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 Crisco 1492 (talk | contribs) at 13:59, 26 October 2014 (→‎"Hail Hydra!": fix). 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.

Deletion

Hello. This is Jayson37373737. you deleted my page for no reason. That was my loveliest work! For this, I am going to try to delete my account and start a new website. Thank you. Jayson3737373737 11:08, 17 August 2014 (GMC)

Galerie Gmurzynska

Thanks for taking care of matters on Galerie Gmurzynska.

Given the length of protection, and given that the current state of the article is that the lede is mostly made about talking about them being investigated (and given that the article does discuss the ownership of the Galerie, and thus this becomes a WP:BLP issue), I wonder if it might be wise to cut this down to a stub for now, rather than leaving it in this state. (Please note that I have neither been editing either for the all-promo version or the all-attack version; this isn't so much a WP:WRONGVERSION matter as a BLP concern.) Not being an admin, I cannot make this edit myself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nat, I don't see it as that big a problem that it requires removal. Mostly it's about problems with the gallery rather than the owner. The owner would be posssibly involved by implication. Still, I understand your concern, so I have two suggestions. One is to make an edit request on the talk page and let another admin evaluate it. The other is to take it to BLPN. If there is a consensus for removal, I would be willing to remove it at that point.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the recommendation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bbb23, every gallery that has a decade long history, has some disputes and legal cases to resolve during that history, similar to any company. Nevertheless, galleries are exhibiting and presenting art to the public and also selling art to collectors as well as working together with artists, estates and museums, giving out loans for small exhibitions and sometimes very important retrospectives. The question, would be, why an encyclopaedic article has to deal almost solely and primarily with unverified facts and having its foundational based completely on legal cases? Without writing any facts about its exhibitions throughout decades, including important catalogs, museum shows and discoveries that has been made by a gallery. Users like Grammophone create their account on the sole purpose of discrediting work of others being an SPA to edit everything related to Galerie Gmurzynska. If one will look at Grammophone's (talk) contribs, these are only based on the articles Yves Klein, Nikolai Khardzhiev and Galerie Gmurzynska with the sole purpose to modify anything related to the gallery, discredit it and shed negative light on some persons associated with it. Thus, I would like to propose, to delete all for an encyclopaedia irrelevant information and *stubify* the article with short and simple neutral information, when it was founded, what it shows and where it is, as also proposed by Nat Gertler (talk). Furthermore, I do not understand why Grammophone for example deletes all the neutral sources I have added before, like the representation of the estates or the catalog of Burliuk's exhibition in 1966. I do not think that the purpose of this version is an encyclopaedic one. Art&Design3000 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being "unverified", the facts in this article are all taken from publicly available sources, mostly major international newspapers such as the Telegraph and the New York Times. The gallery and its own representatives are themselves quoted in some of these. I would argue that this history is certainly not "similar to any company" or art gallery, but a unique part of the history of Galerie Gmurzynska. (If the published articles are wrong in their facts it is for Gmurzynska to take action against those publications; if the incidents described are unremarkable and happen to all galleries, there is no need to suppress them). Art&Design3000 seems to regard Wikipedia as a vehicle for self-promotion. It is strange that a supposedly "independent" editor insists on using promotional material, but thinks that the smuggling of a major Russian archive and a raid by customs authority in relation to an alleged 7M Swiss francs VAT evasion is not significant and should be kept hidden. The various activities of the gallery are documented in a neutral way, without authorial opinion, with most of the content taking the form of quotations from the cited sources. As a suggestion of how to resolve the "edit warring", I leave it to administrators to decide what is and is not significant in this history, and whether they want to add some of what strikes this author as promotional material to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammophone (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention on this matter Bbb23. I note that this organization is once again using multiple IP addresses to restore its own self-promotional version of this page and to suppress publicly available, widely-documented material about its history. I have taken on board your comments and edited to produce a version which does not lead with the current VAT evasion case and which includes a reasonable version of the other side of the "edit warring". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammophone (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Grammophone and Art&Design3000, both of you have reverted twice on October 21. Consider this your only warning. If either of you reverts again, you risk being blocked without notice. Please take the discussion to the talk page (there's already a topic and a suggested tentative solution). Art&Design3000 has commented, but Grammophone has not yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persib Bandung

Hi, Can you change this page move to semi-protected? Thankyou. (Tommy (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I semi-protected the page before you posted here. It will be semi-protected for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but i think not yet, can you move to semi-protected page forever? Example such as Inter Milan. Thankyou (Tommy (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

