User talk:Bbb23/Archive 6

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

Bbb23 would you make the edits?[edit]

Bbb23, as the deciding factor of all cuecat, would you review the relevant links to the codie award for cue cat and consider ammeding the file under your name with the editing weight and authority it carries in the man wolrd of wiki? This woman here trying to earn her way seems to be failing. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 16:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talkcontribs)

Paul Greenfield[edit]

I speedy closed that AFD , reconsidered as per discussion with you and some additional investigation - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I could be of some help, and your quick reconsideration is commendable.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


You reverted all the changes I made to the Poulenc page. It appears that you consider this page as exclusively yours. May I underline the fact that this page as you left it is of a very, very low standard, and that YOU never made any effort to source most of your assertions.

It there is something you want me to source, please let me know precisely what.

If you demand that my changes be sourced, please see to it that your assertions are sourced as well. You have had ample time to do it and you have not made the slightest effort in this direction.

And finally, this is a collaborative enterprise. You have to accept that other people know a lot more about Poulenc than you do, and will add it to the encyclopedia sooner or later. And without your help, the Poulenc page will be of much better quality.

In short, please try to be a big boy.

I will of course visit the pages you have collaborated to to make sure that you always source your assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Virginity pledge[edit]


I saw you recently edited the text on Silver Ring Thing re: Virginity pledges. I think my edit summary which characterized it as 'consensus' may have been a bit hasty. At the time, I was discussing the issue with only one other editor, User:Becritical, but another editor has come forward desiring modifications. Since you are sort-of involved, would you be able to offer input at Virginity pledge regarding the introductory paragraph? It is being discussed on the virginity pledge talk page as well.

Thanks for any advice help you might offer. SocratesJedi | Talk 20:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Francis Poulenc[edit]

