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!

Response

You accused an editor and an IP address as being the same person in this discussion. Please retract the accusation or you may be blocked for making a personal attack. You are, of course, welcome to file a report at ] if you have evidence supporting the allegation. (Your talk page is screwed up. It's not an archive.)--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I know about the archive. Not 'screwed' up as you say just I didn't finish editing on the work computer. Will do ] soon. I'm not on Misplaced Pages everyday and I need to read up on how that's done but I don't believe him/her and wont retract the suspicion I have at this time. Far from a personal attack though to disbelieve what someone claims. However the words Fladrif used eg 'media whore' & 'grandstanding' where the offensive remarks. Now that talk page has nearly zero visits, how did you mange to find out about it and respond so quickly? Wombat24 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be away from a computer most of the day tomorrow, so am adding last thoughts now, for the time being. The above determination to maintain a sock puppet accusation, without good cause and in the face of strongly worded suggestions from two administrators, is, in effect, an attack on the integrity of several users. Given this persistence, and the promise to file an SPI, I'm thinking of WP:BOOMERANG. For the record, Wombat has been well advised that this isn't a productive path to go down. My thanks to Bbb and Drmies, though it's fairly clear how this is playing out. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth, I didn't know they were administrator and at first was just suspicious due to the speed of their responses. However Drmies comments I believe are way out of line due to his use of foul language on two different occasions in two separate posts. I thought that was banned on Misplaced Pages. Anyways the SIP was filed in good faith since I believed, and still suspect, 99.149.87.54 is shared by someone else. But if I'm wrong, fine. It will be time to move on. But to call it a personal attack is odd otherwise no one wouldn't file any SIPs when we suspect wrongful activity. We'd all have to ignore it always Wombat24 (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. If you file an SPI out of ignorance, after being told repeatedly that the accusation was baseless to begin with, then you have your own self to blame. Good faith ends where incompetence begins. I don't know where I used foul language, but I can get a lot more insistent if you don't start listening. IP 99 has a person behind it, a person who has been here for years with a variety of IPs (because, you know, that's how IPs work), a person who has forgotten more about Misplaced Pages than you have managed to learn so far. I don't have to sing his praises: his good work is found all over the project. Your contributions, not so much. And with this fight you were picking, where you were losing an argument and sought a different tack, an accusation of socking, you've taken up more time than you're worth. You irritated one longtime editor, you were given advice by two editors/administrators which you chose to ignore, you made an SPI clerk do more extra work--in short, I'd like to know what the pay-off is for Misplaced Pages of having you around. I will make one more suggestion to you: stop fucking around and wasting time, and start contributing to articles without resorting to accusations. Or you will be blocked, as a time sink. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

More threats here Drmies! I didn't file in ignorance at all but whatever! So can you stop fucking around now. Feels like your stalking me now on wikipedia. This wasn't a message or question for you here but for the other adminWombat24 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wombat, I'm not sure if you're really listening, but here are some points you might find helpful (in no particular order):

1. Normally, one files an SPI (not SIP) when one has enough evidence of socking. This, of course, is a judgment call, and people with more experience with socks usually make better judgments than those with less. Generally, it's considered a personal attack to accuse someone of socking without filing an SPI. However, filing an SPI with almost no evidence, particularly when a content dispute is not going your way, may not be a personal attack but it is not good conduct on the part of an editor.
2. Drmies and I tried to explain to you that 99. is not a sock. We both know him and have known him for quite some time. As with most editors who contribute through an IP, a different address is often assigned each time he accesses the Internet, although it is often within a certain range.
3. It's not terribly important that Drmies and I are both administrators. What is more important is that we are both very experienced editors, and you should get in the habit of checking things like that when you encounter an editor for the first time. For example, I checked you out and can see that although your first edit with this account was about 3 years ago, you've only made a total of 406 edits in three years. Unless you have experience with Misplaced Pages under another account or through an IP address, that, to me, means you have little experience. You should listen to those with more experience than you. You don't have to accept everything they say, but don't brush them off.
4. I could have told you before you filed the SPI that it would go nowhere. Clerks will not check for a technical relationship between a registered account and an IP address. Therefore, the only way to establish socking is through behavioral evidence, and, here, it's sorely lacking.
5. "Foul language", which is defined differently by different people, has never been "banned" from Misplaced Pages. Drmies speaks plainly and directly. He also may speak colorfully and he may use words that bother you. It's a waste of time to be offended. Hey, he once said that I wasn't an asshole; that was high praise.
6. Treat 99. as you would an editor with a registered account. He's an astute editor and has only Misplaced Pages's interests in mind when he edits. You don't have to agree with him, but you do have to respect him.

