Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:26, 24 August 2014

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 Archive 64

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.

Got it

Please check out now— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Sobchak0 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Rev. Robert N. McIntyre

Last night I created the page for Rev. Robert N. McIntyre. It was cited for A7. The page was not yet complete but I do believe that person in question did provide significance, especially to the Reformed Episcopal denomination. He not only founded 4 plus churches but also a predominant summer camp run by the denomination. Lastly, he was the author of a major doctrinal publication regarding ministers in the domination and their roles. This is mentioned on the Reformed Episcopal Misplaced Pages pages and its significance. He is mentioned on almost any Reformed Episcopal historical record and on many websites of the churches as an inspiration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshalmiller (talk • contribs) 13:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Drmies

Hey, I'm not sure you intended to to this, but it's considered bad form for a third-party to remove one editor's comment from another's talk page, as you did at User talk:Drmies. betafive 01:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also bad form to template a regular over a comment that was not in any way a personal attack. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Arguably so, but it's not a policy violation (as removing another editor's talk-page comments from a third-party's talk page is.) Who asked you again? betafive 02:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"Who asked you" is not a good way to address anyone on this wiki. I've noticed that you appear to be trying to pick fights with people, which isn't part of building the encyclopedia. Please consider having a nice walk, a sandwich, or something that makes you happy. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I was asking seriously, because your suggestions aren't helpful. Look, I'm not trying to pick fights with people, but content and policy disagreements happen. I don't know why some choose to turn them into interpersonal issues, but I'm not responsible for the actions of other people. betafive 03:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Beta, I've seen instances of editors A and B posting to a talk page or ANI at the almost exact same time. A posts first, B then posts, but in the process B's post causes A's post to disappear. Done it myself on one occasion and had at least one case of an editor doing the same to a post of mine....William 03:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware. I'm not accusing User:Bbb23 of maliciousness, but it's still careless. betafive 03:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If a glitch happens and material gets removed without the (second) editor being informed, how is that careless? Are you expecting every editor to review a diff of every edit they make, after making it, to check that there has not been a glitch? Or something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't there have been a conflict warning? betafive 03:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, Betafive, I have no idea - and still don't - what happened. I started off trying to fix something that Drmies did inadvertently when he edited his talk page. It was some gobbledygook, and it looks like his fingers slipped or something. I had his edit and an edit window open side by side and carefully restored what had been there before Drmies accidentally changed it. I didn't look at my edit immediately, but I noticed a short time later that the byte change made no sense. So, when I looked at my diff, I saw I had removed an IP's comment, I have no idea how I did that. Still don't. So, I went back in to restore it. I suppose after the first fiasco, I should have looked more carefully at my restore, but I didn't scroll down far enough to notice that at the same time I had removed your comment in restoring the IP's comment. Again, I don't know how this one happened. Usually I can figure these things out, but for the life of me I can't. Again, my apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No, betafive, edit conflict messages do not always appear, and therefore some of your comments are unfair and should be retracted. Not that it's a big deal, but, it upset some people, so, it was a problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

My apology still stands, Betafive, but the comments by Demiurge and others with regard to "unreported" edit conflicts are true. I've seen it happen. It just never happened to me twice in succession, so it was a bit off-putting for me. Anyway, my suggestion is you move on, but you don't have to retract anything as far as I'm concerned if you don't wish to.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, water under the bridge. If I offended you, I'm sorry about that; I certainly didn't mean to imply it was anything other than an honest mistake. betafive 00:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello. This is Jayson37373737. you deleted my page for no reason. That was my loveliest work! For this, I am going to try to delete my account and start a new website. Thank you. Jayson3737373737 11:08, 17 August 2014 (GMC)