You requested semiprotection of Francis Poulenc. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive243#WP:RFPP again. There seems to be an ongoing dispute. It is difficult for an outsider to get any idea of what the dispute is about. I don't know whether the average admin would feel comfortable issuing semiprotection; I am on the fence. It would be reassuring if at least one side of the dispute could make a plan for improving the article. For instance, what do you see as the actual problems? And you've scolded others for adding unsourced material, but do you think there is any actual wrong information? Perhaps you could find an active WikiProject that would take an interest. If the IPs were reverting against a serious attempt to improve the article, things might be different. The article is rated as Start-class which is a pretty low level. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I'm not sure if you want me to reply here or at WP:AN. I don't remember why I took an interest in the Poulenc article. Generally, I stick to BLPs. My views on articles generally is that everything must be sourced. However, I treat information already in an article (before I looked at it) differently from new material. Just because there is unsourced information already in an article is not a valid basis for adding more. So, when I see information added (or even changed), I usually revert it. I'm also put off by editors who behave unprofessionally, whether they are IPs or registered editors, and that can sometimes affect my decision making. In the Poulenc article, an IP came along and started changing material in an aggressive manner, both in the article and in discussions. I reacted negatively in both places. The IP was so strident about one area of the article that I actually went to the trouble to obtain the book source from my local library to verify it. Using that book, I made a few changes to comport to the source. In a rare moment of helpfulness, as I recall, the IP pointed out that I had made an error. I checked. The IP was correct, and I changed the article accordingly, and thanked the IP.
Here are some examples of the IP's poor conduct (I'm assuming all the different IP addresses belong to the same individual):
  • "In short, please try to be a big boy." and "I will of course visit the pages you have collaborated to to make sure that you always source your assertions." (both comments above on this page)
  • "Best time of your life, eh?" (Poulenc Talk page)
  • "OK So you admit that you do not KNOW but YOU are the one that imposes HIS CHOICE and does not try to establish FACTS. FACTS are available. It's not that difficult. I'm not either." (Poulenc Talk page)
  • "Help is needed here - by competent people." (Poulenc Talk page)
In response to your question about whether the IP's information is wrong, I have no idea. I generally don't care too much about such things as I focus on verifiability. As for a "plan" to improve the article, I don't have one. I don't care to work with the IP, and if it's too hard to keep out unsourced information for whatever reason, I'll stop watching the article, and other editors can deal with it. I have only so much time for the work I do on Wikipedia, and as it is, I spend far too much time here (not that I'm complaining - I like it); thus, I have to pick and choose where and how I spend my time. The logical project is WP:Composers. I noticed that an editor, User:Alfietucker from the classical music project, got involved in some of the recent edits and seems much more sympathetic to the IP than I am. The IP also seems to respect Alfie. I know nothing about Alfie's contributions to the project or whether I would "approve" of them. His edit count is low, but that doesn't necessarily mean his contributions are subpar.
Anyway, sorry for the long response. I hope parts of it are helpful in deciding what to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The reason for admin concern seems to be that there is a vicious circle. One guy has some subject-matter knowledge but is not big on following WP:V. The other guy wants to see the rules followed but is not really in a position to improve the article. The two sides continue to revert one another over a long period. If you have the patience to open up WP:Request for comment about one of the disputed points it could bring in outside editors who might take an interest. Also, any actual initiative to improve the content sometimes creates its own momentum. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Why don't I first try leaving a message on the composer project Talk page and see if that generates any interest? I've done that here. I've also inserted a refimprove tag in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I'm here at the invitation of EdJohnston. I'll admit up front that I'm not big on overhauling articles: rather, I tend as a rule to tinker with a number of articles as a distraction from my real work (I'm a professional writer on classical music), giving a nudge here, squashing perceived inaccuracies there, occasionally starting an article on a singer, actor or major figure in musical history if I'm moved to do so. So I haven't been exactly "gagging" to overhaul the Poulenc article. What I'm happy to do is to 'police' it (as I have been doing to some extent), obviously to undo vandalism but also to keep an eye on additional material, add citations from time to time (though obviously it would save time if the original poster could include this as they post) and make sure nothing obviously erroneous (to my knowledge) is left to stand. My feeling (and this is entirely my POV) is that I don't wish to undo work by others unless it is obviously wrong or added with less than good intentions towards the article. If you can live with this, I am happy to 'take responsibility' by keeping an eye on the Poulenc article.
FWIW, I think it really does need a lot of work before it's even up to the standard of either the Benjamin Britten or the Sergey Prokofiev articles, both of which I have done rather more work on over time, but neither of which are GA status. The Poulenc article could do with a more balanced biography, including more about his artistic milieu and how he was influenced by various types of music and composers; and I think a more clear outline of his contribution to French song, opera choral and chamber music would help to give a truer picture of his true stature. I'm not sure I'm best qualified to do all this, but I could, perhaps, at some stage sketch out sections in the article to cover these aspects.
I look forward to reading your thoughts. Alfietucker (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Alfie, thanks for your comments. I think it would be great if you could find some time to improve the article (with sources). As you can probably guess from reading my comments, I wouldn't be happy with any editor (IP or otherwise) violating WP's rules about sourcing and verifiability. That said, nothing forces you to be a policeman, so why don't you do whatever you can to improve the article and not worry about the policing aspect? Maybe I'll be lucky and find another editor (perhaps at the composer project) who would be willing to enforce and improve. I haven't decided what I'm going to do yet. I'm really just trying to get it off my shoulders. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Biography subhead[edit]

Who frowns upon it? Has it been discussed by moderators?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "moderators". It's a matter of common sense, but here's a brief discussion of it at the biography project ([1]). I've seen it discussed in other places as well (article reviews and even edit summaries like mine), but I'm not going to dig them all up.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Trial of Conrad Murray". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 November 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you please review the request page and agree or disagree to mediation? Thanks, AGK [] 17:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I didn't know I was supposed to register disagreement, only agreement. I just saw your post on that page and was about to respond, but I'll just disagree instead. I see nothing to be accomplished by voluntary mediation based on my discussion with the requester here and on the very limited discussion on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! AGK [] 09:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

MAIN vs SEE ALSO[edit]

Yes there is a difference. Yes you could have corrected it rather than being nasty and unwelcoming and unwikipedian by deleting it entirely. I hope you're happy now. You can be sure that if I ever have a chance to 'help' you in the same way, I will. Thanks for nothing. btw - how are the numbers of new contributors to Wikipedia coming along? Still negative, are they? What a surprise. (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm sure the success of every new user on here hinges on them knowing the difference between those two templates. Give us a break. –MuZemike 03:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
This is probably a waste of time, but, frankly, I don't know why you screamed at me in your edit summary or are so aggressive here. I just reverted your edit because it wasn't right. I'm not even sure that the "see also" is correct given that, arguably, you'd need a see also for every senate election Feinstein has ever been in. But when I reverted your addition, it didn't even occur to me that I should "correct" it. It wasn't a function of being non-collaborative, just examining the change and finding it wanting. I would have done the same thing with a registered, long-standing editor, although I doubt you're really a new editor. As MuZemike implies, most really new editors don't have an inkling about such templates.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Curious multiple account attack on CueCat[edit]

