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.

Asma al-Assad

I don't have a strong grasp of the reliability of many Arabic news sources so am asking this to have a better understanding. This is about my lack of knowledge, not any prejudice. The entire world has unreliable news sources and the US perhaps more then most. I just usually have a better grasp of which Western sources are more or less reliable.

I was curious about which part of the reverted edit [1] was not "notable" since there were several parts. I am inclined to think that a reliable report of a first lady's pregnancy in the midst of a warzone may be notable. Was the reversion because of the Al-Akhbar source and the fact that The Guardian article used Al-Akhbar as their primary source?. Was it that the original source was not reliable enough? I do support you also removing yet another link to the discredited "Rose in the Desert" copyright vio. I'm just looking for clarification. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Veriss, you're trying to keep me honest. You're right; I used an axe when I should have used a scalpel. I've added back in the pregnancy report (reworded). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply. So now I'm back to wondering if Al-Akhbar is a reliable source or not. Do you have any leads I could track down? Veriss (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know a thing about it. You could take to WP:RSN and hope you find someone who is more knowledgeable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Good tip, thanks. Veriss (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• I looked over the article for Al Akhbar (Lebanon) and found this statement: "The New York Times has criticized it for 'too much reliance on single sources, and news pages that often show a loose mingling of fact, rumor and opinion." " I decided that it was not a reliable source and will remove the assertion she is pregnant from the Assad article. I won't clutter the WP:RSN with a request unless the original editor protests. Regards, Veriss (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly a reasoned approach. In addition, if she's really pregnant, there ought to be other sources supporting it. It's a sensitive enough issue (about a BLP) that I think we need high-quality and/or multiple sources. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. Though since the editor has protested on the article's talk page, I feel that we should take our discussion there. Kind Regards, Veriss (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Scholes

Maybe you could do something about the IP edit on this article and the user behind it. If that's not too much to ask. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 3 months, but I feel compelled to comment on your approach to this. First, you should have taken this to WP:AIV. It doesn't appear to me that you have, but it's hard to check the history of the board given how active it is. Second, your comment on the IP's talk page ("Any admin worth their salt who can just ban this IP address? No, didn't think so.") is offensive. Moreover, it's not even in your best interest as it's more likely to tick off an admin rather than permit him or her to look at the situation neutrally. I know I had to push that comment out of my head as I looked at the IP's history, and it wasn't easy to do. My ultimate conclusion was that this IP, who according to Geolocate is static, has almost never made a constructive edit in their history, and the only reason they haven't been blocked since 2010 is because they edit sporadically. Their edits are disruptive and drain resources that could be better used elsewhere. So, I blocked, and I made it long enough to have some effect.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"First, you should have taken this to WP:AIV" Sounds like you're passing the buck here. You're an admin, right? I brought it to your attention for some action. Which you have done. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But you're NOT supposed to randomly choose admins - some would perceive that as "shopping for a friendly admin". Besides, Bb could have been away for a week, and the problem could have continued until you forum-shopped somewhere else. Always go to the right place the first time, and AIV is usually the fastest (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not randomly choosing an admin - I'm choosing this one. Can you point to the policy that specifically prohibits this? If BB was away for a week, then there should be a notice to that affect, otherwise, what's the point in him being an admin? Amazing how another admin pops up after the event too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Admins, per the admin policy, are never required to use their tools. Therefore, asking a specific one to do something is ridiculous, and inappropriate. They are also not required to advise you or anyone that they will be away for a week. You've been a reasonable editor for awhile, but you seem to be getting yourself into a snit for some bizarro reason, and it's certainly not making you look good (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you BWilkins, but in this instance somehow I don't think Lugnuts thinks of me as a friendly admin. :-) In any event, I did what I thought was right for Wikipedia, regardless of Lugnuts's approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup ... he's certainly bringing additional attention to himself (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Marcospace - Bits and pieces

Hi there BBB,

can't say that i am pleased with your approach in this user's talkpage, reverting me twice when: 1 - i provided the translation required in the second time; 2 - you are not directly involved in any of the items discussed therein. My words may not have been the "best in the bunch" in the case it seems, but what i meant is that he was welcome to return and contribute (is he not?) if he ceased his bickering against nearly all of the WP guidelines (can't teach him that if he does not want to, he's 30). He's not BANNED is he? If he is, then yes, my words were poor and i apologize, if he is not then where did i go wrong? There is a difference between banned and blocked, is there not? People can reform eventually and become model editors no?

