User talk:Bbb23/Archive 3

Facebook jealousy

Why inducing jealousy is not a valid criticism? Not only it's not trivial, it is a major social and psychological issue. I was surprised it didn't have a section or even a slight mention. I added more citations to strengthen this point. 89.139.7.56 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Dick van Dyke Show

Copyright violation. I didn't think of that. Nicely done, thanks. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it's great that you weren't offended by my removal of some of the material. Good catch wikifying the NPR show. One piece of advice: it's a good practice to put in edit summaries when you edit articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I usually do put edit summaries (99.9% of the time) and should have clicked Minor Edit on that one too. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

username change

I have replied to you on my username page but dont know how soon you will get the reply so wanted to say i have replied and that I will accept your offer to change my username (please see my username page for more details and the full story) cheers Bankhallbretherton (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Accident

I accidentally deleted (and then subsequently restored) your last comment to the Peter Mailer BLPN thread. I'm not sure what happened there, but I got some sort of funny looking edit screen where some of the comments were not formatted correctly, and, before I knew it, I had accidentally copy/pasted your comment below (instead of above) my new comment while trying to fix it. Anyway, I think I've got it sorted. Just didn't want you to think something fishy was going on. David Able 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Kind of you to explain, but I didn't look at the history, so I actually didn't understand what you were apologizing for (in the edit summary). No harm done - these things happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad manners

Hey Bbb, what is it with that Tao user, cussing all over Talk:Dennis Genpo Merzel? Now they're trolling my talk page. Charming company it is that we keep. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• BTW, I reverted to the last clean version (which was yours)--the one with three reliable sources. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Mailer

I have nominated this article for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Mailer. Robofish (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispute

Thanks! I started my own thread at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Wilbert_Rideau (since it's about undue weight) hoping to get stuff too WhisperToMe (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

... for helping clean up thoroughly after thetruthyguy. It's always nice to find subtly biased information only to discover that it's been corrected already by someone else. –SJ+ 10:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

You asked some questions on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Questions.

• If someone is vandalising an article, then you can revert as many times as necessary. But it has to be vandalism, not a content dispute.
• When you are dealing with vandals or POV editors, there are a nice set of templates, where you increment the number:
  • {{subst: uw-v1|Name of article}}
  • {{subst: uw-t1|Name of article}}
  • {{subst: uw-del1|Name of article}}
  • {{subst: uw-npov1|Name of article}}
• In a dispute over content, there is a point where you need to stop reverting unhelpful content and hope that someone else will make the reversion. I reached that point last night over some unhelpful content additions to the article on Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig - see edit history. You will see that two other editors Proteus and Kernel Saunters did what I hoped, and reverted the unhelpful content.
  • Note that asking other editors to help in reverting unhelpful content is not something you are meant to do.
• If you are in an edit war, make sure that you are giving your reasons either in edit summaries or on talk pages. Note that people sometimes use editor talk pages or article talk pages, or a mixture. Having done this will help you defuse the situation, and if it goes to dispute resolution, it will show that you acted reasonably.
• Try to resolve disputes without going to Administrators' noticeboards.
• What the guidance says is "When reporting a user here, inform them of this, possibly in conjunction with the {{uw-3RR}} warning template."
  • The template is not intended to tell them where you have reported them.
  • You have to write something yourself for that.

--Toddy1 (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Toddy, for taking the time to answer my questions. Much of what you've said I already knew, but confirming that the uw-3RR template is not meant to be a notice is helpful. In the future, I'll try to issue the warning and add my own notice at the same time. That should cover all the bases on that issue.

In the most recent instance that triggered my report, it wasn't a content dispute per se, it was an editor who stubbornly insisted on destroying the formatting of an article. However, it was a little more complicated than vandalism as the editor thought he was only changing content, but his complete cluelessness about editing kept screwing up the article. If he'd done it once, or even twice, I could understand that, but he persisted in the face of two editors (me and Off2riorob) telling him to stop, both in edit summaries and warnings on his Talk page. EdJohnston finally blocked him, after cutting him more slack than I felt he deserved. That, too, I didn't understand because I thought that 3RR was a bright-line rule, even though I admired Ed's thoughtfulness in his handling of the situation. Anyway, I'm no doubt writing more than you want to hear. Thanks again for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I once had problems with an editor who was a bit clueless about formatting, and assumed that anyone who disagreed with him about anything must be anti-semitic. He was actually a good guy, but his assumptions about life and the way he behaved really annoyed people. I managed to get him to understand the format problems by creating a table on a talk page where I showed him how he had formatted something, and what it looked like when I corrected the formatting. (A table is really good for this, because you can put his version in the left column, and your corrected version in the right.) It took a bit of time to get it through to him that all I was doing was getting the format right, and deleting repetition. In the end he gave me a couple of barnstars for helping him.

People who make formatting errors but don't know it, can find it very hard to understand why you are reacting negatively to them. They can misunderstand very easily. Please try to help your guy - be patient. Surely your guy cannot be as annoying as the guy I had to deal with? It could be that if you persevere with your guy you will turn him into a useful editor.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're just much more patient and nicer than I am. I'm more than happy to help people, but you don't have to be a Wikipedia whiz to be able to look at the article after the edit to see that the article is all screwed up (in this instance, the formatting issues were not minor or subtle). In any event, you're very kind to engage in this dialogue with me - I do appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

John W. Bryant

You recently made comments on the talk page of John W. Bryant regarding repeated deletions of a quotation from a source. We've been working on this issue on the talk page and I've drafted a proposed addition to the article here. Because you commented on the issue previously, you are invited to comment on the proposal, if you wish to do so. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sonia Sotomayor

