![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
To say that my "Basis for protection request is flawed" is a little harsh don't you think? While you may be right in not protecting it. As the Potential V.P. Of the United States, I feel that a request to protect it was not "flawed" or irrational. Thanks for your consideration. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 20:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if only an Admin can close this discussion [1] I was going to close it because I don't foresee it coming out to a consensus to unban the banned editor.Thanks TucsonDavidU.S.A. 14:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks, for explaining it. I will leave it to a Admin. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I accidently created a extra sandbox would you mind helping me with deleting it [ [2]] also could you explain to me how to get my talk to archive automatically. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
how outright deletion of rather lengthy point-by-point comments at Talk:Croatian Liberation Movement like you did here is conducive to editing? Timbouctou ( talk) 15:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 82.132.249.198 ( talk) 17:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Very Suspicious comments have come from a user on the Talk page of the Controversies at the 2012 Olympics. They have come on to the talk page and entered into what I can only describe as goading. To attempt to elicit a response from me. Please see this latest edit and let me know what you think and if you have similar concerns that I do. Sport and politics ( talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, S&P came here in good faith to ask me a question. We discussed it. Shadows responded, which is fine, but I see no point in continuing the discussion. So, no more.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
As has already been noted, OpenFuture, this is not a forum for discussing user conduct, so please stop. And, Avanu, please don't compound the problem by responding. Respect the guidelines of this forum going forward thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What is this comment about? -- Avanu ( talk) 03:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how admin tools work, but I think it is similar to a checkbox, like in Special:Preferences. At the moment, the page is protected against non-autoconfirmed editors (at the end, any person with 10 edits or more + s/he has been 4 days here will become autoconfirmed). If you want to make a full move-protection, you should change the "autoconfirmed" to "sysop", for example: Gray mouse lemur, which can give you an idea. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't realised IMDb was not an acceptable source, so Thank You for correcting the citation I had added; I'm not very good at this sort of thing and hopefully you'll bear with me :-). I did find another reference where SL is shown as scriptwriter for 'Murder In Mind' ( http://www.startrader.co.uk/Action%20TV/guide2000/murdermind.htm) but don't know if it can be used as it's just one of the programmes, or if it's an acceptable source?
I know the page is protected but didn't feel the citations I was including were in anyway applicable to the 'disputed' section, so guessed it was okay to update them.
Would you mind giving me a little more advice re: the 'Allegations' section on the page, please? I have put a comment on the Talk page, trying to explain why I did the initial deletion; I only deleted it once and since then have only added citations I have managed to find.
Would it be reasonable to ask for the section under discussion to be 'parked' until other sources can be found? Is there a length of time which would be considered reasonable for other references backing up the Guardian piece to be supplied? Or will it just be left as it is? I did briefly try to see if I could find any other references but any I came across were blogs - I have twigged to blogs not being reliable sources, so I am learning, albeit slowly :-)
I hope you don't mind me posting this on your Talk page; I wasn't sure where else to put it. Sagaciousphil ( talk) 19:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I see that you have protected the Stephen Leather page. I wanted to come here so that you could have a heads up that I am going to be doing some major revisions to the article. Thought you would like to know as you are probably watching the page. Hopefully these changes will clear up any issues of NPOV. I also left a message on the talk page for the other editors involved in a discussion (although they look like they have only come to Wikipedia for that specific article so not sure if they are NPOV). It should only take me about 10 minutes to complete all of the edits as they are waiting in my sandbox. Thanks. -- Morning277 ( talk) 16:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Could you please explain why you keep reverting my edits to the Fareed Zakaria page? My edits tighten the entry without losing any information, consolidate disjointed sections, and restore NPOV. Thanks! Bitton100 ( talk) 19:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I must thank you for the way you stepped in on my talkpage, as well as the article talkpage, not just dismissing me as just another troublemaking, problematic IP user and moving forward. Maybe it's me, but I simply do not know what the deal was with user Cresix. I mean, I made what I believe to be harmless, legitimate edits based not only on my awareness of the character, but the rest of the article. He then comes in one day and reverts a whole slew of my edits and without giving any reason. When he finally does provide a reason with another revert, he criticizes the length. So I say fair enough, scale it down and he's still reverting me before repeatedly instating his warnings on my userpage, and reporting me on the administrative noticeboards. I think anyone can tell by my history of edits, I'm no vandal. But again, if I created any problems or inconvenience to you whatsoever, I do sincerely apologize and thank you again. 173.0.254.242 ( talk) 21:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yea, you're right. Thanks and duly noted. I'll be more careful in the future as advised. 173.0.254.242 ( talk) 00:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
There are over 50 combined reverts at Snooker season 2012/2013 that have continued after protection was requested, after an ANEW report was created, and after talk page discussion was started. Can you step in? Ryan Vesey 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
VictoriaR2020 ( talk · contribs), whom you blocked for edit warring, is asking to be unblocked. The block was valid, but she's making a case that she's willing to follow the rules. I'm willing to unblock, on condition that she accept a 0RR restriction on the Lesley Arfin article for the remainder of the 24 hours she would have been blocked. Are those terms acceptable to you? — C.Fred ( talk) 01:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess I should've checked the block log on User:Fry1989 before engaging at ANEW. I could have had a different conversation there. Thanks for the catch, and the cleanup. Cheers! -- Tgeairn ( talk) 01:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 01:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23, how are you? I hope you are doing good these days. I need a favor from you... Can you please move Loud (Rihanna album) to Loud (album) cause Loud (Timo Maas album) was moved to Timo Maas article so it's the only Wikipedia album article with the name Loud. Thank you :) — Tomica (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
While page protection was a good solution, 3RR clearly states that: "(...)then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm. A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a "uw-3rr" template message on their user talk page." (Emphasis mine) If the warning is required then a rewrite is in order, as the report what complex enough to make without considering that the advice given was incorrect. 85.167.111.129 ( talk) 13:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw your explanation for nominating the aforementioned article for deletion and have to disagree. This tour is proven to exist in both Gene Simmons' and Ace Frehley's autobiographies. Also, there are far more better articles to be deleted because of lack of source or primary source only, like this one or this one. Also, it is hard to find other sources for a tour that happened 36 years ago. Since the band had all its tours featured in an article, the Rock & Roll Over Tour article should be re-created. Cheers Zrinschchuck Zrinschchuck 16:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you tell me what the content of {{
Codenowiki}} was? I wanted to create a template that looked like this: <includeonly><code><nowiki></includeonly>{{{1|}}}<includeonly>
</includeonly></nowiki> but I saw that the template I was going to create had been deleted in the past. Was it the same template? If so, can I take a template to deletion review, or would it go back to TfD. I feel it is ridiculous not to have it with a redirect from {{
Cnw}}.
Ryan
Vesey
21:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The conversation on User talk:Fry1989 has veered in different directions, but overall I feel that 1RR/week restriction was over the top, I am satisfied that a standard 1RR restriction would suffice, because reverts are not a concern. I see civility as the real problem, so that's what we're discussing now. Need to involve the blocking admin at some point, but I have to quit for the day. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you only blocked one of the parties on involved on the dispute on Rumi, but did not take any action against User:Barayev who had also violated WP:Editwar, appears to be a WP:SPA with a few edits (55 edits, registered last week, but has expert-level familiarity with Wikipedia codes etc, all red flags) in a topical area that has seen many banned nationalist users resurrecting under new names. He is also refusing mediation, and insisting on using questionable nationalistic WP:Fringe sources which contradict mainstream academic accounts on this subject. Kurdo777 ( talk) 06:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Bbb23, I'm not too familiar with SPI process, is it possible for you to initiate a check on these three editors [5] [6] [7] ? I suspect that these two SPAs are somehow connected to E4024, given their editing style/POV/language barriers. Gabriel Stijena , in particular, seems to working as a revert machine for E4024 on the various Turkish nationalist disputes he is involved in, like Cyprus. [8] Also, please note the personal attacks against me here. [9] This is what I meant by baiting. The personal attacks seem to be deliberate, to get a reaction from me. Kurdo777 ( talk) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No prob. Lion share of rapport's been on his talk page, edit-summaries and nothing more. I'm sure SCWA has the best intentions but he doesn't get along so well collaborating with others. I'll keep abreast of it and bring anything else of note up. Thanks. Papacha ( talk) 14:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Vvarkey is back to deleting info which is contrary to his agenda to paint one group as culprits, He has entirely deleted paragraph which presented the view of the group involved. I believe this is not how NPOV on wikipedia was meant to work.
