Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:41, 26 October 2013

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 Archive 64

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.

Craig James

The Google bomb was the most notable thing in his campaign. It's even on Misplaced Pages's entry for Google bomb. Mentioning it here, with sources, is not vandalism and is not even negative for Craig James so much as it is negative for Internet yahoos.

So if you could stop deleting it, that would be super. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.80 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed it again. I don't care what's in the Google Bomb article. This is in James's article, and it can't remain the way you did it. You cited to an unreliable puff piece (a blog of a magazine) that is clearly intended to be a humorous post. Even if the source were reliable, it doesn't support your assertion that the bomb was "notable", just that it happened. It has a distinctly WP:COATRACK aspect to it. If you want to include it, take it to the article talk page or to WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the mere coverage of it proves that it was notable, I'll just keep undoing your edit, since your objections are without merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.77 (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

1RR

I literally don't see where I violated the 1RR. I don't see where I removed or restored content, whether whole or in part, more than 1 time in a period of 24 hours. I am not challenging your observation, I just literally don't see it. Sopher99 (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Here they are:

1. In this series of consecutive edits you mostly added new locations. However, you also changed material in two spots.
2. In these two consecutive edits you changed material.
3. In these three consecutive edits you changed material.
4. In this edit you removed a location by commenting it out and "contesting" it.
5. In these two consecutive edits you changed material.
6. In this edit you changed material.

As you can see, that's six.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Any edit "changes material" in some way. Are they all to be considered "reverts"? I thought reverts were when you "undid" someone else's edit, completely. Liz 20:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Technically, the only edit that doesn't count as a revert is the addition of material (brand new - not restoring something that had earlier been removed). That said, administrators have some discretion on how strictly the definition of a revert is applied in a given case, but a straight undo clearly is not the only thing that counts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, could we get your attention on edits on the same topic by the same user upon the restriction lifted? It was not me (among others) this time to clean up the mess this particular user is causing to this template/article. I would like to ask for your opinion (post 2nd 1RR warning) on the last 24h edits by this particular user. Thank you.Ariskar (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm about to go off-wiki and won't be able to look at it today. If it's not resolved by tomorrow, feel free to remind me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your post is not very clear, but if you're speaking of AOnline, they have been blocked. If you're referring to a different editor, I'm not sure who it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, the post was relevant to AOnline (multiple reverts, 1 1RR warning to date) and Sopher99 (7 edits changing content in 2h after restriction lifted, 2 1RR warnings to date).Ariskar (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you can give me some diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Washington Redskins

Thanks for undoing the last of the blocked user's edits. I was wary of doing it myself because I didn't want to violate 3RR. Appreciate your assistance. 1995hoo (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I figured you were reluctant to undo it again. I rarely pick a version, but the edits in this case were arguably vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, considering that the banned user simply copied-and-pasted text and included reference numbers without the references themselves, I think it would be hard to argue it wasn't vandalism. Either way, thanks for the assistance. Much appreciated. Hopefully it won't all start up again next week! 1995hoo (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Slavic Chorale

Excuse me, you deleted the page without allowing me the chance to contest the deletion nomination or improve the page. Can you please restore the page, so I can provide the needed information? --Sanya3 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to offer to WP:USERFY it for you, but I see you've already created it in your user space (Sanya3/Slavic Chorale). I've removed the A7 tag from it, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War 1RR violation

• User:Blade-of-the-South (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I think this (following and in the last 24 hours) violates both the spirit and the letter of the Syrian Civil War sanctions. When you get a chance, can you please follow up with the user? I will notify Blade shortly that I posted this here. VQuakr (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the heads up VQuakr. I can see why you might think the above but I did a lot of work which you changed en mass here And I thought it was good material, which we had been talking about esp as the new editor Swawa came in with those points of his. This started when you edited out again en masse discussed edits that Swawa bought up and I put in. Here. . I put them back in again and you changed it back again. I did some thinking. I was tempted to just revert, but took a leaf from what you did with your one edit removing mulitple disparate lines. (I can see how you removed all this material is a way to circumvent the one revert rule). I saw you had some points and reworked some of the material back in.

