Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:19, 16 August 2012

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

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.

Re: Liz & Dick

I just took a quick look a while back, but it seems like it was expanded quite a bit since then. I see some WP:WEIGHT issues and probably some WP:RS as well. I'll take a closer look. Siawase (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick removal of some of the most blatant stuff, but I think it needs a more thorough cleanup/copyediting. Siawase (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a good start, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Teachingyeshua

I have registered a mild disagreement with your decision at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Teachingyeshua reported by User:Evanh2008 (Result:Indefinite ). I was about to decline it block for a short period, actually. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Misplaced Pages. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right.

It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at

This. Not many participating, trying to get a user to understand that being rude isn't justifiable under any circumstance, but he is getting worse and perhaps needs a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at it tomorrow. I'm already late for a dinner engagement and am going to get yelled at.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I will just ask another. Have fun. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Got to it faster than I thought I would as I was up in the middle of the night unable to sleep. No rest for the wicked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Hughes

Dont blindly revert. Te summary talk of reverting the lead the rst was not mentioend why. At any rate per LEAD the lead should reflect the content of the article and if the allegation are mentioned that should be too. (note- i dont know about the issue, just reflecting the article)Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I did not "blindly revert". Please read WP:BLPCRIME about the issues with the Hughes article generally.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

A heads-up in case you haven't seen this post. Tvoz/talk 06:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Tvoz, I've commented at BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Good summary of the issues there. Hope it's enough. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 23:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your warning

Hello, your warning is noted, but may I asked where I focused on the contributor and not the contribution? I wasn't aware I had done so, and it would be useful if it was pointed out where I did. Thanks, CMD (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, CMD, my comment was somewhat generic and forward-going. I see no instance of your being disrespectful on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Cheers, CMD (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

banner

hi i want to remind you about the proposal of a banner on the article, despite you didn't disapprove it, my edit was reversed when i added the picture along with its reference by saying absolutely no approval on talk page, maybe because you said I'll let others comment on the proposal before editing the article, since then no one has objected to it. Can it be added now along with the references? Kingroyos (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the consensus was against inclusion of the banner, and nothing has changed since. The statement you are referring to has to do with the wording of the section, not whether to include the banner.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Ok then Kingroyos (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion started

Discussion started at Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard#California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education document and Preston University. --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

I noticed you've been dealing with "Triomio reported by Martinvl" and now also with "Martinvl reported by IP". I'm currently monitoring Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto that also involves Triomio and Martinvl. so I wasn't really surprised to see IP 82.132.249.192 defend Triomio yesterday and now a similar IP 82.132.249.199 pops up to report Martinvl in return. IP range and geolocation suggest that these IPs are almost certainly the same user so I'm tempted to add them to the list of possible socks in that SPI. What do you think? De728631 (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have little doubt that the two IPs are the same individual; who that individual is I have no idea. If you believe the individual is connected to the SPI report, then by all means add them. I don't know anything about DeFacto or Canepa, but you might want to take a look at the Triomio's English (on his Talk page) and the IPs' English (less to go on with them). There may not be enough to draw any conclusions, but I suspect English is not Trimoio's maternal language, whereas it is for the IPs. Not a strong suspicion, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll add the IPs to the report, after all Triomio has been actively editing that IBAN page so there is a common denominator. De728631 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. Protection of the Paul Ryan Article

To say that my "Basis for protection request is flawed" is a little harsh don't you think? While you may be right in not protecting it. As the Potential V.P. Of the United States, I feel that a request to protect it was not "flawed" or irrational. Thanks for your consideration. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 20:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I apologize. It was flawed, but I didn't need to say so, at least not without explaining why. I've removed the sentence from my decline. However, for your benefit here, normally one asks for protection of an article because of current and ongoing problems with the article, not because of possible problems in the future. Your statement that it needed full protection was based on Ryan's future possible status. Even if you had said it was based on him being announced as Romney's running mate, that wouldn't have helped. In the future, when you make a request, state your reason as something that is happening to the article now and in the recent past. Does that make sense to you?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

