| Revision as of 14:32, 2 September 2014 view sourceCSDarrow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,671 edits →BLP on Talk:Men's rights movement← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:52, 13 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,076 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Bbb23/Archive 63) (bot | ||
| 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 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{clear}} | |||
| <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}} | |||
| == Deletion == | |||
| Hello. This is Jayson37373737. you deleted my page for no reason. That was my loveliest work! For this, I am going to try to delete my account and start a new website. Thank you. ] | |||
| 11:08, 17 August 2014 (GMC) | |||
| ==Citation tags== | |||
| With reference to several discussions we had on 1RR and reverts - this is one - you said something about citation tags, but I cannot find that discussion anywhere. I wanted to check when moving a citation tag becomes a revert and whether affixing one counts as a revert. I know 24 hours must elapse between affixing a tag to text and removing the tag and text if not dealt with in that time, but am not sure of the revert rule here. Can you elucidate, please? --] (]) 15:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :24 hours? Where does it say that? Adding one wouldn't normally be a revert (if it hadn't been removed recently), but removing one and or the text would probably be (although replacing one with a source obviously isn't). ] (]) 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree with Doug.--] (]) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, I meant 24 hours as a rule of thumb. I think that was the conclusion reached on the Talk page before I removed a tag recently. --] (]) 20:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think we're talking at cross purposes here, so if Doug's answer didn't resolve the issue, perhaps you can rephrase your question.--] (]) 23:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am clear now about citation needed tags and reverts. I want to know how long a citation needed tag should be left in place before it can be removed along with the text it is appended to if a citation is not provided in that time. Twenty-four hours was mentioned on the Talk page as being reasonable. --] (]) 08:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| While I understand to a certain degree why you've removed the DUI arrest content at the Glen Campbell article, I'd like to know your complete rationale behind it in light of ] and how we don't work to whitewash articles. During interviews since his dementia diagnosis, Campbell's wife has said that she started to notice changes in Campbell's cognitive ability and behaviors that have now been attributed to his neurological deterioration due to the dementia. I think the DUI could be very briefly mentioned in this vein, but definitely agree the arrest doesn't deserve its own section. Thoughts? Comments? Thanks, -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 15:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It's very old and has nothing to do with his career. If it could be tied with reliable sources to his later dementia, that ''might'' be more noteworthy, but we can't work from ]. And this has nothing to do with censorship and whitewashing. Those are inflammatory words that load any constructive dialog.--] (]) 19:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI discussion == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --]] 04:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *The above AN/I discussion has been closed as endorsing Bbb23's actions with near unanimous support from the uninvolved editors who commented. ]] 20:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==User: Cwobeel== | |||
| You cut this guy a break the other day and you did not block him from editing even though he was edit warring on two different articles. Now, he promised you he would not edit war, but he is at the ] article edit warring again. Can you enforce the limitations that you placed upon him when you cut him a break. MrX and Cwobeel are engaging in tag team edit warring again today, just one day later.--] (]) 18:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :(sigh) There is nothing going on right now at ] that requires admin attention. All is well. You arn't being held to any different standard than anyone else. Cwobeel is already under the same limitations per ] and ].--v/r - ]] 21:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|NazariyKaminski}}, I know you can't respond here because you've been blocked for a month, but you can read it if you have a mind to. First, going back to editing the same article that provoked a one-week block right after expiration of that block is inherently dangerous. Second, you didn't go back with gnomish edits, but with reverts, essentially continuing to edit-war, regardless of whether you breached 3RR. Third, you were warned by another administrator ({{U|MastCell}}) about your behavior, but all you did was argue. Indeed, as far as I can tell, you argue with pretty much everyone. Finally, {{U|Cwobeel}} is not the problem at the Perry article. His unblock condition was limited to two articles, and they don't include the Rick Perry article. In any event, I don't see any evidence of him breaching 3RR. He reverted once in the last 24 hours. I endorse {{U|Dreadstar}}'s block. You clearly have no insight into your disruptive behavior.--] (]) 01:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==1RR and 79.223.15.144 and Fossfaat == | |||
