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 RollingWaves (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 7 October 2019 (→‎Deletion of personal sandbox: new section). 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.

Fdery

Hi Bbb23. The master is probably User:Haiyenslna. While Haiyenslna focused on Maureen Wroblewitz, not Akane Yamaguchi, the talk page spam is telling. Cebuah (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) used the telling heading, and the Fdery socks use the same language as the Haiyenslna socks. I don't think CU data is available for Haiyenslna, but I'd say the behavioral evidence is strong enough to merge the cases if you think that would be helpful. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me but what is the "telling heading"? Too bad that Wroblewitz and Yamaguchi share nothing in common except that they're female.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking. Are you talking about the section header "Wish" on other editors' Talk pages?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one. Yes, I realize that Wroblewitz and Yamaguchi don't have anything in common, but talk page spam messages use the same language. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of Zamani Project and ALUKA

Hello Bbb23,

please, can you advise me, in how I can update our Zamani project and the ALUKA page? All the edits I did regarding the Zamani Project and ALUKA in the last days, coming from me, as a member of the Zamani Project. What must I do, that my edits are been approved? Do I need to register with one of our domain email address? Please advice. Thanks so much. Best Ralph Schroeder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rscapetown (talk • contribs) 08:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, an editor with a conflict of interest should (1) declare the conflict on their userpage and (2) not edit articles that are related to their COI. Instead, add requests for edits to the article Talk pages. You are not following either rule. Plus, your copyright violations exacerbate the problem. I see that Diannaa has given you similar advice on her Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sock of Joker5122

Hello,

User:Deathlok5122 just tried to contact me with a request on my talk page. I believe its the same banned editor. Can you help me? Cardei012597 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Rishmawi's Page

You just deleted the page that i wanted to enhance to fit the criteria, where i can retrieve the deleted content now?

i tried the deletion administrator to get the content back but didn't work. how can i get it and redo the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saher AlSous (talk • contribs) 16:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPI / CU question

Yesterday you declined a CheckUser request as part of an SPI I raised. Should I be asking for a CU as a default, or is the behavioural evidence more important? I have a few pages on my watchlist which I monitor for suspicious activity and raise SPI for any strange activity on them. Is there more evidence or reasons that I should have included, or am I being too hasty? Spike 'em (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CU should never be requested as a default. If you believe there is a reason to request CU, you should provide that reason (along with the behavioral evidence): "If you also wish a CheckUser to investigate, change |checkuser=no to |checkuser=yes in the edit box on the next page and explain why you are requesting it."--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll stop ticking the box then. Spike 'em (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A little help needed

Greetings,

I appreciate that you took a step to correct me and make sure the community guidelines are being followed. But it would be of a great help if you could help me a little more by specificying in detail the mistakes of my article User:Vanshikasood0112/sandbox that you deleted stating the reason G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion for it. Your response would be of great help as i could rewrite this article. Thanking you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanshikasood0112 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Physo172

I hope you're OK with me draftifying those, I could not work out if they were legit, bad translations, confused or what, but at least some of them do appear to exist so might have some hope if anyone feels inclined. It's an area where we have limited coverage, otherwise I would probably just have nuked them. Guy (help!) 14:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, deleting them was discussed at ANI. At least some of them should be deleted. I know I'm not going to take the time to see if these people really existed and if they're notable. Draftifying them will probably accomplish little, but maybe a constructive editor will take an interest in them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking of it as a kind of extended PROD but out of mainspace. I don't know, may be quixotic, but who knows. Guy (help!) 20:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BrillLyle/1940CStreet

