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.

SPI advice needed

Hi Bbb23. I hope everything is well with you and yours. Sorry for the trouble, but since you are an SPI clerk I would like to ask your opinion about IP sock tagging. Please see: Mass reverting of IP sock tags of K-pop articles and associated discussion at Please do not mass-revert IP sock tags. Whenever you have the time, please let me know your opinion regarding the best way forward in this case. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dr.K., I'm kind of worn out from Wikipedia today, and, thankfully, I'm going to get off in a moment. I'll try to take a look tomorrow. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Bbb23. No obligation or rush at all. Thank you very much for considering this. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In my short time as an SPI trainee clerk, I've learned that the issue of tagging is a contentious one. Policies and templates contradict each other, not to mention the practices of individual administrators and editors in this area. If I had my way, I'd make it simple. Only administrators would be able to add tags or remove them, and there'd be a thorough discussion to make the tagging consistent. In terms of this individual crusade by Greg, I'd bring up the issue at the talk page of WP:SOCK and see if you get any reactions there. My guess is no one will be bothered that much by the removal of tags from unblocked IPs. I sampled a few of Greg's edits, and given that the tags were added by non-admins, it doesn't bother me all that much for them to be removed. Just as an aside, some administrators believe that IPs should never be tagged. One more thing. WP:HSOCK doesn't apply to IPs but to all users.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, tagging of IPs should be restricted only to cases where a significant number of "sock edits" are traceable to the specific IP, and where there is no possibility of having an "innocent bystander" be faced with that tag -- especially for such cases as IP addresses linked to schools where it is likely that new students will be faced with the detritus from previous students, etc. Indeed, I would suggest this is an extension of how we deal with "living persons" - that is, contentious claims about a person who was quite likely not involved in socking as a "sock" should be removed. There are, indeed, some IPs which are tagged, and properly so, but cases where single edits are found should generally not be so tagged. All IMHO, of course. Collect (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bbb23 for the information. I agree also with Collect's points. The problem is, according to my experience with K-pop articles, there are certain geolocations which chronically edit-war unsourced BLP information about birthdays and positions into these articles. Many of these IP addresses strongly indicate they are from a rather narrow IP range. This information could be useful in case a range-block was ever necessary. I remember one instance where one IP was blocked as a sock through checkuser. But as Drmies mentioned we could go the other way and semi the articles involved. In any case thank you both for your feedback. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Having only admins tag socks is a bad idea. There are plenty of good-faith trusted users like myself that have experience dealing with socks. I don't have any interest in becoming an admin; but I've met a few I can run circles around. Overburdening the already overburdened admin corps simply because that sock tag can be abused is totally unnecessary. At the most it should be limited to autoconfirmed users, if necessary. Your average admin might have absolutely zero experience in dealing with socks. But there are many non-admins that have a lot of experience. Doc talk 00:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, please give me an example of when you would tag a user and what tag you would use.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've authored two LTA reports that concern IP-hopping nightmares: this and that. Their IP's don't usually get tagged: judgement call. No admin bothered to create the reports: now they know who they are dealing with a bit better. I've helped show a banned user towards the door using the IPSock template to prove their malfeasance. My taggings are all reviewable, and I've tagged a few. I can easily provide you several examples of what you are asking for... but do you really believe that simply because I am not an admin that I don't know what I'm doing with this tag? I would hope not. Doc talk 03:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'll give you an example anyway, one I brought up on Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs)'s page. Veryverser (talk · contribs), an indefinitely blocked user who pops up periodically to thumb his nose at the block, briefly used 167.206.233.254 (talk · contribs) only on October 6, 2012. Only the edits from that day can be confirmed to be Veryverser. Others have used the IP before and since: and no editor using that IP has brought up the tag since it was placed. If Veryverser ever uses it again, or even if he doesn't, we should keep the tag to show that he did. Any editor using that IP that is not Veryverser should not be worried about it, and they certainly don't seem to be now. Doc talk 06:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's an excellent example of why non-admins should not be tagging. It obviously conflicts with the current language of WP:HSOCK, and it appears to serve only your idea of how things should be done. My assumption is that if anyone using that IP address wanted to remove that tag, they could legitimately do so, and most editors would agree with the removal. I don't see any purpose to continuing this discussion. There are too many inconsistencies in the sock tagging, in the policies, in the instructions, in the templates, and in the practice (and that includes admins). I just find it irritating - and that is not directed at your personally.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

But if the IP had been blocked, even for a few hours, HSOCK says nothing about future users removing the tag. I'll stick to the policy talk page on this. Thanks for your time. Doc talk 02:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Woven Thread deletion.