No, there's no justification for such extended protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No, there's no justification for such extended protection." ? Not that. I mean, move to semi-protected like pages Inter Milan. (Tommy (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, but I apparently don't understand you. Regardless of how Inter Milan was protected, the effect is that it's permanently semi-protected. Again, that's not justified for the Persib Bandung article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem the effect is that it's permanently semi-protected. And why not justified for the Persib Bandung article? I hope you want to move to semi-protected. Thankyou-- Tommy (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first time the article's ever been protected, and the disruption is not sufficient to justify permanent protection. And I think that ends this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somaliland

Do you mind doing something about his latest edit on the Somaliland page as it's source misrepresentation and POV? None of his sources mention that 50,000 people died (even then the number is disputed) and the only article that even mentions "indiscriminate" is a partisan website. This edit is also what broke 3RR and the image that he never received consensus for. I would also like ask you to look back at the 3RR Noticeboard for my most recent reply and that of Middayexpress. Other than that, I greatly thank you for your assistance! AcidSnow (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to neutralize it. However, some sources do give a 50,000 figure, but it's often partisan and/or non-specialist ones. I think the number should be sorted out on the talk page. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I left it alone because I thought it was actually mentioned on the BBC article but it turns out it was not. I have gone and removed that part since it's unsourced. AcidSnow (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Some weeks ago, I was involved in an editing dispute with @Lugnuts: which resulted in a EWN report, and the requirement by yourself and @EdJohnston: that I enter into dispute resolution or be blocked. The intervening time has been caused primarily by medical necessity and family obligations, but also, I confess, by a certain amount of procrastination and avoidance of an unpleasant task. I've done very little editing in the meantime, but I have thought about the issues involved in the specific conflict, and the situation in general. Since I'm not certain that I have the energy to participate in a drawn-out formal RfC, I'd like instead to offer a compromise.

The issue at hand concerns the formatting of Reference or Notes sections. I would like to suggest as a compromise a pledge on my part that I will no longer add the sub-heading "Notes" to a References section in which there are no other sub-headings, such as "Bibliography" or whatever. I will also, in general, try harder to not get caught up in edit-warring.

I will monitor your talk page for comments on my proposal. BMK (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to hear first from Lugnuts. More important, I hope you're well or at least on the mend.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I would like to suggest as a compromise a pledge on my part that I will no longer add the sub-heading "Notes" to a References section in which there are no other sub-headings, such as "Bibliography" or whatever. I will also, in general, try harder to not get caught up in edit-warring" Sounds good to me. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"More important, I hope you're well or at least on the mend." Yes, thank you, I am "in process": two steps forward and one step back, but hail and hearty for the most part. BMK (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above statement from User:Beyond My Ken appears to fulfil his promise in the 3RR complaint of 20 September. He is agreeing now that "I will no longer add the sub-heading "Notes" to a References section in which there are no other sub-headings, such as "Bibliography" or whatever." My understanding is that this agreement would be enforceable by admins. Others who commented in the same 3RR report say that BMK has sometimes actively reverted page format to make changes that he considers improvements but may not be considered so by others. I don't know if that part of the dispute is fully resolved. Others who commented in the original 3RR report were User:Glrx and User:Betty Logan. I have pinged them in case they wish to add anything. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin EdJohnston's statement "My understanding in that this agreement would be enforceable by admins" is totally unnecessary, as in 9+ years here I have never gone back on a pledge to change my editing behavior.
  • Admin EdJohnston's pinging of uninvolved editors to comment on other issues outside of the specific issue involved in the EWN report, after the filer of the report has agreed to closure, appears to be an attempt to turn this discussion into an unofficial RfC/U, when he is fully aware that I am unwilling to participate in an official RfC/U.
  • For the edification of admin EdJohnston, user Betty Logan has been a constant critic of mine ever since I filed an SPI which showed that he or she was a sockpuppet of user WalterMitty and user Melody Perkins. CheckUser data was stale, but to me the behavioral evidence was conclusive. The closing admin disgareed, calling it "suggestive but not conclusive" and declined to block because he found no disruptive behavior in Betty Logan's editing. Since then, any time my name come up, Betty Logan is certain to pop up and give her spiel.
  • Given these factors, I request that admin EdJohnston block me for the edit warring complaint the amount of time he was considering doing then, in spite of the intervening time period, which was of my own making. I will still stand by my pledge, but I cannot stand by when my honesty, integrity and honor is impugned, and an admin attempts to turn a legitimate discussion into a kangaroo court. BMK (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're overreacting, BMK. I would have been okay with just your representation and Lugnuts's agreement, but there's no harm if the other two editors want to comment. It doesn't mean that I'll accept whatever they say at face value. Plus, I can't imagine it does you any good health-wise to get all riled up, and it's not worth it anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I did overreact -- I am, after all, human. Nevertheless, it remains true that a good admin will help to solve problems and not aggravate them, which was the case with EdJohnston's comment here. BMK (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not permitted to be human, BMK; this is Wikipedia. :-) Don't fret about it. Ed, who is one of my favorite administrators, was just being thorough. It's not a big deal.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything to add to the above except that I hope both editors successfully refrain from edit warring. Glrx (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will do my best. BMK (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adjutor101

Of course this edit[1] was not a revert, he just added back the removed information, with some more unreliable citations.

