User talk:Bbb23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

  • 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.


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Regarding Admin @Bbb23: and article Willie Garson. NeilN talk to me 20:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong venue, obviously. --NeilN talk to me 20:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Gee, you go off-wiki for a few hours and look what happens, although I kinda suspected the editor might take me to ANI based on the message they left above implying I was anti-Semitic ("racist", the term they used at ANI is not what I think they mean). If they had reverted again, I would have taken it to BLPN myself and laid out all the problems with the edits. I had already reverted enough and didn't feel like relying on the BLP exemption for edit-warring. What I thought really odd was that just before this editor came along another editor added the same material. I wonder what triggered it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Govvy probably looks at all the changes on the article because of some quasi-COI. [1], [2] --NeilN talk to me 00:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Fascinating, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
And a rather thin skin. They're lucky no one proposed a boomerang. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I clearly was having an off-day! O,o Now today I feel like I got a stalker... :/ Govvy (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Sorry for the inconvenience of residence edits on Ryan Reynolds page. I've been noticing a lot o people have residences listed that they live LA or in NY. Just thought that was the new rule. Take care. SquareBob SpongePants (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

New user reviewing blocks?[edit]

Sorry to be a clueless bother here, but is user MaxSemenik, whose account was created at 13:02 Pacific time and who is issuing rulings on block appeals (you indicated you would do a CU in response to his request), a doppelganger of someone else? I smell something, but it could just be lunch leftovers. Thanks for your patience... - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:MaxSemenik was apparently an attempt to impersonate User:MaxSem.  · Salvidrim! ·  21:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Already blocked and checked; one less "to do" on Bbb23's lengthy to do list.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for noticing that I was suckered. I'll go block a few more socks - it'll make me feel better.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bradford Bishop[edit]

You're wrong about that with the cats on Bradford Bishop. There are numerous articles where the murderer is listed under that category: to name a few, Christopher Scarver, Coy Wayne Wesbrook, Jeffrey Dahmer - if this is the case then those category pages need a massive clean up. Surely the more people who find the page the better? Bishop is related to 1976 murders in the United States so surely the category should be added? Inexpiable (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Inexpiable: Why don't you take the issue to the Bishop Talk page and see what others think? I don't necessarily care about the articles you've listed (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS), but other editors may disagree with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


I have requested your input at User talk:IndianBio about a checkuser block which then triggered an autoblock. --Yamla (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla: Two things. First, the autoblock only had a few hours left before it expired (unless renewed). Second, after IB made the request, they were able to use another IP and edit without problems. All that said, I saw no compelling reason to keep the autoblock, so I've removed it. Thanks for your concern.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

An SPI......[edit]

Hi, I saw you recently said The data is unhelpful for a number of reasons that I don't feel like sharing. at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MohanishB.Can you give any slight hint regarding the rationale/reason behind this non-disclosure?Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 16:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) What, you mean, tell potential puppeteers exactly what to avoid doing in future...?! ;) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:--Actually I could not figure out how a CU data would be unhelpful.Either it is a yes--which brings an end to the investigation(at least technically) or no--which brings factors of meat-puppetry etc. into consideration.Anyway, I am not very involved with the matters at SPI and if clarifying (even slightly) means that could be potentially exploited by puppeteers, there is little point in quenching my query! Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 17:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


