Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:54, 9 December 2013

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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.

'I think given the one-sided nature of the block we should end it now and move on.'

• From Jody B at 15:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC).
• Reduce to time served, since you're asking for other opinions.- Floquenbeam 00:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• You blocked the wrong guy.- TParis at TigerShark's talk page.
• That's a pretty strong statement on this whole situation.
• Persons who said unblock with conditions are still unblocks....William 12:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Instead of posting on User:Bbb23's talk page, you could have just notified them, then commented on WP:ANI. Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I've heard by word of mouth that one of your loved ones has died. I send my condolences to you and your family. Epicgenius (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Commissioner Gordon

After a rather lengthy back-and-forth dialog on OTRS, I'm letting you know that I'm restoring talk page access on User talk:Commissioner Gordon to give him a chance to post a more thoughtful block request. Hopefully he will take my advice to heart. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

On OTRS? That's not the proper venue for that sort of thing. I also hope you know that he has socked since then under User:Commissioner Gregor. --Rschen7754 02:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Rschen, why wouldn't OTRS be the proper venue for appealing after talk page access has been revoked? That's what WP:GAB says. I understand that this is a CU block and that the possibility of unblocking is next to nil, but GAB doesn't make a distinction among the different kinds of blocks for talk page access issues. Obviously, no matter how civil any subsequent unblock request is, no administrator should unblock Gordon without approval from probably both me, ostensibly the blocking admin, and Reaper Eternal, who did the CU itself (Gordon is tagged as a CU block, even though I indeffed the account for other reasons before the SPI). See GAB ("Reviewing admins will usually defer to the blocking admin in a sockpuppetry-based block"). Also, GAB states that one of the things a sock should never do while blocked is engage in further sock puppetry ("Refrain from making any edits, using any account or anonymously, for a significant period of time"). And yet here the sock did precisely that with the Gregor account.

All that said, I trust, Amatulic, that you will monitor Gordon's talk page and re-revoke talk page access at the first hint of abuse. For another admin to do so would probably constitute wheel-warring. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was the intention. I have spent a lot of email time with him, to explain how Misplaced Pages works, what is expected of unblock requests, assured him there's no conspiracy against him, even offered to review it before he posts it. I felt it was fair to give him a chance to post a better-informed unblock request. If he can do that without creating a WP:ROPE situation for himself, that would be great, since he shows potential as a productive contributor. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(tps) I think that OTRS and UTRS are being conflated here. GAB directs blocked users to UTRS, not OTRS. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that before my post above. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. It looked to me like the appeal would go to UTRS but be evaluated by the OTRS team. How does it actually work?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

An appeal to UTRS is evaluated by an admin with a UTRS account. Some appeals require a CU, but most do not. I don't have a ton of experience with OTRS, but I don't think that there is any unblock-related ticket queue there. Other than having similar names, there is no relationship between UTRS and OTRS. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Got it. In that case, Amatulic should re-revoke talk page access and explain to the user specifically what they must do. At the same time, some of the confusion here should probably be cleared up. When a blocked user clicks on Unblock Ticket Request System in GAB's lead, the UTRS page has a dablink at the top pointing to OTRS. I can see a user possibly linking there. Even assuming we leave the dablink in place because you get to this page other ways than from GAB, the OTRS page should probably have a similar dablink and perhaps even a statement somewhere that OTRS should not be used for unblock requests.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear on otrswiki that OTRS is not for unblock requests. The issue is that not all admins can review material on OTRS (as quite frequently admins are declined), whereas they are generally guaranteed access to UTRS (both are completely different systems). This goes against transparency. OTRS isn't a venue to forum shop for an unblock - that should be directed onwiki, to UTRS, or to BASC.

