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 Acwwqq1 (talk | contribs) at 12:58, 26 October 2018. 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.

My article was be deleted in sandbox

Hi Bbb23, It seems that I was identified as “Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host".12:21, 26 October 2018 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Acwwqq1/sandbox (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) (thank) Firstly, I am a student and this is my assignment for this semester. Wikipedia's users had deleted my article three times.I am very angry even I don't know what I should say now. I tried to re-edit lots of times and proofread my article. However, How did you do it? You did not hesitate to delete my article.IT IS VERY HARD TO WRITE DO YOU KNOW??? IT SPENT A LARGE AMOUNT OF TIME!!! I am not an person who use English as first language. Creating a article is very difficult for me. I mean I need encourage when I writing rather than delete without a reasonable reason. I admit that the article I wrote before is not very good, but I tried to correct the issue that pointed out. Here is a question is that is it right to write an assignment in my Sandbox rather than move to draft or other places? Please restore my article.

TonyAcwwqq1 (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UK sock again?

A recent user smells like a UK sock, that sounds like a duck. 183.171.115.161 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another note. I beleive you blocked another IP that I believe was actually making constructive edits at the same time the vandal was at work. Or at least that's what it seems. funplussmart (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam

Which sources are unreliable? If you really cared about reliability, you'd find that the citations and information used in the previous article come from sources that directly contradict Miriam's interviews in the sources I provided. What's unencyclopedic about it? If you find some sources to be false, take only that information away. You're just rejecting the whole thing because you disagree with it. The previous article provides almost no factual, historical documentation whatsoever. Promoting is advertising. I'm not advertising a dead person. I'm providing a much more detailed description of someone's life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaredCravens (talk • contribs) 23:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The unreliable sources are findagrave.com (it can be used in the External links section but not as a source in the body), IMDb, ebooksread.com, filmsofthegoldenage.com, and www.westernclippings.com. The style you use is not in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines. It is promotional. It's casual. It's overly detailed. There are many examples of poor style. Don't call her Miriam. Last names should be used. You're adding far too much material for me to go through and remove pieces of it or even improve it. As I already said, the sourcing is so bad, I'd have very little to go on. You're new here. I'm not sure why you want to promote Seegar's life, but if you want to edit the article, you're going to have to go to the article Talk page and propose changes to the article, and gain a clear WP:CONSENSUS for your changes before making those changes. Otherwise, you may find yourself blocked from editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not promoting. I'm trying to create an article for people to go to who want to learn about miriam seegar's life. With the previous article, you learn very little. Compare this to more famous individuals' articles, how are theirs not too detailed, having 80% more content than my article? Like I told the last admin, I'm in the works of creating it. For 2 days now. I was going to make more detailed changes like referring to first name and last name, hyperlinking, etc. in the following days. I know the writing is far from perfect.
If IMDB and newspaper articles aren't reliable sources, what are? You just told me every source I cited was unreliable, so rather than reading page upon page of Wikipedia information to try to learn what's acceptable sourcing and what's not, I'm going to assume you're being disingenuous in telling me that every single one of my sources are unreliable.
As of right now, I'm going to add pieces of information one at a time, because that's what wikipedia is all about, right? This article is a piece of shit with very little information, and I'm going to add information to it so that people who want to read about her on the best encyclopedia online can without reading 10 different sources from 20 pages on google.
Please learn how to WP:INDENT and WP:SIGN your posts. Reliable sources are generally reputable newspapers, e.g., The Los Angeles Times, which is cited in the article, books published by reputable publishing companies and authors, and other periodicals that are clearly fact-checked by responsible journalists. They are not blogs, and they are not websites like filmsofthegoldenage.com, which have no About section and no indication that it is anything but people telling fluffy stories about actors. Your latest small addition is sourced to that website; you should remove it until you can find a reliable source for the information, which, by the way, is largely trivia anyway. What I asked you to do was not just make smaller changes, but propose them on the article Talk page first; you didn't do that. As for the "last admin", I assume you're referring to HickoryOughtShirt?4. They are an experienced editor, but they are not an administrator. And don't assume I'm being "disingenuous"; whatever I say here is from very long experience as an editor and an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet and boy with extreme hate

This guy User:Glory2Suriname has posted exactly (point2point) same edit as User:Damien2016. Here; Glory's edit [1] and Damien's edit [2]. Please revert the change by this racist person.

