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.

RE Letitia James article

Hi, Bbb23: just wanted to provide you with what I consider to be an impeccable source for the comments re Laurie Cumbo, from the coverage by The Epoch Times of the primary election in question (see here; please note comment "There are no Republicans running in the district, meaning the Democratic primary was the race."). Otherwise, I can "back off" for a while from editing the article as you recommended, provided the IP does the same. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I found the same source almost immediately after I read the initial report. I've commented at AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, would that I had known you would be so diligent. I really didn't realize that would be such a huge problem, especially since you didn't direct me to stop editing; you made it sound like a suggestion, and also because I provided the reflink which was indispensable to proving I was correct in what I had edited at least as regards Cumbo. If it is "awkwardly" written I hope you will rectify that so the article will be the best it can be for now. And since you have made it clear that your comment at the ANI discussion was a directive, not a suggestion, may I ask for how long this mandate will be in effect, not that I am interested in returning any time soon to that snake pit. Thanks. Quis separabit? 19:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless there's an egregious policy violation, which there isn't at the moment, I'm not going to touch the content. Why don't you leave the article alone for five days and do other things that are less contentious and more enjoyable? -- Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Quis separabit? 19:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Billboarder22

More on Billboarder22 sockpuppetry: Jenn Bocian and Sylfronia King - more articles with manipulated references and uncited claims related to Sean Guerrier De Bey and World Live Music Distribution. And! Check this out: SmartWay Products - SmartWay is affiliated with De Bey. JSFarman (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I won't be able to look at this until tomorrow. I'm worn out and about to go off-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

God, every time I look at this stuff it makes me dizzy. I slashed the Bocian article. I did a little work on Ariel de Lion (I wasn't aware of that one until I looked at the Smartway website), and I've stopped. Every time I think about presenting this at ANI, I hesitate, not because it doesn't warrant it but because of the work involved in trying to connect the very weird dots. Perhaps I'll start an abbreviated topic at ANI and not try to be thorough. Others might be motivated to probe more, and at least it would get the ball rolling.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 has been duly noted, and thanks for pointing that out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Now regarding Muhammad Madani Miya Ashrafi al-Jilani, I thought - at that time - I could nominate it for speedy because my gutting of the article was all policy based. In this case, the given source (which wasn't dead) didn't verify any of the information given, and even surfing the site itself didn't yield any results. As a general rule, should speedy and prod be off limits if I was the one who cut out content? I just want to make sure so I can avoid any other gaffes like that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there's anything in policy on this issue. For me, it's instinctive and involves the interplay between a speedy delete and an AfD. In most ways it's easier to get past a CSD because you don't need sources as long as the claims in the article are significant and credible. At the same time, in other ways you can fail a CSD even if it wouldn't otherwise fail an AfD. For example, let's say that you have a new short article that says "John Doe is a well-known American television actor." There are no sources. That would fail CSD, and it wouldn't be incumbent on me, the deleter, to go looking to see whether Doe really is notable enough to withstand an A7. The counter-example is an article that's been around a while and has lots of unsourced claims. So, it says, "John Doe is an American television actor. He has appeared in many shows. He usually plays a villain. He has won multiple awards, including the Best Television Actor given out by Joe Schmo Organization in 2003 and 2006, as well as Best Television Newcomer in 1995 given out by the Georgina Film Festival." You come along and see that the article has been tagged as unsourced for two years. You remove everything from the article except the first sentence and you tag it for CSD. It fails. However, it might not fail if you hadn't gutted it. If, on the other hand, you nominate it for AfD after gutting it, you have to do WP:BEFORE first and make sure that Doe isn't notable even though the article sucks. The gutting/CSD seems completely wrong.