Your contribution is encouraged. Mangoe (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Amanda Williams[edit]

Your recent editing history at Amanda Williams shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

aprock (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Trial of Conrad Murray, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [] 09:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Do not edit my posts ...[edit]

... without reasonable cause. This was completely unacceptable, and now you appear intent on an edit war. [2] Hans Adler 01:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: See WP:ANI#John Pike. Hans Adler 01:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop changing what I'm writing[edit]

With New Year's Eve (film), I'm not making that stuff up. Just because it's not sourced doesn't mean you have to erase it. I know Lea Michele is playing Elise and I know Abigail Breslin is playing Hayley. It even says so on their pages. Now are you going to go and erase it on their pages? So...stop being annoying, because you are ticking me off! Dottie166 (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever undone one of your edits, so you must have been editing as an IP. If so, it would be better to log in and edit as yourself. You'd also do better to spend more time leaning how to edit responsibly than being "ticked off" about other editors undoing irresponsible edits. You've been around a while, so you should know that everything must be reliably sourced here. As for the Breslin and Michele articles, you are correct, and I've fixed that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
A lot of things on Wikipedia aren't verified. But it doesn't mean it's not true. Not every single sentence needs a citation. It says that Abigail Breslin is playing "Hailey" on and in the movie's trailer. Dottie166 (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The fact is that just because some things aren't verified on Wikipedia doesn't mean that makes it right. It just means that someone hasn't done a good job, and it also means, like with all unsourced material, it can be removed. If you can cite to a reliable source for the movie trailer (a legitimate site, not a rogue one) to back up Breslin's role, that would probably be fine (I'd have to see it before committing myself). IMDb is not considered a reliable source, particularly for an unreleased film.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


Rotten Tomatoes sounds like a reliable external link to me. Not only does it summarize critical reviews but it also links news related to the article as well. Even still I appreciate your concern over the article. :) Jhenderson 777 20:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad[edit]

We seem to be at cross purposes here, and I haven't changed what you restored because it's not worth battling about. All people who are born in one of the countries of the UK are UK/British citizens with British passports. However, that doesn't mean we have to classify them that way. To say someone is "British-born" is less specific than to say they are English-born (or better "born in England" or "English"). Most editors prefer to use the specific country because it's conveys more information. Thus, for example, for actors and actresses, the lead will say English actor, not British actor. A few examples: James McAvoy (Scottish); Benedict Cumberbatch (English); Kate Winslet (English). That isn't to say there aren't articles that say British in the lead, but many editors, when they notice and care, will change them to the more specific country within the UK. It's not that you're "wrong" - it's just better to state the actual country within the UK. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you. If you want to keep it British-born, I'll leave it and you alone. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The source we cite specifically says "British-born". To me, it also seems better since she holds British nationality (and there's no such thing as English nationality in the legal sense) - and I think the British nationality is the notable fact. The article explains later that she grew up in London, so we don't need to worry about being more specific in the opening sentence.
As for those actors. The fact is that they have an English identity, whereas with Asma I think we have been careful not to write that she is "English" (since as the First Lady of Syria, her primary identity appears to be Syrian). Avaya1 (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You could have left this on your Talk page, but no matter. We wouldn't be saying she is English, just that she was born in England. I agree with you that her primary identity is Syrian. In any event, I understand the points you make, and I don't have a problem with your keeping your version. It's not a big deal.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Assistance with citation[edit]

Could you add citation to end of fMRI sentence (Tammet article). Had difficulties. The fMRI point is a separate conclusion point from the same study. Thanks in advance.

Is the assertion you added from the Bor study? What pages of the study?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. From Bor study. Please add citation. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XNQlo (talkcontribs) 18:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


Hey. I totally agree, just didn't want an edit war to start, but if you also think so, then fine - removed. Thank you. ShahidTalk2me 19:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You could have kept this on your Talk page, but I'm glad we're in agreement. Thanks for making the change. I think we handled it quite civilly. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Stana Katic[edit]

Hi there. As the editor who inserted the Serbian and Croatian names on the article, I just wanted you to know that it was done in good faith with no intention of any hard pushing. I do accept the reasons it was not desirable for you and the other user but I'm sure you'll realise that where individuals are of a foreign background, there are principles and codes of practice. I left a few notes on the talk but have since modified the article to remove the heavy load from the intro and place a minor note in the second paragraph in such a way that it fits more neatly with the woman's roots. When both Serbian and Croatian are a case for pre-1992 events, you can pass with Serbo-Croat and that in turn can be presented in Latinic form only. Have a look at the article and see what you think. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