SPI CLerk page

I have never opened an RFC it states on the page to ask for help and someone will help so I'm doing that for the second time. Will you please guide me to what I'm missing? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to restrain myself, partly because of my previous positive interactions with you, but you're being incredibly obtuse. First, the process page tells you to include "a brief, neutral statement of the issue" (bolding in original). Do you call your lengthy statement brief? Neutral? That's the most important thing you're missing. It also tells you to code the RfC (yours ended up in unsorted). In my view, you should have coded it "policy" as that's the category closest to what it is. Forget about all that. Why don't you step back, take a break, do whatever? Pushing this is not going to help you, and don't tell me you're doing it on principle. You should know by now that one's own view as to what's important at Misplaced Pages is worthless unless there is a sufficient number of other members of the community who agree with you. But I don't think this is going to get through to you, more's the pity.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely that more then my opinion is needed, that's why I included the community and not just the checkusers and clerks. I thought if it ends up just being me then hey that's the way it goes. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I just have a big problem with hiding behind email walls. I'm a big enough person to say what I mean on[REDACTED] and it bothers me when others can't back up their own opinions. I am more so hurt by the rationale behind then not being able to help out. I will let you know that in my personal life I was raised a Jehovah's Witness because I had a rough youth I was trying to reform and go back to the religion, well I didn't know that they had canceled the meeting that day and were remodeling the kingdom hall. This is an event when people are encouraged to help and donate time, but because I didn't have a specific rank within that congregation I was turned away. I never went back after that because it seriously hurt me that people willing to help was treated so callously. This situation is a lot similar except in this case I just wish I had the respect from people to actually say what they feel and not hide behind. You can believe what you want. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your childhood experience, and I have little doubt in your sincerity, but Misplaced Pages is, like so many things, not always "fair". Think of it like applying for a job and you're turned down but no one will tell you why. It's frustrating but there's not much you can do about it. Also, it might help if you don't think of this as a lack of respect but a conventional practice that isn't going to change just for you. In other words, you're not being singled out. Anyway, no matter what, I hope you feel better. It's easy to forget on Misplaced Pages that there are real human beings with feelings lurking behind these posts. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR repeated actionable misconduct

Hi, Bbb23. I go to extreme lengths to avoid any violation of 1RR as not to irritate anyone. P123ct1 was warned about the 1RR restriction in the ISIS article like we all have been warned, yet it repeatedly engages in reverts that violate the 1RR restriction. Since 15 August, starting with , its has made 2RRs or more on a daily basis. Also, its edit summary says "reverting self" when it technically was reverting my edit in a 1RR article. This is one example by which it has reverted me I invite you to take a quick look at its edits and take the appropriate action to minimize disruption. Thanks Worldedixor (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please also take a look at Corriebertus. While I am completely in agreement with its edits, it has violated 1RR starting with and . Enforcing the strict policy on everyone equally will minimize disruption to other editors who may not agree with its edits. Worldedixor (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm addressing only P123ct1 because you added the other just a few seconds ago. P123ct1 has never been officially notified of the sanctions. I have now notified them. If I recall correctly, I declined to sanction you when you violated 1RR because you had not been officially notified, although notification is not required to sanction someone for violating 1RR. I have no comment on the merits.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:P123ct1 thought that the "reverting self" edit was their 1RR edit - I did . P123ct1 is clearly aware of 1RR and trying their best not to break 1RR. So far the policy has been applied equally - no one has been blocked. User:Corriebertus did break 1RR - 2 edits with 10 minutes between. Editors need to be reminded to check to see if anyone has edit if they are going to revert twice in a short period of time, Even a minute's delay can end up with an editor breaking 1RR - it's tricky in a fast moving article. It is much better to ask why a fact tag was added, or remove it with a comment saying "this is already in the reference" than to call it disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. Worldedixor (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why admin Dougweller is justifying P123ct1's 1RR, but we can assume good faith for now as to his non-bias in favor of one editor until we notice a pattern. I just want to point out the verifiable fact that was made many hours (not minutes) after . I also initiated a discussion on cn requests on the article Talk page. I am asking for no further action on Corriebertus unless Bbb23 deems it necessary as an uninvolved admin in the best interest of WP. Worldedixor (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The "repeated actionable misconduct" in the heading is threatening language that in WP I could well imagine is "actionable" in itself! :D .I went to Dougweller yesterday about the "reverting self" edit he refers to above, concerned that it brought me to 1RR. This was his reply:-