• --Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know you answered here. Only saw it today. Last stance. Some points: I read around a few wikipedia rule pages and its clear in several places that one would raise an accusation of wrongdoing first in the Talk page or with the person directly before jumping to mediation or other, like a SPI, which is what I did. Note: this was after I deleted the contentious paragraph basically conceding the other editors POV so as to move on and improve a page that desperately needs improving. It wasn't because I was loosing the argument since I deleted the paragraph and conceded the point. Then I raised the socking suspicion due to the 99....54 edit history which was absent of activity for three years before showing up on a board and very soon after Fladrif went to that board, which by the way was far too quickly since we couldn't really argue the matter on the Talk page first. So I suspected Fladrif as the IP. That was my judgement call. If 99 is also that second IP well then it would make sense that the first was inactive since he'd use several dynamic addresses. But when I noticed another address I directly asked that 99 which one he was but he, probably feeling offended, wrote back "It's too late. You've said more than enough'" instead of clarifying that he was both IP's, something he could've done then and there to settle this, but refused. I take issue with your claim of 'trying to explain' to me that he wasn't a sock. Both just stated it as a matter of fact without any explanation on IP range or dynamic IP's or the several he supposedly used until you have here now. Now I didn't go checking you out then because it felt like stalking at first but I see everyone does this during times of conflict. However it is, for me, more important that you are an Admin because that adds 'experience' to the recommendation. If you would have signed as an Admin the first time you wrote about 99 I would have waited and thought more about this but I would have still asked more questions about that edit history because it stopped in '08 and restarted in that board two days ago after the argument. But the SPI hasn't been determined yet, only checkuser was rejected, and its listed as under administration and , again, the argument was all about behavioural evidence, so I was well within guidelines I believe. If foul language isn't banned on wikipedia, then I'll use it more! About 99, never a personal problem with him and never disrespected him with eg foul language, he was more offended with me due to the socking suspicion. I was only offended by Drmies' disrespect when he wrote those threats, insults (silly, incompetence) and especially saying that the page was fucked up when I hadn't finished editing it. Now that its fixed I wonder if Drmies will say that it is no longer fucked up? doubt it. I find it odd that I'm asked to respect another editor when an administrator's example is that of total disrespect and aggression, which you're classifying as 'speaks plainly and direct'. Judgement call I guess. I think you should ask him to calm down a bitWombat24 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wombat, I'm not going to be able to respond to your long post today. I will try to respond as soon as I have time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wombat, after reading the continuation of the discussion at WP:EAR and the discussion on your talk page between you and User:LadyofShalott, I've reconsidered and will not be responding to your post above. You're going to have to get your education somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, for the record, I wasn't looking to be educated by you or anyone else here. Surely, Misplaced Pages isn't about educating new users by editors who have been around longer or by you administrators. The post above was in response to your points above it and part of a conversation, or at least I believed it was part of a conversation; no need to answer now, for the record.Wombat24 (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies and Bbb, I appreciate the time you've taken on this matter. Your responses explain some of the basic policies of Misplaced Pages interaction. They also, whether you realize it or not, constitute real acts of friendship. The virtual world needs mensches, too. Very best, 99.137.210.226 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No response

It's probably been more than two weeks but nobody has paricipated on the discussion on the talkpage of castlevania template. I want to ask your petmission and advice that will adding a reference to the template be ok. I'm not going to edit the chronology template but just add a source that confirms an already present edit. Also if you'll like to then please you should also participate in the discussion. TransVannian (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to partipate in the content discussion. From a procedural perspective, I don't see anything wrong with your adding a reference without changing the substance. It's good of you to ask.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. TransVannian (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ive added the reference according to your advice. Also I've added a proper translation for it to help people understand it better since the translation is very broken. TransVannian (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please take a look on Mahmudur Rahman article?

