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.

Article neutrality Anarcho-syndicalism

Could you look at this article [1] diff. and the diffs around it and the behavior of the editor Ites please? He has put some stuff on my talk page that I remove, borderline harassing I think, and seems to continue making the Anarcho-syndicalism reflect a point of view rather than keeping it informational. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Same person keeps calling me names (troll) in his edit summaries and removing the Neutrality tag from this article [2]. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I did put stuff on Earl's talk page that he removed that's true - I attempted to discuss with him his refusal to discuss his systematic policy of undoing edits I had made in the name of "neutrality" without at any point making any effort whatsoever to explain what was problematic about what I had written or even to attempt to engage with me on any level about our different points of view, other than to assort falliciously that what he was saying was true because he had said it and that apparently that was the end of the discussion. Why is it my fault if Earl refuses to engage in respectful and reciprocal discussion about the nature of what he perceives to be neutrality or to accept that other people have points of view that differ from his own? Why is it my fault if he appears unable to distinguish between edits that lack neutrality and edits that he happens not to like? I'm sick to death of people acting like autocrats and then running crying for the first authority figure they can find when they can no longer force their own way and make up stories about being victimised while refusing to acknowledge any shortcomings in their own conduct or exhibit any willingness or capacity to distinguish between being criticised and being attacked. Earl is one who has engaged in persistent harassment and now as far as I'm concerned bullying into the bargain with the above, which seems to me to constitute the beginnings of a smear campaign. I did remove the neutrality tag, that much is true; what Earl fails to mention is that he removed the tag I placed above it putting myself forward as a user to contact in case of queries with references and citation; how can you remove a second tag like that and continue to maintain the pretence that there is anything even approaching a civil discussion about the nature of neutrality taking place? From where I was standing it felt very much like my edits were being censrored in the name of "protecting neurality," a campaign he appears to be attempting to escalate here. If "troll" is such a bad word to describe a mode of conduct, why is it used as the basis for an entire article here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVandals_versus_Trolls Is it preferable to act like a troll as long as you don't attempt to describe anyone's conduct as trolling? I have no interest at all in Earl beyond the fact that he appears to have zero respect for other contributors. Perhaps I might have found a better way to describe his conduct; perhaps he could choose to conduct himself in a far more reciprocal manner. Perhaps he could not just delete any criticsm of his conduct made by others on the talk page or any attempt to engage him in constructive discussion about the nature of his approach to editing the page. Also if Earl is operating in such good faith, why does he revert to the most heavy-handed edits possible at the first raising of an editing dispute? Ites76 (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Also I would have been in contact with you days ago over this if I had known that I had been able Ites76 (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If you can't engage with Earl on content without resorting to conduct comments, then either disengage from the article or, as I stated on the article talk page, seek dispute resolution. Your current approach is not constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't disengaging from an article you're being heavied out of just reward bad behaviour? Ites76 (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's your view that there is "bad behavior". BTW, {{Maintained}} should never be used on an article page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's my view supported by evidence that I'm providing that there is atrocious behaviour on Earl's part. Look at the talk page; other people have complained about Earl's conduct as well. Sorry about that; still a newbie.Ites76 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The question still remains about rewarding bad behaviour. If you're keen not to reward mine then surely you should be just as keen not to reward Earl's. Maybe I showed poor judgment in choosing how to describe his behaviour, but he has been extremely heavy-handed and totally unwiling to engage in respectful and reciprocal discussion about the page from the getgo.Ites76 (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to get past this. I've outlined an approach for you as to the content dispute. It's up to you. Conduct issues are addressed on other forums on Wikipedia, if you were to take your accusations to one of those forums, your conduct would also be scrutinized, and, newbie or not, it would be unlikely to go well. Your almost exclusive focus on this one article would also be viewed suspiciously.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User Ites has resumed where he left off more or less. I think it is not so much a content dispute as him taking personal issue with my edits because he is bringing up personality issues on the talk page again, questioning personality things about myself as an editor as a way to explain why he is reverting me. He now is saying my edits are undemocratic in his edit descriptions, his reasoning for reverting me Anarcho-syndicalism. I am thinking it might not be possible to reason with this person. I have explained patiently about the guidelines on neutral editing, but he is somehow personally insulted by my edits? Not really sure why because to my knowledge I have not done anything I can think of to warrant that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

B. K. Sekhar

Thanks for that - I did look for history to see if something like that had happened and my computer insisted there was none so I went for speedy. I will have to find out now why I browser told me that was the first page.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 09:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletation of my Pages

As per my knowledege all the made by me are deleteed under copyright voilasetion to as knowldgdthe movie were co producer and produce by Mr sunil sharma as have all the proof of copyright with Mr.bumb....we are the sole producer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tummile2 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

about Eiichi Kasahara

Thank you for your support on this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eiichi_Kasahara&action=edit&redlink=1 This time, I couldn't find enough information for the references in English. I will try when I got enough resources for this. Thanks. Pinablue JPN (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Embedded lists - where's the limit?