He meant that we do not protect articles preemtively. In this case, protection of any sort will probably stop more improvements than vandalism. Protection can be considered once vandalism starts occurring. On a related note, Bbb23, do you know if pending changes will be used pre-emtively? Ryan Vesey 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I try to pay as little attention to pending changes as I can, Ryan, although I suppose I will be forced to pay more attention once it's implemented (again).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unban request of User:Shakinglord

I was wondering if only an Admin can close this discussion I was going to close it because I don't foresee it coming out to a consensus to unban the banned editor.Thanks TucsonDavidU.S.A. 14:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, David, it's premature to close the discussion until a consensus is declared.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but just for my knowledge how many oppose votes/what would be considered a consensus? and even though it is to early, would it be out of line for a non admin to close the discussion? TucsonDavidU.S.A. 14:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A consensus is built not on numbers but on the depth of the arguments. As a non-admin, you always have to be careful when closing a discussion at AN or ANI. Very few have the experience and confidence to do it. In this instance, I think it would be best to let an admin handle it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks, for explaining it. I will leave it to a Admin. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Help with Sandbox

I accidently created a extra sandbox would you mind helping me with deleting it ] also could you explain to me how to get my talk to archive automatically. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the sandbox for you. As for automatic archiving, it sort of depends on how you want it to archive. I'm not an expert on this, either, so my suggestion is you read about it and decide what you'd like. Then, if you can't figure out how to do it, try contacting User:Bearian, a very knowledgeable fellow about this sort of thing, and I'm sure he'll help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Care to explain

how outright deletion of rather lengthy point-by-point comments at Talk:Croatian Liberation Movement like you did here is conducive to editing? Timbouctou (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Because you don't have the right to refactor Sunil's comments simply because you think it's a better approach to rebutting them, particularly when they asked you not to already. You can make whatever appropriate comments you like but separately from Sunil's.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If Sunil had a problem with it he should have edited the discussion and moved my comments down, not simply deleted them. And you shouldn't have assisted him in deleting comments he does not like by confirming his censorship and deleting them again. Not to mention his weird idea of voting on the style that the article should be written in. Timbouctou (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, the burden was on you to move your comments, which I see you've done - thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 82.132.249.198 (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Leather

Sorry, I hadn't realised IMDb was not an acceptable source, so Thank You for correcting the citation I had added; I'm not very good at this sort of thing and hopefully you'll bear with me :-). I did find another reference where SL is shown as scriptwriter for 'Murder In Mind' (http://www.startrader.co.uk/Action%20TV/guide2000/murdermind.htm) but don't know if it can be used as it's just one of the programmes, or if it's an acceptable source?

I know the page is protected but didn't feel the citations I was including were in anyway applicable to the 'disputed' section, so guessed it was okay to update them.

Would you mind giving me a little more advice re: the 'Allegations' section on the page, please? I have put a comment on the Talk page, trying to explain why I did the initial deletion; I only deleted it once and since then have only added citations I have managed to find.

Would it be reasonable to ask for the section under discussion to be 'parked' until other sources can be found? Is there a length of time which would be considered reasonable for other references backing up the Guardian piece to be supplied? Or will it just be left as it is? I did briefly try to see if I could find any other references but any I came across were blogs - I have twigged to blogs not being reliable sources, so I am learning, albeit slowly :-)

I hope you don't mind me posting this on your Talk page; I wasn't sure where else to put it. Sagaciousphil (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have too many things going on right this moment and didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. It was fine for you to come here. I'll get back to you with a better response as soon as I can. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, not a problem. I do appreciate everyone has a life and do all this on a voluntary basis with many demands on their time :-) Sagaciousphil (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the article and left a comment on the Talk page. If you still feel that the allegation material is inappropriate, you might raise it at WP:BLPN. As for the startrader reference, I don't think that's a reliable source. It strikes me as a personal website without the usual fact-checking we expect from reliable sources. If you want to pursue that issue, you can pass it by WP:RSN and ask other editors' opinions. I hope that helps a little. Don't hesitate to ask more questions, even if I can't get to them right away.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and input over this, it really is very much appreciated. I see another editor has incorporated your re-wording and comprehensively re-vamped the article. I do feel this is a more than acceptable compromise and will post a short message on the article Talk page to reflect this.  :-) Sagaciousphil (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the message from the other editor (at the bottom of this page), but I haven't had a chance to look at what they did. Nonetheless, I'm glad you're pleased.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious talk page editing

