Jump to content

User talk:Bbb23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ephestion (talk | contribs) at 16:40, 24 January 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Caution
  • 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.

Xmas card

Fiddle Faddleis wishing you a Merry Christmas (quite possibly a White Christmas.

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!

Holiday wishes!
Bbb23, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays!

I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Wikipedia together! Keep rocking on! :)

  • Salvidrim!, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all!

AirHelp

Hi. You deleted my entry on AirHelp and I wondered if I could have your input as to whether I can put it back up, or what I should do to make it more acceptable to the editors! This is a worthy company currently in high secrecy talks with one of the top Silicon Valley funds, and with the Skype seed investor Morten Lund as an official backer. I will strive to be balanced and impartial, to acknowledge competitors and possible drawbacks of the service etc. It is not an attempt to advertise and I have no commercial stake in this company. However, it is a venture that merits public note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbentolila (talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article for two reasons. First, it made no credible claim of significance. All it did was describe what the company does. Second, it was blatantly promotional both in content and style. It doesn't matter whether the company "merits public note". It matters whether it is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. If you want to try again, I suggest you go through WP:AFC rather than attempting to move the article directly into article space. In that way you'll get feedback from more experienced editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I sometimes go a bit over my head when editing my favorite Wiki pages. Apologies for any inconvenience to those who worked so hard to create those pages. That's what the sandbox is for, and I keep forgetting it's there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLMnovelli (talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology. Perhaps you should move just a bit more slowly to avoid making mistakes.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologizes for the misguided reporting...

...but thanks for a keeping an eye on things. Zero Serenity (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

Hello there, I see recently you deleted the Gary O'Neill page I contributed.

I ask you kindly what would I need to change/add to make this page suitable for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebsiteTalent (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to establish notability per Wikipedia's guidelines, including secondary sources, and eliminate the promotional tone. I also suggest that you do it through WP:AFC where you'll get feedback from more experienced editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*headdesk* Thanks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani at ANI

You really cut through the fog there and just did the right thing; not too much, not too little, but just right. People complain a lot about administrators around here, and I've done my share of that, so it's important to compliment them too. Good work and thank you for doing it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the kind words, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality reversion

Hello Bbb23. You beat me to it on that one. I was going to use WP:IRS and WP:UNDUE as reasons for removal.
I'd like also to take this opportunity to apologise for flouncing out of the talk page discussion at that page several months ago, if you remember? I know you weren't directly involved, but it might have been a bit like watching 2 people having an argument and feeling uncomfortable as a result, and I apologise for that. I hadn't prepared myself for how sensitive I would be around the subject matter. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bbb23: Where does that documentation belong? Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight suggests a "see also." Please realize that the subject matter that you deleted is a fact. It is fact that a book contains the referenced quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusteltu (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't belong anywhere in the article. It's not noteworthy, needs better sourcing (a 1958 book?), and doesn't merit its own section (with a non-neutral header). Also, the thing about Mattachine is WP:COATRACKy and cannot be sourced to Wikipedia as you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be noteworthy because Russia, once communist, is not allowing the alleged communist goal you deleted, "26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as 'normal, natural, healthy,'" to happen in Russia. Thus, if I find more recent sourcing for the material asserted in the book, where would the "see also" subsection go? I am thinking that it could go under discrimination because, if the book's assertion is true, then those who self-identify as "homosexuals" would be being used as pawns. Thank you for the guidance about sources, coatracks, and the header. The header at Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Anti-government_patriot_groups is non-neutral. The section itself is, but that section's header does not reflect the neutrality expressed in the section. That is why I thought that the header did not have be non-neutral if the section itself is neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusteltu (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion of Mike Pronovost

Hey Bbb23. Sorry, I have no idea how to contribute to Wikipedia. Is this subject notable enough to stay or is there some other way I should go about requesting that this page get deleted? I used that speedy deletion template improperly, didn't I? I was pretty confident the page would qualify, and obviously this page irritated me a bit. I am currently trying to request deletion in a more appropriate way. If I am doing something wrong, please correct me. 96.19.154.217 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a mess. Now it's less of a mess. I removed the prod tag because you shouldn't be claiming the service is "fake", not without evidence of that. The best way to propose that the article be deleted is through WP:AFD. However, because you don't have an account, it's more complicated, so be sure to follow the instructions. As for whether I personally think he's notable, on the face of it, it's borderline, but I didn't do any research (see WP:BEFORE) to determine if there are other sources out there that would support his notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for that detailed response! I have created an account to simplify this process. Although I disagree for a few reasons, I will create an AFD and wait before submitting another propdel which will either omit the accusation of a fake service or have some evidence. ( I trust your judgement as an administrator over mine as to how this should be treated, especially because it is a biographical article. ) My biggest concern is that I feel it will be impossible for me to get this article deleted, even if it deserves deletion. Note that I'm not accusing powerband of being a fraud; I don't think it collects any money at all. It doesn't offer its service to individual residencies, which makes it much harder to prove that it doesn't do anything. Whittledaughn (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on creating an account. If you nominate the article for deletion, there's no need to WP:PROD it as well. Just be aware that AfD discussions can be contentious, so hopefully you have a thick skin.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible proposal to redirect people searching for Java

