| Revision as of 22:23, 30 April 2013 view sourceChed (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users64,984 edits →Farewell: cmnt to LGR← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:52, 14 January 2025 view source 1AmNobody24 (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,954 edits →AMRABDELMOGHETHM: reply to Bbb23: Thanks for taking a look. (-)Tag: CD | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{NOINDEX}} | {{NOINDEX}} | ||
| <!-- {{Wikibreak|message=On vacation from October 15 to November 1. I'll be on-wiki much less than usual and possibly not at all. Certainly, don't expect a prompt response to any questions or requests.}} --> | |||
| <!-- {{Retired|date=June 22, 2020,|reason=due to ArbCom. I may edit once in a great while}} --> | |||
| <!--*After a protracted absence, I returned in the spring of this year, although I'm not sure exactly why. I'm still deeply disturbed by the governance at Misplaced Pages and the WMF, and I doubt that will ever change. I could say more but don't think it's appropriate. --> | |||
| {{archive box|search=yes|auto=long}} | {{archive box|search=yes|auto=long}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 63 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 10 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |algo = old(5d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Bbb23/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Bbb23/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| <table class="messagebox standard-talk"> | |||
| <tr><td>] | |||
| <td align="left" width="100%"> | |||
| *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. | |||
| </table> | |||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| == User Ayohama SPI == | |||
| == Notice of Dispute resolution discussion == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. | |||
| {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" | | |||
| {{collapse top|bg=#cae1ff|bg2=#f0f8ff|Guide for participants}} | |||
| If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the '''''"Request dispute resolution"''''' button below this guide or go to ] for an easy to follow, step by step request form. | |||
| {{center|'''What this noticeboard is:'''}} | |||
| * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after ] discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. | |||
| {{center|'''What this noticeboard is not:'''}} | |||
| * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about '''article content''', not disputes about '''user conduct'''. | |||
| * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are ] at other ]. | |||
| * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been ] (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. | |||
| * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. | |||
| {{center|'''Things to remember:'''}} | |||
| * Discussions should be ], calm, ], ], and objective. Comment only about the article's ''content'', not ]. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. | |||
| * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{tls|drn-notice}} on their user talk page. | |||
| * Sign and date your posts with ] {{nowrap|"<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>"}}. | |||
| * If you ever need any help, ask one of ], who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located ] and on the DR/N talkpage. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> | |||
| == Sorry Bbb23 == | |||
| All I was doing was reverting vandalism made by ]. If you can see on ], ], ] and ], the user has made changes without requesting to do so on the talk pages. He also renamed the ] as WWE World Heavyweight Championship. ] (]) 22:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :How is that vandalism?--] (]) 22:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::What do you mean? ] (]) 22:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::You labeled the other user's edits as ]. Reverting actual vandalism is an exemption to edit warring. However, the exemption is generally construed rather narrowly. I don't see how the change you mentioned above constitutes vandalism. You may not like it. It may well be that a consensus of editors would agree with you, but that doesn't make it vandalism.--] (]) 22:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So, you're saying that what DacshundsRule did was ok? But what about renaming World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) to WWE World Heavyweight Championship? ] (]) 22:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm saying it's not vandalism and therefore neither of you can edit war about it without risking a block.--] (]) 22:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It appears that DachshundsRule has started edit warring on the List of current champions in WWE against ] over profile placement. The profiles list links the wrestlers webpage on WWE.com and when list the individual profiles of a tag team, we list them alphabetically. ] (]) 04:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Barnstar == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The good heart barnstar.''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | It took me like about 187 tries to make this thing, .. but anyway. Thank you Bbb ... I really do appreciate how you treat folks as real people. You know the "why" and all ... so just thanks. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 04:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| Awww crap ... I'll fix the damned thing tomorrow. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 04:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey, thanks, Ched, I appreciate all your hard work in trying to give me a most unusual barnstar (heartstar?). Anyway, I "fixed" it, although I'm not sure whether you wanted the message itself to be a large font. If it's not precisely the way you want it, you can go ahead and toy with it, but don't forget the substance of the message is far more important than the look. Besides, I think it looks pretty good. Regards.--] (]) 14:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You wrote in the edit summary, "particularly G4": is the article substantially different to that deleted in ]? Thanks, ] (]) 09:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, very, I looked at the old one.--] (]) 13:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Kuyi123w == | |||
