| Revision as of 01:05, 18 January 2013 view sourceYoureallycan (talk | contribs)12,095 edits →deleting my comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:06, 18 January 2013 view source Bbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,096 edits →deleting my comment: removing entire section including threat - don't post here again on this issueNext edit → | ||
| Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
| :You may recreate the page, but removing the links cited by me will not fix the copyright infringement. You have to reword the article so it does not copy text from other places or even ] text. Two more things. First, the article was originally tagged because it was promotional. I didn't delete it for that reason, but if the article you recreate is promotional, it may get deleted for that reason. Second, you say "can we restore" - who's we? You are not permitted to edit on behalf of a company at Misplaced Pages. See ]. Let me know if you have any other questions--] (]) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | :You may recreate the page, but removing the links cited by me will not fix the copyright infringement. You have to reword the article so it does not copy text from other places or even ] text. Two more things. First, the article was originally tagged because it was promotional. I didn't delete it for that reason, but if the article you recreate is promotional, it may get deleted for that reason. Second, you say "can we restore" - who's we? You are not permitted to edit on behalf of a company at Misplaced Pages. See ]. Let me know if you have any other questions--] (]) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Got it, thanks bbb23, appreciate the guidance! ] (]) 15:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | Got it, thanks bbb23, appreciate the guidance! ] (]) 15:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == deleting my comment == | |||
| Hi regarding this deletion of my comment - - the correct thing for you to have done was move it to the talkpage. Please do such in future if a similar situation occurs - and also - if you delete one of my posts in any administrative/policy compliance action, please do me the decency of letting me know on my talkpage - thanks - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 19:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :You posted a message where you shouldn't have and I removed it with an explanation. I vaguely recall someone else moved it to the talk page, but if they hadn't, you could certainly have done so. The other editor had no obligation to do so, and neither did I. I don't like to presume what other people want, and for all I know, you might have phrased it differently if you'd posted it onto the talk page instead of to the crat page. Frankly, when one posts to such a page, particularly an experienced editor, one would expect that the page would be on their watchlist. I didn't remove your post in my administrative capacity. As for correctness and decency, you should be mildly annoyed (your error wasn't a big deal) with yourself for not following instructions instead of lashing out at others for fixing your mistake. I suspect you'll take offense at this response, but ''I'm'' mildly annoyed by your comments.--] (]) 00:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry matey - please be aware I care less about what you think I do - I am not even mildly upset - I have pointed out what you should have done and requested you not to do it/to improve your actions next time - carry on regardless if you want - its only a good faith attempt to improve the situation should it occur again - you don't agree - ok - do it again and I will report you. - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 01:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:06, 18 January 2013
|
|
deltasim and the BLP vio
sup man, I never used this before so bear with me ok? I am a friend of realfatrabbit and he got blocked and asked me to let you know that deltasim didn't like the result of the edit war between him and relafatrabbit that you decided. It was about a BLP vio. deltasim I guess went to another admin called jamesbwatson and had realfatrabbit blocked. the admin called jamesbwatson then added back the stuff deltasim added that was the BLP vio which realfatrabbit kept removing and caused the edit war. anyways, thats that, he just wanted me to tell you. thanks man
This is the page about the war that deltasim went to another admin called jamesbwatson to add back http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive202#User:Deltasim_and_User:ArealFatRabbit_reported_by_Mephistophelian_.28Result:_Declined.29
oh yeah and the BLP vio and edit war was on kid icarus page
International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)
Done, I hope your happy with the result. I will restore the rewrite later, perhaps instead of being outraged you ought to compare them, I acted in good faith here and asked the other guy to expand the sections he is most interested in, of course that was not good enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't "outraged". You know I can't take a position on the content issues without losing my ability to act administratively. I'm simply trying to be fair. Thank you for self-reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fair? An editor makes how many reverts which include BLP and linkvios and I am the one getting bollocked. The rewrite was a massive improvement. I broke no policy's and told you I was rewriting it and would not touch the article for a while, which is what I did. All you have done here is enable the other guy. Very bad call. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call hours "a while", but if you disagree with me, you're welcome to ask another admin their view.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with everyone, it's one of my personality flaws
I have now noticed you are getting a lot of shite over the unblock, so sorry for having dropped more in your lap. Personally I think your doing OK, have a good new year. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, saying it's been a bad day would be an understatement. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with everyone, it's one of my personality flaws