Hi, thanks for your message letting me know about the speedy deletion of The Woven Thread production company page I created. I understand your reasons for doing so, but I'd like to ask a couple of questions. I checked to see that there were other similar pages for independent television production companies in Scotland and found several: The Comedy Unit, Effingee Productions are two examples, both of which make comedy in Scotland, as does The Woven Thread. In fact effingee hasn't made any television for 5 years, but The Woven Thread is a new company and will make programmes for the forseeable future. My question is this: At what point is a company big enough to warrant a page? Thanks for your help--— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMHines (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 September 2013‎ (UTC)

• WP:CORP has some guidelines. And there's WP:GNG. It's not just about size. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

TOO Copyright images India

I truest you as an admin and @Drmies: too and know you always post your own views. I also try to do so. In Commons, my arguments are being rejected thrice. No one, not a single admin, is supporting my points there and someone has told, I am wasting their time. Still, I can not understand where I am wrong.

The point I am trying to say them— when we don't know copyright status of an image/content in a country, our attempt should be to find it. "We don't know", "Commons does not have any information" — these should not be reason to keep content here. Please help me to understand where I am wrong here. Commons thread: Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#My_disappointment:_TOO_and_India Tito☸Dutta 12:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, but that's outside of my scope of experience. I don't know who Fry1989 is, but they provided an argument that, at least to my inexperienced eyes, makes sense. If you're asking for more participation in a particular discussion, well, you can but it probably won't help much. On en-wiki such discussions remind me of MfD discussions; they don't attract a lot of attention. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Tito, I can barely follow the discussion on Commons. Commons has its own set of policies and ways of doing things, and I've never really participated in any significant discussions. The only thing I go to Commons to do is to nominate an image used on Wikipedia for deletion or in rare instances to tag it for speedy deletion. What you say above I understand, I think. You're saying that although normally a no consensus to delete something defaults to keep, it should be the opposite for copyright issues (the burden should be shifted to use legalese), but that's as much as I understand. To the extent it matters, I do know Fry1989.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Lindodawki's 3RR report

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

Hello Bbb. see this 3RR closure, where you wrote 36 hours as the result. Did you forget to issue the block? I had previously done a 48 hour block (though not per the 3RR board) because the Latin America article is on my watchlist and I noticed the revert war. It does not seem that the user is paying any attention. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ed, that closure was a mistake on my part. I put a block in the wrong report (first time I've done that - embarrassing). I later corrected the error here. I'm very sorry for the confusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 20:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing of Binksternet ANI