If you could reinstate my message (without the last controversial bit if you want) i'd highly appreciate it, but why would you do that after reverting me twice? Out of respect for you, i won't reinstate it myself unless you allow me (of course sans the "do create another account" part!), but i'd be very displeased if you thought ill of me, i don't tolerate vandals and their ways, i don't encourage them, i try to be nice to everyone but my bipolar condition often gets the best of me, especially when dealing with the damn trolls. Therefore, it hurts my feelings to have my well-intended action deemed "inappropriate". In NO WAY did my words to Marco mean "Continue socking man, i won't tell anyone, and we'll continue talking in Portuguese if we want to". If you got that impression, again i apologize.

Attentively, from Portugal - --AL (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, AL. I do not think ill of you. Indeed, based on our short acquaintance, I like you. But even without the "controversial bit", I still think your comment doesn't belong on the user's talk page. Remember, you're really talking, not to Marcospace, but to Raulseixas, as that's who Marcospace is. Raulseixas was blocked indefinitely in May of last year, although he was reported as early as 2010. He's not just a sock master. The motives behind his socking negatively impact Wikipedia. What is it that you find so constructive about both Marcospace's and Raulseixas's edits that you want to encourage him to return? I stand by my removal of your comment, but I have no objection if you want to run it by another admin to get some more input. And there's no need to apologize. I know we're disagreeing here, but we're doing so respectfully, which is good and healthy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe it was because of the same language we share and the fact that i remember it well it was i who first got to talk with this person after he "went all cylinders in his first year", removing/reverting stuff and not talking to anyone, i'd like to think i helped him (sort of, i know) fit in.

But that's OK mate, i REALLY understand your wiki-motives and approach, this is indeed disruptive behaviour. --AL (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

EscapeX Edit wars starting up again

Hi there. Please can further action be taken against EscapeX? After being banned, his first action when coming back was to reinstate his disputed edits to 3 articles (the ones discussed on his talk page). This time, he's been using false/misleading edit summary text to make it look like he's come round, but in fact it's just a straight copy/paste of what he tried to put in before. All the points/arguments/policies have been made very clearly to him, but he just keeps ignoring everything and putting his content back against consensus. It should be noted that This Is It (concerts) had been Protected until 8 February, for incorrect introduction of the word "tour". It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.54 (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I've left a warning on their talk page. Please let me know if there are further problems (also, try to give me links to the articles so I don't have to dig around).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I'm not the only one editing those pages. I have not been giving out false/misleading edit summaries. Compare [this page] to [this page]. I do not ignore the policies. Where does it say in Wikipedia that we can't use "featuring"? If anyone is ignoring everything, it's that IP user. I tried compromising with him but he won't listen. None of this would've been happening if he hadn't made those edits in the first place. EscapeX (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have asked to have the page(s) locked - both should be under a 1revert sanction after there vacation. - left note on both there pages.Moxy (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Looks to me like User:Scottywong took the right action in blocking both editors. This was partly my fault for "forgetting" that the IP had been blocked for the same behavior, so I should have warned or blocked both of them, not just EscapeX. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Team Lloyd Irvin

I have not entered anything defamatory.

Everything posted is absolutely true. Defamation requires the information to be false. If you do not want the truth posted on Wikipedia then that page should be deleted. Warisart (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I probably shouldn't have used a template, which is why I added my own comments afterward. Putting aside the legal issue of whether the material is defamatory, the material is prohibited by policy. If you believe the article should be deleted, you are free to nominate it. My only concern is policy violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the information is absolutely true and is not defamatory because of being true. I have nominated the page for deletion. It is a blatant advertisement and removing negative things that have occurred makes it even more of an advertisement. Warisart (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your AfD after I posted my comment above. A friendly suggestion: normally AfD is a test of notability and is decided by consensus based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In the reason you give for your nomination, you would do better to focus on those guidelines rather than your somewhat hyperbolic comments. Even if you're right that the article should be deleted (I have no opinion at this point), you undermine your credibility by your own nominating remarks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried really hard to clean up a page that was constantly being vandalized, and it keeps being reset to an advertisement that is completely unbalanced. It contains no references to third party information and any negativity about the organization is constantly removed (even when referenced properly). It should be deleted. I have changed the nomination to reflect that. Warisart (talk)

