Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:16, 3 November 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

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.

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)

Blade's very first edit after the block expiration was to repeat the same revert. In your opinion is this editor's behavior tendentious to merit a Syria topic ban? VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@VQuakr: If I had been on-wiki when he reverted, I would have sanctioned him (not sure what the sanction would have been). In looking at the history of the article since then, it appears that the two of you may have reached some sort of compromise. Is that correct?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well he's not edit warring any more, but instead posting stuff like this and this along with trying to rehash basically every discussion we've had over the last month. But again, it's on the talk page. Given how much of an axe he has to grind I am not really optimistic about this being resolved without a topic ban or long block, but I can keep trying to engage. It's classic tendentious editing but I have seen worse. VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 31 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)

• I understand and respect your position regarding content. Regarding Qwyrxian, he actually said "Just as long as they remain in a sub-cat that is directly connected to eco-terrorism, the change is fine by me", the change being the removal of the category from the article, as we had been discussing. I'll give you a tally on the other editors later, I've been trying to get to bed for 2hrs here, where it's now 6:28am. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here is the tally as requested:

Support removal of Category:Eco-terrorism from article

1. NorthBySouthBaranof - Created Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism as a more NPOV category and started the "Category will be removed" thread, referring to Category:Eco-terrorism. Cites policy as a reason for removal of the cat.
2. Epipelagic
3. Qwyrxian - As explained above
4. AussieLegend

Oppose removal of cat from article

1. 76.112.8.146 - Still seems unable to understand the way we categorise.

Neutral

1. Gaijin42 - Only made a comment about categorisation, didn't state a preference
2. BatteryIncluded - Tried to explain categorisation to 76.112.8.146, didn't state a preference

And, not only has he now restored his edits, he's left a series of warnings on my talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Here was the Tally after slightly more discussion:

Keep the recent addition of Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism on the article or not

Support (keep the Category Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism )

1. NorthBySouthBaranof - Created category and placed main page in Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism
2. 76.112.8.146 - Thinks that this is a good compromise for now. It's notable and pertinent. But still thinks its not AS good as Category:Eco-terrorism. I don't like the words "accused of".
3. Qwyrxian - Who responded specifically to say that it should be on the main page.
4. Gaijin42 WP:TPO violation, but adding self here, per comments above.

Reject (remove the category)

1. AussieLegend - Has stated that this is a matter of "common sense"

That was after more discussion just to be sure and should give you a clue as to what is really happened. The only thing that changed in that list from the beginning of the last round of edits was Gaijin who previously may not have made his preference as clear. It's about to be a moot point though because that cat is up for deletion. The conversation will soon shift yet again to the original question. Eco-terrorism on the main page or not. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it always pays to tell the whole story. NorthBySouthBaranof didn't just place the main article in Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism. He also added the SSCS cat to that category. And, he has now nominated Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism for deletion. Gaijin42 added his name to your list, but he has actually indicated that he's happy for either Category:Eco-terrorism or Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism to be on the main. Further discussion resulted in him saying that he wouldn't object to the SSCS cat being in either of the categories. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So now you're telling the whole story? Is that the same as admitting that your previous story was only half the whole story? It still doesn't look like what you are presenting is the whole story. You're edit still grossly misrepresents the views of others, including mine. Change what you wrote about mine if you're really concerned about the whole story. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple discussions. 1. Is Eco-terrorism an appropriate Category? Qwyxian and myself say yes, Aus, Epipe and North say no. 2. Should the category be listed on the main page of the sub cat page? (for which plenty of opinion and no policy has yet been cited other than we all agree that it shouldn't be both) Aus says sub cat page. North chose main page. I agree with main page. Qwyrx comment reflects that either would be appropriate. We should resolve these questions independently to avoid confusion. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's focus on a single issue. As I understand the present dispute, the issue is whether Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (the parent cat) or Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism (the subcat) should be used in the article. Aussie is saying above that all the editors listed but you favor the parent cat. Do you agree with Aussie's list? If not, why not?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

oops conflicted editing at the same time.. :) I was typing that it's probably a mistake for either of us to summarize on their behalf. Bbb, could you mediate a way to tally each editor's response? It would be nice if for both questions we had the appropriate policy listed and then each person comment on how that policy should be applied. As it is now it's a challenge to figure out when someone is basing a decision on policy of simply their own point of view. To answer your question, no. Just look at North's last edit to the page. And I do not know that Qwyrx has given an opinion on which is better. As far as I'm aware it's Aussie that wants it really bad off the main page. Folks are expressing opinions left and right about the word eco-terrorism but Aussie seems to be the only one who wants it in the SSCS category page as opposed to the SSCS mainpage. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@76 -You're misrepresenting what Qwyrxian said. I've quoted what he actually said, which is that as long as the article is in a subcat of eco-terrorism, he's fine with that. Similarly, "no policy has yet been cited" is a misrepresentation. You've been directed to WP:CAT, which explains how we categorise. BatteryIncluded attempted to explain further, as have I. NorthBySouthBaranof was the one who started the thread and specifically said it would be removed from the article. All his edit did was to move the article to an NPOV category. You can't claim that he "chose main page" because he didn't remove Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society from Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism. YOU did that, without any consensus to do so, even though you improperly claimed consensus on one of those edits. There has never been consensus to remove the cat. As I've pointed out elsewhere, However, NorthBySouthBaranof's edit resulted in this silly situation where the SSCS article is both the only article in Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism and the main article of Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which is the only subcategory of Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Per WP:CAT we only place the article in its subcat, not in the subcat and its parent. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@BBB23 - "As I understand the present dispute, the issue is whether Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (the parent cat) or Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism (the subcat) should be used in the article." - Yes, that's what we need to focus on, as it's the root problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Could you please make your summary clearer on the article talk page? The phrase "Support removal of cat from article" is ambiguous as to what cat you're referring to. If my understanding above here is correct, then you should be saying that. The article keeps shifting. For example, right now both cats are in the article (the parent and the subcat). You're not going to get any clarity as to the consensus if your summary is not clear. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarified here and on the article's talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof's conversion of Category:Eco-terrorism to Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism in the article put a small bump in the road. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Better but not enough for Mr. Clarity here, even if it is for others. What I'd want you to say is Support removal of x-cat and retain y-cat. In other words, you're also in favor of retaining the parent cat in the article (or is that you're not opposed to the parent cat's inclusion?).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Per your request I have re-re-clarified the positions at the article talk page. The most difficult part is regarding Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism. While people have said yeah or nay to removal of Category:Eco-terrorism from the article, there hasn't been a lot of discussion regarding whether or not the SSCS category should remain a subcat of that category. Only the IP has been stubbornly insisting that it should not be and this has lead to his edit-warring over this. Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism was originally added here on 5 August by NorthBySouthBaranof. The IP's first edit was a reversion of this and has been followed by muliple reversions:

1. - No edit summary
2. Edit summary: per Aussiele's comment on SSCS talk, it doesn't need to be here and the main page (This was actually a misrepresentation of what I had said. I've consistently argued that the subcat did need to be "here" and not on the main page)
3. Edit summary: per current consensus at SSCS talk page (This didn't represent the consensus as I've explained above.)
4. Edit summary: Undid revision 578842766 by AussieLegend (talk) revert disruptive edit by experienced editor. Wait for change in consensus (I've previously directed the IP to WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO so he should realise that the statusquo, which was the version before his reversions, should stand, not his version)
5. Edit summary: Undid revision 578986744 by AussieLegend (talk) additional category not needed. It's already on the mainpage. See talk

It was after reversion #4 that I left the IP an edit warring warning on his talk page, which he reverted inappropriately as "vandalism", before making reversion #5. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Bbb, not to intrude, but yes, the question is, "What is the criteria for choosing whether to place an article into category X, or that article's category into category X." So far, "common sense", misquoting policy and a whole lot of personal attack have been the answer. I would LOVE it if that other admin were to come in and bring some clarity as to when it's appropriate to place the article or that articles category into other important categories. The other question is, how to apply that policy in a neutral way across the board so that supporters aren't able to "hide" negative sounding and detractors aren't able to "add" negative sounding words simply by changing placement preference. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And yet again, categorisation is not "hiding" anything. It's simply a way of organising articles into logical groupings. For example, Category:Fringe (TV series) characters is a subcategory of Category:Fringe (TV series). This doesn't "hide" the fact that Olivia Dunham is a character in Fringe (TV series). It's merely grouping her with other Fringe characters. It's what we refer to as "diffusion". --AussieLegend (✉) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If removing it from the SSCS main page and placing it on the SSCS cat page is not a big deal, then why all the fuss? If it's a simple matter of organizational preference, then let it ride. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to answer that question yourself, as you're the one specifically opposing that action. You've insisted that the category be on the main page and not in the SSCS cat. That action in itself now justifies deletion of the cat. Previously, the entire SSCS category tree was in Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism. Now, there is a single article there and we generally don't create categories for a single article unless they're part of an established heirachy, which Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism. That category is likely to be deleted as a result of the Comments at the TfD indicate that the contents of the category should not be upmerged so, by steadfastly insisting that the article be directly placed in the category and by deleting the category from the SSCS category, you're going to end up with neither being in either cat. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

How did I miss this? https://en.wikipedia.org/File:MV_Brigitte_Bardot_stern_view.jpg You were there and took this picture Aussie? You are a SSCS supporter? You were on their ships? Now when you say that you don't understand how removing a category "hides" it from the article I have a clearer picture why. I think it also gives me a more clear picture why you accuse me of adding a negative POV for quoting the news. If this is a topic that is near and dear to your heart, it might be a touch difficult to take a neutral perspective. Please consider that. I thought you were just an editor who was protecting his own edits. I apologize for that assumption Aussie. I still think you're a great editor don't get me wrong, WAY better than me for sure. But I think perhaps I am more nuetral. My vested interest is that I want an article that accurately reflects expert opinion. No more, no less. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith. I've been a regular contributor to the SSCS related articles for over four years now and visiting the ships while they were in Sydney Harbour, just like thousands of other people did, provided the opportunity to take some sorely needed photos for Misplaced Pages. Had my daughter not wanted to visit them I probably would not have gone. For the record, I visited a Japanese warship during the recent 2013 International Fleet Review 2013. That doesn't mean I support the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. By the way, there were plenty of Japanese on the Bob Barker. Should they be taken back to Japan and be beheaded for treason? Really, your post is bordering on a personal attack. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You're allowed to call me a POV editor but I'm not allowed to point out your support for them? I don't understand your application of policy. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, are you now saying you no longer support Sea-Shepherd? Because that would be important to let other editors on the SSCS talk page know. If someone's an employee, volunteer, financial supporter, etc.. it could bias opinions and other editors should know that. But if you're not, that would be good to know. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:12, 29 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 see that the correct citation template should have been "news." ( On the next item I made no edits. Since you took it out once, I did not want to show disrespect.) Ms. Roitfeld was appointed the global fashion editor of Harper's Bazaar this year. The referenced article is called an "editorial." The point she is making is that beautiful women and female models are diverse in many ways. I chose Johanssen because she is well known and is a typical beauty. I chose the other two because they are unusual in a way that is relevant to Amazon Eve's unusual characteristic of extreme height. Dell'Orefice is 82 years old and an active model--certainly not what one might expect. Similarly Sidibe is obese, although I thought "large" would be more appropriate. Amazon Eve is unusually tall. The other 21 models demonstrate other areas of diversity, but I thought Dell'Orefice and Sidibe were the best context into which to put Amazon Eve. If we can agree on what Roitfeld had in mind, then I think it is appropriate within the sentence to include, in parentheses, what makes other other two women special. Not everyone will know who they are nor take the time to follow the link. Again, I appreciate your assistance and input. I hope you feel that I am responding appropriately. I know I have a lot to learn. --Greenwayfriend (talk) 02:24, 30 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)

Hello, it looks like the same individual who has been vandalizing articles related to Swaminarayan and Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha has created yet another sockpuppet named Bluespeakers. This sock along with its predecessors Swamifraud, Duarfimaws, Breadinglover, Sageorsun, Priyadaswami, and the numerous Detroit area/Wayne State University IP addresses continues to advance personal agenda by disregarding Misplaced Pages policies, violating consensus, and edit warring. Most recently, the user is reaching out to editors who are unfamiliar with the sock banning history to try to gain support. I filed the original (unsuccessful) sock report for Swamifraud several months ago and several other users have filed additional reports with more success. Another user has filed a sock puppet investigation today. Could you please assess? Thanks! Anastomoses (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the accusations that I am the "same individual who has been vandalizing articles." I am most definitely not the same user as I have clearly stated that I personally know the users that were involved. If you are going to be taking a look at my case, do look at the specific cases. Certain users are patrolling the articles. I know you have blocked many people in the past so I would like to request that you carefully look over my case. I do not want to be doing anything wrong or malicious on this site. Thank you for your time. The users that reported just me are users that belong to a group Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Swaminarayan that only want to portray their religious group in a positive clean cut way.