Since you have followed up with edits in Holy Trinity Diocesan High School after me I might as well ask you, although I was about to ask at the help desk. Do we have a policy or a guideline to how long, bulleted, unreferenced lists in e.g. a section like Clubs or a section like Past Musicals we accept? Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 16:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is I don't know. I imagine we don't and it's an editorial decision requiring consensus if challenged. Other guidelines regarding noteworthiness and secondary references would probably apply. You could poke around at WP:WPSCH and see if the question has ever been addressed and, if not, post it. Some projects are responsive to that sort of thing, and some, unfortunately, are not.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sam Sailor ^Sing 17:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:CFredkin

I can see that you felt the user was continuing an edit war when he made this edit. However the edit appears to me to be attempting to clarify and correct a contentious statement, after CFredkin had left a note on the talkpage some 18 hours earlier.

The contentious statement is cited to a source which does not say that the topic of the article is considered a moderate, and appears to be based on original research.

I can see there is an edit war taking place on the article regarding this statement, but somehow Grammarxxx the other party in the edit war, was neither warned nor blocked. It appears to me that this situation needs talking through in order to resolve the issue, so I have locked down the article. CFredkin and Grammarxxx need to get together to discuss the contentious material. I am willing to moderate the discussion. Would you please unblock CFredkin to allow this discussion to take place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Silk Tork, CFredkin initially violated WP:3RR on November 8 and was blocked by Darkwind. Grammarxxx made three reverts, two during a 24-hour window, and one outside of it. Thus, they did not violate 3RR, although they theoretically could have been blocked for edit warring anyway. I was not involved in any warnings or any administrative action.

I'm aware that after CFredkin's block expired he posted to the talk page, waited, and then restored his version of the lead. I'm sure you've read my comment on his talk page. I blocked on conduct alone. The content dispute is not of the kind that would normally excuse the disruption. Ironically, I'm somewhat sympathetic to CFredkin's position in the matter. What Grammarxxx - and others as they're not the only editor clinging to that language - is doing is WP:SYNTHESIS. The New Democrat Coalition, according to our article (I know nothing about the caucus) is composed of moderate democrats. Therefore, Grammarxxx is using Mahoney's membership in it to make the statement. It shouldn't be done that way, neither in the body nor the lead. At most, in my view, the body/lead could say that Mahoney caucuses with the moderate New Democrat Coalition as we often ascribe labels to people and entities if those labels are supportable - although even that is often disputed.

I will unblock CFredkin, mainly because you request it and because you're willing to monitor the situation. I wish, though, that you'd impress upon him that, regardless of the merits of his position, his methods need to change, and he needs to more fully grasp policy on these matters. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bbb23. Just for the record, this series of edits by Grammarxxx: one, two, and three, show a clear violation of 3RR. But what's more important is that we all move forward from this, and your unblocking has helped in that. I have no intention of doing a retrospective block of Grammarxxx; rather, I wish to have the contentious edit resolved. And perhaps pass on some advice to BOTH parties regarding how to conduct themselves in future. ;-) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It requires four reverts to breach 3RR. That doesn't mean, of course, that you can't counsel Gramarxxx about edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork, it is a bit surprising that you do not know that breaking 3RR entails 4 reverts. Of course that does not mean because a person only has 3 reverts that they are not edit warring, but your use of terms here shows that you seem a bit confused on the policies. Also, if you look at the history of the page, CFredkin was not only reverted by Gramarxxx. Mugboshgu reverted him here, Ruby Murray here and Tiller54 here. To go along with the Gramarxxx reverts over a period of 3 days. So one would think you should concentrate your discussion on instructing CFredkin that once another editor challenges their change to an article, he must use the Talk page to gain consensus for any changes. In lieu of that, he can also use dispute resolution or start an RFC. His mass changes to dozens of political BLP articles can be seen as one-sided, but more than that is the refusal to accept other editors concerns and consensus. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Policy reason

Any policy justification for [3]? NE Ent 19:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:HIGHHANDED. I was actually going to wait until TParis modified the sanctions page, given that he closed the discussion, but your changes were out of line.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor Johnsmith2116

I saw you blocked him for a week. What you did was justified but I find it regrettable. This editor can contribute if he'd adhere to the simple rule(s)- Don't make incomplete edits or problematic edits like he did to Chris Kirk. If he'd promise to do that and make no more personal attacks against me(An apology would be nice but not necessary.) I'd hope the block could be lifted. I'm willing to work with him. My going to ANI today was caused by his multiple diatribes against me. Let me know what you think. I'm going to ping The Bushranger to about about this thread so he can add his input if TBR so desires....William 00:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Given what I saw, I'd say it was regrettably necessary. If he'd step down off his soapbox and listen, he might well become a good editor, but he needs to remember Wikipedia does not need him; if he can't be civil and collaborative he needs to find somewhere else where he can. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: I did a fairly thorough look at the history. You did an excellent job of presenting a case, even if the result was not what you wished. I also looked carefully at Bushranger's comments, both at ANI and elsewhere, as he was more familiar than I with the problems. I didn't see one ounce of understanding on John's part, and no matter how much Bushranger tried to communicate the various problems to him, he just didn't get it. Finally, the veiled sock puppet threats (although they were expressed poorly, so it's not 100% certain that's what they were) truly bothered me. Even if they weren't threats of sock puppetry, they were clearly threats, and that raises red flags for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb, your block was justified. I thought I'd just make the case for a warning or shorter block as long as Jsmith promised not to continue his editing behavior that warranted the block in the first place. Cheers!...William 16:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:NYCWikiKid

