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.

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! Malcolm Hamilton harpsichordist Wikipedia's stub currently up has a significant error and no references whatsoever and an opinion stated as fact. You asked for a reference for my changes and I gave you a published one, which was liner notes to a record. The rest of the liner notes were written by Hamilton himself. If you think that these are not reliable, I can only figure that you are being deliberately obtuse and prefer to have a poor entry. Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanBeroff (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC) If you want to retract your "deliberately obtuse" comment and talk to me about how things are done at Wikipedia, I'd be happy to help you. Otherwise, no.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Why would I want to retract an obviously apropos comment? I assume that someone who has no life outside of Wikipedia knows about how things are done at Wikipedia. Instead of making this personal and acting like a know it all (condescendingly telling me that I am going to have to do better than that), perhaps you should consider having an accurate entry? You are sadly mistaken if you think I am in need of help from you. What is in need is the inaccurate stub. Why not focus on that. Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanBeroff (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC) please clarify Hello, Yesterday, I added some basic personal information to the bio page of actor Rob James-Collier that would be informative to the many fans who think he's HOTHOTHOT and want to know if he is available. I saw today you had removed all my work, describing my addition as unencyclopedic. I am not familiar with that term. Do you mean the information was not sufficiently comprehensive? I thought it provided sufficient information on his personal life to quiet the pangs of the longing fangirl-boy, and each statement was taken from newsmedia and attributed as such. This new part of James-Collier's profile compares well to the WikiPedia bio of his co-star and fellow heartthrob, Dan Stevens (a/k/a "Downton Abbey" Matthew Crawley). What was "unencyclopedic" about my contribution? What does "unencyclopedic" mean??? - Inkless EditsInkless Edits (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I can't believe you write as you do above and then wonder why I reverted your change to the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (I see you got some responses at the Teahouse as to what that means). In any event, the information about James-Collier's son, the name of the mother, her French dog, etc., mostly obtained from the tabloid The Mirror is fan cruft that doesn't belong here. I'm curious. What makes you think the Stevens article has material similar to what you tried to add to the James-Collier article? I'm going to leave a standard Welcome message on your talk page. It has many links that may help you understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Mr. Bbb23, Your snide opener, "I can't believe you write as you do above..." does not inspire constructive, congenial conversation with a stranger! My message to you was designed to be conversational and humorous, and I thought the lighthearted tone might inspire goodwill. My goodness! my friend: you DO take yourself quite seriously! As you may imagine, your summary removal of my contribution without any talk on the matter came across as quite aggressive and I thought a little comic relief would do some good. Wikipedia is a user-edited encyclopedia which is a go-to reference for Internet surfers, with the awareness that it is an interesting, potentially useful, and imperfect resource. Wikipedia it is well-known as a fount of information, surely on many more topics than the Britannica, but lacking the gravitas of the latter compendium. As a frequent Wikipedia reader, I have noticed that many celebrity profiles include personal information, reciting the names of girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, wives, progeny, parentage, favorite football teams, and lots of other potentially frivolous or merely charming, entertaining details. For example, to read a "Personal" section documenting some lively romantic activity, footnoted with the same sort of resources that I used, see the entry on actress Alison King. This sort of information humanizes the subject and entertains the reader, which of course is what being a public figure is all about. The info I added on RJC is completely in line with celebrity profiles and of great interest to the fans who would want to read about him. I appreciate a friendly "Welcome" and look forward to reading it. And at the same time, please think anew about your deletion of my contribution, and your motivation for same; I wonder if inadvertently you may have been acting on personal opinion rather than editorial???Inkless Edits (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I apologize if your initial edit here was intended to be humorous. You're absolutely right; I can be very serious. And sometimes it's hard to get humor in people you don't even know, so I took it at face value. I haven't changed my mind as to the reversion of your edit. My recommendation is that you take the issue to the article talk page to see if you can obtain a WP:CONSENSUS for including the material. I have no idea what you mean by "personal opinion"; about what?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Bbb, I happen to think that Rob is HOTHOTHOTSIZZLINGHOT as well. At the same time, WP:HOTTIE, while clearly indicating his notability, gives us no reason to include any other information, though a photograph of his six-pack would be appreciated. I assume asking for a shot of his ****er would be asking for too much. I also wish to thank you for your courteous and business-like tone, often necessary to keep the lid on steaming, boiling vessels of desire such as myself--and apparently I'm not the only one. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, there's not a single image in the James-Collier article. However, if you can find one that is acceptable pursuant to HOTTIE (WP:IC), feel free to upload it with the appropriate HOTTIE rationale.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Did someone say Downton? Ah, but I come here for another purpose, one which may interest Drmies as well (especially given the naked breast business), if he's stalking this page. I'd like your input as to whether this is a reliable source [1], but really I'm soliciting for someone else to take a scythe to the article in question, if there's a consensus to do so. And I'm back from the tropics, just in time to get snowed in. Cheers as always, 99.149.87.54 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Your transparent attempt to switch topics from James-Collier's skin to Mr. Skin (the things that come up at Wikipedia) is unwelcome. You can discuss Downton Abbey or any related subject, but that's it. I cut out large chunks of the article. I should probably cut the Filmography section, but I'd have to compare it to the list of her works, even if it's missing inline citations, and I'm too lazy to do it right now. Feel free to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Oh yeah? Nobody's lazier than I am. I'm exhausted just from thinking about attractive drapery-challenged subjects. Good work on the article. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I find that exhaustion from thinking about work is THE best way to avoid work. Here's to the ladies who laze! Everybody rise!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm...sugar heaps...boning...good.... DYK that The Best of Barry White is at Target for $5? Drmies (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC) That's the language 99 objects to? I mean, "sinfully skinful" - what's not to like?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC) 99 is a Puritan from way back when. I wonder what his nipples look like. I mean the ones he paints. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Yeah, that's why he lives in New England. As for you, you're always obsessing about nipples. Did I know that 99 paints? Does he paint pictures of nipples or does he paint the nipples themselves? As for me, I recently learned about nipples in a CPR class.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Nipples, nipples, nipples. Wow, you two really need something better to do of a Friday night. Among other hobbies I paint men and often wimmens, sometimes in the altogether. Sometimes they disrobe, too. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Another change of direction, as well as IP addresses: It seems I and a registered account have been accused of being sockpuppets here: [2]. I'm disinclined to follow up this evening, but would appreciate any help/advice, including going to ANI. Thanks and cheers, 99.137.210.244 (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm. Maybe you two are socks. I think we should ask a NippleCheckUser to render a verdict. If Fladrif could please produce one as well--thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)] Will these do? Fladrif (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Why "certainly not of Fladrif"? Do you know Fladrif?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry if that was out of bounds. But, I suspect that this Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Threat_from_Administrator is even more out of bounds. Claim to have been threatened for ....well, persistent personal attacks compounded by utter incompetence. Fladrif (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC) (Sigh) I so tire of being asked to show my breasts. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) I've left a warning on the accuser's talk page. Hopefully, they will cooperate and retract the accusation. If not, although I threatened them with a block, I wouldn't actually be comfortable blocking them for two reasons. First, I consider myself involved because of our virtual relationship (heh), and, second, I don't think that one baseless sock accusation is bad enough to be blockable. Even if the editor does not retract the accusation, I would not go to ANI; I don't think it's worth it. If Drmies or anyone else stalking here disagrees with me, feel free to chime in.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Agreed that this isn't block worthy, and I do appreciate your response. For you I'll reveal a nipple. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Ah yes. Whoa. Bbb, hope you don't mind some resizing. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC) This is all your fault. It all started as a nice pleasant exchange between a misguided James-Collier fan and me about how hot is hot, and you've now turned it into ... I dunno, a circus ... no, worse, you've turned it into your talk page, a free-for-all where anyone can say what they please how they please, post tasteless pictures (although it wasn't around long enough for me to taste it - does TPG really prohibit such pictures? my only objection was that it was so BIG), and natter endlessly about n******. If I want to experience the wonders of intellectual anarchy, your talk page is available. My talk page, OTOH, is dignified, restrained, and generally boring. It's certainly NOT an extension of ANI. I am now going to look at my watchlist, which despite my efforts, keeps getting bigger and bigger. I hope you're enjoying your Saturday.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Ye GADS!!! She exclaims, fanning herself furiously. Is it getting HOT in here, or is it just ME? "Misguided James-Collier fan"? There's nothing misguided, I am straight-up, all over RJC, no shilly-shallying about it. I appreciate the sympathetic comments, and would add my own, if I were more familiar with what Wikipedia considers within the bounds of good taste. Permit me merely to quote other editors. "...a photograph of his six-pack would be appreciated." OK. Can do. "I assume asking for a shot of his ****er would be asking for too much." Can't get my hands on one of these at the moment, but I certainly can give it a try (and who's to blame me for trying?). Is it getting HOT in here...? There is a lot to read and absorb here, I will have to table it for the weekend. The information deserves considered review. And thank you Bbb23 for lightening up your tone, to me it makes a HUGE difference! Thanks.Inkless Edits (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Hehe, hands on a ****er, and HUGE, can it get any worse? No doubt the answer is yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC) I know you'll LOVE this - Rob James-Collier modeled for the Argos Catalog before he broke into television, and he did this little PSA (public service announcement), too. This is just the photo; the PSA itself reads, "Be careful where you eat your corn dog." Maybe we should use this for his profile??? ;-) Rob James-Collier, Public Service Announcement, 2007--Inkless Edits (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Barnstar of Good Humor For this :) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Glad you enjoyed it. You're probably not a father yet. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Nope. Good guess. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Response You accused an editor and an IP address as being the same person in this discussion. Please retract the accusation or you may be blocked for making a personal attack. You are, of course, welcome to file a report at [WP:SPI]] if you have evidence supporting the allegation. (Your talk page is screwed up. It's not an archive.)