User talk:Bbb23

Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s). Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

Sad man.

You can not block me. "Threat of evasion"? There is no threat. It will be evaded, and there's nothing you can do about it. I know more about computers, networks, etc than you ever will in your entire life time. It was no threat, it was a fact. It will continue to be changed back, for however long I choose to keep doing so, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Block this proxy, i don't care. There are tens of thousands... no, Hundreds of thousands more. You can never block them all. On top of which, Dynamic IPs can EASILY be changed by a simple router reset, only idiots think blocking an IP makes any difference at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.157.121 (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Request

Could one of you two good admins could kindly also block Inspectortr (redlink) and its IP Ducks? Please, I am not so young, getting tired of reverting 100 times... You can find them -now- at Recep Tayyip Erdoğan both in the article and its TP. Their main activity area is Cyprus though, together with 23x2 (around 50) other users they are obsessed with the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. They are naughty kids, who are here to disperse hate, not to make encyclopedia... --E4024 (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I do see the overlap, but from my limited perspective, you're going to have to follow the usual procedures with these kinds of allegations. I noticed that you made a quick checkuser request at SPI (not sure if you did it right). Dennis is more experienced (and more confident) at spotting socks than I, so he may or may not wish to take action.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Block

You declined to block me for vandalism as you determined it was a content dispute, however I don't believe it to be a content dispute. The other user who reported me is entering information from a silly top 100 list into music articles under the guise it is some type of "award" or "achievement" for the article topic. However the author of the list states that the list was chosen arbitrarily and with bias. The other user has been informed of this but simply ignores the edit summary explanations, and blanks their talk page to remove any personal mention of it, while continuing to revert that information back into the articles (around 100 different articles)

As a result I don't believe this to be a content dispute. I took this issue to the reliable references board to try and get some help but there was no one available to review it as the reference is written in Japanese (but I made it easy to cross check without knowing Japanese) The Rolling Stone magazine in question is viewable here http://www.amazon.co.jp/Rolling-Stone-ローリング・ストーン-2007年-09月号/dp/B000UCGUXY/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt and on the cover of the magazine where it says "BEST 100" in English, above that is the following sentence 独断と偏見で選んだ written in green just below the purple line as a disclaimer. A google translate will show it means "chosen arbitrarily and with prejudice", and it is also written in the description section on the product page. How is this acceptable for the wikipedia? 27.33.143.93 (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As shown at Amazon, the Rolling Stone cover is (unsurprisingly) so small that the text within it is completely undecipherable. The largest reproduction I've yet found is here. It's still too small for the text to be decipherable for me. But I showed it to Mrs Hoary (native speaker of Japanese); and without any prompting from me she said that yes, it almost certainly says 独断と偏見で選んだ. And yes, this does mean that it's a personal, opinionated choice. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The source in support of the list is reliable. Your connecting of the dots is not only hard to follow but requires a fair amount of WP:OR. It also doesn't make sense. Are you saying the magazine published the list as a spoof? I've poked around the web, and that's not what I read at various sites (I don't know how reliable these sites are, though). Here's a couple: [1] and [2]. Frankly, I don't see any support for your position, but I'm not arbiting the content dispute. You got no traction at WP:RSN. You apparently got nowhere at WP:DRN. If I were you, I'd let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

@Hoary, if you look at the two sources I cite, they don't really contradict Mrs Hoary's translation. The RS editor apparently explained why he ran the list.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was self explanatory, I guess not. It is not a spoof, it is a freelance article filler for the issue but not taken seriously and the list was not created by a noted music critic or someone of note in the music industry (in Japan this would be someone like Masanori Ito. and the magazine even makes sure to mention it is biased and arbitrary (they even made note of that on the cover) and again my point is, how is this acceptable for the wikipedia? I can't even believe I need to ask that, should VH1 top 10 lists of the "greatest rock songs of all time" etc be listed in the relevant wiki articles as an "award" or "achievement" as well? That is neither an award or achievement. Apart from that, it provides no information to the articles! It is fancruft nonsense. My question was, how is it acceptable for the wikipedia, and especially given the fact it is biased and randomly put together?27.33.143.93 (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you going a bit overboard here? A list of personal choices that doesn't represent the opinion (if any) of the magazine in which it's published needn't be either fancruft or nonsense. (Indeed, as I look at the list [in English translation] I see a range of choices that you or I may or may not agree with but that do not look mindless.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