Very Suspicious comments have come from a user on the Talk page of the Controversies at the 2012 Olympics. They have come on to the talk page and entered into what I can only describe as goading. To attempt to elicit a response from me. Please see this latest edit and let me know what you think and if you have similar concerns that I do. Sport and politics (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on Shadow's other posts, I would say this one is pretty much on the same level. I wouldn't fret about it, and I wouldn't let yourself be goaded. If you want to respond, susbtantively not personally, fine; or you can just leave it alone. Up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I though am wondering of this is FerreFour? Sport and politics (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I find it amazing just how speedily HeCameFromTheShadows has reacted. When I have had no interactions with HeCameFromTheShadows except for that one response they made to my input on the 2012 Olympics Controversy Talk Page. Sport and politics (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you're starting to annoy me. I found your posts when I checked your contributions to see if you were online, something I do every time for editors I respond to, as I'm sure others do to. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep repeating my response each time I find this user talking about me behind my back, so here's a link to what I said when he said this exact same thing to someone else the first time . I fail to see what I've done for this editor to be running around calling a perfectly reasonable post, "suspicious". HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, S&P came here in good faith to ask me a question. We discussed it. Shadows responded, which is fine, but I see no point in continuing the discussion. So, no more.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Need an explanation

As has already been noted, OpenFuture, this is not a forum for discussing user conduct, so please stop. And, Avanu, please don't compound the problem by responding. Respect the guidelines of this forum going forward thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What is this comment about? -- Avanu (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain something. Your comment comes across as insulting. It implies that I simply want to disrespect the rules and guidelines of the process of dispute resolution there. If you will actually look at the sequence of events for that 'dispute', you will see that I took action to correct this problem after AndyTheGrump brought it up on his User Talk page. I reverted the 'See Also' links and left an explanation that IjonTichy needed to avoid a link farm, and I *also* took the question to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, in an attempt to get more editors involved in the debate, so I wouldn't have to become involved myself. In addition, I have been engaging IjonTichy in discussion at the The Zeitgeist Movement Talk page and while he hasn't agreed with my points yet, he has avoided edit warring, and has been willing to discuss. After asking whether this is a genuine problem for DRN to handle, the first response I get from you is a very offputting and unhelpful one. Meanwhile an editor who actually seems focused on solving this, OpenFuture, responded with a thoughtful reply that was on target and helpful. While this is somewhat of a content dispute, it is not simply going to be as cut and dry as you might like, and sometimes we need to ensure that people have left their personalities at the door. OpenFuture and Ebe123 clearly have lost some of their patience in dealing with IjonTichy and I was working to get them focused on the issues at hand. How about in the future, rather than taking an approach that is very offputting, you take a moment to look past the immediate situation and work for actual resolution of disputes, rather than creating new ones? -- Avanu (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a very polite comment and had nothing to do with what preceded the DRN topic or anything collateral to it. I was simply trying to get editors to stay on content topic as the board's rules ask. OpenFuture's comment was NOT helpful, not here or on the article's Talk page, to the extent he talks about Ijon not listening (even if OF is right). The substance of OF's comment was fine, and he should have left it at that. In any event, another admin has correctly asked that the whole thing at DRN be closed because, in his view (and in mine), the issue is fairly cut and dried. More time and more energy have been spent on this article than it even comes close to deserving, and that is largely Ijon's fault, but DRN is just not the place to air it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct there. -- Avanu (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I'm wondering why you only blocked one of the parties on involved on the dispute on Rumi, but did not take any action against User:Barayev who had also violated WP:Editwar, appears to be a WP:SPA with a few edits (55 edits, registered last week, but has expert-level familiarity with Misplaced Pages codes etc, all red flags) in a topical area that has seen many banned nationalist users resurrecting under new names. He is also refusing mediation, and insisting on using questionable nationalistic WP:Fringe sources which contradict mainstream academic accounts on this subject. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is that Barayev stopped editing the article. Procedurally, Barayev was in a similar position to Khodabandeh except he had not been warned of edit-warring (a fairly important requirement). Arguably, Khodabandeh had not been warned, either, but that's because of his peculiar wish to keep his Talk page fully protected. In any event, despite repeated attempts by my to get Khodabandeh to understand that edit-warring wasn't permissible even if everything he said about the content and the situation were true, he reverted yet again.