Your closing of the ANI (1) was completely unjustified. My concern was simple and plainly stated. Bink kept hounding me by repeatedly posting erroneous allegations of misconduct on my talk page, after I told him not to. I didn't make any of the distracting/off-topic sub-threads, so it makes no sense to hold them against my original complaint. Your doing so also sets a terrible precedent for future legitimate ANIs complaints, implying that posting a bunch of inane, off-topic stuff is an effective strategy to derail them. Your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between my (concise and clear) original complaint, and the distracting off-topic threads that follow, is highly disappointing, particularly given your admin status. Steeletrap (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Calm down, and let me see if I can help (no promises). When I looked at the "main" topic and then the subtopics, all I saw was an amorphous mess. Let's put aside the subtopics for the moment (their closures were incredibly odd) and concentrate on the main topic. I'm not going to look at the revision history as ANI is extraordinarily busy, but the date/time stamps make no sense. It shows that an IP opened the topic on October 2 at 15:15 (first post under the header). Who is the IP? That is followed immediately by a post from you on September 29 at 05:36. Did the IP just stick their post in above yours three days later? Was your post intended to be the opening post? Are you joining in the IP's comments? Assuming that this really got started four days ago on September 29, where did it get you? Not a single admin commented, which likely, although not absolutely, means no admin was persuaded that you had a case. As I read just what you wrote, you were complaining about Binksternet templating your talk page with unjustified warnings. For this, you asked for a "temporary ban". What's that? Did you mean a temporary block? Is there a persistent pattern of Binksternet using unjustified warnings (I haven't looked to see if I agree with you, btw, just asking)? Anyway, if you respond here in a civil manner, I'll do my best to help, although my views may not meet with your approval.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who the anonymous IP address is, or what s/he is talking about. My post directly below that (beginning with the words "I have warned a user three times") fully details my complaint against Binksternet. Check that out. As to bans, because the hounding/harassment was so persistent, I was recommending a (very) brief ban from editing wikipedia to teach him not to harass other users.

I'm sorry if I came across as uncivil. I was (and am) irritated, because I have a legitimate gripe that was clearly stated, yet is being ignored because of lengthy off-topic "sub-threads" posted by Binksternet and others. Steeletrap (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Look at WP:BAN. I think you mean WP:BLOCK. I'll take a look at just your post and give you my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On September 6 at 16:42 Binksternet posted an edit-warring template on your talk page about Hans-Hermann Hoppe. At that point you had made two reverts on the article in the preceding 24 hours, one at 6:30 and one at 16:39. Your statement in response that you had made only one over "several weeks" was incorrect. As for Binksternet's reverts, he was claiming a BLP exemption. If you believed there was no basis for that exemption, the appropriate thing would have been to take him to WP:AN3.

Binsternet left two more edit-warring templates on your talk page, one on September 27 at 13:37, and one on September 29 at 4:56. The first was again about the Hoppe article, and the second was about Murray Rothbard. With respect to the Hoppe article, you had made one revert in the preceding 24 hours but had made multiple reverts over time, which could arguably be interpreted as edit warring, even without a breach, or imminent breach, of WP:3RR. With respect to the Rothbard article, which is now locked, you had made two reverts in the 24 hours preceding the warning.

I see some overzealousness on Binksternet's part, but that's without looking at the underlying content disputes. My suspicion is you will get nowhere at ANI with the conduct issue until you resolve through consensus the disputes that you and others have on these rather contentious articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed but not surprised to hear your view. The relevant issue is that he continually posts inflammatory charges to the talk page of someone who tells him to stay off. That you're basically OK with this blatant violation of rules, without even knowing whether the charges have any basis in fact, is astounding (though again, not surprising). As is your incorrect (or only "correct" in a tedious technical sense) statement that I had made 2 reverts on September 6th. Steeletrap (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're incorrect about the issue. If you tell someone to stay off your talk page, they should respect your wishes with respect to comments, discussions, etc., but they still have a right to post a warning template as long as the template is justifiable. You can't prohibit editors from using your talk page to post warnings. Now, let's say Binksternet posts a warning, you remove it, and they repost it. That would be abusive because you are presumed to have read the first warning, and you have a right to remove it. But new warnings are generally permissible.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"they still have a right to post a warning template as long as the template is justifiable". Which is why it's bizarre that you're effectively indifferent to whether the charges were justifiable. Also, can you please (providing diffs) show me the two reversions I made on September 6? Again, I'm talking about substantive reversions; if we want to get into wikilawyering, removing typos of other users can be technically characterized as reversions. Steeletrap (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

My last comment. I've taken the time to give you personalized treatment, and all I get is criticism. You, of course, have a right to disagree with me, but given that I'm the only admin who's responded to your complaint, you should try taking it to heart instead of fighting over everything. I gave you the times of the two reversions already. You no doubt think the first was not a revert. Normally, I'd agree with you because it was mostly an addition, but it was in a disputed area, and looking beyond the "technical" I'd be inclined to classify it as part of the war.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for input at DRN

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Jorge Erdely Graham". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Ajax F¡ore_talk 03:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sylvanvale Disability Services

Hi there

I set up the Sylvanvale Disability Services page which you deleted earlier today.