This editor, whom you blocked for 3RR, has posted an unblock request. I'm letting you know in case you have comments on the request before another admin reviews the block. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:22 Male Cali

AKA Fareed30, AKA Lagoo sab. Can you block his email privileges on that sock account, I really do not want to get mail from him. Will forward the mail to you if needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe you, Darkness Shines, but I'd prefer to see the e-mail. If either Fareed30 or Lagoo sab had e-mail turned off, I would do it without, but they don't. Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Shall I copy&paste it here or forward it to you mate? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

E-mail it to me, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not have your mail, so I have mailed you from here, so you can mail me and then I can forward the socks mail to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Just cut-and-paste the e-mail, including the header if you can, and e-mail that to me from Wikipedia. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sent it mate. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

DS, I personally have received far worse and not blocked e-mail capability of the user. That said, if you still wish me to block e-mail, I will. And I don't mean to imply that you are thin-skinned, which lord knows you are not. I'm fine with doing it if you still wish it. Just let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not all that fussed mate, just figured a sock ought not be sending mail And I am a super sensitive soul, how could you think me not, shall go off now for a good cry. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ha. Let's just say it's not a big deal cutting off e-mail for a sock, but that doesn't mean it happens automatically. If he persists (sends you another one), let me know. In the meantime, I have no doubt that your 10-minute tear fest has made you a better man, and I look forward to the new peaceful you spreading joy and conciliation all over Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Picozu Article

How can an article about a closed web service like Picnik or Aviary be more significant than one about a web services used by over 55k users Picozu? Can you please give more details about why you deleted the article? How can I fix that? Classypm (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

All the article said is it's a service, it has 55,000 users (which doesn't mean much, regardless of the fact it's unsourced), and it can do these things. The only references are to the company's website. There's nothing in the article that establishes notability by secondary reliable sources, not even any unsourced credible claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Maryse Selit, Speedy Deletion

Hi Bbb23, this article was deleted yesterday stating I recreated it after deletion per deletion discussion. The original article was deleted over a year ago and the notability issue raised in the deletion discussion was subsequently fixed per the admins commentary in the AfD. Can you please restore? The article has a substantial number of likes on its Facebook public page, which will be lost if it has to be recreated. Thanks for your help. Jamescur (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the article deleted per discussion and the article I deleted as being that different. Indeed, your iteration of the article has significantly less content than the one deleted in 2012. I don't care about Facebook likes. What "admins commentary" are you referring to? Why does your signature have a link to VQuakr's talk page?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Weird. Bbb23, FWIW I have absolutely no idea who this editor is or why they are linking to my talk page in their signature. VQuakr (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr, I didn't think there was any connection between the two of you; I pinged you so you'd be aware of the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, the original article was posted by a different editor and was more verbose. Mine is concise and to the point. If you read the AfD commentary, it requested that any significant cases Selit worked on be added to avoid deletion and cited to other lawyer articles on Wikipedia as examples. An additional week was provided for the article to be revised with the suggested changes. However, that editor failed to work on it within the alloted timeframe and the article was deleted. The new article that I wrote, does in fact include two very substantial cases (the Walter Kronkite et al case against Donald Trump and the Sierra Club case). My apologies for the link to VQuakr, I merely copied and pasted a signature line to avoid retyping and must have inadvertently left that in there. --Jamescur 08:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, The Speedy delete tag on this article was placed by an Anonymous editor who seems motivated by some personal agenda against the subject. A review of that user's IP address indicates their contributions to Wiki started very recently when he/she nominated Dr. Selit's article for speedy deletion on Nov. 8th. The article was then deleted the very next day. The same User has also made daily delete contributions on Wikimedia, all of which (except for a couple as they have done with Wikipedia, presumably to give the appearance of legitimacy) are targeted at this particular subject. This anonymous editor's ill-motivated behavior clearly violates Wikipedia's purpose, policies and rules and constitutes vandalism and he/she should be blocked forthwith. Thanks. 207.237.211.246 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This was originally manually signed by the IP as Lmatt123 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC). --Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, Just curious, why did you change my manual signature to IP address?? Lmatt123 (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC).

FYI

[4] Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

TWC on ANI

I mentioned you in this section of ANI discussing thewolfchild. It appears s/he's exhibiting similar talk page behavior to what you brought there last month. Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BAN revert

Hi Bbb23. So, when you reverted my edit here, are you sure that that is the correct name of the policy? I fixed it because I thought at the time that the text was wrong, but feel free to say otherwise. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "correct name of the policy". The paragraph is just listing the kinds of bans that may be imposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You changed the text "article ban or page ban" (my revision) to "article or page ban" (your revision). Is it really called the "article or page ban"? I'm just curious. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 00:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I misunderstood what you did and have restored your change, which is an improvement (in my view).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 00:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Napster

You continue to censor my sourced and cited contributions, proving that Napster massively hurt record sales, in favor of infringer- spread propaganda about how Napster and the other file-copying systems were going to "help" record sales. You also deleted my "talk" inquiry which asked whether you have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST by virtue of having infringed copyrights using Napster or the other file-copying systems. If you can deny it, then please deny it. ArdenHathaway 20:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello?ArdenHathaway 02:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs)

ArdenHathaway, your assertion is ridiculous. According to their user boxes, Bbb23 enjoys classical music and enjoys opera. This does not mean they have a conflict of interest when editing classical music and opera articles. In short, their answer is irrelevant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Anna Maria Fish Co.