--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC) I know about the archive. Not 'screwed' up as you say just I didn't finish editing on the work computer. Will do [WP:SPI]] soon. I'm not on Wikipedia everyday and I need to read up on how that's done but I don't believe him/her and wont retract the suspicion I have at this time. Far from a personal attack though to disbelieve what someone claims. However the words Fladrif used eg 'media whore' & 'grandstanding' where the offensive remarks. Now that talk page has nearly zero visits, how did you mange to find out about it and respond so quickly? Wombat24 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC) I'll be away from a computer most of the day tomorrow, so am adding last thoughts now, for the time being. The above determination to maintain a sock puppet accusation, without good cause and in the face of strongly worded suggestions from two administrators, is, in effect, an attack on the integrity of several users. Given this persistence, and the promise to file an SPI, I'm thinking of WP:BOOMERANG. For the record, Wombat has been well advised that this isn't a productive path to go down. My thanks to Bbb and Drmies, though it's fairly clear how this is playing out. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC) For what its worth, I didn't know they were administrator and at first was just suspicious due to the speed of their responses. However Drmies comments I believe are way out of line due to his use of foul language on two different occasions in two separate posts. I thought that was banned on Wikipedia. Anyways the SIP was filed in good faith since I believed, and still suspect, 99.149.87.54 is shared by someone else. But if I'm wrong, fine. It will be time to move on. But to call it a personal attack is odd otherwise no one wouldn't file any SIPs when we suspect wrongful activity. We'd all have to ignore it always Wombat24 (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Whatever. If you file an SPI out of ignorance, after being told repeatedly that the accusation was baseless to begin with, then you have your own self to blame. Good faith ends where incompetence begins. I don't know where I used foul language, but I can get a lot more insistent if you don't start listening. IP 99 has a person behind it, a person who has been here for years with a variety of IPs (because, you know, that's how IPs work), a person who has forgotten more about Wikipedia than you have managed to learn so far. I don't have to sing his praises: his good work is found all over the project. Your contributions, not so much. And with this fight you were picking, where you were losing an argument and sought a different tack, an accusation of socking, you've taken up more time than you're worth. You irritated one longtime editor, you were given advice by two editors/administrators which you chose to ignore, you made an SPI clerk do more extra work--in short, I'd like to know what the pay-off is for Wikipedia of having you around. I will make one more suggestion to you: stop fucking around and wasting time, and start contributing to articles without resorting to accusations. Or you will be blocked, as a time sink. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC) More threats here Drmies! I didn't file in ignorance at all but whatever! So can you stop fucking around now. Feels like your stalking me now on wikipedia. This wasn't a message or question for you here but for the other adminWombat24 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Wombat, I'm not sure if you're really listening, but here are some points you might find helpful (in no particular order): Normally, one files an SPI (not SIP) when one has enough evidence of socking. This, of course, is a judgment call, and people with more experience with socks usually make better judgments than those with less. Generally, it's considered a personal attack to accuse someone of socking without filing an SPI. However, filing an SPI with almost no evidence, particularly when a content dispute is not going your way, may not be a personal attack but it is not good conduct on the part of an editor. Drmies and I tried to explain to you that 99. is not a sock. We both know him and have known him for quite some time. As with most editors who contribute through an IP, a different address is often assigned each time he accesses the Internet, although it is often within a certain range. It's not terribly important that Drmies and I are both administrators. What is more important is that we are both very experienced editors, and you should get in the habit of checking things like that when you encounter an editor for the first time. For example, I checked you out and can see that although your first edit with this account was about 3 years ago, you've only made a total of 406 edits in three years. Unless you have experience with Wikipedia under another account or through an IP address, that, to me, means you have little experience. You should listen to those with more experience than you. You don't have to accept everything they say, but don't brush them off. I could have told you before you filed the SPI that it would go nowhere. Clerks will not check for a technical relationship between a registered account and an IP address. Therefore, the only way to establish socking is through behavioral evidence, and, here, it's sorely lacking. "Foul language", which is defined differently by different people, has never been "banned" from Wikipedia. Drmies speaks plainly and directly. He also may speak colorfully and he may use words that bother you. It's a waste of time to be offended. Hey, he once said that I wasn't an asshole; that was high praise. Treat 99. as you would an editor with a registered account. He's an astute editor and has only Wikipedia's interests in mind when he edits. You don't have to agree with him, but you do have to respect him. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Didn't know you answered here. Only saw it today. Last stance. Some points: I read around a few wikipedia rule pages and its clear in several places that one would raise an accusation of wrongdoing first in the Talk page or with the person directly before jumping to mediation or other, like a SPI, which is what I did. Note: this was after I deleted the contentious paragraph basically conceding the other editors POV so as to move on and improve a page that desperately needs improving. It wasn't because I was loosing the argument since I deleted the paragraph and conceded the point. Then I raised the socking suspicion due to the 99....54 edit history which was absent of activity for three years before showing up on a board and very soon after Fladrif went to that board, which by the way was far too quickly since we couldn't really argue the matter on the Talk page first. So I suspected Fladrif as the IP. That was my judgement call. If 99 is also that second IP well then it would make sense that the first was inactive since he'd use several dynamic addresses. But when I noticed another address I directly asked that 99 