| ... is not going quietly into the night! ]. ] (]) 15:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, the IP is blocked and tagged.--] (]) 15:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Unilaterally Declaring a Discussion "Closed" in Talk (Alex Jones) == | |||
| Is this appropriate behavior? | |||
| ] | |||
| Though the topic got off to an unproductive start, I think some valid edits can come from it. | |||
| I didn't want to challenge the boxing-off of the discussion directly, because I'd never seen anything like it and didn't know if it was an authoritative move or not. | |||
| Do you have any advise on this? | |||
| ] (]) 14:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Having glanced at the discussion, I see that absolutely ZERO of the accusations about this ] had a single reference or suggested source - it was all personal opinion. As such, I can understand closing it as a "discussion ''about'' the subject", which still needs to meet ] and non-] requirements. Of course, you spoke directly to the person who closed the discussion first, right...because I'm sure they would have told you the same thing (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 14:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Occupation of Aafia Siddiqui == | |||
| You undid an edit where I changed Aafia Siddiqui's occupation from "former neuroscientist" to "terrorist" and commented that I did not give a citation to my change. I did give a citation, to the FBI most wanted list. The citation for neuroscientist is the one I found questionable. The cited article does refer to Siddiqui as a neuroscientist, but from all information this appears to be her training, and there is little evidence (none cited) that she was ever employed as a neuroscientist after receiving her PhD. Perhaps if determining an occupation is too difficult or controversial, her occupation should simply be removed. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I agree with you about the neuroscientist and have removed it. We cannot say her occupation is "terrorist". First, it's not an occupation. Second, it's a legal term, and she was neither charged nor convicted of terrorism.--] (]) 22:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Editwarring again? == | |||
| I have to assume you are an administrator on WP. I can find no indication but you had commented on ]'s complaint against ] at ANI recently. He is now injecting the same edit into ] and I have reverted twice, so far. I not only believe the ] is false and unsubstantiated, but should not used in redirect only titles. Could you please advise and/or monitor this? Thank you!. ] (]) 14:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Tag you removed == | |||
| My understanding is that you removed a speedy deletion tag from ] which appears to be a recreation with a different title of the recently deleted essay=article ]. When an experienced user starts a PROD, please be a little more careful. ] (]) 22:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :You would have made my life easier had you tagged it properly. Your comments on the talk page of the article were just plain wrong. I just deleted it per ].--] (]) 22:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was a gibberish essay unfortunately, so there was nothing "plain wrong". It took a while for me, not being an administrator, to discover that it was recreating a deleted article. I also opened an SPI/CU request and will probably ask for full protection of ] (not a wonderful article, but not one for a new user or users to change in a radical way). ] (]) 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, Mathsci, your intentions were good, but the tag was absolutely dead wrong. If you want to raise a concern about an article and you don't understand speedy delete tags, then talk to an admin before doing anything. I've commented at ].--] (]) 23:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The two editors who created this essay-like content are almost certainly the same person. That person is currently causing continued disruption on ]. ] (]) 23:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As I said at ANI, I believe there's a relationship between the editors, but I don't know if they are the same person. It's possible, but, if you recall, Jhicks said on the talk page of the now-deleted article that there were four undergraduate students who collaborated on the article, so it's also possible that each account belongs to a different student. I have no idea, frankly. As far as I can tell, the disruption at ] has stopped. I've removed the hat note, and I have it on my watchlist. If there's further disruption, I'll consider warnings and/or blocks.--] (]) 23:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == SPI == | |||