Since that time, two editors have "restored" the article to "stable" versions, you being the second. The first, Gabriel Stijena, is a newer editor than Barayev and with even fewer edits. I also note that you started a section about your version. Frankly, I don't know anything about the content of the article or the content dispute, but I am watching the article in terms of editor conduct. If you believe that Barayev or Gabriel are sock accounts, then you need to file a report at WP:SPI. Otherwise, you kind of have to deal with with you've got and try to sort out the content issues on the Talk page (or other content dispute resolution forums) without battling in the article itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not just protect the article for a couple of weeks, so that everyone is forced to concentrate on discussions or RFC/Mediation dispute resolution methods, and prevent further possible socking by hit-and-run kamikaze accounts which are used to bait the long-standing editors into breaking 3RR. Don't you find it a bit suspicious that two brand new users have jumped into an edit-war on this article? WP:SPI is pointless here, as there is no suspect but rather suspicious behavior raising all kinds of red flags. Knowingly sing fringe content in Misplaced Pages, should be treated as a behavioral issue. I understand that you're not familiar with this subject, but please take look at the comment of an administrator, addressing another edit by one these SPAs on Rumi. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Kurdo, after your first post, I started looking into some of the possible problems you've mentioned. I'll continue looking and see if there's some way I - or someone else - can help.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the right approach for now, protection can be tried if people refuse to participate on the talk page and just go back to warring. Protection is better than warring, but people willingly talking on the talk page is still better than protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, I'm not too familiar with SPI process, is it possible for you to initiate a check on these three editors  ? I suspect that these two SPAs are somehow connected to E4024, given their editing style/POV/language barriers. Gabriel Stijena , in particular, seems to working as a revert machine for E4024 on the various Turkish nationalist disputes he is involved in, like Cyprus. Also, please note the personal attacks against me here. This is what I meant by baiting. The personal attacks seem to be deliberate, to get a reaction from me. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurdo, I saw your post asking Dennis to look here. I'm going to let him address your questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Part of the problem here is that I am not familiar with the subject matter, which makes a determination much more difficult and requires a technical behavioral comparison in order to justify asking a checkuser run a full check, and that takes more time that I have this evening. I will try to look at it, but it would likely be better to find an admin who is more familiar with the subject matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: Move protection

I don't know how admin tools work, but I think it is similar to a checkbox, like in Special:Preferences. At the moment, the page is protected against non-autoconfirmed editors (at the end, any person with 10 edits or more + s/he has been 4 days here will become autoconfirmed). If you want to make a full move-protection, you should change the "autoconfirmed" to "sysop", for example: Gray mouse lemur, which can give you an idea. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, the page is indefinitely move-protected against non-autoconfirmed editors. I don't want to change that to be more protective. Are you saying there shouldn't be any template at the top of an article like that?

There are four move templates. The "dispute" and "vandalism" templates don't apply. Thus, we are left with indef and the most generic, {{pp-move}}. Seems like indef is best, although it doesn't explain what it means by "high-visibility" pages - somehow I don't think this is one. All it says it does is put the page into a category. The generic one appears to both put the page into a category and add a green icon - don't ask me why it does that and indef doesn't. In any event, neither works because I get an error message when I try to add it. Ironically, the only reason I even applied indefinite move protection was to carry something over from a previous admin action done earlier. I have no other basis for move-protecting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Leather

