Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dr.K. (talk | contribs) at 18:21, 11 March 2014 (→3RRN block mixup: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

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.

Xmas card

Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!

Holiday wishes!

Bbb23, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays! I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Misplaced Pages together! Keep rocking on! :) Salvidrim!, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all!

Shaku india (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Shaku india (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You made comments on my editing of Mughal-e-Azam. Pl note that all my editing have been done after talking to the authority on the matter. I have discussed the topic of Mughal-e-Azam with the original producer also the producer of the colour version i.e. Sterling Investment Corporation Pvt Ltd. (Shapoorji Pallonji group)

Therefore, I would appreciate if do not make derogatory remarks about my comments. And if you still do not believe me, let us jointly send a mail to Sterling Investment and ask them the facts and correct the same.

World Mission Society Church of God

There has been some contention from IPs and throw away-accounts over the referenced 2012 end of the world prediction. While I can't find a primary source to back it, I did find one 2013 source from the church seemingly denying it ... here ... or rather, they seem to imply that "the other guys" have made a wrong interpretation of a book and "we never said it should be understood that way". Has my head spinning. Look at it at see if I'm synthing here. Just trying to include their pov and hopefully reduce warring. Best, Sam Sailor 13:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a contentious article. In fact, it was so hard to make it a well-written neutral article I gave up on it and took it off my watchlist (it was left over from my pre-admin days). The issue of the world ending is one recurring theme, and I tended to revert editors removing that comment, more because of the probable motives than for substantive reasons. In any event, I'd rather just leave it in your hands. Even if your head is spinning, it's still no doubt far more level than 99.9% of the users who edit the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI -- New user account

Hello Bbb23, I saw that you deleted Bagus Kresna Murti as CSD:A7 and thought that you should be aware that User talk:Bagus Kresna Murti was created by me through the ACC process under AGF. I'm keeping an eye on the account, and figured you might like to as well. — {{U|Technical 13}} 17:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Murry Salby

I'd prefer you lock the stub as that is policy for BLP violations (there are many noted and none disputed there are issues). Proposed neutral additions should be on talk. Protecting an attack page (in which the current form, it is) is not a good practice. I didn't blank the article, I stubbed it per WP:ATTACK policy of a notable person with a skewed BLP article. Regardless of the AfD discussion, policy (and decency) requires a stub. If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person. --DHeyward (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to add biography information, including an entire section on his impressive list of positions held. How can we make that happen? I was in the middle of those changes when the lockdown occurred. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox is preferred while stubbed. to BLPs. --DHeyward (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, I'd rather hear what Bbb23 thinks. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is very negative, but that doesn't make the statements in it BLP violations. Generally, an obvious BLP violation is a negative statement that is unsourced or unreliably sourced. Obviously, there are instances where there are what I would label BLP problems that make may the article less BLP-compliant, but not violations sufficient to administratively remove them (consensus can do so, of course). As for adding material that would make the article more notable - and apparently in Sportfan's view more balanced - as I said in my comment, you can do that through protected edit requests on the article talk page or by listing them on the AfD page. The closing administrator - and other editors in the deletion discussion - will no doubt take that into account.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's policy. "Very negative" doesn't sound "fair". It may have gotten a little better but the the person's main notability isn't the negative material expressed in the article. Just being sourced does not alleviate the burden of NPOV. The burden is on the person claiming it is not a BLP violation to show how the current version is neutral and fair. The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Misplaced Pages article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. It should be stubbed and the process you outlined above for adding material should be followed. --DHeyward (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The article's lede – both sentences of it – are rather problematic from a BLP standpoint. Saying that a scientist with a lengthy career is "known for" something that, as far as I can tell, he has never published a peer-reviewed journal article on raises a red flag. (The statement is supported by two not-very-good sources: a column by James Delingpole, an outspoken climate change denialist; and a column from an Australian tabloid. Neither source discusses Salby's career in a broader sense; both are grounded in a conspiracy theory over his firing, and both authors have their own personal axes to grind on climate change issues.) Juxtaposing the first sentence of the article (which ends with mention of Salby's firing) and the second sentence (talking about how he is "known for" his particular stance on anthropogenic CO2) creates a very strong but very badly-supported suggestion (an implied synthesis, contravening policy) that Salby's firing and his recent opinions on certain aspects of climate change are a) related; and b) the only significant and important aspects of his career. That sort of suggestion shouldn't remain in a BLP at all, and particularly not as its entire lede.