Dear Bbb23,You reverted my edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor) on the grounds it was poorly worded/formatted addition that probably doesn't belong anyway. Your main point is "that probably doesn't belong anyway" ( concerning "poorly worded : if that was the sole point, you would have ameliorated the wording instead of reverting it , wouldn't you ?). I strongly dissent with this opinion . Justice Sotomayot wrote a 26 page long dissent , and you,Bbb23, you would say this is peanuts ? Even Brian Deer - you do know him well , don't you ? - concluded one of his recent post this way : "With that and the end of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding, autism-vaccine litigation is essentially over. If some real evidence were to come forward which could make autism causation by vaccination a defensible idea, sure, cases would be heard again in the vaccine court. Until that time, legally as well as scientifically, the idea has had its day and it is time to move on." (http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/02/supreme-court-decides-bruesewitz-v-wyeth/ ). This is not small stuff ,or is it ? . So , if my wording doesn't suit you , if it is not clear ,please help and ameliorate it .Trente7cinq (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

3075, you're correct, if I thought the material you added belonged in the article, I would have cleaned up the wording, formatting, etc. Generally, the dissent of a Supreme Court justice is not notable. Therefore, I don't think it belongs. You're, of course, welcome to raise the issue on Sotomayor's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Just passing through, and as the author of Antonin Scalia, a FA, I would agree with Bbb23. Dissents are notable in Scalia's case because he is known for his dissents, books have been written about them. If a day comes when Sotomayor's dissents are collected and the subject of books, then right on. Until then, a random passage from a dissent is just trying to give air time to a theory rejected by the majority.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt,You are talking from a random passage ???? If you find a better one , please go on !Would you prefer this the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress ?Sotomayor is not judging of the validity ( or invalidity )of any biological theory ( cf your "is just trying to give air time to a theory rejected by the majority" )but about principles of law .Moreover this page is not about wakefield /vaccines....but about Sotomayor . If the article has "Her first major written opinion was a dissent in the Berghuis v. Thompkins case dealing with Miranda rights."..I won't understand why it could not have something like "in the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case she also dissented ". ( This only will be satisfying ; you see :nothing will be written about this regulatory vaccum ....no air will be given to any theory at all )Trente7cinq (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The key difference is that the Berghuis case was her "first major written opinion" (as you correctly quote). That's its justification for notability and inclusion. Subsequent dissents are evaluated by a different standard. The mere fact that she dissented isn't good enough, and most S. Ct. decisions are notable, so saying that the opinion was about an important topic won't cut it, either. Nor will citing to third-party sources that analyze her dissent because almost every S. Ct. opinion and dissent are analyzed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

Your top listed userbox is about how you don't like "mean" people. And yet you seem to be mostly making judgmental reversions of other peoples stuff, not vandalism which is a wide field for someone who feels such a need. You don't see a contradiction here? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sheen page

Thanks for catching and fixing it.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Thanks for replying at the Help desk, and thanks for putting a notice on my page... I'm terribly forgetful, and my watchlist is absolutely no help! --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 03:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For helping on the Martin Hirsch article. BTW, I was not adding the statement from the TV-show, but on the contrary, I had difficulties trying to get that out of the article. I hope you keep the article in your watchlist! --Anneyh (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I apologize for my dyslexia about who was reverting whom. The article is still on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Another thanks

Thanks for the tip about not using the word "currently" in edits. Ill remember this for future edits. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. "Recently" is another word to avoid. They cause problems in the future when they become dated.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tidies/capitalizations

Regarding your tidies to the Supreme Court page, shouldn't "Senate" be capitalized in some instances, e.g., when we have "...go to the full Senate" ? I don't understand why it would not be capitalized in those situations (though I can see an argument for, say, "senate committee", where "senate" is a modifier). Magidin (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reconsidered and agree with you (partly based on looking at the Senate's own website). I've changed the section accordingly and given you credit in the edit summary. Thanks for being meticulous.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film)

Sadly, many AFDs do not attract a slew of editors. But if you might take a look at the work performed on Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film) and revist the AFD discussion, I believe a redirect and partial (and now sourcable) merge be done to the Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations... the one place where film adaptations of this children's tale have a reason to be mentioned in context. I also suggest a redirect of the film title to A) prevent a premature recreation and B) save the history so the redirect might be reverted and the article sourced if RS DVD reviews are found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Michael. I responded on the AfD page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Charlie the Sheen and the Warner Bro Blob

Hello. I liked the way you took care of business on that page. I am trying to edit it without changing the big blob timeline in the WB section. I would like to know how you feel about compressing it to a more manageable size of 3-7 lines max. Because if Mr. Sheen is mentally ill or using hard drugs and continues with this daily 'front-page news' behavior, in 2 months, that section will need multiple sub-sections and sub-sub-sections. Your views are appreciated. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest and work on the article, and I don't mind talking to you here, but with respect to the specific Warner Bros. section question you pose, I think it would be better addressed on the Talk page of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Frot

If you have the desire, I would very much appreciate your contributions to the Frot article and the discussions on the Frot talk page. Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

For the moment, as you can see, I'm trying to get other editors to comment on EAR.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted here before you pou at the EAR. Sorry if I annoyed you though. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't do anything "wrong" and you didn't annoy me at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a standard length for a waiting period on EAR? Mijopaalmc (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Sometimes, certain topics just don't grab other editors on EAR, and it looks like yours is one of them. You could try posting another message on the topic and ask what you should do next if you disagree with the content. You've had long discussions on the article's Talk page. I saw there was an RfC, but it doesn't look like anyone responded. I've never escalated a problem beyond a first-level noticeboard like EAR except in very narrow circumstances like suspected sockpuppetry. When it's a pure content dispute, as here, you could try the content noticeboard. I've never used it personally, so I don't know how effective it is. Some noticeboards are more active than others. Just posting a new message on EAR may motivate someone to respond, don't know. Sorry I can't be of more help.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Peaches

So , do you want to add the drug allegations? Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In 2009 Peaches was signed to a six-figure modeling deal to become the face of the Miss Ultimo collection. Michelle Mone, the head of Ultimo underwear said at the time "Peaches was the perfect choice for this campaign. She's young, edgy with lashings of style". The collection was launched at the Debenhams department store in Oxford Street in May 2009. Geldof was subsequently dropped from the Ultimo brand in March 2010 after allegations of drug use and nude pictures of her were posted on the internet and published in the media. Geldof denied the claims and said, "I am disappointed that Ultimo has decided not to extend my contract based on a wildly exaggerated account of a night in Los Angeles five months ago." Mone said of the decision "As a brand that targets young women, we feel it is impossible for Peaches to continue." and that "Miss Ultimo is a brand geared towards a young female audience and as a company we have a social responsibility to ensure we are promoting only positive role models that young women can aspire to."

