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.

Got it

Please check out [1] now— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Sobchak0 (talk • contribs) 21:49 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, User: Bbb23, Do you remember me? [2] I do not want be blocked, as user freemesm. He came again for start edit warring again. He is adding unreliable sources, as I mentioned on the talk page. Now if he will undid my revision again, I can not undid for another time, because I do not want ti be blocked. Now what can i do? You are an admin, so you know more than me. I am continuing to add reliable sources. What would you suggest me? Thanks Bigidilijak (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you talking about Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh, Freemesm properly reverted your copyright violation. Keep doing that and you will be blocked. Otherwise, I have no idea to what you're referring.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the cpyright, and I added a new thing. Bigidilijak (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, now Bigidilijak is in 3r [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. I am going to report him. I already requested page for page protection [8].--FreemesM ^(talk) 13:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, As already a discussion started here [9], should I file another 3r report in edit warring noticeboard?--FreemesM ^(talk) 13:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:G S Palmer already reported 3rr [10]. --FreemesM ^(talk) 14:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked Bigidilijak for 72h for persistent inclusion of copyvio material and material sourced only to blogs; whilst Freemesm did technically violate 3RR there is an exclusion for copyvio reversals. I am now wondering who Bigidilijak is a sock of; the account was only created three days ago and is very familiar with wikicode and policies. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone for pitching in while I'm off-wiki. I had the same suspicion as BK, and it's been confirmed (pun intended).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Bigidilijak has been blocked for sock puppetry [11]. Before that he was blocked by User:Black Kite for 72 hours. Just after his block, user:LucrativeOffer become active again in 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar. These two users working side by side.--FreemesM ^(talk) 00:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You left a message on Ponyo's talk page. I'll let her deal with it if she wishes to.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Freemesm has been removing vast amount of properly sourced parts of the article even after his block, see this edit where he blanked a large part of Later incidents section which was properly sourced. In this edit, he cleverly distorted a source by completely changing the title (original title is "Children in violent politics" and false title "Noted personalities express concern") as well as putting a fictional quote. And he is putting false allegation on me, I don't know how to warn people for edit warring or other things, I saw a warning section on Freemesm's talkpage that suited my purpose so I copied it and posted on the talkpage. LucrativeOffer (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:SuperNepoznat

Hi. I'm not sure what the proper course of action is (starting a new SPI?) so I'm just posting here since you're the one who blocked him the first time. User:SuperNepoznat is at it again, now as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MunjaWiki and doing the same types of edits. 78.1.143.200 (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an easy call without a CU. I did a lot of comparisons of their edits against the edits of the confirmed socks. Ultimately, I decided there was enough to block based on (1) user name similarity (MunjaWiki is a combination of the master's first user name, Munjanes, and Wiki, similar to other socks); (2) nationalistic agenda; (3) similarity in some of the edits themselves to other socks; and (4) the post to User:JorisvS (I could see no reason for a new user to go to Joris's talk page as he hasn't edited since May 8, but he was involved with the other puppets in discussions).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There should be a block template for that...

Uw-kitchensinkblock [12]?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That's very funny. We're doing some major repair work to our house, and it's chaos. A little levity helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds both ambitious and exhausting!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR mistake

I copy pasted the text from Betty Logan's page and didn't realize I grabbed my sig. Sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any opinion on the text as written however or do you feel this should be obvious and I am over thinking this?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Mark, in my view, you're over-thinking it. The "new" text isn't needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. While I disagree strongly, I will make no further edits and will use the talk page. But most likely not right away. This isn't that important to me at the moment.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP violations?

Re this edit. Would you please consider the BLP violations in the article today that I had to remove numerous times but which were re-added by a user [13]? 'Obnoxious' is not a nice word at talk page, but claiming someone is far-right, fascist or anti-semitic in the ARTICLE is a bit more serious? Or, perhaps, it isn't if an 'established user' writes things like that ...? Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And the descriptions in the article have little <ref>s on them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Note to Bbb23

Can you please stop The Red Pen of Doom from disruptive editing? thank you. TristanAlessis (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What edits are you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Street Level

Why isn't Street Level eligible for A9? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Because the artist has an article here (De La Cruz (band)).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Blind defense of obvious error ain't helpful

Substiute word "THIS" with what went before ..... BOLD-REVERT.

Thus, you get BOLD-REVERT is known as the BRD cycle. Which is

• bald face,
• utterly
• manifestly
• unambiguously

wrong. In my opinion, foot stamping demanding an RFC to change such error is ....... not helpful. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to take a chill pill, NewsAndEventsGuy. Edit warring on the edit warring policy is a bit redundant.--v/r - TP 23:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's hot and muggy, so sentence #1 sounds wonderful. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Siddheart Sock puppet report

You should tell to King of Hearts that you haven't blocked Siddheart for sock puppetry, but for edit warring. Report link. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you came to me about this. Spike Wilbury blocked the listed puppet for sock puppetry. I wasn't involved and don't know whom he had in mind as the master. King of Hearts can easily see the basis for my block of Siddheart and its duration. He didn't change that. If you're concerned about the sanctions or the closure of the report, you should approach one or both of those two administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. Siddheart (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