| Please see ] and ] --] (]) 01:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I will not change back your reversion of my undoing of the edits by ], an identified IP sockpuppet of the notorious ], in the ] article as you (as opposed to he/she) have now taken responsibility for them. However to understand why ''all'' edits no matter how "reasonable" they may seem that are made by this individual are automatically reverted by the community please see Section 2 (particularly §2.2) of his/her LTA page ]. This long term abuser has been disruptively editing and wikistalking on WP for ''eight'' years (since 2005) using more then 300 sockpuppets (mostly IPs) and was ] for life from the project on July 18, 2010. For that reason any and all edits made by him/her are always reverted as a matter of policy as soon as they are identified irrespective of what they are as doing so has proved to be the ''only'' way to keep him/her "in check" and minimize the damage he/she does to the project. ] (]) 17:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Centpacrr, I understand and appreciate the points you're making and the policy, and I don't blame you a bit for reverting. The IP made various small edits that weren't really a big deal one way or the other, but the one about the BBC correspondent I felt any reasonable editor would have made, so I just restored it. You're obviously more familiar with this than I am, so if it isn't too much work, could you explain how you spotted the IP? I don't really want to read the wall of text about the banned editor's history. Thanks.--] (]) 18:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Spotting this LTA is actually very easy for me. He/she almost always starts a wikistalking attack on one of his/her many victims by making such small, seemingly reasonable, edits to pages in which the victim has been recently active with the expectation that those edits will then be reverted. He/she then starts a "complaint" in one of the many WP forums claiming innocence and seeking redress, etc (see ] and ] for examples although there are many more). His/her ] IPs are always easy to identify because (as does this one) they ''always'' to AT&T servers located in SW or central Connecticut in the general vicinity of Hartford. ] (]) 18:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::*'''Additional Comment:''' This LTA often "goes quiet" for a few months to half a year but always eventually returns to his wikistalking practices. This is his/her second virtually identical such attack in his/her current "reappearance" which began last month with one to the article ] which he/she initiated with a newly registered (now blocked) sockpuppet a couple of weeks ago. (See entry #14 ] for a brief account of that attack and how Techwriter2B was quickly identified.) ] (]) 18:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Centpacrr, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your last comments, but I've been off-wiki for hours. Thank you for going to the extra trouble to explain.--] (]) 22:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I don't see why you reverted my edits to ] when I had sourced them. - ] ] · ] (]) 22:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :There's sourcing and there's sourcing. Your source was insufficient for the one sentence you added, and even more insufficient to add the LGBT category in violation of ]. The source was not ] as it's an advocacy periodical. Worse, it's just a list of people that the ''source'' has identified as gay. Nowhere does it say that Cook has said he is gay.--] (]) 22:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! - ] ] · ] (]) 23:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] Article == | |||
| Was it really necessary to delete my comments on the article talk page and block me? I'm assuming that it has been proved that I am not the SP that you claimed that I was. (your explanation for deleting my edit and talk-page section. | |||
| Since your reason is incorrect, I am undoing your edit to the article's talk page. | |||
| Also. You deleted my edit to the article for that reason as well, and then you stated an objection to the NEW source that I had added, (an incorrect objection, because I think that you said that I re-posted the same primary source that had already been deleted.-which I did but I also found a neutral source as well). | |||
| Would you have a problem with keeping further discussions about the Harvey Levin article on the article's talk page? If not, I would prefer to discuss it there.] (]) 01:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :For the moment, I'm cutting you some slack while waiting for the SPI to conclude (nothing's been "proved"). However, I suggest you stay away from the Levin article and the Levin article talk page. Otherwise, I may block you again and for a longer period of time. I'm going to revert your changes to the article and talk page now. Consider yourself '''warned''' for the future.--] (]) 02:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was "proven" two days ago There is no reason to revert the talk page and I have not restored the military reference. I am actually working on that because I was incorrect and I did provide an additional/better source but it was still a primary from tmz.com and i agree with you that it would be better to find a different source. | |||
| ::This really doesn't have a lot to do with the military question anyways if you would read my section that you keep deleting on the talk page. I am trying to add more info to the article and you are deleting everything that I am entering.And what do you mean by "Don't touch this page? Are you serious? I'm finding more info. and I already had to wait for the stupid block to expire.You are deleting stuff that has nothing to do with the information that you originally claimed that I was trying to sock back into the article. ] (]) 03:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Asking you to step back and not edit the page while the SPI investigation is ongoing is a perfectly reasonable request. Declaring that you intend to edit the page anyway will simply result in you getting blocked for a week or two. If a Misplaced Pages administrator tells you to do something and you disagree, the proper course of action is to obey anyway and to calmly present your argument in the appropriate forum. If your arguments are sound, the restriction will be lifted. --] (]) 07:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ani close == | |||