Now, this might not be the best example because generally actors are easy to research, and it's not clear that even in my example of the Doe material before the gut it would get past CSD. But hopefully it's understandable to you on a commonsense basis. I'm sure this varies from admin to admin, and even my actions at CSD vary from article to article, i.e., sometimes I do some research, sometimes I don't. It depends on the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

What you've said here is quite reasonable and now understood. I did run a WP:BEFORE check on Muhammad Madani Miya Ashrafi al-Jilani after reading your response here, and what I'm finding are two official websites for the subject, one poorly designed html site for a foundation he is tied to, and a whole lot of blog posts written in poor English along with some youtube videos of some speeches. I'm really convinced that the subject isn't notable, which isn't surprising considering the creator - a now indeffed sockpuppet account used to create a lot of now-deleted articles on non-notable subjects. I know you probably don't want to spend too much time on this one issue, but could you advise on what the most appropriate next step would be (tagging, AfD, something else)? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd AfD it and explain the history and why you think it's not notable based on your research.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Lukabeograd

• Lukabeograd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lukabeograd2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You blocked Lukabeograd for six months re: an WP:ARBMAC judgement in January. He was engaged in repeatedly reassigning sports results of the former Yugoslavia exclusively to Serbia.

Now Lukabeograd2 is doing the same. Assuming that the same individual is behind them, the original block was evaded, but is no longer being evaded as it ran out on 6 July.

Do you mind taking a look? Thanks, Kahastok talk 10:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the #2 account indefinitely as a puppet. I blocked the original account for one year under the sanctions. Please let me know if there is further disruption as I don't have these pages on my watchlist. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Request block on RMS

Thank you for arguing with RMS on his biased edits to Letitia James while I took some time to cool off. Here, here, and here you can see he violated 3RR and pushed the same POV. Since he's been blocked before perhaps a month would be good this time? He claims 8 years of editing experience yet can't step away from his own POV. Thanks!!--100.2.12.154 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually glad you (different IP but obviously the same person) stopped by because it affords me the opportunity to tell you the same thing I told Rms. You should stay away from the James article for at least 5 days. I'm not blocking Rms and I'm not blocking you, but both of you could do with a rest from the article and from each other. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but when RMS creeps in again within 5 days, I expect you to do your job.--100.2.12.154 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No need to be so cynical or bloodthirsty. Wikipedia can be tough, but usually the "crises" are overblown. A little bit of calm will be good for all.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User:76.164.103.108

Continues right were they left off. Wondering if you would consider blocking again? I can re-post at 3RR aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, James, but I was off-wiki until now. Looks like it's been dealt with.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

creation of page

hi I'm Uros and come from Serbia. I want to create an article about the football club Recreativo FC 011, which was established this year by young people, mostly students whp are football fans. I tried to put a wiki page but it is my attempt denied for reasons that are unclear to me.I am willing to submit evidence of the existence of the club facebook page and link from the Business Registers Agency Serbia and to confirm the authenticity of this article. thank in advance, Uros — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uros slavija (talk • contribs) 16:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Articles on the English Wikipedia need to be written in English. Articles in other languages should instead be submitted to the Wikipedia for that language. Also, your article appeared to be about a subject that wasn't notable enough for an encyclopedia, and it seemed overly promotional. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

John "$K" McGee and John "SK" McGee

I was just wondering why was the page deleted it had very valid information and credits for a very big named producer in the music industry? All credits and references were provided and his name is already within Wikipedia on various artist pages. Someone just finally created a page for him. Please let me know what needs to done so that we can keep it live and add new information to this amazing producers career.

Anthony Graham anthonygraham09@gmail.com

You created the SK article, and another user, User:Marshetam, created the $K article. You created your Wikipedia account on September 17; Marshetam created their account on September 13. What's the relationship between the two accounts? There's yet another account, User:SKMcgee, involved. They created their account on September 4. What's that about? I'm not willing to address the merits of the article itself until you give me satisfactory answers about the accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Bardel Entertainment (continued)