I edited the article just to make some minor corrections and noticed there was nothing about the drug allegations, but at that point I hadn't looked at BLPN to see if anything had changed since we last talked about it. If it's okay with you, I will add the drug allegations based on what we agreed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I put the whole paragraph together here for you. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I already made some minor corrections (your paragraph above still has the former errors), so I'm just going to fix the sentence about the nude pictures, adding the drug use.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the content from here, I just removed the reflist already as they cause trouble on thalkpages, and thanks for your input, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Always a pleasure doing business with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

I agree it is hard to follow. I tried to re-section the article - as most of the white patornoster stuff does't have to do with the actual topic but origins - but the user keeps reverting it. The requests for citations at the beginning keeps getting removed, and the section on possible catholic origins keeps getting removed as well. And an alleged quote that doesn't exist - I looked, gets put back in for no reason. How do I keep these in, as they aren't offensive, and as near as I can tell, he is breaking several wikipedia rules - non-verifibilty and vandalism - removing sources for no reason. IE If I knew what I was doing, I'm sure I could get him blocked. He's taking advantage of the fact that I don't. I know this article - which the user apparently wrote, is mostly original research and actual off topic, but I have never actually deleted any of his stuff, just tried to correct it and add a section. If I could put in this article neutrality is disputed or something I would, but I don't even know how to do that. MaxKen (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen

The template {{POV}} can be added to the top of the article. I'm not saying I think it should be added, just that that is the template you are looking for.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Geldof review

Account User:195.234.243.2 is registered to Associated Newspapers - the recent addition from there citing an attack review from Christopher Hooton in the Metro (British newspaper) - the Metro is owned by Associated Newspapers. Apart from that, why you though a comment like ..'Like chewing gum stuck to the pavement the show is unnecessary, unsightly, a little bit gross and will be impossible to shake off for days .. was the type of review that had value in a BLP is beyond me. WP:COI - Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't assume quite so much from my edits. My approach is more minimalist than yours in many instances. First, I didn't know that the IP was part of Associated Newspapers. Second, I just focused on the wording, etc., of the IP's addition, rather than whether it belonged there at all. It occurred to me that we might need to look for other reviews of her show to provide some balance, but I wasn't convinced that in the absence of such research, the negative review wasn't fair to insert in the article. Anyhow, your removal is fine, if for no other reason the conflict.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

buzzer

but other people r named John Roberts so i did the right thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1000Fast (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to believe you're acting in good faith, but if you are, you're clueless as to how to edit at Wikipedia. I would refrain from doing so until you learn. Otherwise, you risk being blocked completely.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ur right. i guess since he is the main john roberts it should be like that. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1000Fast (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: List of ex-gay people

Hello Bbb23, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of ex-gay people, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not a duplication, some members of this list are not in Ex-gay. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.   -- Lear's Fool 01:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Assange page

I'm trying very hard to be patient with this new user, 'Someone Unimaginative', but they are making it difficult. Seems like every response is viewed as a personal attack by them. I made my mea culpa for misreading the Talk page, but I hope this gets back on track soon. Thank you for being helpful in there also. -- Avanu (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't fret too much about it. You've done as much as you can, and the article will move on (no doubt with a fair amount of controversy considering the subject). I'd just let the user issue go. And turn off Wikipedia so you can get better. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

who?

wasn't me. probably my son. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1000Fast (talk • contribs) 01:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Apology about Frot

I'm sorry that the divisiveness of the discussion seems to have driven you away. Mijopaalmc (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize, but it isn't exactly the divisiveness that has caused me to pull back, but more whether my contributions are facilitating a resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

grammar etc

Hi, just to let you know, I am grateful for any such corrections to my additions, I missed your edits and replaced was but I am not attached to it if it is surplus to requirements - best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sometimes you move at lightning speed and it's difficult to even correct you before you've made another edit. :-) I removed the "was" again. If we were to leave "was" in, it would require a semicolon before because it becomes an independent clause - better without. Editors, though, are trying to put the death information in the article. I've removed it and will continue to do so until someone comes up with a reliable source for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, just checking back in - "lightning speed" - like it, thanks for the laugh, best regards. - Oh, and thanks for this joke as well, very amusing and topic related, 'lightening' the undue seriousness there. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein

Hello, I contend that the designation of perpetrator of the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre is fitting, as no one knows Baruch Goldstein as a physician, as his listing would otherwise merely say. It would be dishonest to remove the main thing he is known for from this list. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.241.204 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on the Yeshiva University Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Old news

Remember Dennis Genpo Merzel? I don't know why, but I returned to it, and posted notice at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see it. I continued to watch this article until, I think, yesterday, when I removed it from my watchlist. However, the truth of the matter is I gave up on the article well before that. I added a little to your latest BLPN post and will wait to see how much response it gets before deciding whether to reinvolve myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Category

Okay, given that I have no clue as to what is right, we'll leave it at that unless I get a response from the workgroup, in which case I'll post it here and we can address it if there's any conflict. Thanks for all of your efforts at resolving this. You've been remarkably thoughtful.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all the input regarding the Article Feedback Category at my Talk Page ... as well as for the kind words in the last post (above). Much appreciated! Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