Hi Bbb23. Can you give your opinion on a recent addition I made to the Java talk page here. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section in your link doesn't exist anymore, but I'm assuming you're talking about the requested move. Someone will eventually close the discussion, not sure why you're (apparently?) asking me to do so rather than it take its place in line.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritmeyer

A user has complained on WP:ANI that this article was deleted per WP:A7. This says the criterion does not apply " to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." A search on google shows that the article said: "Ritmeyer is a prominent niche piano company, known for making pianos of ...". Clearly the article did make a claim of significance and should not have been deleted per WP:A7. I believe the article to have been tagged by an inexperienced used who has been reported to Ani for his disruptive tagging and would ask that you undelete this article. Op47 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen articles tagged that shouldn't be and articles tagged with the wrong tags. I evaluate articles on their merits. In this instance, the tag was good, and the deletion was sound (no pun intended). If the the phrase you quote were all it took to get past an A7, almost any article with a small, non-specific bit of puffery would do so. I have no opinion on whether the company is actually notable. I've never heard of them, but that doesn't mean much.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
==Deletion review for Ritmeyer==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ritmeyer. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Elena Kagan

Given the "has never married" business has already been "litigated" and that you don't like it either, I won't quibble with that part of the reversion. (I do note, for the record, I think it's subjective and somewhat pejorative on its face.)

The reason I edited the punctuation is that some sentences in the section have periods outside the quotations while others have the periods inside. There are generally two styles of quotation punctuation -- inside (the US style) and outside (the Commonwealth style) -- so arguably the article should be one or the other but not indiscriminately both. Or is it just so hopeless a task to corral the two styles into one acceptable style, even within any one given article because it's the product of many hands, that an editor should not even bother? Siberian Husky (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use either American or Commonwealth style. See WP:MOSLQ for Wikipedia style. If there are instances where that guideline is violated, you should change the article accordingly.
As for the married/children bit, I objected to saying that she isn't married and doesn't have children period. I think statements of negatives like that are inherently problematic. We say when someone is married or does have children; I almost never see a statement that they are/do not. I was outvoted, as I recall. This happened some time ago, so my memory of the exact facts might be off.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unobtainium

[1] Apologies - I don't think I've ever forgotten to inform editors before now. Not sure why I missed both parties this time round. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. Don't fret about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Camm

Hi, I saw that you removed my edits on the David Camm article because of the style. Could we compromise on the style or work on some edits that might bring the style to what you believe it should be? I feel the additions bring a lot of important information and help the reader understand the depth of the case. Bali88 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I am new to wikipedia and have a couple of questions. Why did you delete my Jeffersontown Fire Department page (by the way I put it back up because i didn't think it had any need to be deleted) and I am trying to find how I flag something for deletion and actually delete pages like you do. -Nascarman1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascarman1 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete the article, although I could have. I redirected it. You have been creating very bad articles. It's surprising that more of them have not been deleted. You are inexperienced and shouldn't be creating articles and moving them directly into article space. If you really want to learn how to create articles, then read up more about it and use WP:AFC.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contest speedy deletion

You deleted the article Yi In-sang. Unfortunately by the time I received notification that this was proposed for deletion, it had already been deleted. It is unclear why this qualified for a speedy deletion. Yi In-sang was a 18th century Korean painter, whose paintings are in museums / galleries and has been documented in literature. Can you please restore, or inform me why it shouldn't be? Thanks. Keithh (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article didn't say any of that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out this page was duped by another with an alternate spelling, and that one is still available, so I guess the matter is closed. Thanks. Keithh (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

putin

tataral keep edit warring over inserting the mafia state nonsense/false information, can you please do something about it Kalix94 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the issue of the edit war currently going on and the previous consensus, one of your edits appeared to me to be pure vandalism ([2]).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Putin article history show a similarly bizarre chaining of self-reverts as previously reported in this SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chaosname/Archive#05_June_2013. WP:DUCK if ever I saw one. How long is this CU going to take, he is now disruptively editing the Nazi Germany article. --Nug (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CUs regularly monitor WP:SPI. There's nothing I can do to speed up the process. You can always add mor evidence to the SPI, though, although I suggest when you make statements like the one above that you provide comparison diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring incident follow-up

Hi, Bbb23. I'm writing with reference to an edit warring incident report I filed against an IP user at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive233#User:50.138.249.164 reported by User:Wikipedical (Result: Warned). You warned the IP at User talk:50.138.249.164#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion. Since that warning, the IP repeated its edit at [3]. Hope you can follow up on this. Thanks very much. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for one week. It's longer than usual for a first-time block, but given the sporadic nature of the IP's appearances here, I don't see how a shorter block would accomplish much. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my article on PS4 EMX

I noticed that you deleted my article, despite it being identitical to the page reserved for RPCS3.