If you have a moment I wonder if you wouldn't mind getting in the WP Time Machine and going back to a discussion during the early days of WP:WER namely Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Procedural suggestion. Prior to retiring, Dr. Blofield started a very lively, idea-filled discussion. I started to consider all the valuable ideas that are contained in the WER's mindblowing. So...I started to harvest discussions from the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention# Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can begin to harvest ideas for solutions rather than re-hashing them every couple of years but then realized it was a temporary location, at best. But, in the process, I ran across your old idea. I want to stimulate Action rather than just talking...and your idea seemed to fit the bill. Right now, all the great ideas are gathering dust in the archives. Maybe if we bring 'em out, dust 'em off, and put 'em somewhere easily accessible, something good will come of it. Anyway, no harm in asking. Buster Seven Talk 05:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: God, that was a long time ago. Honestly, I don't think I'm the right kind of person to help with editor retention. It needs optimists and I'm at best a realist, as well as being a bit cynical. I admire others who have different attitudes from mine, but I can't do much to change who I am. Best of luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi, can you please ckeck whether Youngodin (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of SThompson (talk · contribs). They are following the same pattern of being a SPA for nominating articles about people with aspergers/autism for deletion, also commenting on the Alis Rowe AFD started by SThompson, thanksAtlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Atlantic306:  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, this one could be persistent Atlantic306 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hashim-afc[edit]

Hi Bbb23. Is it OK for me to add another registered account to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hashim-afc#26 March 2017 to be checked or do I need to start a new discussion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You probably need to add it as another SPI to the existing case, but let's start with your telling me the name of the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to post the name here or would it better to do via email? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Either is fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Hashim-afc seems to have admitted to socking at c:User talk:Hashim-afc#Iraq FA logo. Is that something which should be added to the SPI? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. That discussion may become relevant in the future to the user's behavior but it's not necessary to add it to the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Understand and thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Honestly, the evidence you presented was rather thin, although it wasn't a nothing. There's zero connection between the two accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Transcluded subpage deleted?[edit]

I created a subpage with the three revert rule called Wikipedia:Edit warring/Three revert rule and you deleted it. It was with the intent that it would be protected, since anyone (currently autoconfirmed) can edit the three revert rule. Why was the subpage deleted instead of protected, and why was the initial div tags returned? I do not want vandals to deface the three revert rule on Wikipedia:Edit warring. I thought the rationale for the 3rr to be protected the same as Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer/script, where the subpage is transcluded onto the higher level subpage. Is there any difference between the two that makes one meeting CSD and another not? UpsandDowns1234 05:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that you wanted to change WP:EW by transcluding the 3RR rule rather than spelling it out in the policy. While the template still existed, you made a change to the policy to achieve your goal. It was rejected by another editor. I agree with the editor who undid your edit to the policy. There's no reason to separate the rule from the policy. Nor is there any special reason to protect that one aspect of the policy, any more than there is a need to protect the policy. It seems to me that your change would create more problems and solve none. Therefore I deleted it per G6. If you feel differently, the proper place to raise your idea is the Talk page of the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


Just a note that the deletion discussion for an article you deleted remains open. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quick n shine. North America1000 12:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Maybebop[edit]

Hiya Bbb23 - I just wanted to ask if you could reconsider the deletion of Maybebop. It was deleted under CSD A7, but as far as I can remember, the article made a credible claim of significance for the vocal group, and there is a wealth of German news sources available about the group. This makes me think the group may meet notability guidelines, and it may be appropriate to resurrect the article and hold an AfD discussion. Thanks for your time - Quasar G t - c 17:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Quasar G.: Actually, the article said almost nothing. On its face the article made no credible claim of significance. If you wish, I'll put it in your userspace for you to work on.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I'm recalling incorrectly then... But yes, please do put it in my userspace. Quasar G t - c 17:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User: Elisa.rolle in AN/I board[edit]

