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.

Happy New Year!

Dear Bbb23,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Request

If you have a moment, would you take a look at this [1] at AN/I and the additions to the report that followed in the last hour or so? I'm trying to understand why it's happening and keep coming away confused. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You posted this late last night (my time), so I just took a quick look at the topic at ANI. Looks like a 3-way conversation that hasn't gotten any traction yet. Without reading it carefully, I can't say what's best, but my off-the-cuff advice is to stop commenting unless someone new becomes involved and a response is genuinely needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see your response here until just now. Regretfully. Please take a look at where the thread has now gone. I'm done commenting there unless absolutely necessary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's getting out of control, but it's hard for me to intervene at this point. I don't think your autism is "irrelevant" per se, but it probably doesn't help to discuss it. Never heard the term neurotypical before. Based on our article about it, it doesn't sound like your labeling other editors as neurotypical is a big deal, although you can't really know. Even people who are part of a minority can be ignorant. Thus, someone who is mildly autistic could still be ignorant about autism. Anyway, it's a fruitless discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fruitless as is nothing will come of it in the end? Because, at this point, the "Support" votes don't look fruitless to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I meant that the autism discussion was fruitless. It's difficult to predict anything at Wikipedia. Sometimes, particularly at ANI, things get a bit crazy. The user name comment is really over the top. I'd concentrate on resolving the Myerson issues at the article Talk page rather than worrying so much about the proposal at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent advised me to not even comment at the article talk page for the time being. I'm inclined to agree with him as it seems pretty much anything I say there has been taken and twisted around and used against me. That's the way it seems to me, at any rate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been following the discussion at the Talk page, but I know NE Ent is trying to resolve this, so I'd take his advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that this [2] has happened. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I might have been had I been around at the time, but I wasn't and haven't been around in general lately. I'm not going to rehat it at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeepers

Thanks for this Bbb23. I have visions of whoever this is sitting at their computer with a watch counting down the seconds until that protection expires so they can add their nonsense to the article again. I hope that your 2015 is going well and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Hasn't been protected since October, as far as I can see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You are right Lukeno94. I got this confused with another page that is always getting hit. Apologies to you both. Now since Briony gets added to this one every so often shall we set odds on when it will happen again :-) Thanks to you both for your efforts and vigilance. MarnetteD|Talk 03:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• If it weren't being added by an apparent sock, it would probably be a justifiable edit, to be honest. There are so many pages that get targeted by vandals, that it is often hard to keep track! :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL, "jeepers." Love it. FYI, all, there's nothing vandalous or otherwise disruptive about simply wanting to know why someone would block talk page access just for asking someone else about the blocking, especially if the accusation of being a sock-puppet is false even if they are the same person.

That's because, for example, first the account/IP in question has to have been abusing wiki while using that other account/their IP address in order for it to even count as socking (remember that from WP:SOCK?), but then if the admin hasn't backed that up (what the "abuse" was, in order to make the person who made those edits a socker), of course the blocked member will and should ask about it and be able to get a reasonable response instead of just getting his or her talk-page access removed without any further discussion. And even this simple FYI response is not disruptive.75.162.213.116 (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Morcohen2 reopened

He's back under a new name: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morcohen2 HGilbert (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Hmm, delicious, and really bad for you. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia so little in the last few days I fear the burger has gotten cold. The only thing worse than a warm burger is a cold burger. However, as soon as I finish my daily ration of bacon, I'll heat it up in the microwave and swallow it in one bite.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality

Due to your involvement in Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article, I invite you to an arbitration request discussion. Please write your statements in your own section, and reply to other people's statements in your own section. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

Hi Bbb23, I noticed you recently dealt with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns initiated by Neelix who as you know has since retired. By chance I bumped into two ongoing AfDs of articles created by Neelix, namely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name. Looking into the nominators activity, a new account who started editing a week ago on another Neelix article (Tara Teng), I have the suspicion there may be sockpuppetry involved. Also notice the activity of another newly created account, Yaktaur, on that same article. Is there any way for you to look into this? Thx.--Wolbo (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Another SPI has been opened up under, unfortunately, a different master: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang. I just left a brief comment there, but I don't have time to do anything. My time on Wikipedia in the last few days has been severely limited.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:DangerousPanda