Hi Bbb23, I am requesting you to comment on this talk page. That article is seriously biased. I am trying to balance that with sufficient reference. But someone can't agree with me. Please comment on this issue. You may check my references. Thank you.--FreemesM 18:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting to this earlier, but it's been a long day. I commented on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Bro, Yesterday I was too busy and can't reply to you. Thanks for your comment. But can you see that conversation again? Chad said that you were wrong about lead section. Moreover if you can manage time, see the third opinion section. There I tried to tell my point in brief.--FreemesM 08:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Sammarinese elections}}

Hello again. Unfortunately it looks like Barlafus is back (although editing via IPs rather than logging in), as the template has had that link removed from it again twice today. Could you protect it for a while? Cheers, Number 57 18:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to do that. It's never been demonstrated that Barlafus is a sock master. Nor is he currently blocked. If you want to file a SPI report, you can, but recognize that you have to have a fair amount of evidence; otherwise your report will be closed with no action. Also, a checkuser will not be performed when the only puppets you include are IPs. Let me know, though, if it gets worse.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Barlafus removed the article from the template again today. I'm not really sure how to go about putting a stop to this. Number 57 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've locked the template, commented on the template talk page, and referred you (and Barlafus) to my comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, although I found the warning rather unpleasant and unnecessary. I don't see what else I could have done to prevent what was effectively vandalism (the page blanking certainly was, and removing it from the template is vandalism by proxy) - I went through WP:RFPP, WP:DRN and then asked you two days ago to protect the template as the vandalism was ongoing. Do I just ignore the template having the link removed? What do I do when he removes it again once the protection expires? Number 57 12:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've already stated - and I have to be even-handed here - I will block either of you if you edit the template without consensus after the lock expires. If Barlafus reverts after the lock, I will block them. I have the template on my watchlist, but feel free to come here if I fail to notice something (it's a BIG watchlist, sigh). Remember, that the blanking, etc., all revolved around the redirect, and I warned Barfalus about that, but this is a different kettle of fish, although it may not seem that way to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Grounding Kit - Discussion for Deletion

Talk:Grounding_kit This article does not meet the general guidelines of Misplaced Pages. I have listed reasons here why it qualifies for Speedy Deletion, which you removed the tag for. I'm not saying this item or class of items does not exist, it does. But thousands of other items go by the same generic name. This particular one gets undue recognition because it has a wikipage associated to it that comes up in the first page of a Google search... which is thereby promotion and why I tagged it as such. Borealdreams (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A WP:CSD#G11 tag was inappropriate for that article. As I stated in my edit summary when removing the tag, there was nothing promotional about the article. Your interpretation of these tags is offbase. It doesn't matter whether the article comes up on the first page of a Google search. That doesn't make the article promotional. The article is judged on its merits, not in conjunction with the algorithms of search engines. There are many, many Misplaced Pages articles that pop up on the first results page after a Google search. In the future, please don't tag articles like this as being promotional.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we continue with that discussion?

Hey Bbb23, can we continue this discussion (yes that was my IP and no I'm not DeFacto) either here or at my new talkpage. I have questions about the accuracy and fairness of those tags. As a gesture of good faith I waited until your blocking of my IP address that day had expired and then registered a real account for the purpose. Puzzled and curious (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to continue. I have nothing new to say. I'm happy you registered, although you shouldn't be advertising your IP address. Hopefully, your behavior at Misplaced Pages on your registered account will be policy-compliant.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The tags seem wrong to me. Are administrators infallible? At least help me understand why the "confirmed" tag is so liberally used where there has been no confirmation, only personal opinion and where "suspected" seems more appropriate. Especially where their use is described in detail in WP:SPI/AI - and they appear to have been misused. Puzzled and curious (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to spend your time on this, feel free to address the tags with the admins who placed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that you, having administered a block for changing those tags, would have had a reason for characterizing that act as disruptive, especially as they all appeared to go against the advice given in WP:SPI/AI, and that the changes were all explained in the summaries. What seems so odd is the wroth and lack of explanation of the reasoning and that there seems to be such a very defensive attitude here, both from you and others who undid the changes, and a lack of enthusiasm to provide any sound reasoning - and now I want to get to the bottom of it having had my suspicions aroused. Will you help me to understand this? Puzzled and curious (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

a question regarding Datatune

Hi, how can I improve the write-up about Datatune, which was the first data cleansing system? Michael Haephrati (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Datatune should be expanded but not deleted. There is an historical value to this product, claimed to be one of the first Data cleansing systems, and nevertheless being discontinued, there is no commercial aspect to anything written about it. Kleopatra1932 (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