I've a significantly rewritten and sourced version of this article at User:Dogmaticeclectic/Bardel Entertainment and would request that you remove the create protection you applied. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You mentioned at WP:REFUND that you talked to me and I "ignored" you. When and where did that happen? Also, I'm just curious why you're interested in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I explained exactly what I meant by that - you ignored my response to your refusal to restore, in which I requested an explanation for that refusal. I became interested in the article when, being a significant contributor at Silverwing (TV series), I noticed that the production company of that show used to have an article but it was deleted. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my first question. Please provide a link or diff to when I ignored your request.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Bbb23/Archive 18#Bardel Entertainment Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and I apologize for not responding to your last comment in July. Sometimes, even on my own talk page, I miss comments. Sometimes I see them and intend to respond later but then forget. In any event, I think the article you created needs a fair amount of work, but I've unprotected the name so you can move it to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Opensooq

Hi, I've re-made couple of times an article under the name "Opensooq" but it had been deleted for advertising reasons. I finally edit the content to avoid the sound of advertising. but when I wanted to make a new article under the name of "Opensooq" it shows the deletion page. Please can you help ASAP? here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opensooq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Existed (talk • contribs) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since you kept re-creating that article after it was deleted, an administrator prevented any new articles from being created there. If you think you can create a non-promotional version, use the Article Wizard, and create it as a submission to Articles for Creation. If it is accepted, the protection on the page name will be lifted and the article will be moved there. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe the admin who protected the article intended to WP:SALT it but made an error, so the protection ended within a minute of its imposition. Although it's now moot (the article has been recreated), an article accepted through AFC could not automatically lift protection. It would still require a request to an admin to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant that if it got accepted, an admin would be willing to do it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Syria civil war sanctions

Hi, can you give a warning for Syria civil war sanctions to User:Sopher99? first revertsecond revert (both deleting same section). thanks, Podiaebba (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. It's your stuff they're removing, but the warning is warranted anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Mr.Cappadocia

This isn't MRM related. User:Mr.Cappadocia is trolling Talk:Feminism and attacking a user whom they disagreed with in March 2013, on a completely different topic (Talk:Misandry)[1][2]. Please note this user has never edited the Feminism article. They are either VERY confused or trolling with a capital T. The attacks on Binskternet are violating WP:TPG, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NOT. I'm tempted to say its also breaching WP:SPIDERMAN. Could you keep an eye on this?--Cailil ^talk 16:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

They've no escalted to reverting Binksternet[3] on Antifeminism. That edit removes the lede line and sourced info. Binskternet was undoing vandalism--Cailil ^talk 17:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you have the situation in hand. The acccount has made only a handful of edits. I wonder who they are. I'll try to keep an eye on them, but feel free to nudge me if you need help.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought so but here[4] we have textbook trolling. This is a vandal only account. I wouldn't be concerned about who this is. Over the years there's been lots of vandal only accounts re: feminism and antifeminism that have no relation to the other issues in the area--Cailil ^talk 11:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on him, but I'm not crazy about blocking him at this point. I'm assuming you don't feel you can block him because you're WP:INVOLVED?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Zac Efron

I noticed your edit here. I understand that most admins on Wikipedia think it is their duty, as part of the sect, to destroy the work of others. However, I think in this case, before deleting the entry, perhaps you could have searched the internet for more reliable sources and added those sources yourself? --Jeppe fra Ribe (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jeppe fra Ribe No, Bbb23 didn't really have a choice. Per WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". I've also removed your edit as the only cite mentioning cocaine was TMZ using unnamed sources. Not exactly a high-quality source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

More from the members of the sect. --Jeppe fra Ribe (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

sourcing

Hi. I'm glad you have corrected my entries a couple times on Joan Juliet Black's birth date, because it made me go to ancestry.com. I discovered the posted date on that site is indeed wrong. The conundrum I have now is that this would be, I suppose, considered original research. Any suggestions on how to proceed? I'm not a big Joan Juliet Black fan or anything, I'm more just wanting to learn the process for documentation here, what's accepted and what's not, and why. It seemed a simple starting point.