I see that you have protected the Stephen Leather page. I wanted to come here so that you could have a heads up that I am going to be doing some major revisions to the article. Thought you would like to know as you are probably watching the page. Hopefully these changes will clear up any issues of NPOV. I also left a message on the talk page for the other editors involved in a discussion (although they look like they have only come to Misplaced Pages for that specific article so not sure if they are NPOV). It should only take me about 10 minutes to complete all of the edits as they are waiting in my sandbox. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Done - I am thinking about breaking out his books and creating an article just for his list of books but I will look at it at a later date (I am burned out from tracking down all of the ISBN's for the books listed. --Morning277 (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fareed Zakaria

Hi! Could you please explain why you keep reverting my edits to the Fareed Zakaria page? My edits tighten the entry without losing any information, consolidate disjointed sections, and restore NPOV. Thanks! Bitton100 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit dispute handling

I must thank you for the way you stepped in on my talkpage, as well as the article talkpage, not just dismissing me as just another troublemaking, problematic IP user and moving forward. Maybe it's me, but I simply do not know what the deal was with user Cresix. I mean, I made what I believe to be harmless, legitimate edits based not only on my awareness of the character, but the rest of the article. He then comes in one day and reverts a whole slew of my edits and without giving any reason. When he finally does provide a reason with another revert, he criticizes the length. So I say fair enough, scale it down and he's still reverting me before repeatedly instating his warnings on my userpage, and reporting me on the administrative noticeboards. I think anyone can tell by my history of edits, I'm no vandal. But again, if I created any problems or inconvenience to you whatsoever, I do sincerely apologize and thank you again. 173.0.254.242 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. No one is accusing you of being a vandal; however, you do need to watch your reversions. Technically, I could have blocked you for making 4 reverts (many admins consider the first change a revert), but I didn't think that was the right thing to do in the circumstances. But please be careful in the future, and don't get carried away.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea, you're right. Thanks and duly noted. I'll be more careful in the future as advised. 173.0.254.242 (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

50 reverts and counting

There are over 50 combined reverts at Snooker season 2012/2013 that have continued after protection was requested, after an ANEW report was created, and after talk page discussion was started. Can you step in? Ryan Vesey 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Drmies handled it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Ironholds, but everything's good. Thanks for checking. Ryan Vesey 23:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I just saw Drmies's response at RFPP and assumed he did it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Favor

Hey Bbb23, how are you? I hope you are doing good these days. I need a favor from you... Can you please move Loud (Rihanna album) to Loud (album) cause Loud (Timo Maas album) was moved to Timo Maas article so it's the only Misplaced Pages album article with the name Loud. Thank you :) — Tomica (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Tomica, I won't have time to get to this today. If you can wait, fine; if not, please ask another admin. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks anyway. — Tomica (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this on the talk page of Loud (Rihanna album). I would suggest waiting until that discussion is over, although odds are good it will end up being that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Block of VictoriaR2020 - exceptions to an unblock with conditions?

VictoriaR2020 (talk · contribs), whom you blocked for edit warring, is asking to be unblocked. The block was valid, but she's making a case that she's willing to follow the rules. I'm willing to unblock, on condition that she accept a 0RR restriction on the Lesley Arfin article for the remainder of the 24 hours she would have been blocked. Are those terms acceptable to you? —C.Fred (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw your comments at her Talk page. Your first sentence was exactly what I was about to put in as my comment (I got an edit conflict). If you're satisfied with those terms, I have no problem with it. Thanks for checking.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989

I guess I should've checked the block log on User:Fry1989 before engaging at ANEW. I could have had a different conversation there. Thanks for the catch, and the cleanup. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, it was an unusual report to analyze.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:71.178.108.23

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR rewrite

While page protection was a good solution, 3RR clearly states that: "(...)then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm. A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a "uw-3rr" template message on their user talk page." (Emphasis mine) If the warning is required then a rewrite is in order, as the report what complex enough to make without considering that the advice given was incorrect. 85.167.111.129 (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to make this suggestion at the Talk page of WP:3RR. In this and in many instances, admins prefer to see a warning before blocking, paricularly if the editor is new or might be new (hard to tell with IP addresses).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have done so. Do you have an opinion on this? 85.167.111.129 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If I do, I'll express it there. Thanks for following through.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Rock & Roll Over Tour