Do take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Mangalore_Homestay_attack&diff=507700724&oldid=507536752
I'm not getting involved in this matter this time. Hope you or some other editors takes up the matter. good luck trying to talk sense to him. WBRSin ( talk) 16:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look at this [10], he just broke 3RR, in order to insert an sourceless map WP:OR map [11], and remove a scholar's reference. I understand that most admin don't understand the content, but this is an obvious case of nationalist disruption, which compromises Wikipedia's integrity. Kurdo777 ( talk) 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hiya, I was wondering if you happen to know of somewhere on Wikipedia that lays it out why this isn't appropriate. (Did a search but came up a blank.) I'm considering adding a hidden edit comment to the Lohan article, but it would be handy if there was somewhere I could just link to. Siawase ( talk) 08:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing those. I have been editing from an iPad and between the virtual keyboard and the fact that the spellchecker seems to go on and off at random I have been making absurd numbers of typos lately. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Please check this edit; What is the unknown IP doing over there by removing both the reference and information? It should be a reaction to me or others, but it doesn't require him remove the referenced information. I believe you should protect the article. Anyway, I'm fed up with such bigot people. Thanks. Barayev ( talk) 01:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The second Greczia's block for edit-warring expired, he went right back to the same page to make yet another revert, as if the block didn't teach him anything. [13] This is getting really tiring now for everyone involved. As you see on ANI, the neutral admins and editors who are familiar with this topical area, all agree that this is nationalist disruption being waged on these pages. Kurdo777 ( talk) 14:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
at the bottom of my talk page - discussion about the editor you reverted and Number of the Beast. Dougweller ( talk) 19:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, I posted this at the Incident Board, and wanted to make sure you saw this....
Hello, I'm one of the parties involved. The user BigDog2012 has been posting irrelevant, personal info about the person at issue, Larry Klayman, for quite some time, and has made the Wiki page more a magazine tabloid than a source of credible information. It's clear this user has a bone to pick. The user's edit history reveals he created the account specifically to target Klayman. There's also the fact the user removed negative facts about Tom Fitton, a former associate and (now) adversary of Klayman, and added some glowing language of his/her own - making it appear the user some connection with Fitton. Escp99 ( talk) 23:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Read from the middle of page 4: [14]-- Aichikawa ( talk) 18:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
So what exactly am I supposed to do with the fact that Liam FitzGilbert has removed and distorted sourced information from the Heinrich Heine article as I have explained? I've spent hours and hours working on it trying to get it properly referenced. Somebody comes along and changes the content for no valid reason and gives no valid references. He removes cited facts, as far as I can tell because he just doesn't like them. Yet that's the version that is now hosted by Wikipedia. Paul Marston ( talk) 15:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey BBb23, I am wondering if you can close this discussion. It has a clear consensus to keep it as it isn't doing any harm. Obtund Talk 01:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Would you mind adding yourself to WP: DRVOLUNTEERS? Thanks, Electric Catfish 13:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC).
Hi, Bbb23. I hope it's alright to contact you here, to keep this all under the same admin, who would have familiarity with the issue. I was wondering if I might ask you to reconsider the Aug. 18 page-protection decline for Ace Young. The multiple-IP vandal who claims to be Young is back again, as 69.231.197.148, making the same uncited, WP:PUFFERY, apparent WP:COI edits here,
Nothing I or any other editor says can disuade him, despite our speaking to him here and at Talk:Ace Young. He keeps coming back. I hope you'll reconsider given his latest action and the pattern it represents. With regards, Tenebrae ( talk) 18:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you warned User:Wanderer602 not too long ago for edit warring. [17]
Well today he went back to reverting in the same article. [18] [19] [20] He keeps reverting the sourced result.
I think he started to do this because I added OR tags in a related article. [21]. In that article he also has 3 reverts today (of tags that are not supposed to be removed until the issue is resolved). [22] [23] [24]
So he did not take your advice of staying on the talk page. I don't know what to do. He did not violate 3RR like last time. I don't want to match him revert for revert. - YMB29 ( talk) 22:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain the block? I did not break 3RR, like the other user. I reported him to you yesterday since you warned him when he broke 3RR before, but you did not take any action.
He did not want to go to dispute resolution when I suggested it. What is the use of it if he won't go by what is suggested there... -
YMB29 (
talk)
01:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Bbb, could you take another look at 81.132.17.176 ( talk · contribs · count)? Immediately after returning from their block they've resumed edit warring. Thanks,-- Cúchullain t/ c 14:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Just alerting you, as per Community reassessment guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment ("please notify major contributing editors" to a given article) that a Good Article Reassessment has begun for Mila Kunis, at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mila Kunis/1. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 02:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Bbb23. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the main page wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. |
Happy editing! Automatic Strikeout 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you please inform me of the reasoning for why you rejected my report on the user Dr.K.? The user continues to revert pages to protect another user who is arguing about editors rather than the topic. This is against the Wikipedia guidelines for talk pages, as are the continuous reverts. Cinque stelle ( talk) 21:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Whoops. Sorry about that. I don't know how that happened. Viriditas ( talk) 22:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Bbb23. Would you please take a look at this ANI discussion and voice your opinions on it? Thank you, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the PP, much appreciated! ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 20:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, do you know what happened to the discussion about IPWAI being disruptive on the Administrators' noticeboard? It seems to have been resolved and taken off the board without any of us being notified. thanks-- Aichikawa ( talk) 14:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have some proposed edits on the talk page for the Occidental Petroleum article. They are all factual, just updating information with the latest figures. As discussed on the page, I have a WP:COI. Could you please look over the edits? Thanks. Namk48 ( talk) 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
For this. Nobody Ent 02:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help in blocking the IP user making legal threats on the Daniel P. Gordon page. - Guðsþegn ( talk) 04:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing my comments. Thank you. Settdigger ( talk) 16:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought I didn't see it at the top of the page, but I was mistaken. Thank you for notifying the user when I neglected to. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Bbb23: Please, it would have taken all of a minute to check Google News to see if Roddick was really retiring (I was watching the press conference as I put in the info, and could easily have cited it as the source). You could then have tagged it for a citation, but deleting a breaking news event without checking on it first just doesn't make sense in the age of the Internet. Thanks, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
You're right that I should have sourced it, just plain forgot to, totally my bad, but on the other hand you really should have checked it or just tagged it. Deleting it without checking first .. well, it's just a little too WP:BURO for my taste. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Bbb23. I have started doing some major work at The Cabin in the Woods. I intend to get it to GA status and I have started a discussion at Talk:The Cabin in the Woods#GA Push and notified the Film WikiProject about this. I have already notified Darkwarriorblake and Betty Logan about this as well. As such, if you have the time, would you be willing to collaborate with me on the article? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleting properly sourced information is not permitted on the wikipedia. It is not up to us to judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.53.5 ( talk) 04:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
This user has an {{ unblock}} request up that I think is worthy of looking at. I'd be inclined to unblock, but as the blocking admin, that's up to you. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 15:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, they're vandalising the page again. Is there anything that can be done? - Garik 11 ( talk) 18:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. Regarding Settdigger, just a gentle reminder that unblock requests should be handled by an independent uninvolved admin, rather than by the admin who placed the initial block ( "Since the purpose of the unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrator should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked.") I think you made the right call in declining the unblock request (I'd certainly have declined it myself), but formally speaking another admin should handle it. MastCell Talk 23:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I rather not use Wikipedia so I am just using this ip.. Can you please run this check on my behalf as you have been dealing with this issue? It is clear as daylight that some new throw-away accounts are being used to push the same POV? See here: [26]. Thanks -- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Please stop these immediately, I noticed that several others have warned you about your writings 92.90.21.11 ( talk) 16:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
How is it, that you are calling a well known newspaper "The telegraph" quote "unsource inappropriate material", you are not allowed to make this article (Frédéric Bourdin http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bourdin&action=history) the way you want to, The telegraph is perfectly allowed and appropriate as a source. If you do have a source that's relevant contradict this source then let us know, thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Francparler ( talk • contribs)
Who are you ? Bbb23, an editor, who am I, Francparler an editor, who are we, editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francparler ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
How can I write about this person without a speedy delivery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webpopular ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Barayev was found to be a sock [29] with Gabriel Stijena ..Note how these users tagged up in different articles. Unfortunately, nothing was done to Gabriel Stijena who is likely Greczia also. Also the Aryan212 with just two edits [30] was not checked for throw-away although he edit warred on the same topics. -- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 22:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reviewing my request for unprotection, could you flesh out your response, eg link the process by which the protection was obtained, and link the process by which the WP:SOCK was determined. Thanks 188.28.233.87 ( talk) 05:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Please stop doing this, you are clearly doing as everyone said a whitewash of her. I noticed that several others have warned you about your writings. It is not helpful to the Wikipedia. Nor is threatening people with banning good for the Wikipedia either. Manbumper ( talk) 06:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Believe it or not, Settdigger is asking for a "request for review of [your conduct]". I've given him a reply justifying your block but I was just wondering if you had any sort of recall page for future reference, as I couldn't find any, even though in this case it's highly unlikely. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed this edit having re-blocked the user. WP:BLANKING does not prohibit the removal of block notices - it does prohibit the removal of declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for, uh, most of your edits on this. Could you tell us why you cut that section on subjects that Buck covered for Vogue? She had a long career there and I think some counterbalance to Asma al-Assad is valuable, no? Maybe it was an error but please talk on the talk pages before you do that edit again-- Aichikawa ( talk) 23:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You need to recuse yourself from administrative action over the Black Swan discussion given that you are an interested party. Awien ( talk) 19:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I am helping Amazon Eve actress/model maintain her page. She has asked me to add the following as places she has appeared. Assuming I can find a link to the article or the video would I be able to add any of these?