I guess we could add a source for each journal, for that would be overkill. The resume is on the U of Michigan website, so I don't think he would lie. It is referenced, end of. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted you again. Please read WP:SPS. We can't accept his word for his accomplishments. I might add that we really don't need such a long list of journals, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It's the University's word, as it's on their website. And I disagree, it is useful referenced information to know those journals. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It's hosted by the University of Michigan. It's his own CV and he obviously prepares it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't wish to have my username on his talkpage. Please be considerate. And there's no indication the staffers didn't write the CV. I'm not even quoting that long of a passage anyway. Thank you, again?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You could, I suppose, write the same message on the talkpage without my username. Thank you. But I really don't think what you're doing is necessary.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Be careful. Removing another editor's comments on a Talk page can lead to a loss of editing privileges.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like my username to remain private. Sorry if you thought it was rude. I'd just really like you to respect my username privacy and not mention it on his talkpage. I never like to leave it on talkpages, for obvious reasons. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not rude, it's not permitted. This is a public encyclopedia. Your edit history and your comments are all open to public view. So, I guess I don't get what your "obvious reasons" are for not wanting your username (which isn't your real name anyway, I assume) to appear on an article Talk page. It just doesn't make any sense. If you wish to explain, fine, but you still can't remove my comments just because you don't like it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Privacy. You could edit your own post on your talkpage with "someone" instead of my username. Will you do that? I already apologized, I'm not going to beg.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to be harsh, but just saying the word "privacy" again isn't an explanation. Based on this conversation and your edits to the Solow article, I think you need to spend more time understanding how Wikipedia works and how to edit properly. You may mean well, but your contributions are problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't have time. It would be good manners for you to remove my usernname from his page if I asked you to. Also, please don't stalk my edits.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I honestly didn't like doing what you asked me to do on the Halperin Talk page, but I did it anyway. As for your edits to other articles, I go wherever I feel like on Wikipedia and edit based on what I think is appropriate. Don't think of it as stalking. It's not the first time that I've gotten into a discussion with another editor and then looked at the editor's other contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hey, Bbb23, I hope you don't mind me jumping in here, but the simple facts are that you were absolutely correct to feel dodgy about removing Zigzig20s' name from the Halperin Talk page. You were also correct in your evaluation of the COI regarding the self-published papers.

And, Zigzig20s, I read your "I don't have time" declaration. If you don't have time to become familiar with the rules here, you probably have no business messing around with the articles. This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook, and you should behave accordingly. Asking Bbb to remove your name was contrary to the spirit of this place and, had you asked me, I'd have said "no". Bbb23 was being pretty nice to do what you asked. I don't know why you were asking, anyway; the Edit History of virtually every page here (including editors' names) is freely displayable to anyone.

The bottom line here is that you own NOTHING on this site. (See WP:OWN.) I patrol new edits and frequently check certain troublesome editors' contribution lists. That's the way it works--get used to it. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 06:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind at all, UncleBubba, thanks for your comments. As you can see from the thread, I had a certain amount of difficulty just communicating with Zigzig20s. A lot of what s/he said just made no sense. Anyway, I've left comments on other article Talk pages where I don't name the editor, so it was no big deal to accede to Zig's request - it just felt wrong, made me squirm as I did it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


Dude, I really don't appreciate my neutrality being attacked, when over the course of months, Hysteria18 has been blanking, deleting references, and causing trouble. You are contributing to the problem.-- (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Colors on my Userpage[edit]

Let's you and me have an editwar over those colors why don't we? Give it your best shot. ;) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to war over. I'm right. You're wrong. Your own admission: "NOT MUCH TO SEE HERE". So there.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually if you could find a way to make the links have a lighter color I'd be grateful. I've been trying myself but I suck at code.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm no expert, either, on HTML coding. However, I think your biggest problem is your black background color. AFAIK, the link color is set by the user's browser, so I don't think it can be changed easily by the website. I might also point out that some of your userpage is fully protected, so only you or other admins could change it. One option, if you are really wed to black, is to raise the issue on the Pump, or even at the Help Desk (those folk are truly wonderful). If you don't feel like that kind of, uh, public notoriety, you could try contacting one of the more technical editors privately and discuss it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It may not be your aesthetic preference, but it's SO much more readable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Fisher article[edit]

