagree with it. This was a bad move to make without discussion first, Bbb. I'm not going to reblock, because I'd consider myself involved with respect to Drmies, but I'd strongly urge you to reverse your action. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Bbb23; it wasn't a punitive block. It was a "I can see where this is going, knock it the hell off" block. If you can't distinguish between the two - or understand why unblocking your admin nominator is potentially a problem - I have some serious concerns. Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ironholds, does that mean that any admin who considers themselves a friend of Drmies is involved? I apologize for not discussing this with you first, but there's been so much stuff flying about today, it takes my breath away. And blocks of admins in heated discussions. What is the purpose? Really? I know you can't see me, but I'm just sitting here shaking my head in wonderment at the whole thing. But I suppose that's just the way it is here sometimes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The purpose of the blocks? Because they were uncivil. And that's it. We, as administrators, have a duty to enforce policy and maintain Wikipedia - and one of the policies and things necessary for its maintenance is the construction of a collaborative rather than combative atmosphere. This is utterly impossible to maintain if "but mummy, the other boy started with the nasty words" is a legitimate excuse. And in regards to Drmies: how on earth could you have passed RfA and not at any point picked up WP:INVOLVED? Would you be comfortable with a judge passing sentence on his golfing buddy? Ironholds (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• But we don't normally issue civility blocks based on that kind of stuff without any warning. Why should Drmies be treated differently? As for being involved, as I indicated before, Drmies has an awful lot of buddies. In any event, on the involved issue, do you want me to reblock Drmies? Is that your preference?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

And I think it's swell that he has so many friends, and if any of them had unblocked him instead of you I'd be sticking precisely the same messages on their talkpages. Unless he has 700 odd friends, all, coincidentally, admins, there were other people who could've handled it - and forgive me if I don't take advice on when we do and do not issue civility blocks from an administrator who self-admittedly thinks they can unblock their friends. Frankly, at this point I'd advise you to leave it alone. No unblocks. No reblocks. Learn when to take action and when not to for future disputes. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Then that's what I'll do; I'll leave it alone. I'll also take to heart (seriously) your advice. Hopefully, it'll never come up - it certainly never has before. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Bbb, I appreciate you sticking your neck out. I only have one quibble: I think you should have unblocked Scotty also. Neither of us should have been blocked, of course, no matter what Ironholds might think he was preventing. If I had been online when all this was happening, unblocking Scotty (if I could at that time) was the first thing I would have done. Why this wasn't preceded by a warning is a mystery to me. Words first, Ironholds, then blocks, in any dispute which is obviously not threatening the project or a BLP but is nothing but a disagreement between grown-ups. Yes, in the real world people call each other names--it's in primary school where schoolmasters have to step in, not here. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• As I said at AN, when I could get a word in edgewise, I did not know Scotty had been blocked until after he had been unblocked by Floq. Scotty is not on my watchllist, and despite someone (don't remember who) saying I should have "researched" it, I think that's frankly silly. Am I supposed to assume that Ironholds blocked other persons and check his contributions? What about other admins blocking/unblocking at the same time? I didn't know that YRC was blocked, either, until after the fact.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know, Bbb--hindsight is 20/20. Don't sweat it. On another note, I think the INVOLVED angle is played up too much, too easily. I would never have blocked Scotty for what he said, and if he got blocked for it, I'd undo it. I'd do the same for anyone. Way I see it we should have at least a modicum of reason (periodic outbursts notwithstanding, haha) and we should be trusted to use it. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hindsight is 20/20; but foresight is 20/14. Surely I'm not the only person who saw something like this happening as things brewed over the past 3 days or so. I wish it didn't set us apart as adversaries, as it seems. For everything Wikipedia does very well, our worst attribute as a community is that we are sorry about our manner of disagreeing. I just want you, and everyone, to know, I do not mean to disrespect you, or wish negativity for you, if we disagree on some topic. I am sincere. --My76Strat (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

[7] Seriously? You expect consensus in order to undo your actions when you failed to obtain consensus to before hand? Are you trying to get de-sysopped? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually Bbb23 there says, rather puzzlingly, "administrative consensus", not "consensus". I'm not sure why administrators' opinions are now more important than the community, though.

Incidentally, but on a related note, I've undone your "admin only" close of the other thread on that page. In that case too, individual administrators do not get to override community consensus. --Demiurge1000 (talk)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)‎

Done, I hope your happy with the result. I will restore the rewrite later, perhaps instead of being outraged you ought to compare them, I acted in good faith here and asked the other guy to expand the sections he is most interested in, of course that was not good enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't "outraged". You know I can't take a position on the content issues without losing my ability to act administratively. I'm simply trying to be fair. Thank you for self-reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair? An editor makes how many reverts which include BLP and linkvios and I am the one getting bollocked. The rewrite was a massive improvement. I broke no policy's and told you I was rewriting it and would not touch the article for a while, which is what I did. All you have done here is enable the other guy. Very bad call. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call hours "a while", but if you disagree with me, you're welcome to ask another admin their view.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with everyone, it's one of my personality flaws I have now noticed you are getting a lot of shite over the unblock, so sorry for having dropped more in your lap. Personally I think your doing OK, have a good new year. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, saying it's been a bad day would be an understatement. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly our fellow wikipedian, DS, ended up disregarding your recommendation in the end. A few hours ago, he reinstated his edit unilaterally [8]. His edit summary, "to hell with this" doesn't inspire much confidence in his seriousness in trying to build consensus. Neither does this [9], though it's less relevant to the issue at hand. Still, I feel it illustrates that an otherwise energetic editor can have some issues. Aminul802 (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Dropping by