The bulk of the rest of the article focuses predominantly on the blogosphere-stirred conspiracy theories over his firing. His career prior to moving to Macquarie University in 2008 is missed (save for two books from a three-item bullet list of publications), eliding three decades of work at UC Boulder. As I noted in one of my comments on the article's AfD, this problem comes as no surprise; the article started out as a vehicle to relate the conspiracy theories about Salby's firing, and it is very difficult to fix such WP:COATRACKs without stubbing and starting from scratch. I hope this clarifies the glaring BLP issues, and that you will revert to the short stub version pending a rewrite of a WP:BLP-compatible article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is a pending edit on Talk:Murry Salby which might help here. I think his two textbooks could be expanded on, and I'm not sure how to address the hundred + scientific journal articles. Many of them are highly cited. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• maybe separating the recent-ism with his overall career? Really he has to pass a legitimate climatologist with peer-reviewed work to be notable as a sceptic. There's lots of deranged persons we don't have bio's listed that are sceptics. The case for "why him" needs to be made. --DHeyward (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, everyone seems to agree that the current viewable version is largely negative, and I have done as instructed and made an edit request on the talk page to rectify what is undeniably a BLP problem. The edit request is uncontroversial material to help add some balance to the article. Could you take a look and consider making the requested changes? Thank you in advance. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Folks, if we were talking about an article that was not at AfD, I would not have locked the article. However, although I understand TOAT's comments about the lead, I don't see this as a major issue while the AfD is pending, whereas I believe a wholesale slashing of the article (stubbing it) is unwarranted and problematic for the purpose of the deletion discussion. If the article were really that bad, it would have been speedily deletable as a WP:CSD#G10. It was originally tagged for deletion as an WP:CSD#A7 by DHeyward, which clearly it is not. However, if I had thought it was a G10, even though it has not been so tagged, I would have deleted it on that basis.

I have no problem with the article being edited to make it more notable and/or more BLP-compliant, but given the rather fervent and passionate views by the two editors involved, I would need to see a consensus for the changes. Otherwise, I'm the one making a decision about controversial content changes, and I don't want to do that. I thought about blocking the two editors for edit-warring rather than effectively prohibit other editors from touching the article, but I suspect DHeyward would have raised BLP as an exemption, and we would have gotten nowhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Bluntly, you're applying the wrong test. When determining whether or not to remove biographical content from an article, you are not required to personally make a final determination on your own. For the initial removal, WP:BLP requires immediate action when faced with any reasonably-expressed good-faith concern that the content may violate the policy. While there obviously isn't universal agreement, it is certainly clear that a number of competent, experienced editors have expressed exactly those concerns.

It is then policy to allow as much time as necessary for a consensus to be reached on whether or how to present the challenged content in a WP:BLP-compliant manner. We don't carve out exceptions to WP:BLP for ongoing AfD discussions. (If someone wants or needs to link back to a dubious version of the article in the AfD, it is easy enough for them to do so. As well, the ongoing protection is probably more harmful to the AfD process than stubbing, as it prevents any meaningful improvements or additions to the article during the week or so it runs.) The process called for by WP:BLP is emphatically not to protect the article with the challenged material in place while waiting for a consensus to revise or remove it to develop on the talk page.

Finally, you seem to have overlooked an alternative administrative approach. As you've already noted, blocking DHeyward wouldn't have 'gone anywhere' because he would have raised the BLP exemption to WP:EW in his defense—and that's the way that BLP is supposed to work. Since you're aware that DHeyward had made a plausible, good-faith assertion under BLP, you presumably would have known not to place an expected-to-be-immediately-overturned block on him, and blocked Sportfan5000 for edit warring and violation of WP:BLP—thereby stopping the edit war. Frankly, you could have just warned Sportfan5000 that continued reverts violating BLP would not be tolerated; if he paid attention than neither blocks nor protection would have been required at all.