You added a comment to this article claiming that it was George Pell who was the alleged sexual abuser. He wasn't - as the reference you included makes clear. The comment about Pell has been removed. In future please check references more adequately before adding comments to articles. Thank you. Anglicanus (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm very embarrassed, thank you so much for catching and fixing my inadvertent error. I have edited the paragraph again (1) to add the alleged abuser (the parish priest - I decided not to include his name) and (2) in poking around, I found Fisher's denial. Please make sure my changes look okay to you. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


How do we go about proposing it's deletion then? --BwB (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's up to you. The only two ways I know are prodding it for deletion. See WP:PROD. And nominating it for deletion. See WP:AFD.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Done, thanks. --BwB (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Adib Khaled[edit]

Hey Bbb, I see you've run into the same editor, with the same problems. I just gave them a final warning after I saw that you had given them a level-3 warning for removing maintenance templates. We have a serial BLP fluffer here, methinks. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies, my warnings were less noticeable because of their placement on his Talk page. I debated with myself about where to put them, but I'm glad you saw them.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's what you get when your talk page is full of wonders where this is headed. A block, maybe, if they keep this removal of templates up. An RfC, maybe. How about a note on the BLP noticeboard? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
(Just reversed another of his edits removing templates, but I believe it was done before your final warning.) I'm hoping a block, frankly, because I'm not hopeful that he can ever contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. As for WP:BLPN, I was hoping to keep the Jamal Nazrul Islam article in check without going to WP:BLPN. Honestly, the removal of the templates made it easier for me to revert without having to examine all of his edits (very messy) on their merits.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Ssst, don't give away the company secrets. But yes, on that article I worked on, I went paragraph by paragraph, with extensive edit summaries, for as long as I could stand it. A subsequent unexplained mass reversal, including template removal, makes the job a little easier. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Ha, I edit-conflicted with you at AIV. I hadn't even seen the top half of their talk page: they've been blocked before for removing references and promoting some POV. I think there are two options here: a temporary block is handed out and the editor hangs themselves given enough rope, or we bring it up at ANI and let the community decide (I think it will be a quick decision). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you added some counseling to the editor on his Talk page. I'd be surprised if he heeds it, but it was commendable of you to try. Given that it's been reported to AIV, I think we should let that process take its course before raising it on ANI if he continues to be disruptive after a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I should save that so I can copy it for the next one...BTW, it occurred to me that "BLP fluffer" is somewhat ambiguous, but not inappropriately so. I've been going through the editor's contribution, trimming more. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
BLP fluffer sounds like one of many colorful British expressions I've learned since being on Wikipedia and being exposed to many British admins (I know you're Dutch but you're probably more influenced by Brits than by Americans) and other British editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm probably more US-influenced by now. I've seen the word "fluff" used here, but not yet "fluffer"--at least not in this context. I was thinking of Fluffer. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
My, my, maybe some day I will get used to the articles you find on Wikipedia. I only knew fluff in the context of pillows, not pillow action. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Lindsay Lohan[edit]

Hello, thanks for the heads up (and the flattery ;) I reverted them and left a blp warning on their talk page since the latest changes to the headers were quite problematic. Looking over their contributions they have never used edit summaries or talk pages, so while I hold out a small hope they'll start a discussion on the talk page (AGF and all) it seems unlikely they'll seek talk page consensus. Oh, and re: the page being slow, dear lord yes, but I'm pretty sure it's because of all the cite templates, every time you save the page they have to reload and that is what takes ages. Ideally I think the templates should be converted to plain links, because the templates have serious performance issues on an article this large. Compare with Stonewall riots for example which is even longer and just as well referenced, but which doesn't use templates for the refs, it loads much faster. (But yes, the Lohan article does need to be trimmed back a bit, again, especially the recent legal entanglements material.) Siawase (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If you need help (unlikely), I'll support your reversions. I wasn't aware of the cite template issue, but I confess I think the templates are useful and create a welcome standardization for inline cites. Maybe Wikipedia just needs more computer power.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! The real problem is I haven't had time lately to really get into it. The Lohan article tends to be a real time sink. Siawase (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My nerve[edit]

I have the nerve because I do not like being pushed around. I consider it being pushed around when someone is stopping me from improving an article. I am not sure why you are against the article being improved. SL93 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint, you can't simply argue that your desire to "improve" an article gives you the authority to circumvent guidelines and policies. If that were so, Wikipedia would be even more chaotic than it is. I'm not even sure what makes you think this article would qualify for a DYK, but that's neither here nor there. Anyway, I have to go eat, so I'm going to leave you to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It will though with a couple hundred more characters and there is plenty of interesting facts. I have a lot of DYK experience. According to IAR, it is allowed unless there is significant evidence to the contrary which you have not put forth. IAR is a policy also. All that you put forth is WP:3RR. SL93 (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
And fortunately for me, I can. As of yet, no administrators have rushed to agree with you and Eekster, non-admins like myself. SL93 (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
That, of course, changed, when two admins came down hard on you (only one editor supported you). I only hope you "get it" now, but I have my doubts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am reverting it back DO NOT DELETE CITED REF'S on Liszt article.[edit]

Remember Wiki policy on OWN. The statement is properly ref'd and your personal view doesn't count.