There's no easy way. Sometimes a birthdate just can't be sourced. You have to familiarize yourself with WP:RS. When you look at sources like famousbirthdays.com, look for the About. If there isn't one, that's already not a good thing. If there is one, as in famousbirthdays, look to see what it says. When I read it, there was no indication of who was in charge, how facts were vetted, or how they were staffed. It struck me as a fluffy celebrity site started and maintained by god knows who. Not stopping there, I went to WP:RSN, searched the archives, and found a fairly good discussion by experienced editors all agreeing that the site was not reliable. I hope that helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was completely unaware of the reliable sources list. I'm also learning how to use this strange "talk" beast. Stlmopoet (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I left you a belated welcome message on your talk page that gives you a bunch of links if you want to read up on policies and guidelines. Your account isn't new, but you haven't edited much here; maybe this will be of some help.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

-Kudzu1 user in Ghouta Chemical attacks

Hi This user has made a large number of reverts and edits in a one day period without consensus undoing a lot of work. Over 7000 characters in 8 or so reverts. [[5]] The reason I got a Syrian civil war sanctions notice was far less. Hes not editing NPOV and is not willing to talk about NPOV solutions. Can you give him the warning I got please so the damage stops. How do we get the material back without getting a warning? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think of a warning as a sanction. If I had blocked you, that would be a sanction. A warning is intended to avert sanctions. If you have a dispute over specific material, you should discuss it on the talk page and reach a consensus as to how to handle the material. You yourself cannot restore material more than once in any 24-hour window without risking a block. Remember, too, that even if you don't breach WP:1RR, if it can be shown that you are edit warring or are being disruptive, you may still be blocked. I'd focus on your own conduct and not worry so much about other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks for the link. I will follow the suggestions on it including the template Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hey, pretty sure User:Valkyrie 06 is a sockpuppet of User:Blade-of-the-South -- as you may have surmised from your interaction with him/her on the latter's user Talk page. I have created an SPI here: [6] By the way, I don't regard the community sanctions notice Valkyrie 06 placed on my own user Talk page as valid -- seeing as that he/she is not an "uninvolved administrator" -- but I am an active Syrian civil war topic editor, and if you see fit to properly place that notice on my Talk page, I will respect that. Thanks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A few things. You should respect the sanctions and the 1RR restriction even without a formal warning. A non-admin can give the warning, although it's unusual. However, they can't use the template when doing so because they are then falsely purporting to be an admin. In this instance, they used the template, but even more important, the motive for the warning was not constructive. I haven't reviewed the SPI report you filed, but thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I have violated 1RR on Ghouta chemical attacks; if I did so, the error is mine. I'm aware of the sanctions and that particular protection on the article in question, and I can say I believe I have kept them squarely in mind while editing. Thank you for the quick response. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 I can understand Kudzu1 concerns about sockpuppetry. I explained the situation to him thus on the Ghouta talk page.

'Re "uninvolved administrator". Agree I know its not helpful. Dinner party talk led to Syria and Wiki...I think I know who is trying to help, but its not helpful. I'm surprised she managed so much lol and will have a word if she posts again. For the record though she is right you have broken the one revert per day rule blatantly. So an admin may ping you'.