Re: Authority Control Template

Hi there. The Authority control, mainly used by libraries, is a way to disambiguate bibliography with similar or identical titles. Or to quote its convoluted wiki article, "Authority control is the practice of creating and maintaining index terms for bibliographic material in a catalog in library and information science... Although theoretically, any piece of information on a given book is amenable to authority control, catalogers typically focus on authors and titles." Hope my explanation helps. Cheers. - Artoasis (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, what you say makes sense, but it would be nice if the template documentation included something along these lines so that when we revert the inappropriate addition of the template to an article, we can point to it. I'll raise this on the template Talk page, but I'm not sure how far I'll get.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It really helps to have some clear instruction on the template's page. Hope you get a response soon. - Artoasis (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. I just replied on the template page. BTW, have you looked at the past discussion about the usefulness of this temp? I wish I had participated in it. The temp, which links to non-English library databases, is not even very useful for prolific authors, let alone celebrities. Editor Kam Solusar even added one on Osama bin Laden's page. What's the point? Unbelievable. - Artoasis (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on the Talk page. I don't see much more to do on this issue. I don't have the strength to resurrect the deletion discussion. As an editor, I'm satisfied that when I see it added to an article, if appropriate, I'll revert it as irrelevant/unnecessary/adds nothing. There are too many Wikipedians who believe that if something is factual and sourced, you can include it regardless of whether it passes the "who cares" test. Sometimes, common sense is far more constructive than hypertechnical policy discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're so right about the "common sense" part. That's when Wikipedia policy fails to work. So many additions are basically useless information, but what can you do about it? Cheers. - Artoasis (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer

That it is jarring is why it should be cited. Breyer's comment really communicates the tone of his interview. If you find the context lacking, when it provides the forum, date, and reason for noting Breyere's interview, then the word "context" is without meaning.

I will date it up 48 hours and then restore my edit.

Wimania (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC) User:Wimania

I've started a discussion on the Breyer Talk page. Please contribute there.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I found an infobox named "muslim scholars" here which is not in the Category:People infobox templates. Where can it be located? Pass a Method talk 16:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox Muslim scholars}}. A couple of things that may help you. First, a category is only as good as people inserting articles into the category. Second, you can always find a template from the Search box by typing "template:name" where "name" is what you think the template is called. In other words, you could have searched for the template yourself - not that I mind helping you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wilbert Rideau page

You have asked that I go to your talk page to discuss content changes on the Wilbert Rideau page.

I am wondering why a contemporaneous article announcing Rideau's winning of the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award (with quotes from the ABA!) is not persuasive against articles that came later by journalists who incorrectly summarized awards. I wonder this especially in light of the fact that Sinclair himself acknowledges that Rideau was the first to win this award, solo.

Again, with the George Polk awards, there is nothing in any of the sources cited that says Rideau had anything to do with Sinclair's article or that Sinclair had any role in the making of Rideau's "Sexual: The Sexual Jungle," which you revert to an incorrect title, among other things.

Sinclair himself, in his autobiography states that he won the award for his article and Rideau won the award for Sexual Jungle. So why is correcting this such a problem? I have given authoritative sources for the changes I propose. So why are my sources not sufficient to overcome the erroneous, later sources cited by another editor?

This is a biography of a living person and is supposed to adhere to the truth. Both Sinclair and Rideau, in his memoir, agree on the wards that were won by each man. So why is this a problem for WQikipedia?

Also, Sinclair, in his autobiography (which is a public document even if it cannot be downloaded for the reader) acknowledges that he was not made co-editor until after the 1980 Polk Awards. Another editor found an article that said, in error, that he was co-editor in 1978. So what rules? Truth, or a battle of articles/books? Isn't this kind of silly, considering what Wikipedia purports to be and is supposed to strive to be?Eye Smith (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood. I asked you to go to the Rideau Talk page, not mine. There, you can raise all the issues you raise here (and I also noticed you discussed some of these issues on another user's Talk page - you can extract some of that, if you wish, and put it on the Rideau Talk page). The article Talk page is the right place to do all this. I opened up a topic there for you, too. I suggest you take each assertion you want to add, change, or delete, one by one, and explain why the edit is needed, backed up by sources, or questioning the existing sources. It's much easier to do this in a very concrete fashion with each item listed separately. Otherwise, it gets a little muddled.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

By the Talk page, do you mean the Discussion page? You wiki people speak a language unknown to ordinary folks. And I am still, nonetheless, amazed that you would simply Undo/revert changes that are well sourced. Unfortunately, I have spent all the time on this I have for now. I work a lot, must hit the road before dawn, and am sorry to meet with this kind of roadblock merely to correct incorrect information. I'm very sorry to learn the extent of effort one must put forward to correct erroneous information. Eye Smith (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Discussion tab of the article (just like this page, my Talk page, is the Discussion tab). Sorry you're disheartened, but sometimes Wikipedia is a fair amount of work, particularly when you want to make multiple changes - a single change is easier to review.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuckerberg net worth

I think it's important to note his net worth in the lede, what is a better indicator of success?--The lorax (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things, in my view, but perhaps not for billionaires. In any event, if you want to stick it in the lead, you have to be very careful that (1) it doesn't contradict the infobox and (2) it's correct with the latest figure and latest rank. So far, you haven't had any luck on that score. :-) Also, if you end up using the same URL as cited in the infobox, then don't do it twice. Please put a ref name on it, and do it correctly.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Jackman's

Hello Bbb23, i observed that you shortened the caption of picture added by me by giving a reason "not sure the source of the extra information in caption", for that should i provide a source? and do I've to place that source link on image's caption? because i think article's readers should know that "why Hugh visited India". Bill william compton^Talk 14:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Even a picture caption is an assertion. When you look at the image file page, there's nothing to indicate the purpose of his trip to India, so it has to be sourced if you want to include it and you think it's important enough to include.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's OK now..Bill william compton^Talk 15:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks very much for cooperating.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi BBB23, I read your comments regarding my edits to Hugh Jackman's article. Excuse me if I proceeded in an inconvenient way (and I didn't even imagine that a commercial ad on YouTube could mean a copyright violation). Thanks for suggesting me the link WP:YOUTUBE). Best regards, --Fadesga (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

I have been trying to register my complaint concerning the handling of Palazzolo by Wikipedia (Don Calo) but whenever I post my case it gets deleted. Am I barking up the wrong tree? There was a court case in Johannesburg, SA, regarding Wikipedia and The Sunday Independent. It's important. Can you help?Fircks (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but the changes you try to make the article are completely inappropriate. See here. You can't discuss Wikipedia and an editor inside the article itself. You're lucky you haven't been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping!

Hi! I know it probably feels like you've stuck your head in the proverbial lion's mouth at Tangled but I wanted to say thanks for the help and an all-around Good Job! for the edits you've made and the cleanup you've done.