which one he was but he, probably feeling offended, wrote back "It's too late. You've said more than enough'" instead of clarifying that he was both IP's, something he could've done then and there to settle this, but refused. I take issue with your claim of 'trying to explain' to me that he wasn't a sock. Both just stated it as a matter of fact without any explanation on IP range or dynamic IP's or the several he supposedly used until you have here now. Now I didn't go checking you out then because it felt like stalking at first but I see everyone does this during times of conflict. However it is, for me, more important that you are an Admin because that adds 'experience' to the recommendation. If you would have signed as an Admin the first time you wrote about 99 I would have waited and thought more about this but I would have still asked more questions about that edit history because it stopped in '08 and restarted in that board two days ago after the argument. But the SPI hasn't been determined yet, only checkuser was rejected, and its listed as under administration and , again, the argument was all about behavioural evidence, so I was well within guidelines I believe. If foul language isn't banned on wikipedia, then I'll use it more! About 99, never a personal problem with him and never disrespected him with eg foul language, he was more offended with me due to the socking suspicion. I was only offended by Drmies' disrespect when he wrote those threats, insults (silly, incompetence) and especially saying that the page was fucked up when I hadn't finished editing it. Now that its fixed I wonder if Drmies will say that it is no longer fucked up? doubt it. I find it odd that I'm asked to respect another editor when an administrator's example is that of total disrespect and aggression, which you're classifying as 'speaks plainly and direct'. Judgement call I guess. I think you should ask him to calm down a bitWombat24 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Wombat, I'm not going to be able to respond to your long post today. I will try to respond as soon as I have time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Wombat, after reading the continuation of the discussion at WP:EAR and the discussion on your talk page between you and User:LadyofShalott, I've reconsidered and will not be responding to your post above. You're going to have to get your education somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Drmies and Bbb, I appreciate the time you've taken on this matter. Your responses explain some of the basic policies of Wikipedia interaction. They also, whether you realize it or not, constitute real acts of friendship. The virtual world needs mensches, too. Very best, 99.137.210.226 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC) PA By MezzoMezzo Dear,I have been called Roguedue to my edits on Wahabi and Salafi pages and have been accused of harassment in these words,an attempt to harass me(MezzoMezzo) personally by User:MezzoMezzo here.Does it amount to Personal Attacks? There is no content dispute and no one has reverted my good faith edits of removing blatant POV/dead links and forums link from both Wahabi/Salafi pages. I had wrongly/mistakenly clicked on a Link which blanked a pagefor which I have expressed my sincere apologies.I have informed and discussed/explained bonafide use of RFC to User:Qwyrxian. Shabiha (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC) You (Shabiha) also discussed this supposed personal attack with Qwyrxian, to which he responded not only by telling you that my comment wasn't a personal attack but that it was, for the most part, accurate. He told you (Shabiha) that before you made this comment on Bbb23's talk page, so I don't know why you went ahead and did so anyway. If you want to go down this route then fine, but I can't expect things to end up well for you that way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I accept kind advise of User:Qwyrxian.I took the literal meaning of rogue which means,a dishonest or unprincipled man,I am sorry for my complaint and I withdraws it. Shabiha (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Info2012 (talk · contribs) H. Just to let you know since you were the blocking admin of the EW report on this user. It looks like this user has evaded their block here. Thanks. — Abhishek  Talk 19:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Abhishek sounds like he is a Indian Government paid troll and vandalizing the wiki article. 1.186.126.139 (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Hi Bbb23, this guy is back again both reverting [3] and with his PA both above and over here. — Abhishek  Talk 12:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Raja Nawathe Hello Bbb23 You referred to the material I posted as being 'Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced...'. "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (February 2013)" I beg to differ on this. Please note, this man is deceased. Where does one get more material about a man who is not from the western world but has made significant contributions in his/her sphere. The person has survivor (wife - senior citizen) who is unlikely to be internet savvy. Little is available as other 'reliable sources'. IMHO, is IMDB not a reliable source? I often notice that when the subject is not known very well in the western world, there's a great rush to delete or contest the material, especially by over-zealous editors. It is hard enough to find sources, and material, which is why we dig hard, deep, and wide to search for the possible reliable sources. It seems that the notifications for deletions come in such a rush, and without an effort to read the information box. How about giving relatively new editors a chance to add new material. Why not go fix pages which have been around on wikipedia for eons, have little useful information, are dead links, or plain promotional material? What is one supposed to make of the words "living persons" in your notification? Instead, it would be courteous and polite to assist 'newbies' in fixing formatting issues if they're lacking on the page. I hope this point is clear, and that you will appreciate where I'm coming from. These 'tactics' seem more like intimidation tricks to deter new editors to even make some contributions! It does not serve anyone's purpose by posting these notifications on a whim. Please refrain from deriding someone's article with your 'scary' notifications. I truly would appreciate cooperation in this matter. There's NOTHING libelous in what I've written. Thank you. ~pictowrit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictowrit (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC) The tag was wrong; I've corrected it. However, even articles about deceased subjects need to be properly sourced. IMDb is not a reliable source as anyone can edit it. The fact that it's hard to find reliable sources doesn't justify the insertion of unsourced material. I should add that I don't believe I've ever removed unsourced material from the article; I've just tagged it, and the tag should remain until the sourcing issue is solved. Moreover, if the tag remains for too long without the addition of reliable sources, unsourced information may be removed if challenged.