RM closure

Hey B hows tricks? If you have time would you gauge consensus at this RM and close it out please. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, DS, already done by someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

Hi Bbb23: Apparently, you deleted a section I inserted regarding Hosni Mubarak in the Muslim Brotherhood section. I assume you rejected it because it referred to a living person and was controversial or poorly referenced. My insertion was that Mubarak was being investigated for his possible complicity in the murder of his predecessor, Anwar el-Sadat. This accusation is well reasoned in a recently published novel, The Search for the Lost Army: The National Geographic and Harvard University Expedition. Please note that in the third paragraph of the introductory section on Hosni Mubarak in Misplaced Pages, it states that Mubarak is being investigated for his possible role in Sadat's murder. I believe that introductory section cannot be edited by ordinary people like me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhagen (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You added that material again, and it was reverted by another editor. I suggest you take the issue to the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Bbb23. You may remember this editor Ashokapurr (talk · contribs) from last June and their desire to add their own original work to several articles as an EL. Today an IP tried to reenter the link here . The IP is from Ottawa and there was some connection in that Ashokapurr edited some Ottawa articles - as well as their being an IP or two from the same city that Ash used at the time (though I don't have time right now to dig them out so you are free to disagree with this.) I don't think that there is anything to do at the moment I just wanted to give you a heads up so you can keep your eyes out for any other attempts to restore the link. Thanks for you time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Marnette, that goes back a ways. I'm impressed that you keep track. I've put the IP on my watchlist, but that won't catch contributions, only edits to their user and talk pages. Feel free to come back if you notice a pattern. Thanks for your vigilance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome and I will let you know if anything happens. MarnetteD | Talk 01:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What to do until season 4 of Downington

I think it may be time to hang it up even as an IP, when I'm so slow to make headway on relatively small issues like those at Scary Movie 5 and Chris Benz; to me, these are cut and dried examples of content that doesn't belong. Then again, I may be getting grumpier than Andy the Grump. Hope you're well. You and my friend the Dr do great work here, and I don't know how you do it without regular infusions of corn mash. Which sounds like a good idea right now. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I took time out of my regularly scheduled programming and did some work on the movie and Benz articles. The copyrighted material HAD to go. The Benz article is in worse shape as it is a piece of fluff with too much unsourced or poorly sourced crap in it, but other than tagging it, I don't have the time right now to clean it up. Don't let the stuff get you down. Sometimes it can be very frustrating, and I imagine it's even more frustrating editing as an IP because of the built-in biases; it gets to me sometimes, too. What exactly is in corn mash?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a clue, but it sounds delightful, like mixing popcorn and Jim Beam in a blender. 'Course, given the diet me and Ms. 99 are on, there'd be some kale thrown in too. Mmmmm. And thank you; not my intent to do an end-run around good-faith work by other editors and admins, but....c'mon, people. The best thing that could happen would be for business to pick up here and take me away from Wikiville. Looking forward to warmer weather and a little traveling. Maybe just to get out of the house; I'm over a cold, Ms. 99 is getting one, and one of the dogs got thoroughly skunked the other night, just drenched. The whole house still smells of it 48 hours later, and so do we. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We live next to a very large urban park in which there are lots of animals: coyote, raccoons, possums, and, of course, skunks. When we first moved here, we used to joke when driving home at night that we always knew we were home when we smelled skunk. Raccoons are scary critters. We sometimes see them in our backyard; I swear some of them look at me like they know me and hate me.

I hope business picks up - whatever business you're in - but if it does, do check in once in a while if only to chat.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised one day to hear one of our little darlings barking incessantly, to find he'd treed a raccoon that must have outweighed him by 15 pounds. Our other one is going through heartworm treatment now, very painful for the poor lass--the two of them are quite close, and often go outside haunch to haunch looking for rodents. I've instructed them to leave the 'night squirrels' alone, but I have a feeling we'll go through the skunk business again. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I == Nathan Fillion's Birthday ==

Hi, Just writing to tell you that Nathan Fillion's birthday is indeed 27th March, 1971. Per his imDB page and his kidsneedtoread birthday fund (which we have all contributed to). The tweet in question was him re-raising his charity bid for Clean Water like he did last year.

http://community.kidsneedtoread.org/?p=4693

So I've changed it back to 27th March.

