User talk:Bbb23

Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s). Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

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!

3RR issue

Hi Bbb23,

I have a 3RR issue that I was hoping you could take a look at for me. Normally, I would go to the relevant ANI board, but as I am editing from a mobile device, it would be incredibly difficult for me to fill out the forms, especially when copying and pasting URLs in.

The problem is on the 2014 Formula One season page. Two editors, Joetri10 and Eightball, are refusing to accept a consensus on the talk page as they disagree with it. They have both broken 3RR (I admit that I have, too), and it is starting to get nasty. They are demanding that other editors recognise their preferred version of the page, have been attempting to characterise any edits to the contrary as vandalism, have resorted to dragging up the outcome of other debates to mmarginalize the input of other editors and have repeatedly threatened to get the admins involved unless the page remains as they see fit.

To make matters worse, it is a purely cosmetic issue. In short, it centres on the team and driver table. The method of issuing numbers changed between 2013 and 2014, and the debate centres on which method to use to arrange the table. I was hoping an admin might be able to take a look at the issue and maybe settle the problem, because at this point, I do not know what else to do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You're not going to get much sympathy from me. Administrators generally don't resolve content issues unless they are acting as editors, not as administrators, or content clearly violates policy. Complaining about others' conduct when your conduct is just as bad is not a good way to go. You were involved in another edit war on the same article earlier this month and escaped sanctions, mostly because no one reported you in a timely way. I've locked the article and commented briefly at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Christianity Today Is NOT a Poor Reference

see title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.81.56 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Meow! Hope you and yours are doing well.

Drmies (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Everyone's been sick, including me. My fever went down to normal yesterday, and I'm thinking a little more clearly (my head was horribly congested). Maybe I'll even stop dripping soon. Almost finished reading a historic novel about black slavery and oppression of white women in Alabama. Supposedly based on some 19th century legal case. If I were more knowledgeable, I'd know how better how accurate it is. I'm now going to blow my nose. Thanks for thinking of me, Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Big bad bobblehead (Bbb) for you

File:George Washington bobblehead.jpg

Bbb1

May you become bigger and badder than this guy.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What did I do to deserve this honor, Anythingyouwant?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I haven't (yet) found anything objectionable about your billions of edits. Plus you got Jimbo ticked off a few months ago. Plus I see you're now a clerk for some obscure and dubious tribunal.  :) And in any event, your page deserves to be graced by the image of another Bbb. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to create the WP:Some obscure and dubious tribunal redirect... ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a feeling that one of the tribunal's clerks might get annoyed. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Monterrosa sock (again)

Here we go again: [1]. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In my absence Tiptoety did precisely what I would have done. However, that won't necessarily stop the ongoing socking by IPs, so please let me know if there is further disruption to any of the articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

return of the IP

• 95.141.31.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 95.141.27.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

the top one is a blatant sock of the one you just blocked on the bottom. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if any more crop up, although if there are too many, a range block may be in order. It may also be necessary to semi-protect the AfD page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TheRedPenOfDoom.2C_tendentious_editing_and_a_free-pass_to_edit-war.. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-unprotection of 2014 Formula One season

I'd like to request reduction of the protection level for the article 2014 Formula One season to semi-protected. There are references that need tidying, and at some point in the near future team members will be finalised long before the current protection window expires, leaving the article out of date.

I've looked at the edits made, and there's probably a better way to handle the issue than a full block. Users may instead be challenged by administrators under WP:TRR and receive warnings themselves, coupled with temporary edit bans. It'd be nice for those of us who have accurate, updated information to carry out edits.

Dancraggs (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Dan, I'm not concerned about tidying up references and other copy edits. You can always use {{edit protected}} if you feel you can't wait until the current protection expires. Unfortunately, full protection often comes at the expense of "punishing" editors who have done nothing wrong. The team member issue is a bit more concerning. When do you think that's going to happen? It would help if you could point to a consensus on the talk page that resolves the dispute that formed the basis for the lock. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Apologizes for the misguided reporting...

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

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)

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)

link fixing

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)