and Horay, I thank you for finding someone else who speaks Japanese that can actually read what the magazine says. Also Bbb23, I don't agree that it required original research, I believe it to be checking referenced material, as only because something comes from a generally respectable source doesn't make it reliable.27.33.143.93 (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I knew nothing about the dispute till I happened to notice the message at the top of this very thread. But now that I do see it: Yes, it's fair to say that there was "no traction" at WP:RSN. Nobody agreed. But also nobody disagreed. (Here is the non-discussion.) Perhaps nobody was interested, or nobody who might have been interested saw it. ¶ Let's look at the two sources you (Bbb23) give. The one at "japanator.com" merely rebroadcasts and comments on the one at "neojaponisme.com": there's no indication that the writer of the former has seen the RS article or would understand it if he did see it. The latter is hugely more interesting. It starts In the September 2007 issue of Rolling Stone Japan, contributing editor and Beikoku Ongaku founder Kawasaki Daisuke offered something brand new for Japan: a list of the 100 Greatest Japanese Rock Albums of All Time. This might mean that it's Kawasaki's personal list or (I think less likely) that it's a list created by a team of people coordinated by Kawasaki, or anything between these extremes. Without seeing the actual article or a separate, objective description of it, I wouldn't know. One thing's for sure: the cover of the magazine neither gives the list top billing -- it's below a multipart feature on "rock meets eco[logy]" and also below something on Bob Dylan -- nor presents it as the magazine's view (or [of course a silly idea] a "definitive" view). Clearly the writer at "neojaponisme.com" is excited by it, and he may have good reason for this; but the significance of the list isn't obvious. ¶ Of course an indisputably personal list can be significant if the lister is somebody whose opinions are of note: For movies, people might want to know Pauline Kael's top 100, and most likely because of rather than despite her strong tastes. Kawasaki, I don't know. He doesn't have an article here; he's not mentioned within the ja:WP article on RS, and he doesn't seem to have an article within ja:WP (as inferred from the lack of any hit for either of the two likeliest characters for kawa within the list of articles linking to the ja:WP article on RS. Although as we all know, plenty of significant people never get articles at WP. -- Hoary (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your points echo mine very closely Hoary. The person who wrote the article Daisuke Kawasaki is not a noted music critic or industry person, he owned a small fanzine called Beikoku Ongaku (which is linked in Bbb24's source) and published it with his wife, but it is now defunct. If you look at their companies website http://www.beikoku-ongaku.com/ they are now selling "Collagen Beauty Drinks", whatever that is.

I'd just like to point out that while it may seem trivial to argue about, people use the wikipedia for information and silly claims like this spin out of control and escalate into utter nonsense. Journalists, researchers etc do use the wikipedia to get a lot of their information quickly. The articles are making it sound like an achievement or hallmark in Japanese popular music, when it is not. Lists by the British Film Institute etc are different as they are made via a consensus with the worlds leading critics and industry persons and an explanation is provided as to why each film was chosen etc. What is being contested by me is just a random list that is noted by the publisher as being biased and arbitrary (which means chosen randomly with no reasoning) This is like a TV network saying the views of such and such do not reflect those of the station. It's pretty bad when the publisher prints a disclaimer on the cover next to what it's advertising. Also there is no explanation as to why they were chosen, it's just a numerical list of albums, no different to a VH1 top 10 list etc.27.33.143.93 (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but lists by organizations as respected (or anyway as entrenched) as the BFI manage to shower praise on such piles of steaming ordure as Forrest Gump. I don't know much about Japanese rock and therefore don't know most of what Kawasaki lists; but among what I do know I see nothing that rivals Forrest Gump for horribleness. Further, your wording biased and arbitrary (which means chosen randomly with no reasoning) seems a particularly negative interpretation of the wording that was actually used. All in all I think you go overboard. Which is unnecessary, as you go in the right direction (if I'm not mixing metaphors). I've written a comment here on the talk page for Bow Wow. (Another band I don't know. I'll skip Bow Wow, Vow Wow, and Bow Wow Wow, thanks, and instead go for the Bonzo Dog Band.) Perhaps discussion should continue there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe you missed my point, I don't believe any "top 100 list" is an achievement as I've stated numerous times, although those by note worthy critics (from which the BFI does get consensus from) is minor noteworthy, although perhaps not even suitable for the wikipedia. In this case, it is not acceptable at all, as it is an opinionated article with no explanation.27.33.143.93 (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I see no reason to prolong the discussion here on Bbb23's talk page. (Instead, Talk:Bow Wow (band).) -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious IP