Could you please change the citations to the original one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cae prince (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You know, when I was fixing the Twitter reference, I was fairly sure it was wrong. Every website showed his DOB as the 27th, but it was really hard to find any reliable sources. I also suspected that the tweet didn't really mean that the date of the tweet was his birthday, just that he was gearing up for the fund raiser. In any event, I've added two refs: yours, which doesn't give the birth year, and one from buddyTV, which is not the best of references but it's a bit better than many of the other websites. Is there another reference (you mentioned the "original one" but I'm not sure what you mean)? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits! When I said original, I was referring to whatever citation was present before the "Twitter-edit" was made. Sorry about that confusion. Question: is iMdb not considered a reliable source? It lists his birthday there. Caroline Prince 16:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Fillion's Birthday

Hi, Just writing to tell you that Nathan Fillion's birthday is indeed 27th March, 1971. Per his imDB page and his kidsneedtoread birthday fund (which we have all contributed to). The tweet in question was him re-raising his charity bid for Clean Water like he did last year.

http://community.kidsneedtoread.org/?p=4693

So I've changed it back to 27th March.

Could you please change the citations to the original one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cae prince (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You know, when I was fixing the Twitter reference, I was fairly sure it was wrong. Every website showed his DOB as the 27th, but it was really hard to find any reliable sources. I also suspected that the tweet didn't really mean that the date of the tweet was his birthday, just that he was gearing up for the fund raiser. In any event, I've added two refs: yours, which doesn't give the birth year, and one from buddyTV, which is not the best of references but it's a bit better than many of the other websites. Is there another reference (you mentioned the "original one" but I'm not sure what you mean)? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits! When I said original, I was referring to whatever citation was present before the "Twitter-edit" was made. Sorry about that confusion. Question: is iMdb not considered a reliable source? It lists his birthday there. Caroline Prince 16:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

IMDb is not considered a reliable source, particularly for certain kinds of information including birthdates. The reason is that users can edit IMDb.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

CCHT ELs

Bbb23, Many apologies for creating work for you in having to remove EL links that I put in. Am new to Misplaced Pages and didn't read guidelines on ELs properly - thought they would be acceptable temporarily until info in them could be incorporated by other editors . Will try to include info in the ELs into the articles and turn ELs into citations. All the best, Laplacemat (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Laplacemat, thanks for coming here. Using the website as a reference is also problematic. I think we should explore this a bit more before you use the website in any article. Let's start with your explaining to me your relationship to the website and a little more background about the site.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bbb23. Thanks for your quick response. CCHT = Cumbria County History Trust (Cumbria being one of the counties or admin. areas in NW England and which includes the Lake District). I'm a member and a volunteer (retired academic librarian). It has provided digests on its website, in 2013, of the history of c344 villages, towns and cities (under the auspices of the Univeristy of Lancaster). These will later (over several years) be turned into larger articles varying between 10 pages to single volumes (ending up with c15 vols. altogether) as part of the Victoria County History Project (under the auspices of the University of London). Website= http://www.cumbriacountyhistory.org.uk/victoria-county-history-project. The aim of the digests and VCH is to provide the bedrock for future historical research ie: all articles refer only to primary sources (taken from the local archives) and will be fully referenced (although the current digest pages only give brief indications of sources used). All information on the CCHT website, although mostly put together by experienced, but amateur (eg: retired academics) folks, has been vetted by Univ. of Lancaster (the main seat of learning for north-west England studies) staff. I think that as far as referencing is concerned, the website is on a par with, and should supersede in some cases, that which has already been written by academics in terms of providing verifiable source material, and should certainly supersede a lot of what has been written by amateur local historians. My aim was to somehow point to the CCHT digests in the hope that the web editors of the 344 places on Misplaced Pages would take up the cudgels and add history info based on CCHT knowledge. I don't have the time or inclination to do this myself and other CCHT volunteers are busy on the next (ie: VCH) stage of the project! I fully understand the need to eliminate external links that might be dodgy, disappear, change URLs, etc. Hope this helps, Bbb23. Any thoughts very welcome as to what we can do. All best, Laplacemat (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is you have an obvious WP:COI. That doesn't necessarily mean that CCHT can't be used, but it means it should at least be vetted. I suggest you go to WP:RSN and ask whether the website can be used as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. Feel free to point to this discussion so you don't have to go over the whole thing on the noticeboard. Also, it would be helpful if you would put it in concrete terms. Take one or two article examples and the material you want to add so the editors at RSN can evaluate it in context. Let me know if you need help.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, Many thanks for your promptness again. I do see your point about WP:COI - all I can sy is that it wasn't obvious to me! As a fairly new member (2 years) of the CCHT, I really don't think it's up to me to make a case for its reliability or not. (Just to clarify an erroneous statement I made above, I vounteered to be a "Volunteer" for the Trust but am still in the training phase). I'll refrain from citing it in future and leave it to other web editors of Cumbrian history to take up the cause. All the best, Laplacemat (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)These summaries were compiled during 2012 by Cumbria County History Trust volunteers.