| Your close of the LBW thread is timely and reasonable -- especially since, as you note, it's for a block, not a ban. However, since the purpose of a close is to determine consensus of the community discussion, not "supervote" I'm requesting you remove the following comments from the closing statement and move to a statement at the bottom of the thread. | |||
| ''Somewhat reluctantly, I want to comment on two users in this discussion. Konjakupoet should have kept their comments factual and civil. They don’t help themselves by some of the intemperate comments in this discussion. PBS should have reduced his role as an advocate for Little Ben. PBS’s comments, for the most part, did not help.'' | |||
| Thanks, <small>]</small> 16:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with Ent - it's a good block, and a well-reasoned one. I also agree with regards to the positioning of that comment. Also, I'm glad someone has finally, one way or another, taken action, as that thread was beginning to go around in circles (more so than it had been). ] ] 16:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : {{ec}} I was just looking at that and doing some of the math myself. I'm actually glad I did the refresh in time to see that you had done the work. Not an easy one to be sure, and I compliment you for being willing to step up and do that. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 16:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was indeed a difficult close. Thanks, Ched. As for the comments about the two users in my closing statement, I understand the objection, but, for the moment, I'm going to let it stand as I'm not persuaded that I'm not entitled to make those comments in the statement itself, particularly after having had to read the whole thing. :-) I'm open to changing my mind on that point if I hear something I find more compelling, athough I don't want to turn any discussion here into a mini ANI. One's enough (not counting Drmies's ANI2 - and isn't there an ANI3 somewhere (Dennis?)?). --] (]) 17:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Keifer.Wolfowitz is asking someone to review the closure, which doesn't really make sense, as the closure was very well explained. ] ] 17:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| FYI: , and I would appreciate a reply. -- ] (]) 10:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I prefer not to contribute to that thread, but I'll reply here. I'll repeat your questions: | |||
| :<blockquote>Of the statements I made above which one do you think most typifies my advocacy for Little Ben? Which one of my comment do you think is the least helpful?</blockquote> | |||
| :Before I give you an answer, let me give you a brief overview. My sense in reading the long discussion was at times like reading an RfA where some editors "badger" the voters. That's what I felt you were doing. As for your specific questions, they're hard to answer as framed. I found your constant bickering with Konjakupoet to be unhelpful. I understand the issue of ], but you were carrying it to an extreme. Regardless of Konjakupoet's motives, they had brought legitimate allegations about topic ban violations, and that ''should'' have been the central focus of the discussion, not Konjakupoet's behavior. That said, the comments of yours I liked the least were when you questioned support votes. For example, you made the following ''identical'' comment to Bushranger and Cúchullain's support votes: "I can understand if he has exhausted your patience and you would support a ban, but how have you assessed what the "community's patience" is (as I doubt that 1% of active users will comment here)?" Neither editor answered you, which I also think was telling. I hope this explanation is adequate, even if you don't agree with me.--] (]) 23:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please see -- ] (]) 17:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * @ PBS. As an administrator yourself you know that it is often a difficult task. Those who deal with the various AN boards are often in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position. I know that we all chose to run that RfA gauntlet, and we need to accept the consequences. Yes, there is a "but" coming here. I think we need to be more supportive of each other as a collective group. It is perfectly acceptable and often even a good idea to ask "what was your reasoning" in any given instance, but I think it's also preferable to accept the responses we get. In looking back at that thread which Bbb closed, I can clearly appreciate that much of the conversation there did not belong on an AN type board, but rather would have been better placed at a user talk page. Outside of the 20:0 situations which occur very rarely, determining consensus is a ]. Please consider how you would feel if you were in those shoes, and perhaps consider giving Bbb a bit of good faith. Just a thought. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 18:55, 30 April 2013 (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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :Good job.--] (]) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Will Gao edits retracted: == | |||