Bluespeakers (talk) 16:44, 30 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)

@EdJohnston: I can see a couple of ways of accomplishing what you want. One is your way, which, by the way, I have no objection to (my comment above was more about consistency than an objection). The other is to have an effective date for the sanction. Any thoughts as to which you prefer?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The most obvious thing would be a simple date, but that seems to require an additional column in GS. If we do add such a column, then let's also have a link to where the editor was notified. That is something that is usually done by the closing admin in the Arbcom notification log. For examples see WP:ARBMAC#2013 warnings, where the word 'warned' is usually a link to the message. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with adding an effective date field at GS and at RESTRICT. Obviously, a new column for notification of the editor would be only at RESTRICT.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 27 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)

Retrolord

I hope you don't feel I stepped on your toes, but I have gone ahead and revoked his talk page. I don't believe Retrolord has a desire to do anything other than play games at this point and engaging with him further is not likely to be productive. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I should have done it myself earlier. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboard for Mens Rights Movement

Hi, I'm not sure if you're automatically notified but my reply comment to your https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Talk:Men.27s_rights_movement.2FArticle_probation could you reply either there or on my user page (not sure if I get automatic notification so I will check both) Thanks. Still not sure how you meant your calling username "lovely" but the substantive questions too in my comment, thanks. Maleliberation (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Maleliberation: I'll comment briefly here. Hopefully, you'll be notified by the template I've used. The lovely was sarcastic. I'm not going to respond to your substantive comments as it delves too much into content and therefore makes it more difficult for me to act in my capacity as an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Hi, the above link is not working. Even if expired, or "closed" so I can't add, I'd like to read what the rest of that said, where can I find it, it used to be at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Talk:Men.27s_rights_movement.2FArticle_probation in the last 72 or so hours it disappeared, that's totally understandable to keep the main page manageable but where can I find that, to read what was said since I was last able to find time to read wikipedia? Just want to read the rest of that NoticeBoard discussion on Manes Rights Movement "ARticle Probation" Thanks (I will not comment on the rest other than saying whether you're "MRA" or "feminist" it's sad that so many find the idea of coopeartive co-liberation so dangerous.. as an aside, that "sarcastic" was the first word that came to my mind but I toned the wording of my question to "was it meant ironicly?" instead of "sarcastically?" ..if both "opposing" sides toned down rhetoric (without weakening principles) they would help their own side, but that observation seems to be outside the field of vision, sadly. MRAs can't see how they hurt not just women but even their own cause by ignoring women's oppression and the other half, I guess they think that opposing the genital mutilation of all babies, not just opposing it for half (among other things) makes one "woman hating" or makes your aims "lovely" in a "sarcastic" way..)Anyway you're being a good admin clarifying where to find and read what was there a few days ago but isn't there now..

@Maleliberation: The noticeboards archive. If you go to the noticeboards, there's a place where you can search the archives to find what you want to read. But here's the link you want. BTW, try to remember to sign your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

General sanctions warning template??

Thanks for excellent ruling on Austrian economics. Is there a warning message template including your language - or can you or we make one - to put on relevant pages as necessary and refer people to that as a first step, rather than always referring to the ANI thread, general sanctions listing page for this issue, a noticeboard or you, depending on circumstances? We already need this because, as you can see at the top set of new diffs since shortly after you made your ruling where MilesMoney, a new editor, and a less frequent editor are having an increasingly heated debate with charges of Personal attacks. So need to know best approach. Thanks. Later note: Since I noticed even more of it as I continued, did put in this general note about my question to you. Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#General_sanctions_have_been_applied. User:Carolmooredc 21:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I will be creating the necessary templates, hopefully tomorrow. I already began the framework, but I have to complete it (and that includes the templates). Please be patient. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: I believe I've finished all the necessary templates. Everything branches out from here. I've put the talk page template on a few obvious pages. Let me know if you think I forgot something.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's great!! Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 17:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

SSCS again

Hello. Aussie is at it again. As soon as the lift came off of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society a 3rd editor (North) made an appropriate edit attempting to find solutions in the middle. Aussie immediately changed it back to exactly what it was before the lock. I brought it back the the other editor's edit (round about, chaning a bit) which Aussie reverted again. (and placed a warning on my talk page like it was my fault). Instead the next time I simply reverted to North's last edit instead of adding anything of my own and placed a warning on his. What is the next step if he wants it his way and no one else can take part in the decisions for that page? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you read this section higher up on this page? Do you agree with Aussie's listing of editors' views on the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for including me in the discussion and to summarize, no I do not think he is summarizing the consensus accurately at all on whether to move it to the SSCS cat page or keep it on the main article.76.112.8.146 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Then please show exactly where support for your position is and/or where I have not summarised correctly. I've provided some quotes but I'm happy to provide more, with diffs. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

prove a null? Look above for the response please. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Prove a null"? Are you saying that there is no support for your position? --AussieLegend (✉) 00:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to figure out whose position I think is unsupported by reading here: this section 76.112.8.146 (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you know. Obviously, the action I take depends on the user's response. Let me know if you disagree with anything. Best, m.o.p 00:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets: I noticed your comment, but thanks for the considerate heads up. My biggest concern is that Worldedixor simply can't adapt to Misplaced Pages. Admittedly, Misplaced Pages isn't the easiest place to understand, and I sympathize with some of Worldedixor's highlighting of inconsistencies, but editors who push so hard against these things instead of moving on and learning, have a tough time of it and create an unfortunate amount of disruption along the way. Indeed, I'm not sure I get what Worldedixor wants to do if he is unblocked based on his comment at your talk page ("My days of editing are over, and my family already said we will no longer donate to Misplaced Pages."). You should still do whatever you think is appropriate given all the circumstances. There's not necessarily any correct solution. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I share your concerns, but I'm a big believer in second chances. Hopefully we can turn things around.

