This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Demiurge1000 (talk | contribs) at 16:16, 30 June 2014 (→Question: stalk page talker comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:16, 30 June 2014 by Demiurge1000 (talk | contribs) (→Question: stalk page talker comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
|
Got it
Please check out now— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Sobchak0 (talk • contribs) 21:49 26 May 2014 (UTC)
NRSJPS
Why did you removed the yoga picture??--prathamprakash29 04:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)--prathamprakash29 04:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 (talk • contribs)
When are you going to reply??? I hope within a year or so.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- When are you going to learn how to WP:SIGN your posts? You issues with the article should remain on the talk page of the article, not on my talk page. That said, there are too many pictures as it is. The yoga picture just gets swallowed up with the rest and adds little value to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Block Amendment
Hey Bbb23 - note that I have extended the block you made on Sudhir7777 as they have been confirmed to be socking. Again. Hope you don't mind, but I did warn them in May that I would indef if they continued to evade their block(s) and I'm a woman of my word. --Jezebel'sPonyo 19:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ponyo, you have an ulterior motive: you wanted me to clerk the report.
Of course, I don't object to your extending the block. It was obviously well deserved. I have closed the report. I added some tags, which strictly weren't necessary, and I changed some tags that weren't quite right (added by a non-admin-non-clerk - I wish they wouldn't do that), and took no action against Buddyonline7. The haven't edited in a few days, and my guess is if they persist, they may be blocked anyway for disruption. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Baron Dupotet
Thank you for your support. I don't know which name is best, my or French. I also hope that someone else will continue the article if they are inspired. User:Skoglund
- Saw your note after I got up, and yes, I can read that stuff; I'm wondering why Drmies didn't import the info about his missing thumb, for instance. I will see what I can do, but I see Drmies has already done a lot, and you made a fair start yourself. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I had a French friend who was missing part of one of his fingers. He was much better than an esoterocist; he was a great cook with a wonderful 17th century house in the Norman countryside. Drmies did his usual superlative job with the article. My role was limited to saving it from deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Help
Hi, I would be really grateful if you look at this matter at Talk:The Divergent Series: Insurgent because you are a experienced and fair editor.--Jockzain (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, Jockzain, but I rarely get involved in content disputes - or in this case title disputes - except sometimes on the periphery, or if I am not acting as an administrator. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You blocked Ashumech527 for editwarring, and then along comes
another editor with almost exactly the same edits. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Doug, I blocked the latest editor for 72 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. I haven't extended the block of the first account yet. Instead, I started Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashumech527. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised however the CU comes out on this one. I'm more used to blocking someone and then a new account coming along rather than an old account. Plus, there seems to be a lot of editors with these aggressive ethnic biases, so it's hard to say. We'll see what happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. A 3rd editor showed up who uses the same language as Bhumihar brahmin, I'ved added him to the SPI. Alexnews (the new one) is appealing his block. I notice that the possible puppetmaster has socked before. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Which shows my bad memory, I'm the one who reported him before, just noticed that! Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hehe, I'm glad I'm not the only one who suffers from a bad memory occasionally. We'll see what happens, either directly from a CU or if a clerk intervenes. Meat puppet issues are thorny.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Which shows my bad memory, I'm the one who reported him before, just noticed that! Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. A 3rd editor showed up who uses the same language as Bhumihar brahmin, I'ved added him to the SPI. Alexnews (the new one) is appealing his block. I notice that the possible puppetmaster has socked before. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
User:I.Bhardwaj AN3 report
Hello Bbb23. The report that I filed was about a different article from the one already there. So please restore it as merging just makes it a TLDR. -- SMS 08:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Smsarmad, my apologies. However, in my absence you did a very good job of combining the two, thanks. I've now closed the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Return to Oz
Hi: you previously locked Return to Oz due to ongoing problems with edit warring / content disputes. Unfortunately these issues have resumed now that the article lock has expired. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks, BMRR (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- BMRR, that was a few weeks ago. Can you tell me what triggered my interest in the article? There seems to be a lot of suspicious activity going on, including possible sock puppetry. It's a little tough to sort out, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I reported the edit warring on one of the notice boards. You locked it shortly after I made the report, so you must've been the first admin to see the report. Would you be willing to lock it again (and/or deal with the participants of the edit war) or do I need to file another report? Thanks, BMRR (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- BMRR, I've indefinitely blocked one of the accounts as a sock. Hopefully that will help.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I reported the edit warring on one of the notice boards. You locked it shortly after I made the report, so you must've been the first admin to see the report. Would you be willing to lock it again (and/or deal with the participants of the edit war) or do I need to file another report? Thanks, BMRR (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
