| Revision as of 23:50, 24 December 2024 view sourceBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,052 edits →Joeypike2021: back at you← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:52, 13 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,899 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Bbb23/Archive 63) (bot | ||
| (94 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| == |
== User Ayohama SPI == | ||
| I got my shoulder replaced this week and my one-handed typing needs improvement. | |||
| ⚫ | ] (]) |
||
| :I had trouble believing it was intentional. Sorry about your shoulder.--] (]) 23:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Bbb23, you recently interacted with user Ayohama on ] and last month blocked user Amber hurt as a sockpuppet on the page. I have opened an SPI against Ayohama, which you may be interested in: ]. I have also requested a checkuser there. – ] (]) 21:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == G11 == | |||
| ⚫ | :Good job.--] (]) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == Will Gao edits retracted: == | |||
| Out of interest, why was the G11 declined (for The Misguided)? | |||
| If you listen to the podcast on the page, the edits I made are exactly what's said by Will Gao on the podcast. | |||
| Kind regards, ] (]) 01:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Same with the edits made on Will's sister's, Olivia Gao's page. ] (]) 13:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Renewed edit warring== | |||
| ::Okay, thank you. | |||
| ::Can I request clarification on one point, albeit that it was not relevant to the decision here? In my admittedly limited experience of speedy deletion requests it seems that some users are prepared to authorise speedy deletion of material in draftspace and some users are not. Is this just a question of the luck of the draw (in terms of who deals with a request) or is there some underlying policy issue which I'm failing to grasp and which therefore looks like inconsistency due to a misunderstanding on my part? | |||
| ::Any help on this point would be much appreciated. ] (]) 02:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{yo|Axad12 }} I have stricter criteria for G11's that some (most?). Bbb23 is more insightfully incisive/decisive than I. There is a wide range of admin discretion at work, so sometimes it does depend on who sees it first, though I do not generally decline myself. ] (]) 02:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I will say though that I don't care where the promotional content is. If it meets my criteria, I will delete it, though I only do one iteration. ] (]) 02:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is a fair amount of discretion on G11s, but mostly on the gray ones. I don't think this particular one was gray at all; indeed, I thought it was relatively well written.--] (]) 02:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed. ] (]) 02:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], that's a G11 that will most likely be declined by every admin, including me. Please keep that in mind when you put things up for speedy deletion. ] (]) 02:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To clarify... | |||
| :::::I nominated the article under G11 as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", which it seemed to me was in accordance with the recent result of the declined AfC which described the draft as "reading like an advertisement". | |||
| :::::While accepting that the text might have been amended, the fact that the SPA creator had recently been blocked made that prospect rather unlikely. | |||
| :::::For the sake of my future understanding, where have I erred here? Is it the fact that the likelihood of clean-up is irrelevant and even if I was correct (and there were no future edits to the draft) it would have been deleted after 6 months anyway with no harm done? ] (]) 02:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It doesn't particularly read like an advertisement either. Even assuming that ]'s comment that "The quotations from reviews are decidedly cherry-picked" is correct (I haven't checked), while that's still a neutrality issue, it's not one that calls for deletion of the draft - it would still be coherent if the Reception section were just removed. —] 03:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'd still be grateful for clarification on my post above (assuming, for the sake of argument, that a draft ''did'' read like an advertisement). ] (]) 05:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::For anyone trying to follow this thread, the page in question is ], and a block of the creator was . The article may continue to languish at AfC due to its issues but I agree with others that the page is not an obvious G11 candidate. ] (]) 06:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{yo|Axad12 }} Perplexingly, blocking does not always mean the content met ]. I weigh each candidate on its merits. Creator in this instance, "is indef blocked for ] and ] among many other issues," so that's apart from the quality of the draft in question. I infer the creator has a serious ] with more at stake than, "don't delete my babies!' Having ones "babies" deleted is traumatic enough on its own. Hope that helps. ] (]) 09:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agreed that the block was unrelated to the quality of the article - although the user could as easily have been blocked as a promo only account if he hadn't made a complete fool of himself at ANI. | |||