Thank you both for raising this issue. I will be contacting the person I'm 99% sure is involvedBlade-of-the-South (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept your explanation. Valkyrie 06 responded to Bbb23's notice as if he/she were you -- using terms like "my so called badness" and "my talk page" before hastily editing to change the pronouns and claim he/she was a "non involved editor". You then responded to Bbb23's response to the Valkyrie 06 post by defending him/her. Yet you claim to be less than 100% certain of who Valkyrie 06 is, despite the fact that you have collaborated closely on the same pages in the past, as User:VQuakr pointed out in the SPI, and the fact that "she" identifies as a former user's wife on her Talk page. Why the uncertainty: "99% sure", "I think I know", "I'm surprised", etc.? You and Valkyrie 06 tag-teamed my Talk page and you openly commented on her response to Bbb23 on his Talk page. It's not the first time you and Valkyrie 06 have exhibited that pattern of editing behavior. I don't believe your story at all, and I'm unimpressed with your attempt to smooth-talk your way out of this. I think it would be better for you to simply confess to either operating multiple accounts yourself or using an account that belongs to someone you know to create the illusion of support from a "non involved editor", because it seems quite clear to me you did one of those two things. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I got this notice on my page when I opened it after an email from my husband. I told him all this negativity would rebound back. He spends too much time on this site and even though Wikipedia is a very useful organization it should be time limited so other activities dont suffer. I'm quite cross about all this. About these edits, well we did have a dinner party, the topic was discussed. Next day I checked the article and on his page I saw his sanctions warning. So I checked the edit history and saw another editor do the same thing with no warnings, so I acted. Im whats called a Hospital administrator, I dont like rules for one not another. However I don't have time for editing due to full time work and this episode confirms it. It took some working out to do what I did. If I did I think Assad may be responsible but the article is fair so I wold leave it alone. As for these allegations, am I supposed to use my account more. Was hat the issue? Or are spouses not allowed on the same sites? Whatever the case I truly dont have time for any more of these edits, but I am no sockpuppet Valkyrie 06 (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Because I think that Blade has done a lot of progress as Wikipedian since I first met him here many years ago, and because recently I took the initiative of praising him for his edits in the Syria conflict, I found myself involved in this. I hope the sockpuppet investigation doesn't block Valkyrie's account. However, from various details I saw in my investigation into the case, I would like to point out to Valkyrie, that although she may not have intended to deceive but to support, when she communicates with her husband as to "how" she can help, which I think was the case, the advice he may give her makes her a meatpuppet and may result in the blocking of her account. Hoverfish Talk 20:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: thanks for your comments here and at SPI. They are helpful. I've come to a preliminary conclusion at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Saladin1987 and his vandalism and POV pushing again

Hi there, sorry to bother you again but after you warned him to stop, Saladin1987 (talk · contribs) is again removing sourced content from multiple pages [7] [8] [9] and POV pushing. [10] [11] He's just playing around and I'm certain that he doesn't care about being blocked because he is very likely using other accounts. See also here. As for me, I'm a neutral and serious editor who enjoys doing complex research on subjects so you should know how I feel when people such as Saladin1987 come to bother me.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to give it the attention it deserves. If no action has been taken at WP:ANI by the time I'm back on-wiki tomorrow, I'll revisit it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate i am alreday having discussion with him on the talk page also i am having discussion with him on wikipedia admin page. but he seems to not respond to the talk page and is not ready to go for a consencus. He has removed my sources and placed his sources and In Anil Kapoor article he himself is using a youtube source and is against my youtube source. I would appreciate if you could ask him to leave ethnicity out of the article until proper consecus is acheieved. Also i have tried to stop him from edit warring by just removing the ethnicity but he keeps on editing it which is against the rules of Wikipedia and is called edit warring. He needs to use to talk pages for Prithviraj Kapoor Anil Kapoor Kapoor family Raj Kapoor Surinder Kapoor in order to achieve a consensus whether the disputed ethnicity needs to be added or not as i have placed many reliable sources on the talk pages of these articles which he seems to ignore.Saladin1987 05:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Hi also i have removed the ethnicity of Anil kapoor and have started a conversaton on the talk pages i.e [[12]] as the reliable source that he is using is a youtube so as mine. In the case of Prithviraj Kapoor i havent changed the article and i have started conversation on the talk page i.e [[13]] and i have placed many sourced links but Fareed30 hasnt responded to those. In case of Kapoor Family a previous concensus was acheived but he removed it and placed his version , i have started a converstaion there too [[14]] We are also having converstaion on [[15]] Admin talk page and all he demands is my ban. When i am not even doing edit warring, its him who keeps on reverting the articles by placing disputed ethnicities in them for example [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] [[20]]

Now from above it is clear that all he does is chnage the ethnicity in the articles when the ethnciity is completely in conflict. Some sources say they are Punjabi Some say they are Hindu Pathans. That is why i would request you to remove all these ethnicity terms and not to use any ethnciity in these articles. Also Fareed30 is always trying to ban me, When he reverted my edits the first thing that i did was mention him on admin page. Thankyou Saladin1987 05:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Some advice please

Hi I want to do the right things, but need some help. A user swore here. [21]