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Hello Bbb23, thanks for the revised notification, which makes a significant difference. At least now it does not imply that I've written "libelous or harmful text". While I appreciate your diligence towards editing the content on Wikipedia, it may not quite be appropriate to deem IMDb as an unreliable source. Both sites, Wikipedia and IMDb, have User Generated Content. One may be more vast than the other. Neither are perfect, you'd agree. Also, as for the matter of 'unsourced' material, well, I've added sources which are not exactly flippant sources. The publication, The Times of India is a mainline daily i.e. English newspaper with a mammoth size circulation of 3.14 million subscribers (not to mention the humongous readership). The book by Tom Vick is from a reputed, renowned publishing house - a Harper Collins. Sure, I agree that more references would help. But in the absence of more material, what is written thus far by me is neither an exaggeration, nor is it false, nor libelous. Nor is it excessively long in view of the limited reference sources. Please understand also the scope of the subject; a hasty deletion of a page created with selfless non-promotion intent means we do injustice, and a disservice to numerous interested readers who may find it hard to piece together content scattered across the web which is buried deep in the search engine results. Thanks. ~ Pictowrit —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Pictowrit, I'm not quite sure what your point is. As I said above, I have not removed any material you added to the article, complaining about your sourcing; I just restored the tag. Your point about IMDb and Wikipedia is incorrect, though. Neither is a reliable source. For Wikipedia, there is an actual policy, WP:CIRCULAR, which prohibits the use of Wikipedia itself as a source. IBMDb is simply unreliable based on WP:RS. Personally - and this is not a statement about policy - I find IMDb to be reliable for some information and much less reliable for other information. For example, it is far more reliable for released movies than it is for movies that have not yet been released. It is also generally more reliable for information about a movie than it for information about an actor. As a matter of policy, though, it is advisable to cite to a secondary source rather than to IMDb.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Bbb23, Okay, well, thanks for your note. I agree with you that IMDb is far more reliable for movies that have already been released. Both, Wikipedia and IMDb often have content that is a work-in-progress, hence not all of it may be fully reliable; which is also one of the reasons why I've seeded this topic; at some point perhaps others will add to this page. Thanks for your time. ~ Pictowrit added 6:56 PM, Wednesday, March 13, 2013 (UTC) HELP!!! A few days ago, you removed a speedy deletion tag that someone else issued on a page that I created Hoopla Worldwide. That same person (talk) has now put up deletion tags on every page that I've created. He even put up a "sockpuppet" claim against me, so clearly he is looking at the user (me) and not the content and he has some kind of vendetta against me. I agree 100%that I do put up too many sources, but my approach with that WAS add sources, if people don't feel it's reliable, they will remove it and put up the reason why. However I see that's the wrong approach because it's never happened that way. All the pages I've created are connected from a Louisville, Kentucky standpoint as I'm in Louisville, Kentucky and I passinate about that. I strive to make great wikipedia pages and spend a lot of time doing it. Sure I need help, and I want that desperately. I want people to correct edits so I can get better. Here the pages I've created that this one user has flagged for deletion. Hoopla Worldwide Audio Stepchild Sabrina (pop singer) Birdgang clothing Causeandedit (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry to bother you with this stuff. I didn't create the "A Different Kind Of Christmas" page. Someone else did and tweeted it to @nappyroots (www.twitter.com/nappyroots) and I saw how terrible it was and I started fixing it. Nappy Roots is a successful band from Louisville, Kentucky who were involved with the album and it deserved better. Causeandedit (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC) At this point, I don't intend to intervene in this, which is being played out in multiple noticeboards in addition to the various AfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC) did you get my email about my recent block new to this site not sure if i sent it properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgio Forelli (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC) I got it. The information you "added" was information that had been removed earlier. Therefore, when you restored the material, that counted as a revert. You then reverted a second time within 24 hours. Do you understand now?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC) it was removed for no good reason, so I added it back in with some more information (I didn't know that would count as a revert). when can I add the information back in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgio Forelli (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC) You're still evincing a fundamental misunderstanding of our policy regarding WP:1RR. Don't add it back in. Discuss whatever you want on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Issue about editing Most of what has been cited on media channels especially the biased one is not at all reliable regarding the info at Dr. Aafia's page. She was kidnapped and this is a KNOWN fact. I fail to understand why it is that you are not willing to show the minimum of truth regarding that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconicironic (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC) User:Nick.mon / edit warring Hello Bbb23, after a 48 hours block and a very, very last warning a week ago, this user still has not got his message. Again, he has resumed his long-term edit-war with User:Checco across several articles on Italian political parties. I am afraid that administrative action is necessary. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Sigh, can you point me to any article in which he's "reverted" more than once (since the March 3 warning)? I glanced at a few of the many articles, and it looks like he makes a change, someone reverts him, and he stops. Alternatively, can you show me an article in which the recent change he made was a change that was rejected in an earlier edit, even if the earlier edit occurred before the warning (I'm referring to your use of the word "long-term")?