I saw your explanation for nominating the aforementioned article for deletion and have to disagree. This tour is proven to exist in both Gene Simmons' and Ace Frehley's autobiographies. Also, there are far more better articles to be deleted because of lack of source or primary source only, like this one or this one. Also, it is hard to find other sources for a tour that happened 36 years ago. Since the band had all its tours featured in an article, the Rock & Roll Over Tour article should be re-created. Cheers Zrinschchuck Zrinschchuck 16:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Zrinschchuck. A few comments. First, the fact there may be other articles more worthy of deletion doesn't make an article notable. Second, the mere existence of the tour doesn't make it notable. Third, difficulty in finding sources isn't going to wash, either. All that said, based on the kind of deletion by the deleting admin, you could make a request at WP:REFUND.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the content of this template

Can you tell me what the content of {{Codenowiki}} was? I wanted to create a template that looked like this: <includeonly><code><nowiki></includeonly>{{{1|}}}<includeonly></includeonly></nowiki> but I saw that the template I was going to create had been deleted in the past. Was it the same template? If so, can I take a template to deletion review, or would it go back to TfD. I feel it is ridiculous not to have it with a redirect from {{Cnw}}. Ryan Vesey 21:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind showing you what the last version looks like, but I can't make it display properly here. If you help me with that, I'll show it to you rather than my deciding wehther what you wrote above is "the same". I don't know where you request the undeletion of a template. I looked around but got tired of looking after a while. Maybe one of my Talk page stalkers knows.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Mine doesn't actually display correctly here either. Perhaps you could replace the content of User:Ryan Vesey/Template sandbox 2 with the content of the template? Thanks for your reply, and sorry for my slow one. Ryan Vesey 04:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Done (I think). Let me know if it's okay. My initial reply was slow also, mainly because I had no idea what I was doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989

The conversation on User talk:Fry1989 has veered in different directions, but overall I feel that 1RR/week restriction was over the top, I am satisfied that a standard 1RR restriction would suffice, because reverts are not a concern. I see civility as the real problem, so that's what we're discussing now. Need to involve the blocking admin at some point, but I have to quit for the day. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean the April blocking admin. That's User:Toddst1. I notified Todd earlier here. I don't feel any "ownership" as to the terms of Fry's return; I'm happy to have your input. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Eve Torres~

No prob. Lion share of rapport's been on his talk page, edit-summaries and nothing more. I'm sure SCWA has the best intentions but he doesn't get along so well collaborating with others. I'll keep abreast of it and bring anything else of note up. Thanks. Papacha (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've put SCWA and the Torres article on my watchlist, but feel free to come here if you think a problem needs attention. Obviously, if for some reason I'm not available, you can always seek help at any appropriate noticeboard. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Vvarkey is back to his old ways

User:Vvarkey is back to deleting info which is contrary to his agenda to paint one group as culprits, He has entirely deleted paragraph which presented the view of the group involved. I believe this is not how NPOV on wikipedia was meant to work.

Do take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2012_Mangalore_Homestay_attack&diff=507700724&oldid=507536752

I'm not getting involved in this matter this time. Hope you or some other editors takes up the matter. good luck trying to talk sense to him.WBRSin (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you not battle with him in the article but that you do re-engage him on the article Talk page. Create a new section (don't add to the old one) and focus on the specific content (present and/or removed) that you find problematic. Don't talk about things like agenda. Just keep it fact-specific and concise. If that doesn't work, use WP:DR.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice but as I have specified earlier "I'm not getting involved" again. I see no reason talking to a stone, he has no interest in presenting a neutral view. I will devote my time editing some other articles. Good bye. WBRSin (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The same group editors

Please take a look at this , he just broke 3RR, in order to insert an sourceless map WP:OR map, and remove a scholar's reference. I understand that most admin don't understand the content, but this is an obvious case of nationalist disruption, which compromises Misplaced Pages's integrity. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)