Since you've been involved a bit with the Hurricane Sandy article, perhaps you can help. IP 216.254.157.149 has been commenting only on Talk:Hurricane Sandy, but he's signing his comments not as his IP, but as "Tenebris". It's a bit confusing, so I was wondering if 1) that was allowed; 2) should something be done about it, or is it cool to just let it go? Inks.LWC (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not really a good idea for the IP to do that. It wouldn't be so bad if they included the IP address + tenebris, but it's misleading as it stands. There's no Wikipedia user called tenebris. I think it means darkness in Latin, but that's based on a quick search on the web, and I'm hardly a Latin scholar. Why don't you just ask the IP on their talk page why they're doing it?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

After I posted that, the user's IP address changed to 216.254.156.17, and he's been doing the same thing. I've posted on the new talk page asking him/her why.

It's obvious they are the same person. They didn't respond to my question, and I doubt they'll respond to yours, either. I didn't review their contributions (they seem to post only to the talk page of Hurricane Sandy). Putting aside the Tenebris thing, are they doing anything disruptive in your view?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, they're only posting on the talk page of Hurricane Sandy, which seems weird in of itself. I'm not sure if it's a sock of another account who's signing out to make the edits or what. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, they can't edit the article itself as it's semi-protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Confusion over Categorys

Hi Bbb23

If I could give you an example which I think differentiates categories of From and Associated with. Vicente Juan Segura is the current Archbishop of Ibiza. This gives him an association with Ibiza, but he was not born on Ibiza and has only had an association with the island since he was made the Bishop in 2005. I think this is where the distinction lies. Some one who is described as from Ibiza I would think would either have needed to be born on the island or to have spent a large percentage of there life living there. Having said that,I have found no rule of thumb as far as the latter is concerned, and this could well be intuprated by some as having only an association with the place. Hope this helps your assessment in some way.Stavros1 (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm sure you mean well, I really think you should post any comments you have about the category on the deletion page rather than here. The problem with associated with is cats are supposed to be obvious, and associated with is far too vague.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Matt Bomer Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Your opinion is requested in this discussion.

If you're in an area that was affected by Hurricane Sandy, and are unable to reply, I hope that you have not suffered too greatly, and my best wishes go out to you. Nightscream (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'm in So. Calif. but thanks for your concern - we're still waiting for the big one.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I hear Otisburg is an itty bitty place, but nice.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Template deletion

Thanks for deleting the nonsense template. Please see the report I posted on the Vandalism noticeboard as this user appears to be a habitual offender. Midhart90 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted all of the crap they created (there was quite a bit) and indefinitely blocked them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Bidgee

I see you have blocked this user for edit warring, can you explain why you would not warn him first or even ask for more information. I've just gone thru the issues and the other user is an IP address which has the appearance of being a sockpuppet. Your block was 2 hours after the edit to the article by Bidgee making your block more punative than preventative, I ask you reconsider your actions. Gnangarra 06:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Also, why did you only block Bidgee (a long-established editor with an excellent contribution history), and not the IP who was also edit warring? If I wasn't involved (tangentially, through having met Bidgee in person), I'd lift this block as it is clearly unfair. I hope that you reconsider. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've responded at probably greater length than I should have on Bidgee's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at what was really going on before blocking me. Of course I'm an experienced user (I make no effort to hide it), but I'm absolutely no sock puppet. I prefer to edit as an IP because it keeps me mindful of the golden rule. My IP number changes every time I restart my phone, but I've never ever broken any of Wikipedia's policies. It seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle, although I noted it on my EWN report, that I was not able to notify Bidgee on his talk page because it's semi-protected. I did warn him on one of the article talk pages. Anyway, thanks again for your willingness to look at the situation fairly. 208.54.4.203 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean considering whether to block you as no one actually blocked you. You did note that you couldn't notify Bidgee in the ANEW report. I've mentioned that in response to Gnangarra at Bidgee's talk page. As for the accusations of sock puppetry, I don't have much to say about it. Some think it's obvious. Others (like me) don't, but unless there's an actual investigation with a determination, it's hard to say who's right. Good luck, and stay out of trouble; I came close to blocking both of you (not for the sock thing, just for edit-warring).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• The block, even if a tad late, was fine. Subsequent administrative actions on the article were not. I left a comment on the unblocking admin's talk page. I'm going to unblock that page right now. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• The article is unprotected: I can see no possible justification for infinite protection anyway. There isn't anything remotely like a history of edit-warring in the article. IP, as far as I'm concerned you may edit to your heart's content. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• PS: BBL = Be back later. This is 2013, Bbb; step up! Drmies (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