| :::::The reason I mentioned the user being blocked was because that meant that the draft was unlikely to be improved - but as I said above, presumably that is irrelevant if it means that the draft would then just remain unpublished for 6 months and then get deleted. ] (]) 09:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Speaking as an administrator who had a lot of frustrating interactions in the last week with the blocked editor, I too agree that the draft does not qualify for G11 deletion. We should not let the fact that the primary author behaved like a monumental pain in the ass cloud our assessment of the draft. ] (]) 10:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As I mentioned above, the G11 nomination wasn't due to the pedigree of the creator but was rather to do with the comments left by the AfC reviewer - albeit that I now see that that was not grounds for a G11 nomination in any event. | |||
| :::::::Thanks all for clarifying my understanding of the process, very much appreciated. ] (]) 10:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As per our last discussion , I am updating you that Rueben lys has resumed edit warring and hasn't done anything else after coming off from the block. ] (]) 15:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy Holidays! == | |||
| :My words come back to haunt me. Let me think about it, although you're welcome to go to another admin in the interim. {{U|Drmies}}, what do you think? Sporadic disruption is annoying, but it might warm you up.--] (]) 16:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think that p-blocking the user from editing the article is valid. I also think that it would be handy if ], who reverted the user, could make their point clear on the talk page. Your editor hasn't been back there, which is a good reason for a p-block, but that discussion is so fraught with technicalities about ... well, whatever it's about, that it's not clear to me where the three or four editors stand, including ]. ] (]) 16:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is a very peculiar kind of ] whose POV I have as yet been unable to ascertain, for it flits about so much. | |||
| :::On the ] page, for example, they are the prime force for removing any mention of Gandhi's (overwhelmingly cited) pressuring of the Indian government during his last fast in 1948 to pay out some cash assets to Pakistan, which the government eventually did, but not before some Hindu nationalist lunatics were riled up enough to murder Gandhi. (This could suggest a Hindu nationalist POV, especially as the prime force in the Indian government who had opposed the pay out was ], who is today also a darling of India's Hindu nationalists.) | |||
| :::But on the ] page, Abhishek* is part of a group that is opposed to any mention of voluntary enlistment in the second (and final) army led by ]. Again, here too, there is an overwhelming academic evidence that roughly half the second INA was recruited from volunteering Tamil civilians from ] and ]. Abhishek* and his group seem determined for the article (and especially its lead) to say only that the INA was a traitor army, comprising British Army POVs during Japanese occupation of Burma, Malaya, and Singapore, which is hardly a Hindu nationalist line. | |||
| :::Abhishek* and his group seem to flit about together from article to article and engage in edit warring, RfCs, etc. Sometimes I think they are like a group of kids in high school who are doing this for hi jinks, for outside of the edit warring they hardly every contribute any content to the articles whose talk pages they intermittently descend upon. | |||
| :::Reuben llys, on the other hand, I have known from the time I arrived on WP in 2006. He remains the resident expert on the INA. He and I have not always seen eye to eye on the historical assessments of the INA, but I have come to respect him, for he speaks the language of historians, and pays attention to nuance. ]] 17:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::PS ] might be an old fashioned content creator who writes, and sometimes edit wars, but does not pay much attention to WP rules. Abhishek* and his group, on the other hand, have boned up much on the WP rules and regulations, but have a very limited understanding of South Asian history. ]] 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thankyou Fowoler. The Indian National Army article has descended into a farcical PoV shadow of what it was. I take pride in the version I wrote many years ago, but that is not why I reverted. The reversion is simply vecause rhe aritcle in it's current form is inaccurate and blatantly PiV. With regards to your observations about a specific group of editors, I am deeply suspicious they are associated or affiliated to an Indian political party and only look to bolster, barnish and embolden their version and hope to cast aspersions on any potential competing historical political entity that might tarnish their reputation or claims to legacy. Blocking me from editing the INA page would be a joke, since I appear to be the only one who has given time and effort to developing it into a detailed balanced and nuanced NPOV article written with credible historical works, as opposed to using the fantastic alternative history of B | |||