You seem to have issues with Swawa refs. On talk I suggested you take issue with a ref you dont think is reliable on the appropriate forum, rather than delete it without discussion. Please re read Podiaebbas comments in the 'Secret US intel' thread about refs. The two editors here and myself all hold the same view. You dont agree with us and keep changing the edits back. Its frustrating. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Blade, I do not want to get into an extended discussion between us on Bbb23's talk page (I am happy to do that civilly on either of our talk pages), but I do take issue with two things you say here. 1st, making smaller numbers of complex edits is more my style, while you prefer to use a series of smaller edits. One style is not better than the other, and this is why revert rules count chronologically contiguous edits as a single edit. My combining several changes into one edit was not an attempt to "circumvent" anything. 2nd, my edit did indeed remove some material (thus counting as a revert in the context of 1RR), but it was not a simple click of an undo button. I only changed things that were problemmatic per WP:BRD, as opposed to "nuking" everything you did. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr I didnt know about the chronologically contiguous edits as a single edit.Someone put some thought into that rule. Accepted. Yes it would be kinda annoying to see this chatter on your talk page. Sorry this happened Bbb23. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Do you still need any assistance from me?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think Blade-of-the-South's continuing activity at Ghouta chemical attack constitutes POV-pushing and edit warring. Due to the additional layer of complexity resulting from the relevant sanctions, I thought it made more sense to bring it to your attention rather than a noticeboard. I can take it to EW/N if you prefer. VQuakr (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

He's violated 1RR again, , . I asked him to self-revert on his talk page and he refused. The second one was a similar revert to several others he has done in the last few days, so in my opinion it violates the spirit of WP:EW as well (admittedly, this time is less severe). As always, if you want me to start taking these to a noticeboard instead, I am happy to oblige. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 Please read my talk page where I replied, BTW I did this revert at 00:05, 25 October 2013‎ and its the only one today, yesterday I did one contiguous edit, thks for the heads up though. BTW I didnt refuse I mentioned it was the next UTC I edited meaning 1 revert per 24 hr period. If he had of mentioned that wasnt the rule, i would have reverted. That is ? was my understanding of how things work. 24 hr UTC time. Others seem to edit the same and if thats not the rule some are transgressing also incl Sayerslle & Rolf h nelson and VQuaker did the same here by editing in a rolling 24 hr period with these reverts.

23:46, 25 September 2013‎ VQuakr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (195,853 bytes) (-1,275)‎

19:34, 25 September 2013‎ VQuakr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (191,057 bytes) (-582)‎ . .

Blade-of-the-South talk 05:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

ARBCC followup

Hi, Thanks for the formal warming to DigbyDalton FYI see followup post at ANI NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible return of AnddoX

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/ServiceGhost&offset=&limit=500&target=ServiceGhost

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/AnddoX&offset=&limit=500&target=AnddoX

Same articles (Ninja Gaiden, Zelda and Metal Gear games), same kind of edits (particularily telling is the replacement of Ayane's infobox image, which was Anndo X obsession), created few weeks after AnddoX was indef banned. --Niemti (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Also F-Zero, Splinter Cell and Bayonetta games, etc. Absolutely AnddoX. --Niemti (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There was considerable evidence to block ServiceGhost based on timing (they created the account shortly after the CU was performed), same articles, and style. However, the clincher was User:198.91.223.178. Back on April 2, the IP made this edit and signed themselves as User:SOCOM Warrior, a confirmed puppet of AnddoX. On April 13, the IP made this edit on ServiceGhost's talk page thanking a user for the Welcome template. On September 22, ServiceGhost replaced the IP's sig with their own in this edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

ghouta

Is there a particular reason why you have put that message on my page? I'm aware its a contested area and don't really need reminding. have I transgressed some line? Sayerslle (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you violated WP:1RR at Ghouta chemical attack. I noticed it when I was evaluating the reverts of another editor. I chose to warn you rather than block you. Please be more careful.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Right - I was oblivious, - the UN report section was bothering me , unbalanced looking, and I didn't notice. Will take more care. Sayerslle (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Film Fan