Hi Bbb23. Would you consider restoring this article and taking it to a deletion discussion? The basis of notability is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and there were cited sources focused solely on this company. Thanks for your kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(visitor posting) I can see only one reference - to 'Florida Trend magazine' which I can't access. There was an external link to the company's website. Peridon (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the very substantial coverage cited from Florida Trend, the company has also been the subject of very substantial coverage in a New York Times article. If that source was not included in the article I will be happy to add it once the article is restored. Thanks for your assistance. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The NYT article has significant coverage of the company. I don't know if it would be kept in an AfD, but I think it's enough to withstand an A7, so I've restored it. I don't promise it won't be retagged as I made it clear that the tag was being removed without prejudice to another editor tagging it. If it is tagged, I'll let another admin review it. If I were you, I'd add the NYT source and beef up the article as much as you can to satisfy notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

NBA loans

I've indeffed User:Progsofts as advertising only, but looking into the history, I think it's a User:Morning277 operator. They started off using a creation of a Morning277 group account as a template, and it was rather an unlikely one to use in November 2013 as it was deleted in July 2013... Peridon (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the user. I don't follow your allusion to "group account as a template", though.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - they used a long deleted article created by an M277 bod as a template now. They must have had a copy of it to hand is what I was trying to say. Are we still blocking M277s as socks or not? I mean, OK, this one's blocked, but should it be labelled as well? There's no way that it isn't M277 work if the labelling of the author of the deleted article is correct. Sorry about the delay in replying - I'm not on my usual connection and haven't been at home for a couple of days. Peridon (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You should take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 and then decide what you should do, if anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Chapter 6 Mastery Product

I recently posted a page that was title "Chapter 6 Mastery Product" and you deleted it. I was wondering on why that is and how I can get my page sharable with the world once again?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdhr4 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is it? Looks like an outline for a book or something you're writing?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a student in high school and after I read a chapter from my AP Government and Politics book I need to share my knowledge with the world and I felt that a Wikipedia article would be a good way to share what I learned. Is there anything I can do to get my page back up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdhr4 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your review of a chapter in a textbook is not an encyclopedia article. I suggest you read some of the links in the Welcome message on your talk page to find out more about how Wikipedia works. Good luck with your studies.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much what he was told in WP:REFUND ES&L 00:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Child's Right to Genital Integrity/Autonomy Movement

Hi Ms. B,

Thank-you for your kind welcome and introducing me Wikipedia's guidelines. You are right in thinking that I have chosen a contentious subject. It is a subject that deserves to be represented neutrally on this cultural interface, especially as it evolves with ourselves.

I would like to develop a page here to describe the subject above. Might you have any advice to share with me?

Thanks, DavidHGrateful (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary

Since you deleted New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary once before, can you take a look at it again and see whether you think it needs another G11, or whether it could just be stubbified to its first 2 sentences? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Jack, a G11 is no longer applicable. Nor would I personally reduce it to the first two sentences. That doesn't mean that some of the material shouldn't be removed, but you'll first have to look at the only source (the school's website), and see whether material is supported there. If it isn't, you should at a minimum tag it and probably remove it entirely. If it is, then you have to decide whether the school's website should be considered sufficiently reliable for the material, and that would, of course, depend on the material. There's also probably material that is not noteworthy, and that's yet another issue. One thing that literally sticks out at me is the size of the logo. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The reliability isn't what I'm concerned with. It's the noteworthiness I'm worried about. Every school has P.E., english, math, buses, fire alarms, etc. After the lead, that seems to be all the article is saying. (By the way, I fixed the logo.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh. Small world. I'm working on this also; the article is a first attempt by a beginning editor -- they were the one who signed up for RfA with the reason "somebody keeps deleting my uploaded images and they must be stopped"...    :-)   User:Begoon and User:Yngvattdotir and myself are busy chasing them around. The beginning editor has stopped responding to talkpages temporarily, out of frustration with all the template-spam I presume. Would appreciate it if the article be left standing, in the meantime, so that we have a chance to make contact and transfer some WP:CLUE. Methinks only the in-country-editor has a chance to provide non-copyvio photos (which they have) and cites to local newspapers (which we've asked for but they have not yet responded to). Please feel free to ping my talkpage about this. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation

Hi Bbb23, thought I'll leave a note of appreciation for the work you do around the project, especially how you man the Edit Warring and 3RR desk. Well done. Take care and see you around. Wifione ^Message 03:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Always good to hear from you, Wifione, and thanks for the kind words. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

SKDubasia (talk · contribs)

Hi, this user is up to the same disruption as Sagar Dubasia (talk · contribs) and the name is also pretty similar a clear case of WP:DUCK. I don't think an SPI is required. Could you have a look? Thanks, — Abhishek  ^Talk 03:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to either file a report at SPI or give me more to go on. And if you decide to file a report, you'll need more evidence than you've given me here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you please