Furthermore, I don't think there's any legitimate reason to have a string of 30-40 emails in any ticket, whatsoever, or to use it to coach people on how to be unblocked. That's not good OTRS work. --Rschen7754 22:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

William Levy (actor)

Hello, would you be so kind and explain to me why do you reverted my edition in William Levy (actor) article? As a fact the Telenovela Acorralada was starred by David Zepeda, not by William Levy. Regards. Eduardosalg (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

First, the article doesn't say that Levy starred in the movie, just "appeared". Second, two films are listed in the same sentence, and it wasn't clear which film Zepeda referred to. Third, why did you pick Zepeda as opposed to the other stars in Acorralada? Finally, obviously English is not your native language. You can't says "starred by". You might say something like Levy appeared in x film, starring x. I would have fixed it, but I didn't think any of it was necessary, so I didn't bother.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, you may fix all the other articles with the starred by text. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardosalg (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Cobanas

Cobanas (talk · contribs) didn't respond to your request to respond and continues to add badly sourced material (so this is in part a content dispute and since he's started to use an IP to revert me I've taken it to WP:RSN. Note also this edit which I mention at RSN as it reduces population numbers in an article in a way that contradicts the sources and makes the population of Assyrians in Iran smaller before a large number left because of the 1979 revolution than it is now. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

TheRaulRomero

Hey Bbb23, looks like we might have a bigger issue with User talk: TheRaulRomero, then I thought. After continuing his disruption following the edit warring block, then gave him another final warning. However, I was met with this response on my talk page. You know I kind of suspected it, since the user seems to have similar edit practices as other accounts that edit Lady Gaga/Miley Cyrus articles, but I am not a frequent patroler to the related articles where I would be able to pinpoint sockpuppets. Looks like something definitely needs to done here. STATic message me! 16:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

STATicVapor, I've blocked him for two weeks, but I need to determine how best to handle the sock puppetry admission. Please do me a favor and report any suspicions you have with respect to other accounts as I'm not familiar with these articles and don't really want to put all of them on my watchlist. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I will try my best, but do you know someone with Checkuser privileges? I am sure that, that would root up any sockpuppets. STATic message me! 16:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that without other evidence, all we have is the claim, and although I might be able to convince someone to do a CU on that alone, it would be preferable to have some evidence of similarities with at least one other account, whether it be articles, similarities in edits, similarities in styles - something. I do have talk page stalkers, though ...--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of "50 accounts", what I do see is an editor who edits from a number of very large dynamic IP ranges who switches IPs daily and edits both logged in and anonymously. If they do continue to cause disruption once the block expires (or, as I suspect will happen, use IPs to evade the block) whack-a-mole will unfortunately apply.--Jezebel'sPonyo 20:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo, that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

STATicVapor, I have now attached TheRaulRomero to its likely master. I'm not sure how active you are with regard to the Miley Cyrus discography, but if you see additional suspicious activity please drop me a note. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo 21:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Partial reverts, please

Hi.

Look, I know editing policy pages can be controversial but it would really help if you stuck with partial reverts that kept spelling fixes and such edits. I deliberately edit in distinct pockets for ease of BRD reverting to help doing this.

In the meantime, I understand that editing policy pages are not outright prohibited, is it? If you spot a problematic edit, we can always talk about it, right?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither of your edits is acceptable without significant discussion and clear and broad consensus. Please stop changing the policy in this fashion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. That felt like a kick in the crouch, which, in this case, means it didn't hurt much.

As for "take to talk", we are in "talk" already. Let's begin. I am listening. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, take to the policy talk page or WP:VPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I will go to VPP for discussing policy changes, alright. Let's discuss my technical edits here, then I will see to VPP. Besides, every policy says discuss with the disputing party and you are the disputing party. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. ...every policy, including our subject of discussion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again.

You are silent but evidently online. Very well. I will gradually re-implement technical (not policy-altering) changes such the line break, the typo fix and removal of duplicate sentence, giving reviewers ample time to perform WP:BRD. Anytime you felt like talking, I will stop.