Can you please check the users Sock puppet investigation archive please? Sohambanerjee1998 10:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edits there. You need to reopen it properly. I don't have time to look at it right now as I have to go to work. You could ask another SPI clerk how to go about if if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide me to a link where I can understand how to reopen it properly. Sohambanerjee1998 13:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help you, but I think filing an SPI is not the way to go unless it were to continue. It looks to me like Film Fan was using that IP (which is a proxy server, although not an open proxy server) to make that one edit to your talk page. The previous edits by that IP address appear to have nothing to do with Film Fan. I would talk to @Diannaa: the blocking administrator, about it and allow her to decide what action is appropriate. That would be much more efficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sohambanerjee1998: I agree this is Film Fan, but since it's a dynamic IP and other people are using the range, a range block is not appropriate. Blocking the individual IP is not appropriate either, as it looks like he is assigned a new IP each time he turns on his computer, and the edit is already a day old. Please let me know on my talk page next time he edits as an IP, though unfortunately we are all in totally different time zones so it's difficult to take prompt action. I will keep a record off-wiki of the various IPs used in case we need them for future reference. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, yes absolutely. His IP is not a static one but a Dynamic, I understood it the time I opened the IP's talk and contributions. Otherwise I would have taken prompt action but my internet connection is a bit problematic so I cannot pursue it even though I want to. Sohambanerjee1998 06:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, but he is already blocked so for this Sock-puppetry and block avoiding tendency a ban is in the making, right? He is an editor with tremendous possibilities so in my opinion we should give him another chance. Sohambanerjee1998 07:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

His use of two different IPs at Talk:Titash Ekti Nadir Naam#Requested move is a much more serious infraction than socking to post some advice on your talk page. At Titash Ekti Nadir Naam, he was socking to undermine the process of consensus - he was attempting to appear to be several people in an attempt to sway the outcome of a move discussion. Combined with the edit warring to try to override local consensus as to which film posters should be used and his demeaning approach to communication, his behaviour demonstrates that he does not presently have the cooperative attitude so necessary to successfully fit into the Wiki community without disrupting other people's enjoyment of editing here. Hopefully he can and will change, and can re-join the editing community at some point in the future. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The feelings mutual. Sohambanerjee1998 15:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I posted that message because I forgot about the email user feature and your edits were utterly silly. Nothing wrong with that. I hate it when editors make it about them instead of the content. The other accusations are bullshit but I don't care because I have much better things to do with my life than contribute to Misplaced Pages. Diannaa, you are too power-hungry and take yourself too seriously. Bye. 82.132.214.244 (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Black Tulip

Thank you for your kind tips. However, please do not remove "controversy" section of this page as it is well documented that MPEG protested the producer of this film. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.-- Dunforget (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reported your edits to WP:BLPN. At the rate you are going on both articles, you are headed for a block if you persist.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Cousin Terio

Cousin Terio is signifigant and the article does not deserve to be deleted. Terio is insanely popular. Do a google search for him and you will see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request of CenterforIsraelEducation

Hello Bbb23. CenterforIsraelEducation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Miniapolis 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No obligation

Hi Bbb, if you should feel like playing sleuth to a complicated piece of original research, I've started the ball rolling at the BLP noticeboard regarding MS Mikhail Lermontov and Richard Prebble. I'm calling it quits for the day, but there's a lot of investigative journalism here, and it's not easy to separate reliable sources from an agenda. Anyway, there's no expectation that you dig into this any time soon, if at all, but you're very good at this sort of thing, and there may be talk page stalkers who take an interest as well. All that said, consider this is an opportunity to say hello, more than an attempt to complicate your life. I hope you're well. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A little more help requested please

Hi, in the SSCS talk page I am trying to understand why people are picking and chosing some categories to bury in sub cats of subcats but not others. I feel like I am being personally insulted and targeted for comment rather than having the issue addressed. Could you please take a look and see if I'm crazy. I'm not trying to bait or fight, just understand why favorable cats are kept and unfavorable ones are buried in subcats. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society#.22Eco-terrorism.22 I have asked the user a number of times to stop focusing on me but to address the issue of content I am trying to get at. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You've never actually mentioned "favorable" and 'unfavorable" cats or asked that question. You just asked why specific cats are hidden and others aren't. "Favorable" cats aren't necessarily kept in the article. Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a member of Category:Animal rights movement, Category:Conservation organisations, Category:Environmental organizations based in Washington (state), Category:Fisheries organizations, Category:International environmental organizations and Category:Misplaced Pages categories named after environmental organizations, all of which you'd probably regard to be favorable. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's keep this on the article talk page. I've added a comment there pinging an administrator who is very familiar with categorization policies/guidelines. She hasn't edited today, so I'm not sure when she'll respond, but hopefully she can express her opinion when she gets to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• As you can see, we've been discussing this and from what I read it appears the general consensus is that we should rely on the subcats. However, the IP is ignoring this. A few days ago he misrepresented my position when removing a category from the subcat, and now he seems to be misinterpreting everyone. He made this edit warning "Please quit edit warring until consensus has been established", only to make this onesix minutes later claiming "per current consensus". Where was the discussion in the ensuing 6 minutes where we apparently suddenly formed a new consensus? He's the only one stubbornly arguing that we should categorise the main page and not the subcat. I really don't think further discussion is going to be fruitful, he's simply not going to listen to the opinions of other editors. So where do we go from here? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've been watching the mess with some dismay. I still don't want to get involved in the content issue because, if I do, I can't act administratively. Why don't you give me what you think is a tally of those editors who support the subcat and not the main cat? I wouldn't characterize @Qwyrxian: as favoring the subcat. He can speak for himself, of course, but my reading is that he's not opposed to the subcat, but that doesn't mean he is opposed to putting the article in the parent cat. There's only two possibilities in my view. One is that the IP is clearly editing against consensus, in which case I would at least warn them. The other is there's insufficient consensus, and my options are to lock the article if it gets out of hand or block editors if one or more are edit warring. Meanwhile, you or others would have to obtain a clearer consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Martha Johnson