block of User:207.225.131.141

You recently did a block and unblock of this IP. The IP was unblocked because it is coming from a library. Once the IP was unblocked, they went back to their "abusive" ways. You left a message to visit WP:ABUSE the next time abuse happened, but the abuse doesn't meet their requirements. Do you know what to do next? Bgwhite (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You know, it really ticked me off. I watched the IP after I unblocked it waiting to see all these library users who supposedly desperately needed to use the address, but they never appeared. I left it alone because there also wasn't a resumption of the disruptive editing. In any event, I've blocked the IP for 2 weeks. As for WP:ABUSE, I don't recall leaving any message about it (where do you see it?); as you say, it doesn't apply. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The WP:ABUSE message is at the top of their talk page. Looks like it was added before the blocks. Oh joy. Bgwhite (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Followup - one more page needing protection, account needs attention

Hi Bbb23, thanks for handling my edit-warring report. There's one more page that needs semi, take a look at Template:Violence against men. Also, what should happen with Faulknerck2 (talk · contribs)? I'd think he quite duckily needs an indef-block for abusing multiple accounts. He's done some valuable work in other areas but he needs to recognize what he's been doing in this area is disruptive. Cheers... Zad68 14:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the template based on the one edit by the same individual (different IP adddress but from same place). I wouldn't normally semi-protect anything based on that little, but given all the circumstances, it seems warranted to me. As for Faulknerck2, they still have not edited, at least not logged in. I have to give it some more thought, and I don't have time right now. You could file an SPI report (I'd name all three IPs). The IPs are obvious, but I don't know what they'll do based on non-technical evidence, and they are generally reluctant "to link an IP to a named account" (WP:CHK). According to Geolocate, these are static IPs, so I don't know if that makes any difference. I'm hardly an SPI expert, and the stuff can be complicated.

I'll check in again later, but I have to go to (real) work now.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I'd think the semi on the template to be irreproachable. I didn't think opening an SPI request would be productive, not just for the reason you mentioned--that SPI doesn't normally connect named accounts and IPs--but also the edits are really too ducky to even warrant the expenditure of SPI resources. From what I've seen, SPI really only gets involved in the hard-to-call cases in the middle. If it's obviously no or obviously yes (which I think this case is), they'll decline as unnecessary. It's more than suspicious that the named account stopped editing just after the WP:ANEW report was opened. I'd think the fact that the named account hasn't made edits, but three co-geolocating static IPs have been used to continue the same edits with the same prose style as the named account, would be enough per common-sense to determine that the named account is abusing multiple accounts to evade scrutiny and continue edit-warring. This is why I'd think an indef is warranted. As they say, indef isn't infinite--as soon as the individual recognizes how the edits have been unproductive, and commits to discontinue, they can go back to productive editing. Zad68 15:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand all of your points, and I don't necessarily disagree that the evidence is reasonably strong. That said, I laid all of this out at ANEW, and no admin took any action based on sock puppetry, including Ed Johnston, who obviously looked at the issues. Also, I don't think an SPI report would be declined as "unnecessary" just because it may be "obvious". They'll express a view and take appropriate action. In addition, even assuming that Faulknerck2 is a sock master, they either have to come back to edit and answer for themselves or they can't edit at all, at which point blocking them (btw, it wouldn't normally be an indef of the master on the first go) would no longer be as compelling - and at some point becomes unnecessary. At this juncture, I've taken many remedial measures to prevent further disruption, and I suggest we wait to see if anything happens. I also have talk page stalkers who might express a view on the sock puppet issues. I'll close the report at ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, fine with me, it's always a learning experience here. The point is that the disruptive editing appears to have stopped, and if the named account comes back and goes back to productive editing, well maybe he "got away" with a little bit of something but whatever. If he comes back and continues the disruption, we can deal with that then. Cheers.... Zad68 01:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I will continue to watch, but feel free to drop me a note here if you think something is amiss.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Russia Today