Bbb23, Further to our discussion abve re the CCHT, I've just come across their disclaimer about the digest histories on the website: "These summaries were compiled during 2012 by Cumbria County History Trust volunteers. They are based on a common set of key sources, listed below. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE SUMMARIES REMAINS TO BE VERIFIED BY SYSTEMATIC AND MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH IN ORIGINAL SOURCES: THIS WILL TAKE PLACE IN DUE COURSE AS PARISH AND TOWNSHIP HISTORIES ARE DRAFTED FOR THE VICTORIA COUNTY HISTORY OF CUMBRIA" Given this disclaimer (about accuracy) - and I can only apologise again for not seeing this in the first place - I don't think this website would pass a WP:RSN discussion, and the digests should probably be avoided on Misplaced Pages until the more detailed VCH equivalents are produced. The first two drafts of these have just been completed, so 322 to go! Sorry to have wasted your (and my) time on this and thanks for your vigilance - live and learn. I'll delete all remaining refs to the site. If WP admin.stress ever gets to you, try: http://www.lakelandcam.co.uk - it changes every day and works for me! All the best. Laplacemat (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's rare for someone to react to the kind of warning I left on your talk page in the manner that you have. It does you credit, and it's appreciated. I don't know what you think about editing on Misplaced Pages otherwise, but we could always use good editors if you're interested.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, You may have spoken too soon! 1) User:Leaky Caldron is probably going to take this matter to WP:RSN after all, despite my misgivings. But, maybe that's a good idea, as you originally suggested. I think that the CCHT "Digests" have a certain level of accuracy (if that doesn't sound stupid), based on the sources used to compile them. It's just that the info hasn't been vetted yet to the "gold" standard demanded by the Victoria County History people. More comprehensive and "primary" sources will be used then. It might boil down to whether WP users will see the CCHT disclaimer i.e.: is it prominent enough or not? 2) Thanks for your kind words. I do think that maybe you could do with a "traffic-light" system of warnings eg: amber instead of flashing the red card straightaway (in soccer terminology) - it might put off younger newbie editors otherwise. Yours, Laplacemat (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Laplacemat, I'm glad LC is helping you. They're an experienced editor, and it does them and you credit that they've taken an interest in whether CCHT may be used as a reliable source. As for the warning system, there is actually an escalating system that starts with a very different icon from that big red stop sign. Unfortunately, you were a victim of statistical history. Generally, a new editor who inserts that many links to one website in that short a time (you were prolific) is not here to do any good. So, I made a judgment and jumped to the final warning instead of a kinder warning. I might add that being human I was none too pleased at having to spend so much time removing the links from so many articles. In any event, in hindsight I was wrong, and, frankly, I'm glad I was wrong. I still think you should think about editing here. Depending on your temperament, it can be stressful at times, but it is overall quite rewarding (not in any monetary sense, of course). If you do decide to stick around and try it out, I have your first lesson for you: WP:INDENT. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Adriana Ferreyr

Actually, on this page there are unfounded, unsourced and almost surely false informations which can't be removed, while infos supported by reliable sources such as Daily Mail are sistematically censured. 💕? --79.56.203.59 (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed a block

