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.

Your efforts

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For the time you put into picking apart messy conflicts and still being objective when assessing error, even (or especially, as you helped me in more ways than one) when some of those errors happen to be mine. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mezzo.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

I am much obliged for your neutral and objective decision in this case.Thank You very much.I request you to kindly watch some Islam related pages like Barelvi Sufi Salafi Wahabi if you have time. Shabiha (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Shabiha, if you believe any of the involved editors have violated the warnings issued by Qwyxrian, feel free to let me know. Also, if you need some guidance in avoiding violating your own warning, feel free to let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting article edit

I have agreed not to edit the article for a period of time, but this edit should probably be removed before then. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've done it for you. I'll stick that page in my watch list. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! Bloomex Hello Bbb23, I am owner of Bloomex, the floral company operating in Canada, Australia and USA. We employ 200+ people and do quite a volume in floral deliveries. We have an article on Wikipedia, which does not reflect the truth about company or operations mainly due to efforts of CliffC and bots he creates. Any success to combat him are ineffecgtive due to his experience as Wikipedia editor and obvious luck of interest from Wikipedia public to Bloomex. The main issue is Controvercy page. In my opinion it has to be assessed WP:UNDUE and by then removing that long and deformative text maintained by CliffC. I have put my version as "During its growth stage company attaracted certain amount of customers complains. It was reflected in Toronto Star and CBC Marketplace " You are very trusted and experienced editor and I would like to ask your help in either removing article completely or leaving it with set of true facts reflecting many years of work, customers we served and dedication and hard work of employees. Sincerely Dimitri Lokhonia Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Dimitri. Before you go yelling that what I'm saying here is rude, don't waste your time: You're the owner. You have a conflict of interest. You've never ever read that page. If you have, you must not have comprehended it. Wikipedia does not care about truth. Wikipedia cares about verifiablility of content. UNLESS you can provide sources that explicitly say that the content we have is wrong, then you will not get it removed at all. It is not undue weight. Undue weight would be if 10% of sources covered the controversy, and the rest (90%) covered nothing of the sorts. Fact is, 90% of sources are covering your company's controversies, and there are many. So it makes sense that our article mostly covers the controversy. Your version of "certain amount of complains" first of all is not grammatically correct. Secondly, it would be not giving it due weight, as the vast majority of sources cover the controversy. The two sources you provided go to prove you are wrong. You provided two sources that cover the controversy. Since even you can't provide any sources that don't cover the controversy, then we will continue to have it in the article until such time as you can prove that a majority of sources do not cover your controversy. I'm sorry that this may be hurting your business. But maybe instead of trying to erase it from the history books (NOT what Wikipedia is for, we are for recording history) you should try to learn from the controversy and then fix it. Then maybe when your company actually gets covered in a good light in newspapers can we change the current lean of the article. gwickwiretalkediting 21:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Dear gwickwire and CliffC, I will appreciate if you leave me and company alone and will not participate in edit warring. I know you point of view, but unfortunately it does not reflect the true picture. Let other people decide about the correct content of the article Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) You edit warred against consensus. Just because you own the company doesn't mean we do whatever the hell you want. Especially because you're now doing what's called Forum Shopping (Here, another talkpage, talkpage of article, DRN, COI noticeboard) for a good response. YOU WILL NOT GET A RESPONSE YOU WANT. Your company made mistakes, they were reported on in reliable sources. We report on what's in reliable sources. Therefore, we report on the mistakes. Sorry. Not our problem now. Fix your company, get some new newspaper articles about you, then come back. I'd like to apologize to Bbb23 now that this had to come to his talkpage. gwickwiretalkediting 23:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Dimitri, here are my comments, in no particular order: Don't accuse editors of sock puppetry as a means of getting what you want. It can be perceived a personal attack and can be grounds for being blocked. If you have solid evidence of sock puppetry, feel free to report it at WP:SPI. The article is locked until March 9. It is unlikely that any content in it will be changed during the lock. As the owner of the company, you should stop making changes to the article, particularly the