(Bbb23, pardon me for butting in) -- HammerFilmFan, if you find yourself getting really angry about an edit or especially a reversion -- it's a good idea to back off and not edit until the feeling has passed -- (and I know I ought to take my own advice from time to time). I think you are on the right track: we need to cover Liszt's organ music. I left a note on the talk page there. (And by the way, Wikipedia editing can be "merciless" in that anything cited can be removed by anyone with no implication of policy violation: when multiple editors are working on an article, if they have consensus not to include something, it likely won't be included.) See WP:BRD for one such process. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


3RR stops me from reverting, not from editing the article. SL93 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You really don't understand the rule, do you? An "edit" can be a revert: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." So, actually, when you changed my edit, you reverted pursuant to the definition. I've tried, but I give up on you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Great. And why was my comment so bad, I report people to ANI for cussing at people for no good reason, but their cussing is considered fine. SL93 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Your comment wasn't "so bad". I would never report you for it (I'd be laughed at if I did). I just thought on the heels of our dispute it was uncalled for (as I said in my post to your Talk page, which you removed) because it said I did someething wrong, when I hadn't. I also thought we could put all this stuff behind us and treat each other with respect. I didn't accuse you of anything when I removed the quotation marks and reworded it - I just explained how the quote could be misconstrued so you and anyone else would understand the reason for my edit).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It just felt like you were breathing over my shoulder, watching every edit to the article. It freaked me out a bit. Not as WP:OWN, but as I was also concerned about you doing that because of our earlier conflict. SL93 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I had the article on my watchlist because of the ANI discussion, and I just looked at your edit as I would with any other editor. Really.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe you. I would like to consider this resolved. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Me, too, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"had a son"[edit]

A previous sentence implies that she doesn't have the son at present. (It sounds like a translation of Hun fikk en sønn. [She received a son, more or less.])

Probably ought to be "encyclopedically improved".

If don't have any suggestion for improvement. At least not yet.-- (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Luke Scott[edit]

Could you please back to your version that only gave a sentence mention of the interview? It appears users are once again adding too much weight and falsely claiming that there is a consensus on it. Truthsort (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep our comments on WP:BLPN so we can all participate in the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Dead Again[edit]

Hi. I can't really see where you're getting 75% from. I currently see 82% for all reviews, and 57% on the top critics tab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZodKneelsFirst (talkcontribs) 01:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. In the absence of a response I'm going to revert the Dead Again page back to the ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm assuming that you undid my change because you didn't really read the update properly and thought I'd reverted yours. In fact the change I undid looks to me like vandalism. If you still think this film is rated 75% by top critics I'd appreciate the courtesy of an explanation. And I'm perfectly prepared to accept that I'm wrong. I just can't see why at the moment. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZodKneelsFirst (talkcontribs) 14:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, somehow I missed your posts, don't know why. The Top Critics score is 75%.


All Critics Top Critics


Average Rating: 7.2/10 Critic Reviews: 8 Fresh: 6 | Rotten: 2

No consensus yet.

This is what it looks like after clicking on the Top Critics tab. Don't know why you see 57%.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits[edit]

Bbb23, Martin Hosking here. I have done some minor editing on the Wikipedia page you have been looking after about me. I appreciate you stepping in and have tried to be consistent with Wikipedia guidelines about factually based and verifiable content. I have reversed one of your reversals (about Aconex) and have tried to explain why. I was Chairman of Aconex for 7 years (during which time revenue increased by 15 times). To have it as a footnote to an unrelated issue is a bit odd. Here is the link

I am not very familiar with Wikipedia protocols and had avoided directly editing the page when it became a cause celebre. I have now read the guidelines however and I think that my actions are appropriate and consistent. But happy for a discussion. There is a full para on a 1 month controversy and very little else on RedBubble, despite RedBubble been widely covered in mainstream press and the Blogs (front page of WSJ, Drudge report etc etc see

in addition I do speak very widely on entrepreneurial matters and art (including at TED Global). A Google Search on my name would show this. I have not included this or the other RB coverage as already I think the page is too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Mos Def Category[edit]

Yeah, hey, that's nice and all, but you seem to overlook the fact that it in fact is supported by the article itself.

