| Revision as of 10:43, 13 January 2015 view source75.162.213.116 (talk) →Jeepers← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:44, 14 January 2015 view source George Ho (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users118,232 edits →Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hmm, delicious, and really bad for you. ] (]) 00:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC) | |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hmm, delicious, and really bad for you. ] (]) 00:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Due to your involvement in ] article, I invite you to an arbitration request discussion. Please write your statements in your ''own'' section, and reply to other people's statements in your ''own'' section. --] (]) 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:44, 14 January 2015
|
|
Happy New Year!
Dear Bbb23,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Can you take a look at this?
Happy New Year! Can I ask you to take a look at something? Here's the rundown from my POV:
- [[User;Djflem rewrote the article St. John's Park -- about a block of land in Lower Manhattan with some interesting history, but which is now used for exits from the Holland Tunnel -- to focus not on the history of the land, but on the "rotary", a non-notable circular cluster of 5 exits.
- He then moved the article to St. John's Rotary
- Since there was no prior discussion, and the rotary was (and is) non-notable, I moved it back and opened a discussion on Talk:St. John's Park
- The emerging consensus in the discussion (3-1 at this point) is the the history of the square-historic townhouse development-private park should be the focus of the article, which should stay at "St. John's Park"
- To subvert this, today Djflem moved from his sandbox his "St. John's Rotary" article into mainspace as Holland Tunnel Rotary. That article was a substantial duplication of St. John's Park, with no accreditation given for copyright purposes. It was, in fact, a fork of St. John's Park.
- For that reason, I moved it back into his userspace and converted the title into a redirect to St. John's Park.
There's some other little stuff going on as well, but that's the main points. Djflem seems to be having ovwnership issues about the article and appears to want to control its content despite what a consensus of editors he saying. If he can't control St. John's Park, then he'll fork it to another article and control that one -- but, really, 5 exits in a circle isn't a notable roadway structure and would never pass notability on its own. As the editors in the discussion have pointed out, it's the history of the land that is interesting and notable.
If you could take a look and drop a comment or two -- wherever and to whomever you think it is appropriate, I would appreciate. If you think I should instead take it to AN/I, I'll do that, but I usually like to avoid making a mountain out of a molehill if it can be resolved more easily.
Thanks for taking a look. BMK (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Take a look also at Talk:Holland Tunnel, where he accuses me of being a "weasel". The editor doesn't seem to have a good understanding of WP:V, WP:N or WP:OR. Or the new section he started on Talk:St. John's Park in which he completely misconstrues what the consensus of the discussion is. BMK (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it's appropriate for me to intervene in this. If you think you have sufficient evidence of misbehavior, you can take it to ANI, but my sense is you don't and you'd be better off trying dispute resolution methods to resolve the problems. As an aside, he didn't call you a weasel until after you called him clueless.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your opinion. BMK (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it's appropriate for me to intervene in this. If you think you have sufficient evidence of misbehavior, you can take it to ANI, but my sense is you don't and you'd be better off trying dispute resolution methods to resolve the problems. As an aside, he didn't call you a weasel until after you called him clueless.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Warning
Hi Bbb23, I actually wanted to say something else but unfortunately I couldn't so I felt the warning was the best way to let off some steam,
In hindsight it probably wasn't a very good idea but I guess it was better than me being uncivil back,
Anyway cheers, –Davey2010 21:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it was better than being uncivil back, but the best would have been to do nothing. The user is banned. Forget about it. You shouldn't need to let off steam on-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Problem is I get pissed off very easily, On-wiki and IRL (Been like it since I was a kid!), But anyway the past is the past but just thought I should explain myself, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010 03:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Resumption of disruptive editing by GLPeterson on Wireless power
You recently handled an ANI/edit warring complaint by me against GLPeterson on Wireless power. I am concerned that his recent edits seem to be a resumption of previous efforts to insert unsourced material into the article. Talk:Wireless power#Recent changes to summary table and Talk:Wireless power#Reintroduction of unsourced pseudoscientific content detail the concerns of myself and other editors. I don't really know what to do here. Could you look at it? Thanks. --Chetvorno 22:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I glanced at it, but I have neither the time or the energy to really examine what's going on. If you want quicker action, you're going to have to take the issue to the appropriate noticeboard. In the meantime, please be careful that you don't edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. I can see your busy, thanks. --Chetvorno 04:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Spshu