This sockpuppet is known Dalit hater who also considers Adivasi (aborigines) as a lowly group. He thinks if Dalits and Adivasi are associated with the target group (i.e. Khas, Chhetri), the target group may show a dislike. In posting upsetting things against Kshettri, multiple times he puts up photo of Dalit leader Dinanath Bhaskar and Chinese people showing his own ethnic hatred against all three.[3] [4] Against Bahun, he puts up a photo of Adivasi (Aborigines of South Asia) also considering Adivasi as a lowly group and instigating hatred against Bahun/Brahmin group.[5] Thus, he considers both as the lowly groups showing the attitude of tyrant Hindus. Also, he wrote Khas means a swear word. Here:[6] He hates Khas people, Chhetri and Bahun.

User:Damien2016 has been confirmed sockpuppet of User:Burbak and Burbak has following suspected sockpuppets:[7] One of the sockpuppets showed hatred against Yadavs here:[8]

In future, he may bring another account to show hatred against Khas people, Chhetri, Bahun, Yadav, Dalit and Adivasi. He is a major threat to ethnic harmony in Nepal and Bihar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.104.214 (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another of his sock puppet account Gandhawaria_Rajput which has already been banned indefinitely. Please look into it. Yajmir (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AkoyIanS

Regarding potential Bertrand101 sockpuppets, it seems like we caught a false positive here. @AkoyIanS: is a well-established user and doesn't appear to be similar in behaviour to Bert in terms of editing style and communication towards other users; Bert is generally uncooperative towards other editors and doesn't appear to respond to warnings of any sort. From what it seems, he might have been caught in the proverbial crossfire assuming he happened to be on the same range as what Bert is currently using. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said he was a sock of Bertrand101. He is, however, a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock article creations

Hi, you blocked Michael Curnow (talk · contribs) as part of a sockfarm earlier today. Among their contributions was the creation of Caste conflict in Bihar, which has not been substantially edited by others. It doesn't "read right" to me but I do not have the time to check all of the sources. Given that the farm has been pushing a POV on Bihar-related caste matters, what do we do about it? I don't think CSD G5 applies because they're blocked now but you indicated that it was not possible to tie them into the Burbak sockfarm due to things being stale. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to prevent SpacemanSpiff or some other administrator familiar with the Burbak case to tag the blocked accounts as suspected puppets. If that's done, articles can be G5ed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Someone has tagged it anyway but I'm unsure that they have actually understood G5. Will see what happens. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catcreekcitycouncil

I've noticed that you've closed several of the most recent SPI's into Catcreekcitycouncil's sockpuppets with general "already blocked" close reasons. Most of the accounts are indeed blocked quickly by AIV, and normally I'd just leave it at that (WP:RBI is usually best in these cases), but this particular user has proven to be prolific with his account creation and has been shown to operate a number of autoconfirmed sleepers, sometimes letting them sit for months at a time before using them. Additionally, when CheckUser has been run, we've been able to catch a number of them before they're used, as seen here, here, here, and elsewhere in the SPI archive. Generally, I feel like taking care of these quietly would be preferable to brute force solutions like 30/500 (even it has proven to be ineffective, since they just find another article on a small town in that area and vandalize it instead). Is there any specific reason why doing a full SPI with CheckUser is a bad idea in these cases? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I decline a CU request or close a case with a CU request, I have reasons. I am not always at liberty to say what those reasons are. In the future, it would be easier if you would ask me near the time that I do it. I have no wish to go through previous denials/closures that happened as long ago as 2+ years. It's not a good expenditure of my time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI I opened was closed by you less than a week ago, and hasn't even been archived yet. I was referring to older SPIs to show how CheckUser had been previously been used to uncover as of yet unused sleepers and block them preemptively. I'm not saying you didn't have reasons to do what you did, I'm simply wondering why you opted to just close the most recent SPI without checking. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, look at a couple of the listed blocked socks, who blocked them, and what kind of blocks they were. That should help you understand why I said a check was unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:49.151.155.232

Hi,

Is the stuff he posted on the user talk pages copyrighted? It gets hits on Google, but I have no idea what it is. Adam9007 (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Itskumudhk sock

Hi Bbb23, I just happen to read an openly admitted message from a sock of Itskumudhk (talk · contribs). I am not sure if it warrants a block since they have just one edit. — LeoFrank  Talk 04:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not just one edit, but one edit over a year ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which sock is the master?