Mezzo

I think this edit by Mezzo is somewhat problametic. It appears he is attempting to make takfir on Barelvis when he says their early leadership was non-Islamic. But i do respect your judgement nonetheless and i noticed you noticed it too. Pass a Method talk 21:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I kind of dealt with the whole thing on a somewhat superficial level from a content perspective as I don't know much about it. On that level, the other editor's conduct was clearly more disruptive than Mezzo's, even though, as I said at ANEW, some of Mezzo's edits and comments appeared problematic. Ultimately, it was a judgment call on my part, but I expressly left it open to other admins to take further action if they felt it was warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I need you to look into this

Hi,

I need your feedback, please don't ignore the request. User:Darkness Shines is again behaving unreasonably this time on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. Our terse conversation can be seen here; it won't take long just go through the discussion. He wants to include a assertion that is not supported by the source. He wants a third opinion. It's a black and white issue. The assertion is not supported by the source.

I would have taken this to RSN or NOR but these topics relating to Kashmir and Human rights abuses have a knack of becoming pariah. Just tell me what to do. Please don't abandon the issue. He btw got out of a week-long block recently. Thank you in advance.. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 03:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the dispute is geographic. In the quote from the source, which you very nicely posted on the talk page, it mentions two items: (1) Chhattisgarh in India's Northeast and (2) that corner of the subcontinent. I don't know much about it, but I looked at our article, States and territories of India. Assuming it's accurate, Chhattisgarh is in the central part of India (#5 on the map), and Kashmir and Jammu (#10 on the map), which are apparently one state, is in the northern tip. If the source is saying that Indian forces used children only in Chhattisgarh, the material is irrelevant to the article. As for the second part ("corner of the subcontinent"), I wouldn't call Chhattisgarh a "corner" as it's surrounded by other states. But even if it's a corner, the source says it's in the northeast. That's a bit of a stretch. It's definitely east, and it's barely north (center seems more accurate on a vertical line), but, in any event, I don't see how that "corner" can include Kashmir.

Without another source, I would say the material should not be included. You can point DS here if he's willing to consider my analysis a third opinion (obviously, it's not a formal one).

(As a procedural aside, DS's block is irrelevant to this issue. He was blocked for personal attacks. I don't see any of that here.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I would if MRT had given the full page to ya, it is a shame when people only read as far as suits them. Just after the bit about kids being used by Pakistani militants would be "In these conflict areas also it has been reported that children have been recruited by state-backed anti-insurgency forces with the full knowledge of Indian authorities." So it is supported. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't follow what you're saying, DS. I don't see anything about "Pakistani militants" on the talk page. And where is your quote in the book - after "corner of the subcontinent"?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You have to read the entire page to see the context mate. Can you access a proxy server based in the UK? If so you can see the page on GBooks.[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW "corner of the subcontinent" refers not to the North east, but to the entire region. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any idea how to access a UK proxy server. However, to make your point, you're going to have to be clearer and quote more from the book. As for subcontinent, you're forcing me to learn stuff (smile). According to our article, the subcontinent includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka. Assuming that's accurate, I'm not sure what "corner" means, but it sounds like it is better support for the material than I had at first thought. Couldn't you perhaps find another source for this so the material would be more clearly supported?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I can find another source sure, will get to it later today. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Great.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Till then can I revert the inclusion of the material?? It is a tad contentious assertion and is being used in inappropriate context. The source says, ″children as young as 10 are reported to be used by Pakistan-based militants in Jammu & Kashmir as messengers and couriers, but some have also been used to throw grenades and plant bombs.″ It is DS's synthesis for the nonce that says Indian government is using children as messengers in kashmir. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrator, do something for heaven's sake. See this. Darkness is unnecessarily making it seem like an edit-war. What on earth is going on? The source doesn't say that India government uses children in Kashmir. I have the source online here. Read it yourself please. Anything beyond that is an abject synthesis. DS, on 10 February 2013 said, "I can find another source sure, will get to it later today." He didn't add the source. Now he is edit warring again. Please stop this. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