Have a look at Talk:Stormfront (website)#Recent stonewalling attempt by ArtifexMayhem & Maunus and the recent edits by Kobayashi245 (talk · contribs). I'm involved obviously, but this seems to simply a continuation of earlier behavior - he doesn't seem to get it. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

After I posted this I realised we are in different time zones, so went to ANI and FP blocked him. I hope we are all right about the sanctions thing. It just seemed to me that we had pulled the teeth out of the sanctions - and with the participation of those most involved in the content area. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Doug, thanks for taking care of the Kobayshi problem, and we are fine about the sanctions. I commented at ANI on Kobayshi, and I made a "formal" proposal with extra details on Austrian Economics at AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Too good a job

Thanks for making WP:SCWGS so clear. I made a couple of log entries there and wasn't baffled and confused by the usual sanction gobbledygook. But while I'm here, and since you are still doing so good a job, it looks like WP:SCWGS#Remedies still has a reference to WP:ARBPIA which might be a leftover from the past. Didn't the community sanctions take over from ARBPIA on these pages? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The reference was intentional because the community sanctions were intended to mirror the ARBPIA sanctions. Perhaps we should alter the wording a bit to make it less confusing. How about "The remedies are the same as those at WP:ARBPIA" or "The remedies mirror those at WP:ARBPIA", or I'm open to other suggstions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

'The remedies mirror those of WP:ARBPIA' sounds better. If you want, you could also wikilink the phrase 'general sanctions' in the section at WP:SCWGS#Community discussion to WP:General sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is every insta-sanctions-decision always indefinitely? Oh... yeah... Peace in the Middle East.  :-/     Wonder why that is a redlink? I just got roped into helping with some allegations made by anonymous pro-Syrian bloggers that an Israeli sub with onboard nukes was sunk, and that in retaliation there was either a bunker-buster or a tactical nuke used on Syria. The story, such as it is, was picked up by Gordon Duff, and therefore technically satisfies WP:RS. I was planning to recommend putting the story into the relevant articles -- Syrian Navy and the particular sub-hardware-model-topic-article -- with the surrounding context making clear that besides blogs and Gordon, no mainstream sources carry this story, to include e.g. Syrian television et al.

  Point being, that would possibly end the low-grade edit back-n-forth to get this factoid into various places, yet still not mislead the readers about what the mainstream view is on the possibility of sunken nukes and possible counter-nukings. Editors on both sides seem reasonable, though the issue itself is of course very touchy subject-matter. So... is this win-by-yielding-jujutsu a Very Bad Idea? Or, not necessarily all that bad, if done with care? Advice and criticism welcome. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting Foreverlin before giving a chance to edit.

You deleted my page that I was currently editing. I was adding all the relevant sources needed to validate the page, and also removed all of the "promotion/un-neutral" parts of the page. Someone had tagged it, and thus I was fixing it, but you deleted it before I had appropriate chances to make the page compatible with wikipedia. And it said it was deleted because of A7, but the whole page was a history of the band Foreverlin. Blomby86 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Follow the guidelines at WP:AFC. An article shouldn't be put into article space until it's ready.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Which is why it was tagged, and why I was fixing it in a timely manner. But you deleted it before I could finish, and the reason you deleted it was false. I spent hours getting that ready just to have it deleted without time to fix it. Blomby86 (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want me to WP:USERFY it to a subpage in your user space, I will. Then, you can work on it there until you think it's ready. After that, I strongly urge you to submit to WP:AFC. And stop creating articles about the group's albums. I am deleting them per A9. They are unlikely to be notable even if the article about the group withstands an A7. I don't know if you have an affiliation with the group, but you need to slow down.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure do that. Please do that with all of my pages that you deleted. How would they not be notable if they are completely validated and referenced and even reviewed? They give the history of the albums the band released and charted on. It says a "notable" band is one that has charted nationally, and received airplay on larger stations, which they have. Blomby86 (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the article to User:Blomby86/Foreverlin. I'm not going to restore the album pages until the group article is acceptable. They're pretty short anyway, but if you want me to restore them later, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

do you have time for walking Clover1991 through WP:AFC first steps

Hello Bbb23, due to a keyboard-related tea-collision mishap, TimTrent is no longer available for this at present. You mentioned AfC; are you interested in shouldering this phase? This is the malaysian roadsweeper-n-military-6x6 person. There are now two verified WP:RS which show minor Notability, and one other they are supposed to be getting back to me on (archive-search at the malaysian newspaper is totally bogus), plus a few noteworthy-mentions. Expect the final article will be a couple short paragraphs plus an infoboxen. Note that existing text in Clover1991 sandbox suffers from SPA/COI and prolly COPYVIO, so I'd like their initial AfC submission to be just one sentence, which uninvolved editors like Tim & myself can then flesh out from the sources. Still, for their pride as a beginner I'd like Clover to have their name on the article-submit, even if they don't author most of the sentences therein.  :-)   If you have time, let me know, or better yet, just post a message about WP:AfC over on User_talk:Clover1991. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have the time to help out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No problemo, thanks for reading. If you happen to run across somebody that is flailing, I have a subsection on my talkpage called AfI (articles for improvement), feel free to stick them in there. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Như Quỳnh (actress)