I wrote the material you removed based on an interview I did with Martha Johnson. Why was it taken down. If you need citation, I can provide it. I am new to this and could use help, not removing my material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbadgley (talk • contribs) 21:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Amazon Eve

I am an inexperienced content provider. May I respectfully ask why the link to Harper's Bazaar was deleted? This was quite a coup for Eve. Any advice you care to share will be appreciated. BTW, is there an easy way to insert my name and the timestamp? Thank you, in advance, for your assistance. User:Greenwayfriend 21:47 19 October 2013 (ET) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to discuss this with you until tomorrow as I have to go off-wiki. I also reverted your later change as well, sorry. These things must be discussed as what you're doing is controversial and it's a controversial article. As for inserting your name, you can either type in four tildes or, depending on what interface you're using, there may be a little pencil above the edit box that you can click on that puts in two hyphens and four tildes (see WP:SIGN).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Greenwayfriend: You'll need to find some prose about Eve from Harper's Bazaar, not just pictures, and then find a way to weave it into the article, rather than just cite to a picture and a video in sentence fragments.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I found the signature button. I set up my notifications to send me an email. The address looks right and I checked junk. Any ideas? Again, I appreciate your helping me with the most basic stuff. My signature generated a talk link. I don't use my talk. --Greenwayfriend (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sentence about transsexual woman that I deleted and you reverted has a link to the Misplaced Pages page Trans_woman. That page lists many people, but does not list either Amazon Eve or Erika Ervin. There is a footnote to an interview on Access Hollywood without a link. There are several copies of the interview on YouTube. Voice Over: And she's had her fair share of taunts. Often, people accuse her of being a man. Amazon Eve: A lot of women who are this tall get this all the time, “Are you sure you are a woman?” It says that on my birth certificate. Many people (men) have difficulty with her size and strength (she's a personal trainer). The link in the text is not relevant. The interview addresses the issue of taunts. There are interviews in which she gets into the topics of being tall and of finding clothes and shoes. I don't think the sentence meets standards. It is just another taunt. May I remove it?--66.108.158.173 (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you and have removed the material. Regardless of whether it's "taunts" or "claims", the underlying source would be the YouTube video, which, in my view, because it's not posted by Access Hollywood is a WP:LINKVIO. Besides, what you say conceptually makes a good deal of sense. By the way, I assume you are Greenwayfriend. You shouldn't edit at Misplaced Pages without logging in, if for no other reason than it reveals your IP address, which generally isn't a good idea. There are other reasons as well.

Responding to your comment about notification, I'm not sure what you want to achieve. You should get used to using your talk page. It's the main method of editors communicating with you. When someone posts to your talk page, you should get a little orange banner telling you. You don't need to be notified by e-mail unless you want to. But it's not clear to me what you set your Preferences to and what makes you think it's not working. For example, if you set it to notify you by e-mail when there's a talk page message, that would only happen if someone posts to your talk page after you've set the preference. Did that happen?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read NPOV

I, in turn, suggest that you familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policy, because it is quite obviously a violation of any number of content policies to categorize an organization under a category that more-or-less directly states that the organization is guilty of terrorism. There is no "consensus" issue to be raised here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ansaldo STS

http://en.wikipedia.org/Ansaldo_STS Please leave the revisions from 10/17/2013 (originally) and again on 10/21/2013. The company reorganized recently. The information is factual and can be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.27.130 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Anugoonj (festival)

Does Anugoonj (festival) look the same as the deleted page Anugoonj to you? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Not the same, but similar in many respects. I've speedy deleted it per G11 and G12. I've issued a warning to the creator. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