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Valerie Harper Why is it morbid? you made it morbid, no one knows that's there. It was commented out. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 04:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC) My edit summary was restrained. Let me be blunter. Don't ever add material like that to an article again.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Category:Ankit Fadia Page This refers to the edit on the page Ankit Fadia. You had rejected a source given by me arlier, hence like to know about another source and I would like to know whether its reliable. The source is here. The article seems to clearly mention that Ankit Fadia is a self proclaimed hacker.Logbookmark (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC) In my view, that source is not reliable, particularly for the assertion. It is on the blog portion of the site, and it is clearly just the opinion of the poster.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC) How about this source. This one is from Forbes magazine, and article is written by one of the reputed editor.Logbookmark (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC) I've read that one before; it's pure opinion and not usable. Persistent, aren't you? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Yes I am persistent. Persistent to bring out the truth so that Wikipedia reflects the ground reality instead of some fantasy world. Nevertheless could you help me out on what type of source are you expecting which pass the test of credibility on Wikipedia. Please don't direct me to Wiki help articles because I have been there and some section over there seems to self contradict. I would like to hear it from you. If you are able to show some examples, that would be great help.Logbookmark (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC) An article in a major publication, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. An article from a major broadcast news source like the BBC or Fox or NBC. A book published by a major publisher and written by an authority. BTW, sourcing isn't your only issue. The material you add has to be sufficiently noteworthy and appropriate to put in the lead (that's where you wanted to put it).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Proof Bbb23 you said I have no evidence against him. Look at this [4]. He knows many policies of Wikipedia and his edits make it seem like he is an experienced user. Also from the link you will find that there's not even a single mistake at all in his edit descriptions. Only a user who is experienced and has been using Wikipedia for much time can edit and type so fluently. My accusations are not at all baseless. And do you know why he is not creating an account? So he can get away no matter what he does. Even if his IP or IP range is blocked he still will be able to edit wikipedia easily. It's a simple process of turning your internet modem off and on you have anew ip. That way the only one who will be blocked will be me and he will get away with it. TransVannian (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC) There's no reason why an IP can't be an experienced user, and there's nothing wrong with an IP being an experienced user. So, I fail to understand your point. As I stated at WP:ANEW, you have to show that there's some misconduct by the IP, and other than edit-warring, which you did as well, you failed to do that. I suggest you move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC) You're wrong I did not induldge into an edit warring. I had properly sourced my edits and even then the IP address reverted my edits. This is wrong. Wikipedia rules clearly states that if a person's edit are properly sourced and still his someone reverts his edit without explanation then the first user has very right to revert it back to his original edit which was properly sourced. SO I did not get into an edit war since my edits were properly sourced. Also Admin please think about it, even if you block his IP address or maybe even an IP range, only I will actuall be blocked. Also the user gave himself a block warning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.13.78.204). We all know that blocking an IP address or even a range won't do much as a user wil still be able to edit Wikipedia. So you see I do have a proper evidence that his behaviour is really suspicious. Please think clearly about this. TransVannian (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Show me the policy that says you can revert as much as you like as your material is "properly sourced". You're wrong on just about everything here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Alright I'm really sorry I do not what an edit war means. If you think I participated in it too it was purely unintentional. Had I known I won't have done that. But still you cant rule that the IP user is more at fault because even though knowing that I had posted a discussion to stop the edit war he didnt participate in it. Also my accusation of his suspicious behavior still stands. Have your seen someone especially an IP user give himself a block warning? How can just blocking a previous IP adress or bandwith actually stop someone from editing? Please explain that to me. And also I won't edit the template unless proper consensus is reached but the IP should be willing to cooperate too otherwise I request you to semi-lock it. I won't be discussing this with you if his behavior didn't really seem suspicious to me. His talk page might not be a solid evidence but it still somewhat support my claims. I'll only report him if he edits the template again without discussion. Also I should notify you that I posted another section about alternate/pachislit timeline a week ago but the IP user still hasn't turned up to discuss and I dont think there is much chance that he will in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransVannian (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Here's the policy on edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for that but as you know I did start a discussion. But what about the other matter? Why aren't you replying about the block warning he gave himself? Why dont you comment about that? TransVannian (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC) You need to learn more about editing at Wikipedia, its policies and guidelines, instead of focusing on this one incident and what you perceive as quirky behavior by the other editor. Then you can apply what you've learned and edit articles constructively and collaboratively.