| Hi Bbb23. Since you are an uninvolved admin, please take a look at this starting at 23:37, 27 August 2014. I may be wrong but each one of the two editors has unintentionally violated 1RR. Also, Fossfaat doesn't seem to understand the meaning of minor edit. ] (]) 02:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Envivio== | |||
| Hello this is Marcalsig. Why do you think I'm doing advertising? I'm just giving neutral info about a company. For your information, before making it, I looked to similar companies' (such a Elemental or Harmonic Inc.) wikipedia article to know what was the best way to do it. I just want to inform as you do with your articles. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Your editing is disruptive. It is promotional. You remove maintenance templates without reason. You commit copyright infringement, which, in and of itself is a blockable offense. You said you would talk to the "Misplaced Pages managers" if editors continued to revert you. I'm not sure if you even know what that means, but to the extent anyone "manages" Misplaced Pages, it is a group of administators. I am one, and so is {{U|Drmies}}. I suggest you tread more carefully as you are very close to losing your editing privileges at Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 05:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==1RR and Gazkthul== | |||
| Hi Bbb23. | |||
| I thought I'd bring it to your attention the 2RR and by ] (]) to take a quick look, if warranted. BTW, if, for any reason, you want me to cease and desist such heads up messages about perceivable 1RR, and I say perceivable because the ultimate decision obviously lies with you, please let me know. ] (]) 06:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :One more edit for your consideration. ] (]) 06:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==1RR and Green Cardamom== | |||
| Are reviewers exempt of 1RR restrictions in a 1RR article? If no, then I'll just bring to your attention the 1RR+ by ] (]) at starting at 13:34, 27 August 2014 and ending at 04:21, 28 August 2014 Green Cardamom, with probably more reverts coming, to take a quick look, if warranted. ] (]) 06:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :"Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction '''when reverting logged-in users'''." (emphasis added). And those reverts were not really. The material added by the IP remained in the article, I'm fine with it, there was no revert by the end of the series of edits which were party due to my confusion over what was being done. "Probably more reverts coming", huh? Does this have to do with our ongoing content dispute over linking to the James Foley video that you and a few other editors are trying so hard to include without much success. -- ]] 14:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: This is not personal GreenC. When I see 1RR situation, I bring it to the attention of Bbb23, as an uninvolved admin, until it asks me not to do so. I have no edit conflict with you at all, quite the opposite. However, your saying "Does this have to do with our ongoing content dispute over linking to the James Foley video that '''you'''... are trying so hard to include" is '''false'''... I have NEVER included a video. I am making sure to state this for the record. The fact remains that other editors, including me, are adhering to the 1RR. ] (]) 18:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::No one ever said you ''weren't'' adhering to 1RR. Personally I think you (anyone) will be better off minding their own business and not worry what other editors are doing unless it impacts you directly. Also 1RR is easy to run afoul of without realizing it and much better handled with warnings on talk pages than telling admins unless it's a repeated infraction ''after'' warning. -- ]] 21:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree in part and disagree in part. Have a good day. ] (]) 22:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} {{ping|Worldedixor}} I'm going to ask you not to post any more of these kinds of messages on my talk page. I'm not accusing you of bad faith, but I feel like I'm becoming a clearing house for your complaints about other editors. If you believe an editor has violated ], you may file a report at ]. Thanks for your understanding.--] (]) 23:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand, Bbb23. Got it. It was all in good faith, and now I agree with GreenC's statement: '''''anyone will be better off minding their own business and not worry what other editors are doing unless it impacts them directly'''''. ] (]) 23:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi, ] has ] ancestry. and ] are mixed Turkmen and Azerbaijani people. but ] remove picture of Nader shah from this ]. plz investigation--<font size="+1" face="phalls Khodkar, B Fantezy, B Ferdosi" color="#9966FF">''']'''<sup>]</sup></font> 07:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :No need for investigation since he has no sources and he's playing with history. Tiny Afshar tribe exist today and they are linguistically assimilated into larger groups, and he's trying to imply that to 18th century. I left reply with explanation and analogies. --] (]) 08:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Please do not police my talk page == | |||