Could you restore the content that was deleted here from the page Như Quỳnh (actress). Its creator persistently is justifying himself like in [5] or [6] that Quỳnh-then version explained why it passed WP:A7. Thank you for the answer. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Tbhotch, there were just a couple of Vietnamese sentences that I had translated. You want those? I don't see the point. BTW, I just quickly skimmed the talk page discussion and the CSD talk page discussion you linked to, and I don't see that you've done anything wrong. Rather, it sounds like the creator is just making rules up to suit their preferences. Nor do I think you (or I) should have to cater to their needs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Outside input on RfC format

An editor has just proposed a very vague RfC. Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#RfC. I cannot see how an RfC in this format has any chance of advancing anything but the waste of a gagillion pixels. Could you please comment and or take any appropriate actions. thank you.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've brought this up at AN/I. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe, I'm sure ANI was delighted to field another dicussion about Rupert Sheldrake. Looks like you may now be off to WP:AE. Bon voyage.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Bbbb23,

Thanks for questioning this user for me as you did here [7] especially since I know you've not always been a big fan of me. lol! I was seriously about to come down on the user for this uncalled-for tantrum literally out of nowhere here [8]. I've never even come past this user beyond his remarks on my talk page and the revert, so I've not even had any edit wars with him. I am as confused as you are. For now, I'm deleting his remarks and ignoring his uncivil trolling. If you need the remarks on my talk page for discussion with him though, please let me know and I'll gladly reinstate them. Thanks again! AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

AmericanDad86

Thanks for asking. Fairly simple to provide you with the information and I'm glad to help out.

The promotional material was (re)added most recently at the following linked oldpage of Template:Wp-diff (after having been removed by another editor) one of many times this material was added or re-inserted by the editor in question (sourced to the promotional material on the show's Web site) and removed. As before, the material was immediately reinserted by the editor in question, leading to my own edits later and my insistence that the editor pay attention to the previous reverts.

As you can tell from the history, a number of other editors have also attempted to remove this material with clear justification, and the user has reinserted it into the article repeatedly.

You can also see that in order to produce what appeared to be multiple cited references to one claim, a link was added to an external document, [9], that has nothing to do with the article.

As to the history of edits/reverts at University of Wisconsin–Whitewater by the editor in question, I have no idea beyond my own quick look at the article's history just now, although it seems to square with the behavior shown in the history of The People's Court. Seems the problem might span multiple articles. ToFeignClef (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Also interesting to note that the most recent revisions appear to include citation of a newspaper article that does not support the claims made. Perhaps more of the same found at University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, where the same reference is repeated multiple times to make it appear as though there are citations to different sources? ToFeignClef (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

ToFeignClef, you've not answered any of the questions posed to you by Bbb23 on your talk page. I'm still trying to figure out how you arrived at me forging material and only using primary sources. I achieved the sources from 3 articles, 2 of which were NOT primary sources, NONE of which are copied word for word. This source that I used [10] is not The People's Court website. Also, it does IN FACT describe Milian as "animated" and "brainy." For that reason, I'm unsure why you've accused me of using only primary sources and so obnoxiously. And as you can see by the article, I used hardly any of the same words as the author of those pieces, so where does forgery come in? Please explain! Also, there hasn't been continued reverting at The People's Court article. The one time I reinstated that material, it was changed in that I added sourcing so it wasn't a revert and it wasn't an edit war.

From what I can see, the only legitimate claim you have, ToFeignClef, is my mistakenly adding in one source I intended for another article. Still in all, your tirade wasn't even for that reason as shown by your uncivil edit summary and remarks on my talk page. As you can see by ToFeignClef's tirade here [11] and here [12], he strictly brings up primary sources, promoting and forgery.

And while we're bringing up each other's past diffs, I should bring the following diffs to your attention Bbb23. The following diffs capture ToFeignClef communicating outrageously and instigating edit wars with others not unlike how he's doing with me at the very moment. Apparently, I'm not the only one who's fallen victim to ToFeignClef unprovoked belligerence. He has a known habit of belligerence with others, as shown here [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. ToFeignClef, if this is just your thing to pick fights here at Wikipedia and act in obnoxious manners, you have chosen the wrong party to engage and I guarantee you that. Cut it and cut it now! AmericanDad86 (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing that's bothering me about ToFeignClef. I've noticed that when he disagrees with an editor, he has a tendency to make like he has page protection tools as he's always making threats like "If you do it again, I will protect this page." Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think this editor has the authority to protect articles here at Wikipedia. Yet, he makes edit summaries as though he has this authority, such as shown here [18] and here [19]. AmericanDad86 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:CITOGENESIS

The name comes from this comic. The name of which is quite memorable and unambiguous — "WP:CIRCULAR" may refer to any number of things. Keφr 09:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly one person's opinion. Perhaps some of my talk page stalkers will chime in on how "memorable" it is. Personally, I don't read comics, but I did appreciate the link. Sounds like some sort of scientific process to me, but what do I know?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Kuyi123w

Taking you back to May of this year (helpful Talk archive link), this sock appears to have re-emerged. I'm engaging in a bit of inference in the latest SSI report, here, and would appreciate any input you may have. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Delnex's use of fundoofun.com

I just saw you cleaned up an edit [20] by Delnex (talk · contribs). I just ran across this editor myself, and noticed that the sources and content he's adding probably doesn't meet WP:BLP. It also appears few if any attempts to use fundoofun.com as a source have remained in English Wikipedia.