I posted this User name... please refrain from offensive language. See [22] [[User:Blade-of-the-South|Blade-of-the-South](talk) 23:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Another editor removed my post and the swearing is still there on [23] Russia holds its ground. Q. are editors allowed to remove my talk posts. I thought that was a no no. And is using the F word OK? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In my view, Sayerslle should not have added the phrase at the end of their comment. It served no purpose other than apparently to express a personal point of view. Although it technically would have been better for you to address your reaction to the language on their talk page rather than the article talk page, I don't see anything that terrible about your briefly commenting there. An extended discussion about civility on the article talk page would probably have been out of line. Although I think VQuaqr acted in good faith, it was not their place to remove your post from the talk page. As for the original use of the "F word", it's fairly commonplace at Wikipedia. I personally don't think it should be used, particularly because some editors are offended by it (even though others are not), often editors from certain non-Anglo cultures, and I think it shows a certain amount of insensitivity by the editors who use it, even more so in specific forums. Unfortunately, the application of the civility policy remains truly chaotic at Wikipedia, and there's not much you can do about it, especially when the uncivil comments aren't directed at you.

I hope I've answered your questions, even if you don't agree with all of it. If there's something you want me to actually do, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes you have. Thank you. Re, 'Unfortunately, the application of the civility policy remains truly chaotic at Wikipedia, and there's not much you can do about it,' Thats interesting. I have noticed the trend, and Unfortunately it seems to reflect society itself. Signing off on this. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Nobody is perfect and i am nobody

The block seems to have no effect on him. He is back to his ways once but I have advised him to seek an adopter, what do you think? Sohambanerjee1998 11:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week and left a personal note after the block notice. I don't see how the user can be adopted if they are unwilling to talk at all. An adopting relationship requires a willingness by the adoptee to improve, follow instructions, and discuss issues. Thus far, I see no evidence Nobody wants to do that. You might also take a look at some of the recently created articles about characters in the movie Twenty:20, like Ramesh Nambiar (created by Nobody) and Devaraja Prathapa Varma (created by another editor). I have trouble seeing how these articles meet notability guidelines, and the latter is horribly written. I don't believe there is a separate notability guideline on movie characters, although there may be some convention about what kinds of characters are considered notable and which ones are not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I was particularly irritated by him but was keen to avoid any altercation with him since these kind of editors are generally hot heads and that might have put my DYK in risk also. Thats why I asked the editor to seek an adopter, coolest possible way for me to react. I did some background search for the two articles you told me about and found them to be absolutely nonsensical ones, the first one is about Mamooty (I guess thats why he created it) and the second one is because of Mohanlal. The characters have little mention in the rest of the net (Third party sources) and therefore I think they don't meet the general notability standards and should be deleted. Sohambanerjee1998 17:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh these articles are just plain... Ahem. Instead of deleting you can place redirects on the two articles. In due time if they are notable someone or the other will expand them. Sohambanerjee1998 07:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice on possible sockpuppet

I'm not linking names as I don't want them to come and infest your page. At the end of the DR case he filed, Sarower Sigh Bhati stated he was leaving Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati Yesterday, a new editor showed up at Talk:Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati, Dr Meenakshi Kanwar, exhibiting the same sort of behavior.

1. Rapid, consecutive posts saying the same thing over and over
2. Same habit of using other editors' entire sig (including talk page link) when replying
3. Same need to puff up subject (youngest patent holder, "deserves" child prodigy)
4. Same habit of placing critical importance on what is basically a regurgitation of a primary source (announcement of patent publication)