Feel free to weigh in on Worldedixor's (or my) talk page if you'd like to. m.o.p 08:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're right. I took some trouble to go through a bunch of edits he made to a particular article since he was unblocked and then point by point explained what was wrong with most of the edits. We'll see how he reacts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Not quite the ideal reaction. I've chimed in on the talk here. m.o.p 16:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

m.o.p 00:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets: Yes, I've been following along, although no longer commenting. I'm afraid I don't have the patience for his passive-aggressive style. Your patience is impressive, so I leave it to you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do my best! If you ever need extra patience, let me know. :) Cheers. m.o.p 00:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Concern regarding another ANI posting re: Ludwig von Mises Institute

Good evening, Bbb. Your ANI closure on the LvMI threaad, as I understand, adopted a no-tolerance policy regarding future policy violations (both related to conduct or content) on LvMI pages. Some users seem to be using this precedent as an excuse to ban editors based on alleged past misdeeds. Here, we see a totally off-topic thread seeking to ban User:MilesMoney for a host of edits, often made several months ago, when he was a total noob. I ask you to look into this situation because it seems to run contrary to the spirit of the sanctions, which is to have uninvolved admins (not libertarian users who have had political disputes with Miles) heavily scrutinze not past conduct, but future conduct on LvMI-related pages. Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: As I'm sure you know, after you left this message (I've been off-wiki sleeping and making money at my "real" job), a topic ban on libertarian articles was imposed, which is different from the sanctions imposed on articles related to Austrian economics (there may be some overlap, but I'm not going to figure out if and where it exists). There's nothing I can do about it, even if I wished to - and I have no opinion either way.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sleep is good, as is money. I should've been more careful with the distinction you mention above. If you can do nothing about the MM matter (even assuming, which I obviously don't, that you agree with my position), I suppose it's pointless to discuss this. Steeletrap (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

sean.hoyland asked for a source in the TALK page and i gave him the source. i have no clue why you deleted my answer.

be careful next time.

--Dorpwnz (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It was explained in my edit summary, and it's been further explained by others on your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Voltari

I'm petitioning for the restoration of the Voltari page. I understand there where a few issues with the initial page, but these were corrected: 1. "you may not edit on behalf of a company, group, institution, product, or website which relates to the entity in question" The page was significantly updated with a personal account. 2. "it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.linkedin.com/company/voltari" Again, the text was significantly rewritten with the addition of more history and background about the company. 3. A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): again, the change should address this. If not, please provide an explanation so that I can understand why information and the history of a publicly traded company should not belong in an encyclopedia. If this is the case then similar companies such as Millennial Media and Velti do not belong either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsighthound (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that I'm not Bbb23, just a fellow administrator.

1. For one, A7 was not the only reason for deletion; please see G11, which effectively covers unambiguous promotional material. Misplaced Pages is an academic encyclopedia, not an advertising tool; anything that appears to be trying to sell a product will be deleted. It doesn't matter if said content is added from a personal account, just whether or not it's up to Misplaced Pages's standards.
2. For your second point, that's fair, and thank you for rewriting it.
3. Per point one, the content was promotional and did not make an objective assertion as to why it's notable (for future reference: the company's mission statement in the lede is not a way to establish notability). Furthermore, this outlines why you shouldn't make comparisons between articles as a plea to notability. In this case, I'd point out that both Millenial Media and Velti, while not perfect, have far more in the way of reliable sourcing and encyclopedic worth.

Hopefully this helps. Best, m.o.p 14:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Another (talk page stalker). The company is WP:LISTED on NASDAQ, so it's likely that reliable sources for notability will be able to be found. --GraemeL 14:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comments on my talkpage

Really, you are threatening me for what is a reasonable judgement call about CSD tagging? You are the only user that has ever raised such an issue with regard to pages I have tagged, and I have to say I find your threatening and aggressive attitude in this matter extremely disappointing. Honestly I don't think you deserve to be an admin. --_nonsense ferret 01:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nonsenseferret: Perhaps you should look at the issue from a different perspective. In reviewing articles for speedy deletion, twice I saw you had misused WP:CSD#G1. Each time, I pointed that out to you on your talk page, and you didn't respond to either of my comments. Then I noticed you did it a third time, so I left you a warning. That apparently got your attention. Instead of continuing to misuse the tag or criticizing me for being too "aggressive", maybe it would be more constructive for you to tackle the underlying problem. What is your understanding of when the tag is appropriate?

No, the only reason I am posting here on this issue is because if this is evidence of your general attitude to editors on wikipedia that are doing their best to help, then it is likely that you will do far greater harm to wikipedia than a couple of CSD taggings that you disagree with. I'm really disappointed that you were threatening and aggressive, and further extremely disappointed that you completely fail to acknowledge this after a chance to reflect on your behaviour. I think you really should reflect on this, but frankly I've said my last word on the subject as life really is too short to get involved in petty squabbles with people who should know better. --_nonsense ferret 17:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nonsenseferret: I've looked at your contribution history and thought some more about all of this, and I've decided that although a third comment from me would have been acceptable, the warning was overkill. Although you are not using the G1 tag properly, in the three cases where I noticed it, the articles nonetheless warranted speedy deletion based on other criteria. It also looks to me like the overwhelming majority of articles you tag for speedy deletion are deleted. For these reasons I retract my warning and apologize for issuing it. It wasn't the right approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sincerely noted and appreciated. I have no problem at all with you posting proportionate comments and suggestions on my page - we're surely all here to try to make things better. --_nonsense ferret 19:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello. I created a page for Coatsworth and Sons today, but you deleted it. It definitely exists, feel free to check facebook and like them to download their music so that you will know they are real and do in fact exist. Feel free to contact me directly about this at <censored/>. https://en.wikipedia.org/Coatsworth_and_Sons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.20.23.5 (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please oversight these edits; they contain an eMail address.--Launchballer 07:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not have oversight privileges. I don't even see any reason to rev/del it (I can do that). Wikipedians are permitted to disclose personal information about themselves. In this case, I don't think the user cares about it, either. You're welcome to contact an oversighter if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Studio article deletion