RPCS3 is an unfinished project that stands to have an article, yet you deleted mine immediately, despite them both being projects in the works. The RPCS3 PS3 emulator can't even emulate PS3 games so, technically, it's not even what it claims to be. As of now it's only trying to emulate graphics primitives, but can't and is nowhere near being able to play commercial games. Ergo, it shouldn't have an article. So I ask if you are willing to delete it, why you deleted my article, and what your intentions are.

Your article, which was tiny, had nothing in it to indicate significance. However, if it makes you "happy", I've now deleted RPCS3 as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my page: Workmen's Auto Insurance

Hi,

I just got back from vacation and I saw that you deleted the page that I'd been working on. I would like to know what your reason is because I decided to create this page because of many reasons, one of them being that the 1st owner was the same person that created Kelly Blue Book (and wikipedia has a page about them) and now the owners are people well known in Downtown LA (two of them have small pages); which I interviewed to get accurate information and something different that what you can see online. The idea of this page is also because a lot of people confuses Worker's Compensation with Workmen's Auto Insurance and you can't find anywhere any explanation, differentiation about them.

I do not feel that the deletion is fair and I will like to know what can I do to change your mind.

Thanks and I look forward to hear from you soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangonca (talk • contribs) 23:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article for lack of significance and because of its promotional style. However, if you wish, I'm willing to WP:USERFY it for you. Then, I would suggest working on it to at least reduce some of the stylistic problems. Sentences like "Workmen’s decided to expand beyond California at this point so as not to have all its eggs in the California insurance market basket" are not encyclopedic. I would also cut back on the extensive material about its owners. Additionally, I'd add secondary sources. Finally, once you get it into better shape, you should submit it to WP:AFC to obtain feedback from more experienced editors rather than restoring it directly to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your fast reply! That's great news!! Yes I'll do all you are telling me so that the article becomes Wikipedia appropriate. Quick question how can I get back the article so that I can work on it, I didn't save it anywhere? Or do I have to start from scratch?--Sangonca (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed the most recent, although slightly altered per WP:USERFY, version at User:Sangonca/Workmen's Auto Insurance for you to work on.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove comment

Nascarman1 asked you not to post on their talk page [4], so please remove your comment. NE Ent 02:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Testing of 3RR board changes is now open in my Sandbox

Please see User:EdJohnston/Sandbox#What this page is for. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I tested it and it worked, but I had to guess at certain things despite your instructions. So, let me clarify. I have to put the block template on the EW report before I click on Permalink and then block them. Otherwise, the permalink will point to an incomplete report. So, in a sense, I have to lie in a small way by saying I blocked the user when I'm really about to block the user. Is that right?
If I'm right, then you should amend your instructions in a few ways: (1) include something about putting in the AN3 block template first; (2) include something about clicking on permalink and when; (3) (nit) the language you quote should be "Click here to create a new report" - you have it slightly wrong.
Feel free to remove my test from your sandbox. I left it there just in case you needed to see it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I updated the instructions accordingly. My 'work flow' is usually to save the 3RR report I'm trying to close (with the action filled in) and then get around to whatever I said I would do. If you follow a different routine then I can see it might be inconvenient to have to save the report first. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, my flow is different. Same kind of thing when I block based on sanctions. I block first and then update the log after. However, I do like the permalink concept, so I may sacrifice my precious routine to include it in the block log of the user. Assuming I remember ...--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP tag

Regarding [5]. This one has just been blocked for two years (as sock), so why shouldn't it be tagged? Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual to block an IP for two years, but, regardless of that, let the administrator who blocked the IP decide whether they should be tagged. It is conventionally unusual even for a named account to be tagged as a sock unless the account is blocked indefinitely. It is even more unusual for an IP to be tagged under any circumstances, although I know it's sometimes done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DemirBajraktarevic block evasion

Hello. It seems quite obvious that indef blocked User:DemirBajraktarevic is evading block using this IP adress Special:Contributions/71.83.239.189. Same articles, same arguments, same pattern of edi-warring. What to do? Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for two weeks. It's apparently a dynamic IP, though, and more may come out of the woodwork. Just let me know if you see new ones. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Sasha coen

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sasha coen. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add "

" To https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stavros_Damianides_Hyde_Park_Festival,_Channel_9_Stage.png

It is my photo and I grant fair use for the proposed article. But I can't seem to edit the info on the page for some reason. Can you please add the copyright info? Ephestion (C) 2014 owner grants fair use for the article Stavros Damianides. Or tell me how via my talk page. Thanks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=592192304"