Misplaced Pages

• 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.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

Sorry Bbb23

All I was doing was reverting vandalism made by User:‎DachshundsRule. If you can see on WWE Raw, WWE SmackDown, WWE and List of WWE personnel, the user has made changes without requesting to do so on the talk pages. He also renamed the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) as WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

How is that vandalism?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You labeled the other user's edits as vandalism. 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 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? Keith Okamoto (talk) 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that DachshundsRule has started edit warring on the List of current champions in WWE against User:Oknazevad 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. Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The good heart barnstar.
		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. — Ched :  ?  04:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Awww crap ... I'll fix the damned thing tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  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.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

6WIND

You wrote in the edit summary, "particularly G4": is the article substantially different to that deleted in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/6WIND? Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very, I looked at the old one.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Kuyi123w

... is not going quietly into the night! Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kuyi123w. JohnInDC (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, the IP is blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 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?

Notanipokay (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Having glanced at the discussion, I see that absolutely ZERO of the accusations about this person 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 WP:BLP and non-WP:OR 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 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.140.254 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 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 User:G PViB's complaint against User:Wtshymanski at ANI recently. He is now injecting the same edit into AC transformer 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!. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Tag you removed

My understanding is that you removed a speedy deletion tag from Evolutionary Psychology of Culture which appears to be a recreation with a different title of the recently deleted essay=article Evolution and Culture. When an experienced user starts a PROD, please be a little more careful. Mathsci (talk) 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 WP:CSD#G4.--Bbb23 (talk) 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 Evolutionary psychology (not a wonderful article, but not one for a new user or users to change in a radical way). Mathsci (talk) 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 WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 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 evolutionary psychology. Mathsci (talk) 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 Evolutionary psychology 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Albert14nx05y and Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#IP Editor and DRN Volunteer? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

LTA Techwriter2B

I will not change back your reversion here of my undoing of the edits by 70.134.228.56, an identified IP sockpuppet of the notorious LTA Techwriter2B, in the Frederick Forsyth 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 here. 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 "community banned" 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. Centpacrr (talk) 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 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 here and here for examples although there are many more). His/her DHCP IPs are always easy to identify because (as does this one) they always geolocate to AT&T servers located in SW or central Connecticut in the general vicinity of Hartford. Centpacrr (talk) 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 USS Akron (ZRS-4) which he/she initiated with a newly registered (now blocked) sockpuppet "BMCann" a couple of weeks ago. (See entry #14 here for a brief account of that attack and how Techwriter2B was quickly identified.) Centpacrr (talk) 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Tim Cook

I don't see why you reverted my edits to Tim Cook when I had sourced them. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 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 WP:BLPCAT. The source was not reliable 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Harvey Levin 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.24.0.133.234 (talk) 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 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. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 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, NE Ent 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). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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. — Ched :  ?  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?)?). --Bbb23 (talk) 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. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI: see here, and I would appreciate a reply. -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I prefer not to contribute to that thread, but I'll reply here. I'll repeat your questions:

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?

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 WP:BOOMERANG, 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see my reply -- PBS (talk) 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 no win scenario. 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. — Ched :  ?  18:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Cindysinx

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. - Karenjc 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll bear in mind that help requests under WP:NPA can be interpreted as blockable trolling until the requester has made sufficient constructive contributions. Thanks for the heads-up. - Karenjc 18:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

KikeFolan

I've noticed you blocked User:KikeFolan 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? Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a typical block, so I don't think WP:EVASION applies.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Bad cop

Thanks for the support. Admittedly I'm not the most experienced with official mentoring, so thanks for early feedback. Officer Hink, over and out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Mark Millar

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding an Infobox photo here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why you asked me, but I "voted" anyway. :-)

WP:ANI thread on User:Am Not New

MezzoMezzo has indicated you have some experience of the dispute on the Barelvi 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 User:Qwyrxian, whom, quite rightly, isn't willing to take any action as they are WP:INVOLVED. 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!) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Farewell

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, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably a good idea for all of us to take more breaks from Misplaced Pages, but when it gets to a point where you feel you need a break, it's a wise person who acts on their feelings. Best of luck with your exams!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I know people who have gone longer than that without showering. It's all relative.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  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. — Ched :  ?  22:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)