kinds of changes you've made. If you have suggestions, you'll have to restrict yourself to the talk page. If you think the article should be deleted, once the article is unlocked, you can nominate it for deletion. Remember, though, that articles are deleted because they don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, not because the company or the owner of the company doesn't like what the article says. Also, bear in mind that it has been through two previous deletion discussions, one in 2009 and the most recent in 2010. Usually, something has to have significantly changed to renominate it for deletion. I didn't look at the state of the article in 2009, but it doesn't look like too much has changed since the 2010 discussion. @gwickwire, a couple of comments. I understand you're frustrated, but don't yell at Dimitri or use such strong language ("whatever the hell you want"). Also, telling him how to run his business is inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Dear Bbb23, thank you for your detailed response. I fully agree with you on that. I started the discussion on your talk page because you were the one who converted locked article to the old edit. The article was edited by me on March 1st and it was approved by outside Wikipedia editor. Then CliffC and gwickwire reverse the edit to the old one disregarding the opinion of the other editors who made point of view on the talk page of Bloomex. I will appreciate if you find time to look into history of the issue possible to provide your own edit to the article, Sincerely, Dimitri 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.10.181 (talk) Bbb23 already looked at the article. He reverted your edits because they are wrong. We didn't disregard their opinions. 90% of them say that it should be in the article. You're the one who's forum shopping for an opinion you like, and it's not going to work. I'd also like to apologize if I've seemed rude, but it seems to me like you (Dimitri) are not hearing the overwhelming consensus and many other editors (including Bbb23 and other admins) saying that it belongs in the article. gwickwiretalkediting 21:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Malcolm Hamilton harpsichordist Wikipedia's stub currently up has a significant error and no references whatsoever and an opinion stated as fact. You asked for a reference for my changes and I gave you a published one, which was liner notes to a record. The rest of the liner notes were written by Hamilton himself. If you think that these are not reliable, I can only figure that you are being deliberately obtuse and prefer to have a poor entry. Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanBeroff (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC) If you want to retract your "deliberately obtuse" comment and talk to me about how things are done at Wikipedia, I'd be happy to help you. Otherwise, no.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Lech Kaczyński/disruptive IP 212.14.57.130 is back at the same old after their block expired. Mind to take care of again? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)  Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC) you are removing papers that have been published in ACM for no reasonable reason. Bbb23, I am trying to establish a record of your contineous removal of 4 papers that are VERY RELEVANT to the perfect hash function subject. Please note that all papers are reliable sources and NOT SPAM as you claim. You are editing and removing without a review of the subject. If insist that all these changes be reinstated immediately. Sincerely, Amjad M Daoud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daoudamjad (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I've let you a templated warning and a personalized warning on your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Vital articles I have one problem with your solution. The lock isn't long enough. It should be for forever so that no edits can be made without consensus pbp 01:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Indefinite locks are rare, and, in this case, I'd be reluctant to put admins in the position of having to determine consensus in perpetutity.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC) hey it is a report someone wrote something else ontop of it..can you restore it? Baboon43 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) My apologies; I fixed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Sammarinese Constitutional Assembly election, 1906 Thanks for your intervention. Could you also restore the link to the article on {{Sammarinese elections}}? Cheers, Number 57 01:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)  Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Even if I think this is a waste of time cauesd by a usual edit-warrior without sources, but with a lot of time to spend in the internet and wikipedia, I added some sources in that tak page. If nobody will show opposite sources (as it will be so, because official sources are clear) within 7 days, I'll realize we only wasted time today, and I'll delete that article. Bye! --Barlafus (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC) In case you weren't aware, you don't have the authority to "delete" the article. I wouldn't redirect the article if I were you, even after 7 days. If you think the article should be deleted or redirected, then nominate it for deletion. Your attitude is unhelpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC) No edit notice per se Isn't there? When I go to the edit page, I see a warning about sanctions including 1RR. (It is out of date because it's from when the only sanctions were community-imposed, not ArbCom, which I'd forgot. But the 1RR notice is there.