Entropy is a hard thing to control. Thanks again! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Not sure how far I'll get with the box-office performance detail, but I'll try.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Tangled

Hi it says to keep plots to below 700 wds and I have. Sorry I'm not very experienced at editing Wikipedia, when I saw it kept erasing my edits and finally clicked message there were a whole bunch lol! saying it thought I was a vandal.

Here is the text with edits, spelling etc. corrections I've been trying to insert. Thanks.188.221.241.64 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

PS Thanks for updating the review; it's excellent. In case it removes my edits again, I changed 'a born' to born, and it's to its in a couple places, and adding 'glowing' to her hair in the cave scene. Thanks again and I like the box-office section, too. 188.221.241.64 (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

---

It's not just keeping the number of words below 700 - it's also trying to keep the plot a summary, rather than a full description of every detail in the movie. You added to many details. I've also reverted the edits that another editor made that actually increased the number of words to over 900 (in so doing, I a;sp removed your edits because they were just corrections of his or hers).

My suggestion is that if you want to make any changes to the existing plot summary, you make small changes one at a time and see how they fare. It's much easier for me or another editor to review incremental changes rather than lots of changes done at the same time. But if an editor removes your material, as I and another editor did, don't keep adding it back in. Look at the edit history and read the edit summaries first. Then, if you strongly disagree with other editor's changes to your material, raise the issue on the Talk page of the article rather than warring with the editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

76.226.25.60

Putting the warning you did on 76.226.25.60's talk page in reference to the Julie/Julia page was a little over the top, don't you think? He's obviously a new user. Maybe you could have been a little kinder and explained things first before resorting immediately to giving a warning? Lhb1239 (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm in a bad mood, but putting that aside, the IP made the change once, and I reverted with an explanation and no warning. When he did it again, I inserted a warning. I can't go around educating every IP that makes these kinds of changes, and I've found that generally when IPs repeatedly make these kinds of changes, a warning works better than other things. I also don't assume that he's necessarily a new user. The only sure thing is that using that IP address he's a new user, not the same thing. Generally, IPs who know how to revert, like this one, have some knowledge of Wikipedia, rather than an IP who just makes an edit. Sometimes I have more time to be what you would consider kinder, but sometimes, with all the work I do on Wikipedia, I make judgment calls as to how much optimism about a user's good faith is warranted. Anyway, I don't really completely disagree with you - if that makes any sense after my little tirade. :-) I'll think some more the next time about trying advice first, although another problem is I only have a few reversions available before running afoul of 3RR, and if the advice doesn't work, it uses up one of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

We all have bad moods, bad days. But I've found in life that it's better for me and the other individual involved to assume the best first and get curt later if necessary. I think a lot of good people get put off of working in Wikipedia when they're new when they are on the receiving end of impatient editors. Since the environment and nature of a Wikipedia article is that it's always changing, I can't see what the hurry would be to attack first rather than later. Just sayin'. And thanks for the explanation and reply. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's too rough at all. It was only the "Caution" template, which isn't really bad. Let's see what 76.226.25.60 has been doing: No edit summaries--EVER. Adding unsourced data. Reverting changes without even the courtesy of an explanation. Hmmmmm...

I'm sorry, but I don't think Bbb23's actions were out of line, at all. Personally, I have little patience with the seemingly-huge horde of folks that have time to edit articles but just can't be bothered to explain what they're doing or use the Talk pages. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not meaning to be rude, but the kind of attitude you've expressed above is going to keep new people from wanting to stay in Wikipedia. I haven't been here that long so I can't speak from personal knowledge, but I sure hope your attitude is a rarity, UncleBubba. I imagine Wiki's founders would rather see kindness than negativity when it comes to new users. Isn't there a saying around here that you should assume good faith first? Lhb1239 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Lhb, responding to your comment to me up higher, part of the problem is that I watch so many pages and revert so much stuff because of ill-considered edits (forget about clear vandalism), and it all takes so much time - and, effectively, you're asking me to take even more time. However, it's kind of like getting a speeding ticket (you're the cop in this analogy). You may not agree with the ticket, but you often slow down after getting it. So, no promises, but I'll try to be better.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(First off, Bbb23, I apologize for jumping in here and starting a "thing" on your Talk page!)

Lhb, I'm never rude; I pride myself on civility. (And, of course, others may disagree.) I bend over backwards to help educate and encourage "newbies" (see [1]). I feel very strongly, though, that one must always keep sight of the main goals. What are the goals here? To publish an encyclopedia! I was new a while back, too, and did some dumb stuff. Some people suggested I read the rules and, ya know what? I did. And I try my best to follow 'em.

There are many people like me out there and, if I may be so bold to say, I hope they stay around. On the other hand, there are folks that either don't care about collaboration, want to use WP as an advertising/promotion forum, or--far worse--just don't think the rules apply to them. These folks, if allowed to run unchecked, will poison the good efforts of good editors and discourage them. And then the good editors will leave.

There is a campaign on right now to encourage professional educators to use WP in their classrooms. If the teachers and professors find inaccuracies and vandalism on WP pages, how far do you think this campaign will go?

The real question we should be asking ourselves is not how to we get everyone to edit Wikipedia. Rather, the question should be: How do we encourage the highest-quality, most expert and dedicated editors to do more?

But, then again, that's just my opinion; you gotta decide for yourself. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No need for apologies, UncleBubba. First, I appreciate your coming to my defense. Second, the debate about IPs, how they should be treated, whether Wikipedia should even permit anonymous editing, etc., is a recurring one at Wikipedia - and an interesting one. It's part of what makes Wikipedia unique, the intersection of structure and democracy (some might call it anarchy <smile>).