Hi B, I'm looking at this guy. He's recreated a bunch of articles to turn them back into redirects to various Bigg Boss seasons. He's surely a sock of someone. In some of these histories like here and here, I see a number of socks:

  • Ctrl A is a sock of AdnanAliAfzal (appears to be older potential sockmaster)
  • AAS-786 is a sock of AdnanAliAfzal
  • ShivashishSingh112 is a sock of KaranSharma0445
  • RohitSingh665 is a sock of KaranSharma0445
  • VarunKhurana326 is a sock of KaranSharma0445
  • ShivashishSingh112 is a sock of KaranSharma0445
  • RohitSingh665 is a sock of KaranSharma0445

Can you bring any clarity to this? Do you suppose they all socks of AdnanAliAfzal, or should I treat it more behaviorally and just attribute to KaranSharma0445? Some other option? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize the account was already listed at the SPI. Anyway, I confirmed that account plus one other and updated the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:SO (User:Northatlantic320)

I think WP:SO is a standard policy, and I was assuming there was a chance, however slim, that he could apply. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 16:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's an essay, and it's often not extended even as a possibility, but if it is, it's usually done by an administrator. In this particular case, I don't think any encouragement should be given to the user. They aren't even admitting they socked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about latest Shingling334 sock IP

Hi Bbb23, thanks for blocking Personification123 in that last Shingling334 case. A couple of questions about 208.167.239.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - I'm not sure whether it's now considered confirmed as a Shingling sock? They got a bunch of edits in that I'd like to revert on the basis of block evasion, is that ok? Can I put a {{IPsock|Shingling334|confirmed| blocked=yes}} on the IP's page - or is that not helpful? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... I guess I was expecting the IP I reported would be confirmed as a sock, or not, behaviorally. I didn't ask for a checkuser... What is the situation now, can I clean up the IP's recent edits based on WP:BLOCKEVASION? --IamNotU (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say you should probably evaluate the edits and revert if they're unconstructive. Behaviourally, it seems likely that there are edits by Shingling334 on the range, and others that are not Shingling334. As an open webhost it may have been used by many different editors. If you're going to revert, you should be able to defend your reverts, that's all. I haven't checked this case myself. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. There are others on that range, but 208.167.239.177 I'm sure is all Shingling - I'm very familiar with him - so I will "rv sock" them. I don't think he should be allowed to edit even if constructive (WP:BMB). But I'll be careful and look at each one... --IamNotU (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you undone my contribution

Hi there

Today, I added a photo of my Pakistani visa to this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_passport_stamps_by_country_or_territory My question is why you decided to remove it from there.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton kistol (talk • contribs) 01:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton kistol: It's not that Bbb23 didn't appreciate your contribution; it's just that you were potentially giving away your personal information in a public place. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 02:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore User:Rasathus/sandbox

Please can you restore my "Duplicate" sandbox page. Although maybe not obvious from the edit history, but it contained a number of edits I was working on for the original article. Being my first attempt at editing I didn't want to risk impacting the original page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasathus (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying the entire article into your userspace to make test edits rather than making them directly to the article is not the best way to go about what you want to achieve. Make your edits to the article directly, but don't make them all at once. Do them in very small pieces, use "Show preview" a lot to make sure each edit looks okay, look at the finished product after you saved it, and then wait a day to see if anyone challenges your edit. If your edit(s) are challenged, go to the article Talk page and discuss it; don't insist on your changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do I restore my lost edits so that I can do so ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasathus (talk • contribs) 22:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. First, there was no edit history to your sandbox. You simply created it in one edit. Second, you've already made a couple of edits directly to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Clerk request

So is my clerk request just going to stay there, unanswered, or are extra clerks unneeded? I don't mean to be rude, I just want a genuine answer.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 01:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at other requests to become a clerk, you should readily see that many are not answered. If that bothers you, remove your request.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing IP

2.51.188.131, 2.51.23.233, 2.51.189.106, 2.51.187.71, 2.51.20.58 - These dynamic IP user has all the qualities of a POV pushing experienced user once blocked indefinitely and now editing in IPs. 137.97.131.180 (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is most probably Rush922 logged out editing and they have intersecting edits in some common articles of interest. Please check this user. 137.97.42.54 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of Interests / Vandalism

Hi, I was just going through Some of Indian Films Articles, I just noticed about Tu Maza Jeev The page is written and portrayed in Advertising format, I was thinking to put Advert Tag but before out of curiosity thought to check logs, after scanning it, I have noticed User Tiven2240 is more concerned and interested in editing and keeping this article as he wrote! Looking at its edit pattern & logs, Its noticed that the Image had been deleted by 'CommonsDelinker Bot' prevously, also this page has been Nominated for deletion twice . Also this page has been marked for {Notability},{POV},{Advert}, which has been reverted or deleted without explanation by Same user. It seems he have Rollback Rights and he is misusing same. After doing detailed research about film and IMDB link given in page I found, that his name is included in credits social media marketing manager. I think this user deserve to be Ban Immediately for Vandalism & such commercial interests and this page should be removed on top priority. I think it need to be verified and take action. (Diego Rogger (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]