But please remember what you'd tell disruptive editors when you block them: That they should talk and engage in WP:DR. I am here exactly for that.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Active sanctions

Hey Bbb23, I was wondering if I have any active sanctions. Epicgenius (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an odd question. What makes you think you do? I see nothing at WP:EDR doing a find on "Epicgenius", but I can't answer the question definitively.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You put me under a list relating to sanctions relating to Chelsea Manning a month or two ago. I believe it was under the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute case. Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that was here, but it's a notification, not a sanction. Generally, a discretionary sanction requires an alert (notification) first.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I don't want a sanction to reflect badly on me, so I was just wondering. Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hilary Rosen is not a "Lobbyist"

Hello, I am sorry that I haven't been to this talk page before with my dispute. I AM Hilary Rosen and I am not a lobbyist. I WAS a lobbyist from 1987 to 2007. But I am not longer. Hilary_Rosenhttps://en.wikipedia.org/Hilary_Rosen This article about me would be more accurate if you defined my current occupation: Managing Director, SKDKnickerbocker where I am a public relations consultant and an on air Contributor for CNN: skdknick.com/about/hilary-rosen/

A "Lobbyist" is a very important term. It is a legally definable term which is incorrectly used in the article about me. And for further accuracy sake, defined my earlier years as a lobbyist from 1987 to 2003 with the Recording Industry Association of America and from 2004 to 2007 with the Human Rights Campaign. Here is the cite from the Senate Clerk database: Query for Hilary Rosen in U.S. Senate Clerk Lobbyist Registration database If that doesn't come through, it is easy to verify this information here: U.S. Senate Lobbyist Registration Query page and enter my name.

I greatly appreciate you pursuing this clarification. Thank you for your time! Hilaryrosen (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Hilary, it looks like your post to my talk page spurred some activity on the article (there are a lot of editors who watch my talk page). I'll let the other editors try to sort things out. Perhaps you can let me know if you're happy with their changes. If not, feel free to post again here, although if you look at the top of this page, you'll see that my time is more limited than usual on Misplaced Pages. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Bbb, I'm a bit surprised by your reaction to this. Ms. Rosen is coming forward in good faith -- openly declaring who she is -- to correct damaging factual errors in her biography. (I.e. stating that she "is" rather than "was" a lobbyist.) This is a simple factual (definitional) question, not one of analysis or interpretation. Shouldn't we adopt her preferred construction, per WP:BLP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

I'm one of the talk page watchers who was alerted by this note, but I did not take action. Rosen asserts that she has not been a lobbyist since 2007, but in April 2012 The Nation said she was effectively a lobbyist, though unregistered. That's why I left the complaint alone and did not act on it. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if Ms Rosen is telling the truth, a primary source (I.e. herself) is usually not reliable.Epicgenius (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I would never imply that Ms. Rosen is telling anything but the unvarnished truth, but what she posts here is not at all a reliable source for the encyclopedia. Her firm's website is closer to a source, albeit a primary one, but it would be original research to interpret whether the services offered there regarding influencing legislative processes is "lobbying" or PR work. I would encourage Ms. Rosen to use the article's TALK page to point us to reliable third party sources regarding the question. Jonathunder (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

New section

You deleted the page - Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia - Why? It was written clearly what, the purpose of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanemTao (talk • contribs) 19:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it for two reasons. Apparently it's a wiki for discussing Chinese Buddhism. There was nothing in the article that indicated it had any claim of significance other than its existence. The second reason was it read like an advertisement with such phrases as "The Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia is a vast project that will take decades to reach its final potential and will continuously leverage the development of computer technology and the internet to reach this potential", "it is also a matter of fact that China has long history, the biggest Buddhist population in the world and tremendous potential to develop and preserve Buddhist teachings in the 21th century", "By giving a detailed overview of Buddhism will create the opportunity for future generations to continue building on this Encyclopedia further spreading awareness and the message of Buddha", "Our key aim is preservation, it is vital in these rapidly changing times to gather all available materials and translate and digitize.", and "The author and key contributor to the Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia, Vello Vaartnou, has had this strong vision for many years".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

al jazari

hi couple of days ago i added a reliable reference to that article , but you blocked me ! this my source :