New users do not necessarily see everything or understand how everything works. I did not even see the area for supplying reasons for edits when I first edited an article. It is better to kindly assume the new people are just learning the system. If you are too busy to be kind and patient, then you are doing too much editing. If you are swamped by reverts because you see so many "ill-considered" edits, then consider you might be doing too many, too fast. Lhb1239 is right, because you've alienated me from the get-go and I can't be the only one Wikipedia lost because of it. Wikipedia doesn't need only editors, it also needs supporters. Alienating supporters is not good for Wikipedia. Akminister 05:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akminister (talk • contribs)

Pete Hamill

Hi Bbb23; thanks for your help at Pete Hamill. I do believe the revisions were made by someone who's close to the subject, and that they're probably accurate, but the lack of sources and the account's unwillingness to engage were problematic. Thanks again, 99.168.85.28 (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, although I didn't do much, and it looks to me like you have it under control. You may want to consider putting templates back into the article, depending on how you feel and what happens going forward. If the other editor edits again, I would definitely tag it as WP:COI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Medium Season 7

Hi there they just released the new DVD package for Season 7 on TVshowsonDVD.com and it's awesome. It's a golden yellow package. I wanted to upload the photo but I wasn't sure how to do it. If you go under the first page the last reference you can click on it and see it! It's 4 disc set and it looks nice. Jdcrackers (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC) PS if that doesn't look like the colour for it feel free to change it.

I believe you. I mainly reverted your change because of the reference problem in the lead and the template problem at the bottom. I removed it again. If you want to put the stuff back in, fine, just fix it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi sorry for posting on the wrong page. I am still kind of new to this. Did you see the Medium DVD package? I am not sure how to upload the photo so if you can that would be great. I wasn't sure what colour that was as I considered it a golden yellowish colour??!!?? But, I wasn't sure how to get the colours in between the lines. Thanks Again Jdcrackers (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

PS sorry for messing up the format! Jdcrackers (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Again, I wasn't trying to be rude or anything about the captions, but the other DVD's had them and I am one of these people that want each thing to be the same when I do something. I appreciate you putting the period on it.Jdcrackers (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you were rude at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Cite dates

Per MoS, the cite dates were proper. Wikipedia uses that form even on your own watchlist :). Kindly note the ArbCom decision about making changes in cite dates. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're being really silly, and I said so on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite the MoS and ArbCom decisions then. Collect (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple sums and Lara Logan

Your concession is apparently not as great as you may have thought it was. The cited NYT article refers a total five times to the dismissal and its context using the words "fired" - in the first sentence, no less - as well "firing" and "fire." Only once did the NYT's ref say McCrystal was "relieved." (A euphemism if there ever was one; to quote "Euphemism is a substitution for an expression that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the receiver." It is conceivable that some find it less jarring to be told they are being "fired." I just wouldn't be one sharing that peculiar sensibility.) Of course, what seems to be just as simple miscount could, in fact, originate from another NYT article not cited. I chose to rely on the ref in use. Nonetheless, your choice to not engage in a revert war, though it seemingly would be based on wobbly sums, is appreciated. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep doing it!

Hey, Bbb23, there must be a bit of overlap in our watch lists--I keep bumping into you, so to speak.

Your contributions are spot-on, in my opinion, and we seem to share a lack of patience for BS, in any of its myriad forms. The work you've done at the movie pages must, I'm sure, feel like herding cats or pushing a rope or spitting into the wind but it's noticable. Thanks!

Jus' keep in keepin' on! People that hate our stuff say too much, while people that like it tend to say nothing, so it can seem awfully quiet, sometimes. L8R! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Bubba, sorry for the late response, but I've been off the Internet for the last week. Thanks for the kind words.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Death of Kent Leppink and edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_death_of_Kent_Leppink#Trial_and_appeal

Hello,

I do not understand the talk pages or how to post to yours so I am trying to communicate with you via this form.

Please stop deleting my edits to The Death of Kent Leppink. I have improved the article, corrected misinformation and unsubstantiated claims disproved in court, and I've cited the sources for all of my additions and changes.

Because the page officially calls for improvement and citations, and I've provided the sources of my additions, my edits are not "too many" nor are they suspicious or problematic. To continue deleting them appears as though the editor/s doing so are pushing their own point-of-view or agenda.

Points-of-view are to be neutral, and as this topic involves a living person, the information provided must come from verifiable sources. I've read the trial transcripts, the appeal motions, the appeal findings and opinion, trial records submitted as evidence, and numerous news sources (much of which is inaccurate unfortunately, due to lazy journalism, reporters not bothering to read the trial transcripts but just copying what was first written and republishing it over and over again). My information is accurate and I've provided the sources.

In fact, there is much more detail and complexity to this case than I've added thus far and since the original article was much more about Mechele Linehan and the trial than it was about Kent Leppink, as it was, the title was misleading. Almost none of it was about Kent Leppink. Only the initial sentence was about his death. Nothing about his death other than that he was shot three times has been substantiated anyway, not even during the trial, which is why the conviction didn't stand. I do not know why someone directed Mechele Linehan inquiries to The Death of Kent Leppink page so that there is no page under her name.

It is arguable whether there should be an article on either Kent Leppink or Mechele Linehan, as they are not famous nor did they accomplish anything outstanding. There are many murder trials every year, so there is nothing special about them in that regard. Especially there is no reason to have an article titled Kent Leppink as he isn't even infamous. Most people know about Mechele Linehan, not Kent Leppink (most people don't even know his name).

However, if there is or are going to be an article or articles about either one of them, this article is better and more reliable now, so please stop deleting my contributions.

Thank you

Akminister 12:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akminister (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but your major, multiple changes cause too many problems, both to content and to form. I've reverted all of them. If you want to make a change, make one change and let other editors scrutinize it for accuracy, reliability, verifiability, relevance - not to mention formatting - before going on to your next change. I am not going to go through all of your changes at once trying to figure it all out - it's just too messy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't checked my resources for accuracy, then isn't rather arrogant to just delete my contributions?

Content and form? The original article looked like someone in middle school wrote it, but for some reason neither you nor any other editor bothered to clean it up. The article also contained inaccuracies and little to no reliable sources for what was written, yet they were allowed to stand with no more than a request for others to improve it and to provide source citations. Then the article was changed from being about Mechele Linehan to being about the death of Kent Leppink, except most of the content was and is not about his death. Still, it stayed.

The article doesn't even belong on Wikipedia, but since it is here, someone actually takes the time to flesh it out with more detail, correct factual mistakes, and provide the sources to support the changes and that is just too messy for you so revert it all, deleting my work, and you do it multiple times?