More potential socks of Bertrand101

Hi I have come across quite a few potential socks of the above user who seem to be editing on the same kind of subjects, notably


They are editing radio stations and malls in the Philipines. This seems to be a special case due to the long term abuse. Should I just open a nex SPI case or is there something else to be done? Cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that these accounts are tied to Bertrand101 (dubious), you can file a new report, but it has to be more than just the same topic area. If you have evidence that ties these accounts to each other, then you can file a new case with the oldest of the group as the master. Again, there must be diffs showing similar behavior not just topic overlap.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them do have issues with their editing, but I'm afraid none of them match Bertrand's behaviour. Myrabert for one added userboxes to his/her userpage, which Bertrand would not do so far. Just because these guys edit Philippine radio station pages doesn't necessarily qualify them as B101 sock accounts. @WayKurat: should be able to school you through that guy since he's more experienced with these LTA cases. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice both of you. cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Edit I made with one of the malls of SM is based on personal knowledge and I have photos uploaded on Wikimedia.NTV2K17 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not connected with B101 or other Sock Accounts here. The Edit I made with malls are verified by personal knowledge.NTV2K17 (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, original research is discouraged here as claims should be cited from reliable publications and not just from what you can attest, but if anything, the fact that you responded to claims rather than just leave a cryptic or incoherent blurb about another one of those phony radio stations is more than enough evidence that you're not Bertrand. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock

Special:Contributions/The_US_education_system_is_flawed. this one has popped up now. Is an IP block possible? Home Lander (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Osourdounmou

Thanks for checking the accounts connected with Osourdounmou. The two accounts you blocked a few minutes ago and two others (Tschir and Amarakuja) were blocked today on sqwiki/Albanian Wikipedia as socks of Goelia (whose editing history shows the same obsession with renaming Albanian and Ottoman articles and editing Albanian religious sites articles as that of Osourdounmou. Both of them are linked with Germany). Might a rangeblock or sth other to prevent Osourdounmou from creating more accounts be needed? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a lack of response means "No". Thanks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you. I always have a little trouble answering these kinds of questions. I, like most CheckUsers when we run a check, generally take all reasonable steps to prevent further disruption. I know that's a bit vague, but it's the best I can comfortably tell you.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How did you do that?

I had just filed a report at ANI over this account [9]. Are you at liberty to comment? And thank you from 99. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I didn't even see your report. The blocked account is now tagged, so you can see some history if you're morbidly curious. Best as always.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion on deletion

I’m sorry to bother you... but I’m just confused about the deletion of my page, how is it vandalism in any way ?.... SneezyReus (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @SneezyReus: It was either something you made up yourself or else something so obscure and little known that I was unable to find any mention of it anywhere else. Either way, it did not belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims only to have articles about subjects which have received substantial coverage in reliable published sources, not about things which are almost totally unknown. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: But, how is it in any way vandalism ?... Please explain —SneezyReus (talk)

SirEdimon

Hey, I'm not sure if I'm required to notify you - but just in case, I opened a discussion about unblocking at AN here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#SO_Request_for_SirEdimon. SQLQuery me! 18:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: Probably not required, but definitely considerate. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Lewis 36

I see that you've requested Clerk assistance on this SPI case; Do you need me to do anything with this? I'm realise that the report was rather conventional - when I initially tried to raise it, Twinkle barfed; I assume that was because the site in question had been blacklisted. I didn't want risk raising multiple cases trying to fix it, so I described the problem rather than providing diffs; I'm sorry if the report I sent isn't up to scratch, I'd be happy to add diffs to the investigations page if you require them, since another editor let me know that I can use nowiki tags to avoid the blacklist problems. GirthSummit (blether) 18:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's all been handled by the inestimable Ivanvector.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks and/or apologies as appropriate - I'm developing my 'how things work around here' knowledge, will try to learn from each mistake. GirthSummit (blether) 19:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section header

Hey, on this, I removed the header since he said he did it to aide the archive bot, which removed one decline yesterday so I was trying to prevent that going forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He made two edits. First, he increased the time between archiving, and, second, he added the section header. The second does nothing except to make it easier to edit. How does removing the section header accomplish anything? I'm not an archiving expert, so maybe I'm missing something?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible HughD sock

Over at AR-15 style rifle an IP put up some edits that are apparently similar to that of HughD - I prefer to WP:AGF rather than biting IP editors on a suspicion, but it might be worth a peak. Not opening an SPI because it's not my suspicion, it's that of another editor on the page, and I know there are technical restrictions on checkuser data with IP editors - but if you can work any of you Sock Puppetry Investigation magic it'd probably be helpful. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=865829621"