AppalArts Magazine
Frankly I dont understand why you deleted the page. I followed the unbiased approach and provided references from current media to show that it is a reliable article. If you could explain as to how the "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" I would greatly appreciate it. thanks XGuyFawkes (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)XGuyFawkes
- It had no references. It had nothing except the title and a non-existent logo.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Encyc deletion
The article you deleted (Encyc) was about a wiki that has been around for six years and referenced in two scholarly works, one of them published by the Stanford University Press. I agree maybe it looked a little like advertising but that could be fixed with some minor changes Please undelete. Duck of Luke (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- No. In addition to the promotional problems and the dubious notability, you copied a fair amount of material from the site itself. It's not clear to me whether the licensing of the articles also applies to the descriptions of the site itself. Either way, you did a slipshod job.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Recreation
Deepak Rawal which was deleted by you yesterday and twice earlier by others has now been recreated as user page, see User:Deepakrawal5/Deepak Rawal. For your information.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Edit on County roads in Ramsey County, Minnesota
Hi Bbb23,
You said that a list of roads can't be A7ed. What does the A7ed mean? Robert4565 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Robert4565, you can only tag certain articles with an WP:CSD#A7, and places and roads aren't among them (look at the list).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Talk page access
Hi, Bebe. LardoBalsamico blanked his page and put a {{retired}} template on it. I don't think that's heinous, even if it did also involve removing the block notice. (Which is currently not even an offense; see the consensus in the latest RFC on the matter for allowing users to remove block notices; the only thing they can't remove is unblock requests. Even so, incidentally, I think he should have been warned before tpa was removed, because removing tpa is supposed to be a last-ditch action, reserved for serious abuse. Anyway, he doesn't want to request unblock, he wants to retire. (At least, today he wants to, and I think we should respect it.) Did you notice his edit summary here? I think he was trying to request his user page be deleted, but couldn't edit it, so had to put the tag on talk. And now he can't edit that either… I must say I don't like the situation I see emerging from the talkpage history. Unless you have some strong objection, I'm going to restore talkpage access. No, scrap that, I have restored it. Hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 14:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC).
- I don't see any declared consensus, and I doubt there ever will be one. I don't care that much that you restored talk page access, but I'm not crazy about your basis. He was warned in an edit summary: "restore block notice and admin's comment - don't remove it again". Not a formal warning, I grant you, but good enough. In any event, it wasn't my block, so I probably should have stayed out of it unless Callanecc took the position that the notice should not be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- No no, no declared consensus, quite so. 24 supports, 4 opposes (with the last oppose posted on 3 June, the same day the discussion was opened, and the supports still steadily dropping in), and the guideline has been changed accordingly, but nothing's been declared. Perhaps it should be closed as "no consensus". Bishonen | talk 22:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC).
- I don't see any change to the "guideline". Looks like the disputed language is the same. My last comment on this, Bish. I'm tired and I'm not up to exchanging barbs with you. Regards (sincere).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- No no, no declared consensus, quite so. 24 supports, 4 opposes (with the last oppose posted on 3 June, the same day the discussion was opened, and the supports still steadily dropping in), and the guideline has been changed accordingly, but nothing's been declared. Perhaps it should be closed as "no consensus". Bishonen | talk 22:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC).
Making no comment about the merits of removing access, but I personally see a block and then removing talk page access as separate things (unless it was initially removed with the block) so it's not messing with the block at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- So, Callanecc, if I understand you properly, even though it was "your" block, a subsequent removal of talk page access has nothing to do with you. In other words, in this instance, you're leaving me to battle with Bish all by my lonesome. I've had some experience with this. I think it's Bish whatever, me zip. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all, I was just saying that I see the two as seperate things so there is no reason to check with the blocking admin before you remove tp or email access, unless the user hasn't done anything. If it's in response to further editing/emailing then I don't see a reason to check. Regarding the removal in question, I thought it was a little harsh and a very short full protection would have done the job if necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Salt?
Hi Bbb23. Any chance you could salt Kunwer Azlan? See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/PakistanUnderGroundAssociation. Thank you. - MrX 01:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's already been salted by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks.- MrX 01:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Misha B Edit Warring (2012)
Hi Bbb23.
You left a comment on my profile (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wikimucker) in October 2012 which was fair enough to someone coming anew to that frankly rather odd situation in October 2012.
The editor in question is no longer active on Misplaced Pages as of shortly afterwards see https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Zoeblackmore and for reasons they explain on their own page (and with which reasons I could not possibly disagree given the serial issues I had with their 'contributions') and I wonder whether you would be prepared to revist your comment on my motives and actions at the time and to modify your stance somewhat for the record..and indeed for my record.