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Alright I accept everything you're saying but you still haven't replied about the most important question. How is Blocking IP address going to stop him from editong the template? Please answer that admin. Also I'm leaving you one more message under a new section. Ive also left tis mesage on the talk page of the castlevania chronology template. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Deletion of National Youth HIV & AIDS Awareness Day Hi there! I wanted to just ask, why this page was marked for speedy deletion? It was my first Wiki page, so maybe there was an error on my part--in which case I'm happy to correct it. I've seen that there are other HIV/AIDS awareness days on Wiki, and that this one would be a welcome addition. Also, as this day is geared towards young people (13-24), it seems that having a Wiki page to let them know what the day is would be a great idea, as they'll most likely Google it first thus making the Wiki page one of the top search results. Also, most of our citations (7 in total) were to health journals and the CDC, neither of which we (Advocates for Youth) had any part in so I'm not do't think there was any self promotion there. Would you mind clarifying for me? Thank you, Rachel Advocatesforyouth (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Rachel, it's always hard to write an article at Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest because it's very hard to be objective. The parts of your article that were about the event were very promotional, e.g., "There are many ways to get involved in the day. You can show your support through tweeting on the day and following the NYHAAD Twitter account and Facebook page. You can also host an event, get tested, or table on your campus." The other parts of the article weren't really about the event, and that includes the sources. They were about HIV/AIDS and young people. If you want to make another stab at writing an article about the event, you have to find secondary sources (not advocacy websites) that have significant coverage about the event (not about HIV and AIDS and young people). You then have to write in as neutral a tone as you can possibly imagine. Leave out all of your passion (which I'm sure is very well-intentioned) and write it in a detached voice, including only facts that are supported by those secondary sources. One way to get feedback is to use the article wizard. In that way, other editors will give you feedback about what's good and bad about the article, and you won't be on your own. That said, you must change your user name. Wikipedia policy does not permit user names that are the same as names of organizations, which yours is. See WP:ORGNAME. I thought about blocking you because of the user name and because of the promotional article, but I decided against it. But you shouldn't be editing with that name. Let me know if you have any more questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Notice Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Blackgaia02. Thank you. v/r - TP 13:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Help Bbb, I need your sharp eyes; can you tell me what I did wrong at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cantaloupe2? Drmies (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC) See if this is what you want. I didn't do anything else mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. I'm not sure why you used {{consensus}}, but I've never closed an RfCU. Even if the consensus template had worked, it wouldn't have put the summary at the bottom per the archivetop template's language.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC) I'll have a look. I'm making it up as I go along--no, it's what Beeblebrox used on one that he closed. Thanks Bbb, Drmies (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I was trying to follow instructions, but I guess I'm not very good at that. My mother in law will tell you the same thing. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC) I found one Beeblebrox closed, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert. However, first, he did not use the same template at the top as you did. Second, his consensus was short and sweet, but, more important, had nothing but text in it. Your consensus was complex, and apparently the template will not accept certain things. I'm not sure what all of those "things" are, but, at a minimum, it won't accept diffs, at least not done the way we normally do them. I played around with it a bit, and the first diff threw it into a tailspin. Now, I have no idea why Beeblebrox used {{discussion top}} in his closure, but, as I said, I've never closed an RfCU; you'd have to ask him. There are different instructions for different kinds of closures, and, honestly, I don't know what kind of closure yours was.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC) I don't know either since, for one thing, the case is possibly going to ArbCom, and if a case is definitely going to ArbCom (has been proposed already?) then the RfC/U can't be closed. But I figured that the close itself was clear enough (hehe, clear as mud: I know how I write--still no Bradspeak). No, that was not the one I looked at; I forgot and I can't be bothered to look it up because if I do naptime goes out the window. (Though I do wish to leave you this.) Speaking of the great outdoors, I vacuumed the pool, which is still at a chillsome 54, but we're supposed to have a nice weekend. To say goodbye to winter I had baked beans and BBQ pork for lunch. All homemade too. Natti natti, and thanks again, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Gee, I know that numbers don't tell the whole story, but I have 1,437 edits to articles in 2013 to date. 54 isn't just chilly; it's cold. Might be good for me, though. I had a dreadful night last night and have been up since 2:30 a.m.; I'm about to fall asleep as I type. It would certainly wake me up - of course, the shock might also kill me, but what the hell.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Re: Pies [5] As a very intelligent person once said, just click on the picture! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Intelligent maybe, truthful, who knows? A wise man once said ... well, I forget what he said, but I'm sure it was very relevant. What were we talking about again?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Pies. Which is a much more enjoyable topic than what we have been seeing around this site lately. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Cross The Line Films Page removed? Need help- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_The_Line_Films Hi Bbb23, I recently created a page and it was removed very promptly. I would like to know what I have to change/add to keep it from being removed again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.83.22 (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC) You would have to write it in a more detached and neutral fashion as it was written like an advertisement. This is an encyclopedia, not a website for the company. Also, citing secondary sources that talk in depth about the company is always a big plus.