I upped a 72 hour block you made to one month, User:89.100.139.219. Static IP, likely a cafe, as I ended up revdel'ing their edit. If it was a named account, I would have indef'ed but felt one month was the appropriate length due to the totality (it was brought to ANI). I thought it was pretty uncontroversial and that you would agre so just made without asking first, but if for any reason you think I've made a mistake or acting out of line, by all means revert me with my blessing, and just ping me about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note, I am fairly sure this is another user that has been blocked for similar activity recently. I forgot to add that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not a problem. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic

I don't disagree with or contest the block, just curious about the topic-ban violation-diff (fully agree with the NPA-part). Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Here ("That becomes a way for you to add a source to any article you like: just find a source that mentions religion somewhere in it, regardless of whether that has anything to do with my comment, and then insist I not be allowed to discuss your use of sources.") (emphasis added by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah, I suppose that counts. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's a continuation of an argument discussion at Talk:Argument from silence, where religious sources were being discussed by more than one editor. HP entered the fray and managed to avoid using the word religion in that discussion, although it is arguable that even then they violated their topic ban. However, the continuation on their own talk page made it clearer what was going on. I imagine HP would argue they were baited, but that doesn't excuse it. There are other ways of dealing with such situations. The personal attacks, of course, made it much worse.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's absurd. If you accuse him of violating a topic-ban on X, he has to be allowed to use the word "X" to discuss whether he violated his ban. Strangesad (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how I violated my topic ban. Also, how it is a personal attack to suggest that an editor has represented sources dishonestly. And, how I can know "dishonest" is blockable when I am subjected to the same term, and nobody is blocked. Humanpublic (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Asked and answered. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

HP, I'd like to add a bit more to what I wrote above. I blocked you on 23 March at 23:58. In a discussion here about the topic ban at User talk:King of Hearts, who was the admin who determined consensus as to how the ban should be worded, KoH said on 24 March, while you were still blocked, "And you went back to editing Talk:Argument from silence, which was one of the pages which led to your ban. This shows every reason why no leniency should be shown." After your block expired, you disagreed that your edits on that talk page were part of your topic ban. KoH essentially said the same thing I did, which is that in discussing religious sources, you were violating your topic ban (" Basically, you are banned from any discussion on that page that has to do with the use of religious sources."). Essentially, my position seems to be the same as KoH's.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not a religious source. The editor adding it, History2007, insisted it's not a religious source. Humanpublic (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a source written by a non-religious author, but it discusses religion, as can be seen from the title. So it is not what one calls a religious source with a religious orientation, but a source that discusses a religious issue as one of its examples. When will this end? I thought the 2012 phenomenon was already over... Maybe not...History2007 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It does not discuss religion. It discusses how much a certain historian knew about the historical figure named "Jesus." It discusses Sherlock Holmes in the same way. More importantly, my comment about the source had nothing to do with its section on ancient history. It only concerned your use of the source to state that arguments from silence are logical fallacies. Humanpublic (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about Constitution of Hungary Edit War

Dear Bbb23, I have a question:

I have been adding updates to the Constitution of Hungary page and several users have been deleting them. I have been discussing each deletion of my addition on the talk pages and then reverting my addition (sometimes with suggested modifications, and never with 2 reversions in 24 hours). Last night, after the most recent deletion, I initiated a dispute resolution. But this morning I see that you have deleted my latest addition, and what is called a reversion to Biruitorul (talk · contribs)'s last edit is in fact a reversion to a deletion of my addition. And a warning against me has been created (I'm not sure by whom - yourself, or Biruitorul or someone else.

My question is this: Why is it I -- who have added content, which was then repeatedly deleted by others, and then repeatedly reverted (sometimes modified as requested) by me -- who am being warned about edit warring, and just when I have launched a dispute-resolution, having complied with the request to try to resolve via talk? I was not the one who kept deleting: I was just reverting the deletes of what I had added, and discussing it each time with the deletor. Is there any reason why it is me rather than the repeated deletors who receive the warning about edit warring?

Please let me know if I have misunderstood something, or failed to abide by any rules.

Also, will there be mediation in resolving this dispute, as I had hopped in launching my request for dispute resolution?