DS, I assume you're reading this. My read of the page provided by Mrt is that it isn't clear enough that the Indian forces are being used in that particular area of India. Without a clearer source, I'd remove it. I'm not going to enforce that because I'm offering this as a neutral opinion, not as an involved editor. I'd like to remain uninvolved from an administrator perspective. In that vein, both of you are edit-warring, and if that continues, it's likely to lead to sanctions for both of you or a lock of the article. Finally, as a nit, the word is "spies".--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sighs heavily. "The case of child soldiers is not new in India. Since there are several non-state armed groups fighting on the ground of ideology, ethnicity and linguistic, regional, religious and poverty. These armed groups have recruited child soldiers. In addition to the non-state armed groups, there are cases of children being recruited for the state security force as well. In a province of India, five-year and ten year old boys are found serving the state police57. The following information reflects the situation of children working as child soldiers in India. The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) reported that currently, at least 118 of India’s 604 districts are facing armed anti-state activities. In all of these conflict-affected districts, child soldiers are being recruited by both parties to the conflict (ALRC: 2007)58. Children and youth are involved with insurgent groups in a number of states including Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkand, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Jammu and Kashmir" Will that one do? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Where is that quote from, DS? I don't see it on page 106 (is the page linked to by Mrt not complete?). If the quote is from another source, how come it isn't cited in the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I told you finding another source was easy, I just did not have time to get around to it. Will cite it in a bit. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you run the source by Mrt? It would be helpful to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There are some things I would like to clarify right-away.

1. I frankly don't want to undergo any sanction. I don't think it is needed against me. I will tell you why. Yes, I am involved in an edit-war. But it's only because DS blatantly defaulted on the agreement with you that he will provide a better source. If sanctions are not punishments and only means to avert any edit-war in the future, just make the edit yourself or ask somebody else to look into it and the matter is solved within minutes.
2. He didn't provide a better source in almost two days. Forget running the newly posted source by me, DS didn't even try to respond to my approach amicably.
3. "In a province of India, five-year and ten year old boys are found serving the state police" - The quote, as probably any one will be able to notice, isn't specifying which province it is. Hence, it's not any better than the previous one.
4. Where is the link or the source of the quote?

Many questions remain unanswered and DS's muddling excuses and aplomb don't solve any of it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

MetadataTouch deletion

Hello,

You have deleted the page MetadataTouch due to "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I read the criteria, and I don't think it fits. The article wan on a software product, but I wrote it in an encyclopedic manner from a neutral point of view. Please restore the article. Dipru (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The short article was borderline. The tone was not unduly promotional (one phrase was a bit much), but the language came close to being a copyright violation as it fairly mirrored the product website. I'm going to stand by my decision. However, you can take it to WP:DRV, or it's possible that one of my talk page stalkers will take a look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese

Long time no see. Sorry to bug, but can you look ate the recent edit by Roscelese on Maafa_21. She is intent on attributing the actions of one person to a group [3]. This issue has been raised on the talk page [4]and she fails to discuss, but rather edit as she likes when opinions differ. Unfortunately, based on past behavior I find her actions are designed to provoke more than improve the article.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the material you reference above is no longer in the article. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Chris Messina "Stage" section deletion

You reverted edits I made on the Chris Messina page (Chris_Messina)(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Messina&action=history), including the creation of an entire section called "Stage". I am a newbie at wikipedia editing, and perhaps do not understand the policies fully. I was not sure that citing was needed in this kind of section, as it does not appear to be needed in the similar Filmography and TV sections. Requiring it for this section seems to be an additional burden not required in those other sections. That being said, I have sources for the entire section. Considering that the section took me quite a bit of time to gather and assemble from various and numerous sources (as well as quite a bit of time to format as a newbie), I would prefer if I would be allowed to undo your reversion with the addition of posting a 'citations needed' flag in the Stage title section. This would allow me to continue to edit the section actively, providing and filling in the sources I've gathered over a reasonable period of time.