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I must be going blind. Maybe it was because of the lack of color or something, but I missed it. You're right.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC) please clarify Hello, Yesterday, I added some basic personal information to the bio page of actor Rob James-Collier that would be informative to the many fans who think he's HOTHOTHOT and want to know if he is available. I saw today you had removed all my work, describing my addition as unencyclopedic. I am not familiar with that term. Do you mean the information was not sufficiently comprehensive? I thought it provided sufficient information on his personal life to quiet the pangs of the longing fangirl-boy, and each statement was taken from newsmedia and attributed as such. This new part of James-Collier's profile compares well to the WikiPedia bio of his co-star and fellow heartthrob, Dan Stevens (a/k/a "Downton Abbey" Matthew Crawley). What was "unencyclopedic" about my contribution? What does "unencyclopedic" mean??? - Inkless EditsInkless Edits (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I can't believe you write as you do above and then wonder why I reverted your change to the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (I see you got some responses at the Teahouse as to what that means). In any event, the information about James-Collier's son, the name of the mother, her French dog, etc., mostly obtained from the tabloid The Mirror is fan cruft that doesn't belong here. I'm curious. What makes you think the Stevens article has material similar to what you tried to add to the James-Collier article? I'm going to leave a standard Welcome message on your talk page. It has many links that may help you understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Mr. Bbb23, Your snide opener, "I can't believe you write as you do above..." does not inspire constructive, congenial conversation with a stranger! My message to you was designed to be conversational and humorous, and I thought the lighthearted tone might inspire goodwill. My goodness! my friend: you DO take yourself quite seriously! As you may imagine, your summary removal of my contribution without any talk on the matter came across as quite aggressive and I thought a little comic relief would do some good. Wikipedia is a user-edited encyclopedia which is a go-to reference for Internet surfers, with the awareness that it is an interesting, potentially useful, and imperfect resource. Wikipedia it is well-known as a fount of information, surely on many more topics than the Britannica, but lacking the gravitas of the latter compendium. As a frequent Wikipedia reader, I have noticed that many celebrity profiles include personal information, reciting the names of girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, wives, progeny, parentage, favorite football teams, and lots of other potentially frivolous or merely charming, entertaining details. For example, to read a "Personal" section documenting some lively romantic activity, footnoted with the same sort of resources that I used, see the entry on actress Alison King. This sort of information humanizes the subject and entertains the reader, which of course is what being a public figure is all about. The info I added on RJC is completely in line with celebrity profiles and of great interest to the fans who would want to read about him. I appreciate a friendly "Welcome" and look forward to reading it. And at the same time, please think anew about your deletion of my contribution, and your motivation for same; I wonder if inadvertently you may have been acting on personal opinion rather than editorial???Inkless Edits (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I apologize if your initial edit here was intended to be humorous. You're absolutely right; I can be very serious. And sometimes it's hard to get humor in people you don't even know, so I took it at face value. I haven't changed my mind as to the reversion of your edit. My recommendation is that you take the issue to the article talk page to see if you can obtain a WP:CONSENSUS for including the material. I have no idea what you mean by "personal opinion"; about what?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Bbb, I happen to think that Rob is HOTHOTHOTSIZZLINGHOT as well. At the same time, WP:HOTTIE, while clearly indicating his notability, gives us no reason to include any other information, though a photograph of his six-pack would be appreciated. I assume asking for a shot of his ****er would be asking for too much. I also wish to thank you for your courteous and business-like tone, often necessary to keep the lid on steaming, boiling vessels of desire such as myself--and apparently I'm not the only one. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, there's not a single image in the James-Collier article. However, if you can find one that is acceptable pursuant to HOTTIE (WP:IC), feel free to upload it with the appropriate HOTTIE rationale.