| Revision as of 05:38, 11 January 2015 view sourceBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators269,998 edits →Jake Chasan: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:11, 11 January 2015 view source Winkelvi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,145 edits →Request: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
| Hi Bbb23, You correctly declined an A7 on this page, so I'm just letting you know I have sent it to AfD. --] (]) 05:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | Hi Bbb23, You correctly declined an A7 on this page, so I'm just letting you know I have sent it to AfD. --] (]) 05:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :I figured someone would. I had actually put it on my watchlist because I was curious what would happen to it, but thanks for the heads up. Regards.--] (]) 05:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | :I figured someone would. I had actually put it on my watchlist because I was curious what would happen to it, but thanks for the heads up. Regards.--] (]) 05:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Request == | |||
| If you have a moment, would you take a look at this at AN/I and the additions to the report that followed in the last hour or so? I'm trying to understand why it's happening and keep coming away confused. -- <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> 06:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:11, 11 January 2015
|
|
Happy New Year!
Dear Bbb23,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Problem user
You recently gave User talk:MitchyThorngate a final warning for creating inappropriate pages. Well, they're at it again with Bethan Thorngate, a hoax created by copying an article and changing the names and adding silly lies. Please take what action you consider appropriate. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- @BethNaught: I've deleted the article and indefinitely blocked the user. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Technical issue
I had just made a suggestion,(Bbb23, I think that it shouldn't be removed.......) but they don't appear in page history. Even your comment is not appearing. I have never seen this before. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're having a problem. This is the diff of your "I think that it shouldn't be removed" comment, and it's in the revision history of the page. The last things I did were to remove one of the IPs' latest diatribes and semi-protect the page for three days. Substantively, the last thing I did was to ping Callanecc again. Everything looks good to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Even now, http://s12.postimg.org/d7vjjqenw/Untitled43242.jpg Bladesmulti (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe you should get some rest? The image (sans girls) and the revision history match. Nothing wrong with any of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is all good. I had thought that you had protected the SPI before you had left the comment on sock's report, just figured it out that you had done that before. You should block those proxies anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe you should get some rest? The image (sans girls) and the revision history match. Nothing wrong with any of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Even now, http://s12.postimg.org/d7vjjqenw/Untitled43242.jpg Bladesmulti (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Happy new year
Hi Bbb23, I wish you a happy new year! I know its late but better late and thanks for protecting Persib Bandung article (again). Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this?
Happy New Year! Can I ask you to take a look at something? Here's the rundown from my POV:
- [[User;Djflem rewrote the article St. John's Park -- about a block of land in Lower Manhattan with some interesting history, but which is now used for exits from the Holland Tunnel -- to focus not on the history of the land, but on the "rotary", a non-notable circular cluster of 5 exits.
- He then moved the article to St. John's Rotary
- Since there was no prior discussion, and the rotary was (and is) non-notable, I moved it back and opened a discussion on Talk:St. John's Park
- The emerging consensus in the discussion (3-1 at this point) is the the history of the square-historic townhouse development-private park should be the focus of the article, which should stay at "St. John's Park"
- To subvert this, today Djflem moved from his sandbox his "St. John's Rotary" article into mainspace as Holland Tunnel Rotary. That article was a substantial duplication of St. John's Park, with no accreditation given for copyright purposes. It was, in fact, a fork of St. John's Park.
- For that reason, I moved it back into his userspace and converted the title into a redirect to St. John's Park.
There's some other little stuff going on as well, but that's the main points. Djflem seems to be having ovwnership issues about the article and appears to want to control its content despite what a consensus of editors he saying. If he can't control St. John's Park, then he'll fork it to another article and control that one -- but, really, 5 exits in a circle isn't a notable roadway structure and would never pass notability on its own. As the editors in the discussion have pointed out, it's the history of the land that is interesting and notable.
If you could take a look and drop a comment or two -- wherever and to whomever you think it is appropriate, I would appreciate. If you think I should instead take it to AN/I, I'll do that, but I usually like to avoid making a mountain out of a molehill if it can be resolved more easily.