I don't completely understand the deletion codes that you attached (I'm new at this) and just wondering what I have to do to make that page pass the criteria? Seems to be a lot less worthy pages that survive than that. I drafted it based on the Plan page as it is a similar organisation and I don't see why the Sylvanvale page was any different than that one.

Would love some advice.

Cheers

Sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanjhross (talk • contribs) 12:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You copied the article straight from Sylvanvale's own site, which is not allowed, as it is a copyright violation. Also, it wasn't clear why Sylvanvale is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Danrolo returned

Hello Bbb23,

it looks like User:Danrolo (if you can remember?) has returned. 201.239.253.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits masses of political party articles (mainly the infoboxes), adding unsourced information (mainly about their ideological orientation). He is even having an edit war with another user across several Chilean parties. The IP is based in Chile, Danrolo's homeland. Should I file a formal SPI or can you just block the IP for being an obvious sockpuppet of Danrolo's? Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked them for three months. I blocked them before for one month in June. It's too bad I didn't follow up after expiration of the block, or I would have blocked them again much earlier. If you notice any other IPs in this range doing the same thing, please let me know because the edit filter does not have the range. I don't want to add it to the filter unless there's at least more than one. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SPI case closure

My bad and apologies for that error. I read the SPI Clerking guide and interpreted it the wrong way here. -- SMS ^Talk 07:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You really ought to know better than mess with bureaucracy SMS Darkness Shines (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. As DS implies, the procedures at Wikipedia can often be confusing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite

I just found out from someone that TheOldJacobite has been doing a series of edit warring on articles Raging Bull and The Departed. Check out the revision of those articles if you want to see this. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the report at WP:AN3 to any further comments. You need to stop making baseless accusations. It's disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It is quite clear that the anon. who left that comment is a sock of user Mamet who has been disrupting the named articles for over a month. This is really becoming quite ridiculous. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What anon and what comment?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to the comment the anon. made on BattleshipMan's talk page, which was part of a canvassing campaign by a suspected sock of AutoMamet. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Theonesean#The League of Peace Foundation

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Theonesean#The League of Peace Foundation. theonesean 21:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

I'll try to get to this tomorrow. If I forget, feel free to remind me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've looked into it, and think you and the tagger were perfectly correct. I'm one step short of thinking about G3... Peridon (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you advise

I thought A-7 was for something that was not notable. What would be the correct tag in this case? The page is for a totally unnoteworthy object as far as I can see.Antiqueight ^confer 16:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Jumping in, Twinkle has a good description of each tag and will automatically notify the creator. James^x12345 16:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

So it is impossible to tag for a thing to be unremarkable (using speedy deletion)?Antiqueight ^confer 16:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

A7 is for lack of indicated significance, but only for people and groups of people, named animals, stuff on the web, and organised events. So you can A7 the Church of the Electric Hamster (organisation) but not St Ethelfrock's Church (building), greathyaena.com but not the Hyaena browser, and Gertie the dancing alpaca but not Conia easteria (the newly discovered Easter rabbit species). All CSD categories are limited. Peridon (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about Gateway Station (Aliens), a relatively silly article that unfortunately cannot be A7ed. A lot of editors tag entire films as A7s. Films cannot be speedied under A7. Sometimes, it's possible to delete them under G11, but one has to be careful that the article satisfies that category. Anyway, when something as silly as the station article is created and I have to decline the speedy, I will often take it to AfD as I did here. I thought of redirecting it to the movie article, but the station isn't even mentioned there, so it seemed pointless.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for that Bbb23. I too looked at just adding the data to the movie article but it didn't seem to fit anywhere. I thought that since it was so un noteworthy it would be better to speedy it than AfD.Antiqueight ^confer 16:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand the temptation to A7 something that seems so obviously non-notable, but it's just not permissible. I'm not sure what the original policy rationale was for limiting A7 in this way - haven't been around here long enough, and I don't feel like slogging through the history. It might be that the notability of certain categories of articles is too difficult to determine without discussion. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers knows.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's down to battles and compromises at the talk page of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. It took quite a battle to get events in recently. The current one is new - A11 - for things made up one day (thought up by Johnny and Shaun to impress Jenny - who probably wasn't impressed anyway - and very obvious to any admin who's worked in CSD, and the majority of the taggers. There are those who would, I think, like to end CSD but realise that PROD and AfD just couldn't cope. It's an interesting page for anyone concerned at all with speedy deletion. It's not admin stuff only. The G13 (untouched AfC) battle went on for quite some time. Peridon (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess I need to stay on top of things more. The A11 discussion isn't historical; it's now. Thanks for pointing it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually they should use...