I can provide diffs for all these. Bhati's contributions can be seen starting here. He has been involved in a SPI here. Is this enough for a CU on Kanwar? If not, what do you recommend? BTW, Bhati is still editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That new editor is frustratingly dense. The old one said he was leaving but today he has logged in to talk to TransporterMan, sign a DRN thread entry by IP, and make a plea to ArbCom. So far, the two accounts have not both chimed in on the same thread. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Finally looked at this. I'm including three accounts in this mess. It's not clear to me how much of this is sock puppetry and how much of it is meat puppetry, but both are sanctionable. I almost blocked all three, but after thinking about it some more, I'd prefer that one of you open a report at SPI. Make sure you explain that meat puppetry might be involved. Also, Sarower Sigh Bhati is the oldest account and therefore should be named as the master. I may yet block them on my own. If you file a report, please let me know that you've done so. Also, if there is continuing disruption, please give me a heads up. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudeepgangal/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I linked to it up above. But your advice is to open a new SPI with Sarower Sigh Bhati as the master and ask for CU, correct? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, missed the link. Yes, that's my advice. I don't know whether the CU will be performed, though. I'm an SPI clerk (trainee), and I still haven't gotten the hang of when to endorse a CU and when not to. In this instance, my inexpert opinion is it's questionable whether a CU is warranted, but, hey, you're not a clerk, ask for it. If it's declined, so be it. Another option is not to request a CU and let a clerk request it or a CU make a decision to do it. Your choice. There are a lot of competing issues here, not the least of which is just the plain disruption caused by the editors, regardless of whether there's any sock or meat puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume that was meant for somebody else. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, what a dick I am. Next thing you know I'll block myself by mistake. I've now put it in the right place. Many thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Maybe he didn't want himself to forget. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You're an awesome administrator. Earlier I thought of Admins to be extremely serious with a ban imposed on them which forbids them to be funny. Your just the opposite, you are extremely pleasant to work with and I really do think that you should apply for Cratship till then just keep on moppin' just like this! Sohambanerjee1998 07:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

deliberate and methodical excision of a source previously deemed reliable

User:John seems bent on removing specific tabloid format sources previously decided to be reliable for BLPs from a great many articles -- asserting that "tabloid format" is sufficient to call a source a "tabloid" and that "tabloids" are forbidden. If he were consistent on removing all tabloids, I think he might be making a WP:POINT of dome sort, but the number of places he is doing this is disruptive utterly. "Tabloid format" per se has nothing to do with being used on Wikipedia, but this looks like a jihad of some dort from here. I am still on Wikistrike, but ask you look into this behavior, which, as I said, I find disruptive to the nth degree. Collect (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I think you are deeply mistaken on several counts here. Firstly, I have made no such claim about the format sizes of publication determining their reliability. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to post a diff where you think I have made such a claim. Secondly it is mistaken to claim that the Daily Mail has been previously decided to be reliable for BLPs; on the contrary, this has been frequently discussed and kicked out to touch. The Mail is the worst sort of tabloid and can never be used on BLPs. Best regards, --John (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You called People magazine a "tabloid" and you gave an implicit threat about my proper noticeboard posts:

"I counsel you to think long and hard before making any further edits of this type"

sure looks like an implicit threat from here. And you just happen upon my post here as well. Cheers -- unfortunately you can't put my contributions page on your own watchlist <g>. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@John: [24] no consensus to "ax the Daily Mail." [25] Daily Mail usable in BLPs other than for contentious claims. And then on a "case by case" basis. And, IIRC, you were involved in that discussion. [26] not a "tabloid" and useable as a reliable source. [27] "reasonably reliable." and so on. Although you had demurred, but did not gain consensus then or now. Cheers. And just to make sure no WP:POINT is made by anyone, I am now on Wikistrike on all general noticeboards, etc. as well as on general BLPs and other places. Good job!!!! Collect (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't happen upon your posts; every time you mention me I get an alert on the new notifications system. As regards the Daily Mail, I'm in agreement with Jim Wales when he says "It should be a blocking offense to use the Daily Mail - and similar sources - to add negative information to BLPs. It's really really really bad...The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases. (There are a few rare exceptions, but even those should be subjected to the strictest possible scrutiny.) In particular, relying on a single tabloid source of known low quality to post outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives is wrong, wrong for Wikipedia, a violation of BLP policy, and not something that anyone should accept cavalierly. It is easy to solve this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)". --John (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Eddie Redmayne

The Theory of Everything is currently filming.