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Might be a further problem emerging... User:Kaylee_Elizabeth_xx has been recreated following deletion. No significant content - yet! rgds, Leaky Caldron 15:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC) 82.30.29.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is almost certainly linked and may attempt to reinstate the page. Leaky Caldron 16:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC) I'm watching the page, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Official source for alternate Castlevania timeline Hello Bbb23. Now since the template is unlocked I'll mention the official source. Here it is(http://www.kpenet.jp/kpe_ad/dracula_Blog.html#blog120228). The blog link is of 28 Feb 2012. The blog is quite long and it is reallu difficult to find the part that pachislot games are alternate side stories. So I am posting it here. ｢悪魔城ドラキュラ 闇の呪印｣が元となっています (Pachislot Akumajo Dracula is based on Curse of Darkness). ラルフ側から見たもうひとつの物語が､ パチスロ版の悪魔城ドラキュラI･Ⅱのストーリーとなっています (Pachislot Akumajo Dracula I&II story is "another story" from Ralph's perspective). Another story is actually the english translation for the word "gaiden", if you don't believe me then search the word on Wikipedia where it's meaning is given as "side story" which also means an alternate story which is not canon for example Resident evil gaiden. Just press ctrl+f and copy and paste any of the japanese sentences I've written here in the search box that pops up. You will be directed to that japanese sentence. Then translate the page when google asks if you want to translate the page to english. You will find that the translation is correct. Actually the translation I've provided here is much more correct since google will provide a very broken translation. Credit for this goes to babylon translator and user Nagumo baby from castlevania wiki. I know thia process is cubersome but still confirms my statement's validity and the source is official. I want to add this source to template but first I'll like to discuss. TransVannian (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Please discuss it on the template talk page, not on mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC) WP:ADMINABUSE I'm not quite sure why you have decided to provide more evidence (and what strong evidence, too!) for me to use against you, but anyways... WP:ADMINABUSE states that I should try to resolve the dispute with you first, so here I am. Perhaps you could provide a link to a policy that states that retaliatory reports are not allowed... you know, just to get the ball rolling here. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC) I'll make it easier for you. I'll waive my rights to have it discussed. We've already had enough discussions, and they are pointless.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC) I need your help There is a user that is vandalizing and edit warring the article flag of syria and I filed a report against him,can you rule in the case,please Abdo45 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I wouldn't toss around the word "vandalizing". It's not clear it applies here. In any event, at this point I have nothing to say at WP:ANEW on your report. I will say that you appear to be edit-warring as much as the other editor involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC) 'Admin why did you remove my message? The policy that you stated mentions nowhere that a personal opinion can't be shared on a talk page. Also I was just advising and speaking truth. Isn't compassion a policy of wikipedia. TransVannian (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I'd prefer to stay clear of political discussions about the war in Syria.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I understand but that is no explanation for removing somepne's edits. It might be your talk page but that doesn't mean you'll remove someone's edit for such a trivial reason. Being an admin you should understand that. TransVannian (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC) No response It's probably been more than two weeks but nobody has paricipated on the discussion on the talkpage of castlevania template. I want to ask your petmission and advice that will adding a reference to the template be ok. I'm not going to edit the chronology template but just add a source that confirms an already present edit. Also if you'll like to then please you should also participate in the discussion. TransVannian (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I don't want to partipate in the content discussion. From a procedural perspective, I don't see anything wrong with your adding a reference without changing the substance. It's good of you to ask.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you very much. TransVannian (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Could you please take a look on Mahmudur Rahman article? Hi Bbb23, I am requesting you to comment on this talk page. That article is seriously biased. I am trying to balance that with sufficient reference. But someone can't agree with me. Please comment on this issue. You may check my references. Thank you.--FreemesM (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC) {{Sammarinese elections}} Hello again. Unfortunately it looks like Barlafus is back (although editing via IPs rather than logging in), as the template has had that link removed from it again twice today. Could you protect it for a while? Cheers, Number 57 18:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Notice of Administrators' noticeboard discussion Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC) A cookie for you! Thanks for the quick response to that edit war report! Ducknish (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC) You're welcome. Thanks for the cookie. I sure wish I knew a way to transform a virtual cookie into a real one.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC) AnastasiaDate I noticed you have blocked changes to the AnastasiaDate page, however it appears you may have overlooked which version to leave; you have left the page as modified by the COI staff that has been removing the controversial passage from the book. Could you take another look please and leave the book excerpt in. It is one of the few actual allowable references for this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.152.13 (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I looks like both sections were restored, and then one of the two was removed. In looking at the removed section (the controversy), I see no reliable sourcing in support of it. Indeed, my guess is they couldn't source to examiner.com because I believe it is blacklisted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you bbb, I understand now.