... a site like this (there are many bad photos, I started creating my family tree, the work is incomplete). Your action was perfect. They impersonated Wiki Management US too. One thing I always say, if a user is puzzled and politely confesses that he can not understand things here, his critical errors might be ignored for sometime. I'm giving my own example, very foolish this and this you'll find the user (I) could not understand where to sign, how to talk etc, but simultaneously trying to learn things. I ask others to see these posts and foolish help requests and then ask to observe the improvement I have done in last two years from that point. One should not be ashamed to ask help or confess mistakes. But, if a user tries be over-smart or attempts to game the system by impersonating Wikimedia US, that is unacceptable. --Tito☸Dutta 18:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If it was just incompetence or newness or good faith issues, that would be one thing, but there was too much deceit. And I still don't understand changing the name of the Indian municipality to Jose Silva. Thanks for your assistance.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

AN3

Hi. I've replied. I hope that is clear - if you need anything else, please let me know. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I do, actually. Please see my response at AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Replied. Again, please let me know if you need more. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Your last chance, Lugnuts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please update the article in question with details of it being released in Ireland on the 11th October, per this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Seems a reasonable request. Or can you point me to the policy that allows you to state a random length of time that a user can't edit an article for? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You violated WP:3RR. In exchange for not being blocked, you acknowledged the violation, promised to be more careful in the future, and promised not to edit the article for seven days from October 6. Now you want to edit the article by proxy and you're asking me, the administrator who arranged this, to be your proxy. When I refuse, you say it's "a reasonable request". I call that the epitome of chutzpah. I have nothing more to say about this except that if you violate the agreement, I'll block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I promised not to edit it (which I'm sticking to), so I thought it would only be polite to ask you to add that info, as you dictated the sanctions in the first place. Fine if you don't want to/are not capable of doing so, but please can you link me to the relevant policy of stating the timeline for not being able to edit an article. Many thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I see you were active yesterday but you've not replied to my request of linking me to the policy in question. Please can you do so? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I already told you in my last comment I had nothing more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think what I'm asking is a fair question - why are you being so unreasonable? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Sir you have deleted my page New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary. Sir I request you to get it undelteted. I will be thankful to you. Pratham 09:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not going to happen, sorry. In addition to the reason I deleted it (promotional), as @JohnCD: told you, it's also a copyright violation of the school's website.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

00:11, 5 October 2013 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Như Quỳnh (actress) (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event))

Hi. Did the stub before deletion fail to mention that vi:Như Quỳnh (diễn viên) is a government awarded/recognised People's Artist? With very plentiful sources in the vi.wp article any objection to recreating this? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it didn't mention the Vietnamese wikipedia. You can recreate it if you like. I mean, it had only one brief sentence in the entire article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Recreated, the wikidata link was still there and popped back. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of page Valerie Loo