| I appreciate your intent, but I think policing other people's talk pages as you did in is a mistake. Had ] spammed a huge number of user pages some sort of mass reversion might have been appropriate. As best I can tell, I really need that username hit a small number of people manually in a sincere if mistaken effort. That sort of thing is probably best dealt with by the users with whom the talk pages are associated. — ] | ] 15:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Alan De Smet}} I removed the comment because the editor was a sock puppet. I will continue to revert when I think it's appropriate, no matter what the page (I wasn't "policing" your talk page). If you wish to restore a reverted comment, barring some policy-based reason for not doing so, that's your privilege.--] (]) 22:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Second one you beat me to. This means I can turn in. ] (]) 04:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You should already have turned in. It's late there. Besides, at your age you need your rest.--] (]) 04:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == deletion of pms awareness page == | |||
| I posted an article today, and it was deleted because it is "obviously" made up. I will agree that it is "obviously" made up, since it is something that was started 2 days ago amongst a group of friends, with the goal of spreading the idea. At what point is this subject no longer "obviously" made up and able to be posted in Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 22:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :When the subject is reported with significant coverage in multiple ].--] (]) 22:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ok, thank you. I will have to wait, then! thanks for the prompt response. ] (]) 22:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you == | |||
| Thanks for pointing out my mis-click. I have fixed it ] 01:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Please explain == | |||
| "We don't preventatively block editors". Well, there's this policy: If admins don't preventatively block, then what does "preventative not punitive" mean in light of the policy link I posted above? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 02:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Also Bbb23, please see , concerning misuse of rollback. It's one thing if it were done by mistake or was something they realize is inappropriate, but defending their use of rollback to engage in edit-waring makes it clear that Winkelvi needs to have their rollback user right removed until they can demonstrate that they know ]. Enforcing what they believe is a "consensus" in an ongoing discussion has never been a proper use of rollback. - ] (]) 04:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::What is your problem, ]? As I stated at the 3RR noticeboard (more than once, I might add), I am almost completely certain I did NOT use regular rollback on that edit. I am 99.99% certain I used Twinkle rollback - it's not the same as someone having rollback rights using those rollback rights. Anyone in Misplaced Pages can get and use Twinkle to rollback. Once again: that revert was not done with rollback that is granted as a user right and privilege. And I most certainly was not demonstrating edit warring behavior. You're way off base, here. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 04:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: is a twinkle rollback and is one without an edit summary I created, while is one you just created. Those examples include {TW} at the end, while your use of rollback . That is, however, ultimately irrelevant. If you believe that would be an appropriate use of rollback, as you said it was, then that shows a critical lack of understanding of what rollback is used for, and as such you should have the rollback user right removed until you can demonstrate otherwise. ''That'' is the problem, that you don't know what rollback should be used for, the issue isn't solely that you misused it, though that only adds to the issue. Furthermore, the fact that you don't believe that repeatedly undoing another editor's edits during an ongoing discussion is edit-warring, well that's a separate issue. - ] (]) 05:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}], you mentioned at the 3RR noticeboard that because there was no edit summary that it was a rollback. I assume you are saying that based on that alone, you feel I used the rollback privilege rather than using Twinkle's version of rollback. I still don't believe that is what happened. If you choose "rollback (VANDAL)" (as opposed to or just ), it does not give you an opportunity to add an edit summary. While I still maintain I did not (intentionally) choose either the rollback privilege or vandal rollback from Twinkle, I will say that I may have done either. But not meaning to. I do NOT use Rollback (the privilege given and based on trust) hardly ever - unless it is obvious vandalism. I MAY have chosen Twinkle vandal rollback, but I don't think so. I probably used Twinkle rollback and forgot to leave an edit summary. I'm not an editor who would try to play games or use what's been entrusted to me in an inappropriate manner. That's just not who I am. I think that having rollback as long as I have and never having an issue or inappropriate use incident or complaint in the past would attest to that fact. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 05:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :To me, it doesn't matter how you do it; the idea is that when you revert an editor, not including an edit summary is the equivalent of rollback. I tend to agree with Aoidh that if you had used Twinkle, it would have shown up in the edit (mine do, I believe). The whole issue of Twinkle and rollback is a contentious one with no clear solution, at least last time I checked. But it's late and I don't feel like continuing this conversation. I'm not going to remove your rollback privilege. I have no comment on whether it should be removed, but I don't feel comfortable doing so because I don't get into permissions much and I don't like taking administrative action in an area unless I feel cofident that what I'm doing is correct. Now, could we all just go do something else? I'm sick of seeing the orange banner.--] (]) 05:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == A possible sock puppet but not sure if I should do a report but... == | |||
| Okay so this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Divyasharma2014 keeps on making articles for a company named ], which is then owned by ] (apparently who knows) which was made by https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:SabriBrothers. Then finally they both contributed to https://en.wikipedia.org/Sabri_brothers_india which was made by the user https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rohit2014 | |||
| Yeah this is getting confusing. ] (]) 05:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Matter concerning Robin Williams' childrem == | |||
| Hello Bbb23 I don't mean to bother you but still I would like to explain myself clearly to you. I'm commenting here because you said on ANI that no one should comment anymore. The editor Winklevi had removed the names of Robin's children from his article's infobox. I didn't know that you can't add the name of children in the infobox who are not noticeable. Also there was never any consensus on removing the name of children's name. However since Zelda Rae Williams is noticeable I added her name to it. He removed the name saying it had been already discussed and decided on the talk page. However whether or not her name should be included should depend on a consensus which never was. ] (]) 13:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I folllowed all of that. These sorts of things are usually straightforward, but the Williams issue apparently is a bit more complicated. In any event, as you know, we work from consensus, and sometimes it's hard to obtain one. Just don't let yourself get dragged into an article battle. Not worth it. BTW, the word is "notable," not "noticeable". Good luck.--] (]) 13:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi. Instead of removing my unresolved report, why don't you just take a look at it and get it sorted out? The whole point of the noticeboard is to stop edit warring and have it sorted out. Ignoring cases doesn't solve anything; in fact it just defeats the purpose of having the noticeboard in the first place. ] (]) 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|MrMoustacheMM}}, I would have replied substantively to this inquiry if you hadn't reverted again. As I said in my edit summary just a moment ago, if you revert again, you'll be blocked.--] (]) 16:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Alright, reply now then, I'm listening. ] (]) 16:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You make several assumptions. First, you assume your report was ignored. Administrators evaluate reports. They don't always rule, and they don't always even comment. That doesn't mean the report was ignored. Second, nothing compels an administrator to comment on a report or rule on a report just because it's filed. Third, not ruling on a report doesn't "defeat the purpose" of the noticeboard. I haven't done a statistical analysis, but I would guess that most reports are ruled on. Yours isn't the first, though, that wasn't ruled on; nor will it be the last. Finally, you do not get to insist on a report being ruled on. Nor is it permissible for you to restore an archived report just because it wasn't ruled on. As I said in my first edit summary reverting you, if you have something new to say, e.g., more edit warring since the report was archived, then create a new report. You can always link to the archived report for context.--] (]) 16:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I will start off by apologising for reverting you and restoring my report. As you say, I made several assumptions that were incorrect (although, in my defence, I had no way of knowing they were incorrect). | |||
| ::::Perhaps these should be spelled out on ANEW, as it looked from my perspective that my report was simply ignored. A comment in the top area saying something like "Not all reports are commented on or resolved. If your report is archived without resolution, do not restore it; instead begin a new case if the issue continues." Had a comment like this existed, I wouldn't have restored the report in the first place, and I certainly wouldn't have reverted you. | |||