I was in the process of creating an SPI for these accounts when you blocked 1940CStreet. Should I continue with and submit it or is it not needed now? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ca2james: Actually, it would be helpful for you to continue for two reasons. First, please include the evidence you provided at ANI and any additional evidence you've thought of. Second, I can post my findings, which would be good for the record. I was going to post them to ANI, but the thread's been closed. Besides, it would be better at the SPI. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks I'm still working on it (gathering example diffs takes time) and I'll post it when it's done. I'll request a checkuser on it, I guess. There may be sleepers. Ca2james (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the time, and no need to request a CU. I'll probably know when you're done, but it wouldn't hurt for you to let me know, either here or at the SPI by a ping.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I closed it, chortle, no, I mean sorry. But it is better at SPI, isn't it? More findable. Thank you for your work, Ca2james. Did you get my e-mail? Bishonen | talk 16:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks @Bishonen:! You're right, it's better at SPI and I started writing one as soon as I saw that reply. It takes time to put together. I just saw your email and I've replied. Ca2james (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted the SPI here and pinged you. I hope the evidence I put together is ok. Thanks for your help! Ca2james (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The account is also quite active on Wikidata, one of BrillLyle's favorite haunts. Since the original account is globally locked, shouldn't the sock be as well? Favonian (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks everyone. Global locks requested (I might've missed that, Favonian). Good job, Ca2james, and you're right on all counts, Bishonen.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You deleted Folake Olowofoyeku as created by a banned editor; I think she is notable and should have an article. Can you userify the deleted article for me, please? I'll double check everything (BrillLyle also has a tendency for OR and for citations to not support text) and move it back to mainspace when I'm done. While you're lookingat articles, 1940CStreet created Paul Cauthen and it should also probably be deleted. Nevermind - I saw just saw the speedy was declined. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing at Anuna De Wever

Hi there, the disruptive editing has started up again at Anuna De Wever (which you semiprotected in the version on 22 September). Could I trouble you to repeat the exercise? It's a different IP now (185.194.187.136) but so far almost all of this has been a range of IP addresses beginning 185.194.187. I suspect that must be significant. All the best! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've semiprotected for a couple of weeks as well as blocked the IP. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

New Account

Hi, I created the new account since my new interest is in literature research. My old account (User:EncyclopediaUpdaticus) was mostly used for Canadian politicians and political articles but I am no longer using that account much. I still sign on to monitor my old watchlist. If necessary I can delete the old account. LiteratureCompanion (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LiteratureCompanion: Accounts can't be "deleted" at Wikipedia. There are several problems with what you're doing, but they are fixable. First, I should block the old account. If you want to keep your old watchlist, you can copy it to a text file and then copy it to the watchlist for the new account. Second, you should put declarations on the EU userpage and the LC userpage so other editors can see you're the same person. I did notice that you have tapered off your editing with the EU account since creating the LC account, but you've still been editing and you are editing the same articles. Let me know if you are willing to proceed with this plan.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK sounds good. I meant to do all my new editing with LC but wasn't careful enough with the two signons. Blocking the old account will make that clear. Thanks. LiteratureCompanion (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I blocked the EU account with a permalink to this discussion through your most recent post above. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks for your cooperation.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Checked an EU account now blocked. But just found out that LC account blocked too (I am replying from a public access terminal right now). I suspect you might have blocked my IP address. I tried to edit a page with LC and it says I can't edit. Can you fix this? Thanks, LiteratureCompanion (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, the "autoblock" is checked by default on the block form. I should have unchecked it, but I didn't think about it. I've reblocked the EU account with it unchecked. If you still can't edit, let me know. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, working again. Thanks. LiteratureCompanion (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All Money In

I know, because I contacted the owners and they don't have an official website yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RipDeuce (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 report

Hello. As the warning administrative in the report between myself and Fyrael, you stated "they are welcome to discuss the issue constructively on the article Talk page". How am I meant to do so, when the other editor stated "There is no requirement for me to continue a discussion" [1]? The edit clearly needs discussion, but the other editor refuses to discuss. -- /Alex/21 22:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fyrael was not the only editor involved in the discussion. There were a couple of others. I suggest you resume the discussion, with or without Fyrael (they might change their mind...editors do) and try to reach a consensus. If you can't, then you must use other methods of dispute resolution, possibly an RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RFC it is. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 06:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock of User:Joker5122

Hello,

I just want this returning abuser to stop using socks to bother me. User:Joker5122 keeps using sock puppets to contact me, and has decided to use my name. The new sock is User:Cardei5122, using my name, because I believe he is stalking me. Can you please block his IP or other methods to keep him from Wikipedia. He continues to stalk me and persists to edit the wiki pages I created. Can you permanently block his IP or some other method to keep him away from disturbing Wikipedia? Cardei012597 (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but can't do anything but block them as they come up. IPs should never be indefinitely blocked, but even limited duration blocks are often not feasible depending on the characteristics of the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checky?