http://ismir2011.ismir.net/papers/PS4-16.pdf 12th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR 2011)] An early example of an automated, programmable musical instrument ensemble was described by al-Jazari (1136-1206) a kurdish scholar, inventor, artist, mathematician that lived during the Islamic Golden Age

check it & see by your self if i did any thing illegal ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Cobanas, the only reason I'm not blocking you again is because you left this message here. You are edit warring on the article. You reinstated your version of the article as soon as your block expired. Whether you think you're "right" is immaterial. If you haven't self-reverted your last change before I'm back on wiki, you risk being blocked for longer than the last time.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, in response to Cobanas unreliable source;

Steven R. Ness, is a Phd candidate in Music Information Retrieval - Machine Learning - Distributed Cognition

Shawn Trail, is associated with the Dept. of Computer Science, University of Victoria

Peter Driessen, is professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Andrew Schloss, is a professor in Electronic & Computer Music, Musical Acoustics, Ethnomusicology

George Tzanetakis, is a professor Associate Professor in the Computer Analysis of Audio and Music

Therefore, this "paper" has been written by academics that have no specialization in the time period or area in question. As such this is not a reliable source in regards to ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

in response to kansas bear : that was an academic & reliable source from three professors in izmir university ( 12th international music information retrival conference) if you don't know let me tell you al jazari invented many music machines . all of the other sources which are pointing to his arabic roots are less important than this reliable source you removed this referenced issue .. i hope if you stop this edit war & regard to the rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 11:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

it's better to look for a better reason to removing a resourced article by questioning three high level PHD holder professors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 11:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How many times do you have to be told that music specialists can't be used as a source for this? Nor is there any evidence the conference paper qualifies as a reliable source in any case, but that is a minor point just for future reference. Meanwhile you are attacking me on my talk page where you call me a pan arab, whatever that is, and a nationalist, while at the same time accusing me of removing a reference when in fact you hadn't added one to that article. You've been told you need to self-revert, I strongly suggest you take that advice. I'm not afraid of being reported anywhere by the way, as I'm right on this. The best thing to avoid being blocked is to self-revert and ask at WP:RSN about your source. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23 - I don't think this editor gets it at all. I just went to his talk page and see he wants me to take him to ANI so that my nationalism and editing under several accounts will be dealt with. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

at dear pan arab(dougweller) : 1)your source for his arabic ethnicity is written by john richard hayes it is about the islamic scientists but it didn't mention any thing about his arabic roots ! 2)richrard hayes was an irish code breaker during the WWII(LOL) 3)comparing him with three high level american PHD holders is quite funny 4)http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=oEjNaFiTyqUC&pg=PA35&dq=al-jazari&hl=tr&sa=X&ei=0M5yUcGNHY3Iswb6xYHoCA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=al-jazari&f=false this source is never mentioned any thing about his arabic ethnicity !! it said he was a muslim inventor in the diyar bakir (kurdish city) 5)arabic language was the official langauge in that era 6)al jazari lived in the same era which the saladin the great (kurdish king of the middle east) was ruling over that area 7) i have plenty references which are clearly showing us that he was a kurdish : http://jutiagroup.com/20110225-robotics-part-1-%E2%80%93-where-are-we-today/ http://ismir2011.ismir.net/papers/PS4-16.pdf http://www.worldclock.com/world_clock_blog+the-history-of-clock_1.htm http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Al-Jazari http://www.kasimdemir.com/selected-scientist/al-jazari-el-cezeri/ 8)you have many other accounts which you are using them as "kansas bear" "عمر کلثوم" ....which are you sock puppet , this against the rules finally 9) i didn't remove any referenced article & i didn't do any thing against the previsions in the wikipedia , but you are keep " noising" over me because i'm a kurdish & you have personal issues with kurds (since you are an assyrian-arabic nationalist ) i hope if some body stop your games — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 16:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Do take me to WP:ANI for sock puppetry, etc when you get unblocked - it'll be a laugh. To clarify for others, I didn't add any sources about nationality to the article, but I did query leaving in a statement he was Arab, and Kansas Bear has recently said we should remove it, which I think is right. We should just call him a Muslim. Apologies to Bbb23 for all this. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