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Did someone say Downton? Ah, but I come here for another purpose, one which may interest Drmies as well (especially given the naked breast business), if he's stalking this page. I'd like your input as to whether this is a reliable source [1], but really I'm soliciting for someone else to take a scythe to the article in question, if there's a consensus to do so. And I'm back from the tropics, just in time to get snowed in. Cheers as always, 99.149.87.54 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Your transparent attempt to switch topics from James-Collier's skin to Mr. Skin (the things that come up at Wikipedia) is unwelcome. You can discuss Downton Abbey or any related subject, but that's it. I cut out large chunks of the article. I should probably cut the Filmography section, but I'd have to compare it to the list of her works, even if it's missing inline citations, and I'm too lazy to do it right now. Feel free to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Oh yeah? Nobody's lazier than I am. I'm exhausted just from thinking about attractive drapery-challenged subjects. Good work on the article. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I find that exhaustion from thinking about work is THE best way to avoid work. Here's to the ladies who laze! Everybody rise!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm...sugar heaps...boning...good.... DYK that The Best of Barry White is at Target for $5? Drmies (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC) That's the language 99 objects to? I mean, "sinfully skinful" - what's not to like?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC) 99 is a Puritan from way back when. I wonder what his nipples look like. I mean the ones he paints. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Yeah, that's why he lives in New England. As for you, you're always obsessing about nipples. Did I know that 99 paints? Does he paint pictures of nipples or does he paint the nipples themselves? As for me, I recently learned about nipples in a CPR class.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Nipples, nipples, nipples. Wow, you two really need something better to do of a Friday night. Among other hobbies I paint men and often wimmens, sometimes in the altogether. Sometimes they disrobe, too. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Another change of direction, as well as IP addresses: It seems I and a registered account have been accused of being sockpuppets here: [2]. I'm disinclined to follow up this evening, but would appreciate any help/advice, including going to ANI. Thanks and cheers, 99.137.210.244 (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm. Maybe you two are socks. I think we should ask a NippleCheckUser to render a verdict. If Fladrif could please produce one as well--thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)] Will these do? Fladrif (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Why "certainly not of Fladrif"? Do you know Fladrif?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry if that was out of bounds. But, I suspect that this Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Threat_from_Administrator is even more out of bounds. Claim to have been threatened for ....well, persistent personal attacks compounded by utter incompetence. Fladrif (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC) (Sigh) I so tire of being asked to show my breasts. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) I've left a warning on the accuser's talk page. Hopefully, they will cooperate and retract the accusation. If not, although I threatened them with a block, I wouldn't actually be comfortable blocking them for two reasons. First, I consider myself involved because of our virtual relationship (heh), and, second, I don't think that one baseless sock accusation is bad enough to be blockable. Even if the editor does not retract the accusation, I would not go to ANI; I don't think it's worth it. If Drmies or anyone else stalking here disagrees with me, feel free to chime in.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Agreed that this isn't block worthy, and I do appreciate your response. For you I'll reveal a nipple. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Ah yes. Whoa. Bbb, hope you don't mind some resizing. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC) This is all your fault. It all started as a nice pleasant exchange between a misguided James-Collier fan and me about how hot is hot, and you've now turned it into ... I dunno, a circus ... no, worse, you've turned it into your talk page, a free-for-all where anyone can say what they please how they please, post tasteless pictures (although it wasn't around long enough for me to taste it - does TPG really prohibit such pictures? my only objection was that it was so BIG), and natter endlessly about n******. If I want to experience the wonders of intellectual anarchy, your talk page is available. My talk page, OTOH, is dignified, restrained, and generally boring. It's certainly NOT an extension of ANI. I am now going to look at my watchlist, which despite my efforts, keeps getting bigger and bigger. I hope you're enjoying your Saturday.