Jump to content

User talk:Bbb23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikione9 (talk | contribs) at 07:57, 5 February 2023 (→Sonu Kanwar: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


IMDb

You deleted all my work on the page Color-blind casting

The reasoning was that IMDb was not a valid source. It is considered "disputed", not "inappropriate" Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, when it comes to the existence of movies and their cast, which is all I was using it for. If I replace it all with Rotten Tomatoes, will the edits get deleted again? I think it is ironic that Wiki admins are deleting sources where users, not "experts" are allowed to make changes...


Nonperson1 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonperson1: IMDb is an unreliable source which is why it was removed by Bbb23, because it contains user-generated content, websites such as these are generally not allowed to be used as a source, except as a tertiary source in addition to other reliable hard sources. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 03:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this is specious reasoning. News sources and magazine are considered "hard sources"? Paper writers are practically never "experts" in the areas which they write. Science journalism is one of many areas of journalism wherein the writers usually hold no scientific credentials, do not understand anything about which they write, and just regurgitate press releases from companies. Papers never take time to independently investigate anything anymore, and rarely make corrections. I have tried on multiple occasions to get major publishers of "news" to correct factual and conclusion errors in their pieces, providing them objective evidence that it is absolutely an error. They never corrected any of them. Journalists have a long history of politically and financially motivated writing that is a complete embarrassment - do I even need to provide a list of examples? The entire wisdom of wiki was that it bypassed experts and relied on mass public knowledge, at least so I thought. What would constitute a "hard source" for the mere existence of a film, if IMDb (which my TV acting brother uses for info) doesn't count, a photo of the movie poster?
Lastly, if something is poorly sourced, why is the edit method to simply delete the entire entry, rather than dispute the citation/source within the article? Nonperson1 (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RS WP:RSP WP:V for info on acceptable sources. Unsourced or improperly sourced material may be challenged and deleted. User-submitted content doesn't cut the mustard. If it's wrong in RS, it'll be wrong in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is a helpful essay. Andre🚐 18:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question on deletion of page for Gerard Basset Foundation

17:12, 30 January 2023 Bbb23 talk contribs deleted page Gerard Basset Foundation (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Is there any way this page could have avoided deletion? Thank you. STolliver2 (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Bluntly, no. The article (not "page") was pretty pathetically promotional. There was nothing there of substance, but rather mounds of fluffy press releases and self-promotion telling us how great they are and how wonderful Gerard Basset had been. We don't want advertising and brochures; we want to know what the outside world, journalists and scholars and regulatory agencies, have to say about the subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
Just to clarify on sources, the publications used for the article, i.e. industry or trade publications, are not seen as suficiently credible, and would fall under sources deemed WP:NOTRELIABLE, is that correct? STolliver2 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User with possible CIR issues

Hello Bbb23! I've recently encountered an IP (the IP appears to be fairly static atm) who appears to have serious WP:CIR issues regarding their English. It appears that English is not their first language, and they seem to have some issues communicating in proper English. Normally I wouldn't have an issue with this, however they have been told this before and seem to have ignored it and have continued making edits to articles in poor English. I'm not exactly sure what to do here so I figured I'd bring this up with your first rather than go straight to ANI since I don't want to assume bad faith here because I've seen another user have issues with this. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It'd help to know what IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the IP is ‎204.129.232.191. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured. I've blocked Special:contributions/204.129.232.0/24 for 3 years, which is the longest block of one of the individual IPs already blocked in that range. It makes more sense to me than reblocking 204.129.232.191, whom I've blocked twice before last year.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks. I noticed that they refused to go to another language Wikipedia despite their english makign it clear they should be editing on a different language Wikipedia rather than leave a mess for editors to clean up with their attempts at English. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing edit

How was this user insufficiently warned? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not serious? One warning for an edit made today, no edits before today since 2 years ago, and no warnings before today. Your report was a waste of administrator time, and in the future, unless we're talking about an experienced editor, use standard templated warnings in the appropriate manner. Come on, you've been around long enough to know better.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was serious. Why are templates necessary for a user whose account is purely adding lies into Wikipedia? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the warning isn't clear enough, but the manner of the warning wasn't the main problem. As far as I'm concerned, your report was an abuse of process, and your reaction to my decision is disturbing. I suggest until you learn what is an appropriate report at WP:AIV, you not file any more reports.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being serious? The warning "Stop inserting false claims: This is vandalism and warrants being blocked." seems very straightforward to me. I will continue to file reports at WP:AIV as I have several dozen times. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment/request regarding HaughtonBrit