As Collect is taking a Wikibreak, he recommended you to me as an impartial editor skilled in BLP discussions so I hope you can help me out.
An editor reverted three edits I made to the article Franklin child prostitution ring allegations for "BLP violations." I went to the Talk page and requested clarification on how the edits violated BLP. The editor became abusive and three other editors came to Talk to support him, yet in four weeks of discussion none of the editors have quoted a single BLP policy that is being violated. The editors keep referring to personally "know that this incident is a hoax and a conspiracy theory," making straw man arguments or making claims that I should know the edits violate policy, citing the entire Misplaced Pages page WP:BLP in support. The discussion was taken to the BLP noticeboard where the four editors are still declining to justify the reversions and are instead relying on personal and Ad hominem attacks in reply to my posts. It has been discussed on the BLP noticeboard for over a week without any independent editors weighing in and commenting. I'm not looking for support, I accept I may be wrong (although I don't think so) but I require a reason, not rhetoric. The following are the three edits in question:
Also, in late November 2013, text that had been in the article since May 2012 was deleted for not being fully referenced, I replaced it with the missing reference only to see it immediately deleted with the comment "revert per BLP it is not specific, accusatory, insinuation and guilt by association". This time a specific reason for the violation was eventually given (WP:BLPCRIME) but I'm not sure it applies as a court of law, albeit civil, found the person in question guilty. I honestly can't see how the four edits violate anything and would appreciate your input at the BLP noticeboard. Wayne (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The subject matter of the article is complicated from a BLP perspective. I'm having trouble getting my arms around the issues without doing a significant amount of work, which, right now, I can't do. The article has changed considerably since your edits. Perhaps you could tell me here what you want to add or change to the current article. I need to understand, as simply as possible, what you want to include in the article that the other editors object to. Shorter is better.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

These are the reliably sourced edits that the other editors object to on the grounds of BLP:

• To be inserted in the second paragraph. The current text is wrong...the Foster care Board reported the abuse a year earlier than the article states. The Nebraska Legislature was not investigating reports of child sexual abuse, it formed a committee to investigate the abuse only after the Foster Care Board turned over the results of its investigation to them because police would not act on the claims.
• To be added to the end of the article. These are actions taken by the State Legislature which they based on the results of the Foster Care Board's investigation.
• This one is easy. The claim made in the WP article is not in the source provided. My edit replaces it with the claim that is in the source. Although the uncited claim is true, it can only be found in two sources, Nick Bryant's book The Franklin Scandal and the Discovery Channel Documentary Conspiracy Of Silence, both rejected as a RS by these editors who deleted mention in the article that these two sources even exist.
• This edit should also be at the end of the article. It is the civil case that followed the investigations. The original case never went to trial so this was the only finding by an actual court of law.
• There is also another sentence I would like to see changed. I never edited it but brought it up in talk where it was rejected. The sentence a federal grand jury concluded that the abuse allegations were unfounded and indicted 21 year old Alisha Owen, an alleged victim, on eight counts of perjury is, I believe, a BLP violation as it says the abuse allegations were unfounded. In fact, Owen was charged with perjury for naming a person, at her trial it was found that she had been abused but not by the person she accused. Wayne (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure you're trying, Wayne, but you're not making it easy for me. I don't want to see diffs to the article as it was but diffs to the current article. If you wish, put it in your sandbox or somewhere in your userspace. Make a change to it, and then come back with your reasoning. Unless a change is dependent on another change, do one change at a time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb23, one should update you on a couple things here. The article in question was a cesspool a couple years back and was deleted I believe by FloNight and then recreated as a stub by NuclearWarfare...the mess that was deleted had a long history of BLP issues that needed to be erased, some of the deletions needed was due to BLP violations Wayne had added. Since the article recreation, myself and NuclearWarfare kind of let some of the BLP stuff creep back in, and Wayne once again was in the midst of that. I decided to once again remove the BLP issues when an IP editor (probably one of those that has been pusing the fringe issues and BLPCRIME issues in the past) decided to try and force policy violations back into the article. This is not the first time Wayne has been either incapable or disinterested in BLP enforcement as a view of the editing history of the Kerry and Kay Danes article should indicate...there, Wayne was once again adding insinuation and fringe issues in violation of BLP, the article was posted at the BLP Noticeboard and at Jimbo Wales page, and Jimbo ended up stubbing the article out himself a year ago. I cursory glance at the talkpage on the Franklin allegations should indicate clearly that myself, DHeyward, and administrators Tom Harrison and JodyB have all tried to make Wayne understand why what he is arguing for here is a policy violation...while I am not going to be wasting much time on this matter, I am going to be defending policy should Wayne persist in being noncompliant with our policies.--MONGO 16:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@MONGO: Must you follow me to every page I go to? You know very well that the Danes article was not stubbed due to BLP violations. The subject objected to the article and primarily asked for several things, that information given by the Danes own lawyer in the ABC documentary Australian Story be deleted from the article, that WP state that the Laotian court was illegal and they wanted information included that was in their possession but not publicly available. Some minor changes the Danes asked for I made and then I myself posted their requests to the BLP board and asked that the board handle the rest of it. JIMBO agreed that there was no overt BLP violation but that we should respect the wishes of the subject and he stubbed the article saying it should be written again to read more clearly. The "Background" section was deleted per BLP but that was irrelevant as those named were deceased and the section had no mention of the Danes in it at all. Much of the article was sourced to a WP:SPS which was deleted as unreliable, but then that SPS was the Danes own website so that was also irrelevant. You have also repeatedly been told that bringing up the Danes article to discredit me is a violation of WP:NPA. Another editor, your friend P&W, was told on the NPA noticeboard that he could be blocked if he continued to do it.
The BLP problems with the Franklin article all involved either inclusion of the names of people involved (deletion of which I accepted) or the use of a source that was later rejected as unreliable. The edits were not BLP violations when they were made and I stopped defending those edits once their source was found to be unreliable. My arguments were all around your rejection of a newspaper source because it was behind a paywall and you claiming we had no way of knowing if the claimed content was the same as the newspaper. Another of your friends, an admin, backed you by saying we cant use newspaper articles behind a paywall as a source because it would be a copyright infringement and that we also cant use court records as a source because they are primary documents. Significantly you praised this editor for his very honest and nonpartisan manner despite his long history of disputes with me! Hmm, it's interesting how many editors from this 2008 dispute followed me to this article.
@ Bbb23: I'll do a sandbox showing suggested changes for you to look at. Wayne (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I have worked on 9/11 articles for many years and that is where I first encountered you...secondly, the Danes article was posted at Jimbo Wales talk and I have that watchlisted, as I do Bbb23's page...they are on my watchlist...I don't much appreciate your coming here with diffs regarding me and not informing me. Thirdly, as explained above, the BLP Noticeboard participants as well as the talkpage participants on the Franklin article are in disagreement with the material you wish to add back into the article...because it is a violation of BLPCRIME, so now you are virtually forum shopping to try and put insinuations and misleading information back into the article. Fourthly, If the Danes article wasn't stubbed due to BLP concerns, then why was that the edit summary used by Jimbo Wales here, followed two minutes later by Jimbo's removal of a lot of insinuations, allegations and weak material that was also due to BLP, material that you had been defending, and wikilawyering about keeping with the subject of the bio themselves as well as others on that article's talkpage. I have the emails from Kay Danes thanking me for helping them with the article...I can and will submit that to the arbitration committee with her permission which I am sure she will give...she names YOU as part of the problem with her bio. You are the type of editor that is a net detriment to this website...while I have written over 1000 articles that have never been challenged for NPOV or posted for deletion and produced more than a dozen featured articles, you've spent your time on this website wasting others peoples time with your nonsense...now if that isn't polite enough for you, I don't give a crap because I don't like having my times wasted when I would prefer you ceased your ongoing misuses of this website and allow me to get back to writing about parks, mountains and glaciers. I will not allow you to continue to misuse this website to violate BLP and promote fringe theories as if they were truths.--MONGO 15:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