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Ye GADS!!! She exclaims, fanning herself furiously. Is it getting HOT in here, or is it just ME? "Misguided James-Collier fan"? There's nothing misguided, I am straight-up, all over RJC, no shilly-shallying about it. I appreciate the sympathetic comments, and would add my own, if I were more familiar with what Wikipedia considers within the bounds of good taste. Permit me merely to quote other editors. "...a photograph of his six-pack would be appreciated." OK. Can do. "I assume asking for a shot of his ****er would be asking for too much." Can't get my hands on one of these at the moment, but I certainly can give it a try (and who's to blame me for trying?). Is it getting HOT in here...? There is a lot to read and absorb here, I will have to table it for the weekend. The information deserves considered review. And thank you Bbb23 for lightening up your tone, to me it makes a HUGE difference! Thanks.Inkless Edits (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Hehe, hands on a ****er, and HUGE, can it get any worse? No doubt the answer is yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC) I know you'll LOVE this - Rob James-Collier modeled for the Argos Catalog before he broke into television, and he did this little PSA (public service announcement), too. This is just the photo; the PSA itself reads, "Be careful where you eat your corn dog." Maybe we should use this for his profile??? ;-) Rob James-Collier, Public Service Announcement, 2007--Inkless Edits (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Barnstar of Good Humor For this :) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Glad you enjoyed it. You're probably not a father yet. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Nope. Good guess. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Response You accused an editor and an IP address as being the same person in this discussion. Please retract the accusation or you may be blocked for making a personal attack. You are, of course, welcome to file a report at [WP:SPI]] if you have evidence supporting the allegation. (Your talk page is screwed up. It's not an archive.)--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC) I know about the archive. Not 'screwed' up as you say just I didn't finish editing on the work computer. Will do [WP:SPI]] soon. I'm not on Wikipedia everyday and I need to read up on how that's done but I don't believe him/her and wont retract the suspicion I have at this time. Far from a personal attack though to disbelieve what someone claims. However the words Fladrif used eg 'media whore' & 'grandstanding' where the offensive remarks. Now that talk page has nearly zero visits, how did you mange to find out about it and respond so quickly? Wombat24 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC) I'll be away from a computer most of the day tomorrow, so am adding last thoughts now, for the time being. The above determination to maintain a sock puppet accusation, without good cause and in the face of strongly worded suggestions from two administrators, is, in effect, an attack on the integrity of several users. Given this persistence, and the promise to file an SPI, I'm thinking of WP:BOOMERANG. For the record, Wombat has been well advised that this isn't a productive path to go down. My thanks to Bbb and Drmies, though it's fairly clear how this is playing out. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC) For what its worth, I didn't know they were administrator and at first was just suspicious due to the speed of their responses. However Drmies comments I believe are way out of line due to his use of foul language on two different occasions in two separate posts. I thought that was banned on Wikipedia. Anyways the SIP was filed in good faith since I believed, and still suspect, 99.149.87.54 is shared by someone else. But if I'm wrong, fine. It will be time to move on. But to call it a personal attack is odd otherwise no one wouldn't file any SIPs when we suspect wrongful activity. We'd all have to ignore it always Wombat24 (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Whatever. If you file an SPI out of ignorance, after being told repeatedly that the accusation was baseless to begin with, then you have your own self to blame. Good faith ends where incompetence begins. I don't know where I used foul language, but I can get a lot more insistent if you don't start listening. IP 99 has a person behind it, a person who has been here for years with a variety of IPs (because, you know, that's how IPs work), a person who has forgotten more about Wikipedia than you have managed to learn so far. I don't have to sing his praises: his good work is found all over the project. Your contributions, not so much. And with this fight you were picking, where you were losing an argument and sought a different tack, an accusation of socking, you've taken up more time than you're worth. You irritated one longtime editor, you were given advice by two editors/administrators which you chose to ignore, you made an SPI clerk do more extra work--in short, I'd like to know what the pay-off is for Wikipedia of having you around. I will make one more suggestion to you: stop fucking around and wasting time, and start contributing to articles without resorting to accusations. Or you will be blocked, as a time sink. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC) More threats here Drmies! I didn't file in ignorance at all but whatever! So can you stop fucking around now. Feels like your stalking me now on wikipedia. This wasn't a message or question for you here but for the other adminWombat24 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Wombat, I'm not sure if you're really listening, but here are some points you might find helpful (in no particular order): Normally, one files an SPI (not SIP) when one has enough evidence of socking. This, of course, is a judgment call, and people with more experience with socks usually make better judgments than those with less. Generally, it's considered a personal attack to accuse someone of socking without filing an SPI. However, filing an SPI with almost no evidence, particularly when a content dispute is not going your way, may not be a personal attack but it is not good conduct on the part of an editor. Drmies and I tried to explain to you that 99. is not a sock. We both know him and have known him for quite some time. As with most editors who contribute through an IP, a different address is often assigned each time he accesses the Internet, although it is often within a certain range. It's not terribly important that Drmies and I are both administrators. What is more important is that we are both very experienced editors, and you should get in the habit of checking things like that when you encounter an editor for the first time. For example, I checked you out and can see that although your first edit with this account was about 3 years ago, you've only made a total of 406 edits in three years. Unless you have experience with Wikipedia under another account or through an IP address, that, to me, means you have little experience. You should listen to those with more experience than you. You don't have to accept everything they say, but don't brush them off. I could have told you before you filed the SPI that it would go nowhere. Clerks will not check for a technical relationship between a registered account and an IP address. Therefore, the only way to establish socking is through behavioral evidence, and, here, it's sorely lacking. "Foul language", which is defined differently by different people, has never been "banned" from Wikipedia. Drmies speaks plainly and directly. He also may speak colorfully and he may use words that bother you. It's a waste of time to be offended. Hey, he once said that I wasn't an asshole; that was high praise. Treat 99. as you would an editor with a registered account. He's an astute editor and has only Wikipedia's interests in mind when he edits. You don't have to agree with him, but you do have to respect him. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Didn't know you answered here. Only saw it today. Last stance. Some points: I read around a few wikipedia rule pages and its clear in several places that one would raise an accusation of wrongdoing first in the Talk page or with the person directly before jumping to mediation or other, like a SPI, which is what I did. Note: this was after I deleted the contentious paragraph basically conceding the other editors POV so as to move on and improve a page that desperately needs improving. It wasn't because I was loosing the argument since I deleted the paragraph and conceded the point. Then I raised the socking suspicion due to the 99....54 edit history which was absent of activity for three years before showing up on a board and very soon after Fladrif went to that board, which by the way was far too quickly since we couldn't really argue the matter on the Talk page first. So I suspected Fladrif as the IP. That was my judgement call. If 99 is also that second IP well then it would make sense that the first was inactive since he'd use several dynamic addresses. But when I noticed another address I directly asked that 99 which one he was but he, probably feeling offended, wrote back "It's too late. You've said more than enough'" instead of clarifying that he was both IP's, something he could've done then and there to settle this, but refused. I take issue with your claim of 'trying to explain' to me that he wasn't a sock. Both just stated it as a matter of fact without any explanation on IP range or dynamic IP's or the several he supposedly used until you have here now. Now I didn't go checking you out then because it felt like stalking at first but I see everyone does this during times of conflict. However it is, for me, more important that you are an Admin because that adds 'experience' to the recommendation. If you would have signed as an Admin the first time you wrote about 99 I would have waited and thought more about this but I would have still asked more questions about that edit history because it stopped in '08 and restarted in that board two days ago after the argument. But the SPI hasn't been determined yet, only checkuser was rejected, and its listed as under administration and , again, the argument was all about behavioural evidence, so I was well within guidelines I believe. If foul language isn't banned on wikipedia, then I'll use it more! About 99, never a personal problem with him and never disrespected him with eg foul language, he was more offended with me due to the socking suspicion. I was only offended by Drmies' disrespect when he wrote those threats, insults (silly, incompetence) and especially saying that the page was fucked up when I hadn't finished editing it. Now that its fixed I wonder if Drmies will say that it is no longer fucked up? doubt it. I find it odd that I'm asked to respect another editor when an administrator's example is that of total disrespect and aggression, which you're classifying as 'speaks plainly and direct'. Judgement call I guess. I think you should ask him to calm down a bitWombat24 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Drmies and Bbb, I appreciate the time you've taken on this matter. Your responses explain some of the basic policies of Wikipedia interaction. They also, whether you realize it or not, constitute real acts of friendship. The virtual world needs mensches, too. Very best, 99.137.210.226 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC) PA By MezzoMezzo