Can the current HaughtonBrit SPI archive be changed so that the master is listed as WorldWikiAuthorOriginal Special:Contributions/WorldWikiAuthorOriginal as that account precedes the creation of HaughtonBrit. The two are undeniably linked, QEDK indeff blocked WWAO on March 25, 2020 [1] after his comment that he would continue to edit logged out [2]. HaughtonBrit was created just one day later [3]. WWAO heavily edited the page Battle of Saragarhi [4], a battle that was led by a British Lt. Colonel John Haughton, hence the succeeding sock account being named HaughtonBrit. WWAO was blocked by and edit warred against admin Utcurush in the Battle of Saragarhi [5], HaughtonBrit has a sock that was clearly intended to impersonate the same admin [6]. Note that


Behavioural evidence: Both add Sikhs fought long enough for reinforcements to arrive. [7] and [8]. Both add 10,000 to Afghan strength in the infobox [9], [10] and [11]. Both add that 12000-24000 Orakzais (Afghans) were present [12] and [13], [14]. Both add or have edits consistent with supporting the narrative that Indian/Sikh troops had poor weaponry, and removing content which state that Afghans had inferior weaponry [15],[16], [17] and [18], [19]. Both remove the same sourcs that claim only 1000-1500 Orakazi tribesman were present instead of 12-24K [20] and [21]. Note that WWAO was engaged in a significant content dispute with Utcursh in 2020 [22] causing him to get temp blocked , when Utcursh made this edit on May 20, 2021 [23], HaughtonBrit created the account AtmaramU just 10 hours later-[24] and both HaughtonBrit and AtmaramU began to revert Utcursh's edits on the page [25], [26] thereafter. Please also note, this is just one page I looked at and there is far more evidence from other pages but I felt that would make the post excessively long, if you feel like more is required, kindly ping me and I will provide more. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get involved with any change of the master. If you want to pursue this, I suggest you post at WT:SPI/C. I'm not sure that's the best place, but I don't know that there is any good venue. Just to be clear, I'm not recommending that you pursue it, but, no offense, I do know how stubborn you can be.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, but with all due respect, I do believe the account should be listed on there as there is clear cut evidence that they're related, but I also think I should I give it a rest for the time being. I'll inquire about it in a few months. Thanks. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe one day I'll get all the respect I'm due, but I kinda doubt it. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not a valid G10?

In this edit you decline a speedy deletion request. No argument, but I don't understand something you clearly do. ? BusterD (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The username is an attack, not the content of the page. It's also over 10 years old. I mean really. If you want the username itself hidden, that would require an OS. A deletion won't do it. I don't think we normally do that with these kinds of outrageous usernames, but maybe if someone pushes hard enough, it's done. Not like I've kept track of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On my first reading I missed the extreme age. Rationale makes sense. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, apologies for missing this when I asked for the background. While I disagree, it makes total sense. Have a good day! Star Mississippi 17:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea if you made a troll very angry in the past?

Some stupid LTA isn't grown up enough to stop himself from spamming the English wikibooks, including talkpages (here's mine), about how much he dislikes you. Any idea why he might dislike you? Or is this simply revenge since you were the first person to ban one of his accounts or something? — L10nM4st3r / ROAR at me! 11:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know who they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EEng

I can't tell if you meant to close that discussion, or a different discussion, and either way I don't feel blocked. Not enough, anyway. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I block a lot of editors. It'd be much less grief for me if they didn't "feel" blocked, so I'm happy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please change the closure summary, ideally to something that summarises the consensus among the admins responding. This 'newcomer' hasn't been blocked in 18 years and there is no reason that people reading the closure summary in the future will think you were anything other than serious. JeffUK 10:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought JoJo Anthrax summed it up well in the "first" closure. I wouldn't worry about mine. No one is going to think I really blocked all those editors, including, at my count, five administrators. All anyone has to do is look at your block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do worry about it! Could you please remove it? Or may I? JeffUK 19:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you worry, but no you may not remove it. Move on to something else, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK: I've reconsidered and decided I was being insensitive, so I've removed both my closure and Tryptofish's (made no sense without mine), so the only closure is the non-admin closure, which is perfectly fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To make sure Bbb23 stays sensitive, I have blocked him indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 20:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Won't work. I intend to go back to being insensitive. Being sensitive is hard work.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Compare item 5 in the Optimist's guide to Wikipedia. Admittedly that primarily addresses civility, but I'm pretty sure it'll work for sensitivity too. Anyway, I tried. Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Truthiness is a word?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you must watch some classic Colbert Report[27] Andre🚐 21:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
God, I haven't watched Colbert in ages. Very funny spot.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can confirm, that as someone who was actually blocked by Bbb23, it can do wonders for the constitution. Kind of like a nice spa day. Andre🚐 21:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I didn't block you indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You were quite lenient and I learned the lesson. Unjokingly. Also I was being an idiot at the time. Just proves Bish's guide true. Andre🚐 21:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonu Kanwar

You deleted the article "Sonu Kanwar" who is a famous folk singer in Rajasthan. You can check on internet as well. She have millions of followers in Rajasthan and she is known for folk singing in marwadi region of Rajasthan. Wikione9 (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=1137560064"