Thank you, as always Greenwayfriend ( talk) 02:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Greenwayfriend
Yep, I'll take a look sometime today for you - cheers, Giant Snowman 08:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 18:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In what way is Bomer's birthplace unclear? Is the Yahoo! bio that is cited in the Early life section not adequate? Nightscream ( talk) 00:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
That IP seems to be at least a meat puppet if not a sock of blocked user:Settdigger. I don't have the time and nerve to file a report so I'm just saying although you're probably quite aware of that possibility. TMCk ( talk) 21:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you please help me? What do I need to do to work on a version of the Anne Block article that meets Wikipedia criteria? I feel that the version submitted by Deception Passer under the title "Anne Block" was closer to a finished product and thoroughly sourced. Where can I make a case for the article? It appears that the latest discussion I requested took place and was closed before I could comment. Further, I feel that the article was unfarily labeled an "attack" article without any discussion, and the label has stuck. I realize that this is usually the case, but please consider the fact that in some cases, the evidence available does not paint a balanced picture. Consider the Seattle Times front page piece I used as a primary source. The Times is the biggest paper in the NW region, and the investigative team has won pulitzers in each of the last three years. To me, that's a pretty solid source. If the actions taken by the subject reflect on her in a negative light, that doesnt mean that I've written an attack piece. It could just mean that the acts described ten to make one think of the subject in a negative light. I would ask any editor to read the Seattle Times piece and to fish around a little bit. I think it would become apparent that there is more to this than just an "attack".
I am frustrated because there was no constructive criticism regarding the sourcing or the work. It took a long time to compile 30 sources and to write inline citations. It seems like the discussion should be about the merit instead of just deleting the page outright after Block whitewashes it. The sourcing was good. Inline citations, references from the best journalistic sources in the region, a survey of different outlets showing that Ms. Block had been covered by pretty much every form of media in the region, etc.
I want to follow the process and I feel I have located solid secondary sources regarding an subject that meets all criteria for notability. However I feel that the controversy surrounding Block's actions has prevented any discussion about the specific merits of the article. I requested a review of the deletion and the conversation was apparently opened and closed before I even had a chance to contribute. Now all of the discussions say "please do not modify" and I can't find any of my previous work. Much of the dialogue wasn't even about the article it was about Ms. Block's apparent legal threat. The original page had been up for several days, and every day I was working to edit it, improve it, and add more sources as per the direction of editors. As soon as Ms. Block started whitewashing the page, all of a sudden it was deleted and there was never any discussion as to the merit of my sourcing or the grounds of the deletion. It doesn't seem right that as soon as Ms. Block starts whitewashing and threatening, the process is stopped. If anything, her actions only further backup the picture painted by the sources. She is litigious in nature. Almost all of the available sources talk about her confrontational legal actions, all of which have a great impact no local politics, state law, and the economies of the region in which block operates.
Original article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Anne_Block.2FWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAnne_K._Block Better version: "Anne Block" / user Deception Passer Seattle Times story on Anne Block: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2017434837_goldbarreporter06m.html Sky Valley Chronicle Story on Block: http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/ L8incoub3rt ( talk) 23:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Why would you say that I am not capable of writing a neutral article? I realize its not a finished product, but ultimately the sourcing speaks for itself. Not everything in life is balanced. Almost all of the reporting on Block is about her litigous activities. That's why she's famous. Block's actions or the media coverage of her actions shouldn't, if properly sourced, reflect on the author of a encyclopedic entry. I can defend any individual citation or point, but generalizations are impossible to address in a meaningful way. I feel like editors are confusing the actions of the subject with the article. Block's actions are her own. If I simply cite secondary sources describing her actions, how can that be bad? Any judgement would be on her actions or the validity of the sources. I would much rather have a conversation about the validity of the sourcing in my article. I don't feel I was given that chance. If I can have the copy back, I would appreciate it very much. I have put alot of time into it. Thank you. Deception passer ( talk) 00:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
No. But my account got blocked anyway. No discussion, no reviewing of my talk page, just a total block. Weak. As I stated on my talkpage and in several other dialogues with editors, I submitted a revision of my roommate's article after Block began whitewashing. I was very open about this, just as I have been open and forthright in stating that my article should be viewed upon the merits of the sourcing. I feel like you avoided my question regarding your subjective and general comment regarding your feelings about my abilities and decided to block me instead. I want my account reinstated please. I think you acted hastily. If you had read my posts or my talkpage you wouldve seen that I had stated that I was sharing a computer and working on the same topic as my roommate. Our goals are the same - to produce an article that is sourced and neutral, or to produce no article at all. Unfortunately it seems like whitewashing, fake threats and petty blocks are the most effective currency around here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.233.42.244 ( talk) 02:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I am still confused as to how Anne Block's legal threats [1] have resulted in the page deletions (my version was "Anne Block") and the block on future articles. It seems like this is rewarding her for threatening legal action and punishing the authors who attempted to research and write a difficult but relevant article. I am attempting to go through the correct procedures. Block simply whitewashed the articles and threatened me/wikipedia/anyone else. I don't think that this should prevent me the ability to work on an article. In fact, since this is what Block is famous for, it seems like it is even more important to write the article. This is a person with 20 open lawsuits against government and 11 pending recall attempts. This is a person who bankrupted her own town to the point that it is dis incorporating. She threatens litigation in every instance. It's why she is notable. [2] Take a look at this, her latest threat related to wikipedia. [3]
I know I can write a neutral, sourced article. I just need the opportunity and for someone to work with me on it. Her threats are empty - Inline citations from strong secondary sources protect everyone from liability. Which is probably why Block constantly deletes sourcing. Please take a look at the article the Seattle Times wrote on Block. [4] I need an editor to take a little time to understand the situation and to give me some guidance. I also need my article text and sourcing back - it was all deleted.
Can you help me get the text from this article back? I will no post again until I have buy-off from an Admin. If I can't achieve that, then I'll leave it alone. Thank you http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anne_Block&action=edit&redlink=1
Deception passer ( talk) 00:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. Deception passer ( talk) 00:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
since the sources I cited for Luke Evans were credible and even though i don't remotely agree with your analysis that my contributions read like a commentary, wouldn't it be better to revise my edits rather than delete them altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivyleaguer ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
IRC cloak request.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Just out of interest, the material which was removed as unsourced by (admittedly a block evading individual with an extreme COI) a user, appeared to be supported by the link in the edit summary. I am good at missing things in these circumstances but could you illuminate it for me? Panyd The muffin is not subtle 19:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Bbb23. You have protected this article before, and it may need protection again. After a couple days of relative quiet, several editors have now resumed repeated reverts without engaging in productive discussion on the talk page. Could you please take a look? My recommendation is that you pick your favorite "wrong version" and then lock it down until the major concerns are properly expressed and resolved. (You are going to upset several editors regardless of which of the three recent versions gets protected; disclosure: I have edited the article recently.) I'd also like to see a stern admonition from you to the effect that everyone falling silent until the block expires is not an acceptable way to "address" the problem. Any ideas you have on this would be welcome as well. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It appears that Scientom has violated the condition of their unblock as described here [33]
Please see the message I left on Scientom's talk page
[34] asking them to self-revert. I will wait for a self-revert, and ask that you do so as well. I wanted to bring this to your attention instead of engaging in EW like behavior, however if they fail to self-revert I would hope you would make an inquiry. Thanks.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
17:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your inquiry into the matter. I resisted my initial inclination to revert but raised the matter at Scientoms page and here first. I plan on restoring my edit if no response is forthcoming. This is a "heads up" courtesy notice for you. Thanks.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
03:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Just want to notify you that i have responded to the discussion on this talk page. Kingroyos ( talk) 05:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi - this man just received a 103 million dollar award from the IRS - i'm horrible at writing wiki articles but i promise you people are going to be looking this guy up a lot very soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.97.216 ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Bbb23 Teacross is again editing on my page, and their work has since been partially cleaned up, but I would still suggest that the additions remain not from a neutral point of view. Your additional help would be much appreciated. Regards, Natalie Natalieben ( talk) 21:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Some people really hit the ground running with their very first edit already. Drmies ( talk) 04:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For clearing out AIV tonight! Electric Catfish 01:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
A belated thanks, Electric Catfish. Regards.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the ANI discussion I'm in. I'm involved with the articles, but we do have a revert issue with the one editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, looks like the same anon who vandalised Russian-speaking Ukraine is now doing the same in Russian language in Ukraine, including the article's talk page. Can you please take a look? Thanks. -- Garik 11 ( talk) 20:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi BB,
Thank you for trying to be fair in considering the edit war issue. However, as much as I'm sure removing a block will just result in Tjo3ya putting his efforts into continuing his attacks on me, I want to point out that he didn't actually make his edit again AFTER I reported him and notified him of the report on his page. He had made his last revert immediately before I made the report. Since I knew that if I reverted again, regardless of what I put in the reason line for doing so that he would continuously reinstate the change, I just left it was with his changes intact. Neither of us actually touched that page again after that. It wasn't until the next morning that Cnilep took a look at the article on his own and reverted Tjo3ya change (the same one I'd been reverting) back to the previous version. It was at that point that Tjo3ya began his various threads calling for my head and only after this that he acknowledged / responded to the 3RR/Edit war noticeboard.