- I wouldn't call hours "a while", but if you disagree with me, you're welcome to ask another admin their view.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fair? An editor makes how many reverts which include BLP and linkvios and I am the one getting bollocked. The rewrite was a massive improvement. I broke no policy's and told you I was rewriting it and would not touch the article for a while, which is what I did. All you have done here is enable the other guy. Very bad call. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly our fellow wikipedian, DS, ended up disregarding your recommendation in the end. A few hours ago, he reinstated his edit unilaterally . His edit summary, "to hell with this" doesn't inspire much confidence in his seriousness in trying to build consensus. Neither does this , though it's less relevant to the issue at hand. Still, I feel it illustrates that an otherwise energetic editor can have some issues. Aminul802 (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb23, DS is sadly back with a vengeance. He's effectively done another unilateral rewrite of the LEDE and much of the article. User:Dreambeaver had commented that we should undertake controversial changes on the talk page, and proceed from there. DS has gone it alone. I left this comment on Dreambeaver's talk page . I think the best way to proceed would be to ask DS to undo all his changes, and return to the talk page to make his case for them. I think there is much room for improvement in the article. At the moment, he's made matters worse with respect to coming to a useful resolution to things. Aminul802 (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I will not revert the improvements I am making to the article. I am acting in accordance with NPOV & WP:LEDE. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, do not stalk my edits again. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, folks, just a heads up that the earliest I'm going to be able to look into this will be tomorrow late afternoon my time. So, you'll have to work it out yourselves (best), find someone else to help, or be patient.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- No worries B, after reverting BLP violations back into the article three times, even though I told him there were BLP vios in editsummarys, his talk page and the article talk page (which he is unable to find) the article is again back at his preferred version. I told you it was a mistake to enable him, he will never allow the article to be neutral. Over to you as I am just going to lose all patience. If I need to seek his permission to edit that article and try to bring it to a NPOV version then he needs to do the same, any edit he makes henceforth will be reverted until he makes his case on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, folks, just a heads up that the earliest I'm going to be able to look into this will be tomorrow late afternoon my time. So, you'll have to work it out yourselves (best), find someone else to help, or be patient.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb23, DS is sadly back with a vengeance. He's effectively done another unilateral rewrite of the LEDE and much of the article. User:Dreambeaver had commented that we should undertake controversial changes on the talk page, and proceed from there. DS has gone it alone. I left this comment on Dreambeaver's talk page . I think the best way to proceed would be to ask DS to undo all his changes, and return to the talk page to make his case for them. I think there is much room for improvement in the article. At the moment, he's made matters worse with respect to coming to a useful resolution to things. Aminul802 (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)That sounds like WP:BATTLEGROUND be careful as this could violate WP:3RR. maybe take it to the edit war notice page? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I do not mean right now, I mean in the future. All this guy does is add as much criticism he can find and dumping it in the lede, if he gets reverted he reverts you and calls it vandalism and says take it to talk, of course it never works the other way at all. B already knows about this guys edit warring, he let him off a week ago for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ha, and he does another copyvio, Darkness Shines (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Since my last comment above, I have not been paying attention to this thread, partly because I've been sick (better now). In any event, User:KTC has locked the article. I sure hope the parties can figure this out before the lock expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, Sorry to hear you've been unwell. I'm glad to hear you're back on your feet! I too hope the lock is long enough to resolve some of the issues. I actually think it may not be. As for DS, it's unfortunate that one can be spoken ill of in one's absence without the opportunity to defend oneself. I always try to notify DS when I complain about him. Bbb23 is familiar with our past. I don't think DS' one-sided characterizations are at all fair, or his own suggestions are NPOV by any means. Still, I return here to request related input from another wikipedian with whom I'm having trouble agreeing. User:Freemesm. I was wondering if you could comment here: . Aminul802 (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
IP sock of blocked IP
Hello Bbb23. Yesterday you blocked 177.43.87.117 for violating the ARBPIA 1RR. Today that person is evading that block by using the IP 201.88.27.57. Could you take care of that please, or is there somewhere else I should go? nableezy - 17:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like User:Malik Shabazz dealt with it in my absence.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Stephen M. Cohen
Hello Bbb23 Tonight, I reversed your reversal of my contribution to the Stephen M. Cohen article. The source I used is the most recognized source for United States Federal Court Opinions used by every valid news source worldwide. Furthermore this article is directly on point in reference to the Cohen article.