Hello. Just got an google alert that a page on Misplaced Pages had been made about our artist collective/studio, but when I followed the link I found it had already been deleted. For what reason? Advertising? We didn't make it. We haven't even been given any time to review the page ourselves. Why would you delete a page on an artist studio without consulting us first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.173.147 (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi. It would help if you were to let us know the name of the gallery/studio. Apart from the fact that you are editing from a location in Cheapside, we have very little else to go by. It might not have been deleted as an advert, but there is a whole host of other possible reasons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I believe the IP is referring to United Visual Artists, which I deleted per A7 and G11. It wasn't a slam dunk deletion. You're welcome to re-review it and do whatever you think is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Perfectly legitimate deletion per WP:G11 (advert) and WP:A7 (lack of importance or significance)

Contained a list of installations from which notability is not inherited (WP:NOTABILITY)

Contained a list on non notable people (WP:NLIST)

No sources at all (WP:RS)

One promotional external link (primary source).

Basically written as a B2B directory entry (WP:ADVERT)

Fails Misplaced Pages criteria General Notability Guidelines and Notability: Organisations and companies

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Kudpung, it's like you were reading the interior of my brain. Those were my thoughts exactly when I deleted it, but you did a better job of externalizing them. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Their website includes a list of publications covering the group. Please restore it and take it to AfD if you don't think it's notable. I would like to have a look at it and see what I can add. If there is promotional content feel free to eliminate that portion. Thanks. Alternatively, if it is considered to objectionable for mainspace, could I have it moved to my userspace? Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

An identical spam article in Italian exists on the Italian Misplaced Pages. I suggest you work on a Google translation from it. Once you have removed all the items disallowed on the en.Wiki there are only a few lines left. Be quick though, because I may CSD it there too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW: That list of publications are their own works and do not assert notability. I looked for independent RS and couldn't find any. You may have more luck. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

My Italian's a little rusty. I don't see why there should be an issue with moving the deleted article to my userspace so I can work on it if mainspace restoration is considered inappropriate. I'm not having a problem finding indications of notability or media coverage of the group and their projects as here (for example) here (recent coverage) and here archival coverage. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I said you could do a Google translation of the Italian article that was absolutely identical. I will put the Google translation for you on a user sub page - you'll see that it wasn't so difficult. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I see no reason whatsoever to restore the deleted article; I've given Candleabracadabra everything he needs, so he vandalises my user page. That's gratitude ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Redlinks to films are okay

Although redlinks lack construction, they may designate requests to creations of articles they are applied to (such as to films and television series starring Zac Efron and Daniela Ruah, two articles I have edited for this reason in the first place), thus being OK. As for the disruptive editing, I added those redlinks, and you joined in by deleting them. As this action persisted, you have blocked me for about 1 week, and then I have decided to give up and have this conversation with you once my block had been lifted. Homechallenge55 (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Homechallenge55: The purpose of adding a redlink is because the subject deserves an article and to encourage someone to write it. You were indiscriminately adding redlinks without any thought as to whether an article would ever or should ever be written about the subject (see WP:REDBLUE). As I recall, that's just about all you did, and you kept doing it despite warnings, and you removed the warnings. This edit, which I should revert, is a good example of poor redlinking (before the block).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's an old user warning template {{Uw-redlink}} which is used to explain to un-aware users the varied importance of redlinks. As a side note, it has been brought up to implement this template into the Twinkle script. Mlpearc (powwow) 15:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Burnaby South Secondary School

Hi Bbb, I'm not up to continuing to oversee this crap, which has consisted of several accounts attempting to inflate a school newspaper censorship news item. I've tried to trim it to its essence several times. Could you have a look, see what if anything requires mention here, and determine if page protection is merited? Now, back to resting. Cheers, JNW (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. By the way, the good news about David Cregeen is that some of the most important content is well supported by the sourced newspaper articles, it just lacks the inline cites. Proof of illness: I'm considering canceling a session with a model tomorrow. Or maybe I'm just lurching inevitably into middle age, when autumn colors are as fascinating as a woman's skin tone. Nah. JNW (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't need proof. Autumn colors are, uh, seasonal. Good looking models are always around. Thanks for asking for semi-protection; I commented there.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Arbitration Committee Clerk Team!

Hi Bbb23. We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: WP:AC/C#clerks-l). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at mail:clerks-l. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, WP:AC/C/P, and the Committee's procedures page, WP:AC/P, but you will learn all the basic components of clerking on-the-job.

New clerks begin as a trainee, are listed as such at WP:AC/C#Personnel, and will remain so until they have learned all the aspects of the job. When you've finished training, which usually takes a couple of/a few months, then we'll propose to the Committee that you be made a full clerk. As a clerk, you'll need to check your e-mail regularly, as the mailing list is where the clerks co-ordinate (an on-wiki co-ordination page also exists but is not used nearly as much). If you've any questions at any point of your traineeship, simply post to the mailing list.