Could you please offer me your consideration in this matter? I believe this section is an important section that adds new content to the page; content that documents significant stage work Messina did prior to his TV and Film work. This most complete list of stage work does not exist in any other place, as it has been gathered through sizable and original research that I have conducted over a period of time from various sources (theatrical listings, reviews, and database sites, etc.). It is an original researched list that has not been compiled in any one place until now. I would appreciate your consideration and allowing me to complete the documentation on the page as I have suggested - as I know of no other way to maintain the formatted list that I had created, so as to insert the necessary citing links into it as needed.

In addition, as a newbie, I'm finding it difficult to understand the correct format for citing an external link, which these sources are in most all cases. Might you be able to offer me a suggestion, or point me to a link that suggests the correct and best form for such links, so I can cite them correctly? Thank you for your kind consideration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miggseye

Here's what I suggest. Go back to a revision where your section is in the article. Edit that version and copy the section. Then paste it into your sandbox. That way you don't lose it. In addition, you can work on it there until it looks good and is sourced, and then you can re-add it to the article. As for citing it, it is cited just as anything at Wikipedia. Look at WP:CITE. Just create inline footnotes using the ref tags and the {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} templates as appropriate.

With respect to your comments about the filmography not requiring the same sources, this is more convention than policy. If a film has an article on Wikipedia and the article supports the fact that Messina is in it, it doesn't need to be sourced. Even if there is no article, if I look at IMDb and see that Messina was in the film, I generally accept it unless it seems off-the-wall. Now, IMDb is weird at Wikipedia. It is not considered a reliable source because it is editable by anyone just like Wikipedia, and most experienced editors don't like it if it's used as a citation. That said, some kinds of material from IMDb are more reliable than others, and that includes films, etc., that have already been released (upcoming films are less reliable). The problem with stage stuff is it doesn't have the benefits of all those things, and, therefore should be sourced in a more policy-compliant way.

I hope all this makes sense. If you have more questions or would like some help, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, THAT'S what the Sandbox is for! Thank you for the very wise and sensible suggestion.

I do have one other question. In regards to formatting this new section - to put Stage work in a "Filmography" section seems correct in the sense of being a similar listing of works of an actor, as are those indicating Film and TV work. However, Stage work is not "film" and so the term "Filmography" seems odd. What is your take on this? It seems to me appropriate that Stage work be added to the same section, with perhaps the current heading "Filmography" being changed to "Filmography and Other Work" or Filmography and Other Performance Works". Or is there perhaps a different way of handling this? It doesn't seem right to put Stage work in a separate section, as the clear intent of a "Filmography" heading generally is to include the lists of works of a particular actor. Any thoughts on this?--Miggseye (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question, and there's no good answer. At least, the articles are not consistent. So, I'll just give you my opinion. I think all the actor's works belong in one section with subsections for each kind of work. So, I would call the main section "Works" and the subsections "Film", "Television", and "Stage".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Also thank you for your coaching earlier re:citing. It made it much clearer for me to be able to complete it quickly and efficiently through Sandbox. Much appreciated.Miggseye (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at the newly revised Stage section I created and telling me whether your thoughts? I'm thinking one of the following two things should be done:

1) While accurate and complete, including the theater information in the notes column may be distracting (and perhaps not necessary for the majority of people interested in this article). I could delete the theater info (the information would still be available to anyone drilling in and clicking on one of the references) and then the notes column would carry more not worthy info, for example Messina's Broadway debut

OR 2) I could include the theatre information in a separate column, and the notes column again would carry more noteworthy info. In this case if the theaters remain in the article I could add links to each theater, which provides some rich links. All in all, I'd appreciate your feedback as this is my first major contribution to an article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miggseye (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the theater and production column, so I'd keep both it and the Notes column (don't forget that if you say something like Messina's debut, you have to support that assertion with a source). However, don't use imbedded URLs for those companies that don't have Wikipedia articles. Also, leave off the place. Putting all the refs in the Notes column is not a good idea, in my view. If you want to have a references column, I've seen that done, but then nothing else should be in the column. What about combining the opening and closing dates into one column called "Run" or something like that? That would save space. Also, not to be a pest, but you still have a problem with accessdate. Every ref should have one and it should be "current". Finally, all the play names should be italicized. I'm glad you're enjoying the work. It'll be very helpful to you if you continue editing here and tackle other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephen M. Cohen

You complained about my first edit and requested that I find other sources. After finding the Forbes Article without doing an edit, I Open the talk page for discussion on a consensus with an ending date of Feburary 10, 2012. At no time were you a part of this consensus.