| <div style="border: 3px solid #01902a; background-color:#fff; text-align:left; padding:2px;"><div style="border: 2px solid red; background-color:#fff; text-align:left; padding:6px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| attle of Hogwarts, as some editors seem to rely on.] (] <b>·</b> ]) 13:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) , | |||
| == @] trying to evade his block == | |||
| ] (]) is wishing you a ] ]! This greeting (and season) promotes ] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! | |||
| Hello @], It looks like Iamsteve69420 trying to ], he logged in in his computer but remains logged out on his phone. If you look at his userpage, he mentions his birthplace is in ] and if I look at his IP address , it also says the same place as his birthplace and it must be him. Can you also please block his IP address? Thanks! ] (]) 01:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls|Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.'' | |||
| :{{done}}.--] (]) 02:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Talking about Quebec == | ||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:golden; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| '''Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025! ♦ ] (]) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| look @], some people speaks English in Quebec, sometimes, I don't speak French, I only speak English ] (]) 09:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Joeypike2021 == | |||
| :The issue, ] isn't that some Quebeckers only speak English (I certainly know many - including the current ], ]). It's what the official language is. Many Americans know Spanish, but it certainly isn't an official language. Though it is complicated that because Canada does have French as an official language (but sadly not Inuktitut), then federal services must be fully available in English throughout Quebec. Either way, I think this is a content dispute and best discussed at ] (though I can assure you that the status quo would be the end of result, so my advice is just to leave it as the discussion would be futile - see ] and also the following discussion). ] (]) 20:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I said I don't speak French, I only speak English, okay @]? ] (]) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I |
:::I guess I don't know what your point is then. I assumed it was about your reverted edit to the ] infobox. ] (]) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks anyway, and thanks for all your help ]ing all the 'problems' this year. Happy holidays to you and yours. ] (]) 23:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You as well. Honestly, I think your work is harder, and you're very good at it.--] (]) 23:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy Holidays == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | | |||
| ---- | |||
| '''Hello Bbb23, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br /> | |||
| ] (]) 23:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}'' | |||
| |} ] (]) 23:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:52, 13 January 2025
User Ayohama SPI
Hi Bbb23, you recently interacted with user Ayohama on Mark Karpelès and last month blocked user Amber hurt as a sockpuppet on the page. I have opened an SPI against Ayohama, which you may be interested in: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lustigermutiger21. I have also requested a checkuser there. – notwally (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good job.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Will Gao edits retracted:
If you listen to the podcast on the page, the edits I made are exactly what's said by Will Gao on the podcast.
Same with the edits made on Will's sister's, Olivia Gao's page. Editor00744 (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Renewed edit warring
As per our last discussion here, I am updating you that Rueben lys has resumed edit warring and hasn't done anything else after coming off from the block. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- My words come back to haunt me. Let me think about it, although you're welcome to go to another admin in the interim. Drmies, what do you think? Sporadic disruption is annoying, but it might warm you up.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that p-blocking the user from editing the article is valid. I also think that it would be handy if User:Azuredivay, who reverted the user, could make their point clear on the talk page. Your editor hasn't been back there, which is a good reason for a p-block, but that discussion is so fraught with technicalities about ... well, whatever it's about, that it's not clear to me where the three or four editors stand, including User:Fowler&fowler. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- user:Abhishek0831996 is a very peculiar kind of civil POV pusher whose POV I have as yet been unable to ascertain, for it flits about so much.
- On the Mahatma Gandhi page, for example, they are the prime force for removing any mention of Gandhi's (overwhelmingly cited) pressuring of the Indian government during his last fast in 1948 to pay out some cash assets to Pakistan, which the government eventually did, but not before some Hindu nationalist lunatics were riled up enough to murder Gandhi. (This could suggest a Hindu nationalist POV, especially as the prime force in the Indian government who had opposed the pay out was Vallabhbhai Patel, who is today also a darling of India's Hindu nationalists.)