Do you think that in general fundoofun.com is a reliable source for BLPs? --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Mary Cummins

I didn't get an email, just the talk page message. I can't imagine why she thought her user page was the only invisible one on Wikipedia. She has the skills to be a useful contributor, but seems to be spoiling for a fight most of the time, either edit-warring or promoting her company (I'll let the accusation of cyberstalking go). I've posted on her page, let me know if you think I've got the tone wrong. We will just have to see whether she is prepared to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

response

It says "sandbox." I assume that is a private area to test things. I have never seen anyone's sandbox. Our user pages are not viewable in search engines. How in the world did you even know I made an edit to my page which is one of I would think millions? Who are you? Why are you following me and watching my page? I see you deleted links to my real estate site but left the one to the non-profit. I will put the data that relates to the non-profit back. Mary Cummins (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of Warning

The sanctions page says,

Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;

What is the misconduct and how do I mend my ways? vzaak (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of the language about discretionary sanctions is not consistent. There are also some changes in the works (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review). If you look at the log of notifications (think of them as notifications or alerts as opposed to warnings), you'll see that I've notified quite a few editors who have been recently editing the Rupert Sheldrake article, mainly because that article has generated a fair amount of heat. I didn't single you out. That said, one thing I would recommend is that you revert less frequently. Unlike some topic areas, the article is not subject to WP:1RR, but frequent reverts in a short space of time can be considered disruptive in an article subject to discretionary sanctions. You have reverted three times today. I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean. I removed unsourced statements in a BLP and I removed a joke about dildos in a BLP. Please tell me which specific edits are misconduct. vzaak (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your joke removal was one of two consecutive edits (I don't count it), the other one of which was a revert. None of the reverts I am counting would be exempt as WP:BLP violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me which specific edits are misconduct. I want to correct my misconduct, however I cannot do that if it is not specified what my misconduct is. vzaak (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I never used the word "misconduct"; you keep using that label. I said above, "frequent reverts in a short space of time can be considered disruptive in an article subject to discretionary sanctions." You tell me which of your edits were reverts. Read the policy carefully first.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am using the terminology in Discretionary sanctions,

Discretionary sanctions are a fast-track procedure to tackle misconduct within defined topic areas and/or to prevent disputes from within the defined topic area overflowing freely into other areas of the encyclopedia;

Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;

Please tell me specifically which edits indicate misconduct to you. You say that I am reverting, but the removal of dildo jokes and unsourced content in a BLP are a sign of good conduct, not misconduct. vzaak (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm done here. You'll have to seek help somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrative action

Hi Bbb23, Thanks for giving me a talkpage notice of your concern at Rupert Sheldrake. I notice that today you only contacted myself and User:Vzaak of discretionary sanctions: [21] which immediately appears to be an intimidation tactic since you are not involved in refereeing the actual article or content of the talkpage in question. Your remarks on my user talkpage also did not include evidence that my edits were actually reverts. This is at the very least indicative of incompetence and, at worst, a further sign of your lack of objectivity in this matter.

I am also a little concerned that you may be singling out people on the basis of your acknowledged rigid interpretation of WP:BLP which was a primary concern of those who opposed your request for adminship: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bbb23#Oppose including such notable content workers as User:Hipocrite and User:DGG.

I believe that your involvement as an administrator in the controversies surrounding Rupert Sheldrake may, therefore, be imprudent at this time and ask that you remove yourself from further action on these articles.

jps (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, you left a message on my homepage saying I had reverted three times today and this is forbidden. I think you must be mistaken. I have only made five edits to that article in total: one was to fix a typo, 2 were new content added by me, and two other edits where I undid changes to the article because the previous version better covered the issues at hand. I am therefore unsure what you mean by "revert". I can't imagine it simply means edits since others have made many edits to that page in the space of 1 day. Grateful if you could clarify. Thanks.Barleybannocks (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read the definition of revert at WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is only moderately helpful, Bbb23. You should at the very least provide some diffs and explain what was a revert. You may be correct that myself and others are guilty of reverting many times, but we cannot figure out how you came to this conclusion if you don't present your evidence and analysis. Simply quoting policy is rather a cop-out. jps (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 I have now read the policy but I believe you have miscounted. Grateful if you clarify which edits you are counting as the three reverts as I can only see two. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

#1; #2; and #3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

How do numbers one and two count as reverts? The third I understand, but the first two are surely just straightforward changes to wording (newly written by me at the time of those edits). Barleybannocks (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the definition: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." In each of the first two reverts you changed other editors' wording.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