Lastly, it might be useful if you enter your timezone into WP:AC/C#Personnel (in the same format as the other members have), so that we can estimate when we will have clerks available each day; this is, of course, at your discretion. Again, welcome! Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

3RR violation on Iran-Iraq war article

I'm recently working on the Iran-Iraq war article - there is edit warring ongoing in the past day and a half . It seems Coltsfan, one of them, incorrectly issued an administrator noticeboard complaint on vandalism , later issuing WP:AN complaint (closed with no action taken) and now an RfC. It is however clear that one user clearly violated 3RR. Can you take a look? GreyShark (dibra) 16:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Never mind - already on 3RR board.GreyShark (dibra) 16:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism Cleanup

Hello again, I wanted to seek your guidance on what the appropriate course of action is for cleaning up vandalism by sockpuppets on articles, talk pages, etc. I tried looking for the policy but wasn't able to find it. Also, the most recent sock that I have encountered (Bluespeakers) has made allegations against me regarding COI in a frenzy of disruptive posts after the SPI was filed; should I post defending myself there or will the content be removed since he was blocked? Thanks! Anastomoses (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@Anastomoses: Generally speaking, you can revert edits made to articles by socks. So, to the extent Bluespeakers made article edits that you think are incorrect, you can revert them with impunity. I noticed the amount of disruption he made to noticeboards, and that's a bit harder. I don't have time to review them all tonight. If you are willing, you can post here a list of things you'd like to see removed, and I'll try to deal with it either tomorrow or Friday at the latest.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Bluespeakers is not a convicted sockpuppet yet, so please wait until the procedure is ended. The procedure was interrupted. I may revert removals until the procedure is finished. Andries (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@Andries: Your concept of "the procedure" is deeply flawed. If you revert another editor's reversion of one of Bluespeakers's edits, you should do so only if you wish to accept responsibility for the edit yourself, not simply as a reaction to what you perceive as an incorrect block by me.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are the list of major posts by the most recently banned user Bluespeakers (Swamifraud sockpuppet) after the SPI investigation was filed: Could you please take a look at these? There were several other boards where the sock's posts were reverted by other editors. Thanks! Anastomoses (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Anastomoses (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Anastomoses, thanks for compiling the list. I've removed all the sections except ... Diff #33: I removed Bluespeakers' edits from the section. Diff #34: I reverted the last edits made by Bluespeakers.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trekking through that mess. I will keep the guidelines that you suggested above in mind. Anastomoses (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you please unblock user:Bluespeakers?

I think this user made constructive comments. See e.g. here Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Pramukh_Swami. And I think that you did not follow the right procedure with your block. I suggest that you either wait for the CU result or follow the correct procedure before you block this user. Thanks. Andries (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

My opinion would be, that this can be decided once CU completes the investigation. Plus this user was copy pasting same thing, more than enough times, different pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Several users advised him on his talk page to use noticeboards. You cannot blame him or her for following this advice. This user was new to Misplaced Pages so may be he or she has used the noticeboard not 100% okay for which he or she cannot be reasonably blamed.

What is s/he now blocked for?

Bad use of noticeboards? Then CU is not the right forum.

Sockpuppeting? Then first finish the CU.

Andries (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Just making my last message in this regard here, Andries, check now, CU completed the investigation. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

hi thanks for warning. I would be very happy if you could show me what is need to be removed and cited to unsolved the issues in David Cregeen article. Emrahzorlu2 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Emrahzorlu2, pretty much everything needs a reliable source at Misplaced Pages, particularly for articles about living persons. Thus, for example, I removed the birth date and the birth name from the article because there's no source for it. Also, certain kinds of material cannot be sourced to self-published sources, e.g., Cregeen's website. Mostly, that would include anything that is self-serving. Thus, you cited his website for the award in the infobox. We need a reliable source that isn't Cregeen himself. You could, however, cite to his website if he said his birth name includes the middle name Allen. Read up on WP:BLP and WP:RS. Remember, the article is here not to advertise Cregeen's talents but to recite them in a neutral and detached fashion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor you warned harassing me on my talk page

May 30 you warned User:Steeletrap to stay off my user page after my complaint Steeletrap kept on posting despite requests. Steeletrap is back harassing me at this diff on my talk page, after harassing me on the same issue at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BLP_violation_at_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute.

User:Specifico who I also have been banned, is back harassing me, after I complained at ANI June 29]. Obviously, if they had a real case they'd take it to ANI or where ever, so I think that this is just their attempt to drive me off the ANI and off of editing in the Austrian economics area. (And right now after a brief venture, I've once again given up on that because of their tendentious editing.) Help appreciated! Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 18:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Bbb, I hope you remember your ruling on the Binksternet issue, where, on what you admitted to be questionable charges of EW, you allowed him to post notices on my page without consequence. In this single post on the talk page, I was responding to a policy violation (PA) made my Carol, in which she repeatedly referred to me as "he" or "him" (rather than she or her) despite the fact that -- as diffs demonstrate -- she clearly knows I identify as a trans female. For instance, a few weeks ago, in response to my self-identification as a woman, she linked to a page that says transgender people aren't really women (1).

Realize that this "ban" occurred months ago, and I (and I think SPECIFICO) have refrained from posting everything but ANI notices in that time (the exception here was due to a policy violation). Realize also that when she posted her reminder of the ban, we stopped commenting.

The fact that over the course of 5 months, I have not commented once on CarolMooredc's page (excluding ANI, RSN and other approved notices), should give you pause as to whether I am committed to "harassing" her on her talk page, or instead was driven to this (exceedingly rare) post by a clear policy violation. Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: It's true you made only one post, but when looked at with a longer lens, your post was made after an extended discussion mostly between SPECIFICO and Carolmooredc and had an added punch to it because of that. Without looking at the merits of the pronoun brouhaha, I agree with Carol that you should not have posted your comment. You're not welcome on her talk page. If you want to address what you believe to be misconduct, you're going to have to do that somewhere else.