Dear,I have been called Roguedue to my edits on Wahabi and Salafi pages and have been accused of harassment in these words,an attempt to harass me(MezzoMezzo) personally by User:MezzoMezzo here.Does it amount to Personal Attacks? There is no content dispute and no one has reverted my good faith edits of removing blatant POV/dead links and forums link from both Wahabi/Salafi pages. I had wrongly/mistakenly clicked on a Link which blanked a pagefor which I have expressed my sincere apologies.I have informed and discussed/explained bonafide use of RFC to User:Qwyrxian. Shabiha (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC) You (Shabiha) also discussed this supposed personal attack with Qwyrxian, to which he responded not only by telling you that my comment wasn't a personal attack but that it was, for the most part, accurate. He told you (Shabiha) that before you made this comment on Bbb23's talk page, so I don't know why you went ahead and did so anyway. If you want to go down this route then fine, but I can't expect things to end up well for you that way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I accept kind advise of User:Qwyrxian.I took the literal meaning of rogue which means,a dishonest or unprincipled man,I am sorry for my complaint and I withdraws it. Shabiha (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Info2012 (talk · contribs) H. Just to let you know since you were the blocking admin of the EW report on this user. It looks like this user has evaded their block here. Thanks. — Abhishek  Talk 19:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Abhishek sounds like he is a Indian Government paid troll and vandalizing the wiki article. 1.186.126.139 (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Hi Bbb23, this guy is back again both reverting [3] and with his PA both above and over here. — Abhishek  Talk 12:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Raja Nawathe Hello Bbb23 You referred to the material I posted as being 'Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced...'. "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (February 2013)" I beg to differ on this. Please note, this man is deceased. Where does one get more material about a man who is not from the western world but has made significant contributions in his/her sphere. The person has survivor (wife - senior citizen) who is unlikely to be internet savvy. Little is available as other 'reliable sources'. IMHO, is IMDB not a reliable source? I often notice that when the subject is not known very well in the western world, there's a great rush to delete or contest the material, especially by over-zealous editors. It is hard enough to find sources, and material, which is why we dig hard, deep, and wide to search for the possible reliable sources. It seems that the notifications for deletions come in such a rush, and without an effort to read the information box. How about giving relatively new editors a chance to add new material. Why not go fix pages which have been around on wikipedia for eons, have little useful information, are dead links, or plain promotional material? What is one supposed to make of the words "living persons" in your notification? Instead, it would be courteous and polite to assist 'newbies' in fixing formatting issues if they're lacking on the page. I hope this point is clear, and that you will appreciate where I'm coming from. These 'tactics' seem more like intimidation tricks to deter new editors to even make some contributions! It does not serve anyone's purpose by posting these notifications on a whim. Please refrain from deriding someone's article with your 'scary' notifications. I truly would appreciate cooperation in this matter. There's NOTHING libelous in what I've written. Thank you. ~pictowrit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictowrit (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC) HELP!!! A few days ago, you removed a speedy deletion tag that someone else issued on a page that I created Hoopla Worldwide. That same person (talk) has now put up deletion tags on every page that I've created. He even put up a "sockpuppet" claim against me, so clearly he is looking at the user (me) and not the content and he has some kind of vendetta against me. I agree 100%that I do put up too many sources, but my approach with that WAS add sources, if people don't feel it's reliable, they will remove it and put up the reason why. However I see that's the wrong approach because it's never happened that way. All the pages I've created are connected from a Louisville, Kentucky standpoint as I'm in Louisville, Kentucky and I passinate about that. I strive to make great wikipedia pages and spend a lot of time doing it. Sure I need help, and I want that desperately. I want people to correct edits so I can get better. Here the pages I've created that this one user has flagged for deletion. Hoopla Worldwide Audio Stepchild Sabrina (pop singer) Birdgang clothing Causeandedit (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry to bother you with this stuff. I didn't create the "A Different Kind Of Christmas" page. Someone else did and tweeted it to @nappyroots (www.twitter.com/nappyroots) and I saw how terrible it was and I started fixing it. Nappy Roots is a successful band from Louisville, Kentucky who were involved with the album and it deserved better. Causeandedit (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC) did you get my email about my recent block new to this site not sure if i sent it properly