| Umm ..could I just ask whether you're really happy with blocking this user in the way you did? The gist of her helpdesk post was a report of abusive vandalism to her userpage by a real-life stalker with a grudge, who sent a gloating email to tell her he'd done it, and an appeal for page protection to stop it happening again. Sure, deleting the promo userpage was the best solution to that problem - no point in protecting something so utterly unsuitable. I'd also concur with removing the unnecessary copy email from her HD post. Maybe a brief explanation about why her userpage was unsuitable and what Misplaced Pages is and is not? But striking her question altogether and indeffing her for being the subject of a personal attack? I know she wasn't a productive contributor, but her IP stalker must be rubbing his hands with glee at this outcome. - ]] 18:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Regardless of the basis for the block, as you say in a somewhat understated fashion, she was not a "productive contributor" and, in my view, deserved to be blocked. As for the IPs and their attacks, I have no idea who she is or who she says she is, and I don't much care. I saw no benefit to the project to airing all this in a public forum. In my view, the best course was to eliminate the source of the problem. As for the IP, he or she can do whatever he or she likes off-wiki, just as she can. I would have taken a different approach had she done ''anything'' at Misplaced Pages that indicated that she was here to edit constructively.--] (]) 18:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough. I'll bear in mind that help requests under ] can be interpreted as blockable trolling until the requester has made sufficient constructive contributions. Thanks for the heads-up. - ]] 18:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| If you listen to the podcast on the page, the edits I made are exactly what's said by Will Gao on the podcast. | |||
| == KikeFolan == | |||
| Same with the edits made on Will's sister's, Olivia Gao's page. ] (]) 13:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I've noticed you blocked ] for his username. Well, he is back under IP:186.149.211.101 and has edited the same way as KikeFolan. Can you block the IP address? ] (]) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Renewed edit warring== | |||
| :It's not a typical block, so I don't think ] applies.--] (]) 00:25, 30 April 2013 (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) | |||
| == Re: Bad cop == | |||
| :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 | |||
| Thanks for the support. Admittedly I'm not the most experienced with official mentoring, so thanks for early feedback. Officer Hink, over and out. ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 00:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| attle of Hogwarts, as some editors seem to rely on.] (] <b>·</b> ]) 13:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) , | |||
| == @] trying to evade his block == | |||
| == Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Mark Millar == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding an Infobox photo ]? Thanks. ] (]) 07:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}}.--] (]) 02:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have no idea why you asked me, but I "voted" anyway. :-) | |||
| == Talking about Quebec == | |||
| == ] thread on ] == | |||
| look @], some people speaks English in Quebec, sometimes, I don't speak French, I only speak English ] (]) 09:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| MezzoMezzo has indicated you have some experience of the dispute on the ] article, and related articles. Now, I can't remember when and if you did, but I'm getting increasingly concerned that the only admin who has shown anything approaching a consistent interest is ], whom, quite rightly, isn't willing to take any action as they are ]. There has been a notification about an SPI case by one admin, and another admin has come in specifically to refute one point Am Not New made, but otherwise, nada. If you have time, could you have a look please? (Hopefully you understand this rambling, I'm stressed and tired out at present, for non-Wiki reasons!) ] ] 09:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :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 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) | |||
| == |
== AMRABDELMOGHETHM == | ||
| Hi Bbb23, could you take a look at user {{noping|AMRABDELMOGHETHM}}, I'm sensing a ] issue. ] (]) 14:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I am sending this message to the users who I have closely collaborated with. I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well, so I have more important things to worry about. I, however, will be here to contribute to some articles that I have worked on. Until then, farewell. With my very best and warmest regards, ] (] - ]) 20:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:More vandalism than incompetence, but the gibberish makes it tough to know. Blocked.--] (]) 14:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks for taking a look. ] (]) 14:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I know people who have gone longer than that without showering. It's all relative. ]{{SubSup||]|]}} 20:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Wait a second here LGR ... I take a shower every single Saturday night .. whether I need it or not. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 22:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:52, 14 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)
AMRABDELMOGHETHM
Hi Bbb23, could you take a look at user AMRABDELMOGHETHM, I'm sensing a CIR issue. Nobody (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- More vandalism than incompetence, but the gibberish makes it tough to know. Blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. Nobody (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)