As far as I can see, the administrative action you need to take with respect to this article is either stubbing the protected article to comply with the very clear instructions in WP:BLP, or lifting the page protection so someone else can do it for you. If there's a third option that complies with the very non-negotiable terms of WP:BLP you're welcome to it, of course, but it is not readily apparent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually making the edit request sitting on the talk page since the beginning of the protection would immediately resolve the alleged concerns. The negativity is all sourced, and isn't overly negative. As has been noted, a few word choices would make the difference needed. In any case a more neutral version has been proposed and despite many requests no one is doing much but arguing about other controversies tied to the person. Seems to me we can do the obvious first, make some tweaks if needed, and allow regular processes take place. DHeyward was being overly antagonistic, and has worked to get the article deleted, that effort seems to be failing. I was in the middle of bringing the article into compliance when the lock went down. Sobeit. Let's now make the uncontroversial edit asked for that everyone seems to agree should take place so things can more easily move forward. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be going in circles here. I have nothing of any great significance to say that I haven't already said. Just a small comment about TOAT's apparent inference. I said that DHeyward would probably raise BLP as an edit warring exemption. I didn't say I agreed with it a as a defense: "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." If a report was filed at WP:AN3, putting aside the AfD issue, different administrators would react in different ways as we have discretion to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, I considered raising your page protection issue at ANI and decided not to but before that I put it on BLP noticeboard where I specifically asked for other eyeballs to prevent an edit war. You would have blocked me after I requested help which would be quite unheard of. I obviously disagree that a block would have been warranted. I tried multiple methods to hide the information (including hatting), and not being an admin I can't delete history. I considered G10 but the information is all sourced and BLP says to stub otherwise notable people, not delete them, if the article is not balanced or fair. The only other route was notability from consensus. I don't think it's obvious that he wasn't an A7 with the state of article (no claims of any significance, just a fired prof that lectured about his own views on global warming) and I don't think the article will ever present him as an above-average professor meeting . The notability criteria listed at AfD are not why he was added to WP. Personally, I believe he was created so that he would meet the blue-link criteria for the List of Scientists that Oppose Mainstream consensus on global warming (bio created 3 days prior to addition by same author). Had the list not required blue links or not existed at all, this article would never have been written. That is indeed the essence. AGF prevents me from raising that as a concern, but as a BLP it's history should be at least understood and the article watched to make sure the notability reasons he is here make up the bulk of his artcle, due weight and all. --DHeyward (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I roll with the MLA

"To indicate a dash in typing, use two hyphens, with no space before, between, or after. (Some word processors have a dash, and you may use it instead of hyphens.)" Gibaldi, Joseph (1998). "Dashes and Parentheses". MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing. Modern Language Association of America. p. 73. ISBN 9780873526999. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, as you know, Misplaced Pages generally doesn't give two hoots about outside style manuals. Instead, we have our own often unintelligible MOS. Take a look at MOS:DASH and see what you make of it. The only thing I'm fairly certain of is we're not supposed to use two hyphens instead of a dash, but whether we should use an emdash or an endash, and whether there should spaces around it is not something I've studied or want to study. All that said, do whatever you think best with Alice Besseling. It's a nit, and I won't question your judgment. I hope everything is well otherwise. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Things are fine, thanks, except that I had to have my home PC redone after a Vista crash. I now have Windows 7, but lost all my software and passwords. At least I kept my data and don't have to retype everything when I file my taxes. I hope you and yours are well as well. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, Windows 7 is an improvement over Vista.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, but not much, haha. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dumb question, but could 10.4.1.126 actually BE the bot?

Hi, I saw this, then this and when I did a geolocate on 10.4.1.126 it looked it was one of those IP ranges that could actually wind up being an internal IP or something. I don't think I'm articulating this in a way that makes sense, but I wondered if the IP actually IS the bot, but somehow it's been logged out or there's some other behind-the-scenes Misplaced Pages business that has resulted weird, though presumably legitimate edits? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Cyphoidbomb, I'm guessing you haven't seen Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Possible_bot_malfunctioning.3F or User talk:10.4.1.126 or User_talk:Legoktm#Legobot or ... Well, I'm sure you get the point... "known" issue. ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} 03:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13 Oh dear GOD no! I would never pollute my mind with Administrators' noti--aw never mind. Just trying to help amidst what I interpreted as confusion. I shall go back to monitoring SpongeBob vandalism... I am sorry one and all. Template:Pistol to own skull Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrian civil war sanctions

I thank you for your warning. I've given up on the issue, hoping some other editor or administrator would be able to make that other editor follow Misplaced Pages policy on unreliable sources and POV pushing. And I am not going to be involved in the dispute any longer. I apologise if my actions caused trouble and will be more careful in the future to not let the situation get out of hand as it did. Once again, I apologise! EkoGraf (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I meant to respond to this earlier, but ... It speaks well of you that you acknowledge the problem and intend to be more watchful in the future. The Syrian civil war articles are a minefield (no pun intended), and it's easy to get carried away, despite the existence of the sanctions. Thanks for your message.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Why you deleted Saeed Shad article page

Why you deleted Saeed Shad article??reason?Balochi tamur (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There may be other criteria that justify speedy deletion, but I deleted it because it was a copyright violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Article's been recreated by User:Balochifilm (i.e. Balochi tamur socking in the most blatant way possible). I'm too involved to touch it, but a couple of blocks wouldn't go amiss. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Block extension of User talk:Balochi tamur