Second, it is a very important case as it gives substantial rights to a third party of which a judgment creditor has tried to take an unlawful advantage as Kremen did in this specific case by going after Cohen's cousin Michael Joseph Cohen. Once the court issued its Summary Judgment is also granted the defendant the right to file a malicious Prosecution action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is the first case granting third party rights against a judgment creditor who filed a fraudulent complaint without any legal merit against an innocent third party.
With all due respect, why would you remove my contribution? If Misplaced Pages does not want editors that provide valid information then we as editors need to know so. Vanessamx (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please read WP:RS. Generally court documents are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
In the event this is still on your radar
Hi, Bbb23. I am contemplating unblock here based on this. If you have thoughts or opinions on the unblock or its conditions, please let me know. Thanks Tiderolls 14:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Tide rolls, I believe Kezollinger has agreed to all of Hersfold's conditions, so it would be unfair not to unblock him. If K breaches the terms, the sanctions can be reimposed, but at this point he should be given another chance. I think you have done everything you could to ensure the greatest possibiility of success. Hopefully, it will work out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
What do you intend to tell Youreallycan who accused me of POV-pushing?
I will gladly stop. I'm angry that he has accused me of POV-pushing with zero evidence, I asked that he provide evidence or rescind the accusation. Look at Youreallycan's remarks on the AN/I and my talk page. What do you intend to tell him?--R-41 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- YRC could have chosen his words more carefully, but it's simply not that big a deal. I'm sorry you're angry, and I believe you're sincere, but discussions at Misplaced Pages cannot always unfold precisely the way you - or anyone else - think they should. Step back. Take a deep breath. Take a break or edit something less controversial. Later you may still feel it's unfair, but, hopefully, you'll at least be able to let it go and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you believe he should have chosen his words carefully, then why not tell him so, rather than indicating that I am the only one in the wrong. And particularly, to ask Youreallycan to reconsider his accusation that I was POV-pushing.--R-41 (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, R-41, I thought I responded to this question, but I guess not. I didn't think it necessary to tell YRC that. As an administrator, my leaving such a message would come across as a warning, and I didn't think his comments justified a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you believe he should have chosen his words carefully, then why not tell him so, rather than indicating that I am the only one in the wrong. And particularly, to ask Youreallycan to reconsider his accusation that I was POV-pushing.--R-41 (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Danrolo evades block
Hello Bbb23,
yesterday you blocked User:Danrolo for edit warring. As you assumed, he continues edit war without logging in. Could you please also block the IP he is currently using: 190.22.150.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and semi-protect the articles National Renewal (Chile) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), People's Alliance (Spain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Democratic Justice Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- In my view, there is no purpose to blocking the IP unless the IP becomes otherwise disruptive. Historically, he uses too many IPs. Therefore, I've semi-protected the three articles for one week. I've also extended Danrolo's block to expire at roughly the same time as the protection expires. Let me know if there's any further disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt action. Unfortunately, this user still hasn't got his message. He has returned as 186.79.25.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), editing in eight more articles and even continuing edit war in two of them. (People's Front for Democracy and Justice and Mauritanian People's Party) I don't know how to answer this. We can't protect all articles that might possibly interest this user. There are too many... Hopefully you have an idea. --RJFF (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- All I can think of is multiple range blocks. I need to determine the most efficient and least intrusive way of dealing with this. I've blocked the IP and rolled back all of his edits. While we're figuring out a more long-term solution, is there any other IP you know of who is being persistently disruptive?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if Danrolo knew that purposely editing without logging in is considered sockpuppetry. No one has warned him that he must not try to disguise his authorship. I don't think that he has ever edited in bad faith. He just didn't understand (or didn't want to understand) our rules. Not all of his edits were disruptive, some were useful. I haven't seen him editing for three days. Maybe he's got his message now. --RJFF (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's generous of you to think of things from his perspective, but even if one is unaware of sock puppetry, it's intuitive that when you're blocked you shouldn't be editing. I might also add that many sock masters make useful edits in addition to being disruptive. I have little sympathy for him.