So, this is a club for volunteer editors to arbitrarily play with? Then I wasted a lot of time. Wikipedia just lost a new editor and also will not be receiving any more money donations from this household. Not only because this is allowed on the site, but because it shows me that the information on the site is not reliable, thus not good for research and information.

Akminister 05:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akminister (talk • contribs)

geolocation data

Per your edit summary comments here, you might be interested in reading about the WikiProject which organizes geotagging all eligible articles. You are welcome to join if you wish, but I point this out just to introduce the value of locating places and objects. See WP:GEO. —EncMstr (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It's not likely I'll join the project, but it's useful for me to know about it as an editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

Hello Bbb23. If you feel that the link is okay then please restore the info. Yes this editor has started out in a problematic fashion. For one thing the person keeps switching back and forth between this ip 72.24.231.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and this username Rharrington112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Unfortunately I just don't have the time (or the patience) at the moment to try and explain things to them. Oh well maybe they will learn as time goes on. Thanks for you time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The cite is okay, but the information doesn't belong, so I'm leaving it out. Based on the editor's attitude, I don't think explanations will work, but I'm more cynical than some editors about this sort of thing. You might consider a sockpuppet report, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that I look closer I agree. It just doesn't seem that notable - at least for an encyclopedia's purposes. Thanks for the suggestion about SPI (although filing one can be time consuming also) I was also thinking about Wikiquette alerts if they continue the kind of edit summary that they left for you. Enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD | Talk 01:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ranks and capitalization

Not trying to edit war on the Lisa Nowak page, at all. I just wanted to restate what I said in my edit summary, and try to explain a bit more: "Then you should at least go through and change all of them, for consistency (in your edit, there are instances in the same sentence that use different capitalization). I don't care if they're all capitalized or all not, but they should be the same." I've reverted the article again simply because the state that the article was in before all of the rank titles were capitalized. In "your version", there was a "Commander" in the same sentence as "captain" and "admirals", for example. Again, I don't really care if they're all capitalized or if they're all not capitalized, but they should all be the same. Common convention within the armed forces, and in newspaper articles covering this incident as well as many others that cover military personnel, the convention is to capitalize ranks. That's why I personally capitalize them, but again I don't really feel too strongly about it as long as there's internal consistency within the article.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that consistency is more important than the style guidelines. I also think it's not a good reason for reversion. In any event, I've gone through the entire article and made it consistent (unless I missed something, which is very possible because I'm tired). I also removed the excessive linking, eliminated the ridiculously trivial Hobbies section, and did some other copy edits while I was there. I may take another look-see tomorrow when I'm less tired to make sure I got everything.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing: the one thing that Wikiepedia's style guide is mostly unequivocal about is that things should be internally consistent. Regardless, it's just weird to have "captain" and "admirals" followed by "Commander" in the same sentence, you know? anyway, I was pretty tired by this point yesterday as well. In a perfect world, neither one of us should have just reverted each other, we should have done additional work on the article as well. I'm just glad that you've gone ahead and done some other things, and it seems as though our activity has encouraged others to do some work on the article as well. In the end it looks like the article is in better shape, so I'm certainly satisfied.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

By the wa, I couldn't find this yesterday, but I found it this morning: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms

I know what it's like to be tired. I appreciate your messages here. I was very award of the issue of Commander in the same sentence, and I figured some might find it odd that I didn't change it. It's a little hard to explain, but I intentionally deviated from the rule because of the context. It wasn't like saying someone is a commander. It was discussing the "rank of Commander", and I intuitively (god help me, try to prevail on an inuitive argument at Wikipedia) felt it should be capitalized. But when you (and no doubt others) noticed the inconsistency, I figured it was just easier to change it. So, there's my long-winded explanation.

Thanks for finding the military terms part of the guideline. As you can see, though, it pretty much follows the guideline I cited. I haven't yet looked at the article, but I'm glad you and I at least worked things out.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure you are quite wrong about the capitalization of "Astronaut" when used as a title like Captain or President (Astronaut John Glenn, for example). But, I guess it's really not worth fighting about. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