I don't like his actions on that article, and everything he's done since has been nothing short of offensive in every way, and if anything has accomplished his goal of convincing others that I am doing everything in my edits and discussions with negative intentions, but he didn't actually do anything to the article regarding that particular disputed change again once I'd opened the report. Because you cited that as your reason for blocking him, I wanted to make sure you had to correct information.
Thanks again, Drew Drew.ward ( talk) 21:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Bhim chauhan creates a trouble so check it immediately ---zeeyanketu talk to me 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, I see that you are currently online. Can you please help out with the AIV backlog? Thanks, Electric Catfish 01:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC).
Thanks for protect the article. Do you have the page in your Watchlist?. So you can see the comments. By the moment, i added some references. -- Ravave ( talk) 16:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Three reverts in a row, here. Could you please do something about that? (This time please do not block me on the side, Dear Admin... :-) Thanks in advance and all the best. -- E4024 ( talk) 18:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I think your revert of Dr. Blofeld here was unnecessarily harsh and only serves to bolster your authority for miniscule gain. It is clear that the editors are in a good faith dispute and the thread should remain active to allow interested parties to add the full weight of their position. If you insist the discussion takes place at another location, you should move the discussion to that better place. Allowing it to continue there would not have been improper whereas requiring it be moved is a bit of a stretch, IMO. 76Strat String da Broke da ( talk) 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Part of your ruling concerning [ [35]] seems to have disappeared. Its not clear whether something important has been lost. Could you please clarify? Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 18:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much Bbb23. Nice to see you at my talkpage regardless of the circumstances. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 01:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Bbb, what's the rules for redirects such as this, User:UsefulWikipedia/sandbox? Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 04:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't need nor expect an apology from "A". I seriously considered not responding to her attack at all and waited for well over 24 hours but I didn't want to lose respect because those comments demanded some sort of response. I readily admit that I did not take that editor much more seriously then the writer, Ms. Buck, that she seems to champion. I erred by trying to be humorous with a sarcastic remark a month ago that apparently still bugs the editor. I think A over-reacted but I feel I should assume some responsibility for A feeling offended.
I will remove any comments about personal attacks when A removes her personal attacks as I would prefer a clean talk page on that article that we've all worked so hard on for the past 18 months.
I really feel deep inside that too much discussion about Ms. Buck is a distraction from Mrs. Assad, so I have tried to minimize any discussion that does not directly affect the subject of our article.
In the spirit of openness and inclusion, I have however, initiated a discussion about Ms. Buck. I suspect that I may regret doing so as it may be mostly celebutant stuff but I want to get the issue out of the way and let other editors feel they have an opportunity to contribute. BTW, I never once thought of the name Veriss having any relation to Veritable, Very or anything else much like Thomas has nothing to do with "To Max". Cheers, Veritably Awkward. Veriss ( talk) 07:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I have an edit request for Innocence of Muslims for a few days. Have you seen? I wait and wait, no-one responds. -- Camoka5 ( talk) 20:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23, I would like to ask you an important question, please. Tell me what is the best version of this article: Version 1 or Version 2 ?
Bbb23- re: the editing wars on High Point University, you will notice that the user KnowledgeisGood88 continually moves the information in Businessweek to the top of the page under "Recent History." You can also see on my talk page that they left me the following message: Made some adjustments on September 18 to eliminate redundant items and moved some text so it would have context for readability.... etc. Obviously, this user has placed a great amount of trust in the Businessweek publication as they continually place it on the HPU wiki page and continually move it to the top so it's one of the first items read. Why, then, did they remove the following link, which I posted below their Businessweek spiel on the HPU wiki page and is a link to the official Businessweek publication stating that there were errors in the original article about High Point University Businessweek Corrections & Clarifications? How do I report this person? They obviously wish to place only harmful material on the High Point University page. These corrections are just as important, if not more so. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandwidth47 ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I sustained your block because IMO he had been edit warring, but I agreed with him about the edit you said justified the block. It may have been a revert, I couldn't tell, but editorially he's right: That sentence wasn't relevant to the image. It doesn't matter if it's sourced or not. Someone could add a whole bunch of reliably-sourced, verifiable information about horticulture to an article, and we'd have no problem deleting it if the article in question were about, say, a Linux distribution. As zealous as we have become about sourcing our information, a properly-formatted footnote to a reliable source does not make the text it supports bulletproof (In this case that text belonged inline near the image, if it wasn't already). Daniel Case ( talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Why did you delete the page Kirill Popov ??
Give me the reason please ?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.220.174 ( talk) 01:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
User Scientom has returned from a wiki-break. They have yet to self-revert as you have requested. Would you please attempt to re-engage the editor whose page state at their wiki-break was
[37], and since has been recently blanked with no explanation?
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
13:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This IP has a long history of what numerous editors deem to be vandalism and/or edit-warring, which the IP invariably disputes as personal attacks, unfounded, etc. They have a habit of deleting long-standing content as "OR," no matter how well-sourced, and similarly declaring invalid any additional cites other editors come up with to refute the IP. At times they seem more intrerested in deleting content and keeping it deleted (e.g. on Methamphetamine they tried to delete all mention of "Srawberry Quik meth" on the grounds that it was an "urban myth," including the link to Strawberry Quik meth myth which actually documents the case). As noted a number of times, the the IP is hardly ever prepared to discuss disputes on Talk pages, and when they do, their first resort is often to immediately escalate to RfCs or other administrative measures, rather than actually debate the issue/s in question. I've been loathe to tackle them myself since a very nasty run-in with them at List of long course swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland, but we've probably long past the stage where we can expect their behaviour to improve any time soon. Nick Cooper ( talk) 07:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you please justify why you state that my section on Talk:South China Sea is an "attack section" against another user? What part of my section, which was related to the article and contained justified arguments based on Wikipedia policy, attacked a user? Otherwise, I can only suspect that you are displaying favoritism towards a certain editor. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 05:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding this, is he still able to email me via the link on the side of my talk page? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for being fair and unbias administrator. Especially, for weighing all sides regardless of race, experience, technical-know-how and affiliations. God bless you as you continue to promote equality and fairness to all wikipedia users.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Bbb23, upto now, Fabyan17 is still constantly changing the globally common name South China Sea to "West Philippine Sea" in articles - diff. His motive is clearly a nationalistic one. He is seriously disrupting the Wikipedia Project and must be stopped. STSC ( talk) 19:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Adding some sourced info into the Cyprus article I made a mess of the references. The refs 43 and 44. The first one must be in Spanish and the latter in English. Could you please help? Thanks... -- E4024 ( talk) 20:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Because of this complaint, the AN3 page has now been tagged with the 24 Hours of Le Mans race cars category. I am not sure how to fix this. Ankh. Morpork 14:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Bbb23
You declined my AN/EW notice on Arthur Rubin, writing "This is not the proper forum for requesting review of an administrator's actions."
Would you be so kind as to tell me where one would report disruptive editing by an admin, acting in the capacity of an editor? I have searched the help files, and other than admin recall (way too extreme), I can find nothing relevant. Many thanks – MrX 18:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, has he arrived yet? -- Garik 11 ( talk) 05:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. As you are involved in editor retention, I wanted to invite you to participate in an RfC regarding adding color differentiation to Wiki markup, particularly towards references. You are welcome to participate whenever you are able. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.
Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 11:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
To say that my "Basis for protection request is flawed" is a little harsh don't you think? While you may be right in not protecting it. As the Potential V.P. Of the United States, I feel that a request to protect it was not "flawed" or irrational. Thanks for your consideration. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 20:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if only an Admin can close this discussion [1] I was going to close it because I don't foresee it coming out to a consensus to unban the banned editor.Thanks TucsonDavidU.S.A. 14:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks, for explaining it. I will leave it to a Admin. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I accidently created a extra sandbox would you mind helping me with deleting it [ [2]] also could you explain to me how to get my talk to archive automatically. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
how outright deletion of rather lengthy point-by-point comments at Talk:Croatian Liberation Movement like you did here is conducive to editing? Timbouctou ( talk) 15:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 82.132.249.198 ( talk) 17:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Very Suspicious comments have come from a user on the Talk page of the Controversies at the 2012 Olympics. They have come on to the talk page and entered into what I can only describe as goading. To attempt to elicit a response from me. Please see this latest edit and let me know what you think and if you have similar concerns that I do. Sport and politics ( talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, S&P came here in good faith to ask me a question. We discussed it. Shadows responded, which is fine, but I see no point in continuing the discussion. So, no more.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
As has already been noted, OpenFuture, this is not a forum for discussing user conduct, so please stop. And, Avanu, please don't compound the problem by responding. Respect the guidelines of this forum going forward thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What is this comment about? -- Avanu ( talk) 03:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how admin tools work, but I think it is similar to a checkbox, like in Special:Preferences. At the moment, the page is protected against non-autoconfirmed editors (at the end, any person with 10 edits or more + s/he has been 4 days here will become autoconfirmed). If you want to make a full move-protection, you should change the "autoconfirmed" to "sysop", for example: Gray mouse lemur, which can give you an idea. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't realised IMDb was not an acceptable source, so Thank You for correcting the citation I had added; I'm not very good at this sort of thing and hopefully you'll bear with me :-). I did find another reference where SL is shown as scriptwriter for 'Murder In Mind' ( http://www.startrader.co.uk/Action%20TV/guide2000/murdermind.htm) but don't know if it can be used as it's just one of the programmes, or if it's an acceptable source?
I know the page is protected but didn't feel the citations I was including were in anyway applicable to the 'disputed' section, so guessed it was okay to update them.
Would you mind giving me a little more advice re: the 'Allegations' section on the page, please? I have put a comment on the Talk page, trying to explain why I did the initial deletion; I only deleted it once and since then have only added citations I have managed to find.
Would it be reasonable to ask for the section under discussion to be 'parked' until other sources can be found? Is there a length of time which would be considered reasonable for other references backing up the Guardian piece to be supplied? Or will it just be left as it is? I did briefly try to see if I could find any other references but any I came across were blogs - I have twigged to blogs not being reliable sources, so I am learning, albeit slowly :-)
I hope you don't mind me posting this on your Talk page; I wasn't sure where else to put it. Sagaciousphil ( talk) 19:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I see that you have protected the Stephen Leather page. I wanted to come here so that you could have a heads up that I am going to be doing some major revisions to the article. Thought you would like to know as you are probably watching the page. Hopefully these changes will clear up any issues of NPOV. I also left a message on the talk page for the other editors involved in a discussion (although they look like they have only come to Wikipedia for that specific article so not sure if they are NPOV). It should only take me about 10 minutes to complete all of the edits as they are waiting in my sandbox. Thanks. -- Morning277 ( talk) 16:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Could you please explain why you keep reverting my edits to the Fareed Zakaria page? My edits tighten the entry without losing any information, consolidate disjointed sections, and restore NPOV. Thanks! Bitton100 ( talk) 19:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I must thank you for the way you stepped in on my talkpage, as well as the article talkpage, not just dismissing me as just another troublemaking, problematic IP user and moving forward. Maybe it's me, but I simply do not know what the deal was with user Cresix. I mean, I made what I believe to be harmless, legitimate edits based not only on my awareness of the character, but the rest of the article. He then comes in one day and reverts a whole slew of my edits and without giving any reason. When he finally does provide a reason with another revert, he criticizes the length. So I say fair enough, scale it down and he's still reverting me before repeatedly instating his warnings on my userpage, and reporting me on the administrative noticeboards. I think anyone can tell by my history of edits, I'm no vandal. But again, if I created any problems or inconvenience to you whatsoever, I do sincerely apologize and thank you again. 173.0.254.242 ( talk) 21:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yea, you're right. Thanks and duly noted. I'll be more careful in the future as advised. 173.0.254.242 ( talk) 00:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
There are over 50 combined reverts at Snooker season 2012/2013 that have continued after protection was requested, after an ANEW report was created, and after talk page discussion was started. Can you step in? Ryan Vesey 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
VictoriaR2020 ( talk · contribs), whom you blocked for edit warring, is asking to be unblocked. The block was valid, but she's making a case that she's willing to follow the rules. I'm willing to unblock, on condition that she accept a 0RR restriction on the Lesley Arfin article for the remainder of the 24 hours she would have been blocked. Are those terms acceptable to you? — C.Fred ( talk) 01:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess I should've checked the block log on User:Fry1989 before engaging at ANEW. I could have had a different conversation there. Thanks for the catch, and the cleanup. Cheers! -- Tgeairn ( talk) 01:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 01:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23, how are you? I hope you are doing good these days. I need a favor from you... Can you please move Loud (Rihanna album) to Loud (album) cause Loud (Timo Maas album) was moved to Timo Maas article so it's the only Wikipedia album article with the name Loud. Thank you :) — Tomica (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
While page protection was a good solution, 3RR clearly states that: "(...)then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm. A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a "uw-3rr" template message on their user talk page." (Emphasis mine) If the warning is required then a rewrite is in order, as the report what complex enough to make without considering that the advice given was incorrect. 85.167.111.129 ( talk) 13:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw your explanation for nominating the aforementioned article for deletion and have to disagree. This tour is proven to exist in both Gene Simmons' and Ace Frehley's autobiographies. Also, there are far more better articles to be deleted because of lack of source or primary source only, like this one or this one. Also, it is hard to find other sources for a tour that happened 36 years ago. Since the band had all its tours featured in an article, the Rock & Roll Over Tour article should be re-created. Cheers Zrinschchuck Zrinschchuck 16:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you tell me what the content of {{
Codenowiki}} was? I wanted to create a template that looked like this: <includeonly><code><nowiki></includeonly>{{{1|}}}<includeonly>
</includeonly></nowiki> but I saw that the template I was going to create had been deleted in the past. Was it the same template? If so, can I take a template to deletion review, or would it go back to TfD. I feel it is ridiculous not to have it with a redirect from {{
Cnw}}.
Ryan
Vesey
21:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The conversation on User talk:Fry1989 has veered in different directions, but overall I feel that 1RR/week restriction was over the top, I am satisfied that a standard 1RR restriction would suffice, because reverts are not a concern. I see civility as the real problem, so that's what we're discussing now. Need to involve the blocking admin at some point, but I have to quit for the day. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you only blocked one of the parties on involved on the dispute on Rumi, but did not take any action against User:Barayev who had also violated WP:Editwar, appears to be a WP:SPA with a few edits (55 edits, registered last week, but has expert-level familiarity with Wikipedia codes etc, all red flags) in a topical area that has seen many banned nationalist users resurrecting under new names. He is also refusing mediation, and insisting on using questionable nationalistic WP:Fringe sources which contradict mainstream academic accounts on this subject. Kurdo777 ( talk) 06:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Bbb23, I'm not too familiar with SPI process, is it possible for you to initiate a check on these three editors [5] [6] [7] ? I suspect that these two SPAs are somehow connected to E4024, given their editing style/POV/language barriers. Gabriel Stijena , in particular, seems to working as a revert machine for E4024 on the various Turkish nationalist disputes he is involved in, like Cyprus. [8] Also, please note the personal attacks against me here. [9] This is what I meant by baiting. The personal attacks seem to be deliberate, to get a reaction from me. Kurdo777 ( talk) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No prob. Lion share of rapport's been on his talk page, edit-summaries and nothing more. I'm sure SCWA has the best intentions but he doesn't get along so well collaborating with others. I'll keep abreast of it and bring anything else of note up. Thanks. Papacha ( talk) 14:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Vvarkey is back to deleting info which is contrary to his agenda to paint one group as culprits, He has entirely deleted paragraph which presented the view of the group involved. I believe this is not how NPOV on wikipedia was meant to work.