THANKS for the help !! for your attention does user talk of two admins, look like same to you !! ofcourse they are why not they do the same work !! so page related with same event will be ofcourse similar in many aspects !! regarding the copyright information event is organised by us so we have the copyright information !! i have changed pages many times to meet wiki policies but every time they delete it without any proper reason !! so let me ask why same types of pages still flourishing either delete all or shut down your job !!

no thanks !! my pleasure !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRAWATJI (talk • contribs) 11:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sedat Bornovalı

Hi, I've just debunkered (yep that's definitely a mystification of source) arguments against deletion, can you confirm an AfD is needed anyway? Thank you! --Vituzzu (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@Vituzzu: I saw the same problems with the pope sources as you did. But the source for List of Italian orders of knighthood seemed solid to me, and that, in addition to other claims where I did not check the sources, was the main basis for my declining the A7.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Request to block User:Priyadswami

Bbb23, I would like to bring to your attention User:Priyadswami. This user is the same user who had been blocked (as User:Duarfimaws, User:Swamifraud and their related sock-puppets). This user's recent edits on Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha violates WP:BLPCRIME (on Priyadarshan Swami) and the edits need to be removed right away. The sources cited do not establish conviction. The user name also violates WP:REALNAME as it is identifiable to Priyadarshan Swami. I urge you to block this user immediately and protect the page against further disruption. Kapil.xerox (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I tried changing my name as soon as possible as I was unaware of the WP:REALNAME policy but they said "no problem found" so I don't need to change my username. Kapil.xerox's accusation of me being the same user who had earlier been blocked (as User:Duarfimaws, User:Swamifraud and their related sock-puppets) is your wrong and your opinion. I read the policy of WP:BLPCRIMEand it says "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Pramukh swami is a world renounced guru with tens of millions of followers and and BAPS has thousands of centers and temples. Look at the shear size of the article. We need other admin involved. This information is crucial and BAPS responded on their site. This user is violating WP:Editwarring , WP:Ownershipofarticles, and WP:Consensus. Priyadswami —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

He is referring to WP:Edit warring and WP:Ownership of articles.--Launchballer 10:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

List of new religious movements

Hello!

I have made a few attempts to clean up List of new religious movements, which is a list article with a long history of contention, topic bans, puppetry, even at least one major contributor who was de-sysoped. Unfortunately, I haven't been successful in the attempt at cleanup. I'm asking you to take a look at the recent activity on the article and the talk page. Although I have my own thoughts on what some of the issues are, I would rather get yours without my frustration bleeding through too heavily.

I am dropping this note for the most recently active admins I saw, and I am hopeful that those extra eyes will make a difference.

Thanks for considering it, cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Prathamprakash29

That's closed now. Not sure why the formatting was so off, but it was just going to continue being opposed anyway, a pretty obvious snow/notnow. Wizardman 22:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:GS

Hello Bbb23. Thanks for doing the necessary about Austrian Economics. You've even made the proper entry at WP:GS but in doing so you've taking in a side in the long-running controversy, whether new entries go at the bottom or at the top of the list. I had always assumed the top, and of course I'm right, but notice that the last Arbcom clerk to make an entry also used the top of Arbcom's list. Possibly the page could be enhanced with a written note just above each table to say which way the convention runs. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I actually thought about that when I added the entry, but there was no guidance as to what to do, and I figured it really didn't matter. Obviously, I was wrong; everything, including what kind of dash one uses, is controversial at Misplaced Pages. I've moved the entry to the top of the table and boldly added a comment (that some people might read) telling editors to add new entries at the top (based on a consensus of you and Rschen7754). I figured it's not my place to add a comment at the top of the Arbitration table. If I'm unlucky enough to become an arbitration clerk, maybe I'll do it then. There's still more work to be done for the Austrian economics thing (templates, etc.). I was operating yesterday on about two hours' sleep and I was exhausted. I'm not good at templates, either, but I figure I'll just clone stuff. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This problem would go away if we could persuade closers of ban discussions to start signing their new entries. That would generate a closure date which later readers might find useful. For example, closers could enter their signature following the text in the 'Sanctions' column. By comparison, entries in Arbcom case logs are always signed. Maybe I'll try signing my next entry in either GS or RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The ArbCom clerks don't sign the entries at GS.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Carrie Keranen

Hi Bbb23 - You were right about the non-deletion of Carrie Keranen. I did some further research and she is more notable than what the page described. You did a good job on cleaning that page up. Take care. Dinkytown talk 17:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)