In the consensus discussion, I stated what I planed on editing. Wikipedia editor Nomoskedasticity wanted a second source on why the summary judgment case was so important. I was only able to find legal opinions and therefore agreed to leave it out of my edit.

When the time period ended I did my edit. You immediately jumped in on my edit stating that my source was a blog. However, if you had looked at the article and not the talk page you would have noticed that I put in the actual article [5] this article was not the blog and it was published on January 19, 2013.

I mean no disrespect but it seems to me that you do not want anyone editing the Cohen page even when it is properly sourced. Maybe a arbitration request is the proper way to resolve this.

I am a new editor and I am trying to make sure of the accuracy of the information with a neutral point of view as I do not have a conflict of interest.

I now understand why so many editors have left Wikipedia according to the article "Criticism of Wikipedia" subsection, "Complaints about administrator abuse." I find myself wondering if Wikipedia really wants new editors who follow the rules set by Wikipedia. Vanessamx (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't be able to respond to this until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That is ok, please enjoy your night. Forbes deleted the article however I was able to find it again at [6] and you have to search Cohen. Vanessamx (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI close

You closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Procedural/canvassing issue in ongoing RfA with the comment that "it's now closed." What's closed? The RfA is still running. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Staberinde noted that Dirtlawyer had not notified anyone of the ANI topic. Without deciding whether anyone had to be notified, I said, "No need to notify anyone as it's now closed." "it" refers to the ANI topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-related issue to AN3

Over the past month I've been dealing with Blackgaia02 (talk · contribs) who kept posting unsourced information to a similar page. You can see my discussions with him/her here, here, and here. From these conversations, other conversations in the past, and as evident from his/her user talk, it seems that Blackgaia02 gets too emotionally attached to whatever he edits.

Last night, in regards to the Animegirl14 edit warring, I started a discussion on the talk page, and invited three editors, including Blackgaia02 to participate. Only one person responded, so I decided to see if the others had edited. That's where I found this response. I honestly do not know how to respond to this as it will only result in another emotional outburst from Blackgaia02, and it will only serve to prove that Blackgaia02 does not have the emotional maturity to be a part of this project, even though his/her edits are generally constructive and done in good faith.

TL;DR would you mind speaking to Blackgaia02 for me?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done so; I hope it helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Barelvi

I expect your further cooperation in improving Barelvi Page Article which is disliked by some section.Many People regularly tries to put Negative Info about this movement.If u have time may i suggest u something from neutral point of view regarding this Article?Non constructive edits have lead this situation there.I tried a bit aggressively to tell others that people are editing it according their agenda.Msoamu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't intend to become involved in content disputes on the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

GWB

Looks like we're at it again. . . . — Bdb484 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've dealt with it, on the article, on the editor's talk page, and at ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Bit confused

Re this. {{Db-attack}}, for better or for worse, automatically blanks the article. (I'm not sure what markup trick it uses, but I tried to add the AfD template after it, and that didn't work.) I'm just unclear, based on your edit summary, as to whether you were declining DC's CSD (←palindrome), or objecting to the auto-blanking. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite a palindrome. Think of it as declining the CSD. It took me a bit to understand what was going on, but the G10 seemed a circumvention of the AfD discussion. I also think it's a stretch to apply a G10 to an article like that. It doesn't attack a person. It doesn't attack an entity. It arguably attacks a rather large diffuse group of people, but that's kind of what the article is about in the first instance. Let an admin (not me at this point) decide how to close the AfD discussion when that's appropriate. Remember, there's nothing wrong with editing the article, just blanking it or removing the AfD tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)