| ::::Anyway, in this case, should I go ahead and remove the other editor's edits again, and if they again revert, start a new case at ANEW? I want to do this correctly, so please help me with the next step. ] (]) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think most people know about the reports, so adding language to the instructions seems unnecessary. We can't be explicit about everything. Gets too wordy. I'd have to look at the articles and the reverts to give you a definitive answer, but, generally, if a revert seems warranted and ''you'' are not edit warring by doing it, you should be okay. Just don't get sucked into a situation in which you are arugably as guilty as the user you're reporting.--] (]) 17:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Would you mind taking a look? As you say, I don't want to become just as guilty as the user I'm reporting. ] is the main article in question. ] (]) 18:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I would spend your time on the talk page of the article discussing the dispute and hopefully obtaining a consensus rather than reverting. Neither of you has breached 3RR, but both of you have been going back and forth.--] (]) 19:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You blocked this user for two weeks in response to a 3RR complaint. He's had these issues before, and tends to keep reverting regardless of what's happening. He edits in contentious areas, and has been warned of discretionary sanctions related to Eastern European articles (such as the one he was edit warring on that led to his block). I personally don't think a 2-week block is going to alleviate the situation, having dealt with him before. I think that the best thing you could do is place him under 1RR via discretionary sanctions. This would give him ], but it might also teach him the virtues of talk page discussions. His past behaviour has not been alleviated by successive blocks, and so I feel that this might be a more worthwhile way to teach him what he should be doing. ] — ] 14:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not going to change the block at this point, but for the future (if I remember), could you please provide me with the link of his notification of the sanctions? Thanks.--] (]) 18:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The notification can be found . ] — ] 18:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Heh, not hard for you to remember, is it? :-) BTW, someone should have mentioned the DS on the report at AN3. Even you commented without doing so. I don't always think about sanctions, and it would be nice to be alerted to the fact that the article is subject to sanctions. That might have changed the outcome. --] (]) 18:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll do that in future. I didn't think it was necessary. ] — ] 18:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All clueless admins need as much help as they can get.--] (]) 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Book suggestion == | |||
| Bbb23, I noticed you have a wonderful picture of France on your user profile. I stumbled upon a fascinating book and a great study. It's called ''The Discovery of France'' by Graham Robb. And yes, it's a WP:RS! I really suggest it. It gave me an entirely new perception of the country. I think you'll enjoy it. Cheers! ] (]) 18:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey, Étienne, thanks! I love the European countryside generally, but I particularly love the French countryside, not just because it's so beautiful but also because you can eat so well - and I speak the language, although not as well as I used to.--] (]) 19:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The book is exactly about the countryside. How it has transformed these past centuries. How France was only considered 'France' in the Paris region. Everyone else had their own definition of ] and nationhood. It was really an eye-opener for me. ] (]) 19:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Aldota sockpuppet accounts == | |||
| Hi, I can see you added tags to some of the user pages on blocked sockpuppet accounts from ]. However, it would appear that one-by-one throwaway IPs are vandalising these user pages by removing or amending the tags so the account no longer appears in the category. | |||
| I have restored all the tags on all the account I have found, however, you may wish to add the userpages to your watchlist to monitor any potential future vandalism or protect the pages, thanks take care. ] (]) 21:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|Tanbircdq}}, I see you have left this message on the talk pages of many administrators. I appreciate your reverting an IP who changes or removes the tag, but, at the same time, you shouldn't be ''adding'' tags. That is the function of an administrator or an SPI clerk. As for the IP problem, I tend to watchlist those accounts I block but not those accounts I tag. As I'm sure you know, Aldota has a lot of puppets, my watchlist is already over 5,000 pages, and I'm not going to add all of those accounts to it. Also, I don't see it as a major problem. The block of the account normally ties the account to the master, and, of course, the evidence is at the SPI itself.--] (]) 21:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tps}}Not contesting what you've said ], just curious why, if only administrators are to add sock tags, is "Tag" a click-on task that can be accessed and done by non-administrators from an SPI report? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 21:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Generally, the reason is that administrators and clerks have a reason to tag (and what kind of tag) or not to tag, and it's not a good idea to usurp that function. Another editor, however, is welcome to come and ask the clerk or one of the administrators involved in the SPI about a particular tag or lack of tag.--] (]) 22:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wasn't aware that because non-admins can perform the function it would be seen as stepping on toes and not kosher to do so. Now I am hanging my head a bit since I've done it without asking more than once. Well, not really hanging my head, but I am certainly feeling a bit sheepish. I'll be sure to ask in the future. Thanks for taking the time to explain. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 22:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No worries and no need to feel "sheepish".--] (]) 23:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| I've noticed you have been involved in the recent block of the above user and there is currently a discussion at ] that might benefit from your input. ] (])(]) 21:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Akshatra == | |||
| You think this user is a sock puppet? ] just blocked him for edit warring. | |||
| I have opened SPI, see ]. ] (]) 03:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry for not responding earlier, but things were a bit hectic for me. I see another clerk is handling it, so you're in good shape.--] (]) 13:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Men's Rights Movement protection level == | |||
| Hi, just curious as to why you changed the protection level? The changes were discussed, and it was found that the reference provided didn't back up the claim (see ]) and the 1R rule was not infringed. <span class="vcard"><span class="nickname">]</span>; ]</span> 05:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :There was no consensus. I've been following the discussion. A violation of 1RR would have resulted in a block of that user. However, I locked the page based on the edit warring by multiple parties, including you.--] (]) 05:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == User Ayohama SPI == | |||
| ::I wasn't edit warring - I reverted once, and then the rest of the discussion occurred on the talk page. <span class="vcard"><span class="nickname">]</span>; ]</span> 05:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let's see. CSDarrow reverted first, followed by PearlSt82, followed by you, followed by Sonicyouth86, again by CSDarrow, and last by EvergreenFir. Although you reverted only once, you were part of the problem as far as I was concerned. You also pushed the envelope by adding tags, which technically were not reverts. No more disussion here. Do it over there. I'm tired and am going off-wiki shortly. I don't have time for this bickering.--] (]) 05:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it based on the number of total reverts rather than those by a single editor? If it was enforced, it would mean Zambelo, Sonicyouth86, CSDarrow and EvergreenFir would all have received blocks as they all reverted after the initial revert, which would stop the debate dead as more than half of its contributors would be blocked --] (]) 12:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm afraid you're wrong. The edit warring revert policy applies by editor. There are, of course, guidelines that address how reverts should be handled by editors after a "first revert" - and editors often argue about their application - but those aren't policy and have little to do with rules like 1RR and 3RR.--] (]) 12:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I see, wouldn't that mean that, if three editors support the version of an article, but two do not, the three would always win in the case of an edit war, or does that change things? How does that stand with ]? Sorry if I'm bothering you --] (]) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's not supposed to be about winning or losing, although it certainly feels that way sometimes. It's supposed to be driven by reasonable consensus, and as you note with DEM, that's not a pure vote-counting exercise. If five editors are edit-warring, regardless of how many want a particular version, it's likely that the article will be locked because of the disruption. Even if it's not - say, for example, no one brings it to the attention of an admin - the two minority editors can always seek a real consensus for resolving the dispute. It's a bit hard to discuss these things in the abstract as context is very important. It's also not what I'd call a scientific process, so there may be judgment calls, and not everyone will agree. It can be painful. BTW, you appear to be editing a great deal in this topic area. Of course, you're not required to do so, but given your apparent interest in somewhat controversial articles and your questions about Misplaced Pages policies, why don't you register an account?