Thanks for taking a look. BMK (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Take a look also at Talk:Holland Tunnel, where he accuses me of being a "weasel". The editor doesn't seem to have a good understanding of WP:V, WP:N or WP:OR. Or the new section he started on Talk:St. John's Park in which he completely misconstrues what the consensus of the discussion is. BMK (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it's appropriate for me to intervene in this. If you think you have sufficient evidence of misbehavior, you can take it to ANI, but my sense is you don't and you'd be better off trying dispute resolution methods to resolve the problems. As an aside, he didn't call you a weasel until after you called him clueless.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your opinion. BMK (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it's appropriate for me to intervene in this. If you think you have sufficient evidence of misbehavior, you can take it to ANI, but my sense is you don't and you'd be better off trying dispute resolution methods to resolve the problems. As an aside, he didn't call you a weasel until after you called him clueless.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Warning
Hi Bbb23, I actually wanted to say something else but unfortunately I couldn't so I felt the warning was the best way to let off some steam,
In hindsight it probably wasn't a very good idea but I guess it was better than me being uncivil back,
Anyway cheers, –Davey2010 21:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it was better than being uncivil back, but the best would have been to do nothing. The user is banned. Forget about it. You shouldn't need to let off steam on-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Problem is I get pissed off very easily, On-wiki and IRL (Been like it since I was a kid!), But anyway the past is the past but just thought I should explain myself, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010 03:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Resumption of disruptive editing by GLPeterson on Wireless power
You recently handled an ANI/edit warring complaint by me against GLPeterson on Wireless power. I am concerned that his recent edits seem to be a resumption of previous efforts to insert unsourced material into the article. Talk:Wireless power#Recent changes to summary table and Talk:Wireless power#Reintroduction of unsourced pseudoscientific content detail the concerns of myself and other editors. I don't really know what to do here. Could you look at it? Thanks. --Chetvorno 22:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I glanced at it, but I have neither the time or the energy to really examine what's going on. If you want quicker action, you're going to have to take the issue to the appropriate noticeboard. In the meantime, please be careful that you don't edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. I can see your busy, thanks. --Chetvorno 04:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Spshu
Spshu managed to get himself blocked by edit warring against User:Ttll213 at One Magnificent Morning. Though Spshu exceeded his mandate by making so many reverts, have you considered that his opponent Ttl213 could be just another sock of User:IDriveAStickShift? If we were convinced that Spshu's opponent was a sock would that make a difference in the 3RR verdict? I can see both arguments. Somebody who had the patience to study these TV articles (not me though) and sort out the various POVs might be able to create a better sock lineup. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wondered why IDriveAStickShift was sandwiched in those bullet points. IDrive would, of course, be a sock of Ttll213 as it is a much older account. I think Spshu also threw in User:SummerFunMan who was blocked in November of last year based on CU evidence, which although it was before IDrive was created, Ttl1213 already existed. It's never been clear to me if sleepers automatically turn up or if they turn up only in certain circumstances. In any event, going back to IDrive, the only intersection between Ttll213 and IDrive is One Magnificent Morning, which is not a lot to go on, particularly given the disruption by many users to that article. And although IDrive talks a lot, my recollection is that Ttll213 does not, making it hard to connect them stylistically. I did believe from the beginning, though, that IDrive was not a newbie. The only question was did he gain his experience from having a named account or editing as an IP (he did/does a lot of that). In addition to his disruption, he's one of the more deceptive editors I've run across. I suppose I would feel uncomfortable making any kind of finding without a report being filed by someone.
- As for your other question, if Spshu believed that Ttll213 was a sock master at the time of the reverts, that would help excuse his edit warring, but it was a post-hoc thought it would not. Even if he did believe it, it would have to be a credible belief. I would be more likely to "excuse" it if he were to request an unblock and admit that what he did was edit-warring and perhaps even promise to stay away from the article for a while (he's very caught up in it). Sorry for the long comments, but it's complicated.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. For the benefit of any talk-page stalkers, Spshu also tried to explain matters at User talk:Spshu#ANI 3RR Sock reports though I haven't tried to puzzle that out. Since it was only a 72-hour block I won't try to think about this any more. If the same set of articles shows up again, a lot of semiprotection might be justified just to make it slightly harder for the various socks to operate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Squidward679
Hi! Would you mind taking a look at this? It is CUdeclined, which I don't agree with, but regardless of socking issues, there's some significant WP:CIR issues like Zoey Burger. I'd handle it myself, but beyond the short-term block I applied a few days ago I feel any further action should come from someone else... --Rschen7754 02:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb23, it looks like we have another sock of Squidward679, see here. War wizard90 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- @War wizard90: The account has been indeffed. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Bluesapphiredigital
Where would I go about reporting this userpage? It appears to be used just as a way of advertising their business, but I didn't know what subsection of AN to report it to. Fry1989 16:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Someone else beat me to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Infobox photo discussion
Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Jake Chasan
Hi Bbb23, You correctly declined an A7 on this page, so I'm just letting you know I have sent it to AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I figured someone would. I had actually put it on my watchlist because I was curious what would happen to it, but thanks for the heads up. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Request
If you have a moment, would you take a look at this at AN/I and the additions to the report that followed in the last hour or so? I'm trying to understand why it's happening and keep coming away confused. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)