Hi there, it has come to my attention that you have deleted the page Valerie Loo and I would like to request for you to undo the deletion. Valerie is a young and budding Singaporean artiste and she has a growing influence among Singaporeans after her involvement in the television program Campus SuperStar (season 4). It is vital for her to have a wiki page for people to find out more about her. Some of the other contestants do have articles about themselves as well thus we see no reason as to why her page was marked for deletion even though it has even more adequate references cited about her. Please do consider undoing the deletion. It seems that it has been marked for deletion as it wasn't clearly stated enough about her significance in the Singapore music and online industry. We will be happy to make any changes to the article after the undoing of the deletion so as to improve the article. Thank you. Happyglenshades (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Who is "we", and who are User:Winstonbegone and User:Shanaisthecoolone?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

an issue to sort out

I have been issued a warning for my edits on the page Seeman (director) though i had provided highly reputable citations for the same...and pro-separatist content has been restored on the page..I had pinged SpacemanSpiff regarding the same and he asked me to take the matter to you...wonder if you would be able to help?!

Thank You none-the-less *cheers* Arlok2005 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I need a little more help. The warning was issued by a now-blocked user. Some of the material that user restored has been removed by @SpacemanSpiff:. What material do you think should still be removed from the article and why? Also, normally these kinds of issues are better discussed on the article Talk page, or if compelling WP:BLP violations, at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, sorry for suggesting that you get in this mess without checking with you, but you are one of very few people who have done BLP cleanups on Indian bios recently. I'm hardpressed for wikitime now and therefore haven't been able to check the entire article, but there are likely some more issues there and in some of the linked articles like Nedumaran etc that I hope to get to over the next week or two unless they get cleaned up earlier. While the OP wasn't exactly clear on the problem, there are some issues related to what they said. I'd also asked Qwyrxian to keep an admin eye on the article. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I'm not sure I want to be known as an experienced person in this area. :-) I won't have time to look at it until the weekend at the earliest; I have too much on my plate and too little time on Wikipedia to clear it. I have a great deal of respect for Qwyrxian's knowledge and handling of these kinds of issues. He's incisive and deft. Hopefully, he'll tackle it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

My eyes hurt now, but I think I got most of it out of the article (was primarily a lot of labeling not present in the sources) and primary sourcing of controversial statements as fact. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I know how that is. I blocked a new user yesterday and then began a clean-up of all the disruption they had caused in a very short space of time. I couldn't finish because I had to go to dinner. I'm now going to finish. Some of the stuff was truly mind-boggling.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Squeaky

Johnny Squeaky (talk · contribs) is continued to edit Soylent Green in evident violation of the consensus on the Talk page and without making any evident effort to gather consensus for their edit. As you warned them about this behavior before, it may be time to engage in stronger action. Please let me know if you have any questions. DonIago (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no time right now. I left a brief note at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I saw that and added my own comment. DonIago (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Turkishhistorian

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

Hello Bbb. Just now I saw this edit on my watchlist, which shows User:Turkishistorian once again adding blog-sourced information to this article (from http://dodecad.blogspot.com). Since you'd previously warned Turkishistorian on his talk page about a possible block, perhaps you want to take a look. In this case Turkishistorian is making reference to a Google Doc generated by the anonymous owner of the Dodecad blog. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Craig James

The Google bomb was the most notable thing in his campaign. It's even on Wikipedia's entry for Google bomb. Mentioning it here, with sources, is not vandalism and is not even negative for Craig James so much as it is negative for Internet yahoos.

So if you could stop deleting it, that would be super. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.80 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed it again. I don't care what's in the Google Bomb article. This is in James's article, and it can't remain the way you did it. You cited to an unreliable puff piece (a blog of a magazine) that is clearly intended to be a humorous post. Even if the source were reliable, it doesn't support your assertion that the bomb was "notable", just that it happened. It has a distinctly WP:COATRACK aspect to it. If you want to include it, take it to the article talk page or to WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Specifics to your Criticism

Sir or Madame:

You have failed to cite WHAT in particular in my edits LACKS a source. There are plenty of sources throughout the article justifying the edits I made (LOOK at the links). Other edits are simply that a book is now published (before, the article said that something "will be published in July"...do you object to the idea that July has passed? Or do you object to the book being published, because you haven't bothered to look on Amazon?)

I do not appreciate my work being undone without ANY constructive criticism of WHAT is improper. Justify yourself or I will seek arbitration.