Carol, you said you banned SPECIFICO from your talk page. I don't know anything about that. When did you do that?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I just don't understand how you can reconcile this position -- an a priori rejection of the validity of my posting on her wall (based on her banning me , regardless of the facts -- with your statements in the Binksternet case, where you clearly said (1) it's OK for him to post regarding alleged policy violations. Steeletrap (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you feel Carol has violated policy, you can leave a templated warning on her talk page to that effect, but that should be the end of it. A full-blown discussion of the policy violation does not need to take place on her talk page. In this instance, SPECIFICO had already templated her talk page, so there was no need for you to post there.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here where banned Steeletrap, I wrote to SPECIFICO: (I'm not banning Specifico at this point, as he's banned me, though his/her postings are getting quite annoying too.) 15:44, 23 May 2013
• Here on Srich’s talk page in a discussion among us I wrote: User: Specifio, I banned Steeletrap before, not you, even though you banned me way back when, remember? But I decided just to be fair to User: Srich should ban you too - unless you have official notices and for very limited discussion of them, like I just replied to your incivility complaint and mentioned that failure to discuss is edit warring, for which the diff'd evidence grows everyday. 17:40, 21 June 2013
• SPECIFICO then left me four of the six "official" messages I complained about at ANI June 29th. Obviously it would have helped if I had reaffirmed the ban at the ANI. His messages on this topic and his replies to me go well beyond an official notice and are just harassment. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 01:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just read what I assume to be quotes above (didn't check the diffs), and I don't interpret any of your comments to be a clear directive to SPECFICO to stay off your talk page. Honestly, I'm having trouble even understanding what you were trying to say (sorry).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The context was Rich had been annoying me and I banned him, so thought should make clear to SPECIFICO he was banned too - obviously doesn't sound too clear! In any case, hopefully the petty harassment at ANI, my talk page and the Rothbard talk page will now stop. User:Carolmooredc 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb Thank you for checking Carolmooredc's quotes so carefully. Sad to say her modus operandi is to make false allegations or provide diffs which do not corroborate her statements. Many editors have failed to check them in the past and have taken her calculated misstatements at face value. I very much regret to say that this is not my personal opinion, but is the consensus of many editors with whom she's interacted on a variety of content areas at WP. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

As usual broad negative generalizations without a diff in sight. One diff that wasn't as crystal clear as it should have been when written does not make a modus operandi. User:Carolmooredc 03:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Happy Halloween! Steeletrap (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Steeletrap, much tastier than listening to sniping. You should all have some brownies and kick back a little. Me I masqueraded as an administrator with a broom, snarly teeth, and a pointed black hat.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting de-sysop'ing

Seeing as you are the clerk for the current arb, and given the fact that I can't desysop myself, which I think is stupid, I request that you do so, if you can, or perhaps contact someone who can. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@John Carter: Forgive me, but I don't understand what you're asking. Do you want me to recuse myself as a clerk? Did you want to resign your bit? (BTW, Callanecc is the "main" clerk. Assuming I remain on the case, I will be an additional clerk - my first as a new trainee, actually.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to change my user rights to remove adminship, and found I couldn't. I don't know who can, unfortunately, and as a side matter think it kind of stupid that someone can't remove some of their own privileges. I don't see how anything I said would indicate that I sought your recusal, and I regret it if anything I said could be interpreted as such. And sorry for passing the buck as well, btw, but I've said before I don't imagine I will be doing much here in the near future, and I might actually not see the decision when it is made. Of course, theoretically, at this point, I have no objections to waiting for the decision, but I said when I became an admin if any admin saw grounds for me not being one, I would de-sysop myself, which I just found out I can't do. If you do know the appropriate parties to contact to do so, however, I would welcome your doing so. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Only a bureaucrat can do what you wish. Usually, when an admin wants to resign, they go to WP:BN. However, the arbitration may complicate things. I believe there are rules related to admins who resign during an arbitration involving them. I'm not sure where best to advise you to go. I wouldn't want you to do anything before you're fully informed of the consequences. I'll see what I can find out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@John Carter: It saddens me that you have chosen to resign the tools, but I know where it comes from. @Bbb23: What John Carter did is technically called a resignation under a cloud, although no desysop remedy has been proposed, which gives me the impression that unless ArbCom specifically adds a new remedy about his resignation, John will be able to request the tools back if he ever wishes to. — ΛΧΣ 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, he won't request them back. The only reason he ever requested them in the first place was to edit protected project banners, and at this point that seems to be easy enough that I can request someone else to do so, if the need arises. And, honestly, I don't imagine I myself will be spending much time on this particular entity much in the future anyway. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Protected project banners? You could probably do that with just the (newly-created) template editor right, so you wouldn't even need admin for it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

AE

I'm confused why you are posting to the ARBCOM Proposed decisions instead of Callanecc. Liz 20:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Liz: Bbb23 is a new clerk and has been entitled as secondary clerk of that case. — ΛΧΣ 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, ΛΧΣ, I just read the message (above). The header information should probably be altered on the Main Page and the Proposed Decisions Page. Liz 20:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the collateral benefits of becoming a clerk (trainee) is other clerks, even temporarily inactive ones like Hahc21, help me out on my talk page. Now, in response to your point, Liz, I want to change the header but can't figure out how. :-( I shot an e-mail to Callanecc on that issue, but they're probably sleeping (occasionally we get to do that).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me take care of that too :] — ΛΧΣ 20:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hahc21, very kind of you, but I'd prefer instructions on how to do it if that's not too much trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Everything that appears on top of the arbitration pages is on the {{Casenav}} template. The information that appears on that template is taken from this other template: {{Casenav/data}}. So, I just edited the latter and added you on the parameter list for the Ebionites case. If you click edit on that template, you will see that I mean. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ 20:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hahc21, I knew about the two templates, but I assumed wrongly that there had to be something else out there that connected the parameters to a particular case. If I had just edited the damned data template and looked at it, it would have been obvious. Sigh. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It happens :) You're welcome. — ΛΧΣ 20:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

So, Bbb23...being one of the busier Admins just left you with too much free time? You took on being a Clerk, too? ;-) Liz 20:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Liz, another example (see above) of not being very bright. You have no idea how long it took me to do the implementation notes on the proposed decision page this morning. My head hurts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, Bbb. The Implementation notes are always a pain to make :) — ΛΧΣ 23:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

MRM - possible 1RR violation?

Hi Bbb23, please take a look at the two reverts by InTheTrees (talk · contribs) in men's rights movement: and . I notified him of the article probation on October 27 . --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at it before you posted your message here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

That notice (and discussion) and a request

Hello: Forgive me for being a little frustrated. I hope you know that the notice I got from Mark Arsten was posted because I had closed a third discussion on issues already under discussion on two other notice boards. But here are the results of that notice (not in chronological order):

• Steeletrap mentions
• Sitush mentions, quoting Specifico. (I'm not clear why Sitshi posted this. It seems to be a rebuttal to Specifico.)
• Specifico mentions that Steeletrap had pointed out the notice
• Specifico says "Apparently no Admin saw fit to warn Miles, because only Srich has received a warning under the General Sanctions thus far."