Philknight may have discovered the legal threats, see [2] and Fine (penalty). Cannot be found in the present version, as he has removed the warning, block notice, unblock request, and the question. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean that the edit was a revert. I agree now that I've looked back. Doug removed that section in the edit before. I added a note at AN3 for the record. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basically it was, as it violated the guidelines of editing. Thanks for adding the note. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result on edit warring removed

The result you added here was removed. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was restored by another administrator. The IP who removed it is the same person who reported you. They're just editing from a different address. For the moment, I haven't blocked either of the two addresses, but please let me know if they become disruptive. Also, in the future, it would be best to give me the diff of the removal, not a link to the section. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry for giving the link. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice and assistance needed

Hi Bbb23, User:MILH, a single purpose editor with 335 edits, has a history of continuous disruption, edit warring and personal attacks going back to 2006. Over the past month they have levied more than a dozen personal attacks at User:Lfrankbalm who then came to me, via my user page, asking for help. The whole story is outlined very clearly with diffs on User:MILH's talk page beginning with this warning in 2006, continuing with your warning in July 2014, a warning by User:Robert McClenon on Sept 29, a warning from User:Ukexpat on Oct 17th and concluding with my warnings of the past 10 days.[3] Don't be fooled by MILH's complaints about content abuse as all editors active on the Gonzalo Lira article talk page have uniformly supported my editing and clean up of the article which was yesterday nominated for deletion by an uninvolved editor. So far all !votes are for deletion of the article despite my best efforts to add reliable secondary sources and highlight the substandard sources used by MILH. If you think I should file at WP:ANI about the long standing behavioral issue then I will do so, but I feel the situation is so clear cut that it can be handled by a single Admin and we can avoid the drama of ANI. If I'm wrong please let me know and I'll do what needs to be done. Thanks for your time and attention. I await your sage advice. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keithbob, I'm going to need some recent diffs of clearly disruptive or attacking behavior. Some of the comments he's made in the past are obviously personal attacks, but they're not recent enough. Some of the later ones you listed on his talk page may be unpleasant, but they don't rise to the kind of personal attacks that most think are sanctionable, particularly in the context of an AfD, which is often, unfortunately rowdy, and, after all, he did create the article, so he's unfortunately bound to take it personally. I have no idea, btw, what his interest in that article is; it seems odd to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bbb23, Thanks for taking the time to look at the situation. Just to clarify, all of the diffs I've provided on the User's talk page are before the AfD started so that is not a factor. I'm not even sure the offending editor is even aware of the AfD yet, as they have not commented there. I respect your opinion as an experienced admin but as a veteran contributor I'm dismayed that such a long standing pattern of edit warring, attacks and harassment (despite numerous warnings) is allowed to continue unabated. This user only has 315 edits and at least 10% of them violate one or more of these: WP:NPA, WP:WAR and WP:TALK. As you know WP:HARASS "is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Would you consider at least placing a final warning on the user's talk page? Thanks again for your time. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a new editor, it was quite an unfortunate experience, to encounter a situation on a minor edit that was totally intractable. My goal with the Lira entry was to make edits to fact and to restore NPOV, these were minor edits as envisioned. I was going to do so anonymously with an IP address; but every minor edit was met with bad faith (to say the least). I decided to create an identity so I could escalate the issues and concerns within a complex process which I did not understand. The issues and concerns were with content (I went to great lengths on Talk not knowing how/what Talk was only to find that I was dealing with bad faith) so it became quite clear that the issues were with a person owning an entry MILH. It took some time for the facts in this matter to become clear. Without question the behavior of the individual in question discourages my efforts as a new editor. This is one of the major reasons by growth in the Wikipedia community has become stunted. I have gone on to edit some very significant pages, both unilaterally, and in partnership cooperation and concurrence with other users as it should be and without incident of any kind. Please know that no doubt whatsoever exists the behavior of User:MILH cannot be tolerated here. It has taken volumes of effort by many administrators-arbitrators-editors to work around intractable and intolerable behavior. How much effort must be made on simple edits on non-controversial subjects of little merit to work around abhorrent behavior? I have to thank Keithbob for working on this issue and concern, which unfortunately has more to do with errant person acting egregiously than the original issue. --Lfrankblam 02:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello Please unlock the Mackenzie Ziegler page, to move Mack Z to these side. Thanks --Maintrance -- 11.52 October 22, 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maintrance (talk • contribs)