Do take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Mangalore_Homestay_attack&diff=507700724&oldid=507536752
I'm not getting involved in this matter this time. Hope you or some other editors takes up the matter. good luck trying to talk sense to him. WBRSin ( talk) 16:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look at this [10], he just broke 3RR, in order to insert an sourceless map WP:OR map [11], and remove a scholar's reference. I understand that most admin don't understand the content, but this is an obvious case of nationalist disruption, which compromises Wikipedia's integrity. Kurdo777 ( talk) 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hiya, I was wondering if you happen to know of somewhere on Wikipedia that lays it out why this isn't appropriate. (Did a search but came up a blank.) I'm considering adding a hidden edit comment to the Lohan article, but it would be handy if there was somewhere I could just link to. Siawase ( talk) 08:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing those. I have been editing from an iPad and between the virtual keyboard and the fact that the spellchecker seems to go on and off at random I have been making absurd numbers of typos lately. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Please check this edit; What is the unknown IP doing over there by removing both the reference and information? It should be a reaction to me or others, but it doesn't require him remove the referenced information. I believe you should protect the article. Anyway, I'm fed up with such bigot people. Thanks. Barayev ( talk) 01:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The second Greczia's block for edit-warring expired, he went right back to the same page to make yet another revert, as if the block didn't teach him anything. [13] This is getting really tiring now for everyone involved. As you see on ANI, the neutral admins and editors who are familiar with this topical area, all agree that this is nationalist disruption being waged on these pages. Kurdo777 ( talk) 14:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
at the bottom of my talk page - discussion about the editor you reverted and Number of the Beast. Dougweller ( talk) 19:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, I posted this at the Incident Board, and wanted to make sure you saw this....
Hello, I'm one of the parties involved. The user BigDog2012 has been posting irrelevant, personal info about the person at issue, Larry Klayman, for quite some time, and has made the Wiki page more a magazine tabloid than a source of credible information. It's clear this user has a bone to pick. The user's edit history reveals he created the account specifically to target Klayman. There's also the fact the user removed negative facts about Tom Fitton, a former associate and (now) adversary of Klayman, and added some glowing language of his/her own - making it appear the user some connection with Fitton. Escp99 ( talk) 23:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Read from the middle of page 4: [14]-- Aichikawa ( talk) 18:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
So what exactly am I supposed to do with the fact that Liam FitzGilbert has removed and distorted sourced information from the Heinrich Heine article as I have explained? I've spent hours and hours working on it trying to get it properly referenced. Somebody comes along and changes the content for no valid reason and gives no valid references. He removes cited facts, as far as I can tell because he just doesn't like them. Yet that's the version that is now hosted by Wikipedia. Paul Marston ( talk) 15:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey BBb23, I am wondering if you can close this discussion. It has a clear consensus to keep it as it isn't doing any harm. Obtund Talk 01:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Would you mind adding yourself to WP: DRVOLUNTEERS? Thanks, Electric Catfish 13:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC).
Hi, Bbb23. I hope it's alright to contact you here, to keep this all under the same admin, who would have familiarity with the issue. I was wondering if I might ask you to reconsider the Aug. 18 page-protection decline for Ace Young. The multiple-IP vandal who claims to be Young is back again, as 69.231.197.148, making the same uncited, WP:PUFFERY, apparent WP:COI edits here,
Nothing I or any other editor says can disuade him, despite our speaking to him here and at Talk:Ace Young. He keeps coming back. I hope you'll reconsider given his latest action and the pattern it represents. With regards, Tenebrae ( talk) 18:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you warned User:Wanderer602 not too long ago for edit warring. [17]
Well today he went back to reverting in the same article. [18] [19] [20] He keeps reverting the sourced result.
I think he started to do this because I added OR tags in a related article. [21]. In that article he also has 3 reverts today (of tags that are not supposed to be removed until the issue is resolved). [22] [23] [24]
So he did not take your advice of staying on the talk page. I don't know what to do. He did not violate 3RR like last time. I don't want to match him revert for revert. - YMB29 ( talk) 22:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain the block? I did not break 3RR, like the other user. I reported him to you yesterday since you warned him when he broke 3RR before, but you did not take any action.
He did not want to go to dispute resolution when I suggested it. What is the use of it if he won't go by what is suggested there... -
YMB29 (
talk)
01:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Bbb, could you take another look at 81.132.17.176 ( talk · contribs · count)? Immediately after returning from their block they've resumed edit warring. Thanks,-- Cúchullain t/ c 14:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Just alerting you, as per Community reassessment guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment ("please notify major contributing editors" to a given article) that a Good Article Reassessment has begun for Mila Kunis, at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mila Kunis/1. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 02:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Bbb23. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the main page wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. |
Happy editing! Automatic Strikeout 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you please inform me of the reasoning for why you rejected my report on the user Dr.K.? The user continues to revert pages to protect another user who is arguing about editors rather than the topic. This is against the Wikipedia guidelines for talk pages, as are the continuous reverts. Cinque stelle ( talk) 21:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Whoops. Sorry about that. I don't know how that happened. Viriditas ( talk) 22:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Bbb23. Would you please take a look at this ANI discussion and voice your opinions on it? Thank you, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the PP, much appreciated! ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 20:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, do you know what happened to the discussion about IPWAI being disruptive on the Administrators' noticeboard? It seems to have been resolved and taken off the board without any of us being notified. thanks-- Aichikawa ( talk) 14:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have some proposed edits on the talk page for the Occidental Petroleum article. They are all factual, just updating information with the latest figures. As discussed on the page, I have a WP:COI. Could you please look over the edits? Thanks. Namk48 ( talk) 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
For this. Nobody Ent 02:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help in blocking the IP user making legal threats on the Daniel P. Gordon page. - Guðsþegn ( talk) 04:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing my comments. Thank you. Settdigger ( talk) 16:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought I didn't see it at the top of the page, but I was mistaken. Thank you for notifying the user when I neglected to. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Bbb23: Please, it would have taken all of a minute to check Google News to see if Roddick was really retiring (I was watching the press conference as I put in the info, and could easily have cited it as the source). You could then have tagged it for a citation, but deleting a breaking news event without checking on it first just doesn't make sense in the age of the Internet. Thanks, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
You're right that I should have sourced it, just plain forgot to, totally my bad, but on the other hand you really should have checked it or just tagged it. Deleting it without checking first .. well, it's just a little too WP:BURO for my taste. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Bbb23. I have started doing some major work at The Cabin in the Woods. I intend to get it to GA status and I have started a discussion at Talk:The Cabin in the Woods#GA Push and notified the Film WikiProject about this. I have already notified Darkwarriorblake and Betty Logan about this as well. As such, if you have the time, would you be willing to collaborate with me on the article? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleting properly sourced information is not permitted on the wikipedia. It is not up to us to judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.53.5 ( talk) 04:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
This user has an {{ unblock}} request up that I think is worthy of looking at. I'd be inclined to unblock, but as the blocking admin, that's up to you. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 15:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, they're vandalising the page again. Is there anything that can be done? - Garik 11 ( talk) 18:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. Regarding Settdigger, just a gentle reminder that unblock requests should be handled by an independent uninvolved admin, rather than by the admin who placed the initial block ( "Since the purpose of the unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrator should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked.") I think you made the right call in declining the unblock request (I'd certainly have declined it myself), but formally speaking another admin should handle it. MastCell Talk 23:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I rather not use Wikipedia so I am just using this ip.. Can you please run this check on my behalf as you have been dealing with this issue? It is clear as daylight that some new throw-away accounts are being used to push the same POV? See here: [26]. Thanks -- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Please stop these immediately, I noticed that several others have warned you about your writings 92.90.21.11 ( talk) 16:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
How is it, that you are calling a well known newspaper "The telegraph" quote "unsource inappropriate material", you are not allowed to make this article (Frédéric Bourdin http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bourdin&action=history) the way you want to, The telegraph is perfectly allowed and appropriate as a source. If you do have a source that's relevant contradict this source then let us know, thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Francparler ( talk • contribs)
Who are you ? Bbb23, an editor, who am I, Francparler an editor, who are we, editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francparler ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
How can I write about this person without a speedy delivery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webpopular ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Barayev was found to be a sock [29] with Gabriel Stijena ..Note how these users tagged up in different articles. Unfortunately, nothing was done to Gabriel Stijena who is likely Greczia also. Also the Aryan212 with just two edits [30] was not checked for throw-away although he edit warred on the same topics. -- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 22:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reviewing my request for unprotection, could you flesh out your response, eg link the process by which the protection was obtained, and link the process by which the WP:SOCK was determined. Thanks 188.28.233.87 ( talk) 05:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Please stop doing this, you are clearly doing as everyone said a whitewash of her. I noticed that several others have warned you about your writings. It is not helpful to the Wikipedia. Nor is threatening people with banning good for the Wikipedia either. Manbumper ( talk) 06:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Believe it or not, Settdigger is asking for a "request for review of [your conduct]". I've given him a reply justifying your block but I was just wondering if you had any sort of recall page for future reference, as I couldn't find any, even though in this case it's highly unlikely. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed this edit having re-blocked the user. WP:BLANKING does not prohibit the removal of block notices - it does prohibit the removal of declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for, uh, most of your edits on this. Could you tell us why you cut that section on subjects that Buck covered for Vogue? She had a long career there and I think some counterbalance to Asma al-Assad is valuable, no? Maybe it was an error but please talk on the talk pages before you do that edit again-- Aichikawa ( talk) 23:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You need to recuse yourself from administrative action over the Black Swan discussion given that you are an interested party. Awien ( talk) 19:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I am helping Amazon Eve actress/model maintain her page. She has asked me to add the following as places she has appeared. Assuming I can find a link to the article or the video would I be able to add any of these?