Spshu managed to get himself blocked by edit warring against User:Ttll213 at One Magnificent Morning. Though Spshu exceeded his mandate by making so many reverts, have you considered that his opponent Ttl213 could be just another sock of User:IDriveAStickShift? If we were convinced that Spshu's opponent was a sock would that make a difference in the 3RR verdict? I can see both arguments. Somebody who had the patience to study these TV articles (not me though) and sort out the various POVs might be able to create a better sock lineup. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wondered why IDriveAStickShift was sandwiched in those bullet points. IDrive would, of course, be a sock of Ttll213 as it is a much older account. I think Spshu also threw in User:SummerFunMan who was blocked in November of last year based on CU evidence, which although it was before IDrive was created, Ttl1213 already existed. It's never been clear to me if sleepers automatically turn up or if they turn up only in certain circumstances. In any event, going back to IDrive, the only intersection between Ttll213 and IDrive is One Magnificent Morning, which is not a lot to go on, particularly given the disruption by many users to that article. And although IDrive talks a lot, my recollection is that Ttll213 does not, making it hard to connect them stylistically. I did believe from the beginning, though, that IDrive was not a newbie. The only question was did he gain his experience from having a named account or editing as an IP (he did/does a lot of that). In addition to his disruption, he's one of the more deceptive editors I've run across. I suppose I would feel uncomfortable making any kind of finding without a report being filed by someone.
- As for your other question, if Spshu believed that Ttll213 was a sock master at the time of the reverts, that would help excuse his edit warring, but it was a post-hoc thought it would not. Even if he did believe it, it would have to be a credible belief. I would be more likely to "excuse" it if he were to request an unblock and admit that what he did was edit-warring and perhaps even promise to stay away from the article for a while (he's very caught up in it). Sorry for the long comments, but it's complicated.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. For the benefit of any talk-page stalkers, Spshu also tried to explain matters at User talk:Spshu#ANI 3RR Sock reports though I haven't tried to puzzle that out. Since it was only a 72-hour block I won't try to think about this any more. If the same set of articles shows up again, a lot of semiprotection might be justified just to make it slightly harder for the various socks to operate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Squidward679
Hi! Would you mind taking a look at this? It is CUdeclined, which I don't agree with, but regardless of socking issues, there's some significant WP:CIR issues like Zoey Burger. I'd handle it myself, but beyond the short-term block I applied a few days ago I feel any further action should come from someone else... --Rschen7754 02:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb23, it looks like we have another sock of Squidward679, see here. War wizard90 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- @War wizard90: The account has been indeffed. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Bluesapphiredigital
Where would I go about reporting this userpage? It appears to be used just as a way of advertising their business, but I didn't know what subsection of AN to report it to. Fry1989 16:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Someone else beat me to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Infobox photo discussion
Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Jake Chasan
Hi Bbb23, You correctly declined an A7 on this page, so I'm just letting you know I have sent it to AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I figured someone would. I had actually put it on my watchlist because I was curious what would happen to it, but thanks for the heads up. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Request
If you have a moment, would you take a look at this at AN/I and the additions to the report that followed in the last hour or so? I'm trying to understand why it's happening and keep coming away confused. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- You posted this late last night (my time), so I just took a quick look at the topic at ANI. Looks like a 3-way conversation that hasn't gotten any traction yet. Without reading it carefully, I can't say what's best, but my off-the-cuff advice is to stop commenting unless someone new becomes involved and a response is genuinely needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't see your response here until just now. Regretfully. Please take a look at where the thread has now gone. I'm done commenting there unless absolutely necessary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's getting out of control, but it's hard for me to intervene at this point. I don't think your autism is "irrelevant" per se, but it probably doesn't help to discuss it. Never heard the term neurotypical before. Based on our article about it, it doesn't sound like your labeling other editors as neurotypical is a big deal, although you can't really know. Even people who are part of a minority can be ignorant. Thus, someone who is mildly autistic could still be ignorant about autism. Anyway, it's a fruitless discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fruitless as is nothing will come of it in the end? Because, at this point, the "Support" votes don't look fruitless to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- I meant that the autism discussion was fruitless. It's difficult to predict anything at Misplaced Pages. Sometimes, particularly at ANI, things get a bit crazy. The user name comment is really over the top. I'd concentrate on resolving the Myerson issues at the article Talk page rather than worrying so much about the proposal at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- NE Ent advised me to not even comment at the article talk page for the time being. I'm inclined to agree with him as it seems pretty much anything I say there has been taken and twisted around and used against me. That's the way it seems to me, at any rate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I haven't been following the discussion at the Talk page, but I know NE Ent is trying to resolve this, so I'd take his advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- NE Ent advised me to not even comment at the article talk page for the time being. I'm inclined to agree with him as it seems pretty much anything I say there has been taken and twisted around and used against me. That's the way it seems to me, at any rate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- I meant that the autism discussion was fruitless. It's difficult to predict anything at Misplaced Pages. Sometimes, particularly at ANI, things get a bit crazy. The user name comment is really over the top. I'd concentrate on resolving the Myerson issues at the article Talk page rather than worrying so much about the proposal at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fruitless as is nothing will come of it in the end? Because, at this point, the "Support" votes don't look fruitless to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's getting out of control, but it's hard for me to intervene at this point. I don't think your autism is "irrelevant" per se, but it probably doesn't help to discuss it. Never heard the term neurotypical before. Based on our article about it, it doesn't sound like your labeling other editors as neurotypical is a big deal, although you can't really know. Even people who are part of a minority can be ignorant. Thus, someone who is mildly autistic could still be ignorant about autism. Anyway, it's a fruitless discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't see your response here until just now. Regretfully. Please take a look at where the thread has now gone. I'm done commenting there unless absolutely necessary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You might be interested to know that this has happened. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Your speedy deletion of Suraya Shivji
Just curious why you Speedy deleted Suraya Shivji without notifying me? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- The admin doesn't notify the creator. The nominator does. Ask Sgroupace.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
75.162.213.116 (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Jeepers
Thanks for this Bbb23. I have visions of whoever this is sitting at their computer with a watch counting down the seconds until that protection expires so they can add their nonsense to the article again. I hope that your 2015 is going well and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Hasn't been protected since October, as far as I can see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are right Lukeno94. I got this confused with another page that is always getting hit. Apologies to you both. Now since Briony gets added to this one every so often shall we set odds on when it will happen again :-) Thanks to you both for your efforts and vigilance. MarnetteD|Talk 03:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- If it weren't being added by an apparent sock, it would probably be a justifiable edit, to be honest. There are so many pages that get targeted by vandals, that it is often hard to keep track! :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are right Lukeno94. I got this confused with another page that is always getting hit. Apologies to you both. Now since Briony gets added to this one every so often shall we set odds on when it will happen again :-) Thanks to you both for your efforts and vigilance. MarnetteD|Talk 03:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- LOL, "jeepers." Love it. FYI, all, there's nothing vandalous or otherwise disruptive about simply wanting to know why someone would block talk page access just for asking someone else about the blocking, especially if the accusation of being a sock-puppet is false even if they are the same person.
- That's because, for example, first the account/IP in question has to have been abusing wiki while using that other account/their IP address in order for it to even count as socking (remember that from WP:SOCK?), but then if the admin hasn't backed that up (what the "abuse" was, in order to make the person who made those edits a socker), of course the blocked member will and should ask about it and be able to get a reasonable response instead of just getting his or her talk-page access removed without any further discussion. And even this simple FYI response is not disruptive.
Morcohen2 reopened
He's back under a new name: see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Morcohen2 HGilbert (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
|
Hmm, delicious, and really bad for you. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality
Due to your involvement in Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article, I invite you to an arbitration request discussion. Please write your statements in your own section, and reply to other people's statements in your own section. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)