Hey there, might I please trouble you to look for undiscovered Bothiman socks? I duck-blocked Gandsop yesterday-ish for adding a slew of questionable awards at List of awards and nominations received by Vijay. Fadroca, which I'm pretty sure is a sleeper account, made some edits in September to an article about a South Korean singer, then showed up a month later, made a slew of insignificant sequential edits to their user page, to get himself up to auto-confirmed status. (For the visual, he started with his user name Fadroca, then deleted a letter, saved the page, deleted a letter, saved the page, deleted a letter, etc. This was something Bothiman did.[2][3]. Thanks man, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fadroca and Gandsop are  Confirmed. I didn't see anyone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias, matey. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Phaeton (1848)

@Broichmore: Hallo Bbb23, I spotted this in Category:Stubs while stub-sorting, but by the time I looked at it it had been speedy-deleted A3 by yourself. This seemed a bit surprising so I created it as a redirect back to the set index at HMS Phaeton where there is some (unsourced) content. Could you just check whether the article had a fair chance before it was speedy-deleted - had it only just been created, or had it been gutted by a vandal since creation? It was created by a longstanding editor who appears to have a track record of DYKs etc in and around naval matters and is a member of the Ships Wikiproject, so I'd have expected it to have some content worth keeping and not be A3-able. I've found enough sources to re-create it, including an image, but would rather it was undeleted and left to its original creator to expand if that's a sensible option. Of course I have no idea what was in the article as it stood, or how long it had existed. PamD 15:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I created it in error, yesterday. I thought I was in Wikimedia creating a catalog entry. I'm of the belief there was no article prior to that. Thank you for your vigilance. Regards Broichmore (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: Ah, I see! Well I've now created a very modest stub, ships not being my particular area - two online sources neither of whose [[WP:RS|"reliability"}} I'm sure of, plus a catalogue record from The National Archives. PamD 16:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy y'all are happy. Now, PamD, if you could please stop copy editing your posts to my Talk page repeatedly, including responding to this comment, I'd sure appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation on hold

Hi, I just want to ask if I did something wrong when requesting a sockpuppet check back in August. The investigation I requested was immediately put on on hold and then hasn't been touched in six weeks. Just currious, since this is a side of Wikipedia I don't interact with often. I've also been waiting for this to close before doing some updates to the article in question, so if they're not all the same user, I'll just get on with it. Thanks-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did nothing wrong. It was my fault as I didn't follow up. I've posted findings to the SPI and closed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Bbb23, but I did look at the Satt2 SPI and left a comment in the admin section on what I can see from behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks guys!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 20:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translating to English

When translating a Surrah from Arabic to English, should some words be capitalized to emphasize their weight? (Eg. “You” when referring to the Lord, “Merciful” when referring to a holy name of the Lord.)? Sarahlulu125 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should ask your question at Talk:Al-Fatiha.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hello. As you blocked some socks of Azerti83/Gaditano23 last year, could you look at this open SPI? The sockpuppetry is very evident, including a DUCK Negin2019 of Negin1. The most recent account has made 50 edits in the past week and is currently editing the same article the previous accounts have edited. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of personal sandbox

Hello. I noticed you, rather abruptly, deleted my personal sandbox page that I had been using to draft an update to the Institutional Limited Partners Association page on the grounds that it constituted "unambiguous advertising or promotion." Frankly, I am not quite sure why you did this action, nor do I agree with your justification. Please explain to me, in which ways, that drafting an update to an existing article using a personal sandbox page to ensure the edits are properly integrated, constitutes "advertising or promotion." I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=920111886"