Thank you, as always Greenwayfriend ( talk) 02:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Greenwayfriend
Yep, I'll take a look sometime today for you - cheers, Giant Snowman 08:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 18:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In what way is Bomer's birthplace unclear? Is the Yahoo! bio that is cited in the Early life section not adequate? Nightscream ( talk) 00:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
That IP seems to be at least a meat puppet if not a sock of blocked user:Settdigger. I don't have the time and nerve to file a report so I'm just saying although you're probably quite aware of that possibility. TMCk ( talk) 21:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you please help me? What do I need to do to work on a version of the Anne Block article that meets Wikipedia criteria? I feel that the version submitted by Deception Passer under the title "Anne Block" was closer to a finished product and thoroughly sourced. Where can I make a case for the article? It appears that the latest discussion I requested took place and was closed before I could comment. Further, I feel that the article was unfarily labeled an "attack" article without any discussion, and the label has stuck. I realize that this is usually the case, but please consider the fact that in some cases, the evidence available does not paint a balanced picture. Consider the Seattle Times front page piece I used as a primary source. The Times is the biggest paper in the NW region, and the investigative team has won pulitzers in each of the last three years. To me, that's a pretty solid source. If the actions taken by the subject reflect on her in a negative light, that doesnt mean that I've written an attack piece. It could just mean that the acts described ten to make one think of the subject in a negative light. I would ask any editor to read the Seattle Times piece and to fish around a little bit. I think it would become apparent that there is more to this than just an "attack".
I am frustrated because there was no constructive criticism regarding the sourcing or the work. It took a long time to compile 30 sources and to write inline citations. It seems like the discussion should be about the merit instead of just deleting the page outright after Block whitewashes it. The sourcing was good. Inline citations, references from the best journalistic sources in the region, a survey of different outlets showing that Ms. Block had been covered by pretty much every form of media in the region, etc.
I want to follow the process and I feel I have located solid secondary sources regarding an subject that meets all criteria for notability. However I feel that the controversy surrounding Block's actions has prevented any discussion about the specific merits of the article. I requested a review of the deletion and the conversation was apparently opened and closed before I even had a chance to contribute. Now all of the discussions say "please do not modify" and I can't find any of my previous work. Much of the dialogue wasn't even about the article it was about Ms. Block's apparent legal threat. The original page had been up for several days, and every day I was working to edit it, improve it, and add more sources as per the direction of editors. As soon as Ms. Block started whitewashing the page, all of a sudden it was deleted and there was never any discussion as to the merit of my sourcing or the grounds of the deletion. It doesn't seem right that as soon as Ms. Block starts whitewashing and threatening, the process is stopped. If anything, her actions only further backup the picture painted by the sources. She is litigious in nature. Almost all of the available sources talk about her confrontational legal actions, all of which have a great impact no local politics, state law, and the economies of the region in which block operates.
Original article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Anne_Block.2FWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAnne_K._Block Better version: "Anne Block" / user Deception Passer Seattle Times story on Anne Block: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2017434837_goldbarreporter06m.html Sky Valley Chronicle Story on Block: http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/ L8incoub3rt ( talk) 23:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Why would you say that I am not capable of writing a neutral article? I realize its not a finished product, but ultimately the sourcing speaks for itself. Not everything in life is balanced. Almost all of the reporting on Block is about her litigous activities. That's why she's famous. Block's actions or the media coverage of her actions shouldn't, if properly sourced, reflect on the author of a encyclopedic entry. I can defend any individual citation or point, but generalizations are impossible to address in a meaningful way. I feel like editors are confusing the actions of the subject with the article. Block's actions are her own. If I simply cite secondary sources describing her actions, how can that be bad? Any judgement would be on her actions or the validity of the sources. I would much rather have a conversation about the validity of the sourcing in my article. I don't feel I was given that chance. If I can have the copy back, I would appreciate it very much. I have put alot of time into it. Thank you. Deception passer ( talk) 00:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
No. But my account got blocked anyway. No discussion, no reviewing of my talk page, just a total block. Weak. As I stated on my talkpage and in several other dialogues with editors, I submitted a revision of my roommate's article after Block began whitewashing. I was very open about this, just as I have been open and forthright in stating that my article should be viewed upon the merits of the sourcing. I feel like you avoided my question regarding your subjective and general comment regarding your feelings about my abilities and decided to block me instead. I want my account reinstated please. I think you acted hastily. If you had read my posts or my talkpage you wouldve seen that I had stated that I was sharing a computer and working on the same topic as my roommate. Our goals are the same - to produce an article that is sourced and neutral, or to produce no article at all. Unfortunately it seems like whitewashing, fake threats and petty blocks are the most effective currency around here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.233.42.244 ( talk) 02:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I am still confused as to how Anne Block's legal threats [1] have resulted in the page deletions (my version was "Anne Block") and the block on future articles. It seems like this is rewarding her for threatening legal action and punishing the authors who attempted to research and write a difficult but relevant article. I am attempting to go through the correct procedures. Block simply whitewashed the articles and threatened me/wikipedia/anyone else. I don't think that this should prevent me the ability to work on an article. In fact, since this is what Block is famous for, it seems like it is even more important to write the article. This is a person with 20 open lawsuits against government and 11 pending recall attempts. This is a person who bankrupted her own town to the point that it is dis incorporating. She threatens litigation in every instance. It's why she is notable. [2] Take a look at this, her latest threat related to wikipedia. [3]
I know I can write a neutral, sourced article. I just need the opportunity and for someone to work with me on it. Her threats are empty - Inline citations from strong secondary sources protect everyone from liability. Which is probably why Block constantly deletes sourcing. Please take a look at the article the Seattle Times wrote on Block. [4] I need an editor to take a little time to understand the situation and to give me some guidance. I also need my article text and sourcing back - it was all deleted.
Can you help me get the text from this article back? I will no post again until I have buy-off from an Admin. If I can't achieve that, then I'll leave it alone. Thank you http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anne_Block&action=edit&redlink=1
Deception passer ( talk) 00:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. Deception passer ( talk) 00:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
since the sources I cited for Luke Evans were credible and even though i don't remotely agree with your analysis that my contributions read like a commentary, wouldn't it be better to revise my edits rather than delete them altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivyleaguer ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
IRC cloak request.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Just out of interest, the material which was removed as unsourced by (admittedly a block evading individual with an extreme COI) a user, appeared to be supported by the link in the edit summary. I am good at missing things in these circumstances but could you illuminate it for me? Panyd The muffin is not subtle 19:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Bbb23. You have protected this article before, and it may need protection again. After a couple days of relative quiet, several editors have now resumed repeated reverts without engaging in productive discussion on the talk page. Could you please take a look? My recommendation is that you pick your favorite "wrong version" and then lock it down until the major concerns are properly expressed and resolved. (You are going to upset several editors regardless of which of the three recent versions gets protected; disclosure: I have edited the article recently.) I'd also like to see a stern admonition from you to the effect that everyone falling silent until the block expires is not an acceptable way to "address" the problem. Any ideas you have on this would be welcome as well. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It appears that Scientom has violated the condition of their unblock as described here [33]
Please see the message I left on Scientom's talk page
[34] asking them to self-revert. I will wait for a self-revert, and ask that you do so as well. I wanted to bring this to your attention instead of engaging in EW like behavior, however if they fail to self-revert I would hope you would make an inquiry. Thanks.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
17:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your inquiry into the matter. I resisted my initial inclination to revert but raised the matter at Scientoms page and here first. I plan on restoring my edit if no response is forthcoming. This is a "heads up" courtesy notice for you. Thanks.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
03:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Just want to notify you that i have responded to the discussion on this talk page. Kingroyos ( talk) 05:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi - this man just received a 103 million dollar award from the IRS - i'm horrible at writing wiki articles but i promise you people are going to be looking this guy up a lot very soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.97.216 ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Bbb23 Teacross is again editing on my page, and their work has since been partially cleaned up, but I would still suggest that the additions remain not from a neutral point of view. Your additional help would be much appreciated. Regards, Natalie Natalieben ( talk) 21:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Some people really hit the ground running with their very first edit already. Drmies ( talk) 04:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For clearing out AIV tonight! Electric Catfish 01:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
A belated thanks, Electric Catfish. Regards.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the ANI discussion I'm in. I'm involved with the articles, but we do have a revert issue with the one editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, looks like the same anon who vandalised Russian-speaking Ukraine is now doing the same in Russian language in Ukraine, including the article's talk page. Can you please take a look? Thanks. -- Garik 11 ( talk) 20:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi BB,
Thank you for trying to be fair in considering the edit war issue. However, as much as I'm sure removing a block will just result in Tjo3ya putting his efforts into continuing his attacks on me, I want to point out that he didn't actually make his edit again AFTER I reported him and notified him of the report on his page. He had made his last revert immediately before I made the report. Since I knew that if I reverted again, regardless of what I put in the reason line for doing so that he would continuously reinstate the change, I just left it was with his changes intact. Neither of us actually touched that page again after that. It wasn't until the next morning that Cnilep took a look at the article on his own and reverted Tjo3ya change (the same one I'd been reverting) back to the previous version. It was at that point that Tjo3ya began his various threads calling for my head and only after this that he acknowledged / responded to the 3RR/Edit war noticeboard.