Had to extend User talk:Balochi tamur block for an extra week. He has been evading the block through several IP addresses and continued posting to Haneef Shareef and Saeed Shad. -- Alexf 12:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Alexf. Feel free to make the block indefinite now or later. It's conventional to block a sock master for a few weeks on the first block rather than indefinitely, but if the master is disruptive enough, the block can be longer or indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Indef was considered but having talked to him in his talk page before I felt originally he was a young misguided SPA editor with a lot to learn. After extending the block I learned more about the socking, including block evasion in several IP addresses which I also blocked. Decided to leave him as-is and wait for his answer or next action. Invited him to comment on his user talk page. No doubt one more transgression will earn an indef. -- Alexf 17:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Corona Monroe

Trying to develop a wikipedia page for user CoronaMonroe who is a real person with a biography and no different than Top Cruise, so why did you delete the total of two paragraphs that I submitted this morning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoronaMonroe (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been deleted twice (first by another administrator and then by me) as having no credible claim of encyclopedic significance. Although I didn't use another basis for deletion, it's also promotional, which is subject to speedy deletion based on WP:CSD#G11. Are you Corona Monroe?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Seeking clarification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since I don't want to get blocked for 3RR ever again, will you please explain what constitutes a revert? GabeMc 20:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: "You changed the text in both paragraphs of the lead. Those changes constitute a revert. Some editor or editors wrote that language. You undid their "actions" by changing it." Are you equating copyediting with reverting? Is this a revert, IYO? GabeMc 20:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Remember, a revert is changing information on a page, and that include edits that you might not think of as disruptive", but per WP:RV: "Reverting means completely reversing a prior edit, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously." So how does this support your position that any changes to existing text constitute a reversion? GabeMc 20:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:RV is an essay. To the extent there is any inconsistency between the essay and the policy, obviously the policy trumps the essay. I don't actually see much inconsistency except that WP:RV introduces the notion of a "partial reversion" (which you omitted from your quotation of the essay definition). If you still don't understand, talk to another administrator because I haven't been able to get through to you, and I don't think spending any more time on the issue is going to help.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this a revert, or a copyedit IYO? GabeMc 22:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't count that as a revert in an edit-warring report. Not sure copy edit is the best label to ascribe to it, but it's not particularly important.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this a revert or a copyedit? GabeMc 22:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Both. I wouldn't count it, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you say that I reverted four times, but refuse to name those specific diffs? I thought that was a requirement for blocking based on WP:3RR. At my talk page you said that the edit at 17:31 was a revert. Will you please explain how this is a revert? GabeMc 22:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your position on this seriously confuses me, and I don't think we've ever gone around on circles for this. I use what some people consider to be an excessively strict definition, in that I don't care whether the editor intentionally undid a previous edit or how long ago the previous version was, if I can identify a previous version of the article that used the wording that the edit created, that edit is a revert. That's still a long way from what you seem to be using. Can you explain to me how you define a reversion, and what your policy basis for that definition is?—Kww(talk) 23:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If an earlier editor or editors wrote something in the article, a change to that material constitutes a revert per the definition in the policy. That doesn't mean, however, that administrators don't have discretion not to count what technically constitutes a revert. Obviously, context matters, and, perhaps less obviously but not suprisingly, administrators may disagree on how to exercise their discretion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If consensus has been established, the "revert" would actually be of the revert of the new change. It is not a revert to change the prior text of an article. Doc talk 02:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The only definition I can find for "revert" is in WP:EW, and that uses the word "reverse". It used to have a definition much closer to mine, but someone seems to have simplified it. Regardless, not all changes are reversals. Are you using some other policy as the basis of your definition?—Kww(talk) 03:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I use the definition in the box: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." The word "undoes" is also used in the lead (not "reverses"). That said, I don't think the complete sentence with the word "reverses" ("A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.") is any different in meaning from the sentence in the box and in the lead. BTW, I'm going off-wiki shortly and so will not respond to further comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