57th Berlin International Film Festival

Hi, you recently deleted 57th Berlin International Film Festival due to Wikipedia:CSD but it is an important subject with lots of details and reliable references available for it. Shouldn't we improve this article instead of deleting it. Really like to know your answer on this. Regards--Jockzain (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Also like to know why you deleted this article. Guoguo914 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it had no references in it, only self-published external links, although references aren't necessary to withstand a speedy delete tag. It basically had just a few things in it: (1) the members of the jury, (2) the contestants, and (3) the fact that it happened. That ain't much to demonstrate a credible claim of significance. Perhaps the best thing in it were the films in competition, but, curiously, it didn't even have who won what award - despite the fact that it has existed since 2010. If you wish, Jockzain, I'll WP:USERFY it for you so you can improve it and move it back to article space. Let me know. Looks like some of the other annual film festivals have articles, too, and suffer from the same defects - but they weren't tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am willing to work on this article. Let me know as soon as you WP:USERFY it.--Jockzain (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's now at User:Jockzain/57th Berlin International Film Festival. Enjoy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, Bbb23. Yes, it does look pretty poor now I can see what state it was in! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added award section with reference and some details about the festival with reference. I have moved it back to it's place. Thanks for your time and help.--Jockzain (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks much better to me. If it's tagged again (seems unlikely), I'll let another administrator evaluate it. If you have some time, you might want to work on the other articles by year. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• I had tagged the article. Bbb23 did an excellent job, in explaining why he deleted it, in capturing why I tagged it. As to why I didn't tag all such articles at once, given that many suffered from the same malady (as pointed out), it was so that before I did so (given that there is no deadline) interested editors could have a chance to observe the problem, which is what happened. Before going through the possibly needless steps with all the other articles of deletion and userfication and improvement through reflecting a credible claim of significance. Given that I expect this series of articles will be improved, I'll certainly not tag them myself in the immediate future. Good work here by all. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am going to work on similar articles like that. But it will take time because there are large number of them. But I will improve them as much as I can.--Jockzain (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Good luck. All the best. Epeefleche (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Here come the Suns

I was looking at the AN3 report for him trying to figure out if he was indeed edit warring... I'd just worked out that yes, he was warring when I discovered you'd blocked him already. So it looks like we've switched from last day when I did the blocking during your investigation. :) Tabercil (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we'll get to know each other this way by overlapping. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Need your help now.

Please I need your help now. A user has reported me for being sock puppet. what should i do? I am not a sock...... will you please help me now? I am asking you as a friend if you consider me. Thanks. Siddheart (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't help you with the socking issue. You posted a message at the report itself (even though it's closed). No one has blocked you for being a sock. As far as I can tell, the clerk did not make a determination that you were a sock. If you want to understand more about the status of the allegation, I suggest you talk to King of Hearts, the administrator/clerk who closed the report. In the meantime, the best thing you can do for yourself at Wikipedia is to behave properly, interact civilly with other editors, and avoid disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My report at AN3

I agree with Drmies - What was the point in locking the article? I see no chance that the editor I reported is going to change his approach. Did you read his edit summaries and his talk page? Drmies is right, this makes us look as though we are like Yatzek. And did you see the SPI report he raised?[14] Obviously neither of us are going to leave Wikipedia, but I have seen editors leave or at least withdraw from articles because of actions such as this one. I'm a decent editor, I try my very best not to break the rules, Drmies is also, and now we can't improve the article because of an editor warrior who is trying to add racialist anthropology nonsense to an article against consensus at the talk page of the article? I'm sure you thought this was the right thing to do, but could I please beg you to reconsider? The SPI alone should convince you that locking it just stops good editors from working on it and only postpones the problem for a week. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Doug, hopefully you've seen the dialog at AN3 and at least understand what I did wrong. I didn't respond here sooner because, frankly, I expected the user to be blocked for other reasons independent of the report, thus making the report moot. That hasn't happened ... yet. Anyway, to the extent you feel even a little slighted after my explanation, paint me as chastened.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this response. It did actually make me feel a bit "what's the point" - you know what a strain editing can be, and I seem to be involved too often in nationalistic/racist/ethnic etc areas where the environment is less than pleasant. Your response does help. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I know getting involved in controversial areas of the project can often be frustrating, but it's thanks to editors like you that someone tries to keep some order to those articles. I admire you for it. If you're feeling put-upon (understandable), by all means take a break from it, but please don't give up on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Question about long term abuse by IP editor

Where would I go to bring attention to long term abuse by an IP editor? The editor has been vandalizing P. J. Patterson for months now. See User_talk:50.30.49.20. Ping me in reply to get my attention please. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

They just violated the 4th warning so I guess AIV will handle it. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

whoosh

You deleted Whoosh, I'm kind of pissed of because I just spent time with another admin to restore it. Please discuss with another admin User:RHaworth and restore it, he just reviewed the page. There is a clear lack of communication from you admin, you click on the delete button really quickly without discussing to anyone, that's complete lack of respect for contributors. TomT0m (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• @TomT0m: perhaps I did not make things clear. There was absolutely no point in reposting the same unreferenced text - you were expected to improve the article before reposting. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)