- But on the Indian National Army page, Abhishek* is part of a group that is opposed to any mention of voluntary enlistment in the second (and final) army led by Subhas Chandra Bose. Again, here too, there is an overwhelming academic evidence that roughly half the second INA was recruited from volunteering Tamil civilians from Malaya and Singapore. Abhishek* and his group seem determined for the article (and especially its lead) to say only that the INA was a traitor army, comprising British Army POVs during Japanese occupation of Burma, Malaya, and Singapore, which is hardly a Hindu nationalist line.
- Abhishek* and his group seem to flit about together from article to article and engage in edit warring, RfCs, etc. Sometimes I think they are like a group of kids in high school who are doing this for hi jinks, for outside of the edit warring they hardly every contribute any content to the articles whose talk pages they intermittently descend upon.
- Reuben llys, on the other hand, I have known from the time I arrived on WP in 2006. He remains the resident expert on the INA. He and I have not always seen eye to eye on the historical assessments of the INA, but I have come to respect him, for he speaks the language of historians, and pays attention to nuance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS User:Rueben lys might be an old fashioned content creator who writes, and sometimes edit wars, but does not pay much attention to WP rules. Abhishek* and his group, on the other hand, have boned up much on the WP rules and regulations, but have a very limited understanding of South Asian history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that p-blocking the user from editing the article is valid. I also think that it would be handy if User:Azuredivay, who reverted the user, could make their point clear on the talk page. Your editor hasn't been back there, which is a good reason for a p-block, but that discussion is so fraught with technicalities about ... well, whatever it's about, that it's not clear to me where the three or four editors stand, including User:Fowler&fowler. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thankyou Fowoler. The Indian National Army article has descended into a farcical PoV shadow of what it was. I take pride in the version I wrote many years ago, but that is not why I reverted. The reversion is simply vecause rhe aritcle in it's current form is inaccurate and blatantly PiV. With regards to your observations about a specific group of editors, I am deeply suspicious they are associated or affiliated to an Indian political party and only look to bolster, barnish and embolden their version and hope to cast aspersions on any potential competing historical political entity that might tarnish their reputation or claims to legacy. Blocking me from editing the INA page would be a joke, since I appear to be the only one who has given time and effort to developing it into a detailed balanced and nuanced NPOV article written with credible historical works, as opposed to using the fantastic alternative history of B attle of Hogwarts, as some editors seem to rely on.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) ,
@Iamsteve69420 trying to evade his block
Hello @Bbb23, It looks like Iamsteve69420 trying to evade his block, he logged in in his computer but remains logged out on his phone. If you look at his userpage, he mentions his birthplace is in João Pessoa, Paraíba and if I look at his IP address 2804:14c:da80:8206:95a:a68c:425c:e4c3, it also says the same place as his birthplace and it must be him. Can you also please block his IP address? Thanks! Vitaium (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Talking about Quebec
look @Bbb23, some people speaks English in Quebec, sometimes, I don't speak French, I only speak English BigStoneonWiki (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issue, User:BigStoneonWiki isn't that some Quebeckers only speak English (I certainly know many - including the current Governor General of Canada, Mary Simon). It's what the official language is. Many Americans know Spanish, but it certainly isn't an official language. Though it is complicated that because Canada does have French as an official language (but sadly not Inuktitut), then federal services must be fully available in English throughout Quebec. Either way, I think this is a content dispute and best discussed at Talk:Quebec (though I can assure you that the status quo would be the end of result, so my advice is just to leave it as the discussion would be futile - see Talk:Quebec/Archive 6#Official language (fair compromise) and also the following discussion). Nfitz (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I said I don't speak French, I only speak English, okay @Nfitz? BigStoneonWiki (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess I don't know what your point is then. I assumed it was about your reverted edit to the Quebec infobox. Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I said I don't speak French, I only speak English, okay @Nfitz? BigStoneonWiki (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)