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if Danrolo knew that purposely editing without logging in is considered sockpuppetry. No one has warned him that he must not try to disguise his authorship. I don't think that he has ever edited in bad faith. He just didn't understand (or didn't want to understand) our rules. Not all of his edits were disruptive, some were useful. I haven't seen him editing for three days. Maybe he's got his message now. --RJFF (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- All I can think of is multiple range blocks. I need to determine the most efficient and least intrusive way of dealing with this. I've blocked the IP and rolled back all of his edits. While we're figuring out a more long-term solution, is there any other IP you know of who is being persistently disruptive?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt action. Unfortunately, this user still hasn't got his message. He has returned as 186.79.25.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), editing in eight more articles and even continuing edit war in two of them. (People's Front for Democracy and Justice and Mauritanian People's Party) I don't know how to answer this. We can't protect all articles that might possibly interest this user. There are too many... Hopefully you have an idea. --RJFF (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Another block evader
I'm sure is User talk:Huysmanii evading his block. He's also posted this. Can you change his block to indef? Dreadstar ☥ 19:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Quite a range of IPs for this one, yet another. Dreadstar ☥
- 184.174.173.93 and 83.249.210.240 both show as proxy servers, so I've blocked them for one year. 128.68.97.56 shows up as a static IP from Moscow. I was going to block it as a puppet/block evasion anyway, but there's something weird about it when I start the block process, so I'm going to need to ask someone about that before proceeding further. As for extending Huysmanii's block, let me think a bit about what's best.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. 128.68.97.56 is a strange one, I see it on a TOR node list and a few blacklists. I'll leave Huysmanii's fate in your capable hands. Dreadstar ☥ 03:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- 184.174.173.93 and 83.249.210.240 both show as proxy servers, so I've blocked them for one year. 128.68.97.56 shows up as a static IP from Moscow. I was going to block it as a puppet/block evasion anyway, but there's something weird about it when I start the block process, so I'm going to need to ask someone about that before proceeding further. As for extending Huysmanii's block, let me think a bit about what's best.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Isreal-Palistine
I'm coming to you became I don't know where I'm supposed to go with this, and I saw that you're were very active at Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA so I'm comming to you, I hope you don't mind. He decided to remove {{History of the Palestinian territories}} from Judea twice because, apparently "This is an article about Judea, not a non-existant country." and "The infobox refers to a *non-existent country*. Palestine" is not a country. The removal is entirely legitimate." even tough the navbox clearly covers Judea. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also apparently the correct word for "Palestinians" is "Arabs", for "West Bank" "Judea and Samaria", and for "Israeli settlement", "Israeli town". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Seqqis user talk
When I say we, I mean me and my friends. We perfer to share a wikipedia account, rather than having seperate ones.Seqqis(Talk) 20:56, 15 January 2013
- You may prefer it, but it isn't a good idea and is generally prohibited. See WP:ROLE.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Alright You convinced me, I will kick off my friends from my account.Thanks Seqqis(Talk) 21:10, 15 January 2013
- Okay (smiling), good idea, but they are welcome to create their own accounts; it's not that hard.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Pipeline Pilot
Hello, I see you deleted the Pipeline Pilot page (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pipeline_Pilot&action=edit&redlink=1) due to copyright infringement; can we restore this page and I can remove the link you cite (http://www.scientific-computing.com/products/product_details.php?product_id=817). Please let me know of any other issues. Thanks Nicksfcole (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- You may recreate the page, but removing the links cited by me will not fix the copyright infringement. You have to reword the article so it does not copy text from other places or even closely paraphrase text. Two more things. First, the article was originally tagged because it was promotional. I didn't delete it for that reason, but if the article you recreate is promotional, it may get deleted for that reason. Second, you say "can we restore" - who's we? You are not permitted to edit on behalf of a company at Misplaced Pages. See WP:ROLE. Let me know if you have any other questions--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Got it, thanks bbb23, appreciate the guidance! Nicksfcole (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)