“Mos Def and Immortal Technique released a similarly controversial song, "Bin Laden" in 2004, which blamed the Reagan Doctrine and President George W. Bush for the September 11, 2001 attacks. A club remix song, featuring Eminem, was released the following year, in 2005.”

Also, when dealing with people, at least have the decency to actually type rather than trotting out a canned response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You should be addressing this on the article Talk page, not on mine. Releasing a song whose lyrics say X doesn't mean that the singer or even the lyricist subscribes to X. You'd have to find a reliable source that supports the cat and put it in the article before the category would be justified. I will remove the category again.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the warning I left on your Talk page, and I intend to leave a second one just in case you want to battle over this. It would be better for you to discuss this on the Mos Def Talk page and obtain a consensus that your position is the correct one.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Mother of twelve bastards, you're serious, aren't you? I don't want to say you encapsulate with frightening perfection every single negative stereotype of Wikipedia editors with blocking rights, but you do.
If you would, explain to me one more time how adding a category in accordance with the article's content is wrong.
PS. I may be off mark here, but you're giving a strong impression that you don't want Mos Def in this category of loons. Otherwise, insisting that it is wrong to add a category that is supported by the content of the very article itself is a very odd thing indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oxy, cont'd[edit]

FYI. Lovely, isn't it? Have you gotten your Christmas bonus check yet from that PR firm, I forget its name? Mine must still be in the mail. Antandrus (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Bell Pottinger. I received my bonus check at the same time as I received my Wikipedia paycheck. The fellow has a lot of chutzpah. Thanks for restoring the article to the consensus version.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I regret now becoming involved as an editor; it would have been less painful just to have intervened as an administrator, warning the SPA about edit-warring, tendentious editing, and NPOV violation. Oh well, live and learn. As I mentioned somewhere, I find it ironic that I seem to be defending a practice -- absurdly excessive CEO compensation -- that I find loathsome, all in the name of NPOV. But that detailed assault on Irani has no place in the article on the company; you'd think that would be obvious to a passing administrator. Bit of a crapshoot, this hobby, I think. Cheers, and happy holidays, Antandrus (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm always amazed at the things other editors think I believe in based on my edits. I strive very hard to be neutral on all articles, regardless of my personal beliefs. Nonetheless, editors suspect all sorts of ulterior motives on my parts. (Unlike you, I reveal almost nothing about myself, either on my user page or in discussions.) As for Oxy and Cowboy, he has now requested voluntary, formal mediation, a process frankly I don't understand, even after reading about it. The only other time I was "invited" to participate was about something so trivial it was fairly easy to decline. I expect I'll decline this time, too, but for different reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

troy davis[edit]

Okay first of all, under US COMMON LAW(as stated ON THIS SITE),

"In law, assault is a crime causing a victim to fear violence. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact. "

Now according to the witnesses, Davis apparently PISTOL WHIPPED Mr. Young. This is when the cop supposedly tried to intervene. PISTOL WHIPPING is a strike aka physical contact THEREFORE it is BATTERY. Don't tell me "it doesn't matter what the terms mean". The charge of aggravated assault does not mean that he did not commit aggravated battery or battery. That is simply a lesser offense. Listen, if the witnesses said the cop showed up in a school bus, would you allow the article to call it a CAR? Assault and battery are two different charges, two different meanings, two different circumstances. Just because the media, and the rest of America lack the cognitive ability to understand law, does NOT mean that Wikipedia has to suffer from such ignorance. My edits ARE CORRECT and I will revert back to them.

I just looked up Georgia law and they follow the common law. My edits, again, are sufficient. KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Occidental Petroleum". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 December 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Tommy DeVito[edit]

Regarding his birth year, I am at fault for not abiding by these rules, but I am always surprised at the extent to which people will go to "argue" or "debate" the rules over the issue in question, whether they are official participants of Wikipedia or not. The man's birth year is wrong and individuals will "fight to the death" to ensure that wrong date is adhered to or removed completely unless one follows these rules. What happened to simple research, some of which has been pointed out in the discussion section of Tommy's entry. I'm not taking this any further because it's always about these rules. That's my problem and my short-coming. I don't fault you or anyone else for your stance or Wikipedia for its rules - in ways, it makes a lot of sense. I do believe, though, that it can be so overblown that simple facts become huge problems and now no one will know Tommy's birth year and somehow, it's all my fault. Bbrownlie (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)bbrownlie

Good Wife edits[edit]

Hi - I agree with most of your edits to my latest edit, but I'm curious about two things: why is "has sexual relations with both sexes" preferable to "bisexual"? And don't you think the description of Jackie only tells half the story, as she's no longer really working for them to reconcile, but instead looking for ways to split them up/get custody for Peter?