I did bring cheese for the whine but there seems to be an element of humor missing in our friend/ My bad. Happy Day! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 20:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm speculating, but he may think your irreverent, whimsical style is intended to mock him.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OH I LOVE how you describe me, you are so right on! One would think he would have caught on by now. I did apologize and tried to explain my irreverent self. Reverence must be earned, Like my unwavering reverence for your very self. I will try and take it down a notch. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your speculation about my feelings on the matter is right on target, BBB. And apparently, from the response above, the other editor's comments were intended to mock me just as I suspected. I am not in need of reverence, just the respect that would be paid another person you pass by on the street. It's what I try to provide others here and think WP:AGF means pretty much the same thing. And when you think about it, that really isn't too much to ask. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your conclusion that Doc's comments were intended to mock you is a bit strong, but I understand your point about being entitled to a minimal level of respect and your related point about assuming good faith. Seriously, though, the exchanges between editors on Wikipedia are often problematic for a number of reasons, and it would probably be best just to try to get past it, not that I always practice what I preach. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand people who aren't Nice. This user believes sarcasm is the highest form of wit. I wouldn't waste my time mocking anyone. If they are worth mocking they are not worth talking to. End of schtick. ;-) My real concern is that I am positive we are dealing with a sock puppet. With less than 800 edits and 6 months on Wiki, Lhb1239 just knows too much of Wiki Workings (talk about trivia!) to be credible. I have a good idea of this person's banned identity but very little proof at this time. Will email you. Have I mentioned you are terrif? not gratuitous, truth. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your suspicions are ridiculous. I have read quite a bit here in Wikipedia over the last several months about how to edit and not edit, as well as policy. If you look closely, in the beginning of my foray into editing Wiki I did very little. That was because I wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing and took the time to learn before leaping. I don't want to think your strange concern over my Wiki knowledge has anything to do with your apparent upset over the changes I have made at the Bruce Vilanch page and talk page. But, because this accusation is coming out of nowhere, I really have no choice but to believe that's exactly what's happening. You say you don't understand people who aren't nice but I see nothing nice about how you have been communicating with me and your accusations of sockpuppetry. The contradiction between your "nice" statement and what you've said here about me and on the Vilanch talk page is something I don't understand. If you'd like to explain though, I'm listening. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I did check. One of the first things you did was create an article. Nuff said. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't see why that's suspicious. I read a lot about Wikipedia before I decided to try editing. I'm the kind of person who reads instructions before trying anything I do. I read an article outside the Wiki about anyone editing and creating articles and thought I'd give it a try. I'm sure I'm not the only person who started in Wikipedia this way. Since it's apparent from your newest edit summary that you really don't want to try and be "nice", this conversation between you and I is over. I don't owe any explanations to you and I've done nothing wrong. The Vilanch page is yours to do with as you will. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Bbb. Not your problem. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have two comments. Doc, it's unfair of you to accuse Lhb of sockpuppetry. You're free to suspect him, but I don't think you have anywhere nearly enough evidence to accuse him. Lhb, you, of course, can do as you wish, but I urge you to continue contributing and commenting on the Vilanch article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll continue there. And thank you for asking me to return to the article. But the personal attacks and accusations and nastiness from the other editor my direction (that includes edit summaries) really needs to stop. The other editor has obviously been in Wiki longer than I have, but that doesn't give him the right to be so disagreeable and accusatory. It was simply uncalled for. Next time I won't be so passive about it. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Doc is female. Putting aside the accusation of sockpuppetry, which as I've already said, was unwarranted, the rest of the stuff is not that unusual at Wikipedia. Really. I know you think it's unpleasant, but there are many editors at Wikipedia who could be far more polite. Also, responding in kind, albeit tempting, is almost always a bad idea. Either take real action, withdraw, or move on. That's just my opinion, of course, and you're free to do what you think best. If you ever want to witness incivility taken to incredible heights, try watching WP:ANI for a while - it's not for the faint of heart.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bbb, apparently you do not know the history of this Sockpuppet. Inviting her back really opened a can of worms. Even not knowing the history, the knowledge that Lhb has, is impossible to learn in less than 800 edits in 6 months. In addition, this is the exact same claim she has used before. I have a lot more evidence than you are aware of and will pursue this further. Your problem is that you are too nice. Gotta love ya. Will get you link to previous problem. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggest you take a look at the following Wiki essay WP:NOASSUMESOCK and pay particular attention to the following sections here, and here. Aside from all that, I'm not a "she". Lhb1239 (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's it. I'm done at the Vilanch article for now. The other editor is still making outlandish accusations (here) and is reverting without solid reasoning at the Vilanch page again (edit warring, really). The other editor seems to have a need to WP:WIN. I don't need or want this kind of garbage. It's not why I'm at Wikipedia. Thanks for trying, though. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Bbb: You've got mail! NAMASTE... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To Lhb: I'll look at the article to see its current condition - but later - at the moment, I don't have the energy. To Doc: if you have evidence that Lhb is a sockpuppet, you should file a report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Think we're reviewing the same material!

Hey,

We're obviously looking at the same Jimmy Wales material at the same time. Apologies if I step on your feet. NickCT (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I think we're both trying to make the material work in the article. I've responded to your comments on the Wales Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

DocOfSoc has given you a breath of Spring to promote WikiLove and Joy ;-)

Thank you for your patience. Namaste.... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The King's Speech

You've made several edits just now to The King's Speech but these include shortening Helena Bonham Carter's name to Carter, which is incorrect; her surname is Bonham Carter and she comes from a long line of people with that name. I also feel you should restore the link to shilling. A lot of people – including anyone born in the UK after 1971 – won't be familiar with the term. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Another editor changed one Carter to Bonham Carter. I believe I've changed the remaining instances. Also restored shilling. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Jim Parsons wikipage

Thanks for your note on my talk page, and your request for an explanation. Re the date changes: the article has a mishmash of day-first and month-first date useages; I tried to make them all read the same. I chose the day-first format because it reads more smoothly and requires fewer commas; it has nothing to do with whether Mr Parsons was born in Texas or Argentina. Re the access dates - I don't know why we sometimes include that info - it is trivial, UNLESS the website being cited is one whose information could change over time. If the information is there in 2000 and will be there in the same form in 2011, it does not matter when we read that information - thus we are cluttering up the wikipage if we list the date of every reference. Cheers!--Raymondwinn (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your explanations, but I don't think either change is justified. The date should be American style per guidelines, and there's no reason to remove the accessdate - you can't predict the future. Are you willing to at least put back in the access dates? If you do that, I'll change the article to American date style. That will then retain your other changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds

But I did add a reference to my Ryan Reynolds edit. 62.194.101.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

When adding categories about religion, WP:BLPCAT has certain requirements. Please read the policy, but essentially the body of the article has to support the categories and it has to be very clear. Putting a source in your edit summary doesn't even come close to satisfying the policy requirements. In any event, I read the source, and it says nothing about Catholic or atheist, so you wouldn't even be able to add it to the article in support of your claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, I just wanted to come here and say thank you for the polite discussion we had at the Kate Winslet talk page. I've been a bit frustrated lately with the way things are handled around here so having the discussion we had was, well nice. Again, thanks, it reminds me that there are editors who can be polite. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, it's refreshing, isn't it, to have a civil discussion. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation

Per your comments at Nathan Fillion, no, you're not required to use IPA, it's just the standard. There are other options, spelled out at WP:PRON, but it would be nice if you tagged them with {{needs IPA}} so that it can be completed quickly. — kwami (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought my comments, which are from months ago, made it fairly clear I didn't know what the rules/guidelies/policies are in this regard. Also, another editor said he was going to tag the article, which he did on September 26, 2010. Then, yet another editor came along a few days later and added the IPA pronounciation. I'm assuming you're just answering my 2010 question and giving me a heads up as to how it's supposed to work if I ever have to deal with the issue again. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

MOSNUM dates

Hi,

I've now replaced the contents of the original MOSNUM script with a working version. It's preferable that you use something which is not my testing ground, so could you go back to using User:Ohconfucius/MOSNUM dates.js? Thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)