None of these had any relevance to the topics at hand, e.g., a topic ban for MilesMoney or the editing taking place on Robert P. Murphy. But I hope you see how the notice is being misused. I'm going to post a copy of this message with Mark as well. I ask both of you – can anything be done? I prefer and ask that the "notice" be removed. It has served its purpose with me (about the hatting the discussion), but it is being misused by others. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to interfere in Mark Arsten's action. The continuing drama at these pages is not healthy for the articles or for the editors involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I quite agree about the drama. Jeez, I try to keep a section heading neutral and a storm ensues. Indeed, I made a single edit on the heading and I'm the one accused of EW. (Thanks again for letting me vent a bit.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

Can we please restore this page? It's an important part of a larger picture of the NHS. I am quite ready to demonstrate its noteability.

see NHS mental health trust

• I'd support this request: it's one of a large number of stubs which this editor has created, and they are being improved as we go along - see discussions at User_talk:Rathfelder and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust. It doesn't look as if the editor (or his talk page stalkers!) was alerted to the speedy deletion nomination of this article. One or other of us would have leapt to its defence. PamD 17:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but it wouldn't have changed my decision. I can't restore an article that says nothing to establish significance ("We are a organization. We do x." and a link to the website). If you want to create articles that will withstand A7s, then do so out of article space first and then move them if you believe you've succeeded. The standard for AfD, btw, is different from the standard for A7. I hate to disagree with a librarian (I think librarians are presumptively outstanding people :-) ), but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)I have no idea what this article was about but perhaps it could be userfied for now with the provision that it isn't moved back into article space until it's expanded appropriately. Just a thought. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I wouldn't refuse to do that if requested, but it's hardly worth the effort as the article was so tiny. I can't imagine it couldn't easily be recreated without my help.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about behavior on sanctioned article.

Starting with this edit, which referred to the discussion as "rubbish", Sitush has become increasingly uncivil, to the point that he appears to be baiting me or trying to intimidate me, or perhaps both. I've managed to remain polite, but when I pointed out that he was being uncivil, he responded with more incivility; "bollocks". He then assumed a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, daring me to report him while leaving "I don't care" as the edit comment. I ignored this.

I've tried to refocus him on the specific policy issue while deescalating, but I find that he's successfully derailed the discussion with his hostile behavior. After he made some incorrect statements about the nature of academic tenure, another editor tried to rein him in, but was met with the same sort of stubborn incivility. At this point, I'm not sure how to proceed. I thought that, when an article is under sanctions, editors are compelled to be on their best behavior, but I can't imagine that this is what Sitush's best behavior looks like. I'm asking that you caution him about his attitude and incivility. MilesMoney (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's take the first diff you have (rubbish). Just before Sitush made that comment, you provoked him with: "Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages does not run on how things look to you. There is no policy about writing with hats; you made it up just now. It's a hoop you'd like us to jump through, but this isn't a circus and you're not the ringmaster. We have to follow what policy says, not your unique interpretation of it. Please frame your arguments in terms of policy, not your desires." I think his response was mild.

In your second diff, you complained about his "rubbish" comment (not as provocative as your first diff), and he said "bollocks". Since when is the word "bollocks" a big deal?

I don't find your third diff compelling, either. At that point the two of you were going nowhere, and it was pointless to pursue it. You may not like his response, but essentially he said he didn't want to talk with you about it anymore because he felt that editors were using civility inconsistently (what a surprise) depending on the discussion.

Bottom line. I see nothing to warn Sitush about. Just because the article is now subject to sanctions doesn't mean that suddenly everyone involved are going to behave like model Wikicitizens, whatever that is. Given all the complaints I've had from the different editors, you're all arguing constantly. So, if you want to continue your involvement in these discussions, my suggestion is you ignore all comments you perceive to be uncivil and keep your comments focused on content (none of this circus/ringmaster stuff, for example).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I was very curious to know whether you'd enforce sanctions in a clear-cut case of incivility or just make excuses for the guilty party. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity; I won't be bothering you again. MilesMoney (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This will be my only comment in this thread - no need for a response. I've had enough of the TE and the repeated demeanings etc, of which recent comments at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute and in their last reply above are just a sample. If Miles survives the topic ban review that @BD2412: has been asked to look at then I'll be inclined to go straight back at ANI with another report. Doubtless, like me, the regulars at ANI don't want another drawn-out saga on the same theme but right now editing in the India caste-related sphere is a doddle by comparison, and that's saying something! - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't stop you from going back to WP:ANI, but nothing will stop that from WP:BOOMERANGing, given what you've posted on my talk page. I assure you that I will ask for you to be banned on the basis of your constant attacks against me. MilesMoney (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

As long as you're using my talk page for this stuff, Sitush hasn't posted on your talk page since October 21 when you banned him. And, frankly, those posts (which are harsher than the ones on the article talk page) and the ones you've pointed out in this thread are not likely to get Sitush banned. I can see you're having problems with your perspective, but you won't help yourself by making such a request.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

He avoided my talk page but stalked me to articles on topics he never touched before and knows nothing about. He then joined in on the illegitimate ANI report that many have called a lynch mob, and has since threatened me repeatedly. But, hey, boys will be boys, right? Why apply the same standards to Sitush that you would apply to anyone else? MilesMoney (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Overwerk

Has been recreated again....William 17:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Austrian School GS

Would it be possible to include information about what the general sanctions are at Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions? I mean information like that which exists at Template:Austrian economics enforcement...it seems like the main sanctions page should include more specific information on a) what actions/behavior could result in a sanction and b) what form the sanctions take (I suppose this is blocks of different durations). It seems that different Editors will be referred to this page and I think it could be clearer about what to do to avoid being sanctioned.

I saw that SRich edited this page but I'm reluctant to involve myself in what seems like clear Admin-business. You were the primary author so I thought I should come to you. Thanks! Liz 23:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Also an editor was confused and thought he could post notices, so it needs to specifically say that only admins can. Two of us have told him that; don't know if he's read it yet. User:Carolmooredc talk 23:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)