Bbb23 you were so kind to close the discussion on the board, thank you. Not sure, really admitting my ignorance here, if that is something anyone can do or just an admin. As I said, I'm not editing anymore, I'm offering help to CaroleHenson if she wants to maintain an edit instead or reverting it, but I'm not actively modifying the encyclopedia. That is to prove, I do not want to leave people alone in cleaning my mess (even if I still do not think it was a mess, but alas, that is my opinion). I would love to help more, but I feel like that would be worst than best. Just to give you an example: there is a pretty clear sentence on that board "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion" but, still, people are commenting, and not in a polite way, below with a post-note (is that even right according to the policy? I do not know really). I do not want to engage in discussion on my competence, but in this same encyclopedia, someone is citing my work in at least 5 articles: Henriëtte Bosmans, Paul Danquah, Jewelle Gomez, Dick Leitsch and Labi Siffre. And please, believe me, I don't even know how to look at who did those references. My contributions on Wikimedia are used in multiple source on the net (About 56,600 results according to Google). My own website, that I use as a repository for info, bios and everything related to the LGBT community was visited 471.827 in February 2017 with 1.398.580 hits. I just wanted to help. But despite a nice message from CaroleHenson, "Welcome to Wikipedia", I did not feel this welcomed. I was attacked multiple time, to which I always tried to answer in a polite way, when I just dared to ask 1 question (and again I wasn't reverting the edit, I was just asking one question), the whole amount of my edits were reverted stating clearly the revert was without reason just on the assumption I wasn't able to edit Wikipedia; people who tried to support, where attacked too ( Maybe I'm wrong, but the right approach to bring good editors to Wikipedia is what CaroleHenson is doing, not for sure Beyond My Ken. This is the last from me, I would have liked to reply to the board, but I do not think that is a good idea. I wrote to you since you were the one closing the topic, I do not even know which is your opinion, but I just wanted to explain myself without being misunderstood, hopefully --Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Score (Carol Lloyd album)[edit]

Woah... May I ask why Score (Carol Lloyd album) was deleted without any prior notice or warning? Love Carol was nominated for deletion, not Score. It was even nominated for the GA review process. Carbrera (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC).

I have no idea what you're talking about (GA nom). You shouldn't be creating articles that are clearly subject to deletion per A9. Perhaps you should work on an article about the artist and see what that gets you first. As far as I can tell, the album articles talk more about the artist than the albums.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
But the article was never nominated for deletion per A9 in the first place. So articles can just be deleted from the mainspace without any prior warning or notice? That's new. Love Carol received said warning, not Score. And I disagree with you on that "the album articles talk more about the artist than the albums". For Score, it was her first album hence why there is info discussing her record deal (which I believe it what you are referring to). The least you could do is leave me a copy of Score in my userspace or something. Carbrera (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC).
And yes, Score was nominated for the GA review process but just removed a bit ago [3]. Carbrera (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC).
(edit conflict) I'd be happy to put it in your userspace if that's what you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if you place it here. But can you answer me on why it was even deleted in the first place? Carbrera (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC).

Kate Mulgrew[edit]

What context are you talking about. Three citations and you didn't seem to read any of them. She had a daughter in the mid 1970s that she gave up for adoption and was reunited with later.Koplimek (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

At a minimum, when was she reunited with her daughter? It would also be helpful to know how she found her daughter or if her daughter found her, how her daughter found her.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:NEL. That context is not needed WP:REL to indicate she had a child out of wedlock or other. What should we state?.. when she conceived, how she conceived, what position she conceived, what time of day, month etc. This should have been an accepted comment even with the one citation and while I appreciate your criticism, it shouldn't have been removed.Koplimek (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
NEL is an essay, and I don't much care what it says. You obviously didn't read what I wrote and what context I felt was needed. I'm done with this conversation. The material has been challenged. If you want to include it, start a discussion on the article Talk page and see if you can obtain a consensus for your addition as presently written.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
BBb23, this is my last comment to you about this info on Kate Mulgrew's page. Also see WP:Verifiability and WP:RS. Stop reverting my citations/sources or I'm taking it to Arbitration WP:A/R. Koplimek (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to believe that an editor with over 50K edits could be so seemingly clueless.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe you're clueless and ignorant. Usually edits as such are much appreciated. To be impartial to you, I made the notices to WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Koplimek (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Pixel Crunch[edit]

Hi Bbb23, I was wondering what was the reason for the deletion of Pixel Crunch, and how I would go about submitting a page that won't get deleted on Pixel Crunch <Pixel Crunch>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwell.mckay (talkcontribs) 20:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't be writing articles about your own company, but in any event such an article doesn't belong at Wikipedia because it's not notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)