MONGO, that's enough. Wayne came here for advice. If he is able to follow the structure I laid out above, I agreed to try to help him. I don't see how anything "bad" can happen from my counseling another editor, so please let it go. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Could use your eyes

The article Hilary Rosen might merit your attention. It is proposed to remove the 'lobbyist' characterization based upon the claims of wikipedia user claiming to be the subject of the bio. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Carolina Herrera

Hi Bbb23 - Would you mind sharing your reasoning for deleting the subject's full name in the Early and personal life section? Per WP:COMMONNAME it is normal to use the subject's common name (Bill Clinton) in the title and Lead, and the full name in the body. The full name had been well cited, by a reference now deleted. I have replaced it with a citation in Vogue Magazine. If the missing citation bothered you, a better editor would have fixed it rather than delete correct and useful information.--Nixie9✉ 14:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I suuppose I could say that a "better editor" would not have have inserted the birthname of a BLP without a source, and a more honest editor would not have come here asking for my "reasoning" when it was already well-known to the editor, but both of those responses, although justified, would have been snippy, wouldn't they? Thanks for sourcing the name. Please don't bother responding.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My comment was snippy, and I do apologize. Perhaps I am overly sensitize to being reverted when I am correct, but there is a technical shortfall. I suspect this is how a lot of new editors become discouraged. I wish you well. --Nixie9✉ 18:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I know that some editors think that before undoing something, one should look for sources, but it's a judgment call based on many factors. When it concerns WP:BLPs, I tend to be much more strict than in other articles, especially when, as here, it concerns vital statistics so to speak (name, age, birthplace, etc.). In any event, I didn't mean to discourage you. I know that Misplaced Pages can be an unfriendly place, but I didn't think my undo with an edit summary was harsh. Then again, I may be a bit jaded. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hi Bbb23,

A pretty much single purpose IP 146.90.47.98 has started an edit war over South African farm attacks here, which I don't want to engage in. I found this article a couple of days ago while on vandal patrol and notice that it did not represent the content of the sources it cites and that there is serious dispute about whether what is claimed in the article is actually occurring. I made the lead less WP:POV and I posted it here for help on improving its WP:NPOV. In doing some research on that article, I found Africa Check, which appeared notable so I wrote an article on it and submitted for a DYK. The IP nominated it for deletion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Africa Check with additional comments here. My view is they need a little time out from editing. Cheers, I am One of Many (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is also evidence of socking, which I didn't notice at first but I have now pointed out at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Africa Check I am One of Many (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to take any action at this point. The IP didn't edit war as they reverted only twice. I agree that the new account is obviously the same person as the IP, but that, in and of itself, doesn't indicate sock puppetry. Many editors start as IPs and then register. If the new account and the IP edit in tandem, that would be a different matter, assuming the editing is disruptive. I imagine, too, that the AfD springs from biased motives, but that shouldn't matter as the article would then be kept. Also, you've pointed out the issues at the AfD itself. Let me know if something further happens that might be sanctionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism protection

Hi,

Yes, I do want my user and talk page protected. Yesterday, someone also added false information on my page.

Thankyou for the help,

I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShinySanaz (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

ShinySanaz, how long do you want the protection to last? In case it helps you, another editor's pages were similarly vandalized, and she chose one week. But you can pick whatever duration you want. Protection can also be changed at a later date if you request it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Alhazen

Would you be interested in protecting Alhazen? Rarevogel has continued to remove references and referenced information without discussion. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Why me, Kansas Bear? Do I have any history with this article or the editor that I've forgotten about?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)