We're not going to correct "all" the errors, but why revert the corrections that have taken place? You made 2 changes the version I'd left. You restored a small active tag to a bot that apparently isn't active...and you restored a userbox that says they are an admin willing to make difficult blocks. Why? --Onorem (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It would cascade from there as there are other "errors" on the page. If you want to change things so there are no supposed misrepresentations, then perhaps you should ask one of the arbitrators involved in the desysopping. Otherwise, just let it go to the last version that DP had up there.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If the cascade is making the page more accurate, what's the problem? Last I checked, we don't allow people who aren't admins to claim that they are an admin. --Onorem (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the involved arbs should make the final decision on this. DP is still an ed and member of the community despite all that has happened. It is the wisest course of action. Irondome (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. What a waste of time for the sake of wasting time. Gotta love bureaucracy. The arbs have nothing better to do, so I'll just assume this will be addressed without needing to mention it anywhere. Have a good weekend! :) --Onorem (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have started WP:AN#The User:DangerousPanda page. Feel free to join in. --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Abductive again

Hi. I was wondering if you could look into this as you are the admin who blocked Abductive.

Gamebuster19901 self-reverted his deletion of content added by PuffinSoc (a large edit, including the material Abductive deleted before) in favour of taking part in an open discussion. Abductive immediately reverted it, and has not taken part in the discussion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Kirkwall Ba game

Do we have another sock of Elliotness1 working here? Britmax (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

picking up the dirty socks

Thank you for cleaning up the Kaufmanitay ‎/ Dhdhdhdffx mess. Jeh (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: I'm glad someone appreciates the tedious procedural work involved in merging three cases. Thanks for the kind words.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Aleš Strojnik

You were cited as the admin who deleted a page with this title. I am in the process of writing a new page, and cannot find the original talk about the deletion to make sure I'm avoiding the A7 issue that was listed.

Can you assist?JohnDWashington (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. What "original talk about the deletion"? As far as I know, it was tagged, and I deleted it - no discussion. If you decide to recreate the article, I urge you to submit it through WP:AFC rather than put it directly into main space.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bangalore Conservatory

Hello Bbb23,

Can you please salt The Bangalore Conservatory. Article has been recreated multiple times by same editor who seems to have no intention of letting up. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to do that at this juncture. It should not have been deleted in the past and you should not have tagged it as an WP:CSD#A7 as an educational institution is not eligible for A7. Even my delete per G11 was borderline, but given the brevity of the article, it seemed justifiable to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ordinary Love has returned

User:Ordinary Love (or is it User:15 times 15) has returned as User:Magic Alaric Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: I indeffed both, although 15 hasn't edited since October. I threw in User:Gurupi for good measure. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Algieri vs Ruslan Provodnikov

Hi Bbb23, I wanted to drop a note and say thanks for your action on Chris Algieri vs Ruslan Provodnikov. That one was my mistake, and I appreciate that you noticed the article to which it was similar; I had just realized my mistake right as you deleted it. Thanks for all your hard work! MJ94 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A diff that may be of interest to you

Here. Just wanted you to be aware since you were the blocking admin. John from Idegon (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that's all water under the bridge. Eurodyne was also blocked (not by me), but he was later unblocked by DeltaQuad, a checkuser.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What basis to remove my Talk page access?

On what policy basis did you remove my user Talk page access? (When you did after I was blocked, I obvioulsy couldn't inqire on my Talk or yours. Now I'm inquiring.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote why I did it at the time. It's still there on your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• To stop you making personal attacks I would think, and to stop you soapboxing on your talkpage, based on what I can see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Chris Quigley

I edit conflicted with you in reviewing this undeletion request. I figured out after going down the rabbit hole of checking the actual page name provided by the requester, that what was actually meant was a more recent page and I've restored that.I t may appear upon a first glance to a third party that our posts there – your {{not done}} and my {{done}} – are in conflict when they're not, so I just wanted to drop you a note to give you a heads up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: I don't believe I've ever acted at WP:UNDELETE before. The irony of my error is not lost on me. Thanks for going the extra mile for the IP and for letting me know. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Further hands are welcome; don't let this discourage you! By the way, gobs of requests are undiscovered copyvios, so it's a good idea to check before granting a request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Brad Pitt

I appreciate the notification, in that I know it was required. I think if you'll look closely at Talk:Brad Pitt, you'll see there is no consensus for removing a piece of baseline biographical information of a child's gender based on what another editor (Prayer for the wild at heart)has now documented as false and outdated rumors. I hope you will examine Timeraner's politically motivated agenda, now demonstrably based on incorrect data. Thank you again for the notice; I hadn't been keeping track. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see this page:

Template:Wikipedia ads — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoLi1234 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)