But that's going to cover almost every change anyone ever makes with the exception of wholly new material. That can't be the actual intention of the rule! Barleybannocks (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it is. Normally, editors don't make that many changes in a 24-hour window, so the issue of breaching WP:3RR (requires four reverts) or even just plain edit warring (which is more discretionary) doesn't arise. Also, administrators have the discretion not to count certain technical reverts. So, for example, if you did a minor copy edit, that probably wouldn't count. Your first two reverts here were actually quite substantive. They truly changed the meaning of the material. If someone had filed a report against you, I would certainly count them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you suppose the rule is called "revert"? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revert Would it not make sense to change the name to the three change rule if that's what it means?Barleybannocks (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Heh, the word is deeply imbedded in the culture here. Some people think that 3RR should be changed to 4RR because you have to revert four times to breach the rule, but that's unlikely to ever happen, either. At least now you understand it better I hope, even if you don't like it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if the mention of my name was intended to bring me hereto comment, but since I have now looked at the recents edits to the article, the substance of Vzaak's recent edits to this article have, in my opinion, been consistently in the spirit of the pseudoscience policy, wholly constructive, and exceptionally helpful. I am quite impressed by his resolution of the dispute over the lede paragraph, which is always a tricky matter in this subject.

Barleybannock's work has also been constructive, and in accordance with psseudoscience policy. I agree that the 2nd and 3rd edits above are similar, so I see it as 2 RR, but I cannot see it as unequivocally wrong to call it 3RR. One of the reasons I dislike arbitrary rules is because then we get involved in quibbling over the definitions.

However, it is AE policy that the placement of a warning is a purely informational matter, and not enforcement, and therefore cannot be appealed . While in my opinion using discretionary sanctions against either editor would be an misuse of discretion, placing the notice is not. Let's keep this in proportion. And, FWIW, any prior disagreements between me and Bbb are quite besides the point. Each action is judged in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

A plea for a reconsideration of your policy re talk page use

I am worried what I am about to say will sound like I'm on a high horse, but I have strong feelings about requests to stay off a talk page. They are motivated by intense experiences in another forum, not here, but my antipathy to talk page restrictions applies here as well. I'm generally not in favor of any such restriction, although open to the possibility that some particular fact circumstance might persuade me otherwise in some cases. (I've seen many such requests; I've yet to see one I feel is warranted)

However, I feel more strongly in the case of admins. While many editors are fond of claiming that admins and non-admins are under the same set of rules, I agree, while not ant he same way. I think when we sign up to be admins we have to agree to put up with some things that non-admins don't have to accept. One of the things we have to accept is that editors will have a need to communicate with admins, and we need to be responsive. This is doubly true when posts are about an admin action involving the editor. We tell editors they should be dealing with the involved admin before bringing something to AN or ANI, and frankly, it is a bit annoying to see a thread on AN precisely because the involved editor was asked to stay off your talk page.

I haven't yet reviewed the merits of the charges, and deliberately did not, so I could share (vent?) my feelings without the taint of the specific case. I urge you to reconsider your policy of requesting that any editor stay off your talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sphilbrick, I've responded briefly to the issue in this case at WP:AN. See if that sufficiently explains it for you - not whether you agree with me, just whether it's enough for you to understand my viewpoint. If not, we can have a broader discussion about the issue later. I'd prefer to wait until the AN thread runs its course, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've read through the AN discussion. Which reminds me I'm not pulling my weight when it comes to discretionary sanctions, and I need to do more. You did a nice job explaining your actions, and it look like things are improving in some cases. That said, I didn't see you address the request not to post on a talkpage, which is why it ended up at AN. Not a major deal, I've expressed my opinion, but if you have a different one, I don't see it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That new notification thing

I was contacted offwiki by someone who is not Wikipedia literate but knows that I am to do something regarding something you may have done. My contractor is not, to my knowledge, an editor of Wikipedia, and is not jps, who is unaware that I am writing this. The offsite locus of interaction is RationalWiki, and the reason I was contacted is because I am mentioned above as someone who pooped on your RFA, and it is very public that I think that the pseudoscience that whacko loons are free to defend on this pathetic excuse for an encyclopedia is revolting. Congratulations for wading in a cesspit - it takes far more guts than I have to argue with fools without also retaining the ability to blatantly abuse my authority to get rid of them. That's why I left this place, and why I'm only returning to do this as a favor to one of my fellow Rationalwikians who is interested merely in rebutting Sheldrake, and is involved in Wikipedia as a reader only, to my knowledge. Not only that, but I'm logging out after this (well, I might RVVANDALIZE something, first), so you are DEFINITELY getting the last word.

In [22], jps changes "Other scientists," to "Scientists and skeptics." Could you explain to me how this was a revert? What editor action in reverted/what earlier version was reverted to? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hey Bbb23, would like to point out that 174.125.71.54 looks like a clear sock puppet of User:Black60dragon. I changed his service award to the correct one upon him being blocked, and the one thing he always does at a different IP address' is change it back to the false one he had up before. Maybe a extension on his block should also be appropriate, since this is definitely not his first time doing this. STATic message me! 04:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

He's not blocked, so there's nothing to "extend". His block expired on November 8, and he hasn't edited logged in since before he was blocked. I agree that the two IPs are probably the same person, but I think you should take this to JamesBWatson as he's been handling all of this.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, I saw you reverted the IP and I knew you were an administrator, so that is why I brought it your attention. But, I was unaware the account was no longer blocked, he had got so many extensions due to sockpuppetry I lost track. Anyways, if he is no longer blocked no action is needed, but thanks for the attention. Regards, STATic message me! 05:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)