Also, the reason I removed "Chicago mayor" is that although obviously that is true today, it's irrelevant to Cumming's portrayal which if it is based on Emanuel at all, it's the politicking White House Chief of Staff Emanuel, not his current role as governing mayor. (The source used is from the end of Season 1, a full year before he became mayor.) The truth is, this is just one writer's characterization of who she thinks Eli is based on, not a statement from Cumming or the show's writers or producers, so we really should say something like "Gold has been compared to Rahm Emanuel", not a definitive statement that he is modeled after him. I'd like to make that change, but I'll wait to hear what you think.

Cheers Tvoz/talk 00:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bisexual is a label, and it's not clear what Kalinda's sexuality is. Therefore, it's better just to report that she has relations with both sexes rather than add an inference to that. The Jackie stuff also bothers me because it seems like an editorial gloss, not a wholly unreasonable one, but just not absolutely clear from the storyline.
Your point about Emanuel is a very good one. You were right to remove the Chicago mayor bit, and you can take it right back out. :-)
Thanks for discussing the situation with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I see your point about Jackie and Kalinda. That's fine. GOing ovefr to make the Emanuel change. Cheers! Tvoz/talk 02:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the help on the Laporte page. It is nice knowing that I am not a lone wolf, and that I am following policy. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays, whatever you prefer.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Tony Scott[edit]

Hi. I added a chart of actors that Tony Scott collaborates with because it gives context. These charts also exist on pages for other directors, like Quentin Tarantino. It isn't any less valid for Scott. Please either put it back, or take all the other similar charts down. Thanks. ChocolateBlender (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)ChocolateBlender

I did a search and found that you're right - it's in lots of articles. I don't like it much, but I'll put it back in for you. Thanks for pointing it out to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. ChocolateBlender (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)ChocolateBlender

Your recent revert[edit]

Please explain your mass revert on the talk page. I provided explanations for everything I did - don't revert solely due to "no consensus", particularly when such a revert involves restoring original research and BLP violations. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the Talk page, and, as I said there, I don't have time for this today. I have other things to do. You and Esoglou can have at it without me. It may be that imbedded in some of your aggressive edits are appropriate edits, but you're not doing yourself any credit by slashing instead of improving. Hopefully, you or Esoglou will take this back to BLPN for more opinions.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If you don't have time to explain why you think original research and BLP violations either are not so or are acceptable when they're about pro-choice Catholics, you shouldn't be restoring them. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

AE request could use a comment by you[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Esoglou. This is a dispute between Roscelese and Esoglou. I saw your name on one of the talk pages and at BLPN, so I figured you might be aware of the issues. If you feel like adding your own comment at AE you would be welcome to do so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Jack Harte (Irish writer)[edit]

Please explain your recent mass revert. I commented on the talk page. You go along with Pasquale_Paoli's WP:BLPEDIT, despite the fact that Pasquale_Paoli only removes all but the flattering material about himself. Methinks, we should follow WP:NPOV. Many thanks in advance. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion from Pipes article[edit]

Hello - I note that you have undone my edit to the article on Richard Pipes to add his Booknotes interview to External links. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion page for the Pipes article to discuss further? Thanks KConWiki (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Wiltime Bigtime edit[edit]

Hi! It seems that you do not watch Wiltime Bigtime. I always watch the show and those informations added are announced and shown. Please do not edit without you watching the show itself. Because if you watch the show, you are certainly aware that Lovely Abella of Bigtime Girls is now officially a co-host of the show. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popekingkong (talkcontribs) 18:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Then you should have no trouble finding a verifiable source to support the assertion in the article. And that would be true for that entire section.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Gosling[edit]

Hello, you mentioned on my talk page a while ago that there was too many quotes on the Ryan Gosling page. Another user has now added a copyediting notice. Do you think the reviews should be removed, or is the problem with quotes attributed to Gosling himself? Any feedback would be appreciated - I've submitted the article for GA review so would like to sort out any potential problems now. Thanks Popeye191 (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Popeye, I'm not ignoring you, but to give you feedback requires that I really read the article, and I haven't had the time thus far. I note you are still furiously working on the article anyway. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)