Just an oldtimer dropping by. While everyone can have Wikifriends and Wikienemies, certain people are just too close to an administrator for that administrator to take controversial actions with regard to. Spouses or siblings who edit are one category. RFA nominators are another. I passed RFA in February 2008 and have had very little to do with two of my RFA nominators since then and I still consider myself precluded from taking action with respect to them. I know you're new and people can disagree on involved status, but I figured my experience might be helpful. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Matthew, would that others would criticize with such grace.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I also have the same thoughts about my nominator, now User:Secret - even though it's been seven years this month and he got desysopped and is no longer an admin, I will continue to root for him. --Rschen7754 04:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Let the water roll off your back. No harm, no foul   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  02:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, lgr, I'll take all the sympathy I can get. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

heck, you blocked me with what I thought was an itchy trigger finger (never saw the point about whining about that) but with all the crap that comes across your way you are entitled to screw up every now and then. I'm not saying you did screw up in this instance (not going to bother reading all of the background), but even if you did, don't lose any sleep over this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

N. R. Narayana Murthy

Hi Bbb23, just to note that discussion is removed from WP:AN without formal closing. Do we need one here and/or should involved editors be informed? Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 10:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, but things have been a bit weird around here lately. I've restored the Murthy thread from the archive so hopefully more discussion and voting can take place.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: User:Lukabeograd

The discussion got archived out to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#User:Lukabeograd. I concur with your assessment that an indefinite block might be the only thing that prompts this person to actually start talking. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Joy, thanks for reminding me about this topic. My energies have been diverted elsewhere in the last few days, and I've let several things slip through the cracks as a result. Do you think we need further discussion, or do you believe I can just act? I don't have a problem with acting without further discussion, but I value your input on this.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Santa Muerte

Another content dispute with User:Rachesnut. Again he makes changes to content without sources and when I call him on it, he keeps citing (no page numbers) what he claims to be his own book. The book exists but I dont have access. Id love to assume good faith but that is very difficult. I thought citing your own work was frowned upon. His claim of a "Santa Muerte" rosary is dubious. He gave me an Internet page but the "rosary" is really a service that includes the rosary which is mostly intact.Suggestions?Thelmadatter (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello Bbb23: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, Greg, best wishes to you as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

User:JGVR

I'm sure you have him on your watch list, but in case you don't, I just thought I would give you a heads up since you are the blocking admin that I've declined his latest unblock request and I've also revoked his talk page access for the extent of his block. If you feel that this was excessive, feel free to undo. Oh, and Happy New Year! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 06:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have him on my watchlist, but I've been sleeping while you've been working. I assumed his talk page acceess would be revoked based on his history, so it comes as no surprise. Thanks for taking care of it. Happy New Year to you, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your indiscriminate attacks on civilians vandals and POV pushers from both sides in the Operation Pillar of Defense article and talk page. Inkbug (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Inkbug, happy new year.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

How is this going to fly?

When the lock comes of Conversion Therapy, are you going to keep an eye on things? I'm afraid the edit war has been a case of "I don't like it" followed by less then good faith attempts by some editors gaming the system instead of discussing on the talk page. Thanks.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer your question. Sarek protected the article, and Sarek asked for a decision about placing the article under discretionary sanctions. That's now been done (by me). I do have the article on my watchlist (along with 185 other editors), so I will see anything that happens to the article when I'm on-wiki. I can't speculate about what I might do before it's happened, but it will be easier for admins to take administrative action because of the sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of (and agree with) the sanctions. Thanks for watchlisting. Hopefully my prediction of trouble will be incorrect. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

History of trouting (ANI thread)

"Trouting" predates Wikipedia by at least a decade. I think it comes from IRC, but I'm not sure. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Origin, and The Documentary. And /slap command Dreadstar ☥ 03:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Since this comes up so often, we really should document it somewhere. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah, it looks like we do have something on it: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout. Dreadstar ☥ 03:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring by someone who received a final warning from you

You told him "If you resume the war on the article, even one battling edit, you may be blocked without any further notice.-". He reinserted his edits a few days later[10] and he has been edit-warring in solitary to keep them into the article:

• 28 November
• 9 December
• 22 December
• 25 December
• 03:56, 29 December 2012
• 04:48, 29 December 2012‎
• 04:52, 29 December 2012‎
• 01:13, 01 January 2013
• 11:43, 01 January 2013
• 14:36, 02 January 2013

--Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this, see a notice which I left at User talk:Santos30#Possible indefinite block of your account. Bbb23, consider adding your own comment for Santos30, if you have an opinion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no references or citation to put in template as date end 1715 (nor english or spanish). None. You threaten me with a indefinite block and the lobby users Enric-Durero-Trasamundo-Escarlati impose this 1715 by pressure, not with bibliography or argumentation. I will put POV-template.--Santos30 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)