--] (]) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I had an account before, I decided I found the community aspects of the website to be really toxic and previous arguments that I had made would later be used against me. I prefer to edit with various IPs because then content disputes become more about the arguments themselves rather than who is making them. I also felt sort of sleazy interacting with racists/sexists on a personal basis, I guess that's the problem with editing in controversial areas. I can imagine the feminist/antifeminist thing will go on for a while, I think many of the antifeminists need the conflict in order to sustain, it seems to make the debates more interesting for them, but they do end up largely being about rhetoric compared to real-life issues and there are rarely references made to books on the subject (the "feminists run academia" thing is just a rebranding of the "cultural Marxism" argument used by racists, it just forces you to use low quality sources). Thank you for the explanation, I hope it gets solved soon --] (]) 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Re: "''I prefer to edit with various IPs because then content disputes become more about the arguments themselves rather than who is making them''" - "You can't do that 94.175.85.144 - that's considered ] and is an inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Especially when editing in an area under probation you need to be transparent with your editing history and whether you had previous accounts--] <sup>]</sup> 14:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Really? I don't quite get why that's a rule but I should probably stop editing in that case --] (]) 14:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::If it wasn't a rule banned editors would simply circumvent their restrictions and do exactly what you've been doing. I'm afraid I don't see why anyone could have such a worry about using an account - did you have a specific problem when you had an account?--] <sup>]</sup> 15:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Also you could continue as you are IF you privately disclose your past account (so that there's no question of ban evasion) to an uninvolved admin (like Bbb23) and leave a note on the IP addresses you use noting that these edits are by the same person. Really it's easier to have an account--] <sup>]</sup> 15:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I know an editor who had an account and who then edited for long stretches of time using IP addresses. However, I - and another admin - knew who the editor was and that they were not violating policy by using IP addresses. Cailil's suggestion is one way to comply with the policy. Sorry our conversation got you into this, @94, but Cailil is correct.--] (]) 15:22, 1 September 2014 (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: == | |||
| == ]== | |||
| If you listen to the podcast on the page, the edits I made are exactly what's said by Will Gao on the podcast. | |||
| Hi Bbb23. Totally respect where you're coming from and I couldn't find anything on wiki but the band in question are all over the internet and getting write ups in US 3D print magazine journals about their music! The single was also played on the BBC Radio 6 music show 6Recommends (). Please will you consider re-establishing the post; althou I'm pretty new here so would value some time to get it right. Many thanks and keep up the good work. | |||
| ] (]) 18:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It's extraordinarily hard to keep an article about a song sung by a band or other artist for which there is no Misplaced Pages article. The article on ] was also deleted (not by me).--] (]) 19:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Same with the edits made on Will's sister's, Olivia Gao's page. ] (]) 13:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion == | |||
| ==Renewed edit warring== | |||
| 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) | |||
| Hello, Bbb23. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:NPOVN-notice--> Thank you.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :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 | |||
| == Redirect == | |||
| attle of Hogwarts, as some editors seem to rely on.] (] <b>·</b> ]) 13:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) , | |||
| == @] trying to evade his block == | |||
| Just to say, my past experience with indefinitely blocked users, especially socks is that their talk pages are often redirected to user pages to avoid confusion, as I did at ].] (]) 20:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Generally, that's a decision the blocking administrator should make rather than a non-admin. My suggestion is if you want to do it, you ask the blocking administrator, or at least some administrator involved in the SPI. Just so it's clear, I don't think you did anything in bad faith. I just prefer to leave it the way it is. Thanks.--] (]) 20:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == BLP on Talk:Men's rights movement == | |||
| :{{done}}.--] (]) 02:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Talking about Quebec == | |||
| Bbb23 I just wanted to point out an edit here that seems to me to be walking a very fine line WRT WP:BLP. It describes a named individual as a "radical nutcase" and another individual as "a highly partisan author". This isn't the worst I've ever seen but CSDarrow's rhetoric and attitude is escalating into inappropriate territories (see also his extremely civil comments to me at NPOVN)--] <sup>]</sup> 22:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| look @], some people speaks English in Quebec, sometimes, I don't speak French, I only speak English ] (]) 09:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Bbb23, Cailil's intemperate tone and suggestions of filibustering are not helpful, here . | |||
| :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) | |||
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)