We'll need to take this up later, then, because it appears to me that you are way off the reservation. Neither "undo" nor "reverse" would support the concept of "any change". "Any change" makes no distinction between reverts and edits, and we certainly distinguish between edit warring and editing.—Kww(talk) 03:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, is one time calling someone a meatpuppett really more derogatory and disruptive IYO than repeatedly calling someone a bully? GabeMc 17:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the block, and I'm not quibbling with it. This is just a part of the underlying reasoning that appears to be wrong and to have the potential to set some bad precedent.—Kww(talk) 13:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You did both, see User talk: STATicVapor#Stop bullying me. You also referred to multiple editors as meatpuppets in this edit summary, just for disagreeing with you. STATic message me! 20:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, if calling someone a meatpuppett is a personal attack then the policy should not be named WP:MEAT. How is anyone going to cite that guideline without committing a PA? Had I called you a "f---ing jerk" there would be no issue, right? I think that mislabeling a good-faith edit as vandalism, as you did here is as bad as accusing someone of meatpuppetry. GabeMc 20:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23, you said I made four reverts, but my first and last series of edits are copyedits that introduce new material that wasn't in the article before, so can you please explain how this edit and this edit are reverts? GabeMc 23:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• When I decided our dialog was unproductive, I suggested you find another administrator who might be able to communicate more effectively with you. You apparently are now taking advice from another editor (not an admin) while you're also discussing the possibility of an WP:RFC/ADMIN. My view that any further dialog beween us would be unhelpful hasn't changed. After I leave this comment, I'm going to close this part of the discussion as I did the one above, so please don't comment here anymore. Good luck to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passed

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting for restoration

Sir, just before an hour of deletion, another admin. advised me to edit the content to meet wiki rules and assured me to request for undeletion of the page Arjuna Gamang if I try for proper edit and I have started the job leaving a note on the talk page. So would you please reconsider me giving some time to work on the article by restoring it . Hpsatapathy (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't restore it, but I'll WP:USERFY it for you if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

sir, Thanks for your brilliant gesture. I would like to gladly concede your view for moving the article to user subpage.2. Hpsatapathy (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is now at User:Hpsatapathy/Arjuna Gamang. You had a page by that name, but there wasn't much in it, so I figured you wouldn't mind if I replaced yours with the article before it was deleted. I strongly suggest you submit the article through WP:AFC once you think it's ready.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir,I must thank you for maintaining neutrality throughout the process.

Hpsatapathy (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ping pong at WP:ANEW

The longest dormancy period by this IP was from 01:23 on the 5th to 00:48 on the 8th, or nearly 48 hours. Are you saying we ought to simply wait for more disruption to occur before taking action? Are you using me as a ping pong ball to be whacked between two players (AN/I, where there already is a discussion and AN/EW)? The reason those on AN/I have been hesitant to conclude the IP's edits are disruptive independent of edit warring is due to the lack of (not naming names) WP:COMPETENCE in editing climate data; if they had at least much competence as I had or were meteorologists, this would have not been protracted, and a push to block such IPs on sight would have already been made. Instead there is this willingness, sickness, in fact, to be complacent with IPs. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Jose Rafael Cordero Sanchez ... again

Further to User talk:Metropolitan90#José Cordero Sánchez: he is back and makes new variations of the article title by moving the acute accent, this time José Rafael Corderó. Will you deal with Yorgelis Delgado and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Josercs1? Two of the three socks have user pages copied directly from User:Ubiquity. Best, Sam Sailor 23:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Haiwei Dong

Both you and @Gogo Dodo: have deleted this page only for it to be recreated again .... can you review it again and if (as i think it does) still meet the A7/G11 then can you delete it and WP:SALT it (since this is the 3 creation). (x-posted to Gogo Dodo). LGA _talk 06:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

LGA, I've deleted and salted it, but I have a few comments. First, I generally don't speedy delete an article I've speedy deleted before. I let another administrator handle it. Second, you should have retagged the article for speedy deletion. That said, I made an exception to my "rule" and deleted the article even without a tag. The article contained large amounts of copyrighted text. The editor is clearly a WP:SPA and is here only to promote this person. I've left warnings on the user's talk page about the copyright and promotional issues (he deletes stuff from his talk page, but the history will be there).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Iowa hospital entry deleted

Our recent attempt to add an entry for the not-for-profit hospital Skiff Medical Center in Newton, Iowa was deleted. The reason listed was promotion/advertising. However, as you can see on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_hospitals_in_Iowa), a great many Iowa hospitals have their own pages. How can a page be created for Skiff in line with these organizations, including Grinnell Regional Medical Center and Mary Greeley Medical Center? 69.66.30.170 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

3RRN block mixup

Hi Bbb23. I hope everything is well with you and yours. Since you are a 3RRN admin, I bring to you a rather odd event, which imo has resulted in the block of the wrong editor: Pinkbeast. I understand this is simply a mistake but since Callanecc appears to be offline, I bring it to your attention so that it can hopefully be resolved. The details are here. Thank you very much. Take care. Δρ.Κ.  18:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)