Kind Regards Wikimucker (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I am a little confused
Hello. I am a little confused about this edit summary from User:HBC AIV helperbot11. It says that you blocked the IP indef but when I look at the block log the the IP I do not see any indef or even recent blocks.
Is this some sort of auto-block side effect? Is the IP really blocked indefinitely? Perhaps the bot is confused?
I am asking because I wrote the initial incarnation of the bot and want to know if it is making mistakes. Chillum 18:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- I can't tell you how the bot works, but my guess is it's an autoblock issue. The bot's edit summary was today at 18:16. If you go to the autoblock list, there are two entries at 18:09 that may be relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Chillum, I just looked at the IP's contributions, and there are some after the bot said he was indeffed. If he was autoblocked, how would he have been able to edit? Now I'm confused, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Very odd. The bot's code has changed significantly since I last edited it so I am not sure. It does seem that the bot should not have removed that IP from AIV. I agree it is likely the side effect of an auto-block, but I don't get why the IP could edit if that was the case. I know that auto blocks of IPs are temporary but I don't think it is that short. Chillum 23:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Chillum, as I understand the explanation at WP:ABK, the autoblock lasts at least 24 hours (unless lifted). However, each time a user (named account or IP) is autoblocked it resets to 24 hours from that point. Thus, in theory, as long as users continue to log in during the autoblock, the autoblock could continue indefinitely if the original block was indefinite (I believe the autoblocks expire after the original block expires). I'm a very literal guy, so that's my interpretation of the language but it's not as clear as I'd like it to be. All of that is interesting but doesn't resolve the problem at hand.
- BTW, it's been nice "meeting" you. I first noticed you on Drmies's talk page where almost everyone goes at one time or another to discuss whatever. You're clearly someone Drmies likes, which, in my book, means something, although Drmies's tastes are more elastic than mine. He even likes me. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I have been away for a while and it has been really a pleasant surprise how many people are still around from the old days and still recognize me. I am a friendly guy so it is nice to meet you and consider me always open to contact from you. Chillum 07:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Huh?
I edited the Jordan Belfort article, principally to remove grandiose claims that were cited only to his memoir, to add citations to more recent events, and to remove material that was future-tense when written (e.g., "in 2014 Belfort will...) and which did not come to pass.
You reverted the edit because you said it contained original research. It didn't.
I pointed that out, and you reverted the edit again. This time you didn't complain that it contained original research, but instead that it was not viewpoint neutral.
What gives?
Quite a few people have complained that the page seems to include an excessive amount of PR for a convicted fraudster. If you think my edits were either original research, or violated viewpoint neutrality, then you should identify in what respect that's the case. Reverting the entire page to restore PR material, junk claims about events that never came to pass, and the like, serves no purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Minor editors
Hi Bbb23,
I had to edit and subsequently request oversighting of parts of the recent discussion at WT:RFA. If an editor who's a minor reveals their age (without knowing that we routinely advise young editors not to do so in the interests of their own safety online), please don't repeat it.
Best wishes, — Scott • talk 09:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, Scott, I noticed it later (by chance). I find it somewhat dissonant that we permit anyone to create an account, no matter how young they are, that they can broadcast their age, but then we're not allowed to mention it. At the same time, I didn't intentionally contravene policy when I included the age. It simply didn't occur to me, and although I think it reads better with the actual age, it's certainly not a big deal one way or the other. Thanks for the heads up, and I'll try to remember in the future. I noticed the age was oversighted on the user's user page; at least there's some consistency in the actions. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I totally didn't think that you did it on purpose. As far as I know, we always try to zap such mentions wherever they happen. It's a little awkward when it happens after the fact in a conversation, but talk pages are a bit weird more often than not. :-) — Scott • talk 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Question
I responded on my talk page but you never replied so I'm posting the question here:
I have no idea how the text "walking with another man" is controversial in any way, or WP:COATRACK (I checked COATRACK and based off those rules there doesn't seem to be an issue with that particular phrase being in the article). Maybe you can enlighten me where I'm wrong here, thanks.
Also is the NY Post considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages? Ifinteger (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- To your second question, the answer is, not for material about living people, no.
- To your first question... why would you want to put that material in the article anyway? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Back?
I see you are back on-wiki, and active in the 3RR board. Would you mind reviewing the report I filed with regard to Sepsis II? Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- I was actually looking at the report when you posted this message, but I have an appointment and must leave for a while. I may be able to revisit it later if another administrator has not already done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)