I understand that you are the administrator who blocked me twice in regards to my edits on RT. While I still disagree with the second block, I'm willing to let it go. In the interest of consensus-building, I am also respectfully asking for your observations in regards to the proposed changes to the RT article I am going to make in response to an edit an involved user made. I understand that there will always be mistrust between us, but I am hoping that my request for your opinions on this matter will go some way to removing that mistrust. Festermunk (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just coming by to tell you about this WP:ANI report he links to above, which seems to be just another example of Festermunk not understanding edit warring, battleground behavior or collaboration. See he got here first. He needs some serious mentoring, as I said there. Sigh.... CarolMooreDC 20:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. It has to do with content, but more specifically it has to do with your disruptive editing given how you not only deleted but did not restore content that was already accepted via consensus. That much should've been obvious to anybody who read the original post. Festermunk (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk, I just closed that ANI thread. Please consider this a warning: if you continue to engage in battlegroundish behavior you will be blocked indefinitely. Talk it out, like an adult, or at least try to. No need to respond. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies, that saves me some trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

how did you do that?

Hi I was also trying to revert some changes at H Sandy.... only I do not know how to revert two in one fell swoop like you did. Please teach me! I thought the subsequent edit forced us to revert older ones manually? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

When you have the edit history up, click on the radio button next to the version you want to go back to and then click on "Compare selected versions" (this assumes the most current version has its radio button already selected). On the next screen, you should have a link on the upper left "restore this version"; click on that, and it will give you an edit box to give a reason for the reversion. Your reason should account for as much as possible of what you are effectively reverting. I might add that for this article, things don't work well. I assume it's because the article is bloated, but it appears to be worse than for other bloated articles. I sometimes get errors saying that the "restore" timed out. When I get those messages, sometimes the restore didn't work, but other times it did. Very frustrating.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I use compare version all the time.... when you said On the next screen, you should have a link on the upper left "restore this version" could that be one of those extras some editors who are not admin can ask for? I never see that link and am thinking this might be sort of like rollbacker rights (which I have).NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm an admin and I don't have that link either. It might be a matter of the skin you're using for Wikipedia. I'm using the old MonoBook and all I get when comparing revisions is an "edit" link for both sides of the window. So you just click that "edit" on the left side and then save the old revision with a remark in the edit summary. De728631 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It might also be Twinkle (I use Twinkle). Honestly, I get a little lost in all this stuff with everyone having different things. The admin/non-admin stuff I get, but the rest ...--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In light of your mentoring relationship with Drmies, please allow an uninvolved admin to deal with the issue

In light of your mentoring relationship with Drmies, please allow an uninvolved admin to close complaints about him. -Fjozk (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not nonsense at all in light of the amount of group bullying, badgering, and harassing that goes on on en.wiki. Drmies inflamed the situation by egging on Niteshift for his drive-by comment at AN/I. At some point, you all ought to stop supporting each other and start editing content. Someone could have just told Niteshift to stop posting on my talk page. Instead, you go to Drmie's talk page, and gather an inflammatory quote by Niteshift to share with me. So, not nonsense. And, yes. -Fjozk (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Invoooolved, Bbb. That's the fun of Wikipedia. Someone has a legitimate complaint about someone else, and an admin helps out. But that person phrases their request in a most...immature manner, full of assumptions and accusations, and gets called on it. Next thing you know, this. I wonder if that whale watcher wasn't on to something, what that conflict was about. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify (I like things spelled out), Drmies, are you saying you believe I am involved or you're just spoofing? Frankly, I don't see it. If I'm involved, then anytime an editor complains about Admin A, every other admin who is a "friend" with Admin A would be involved. That can't be right.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just the ones who nominate you for adminship. -Fjozk (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)