I don't like his actions on that article, and everything he's done since has been nothing short of offensive in every way, and if anything has accomplished his goal of convincing others that I am doing everything in my edits and discussions with negative intentions, but he didn't actually do anything to the article regarding that particular disputed change again once I'd opened the report. Because you cited that as your reason for blocking him, I wanted to make sure you had to correct information.
Thanks again, Drew Drew.ward ( talk) 21:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Bhim chauhan creates a trouble so check it immediately ---zeeyanketu talk to me 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, I see that you are currently online. Can you please help out with the AIV backlog? Thanks, Electric Catfish 01:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC).
Thanks for protect the article. Do you have the page in your Watchlist?. So you can see the comments. By the moment, i added some references. -- Ravave ( talk) 16:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Three reverts in a row, here. Could you please do something about that? (This time please do not block me on the side, Dear Admin... :-) Thanks in advance and all the best. -- E4024 ( talk) 18:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I think your revert of Dr. Blofeld here was unnecessarily harsh and only serves to bolster your authority for miniscule gain. It is clear that the editors are in a good faith dispute and the thread should remain active to allow interested parties to add the full weight of their position. If you insist the discussion takes place at another location, you should move the discussion to that better place. Allowing it to continue there would not have been improper whereas requiring it be moved is a bit of a stretch, IMO. 76Strat String da Broke da ( talk) 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Part of your ruling concerning [ [35]] seems to have disappeared. Its not clear whether something important has been lost. Could you please clarify? Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 18:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much Bbb23. Nice to see you at my talkpage regardless of the circumstances. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 01:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Bbb, what's the rules for redirects such as this, User:UsefulWikipedia/sandbox? Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 04:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't need nor expect an apology from "A". I seriously considered not responding to her attack at all and waited for well over 24 hours but I didn't want to lose respect because those comments demanded some sort of response. I readily admit that I did not take that editor much more seriously then the writer, Ms. Buck, that she seems to champion. I erred by trying to be humorous with a sarcastic remark a month ago that apparently still bugs the editor. I think A over-reacted but I feel I should assume some responsibility for A feeling offended.
I will remove any comments about personal attacks when A removes her personal attacks as I would prefer a clean talk page on that article that we've all worked so hard on for the past 18 months.
I really feel deep inside that too much discussion about Ms. Buck is a distraction from Mrs. Assad, so I have tried to minimize any discussion that does not directly affect the subject of our article.
In the spirit of openness and inclusion, I have however, initiated a discussion about Ms. Buck. I suspect that I may regret doing so as it may be mostly celebutant stuff but I want to get the issue out of the way and let other editors feel they have an opportunity to contribute. BTW, I never once thought of the name Veriss having any relation to Veritable, Very or anything else much like Thomas has nothing to do with "To Max". Cheers, Veritably Awkward. Veriss ( talk) 07:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I have an edit request for Innocence of Muslims for a few days. Have you seen? I wait and wait, no-one responds. -- Camoka5 ( talk) 20:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23, I would like to ask you an important question, please. Tell me what is the best version of this article: Version 1 or Version 2 ?
Bbb23- re: the editing wars on High Point University, you will notice that the user KnowledgeisGood88 continually moves the information in Businessweek to the top of the page under "Recent History." You can also see on my talk page that they left me the following message: Made some adjustments on September 18 to eliminate redundant items and moved some text so it would have context for readability.... etc. Obviously, this user has placed a great amount of trust in the Businessweek publication as they continually place it on the HPU wiki page and continually move it to the top so it's one of the first items read. Why, then, did they remove the following link, which I posted below their Businessweek spiel on the HPU wiki page and is a link to the official Businessweek publication stating that there were errors in the original article about High Point University Businessweek Corrections & Clarifications? How do I report this person? They obviously wish to place only harmful material on the High Point University page. These corrections are just as important, if not more so. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandwidth47 ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I sustained your block because IMO he had been edit warring, but I agreed with him about the edit you said justified the block. It may have been a revert, I couldn't tell, but editorially he's right: That sentence wasn't relevant to the image. It doesn't matter if it's sourced or not. Someone could add a whole bunch of reliably-sourced, verifiable information about horticulture to an article, and we'd have no problem deleting it if the article in question were about, say, a Linux distribution. As zealous as we have become about sourcing our information, a properly-formatted footnote to a reliable source does not make the text it supports bulletproof (In this case that text belonged inline near the image, if it wasn't already). Daniel Case ( talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Why did you delete the page Kirill Popov ??
Give me the reason please ?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.220.174 ( talk) 01:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
User Scientom has returned from a wiki-break. They have yet to self-revert as you have requested. Would you please attempt to re-engage the editor whose page state at their wiki-break was
[37], and since has been recently blanked with no explanation?
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
13:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This IP has a long history of what numerous editors deem to be vandalism and/or edit-warring, which the IP invariably disputes as personal attacks, unfounded, etc. They have a habit of deleting long-standing content as "OR," no matter how well-sourced, and similarly declaring invalid any additional cites other editors come up with to refute the IP. At times they seem more intrerested in deleting content and keeping it deleted (e.g. on Methamphetamine they tried to delete all mention of "Srawberry Quik meth" on the grounds that it was an "urban myth," including the link to Strawberry Quik meth myth which actually documents the case). As noted a number of times, the the IP is hardly ever prepared to discuss disputes on Talk pages, and when they do, their first resort is often to immediately escalate to RfCs or other administrative measures, rather than actually debate the issue/s in question. I've been loathe to tackle them myself since a very nasty run-in with them at List of long course swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland, but we've probably long past the stage where we can expect their behaviour to improve any time soon. Nick Cooper ( talk) 07:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you please justify why you state that my section on Talk:South China Sea is an "attack section" against another user? What part of my section, which was related to the article and contained justified arguments based on Wikipedia policy, attacked a user? Otherwise, I can only suspect that you are displaying favoritism towards a certain editor. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 05:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding this, is he still able to email me via the link on the side of my talk page? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for being fair and unbias administrator. Especially, for weighing all sides regardless of race, experience, technical-know-how and affiliations. God bless you as you continue to promote equality and fairness to all wikipedia users.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Bbb23, upto now, Fabyan17 is still constantly changing the globally common name South China Sea to "West Philippine Sea" in articles - diff. His motive is clearly a nationalistic one. He is seriously disrupting the Wikipedia Project and must be stopped. STSC ( talk) 19:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Adding some sourced info into the Cyprus article I made a mess of the references. The refs 43 and 44. The first one must be in Spanish and the latter in English. Could you please help? Thanks... -- E4024 ( talk) 20:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Because of this complaint, the AN3 page has now been tagged with the 24 Hours of Le Mans race cars category. I am not sure how to fix this. Ankh. Morpork 14:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Bbb23
You declined my AN/EW notice on Arthur Rubin, writing "This is not the proper forum for requesting review of an administrator's actions."
Would you be so kind as to tell me where one would report disruptive editing by an admin, acting in the capacity of an editor? I have searched the help files, and other than admin recall (way too extreme), I can find nothing relevant. Many thanks – MrX 18:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, has he arrived yet? -- Garik 11 ( talk) 05:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. As you are involved in editor retention, I wanted to invite you to participate in an RfC regarding adding color differentiation to Wiki markup, particularly towards references. You are welcome to participate whenever you are able. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.
Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 11:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)