Aight 2009

I wonder if you might reconsider this 3RR complaint: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Aight 2009 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Stale). I've detailed why on that page. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

= Bonnano Crime Family =

In the history of the Bonnano crime family, it clearly states that Salvatore Bonnano founded the Castellammarese Clan in America in the early 1900s and was succeeded by Stefano Magaddino. Salvatore Maranzano was not around, nor in the country at this time so how could he have founded the Bonnano Family. Also at the time Maranzano came in power, which was around 1930, Nicolo Schiro was boss of the family and left it to Maranzano in fear of Giuseppe Masseria. All facts which are stated in the history of the Bonnano family at the bottom of the page. I clearly was trying to correct a wrong, not vandalize any information. Because as of now the page is wrong, the family was around long before Maranzano. The fact that I will be sanctioned for providing a good service is absurd, and I will reframe from helping out any further. Madeguy1931 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC) madeguy1931[reply]

Request for your professional review

Dear friend, there is currently a discussion on interpretation of the sanction warning policy within the framework of WP:SCWGS topic sanctions. Since me and you were pretty much among the initiators of the sanction tools (me as proposing editor and you as administrator), i would very much like your input at this discussion. Apparently several non-administrator users began issuing warnings and logging them officially at WP:SCWGS (including warning me), with no violations of 1RR and no WP:ANI procedures, which seemed to me very awkward. Up until 9 October 2014, only administrators (including you) had been issuing warnings and logging them - usually as a result of misconduct such as disruptive editing or edit-warring. However, some editors suddenly decided that official warnings are "free" and began delivering them with no control (and no reason). I assume you would agree that being officially warned and logged at WP:SCWGS is pretty much significant, because a warning is a kind of black listing, and once i remember that you cleared my log, when i was incorrectly added there last year.GreyShark (dibra) 21:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Civil War general sanctions

Hey Bbb23. You closed the community discussion which enacted the SCW general sanctions. When you did so, you said that they would mirror Arbcom's discretionary sanctions (if I recall correctly). The notices for Arbcom's DS can be issued by anyone, currently. This has led to a discussion at WP:AN#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy. Do you have an opinion as to who (admin or not) is allowed to issue notices under SCWGS? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to get to this today, Ed. It's been a busy day for me in my real life, and I just went on-wiki a few moments ago at the end of my day. I'm also tired, so, frankly, I'd rather do easier things for the short time I'm here before turning in.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my email

Here's the link where it was discussed.[4]. Current discussion at WP:AN#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I'm sure Doug is watching the Peyton Manning show, like I am. Not looking so good for those Chargers, Drmies (talk)

Deletion - incorrectly did speedy delection

hi bbb23

I apologize; the deletion process rules are confusing to me. Could you help walk me through how to "take [an article] to AfD"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virsingh (talk • contribs) 20:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure is here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hail Hydra!"

So, after the recent sockpuppet case against COMC, another long-inactive user has popped up again at FPC, following almost a year of inactivity. Behaviourally, very similar, including an apparent hatred of Stefan2, a focus on art (including van Gogh, COMC's apparent favourite), and apparently becoming active during a relative lull in COMC's editing. Do you think this is quacking loudly enough yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492, quacking moderately. The things I noticed - other than the obvious FPC focus - have to do with timing, not just between Sextet and COM, but also Marinka. Sextet started contributing almost at exactly the same time as Marinka left their last message on their talk page. In addition, the cross-check of Sextet's and COM's edits in January and February of this year were striking, although I looked at it manually (there's a damned tool that would make this easier, but I can't find it at the moment).
To help me evaluate this, please provide two items. First, some diffs of COM evincing the same hostility toward Stefan as Sextet. Second, some diffs showing COM's love of Van Gogh.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for van Gogh: COMC nominated this, and commented on various FPCs related to van Gogh (1, 2, 3, 4; I'll let you look at their extensive comments, but of note is owning a book on the artist). Elsewhere the editor mentioned being interested in attending an exhibition of the artist's works.
There's also behaviour similarities, such as the articles being worked on in user space, with the same title, with a similar referencing style, and being left underdeveloped for a lengthy period of time (compare User:A Sextet Short of PG(2,57)/sandbox and User:Coat of Many Colours/sandbox 2, for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please help

Hi Bbb23,

I am new user on Wikipedia and I really want you to help me know as why previous article - on 'Balkrishna' was deleted in detail and what is the meaning of - (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event) , this is the reason I got when some one deleted this article of mine. Shaliniaggrawal (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=631187199"