--Stevan Harnad 17:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Harnad (talk)

Hi, Stevan. Generally, when you add something and another editor reverts you, you are not supposed to restore your edit. Instead, it is better to go to the talk page and obtain a consensus for the material. See WP:BRD. There are, of course, exceptions, but it's a good rule of thumb in most content disputes.

• Thanks Bbb23. I have in fact been discussing and explaining the deletions on every occasion, and have often modified before reverting: In contrast, the deletions themselves have been peremptory, simply mentioning soap-boxing or recentism in the edit summary, and not discussing it with me first. --Stevan Harnad 18:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, policy prohibits edit warring, not just breaching WP:3RR, but any kind of edit warring that is disruptive to the article. In this instance, both you and the other editor, in my view, were edit warring. I could have blocked both of you, but I chose instead to lock the article to let things simmer down and permit you to work things out on the article talk page (hopefully) before the expiration of the lock. Please be aware that if you resume the battle after protection expires, you may be blocked.

• But there has been more than one editor deleting my additions. --Stevan Harnad 18:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason I reverted your edit was because, as I stated at WP:ANEW, you came way too close to copying the text frm the NYT, which constitutes a copyright violation and cannot remain. You should be more careful in the future.

• I appreciate that. But the only reason I turned it from a direct quote into a paraphrase was that one of the deletors rationale for deletion was that it was too long as a quote. So, since it was the substantive points that needed to be made I (lightly) paraphrased it. I informed Professor Scheppele immediately that I had done that, and why. And the citation is appended to it. I am pretty sure that neither she nor Professor Krugman have any objection under the circumstances, but if it would help, I can ask them to attest to that, saying they have no objections to the light paraphrase as it stands. --Stevan Harnad 18:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Any user can post a warning on your talk page. That doesn't mean the warning is valid, although you should pay attention to such warnings and determine for yourself whether you may be violating policy. You can always ask someone else who is not involved if you are unsure.

Starting a new topic at WP:DRN was a good thing. Be aware that it is not binding mediation, but, hopefully, it will shed some light on the content and policy issues. Just so you know, there are other dispute resolution mechanisms available to you besides the noticeboard. Whatever you do, don't battle in the article.

I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still a bit at sea about what steps I should take next. This is an interesting test case for WP. There is something really unfortunate going on in Hungary, and a good chunk of it has to do with media freedom. There is a strong and undeniable effort being made to suppress criticism. I think it borders on the absurd to try to prevent a short summary of the criticisms by one of the world's leading international constitutional scholars -- criticisms that are being given close attention all over the world, and that she has just presented in Washington to Senator Cardin's Helsinki Committee, and now published in their proceedings -- as "soap-boxing". This, unfortunately, is the clearest sign of how partisanship in Hungary has infected WP pages about Hungary: Why on earth should a short summary of these critiques, now being aired worldwide, be deleted from WP, rather than presented in the point-counterpoint fashion that (say) Ltbuni has (rather naively) tried to do: I say naively, because the counterpoints look rather weak when faced directly with the points. (And that's the reason there is considerable government pressure not to express the points at all. Biruitrol's summary certainly does not express them: it presents the canonical government-side view only, hedged only by noting that there is some controversy about some of the points...) --Stevan Harnad 18:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're discussing the content dispute. I don't want to get involved in that unless there's a policy issue, e.g., the copyright violation. I focus on behavior and procedural issues, particlarly related to policy. (Please stop using italics.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent unblock request

This user's posts on my talk page, on the Pope Francis talk page, on her own talk page (including her unblock request) are, well, "strange" for want of better word. I've had a look at some of her edits in articles besides Pope Francis and they are similarly "strange". I'm not going to get involved cleaning those up, but I'm wondering whether "something needs to be done"!. DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps you could provide some diffs of those edits you think are strange. And is it a small percentage of her edits or a significant percentage? And what do you suspect is the reason? Do you think it's a competence issue or something more disruptive? At this point I don't plan on reviewing all of her edits to form my own opinion. You're welcome to do that, although you're certainly not required to do so. Those kinds of reviews tend to be a fair amount of work.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry. I thought pretty much all her edits stuck out as being in the realm of the surreal - but it's probably just me. DeCausa (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Maduro

I have some interesting news articles which I wanted you to take a look at in talk when you have a second. I get a couple Venezuelan TV stations via streams and thought you would want to fix them into the correct syntax or provide feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)