I have foolishly reverted myself today (with intervening edits by others). Is that my 1RR for 24 hours? --P123ct1 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, afraid so unless you revert your revert. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I promptly reverted my revert and assumed I was clear. Secondly, I didn't think adding a "cn" tag counted as a revert. I am happy to stand corrected on either or both points. I have not hear from Bbb23 yet. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P123ct1, I will tell you what I tell all editors about reverts in the edit-warring context. Technically, any change to an article or the restoration of material previously deleted is a revert. However, administrators have discretion on what they characterize as a revert, and you shouldn't assume that administrators will always agree in any particular case. Contrary to what some think, we do not operate as a single entity. The more minor the edit, the less likely - but not guaranteed - it will be called a revert. For example, if you add a comma or remove a comma, the vast majority, if not all, admins would not label that a revert except in the rare circumstance that it fundamentally changed the meaning of the sentence. Certainly, it's safe to say that fixing a misspelling would not be called a revert. As for your specific question about tagging, you might be shocked to learn how many edit wars are over tags. Yet, in your case, if the tag is brand new (I didn't check), it shouldn't count as a revert because it doesn't change anything in the article; it is a brand new addition. Finally, remember that when you're editing articles that are subject to sanctions, whether they be community or ArbCom sanctions, your edits are going to be scrutinized more closely, so you should be extra careful. Also, with truly gnomish-type edits, ask yourself if it matters whether you do it or let someone else do it or at least at least wait until the 24-hour window has clearly elapsed. It's not urgent, is it? It's a shame we have to operate in this way, but that's the problem with editing controversial subject matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Self-reverting does not count as a revert per WP:EW, so you can do that as many times as you like and still revert one more editor on that day. CodeCat (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification about self-reverts; it has put my mind at rest. Bbb23, thanks for your explanation as well, particularly about tags. I am surprised to learn that even they can be so controversial! I will obviously have to be careful about any I make in the future. But it does sound to me as if copy-editing really isn't possible in controversial articles with 1RRs. Many new entries in the ISIS article are written by users whose English is not their mother tongue and the grammar can often be awkward and straightening it out can involve quite a lot of minor changes. Obviously the golden rule is not to change the sense, and I haven't met any trouble over that so far. I always think of the reader first, and the ISIS article is getting many thousands of hits per day, so I feel obliged to make it readable. I also didn't realise how much latitude admins are allowed in applying the 1RR rule. I have been quite concerned that I might have been reverting inadvertently after this issue was raised by Worldedixor, and now feel reassured. Thank you again for your help. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

PS My revert at Worldedixor's (8) was made with consensus. I took the matter to the Talk page first, and let the required 24 hours after placing my "cn" tags pass before removing that passage. I was extremely careful about this. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Question on gnomish editing, eg case changes, and what counts as a revert. Maybe it should have been on the 3RR talk page but as it is Admins who interpret this I went there. I am concerned about the fact that small changes are necessary to keep an article in shape, especially with new editors who really don't understand what to do or may have poor English. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Solj

User talk:Jacobkennedy is back to socking. There's no need for a sock investigation since he has already admitted it. AcidSnow (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

AcidSnow, if you mean the IP, I've blocked it for a month. What's "Solj"?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant sock. Anyways, thanks! AcidSnow (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for semiprotecting Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism; that's one fewer disruptive editor Binksternet and I have to deal with there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

2013 in Vatican City

Hello, I've notice that you've deleted this page, is it possible for me to create again this page or maybe 2014 in Vatican City, beacause we can put a lot of things, for example in french fr:2013 au Vatican or fr:2014 au Vatican Olivier LPB (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That page was deleted a very long time ago per WP:CSD#A3, i.e., there was nothing in it of any substance. I'm not clear what you're asking me. You don't need my permission to create real articles, but I suggest you do it through WP:AFC as it doesn't appear that you're a very experienced editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I come from the french[REDACTED] where I have a good experience. When I see you've deleted this page, I juste ask you if I have the right to create it again without a particular process. I create it in my home page first and after I will put in the[REDACTED] domain. Olivier LPB (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your Jordan Belfort Reverts

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Dude, please stop reverting relevant, reliably sourced material without explanation. If you have a beef with the material then take it up on the article's talk page, that's where I'll look for your response.67.40.211.28 (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've left a question for you on the Jordan Belfort talkpage. --67.40.215.84 (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Tagged for A3

Hello Bbb23. I tagged article Kollegova Daria for speedy deletion under criteria A3 because of this reason.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A3 specifically addresses articles with only infoboxes in them: "Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet the criteria mentioned here." So, when I see an article with just an infobox, it depends on what's in it as to whether I delete it. If you were to transfer the information from the infobox to the body of the article and it was deletable per A3 (e.g., just a repeat of the subject name), I'd A3 it. If it had information that was more than that, as in this case, I will not, at least not under that criterion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand now. Thank you for clarifying. As the page seemed similar to Megh Technologies which was deleted per A3, I assumed I could tag it for the same reason. Also because when Peridon explained to Mananrockx (talk · contribs), he only said "Please do not post 'articles' that only have an infobox in them. They will be deleted as having no content."  SmileBlueJay97  talk  06:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos

Khabboos is back. His new account is Krish8. It fits his usual activities and edit summaries. AcidSnow (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo took care of it. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, take care as well! AcidSnow (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Krish8 appeared on the ISIS Talk page the other day. AcidSnow informed us he was a sock. The following day a Krishna39 made an edit in ISIS, using as citations a very long list of links Krish8 had left on the Talk page the day before. I suspected he was Krish8's new sock and informed AcidSnow. He confirmed it and Ponyo has now dealt with the matter. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sure other accounts will appear. Do you think you can keep an eye out? AcidSnow (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Let's hope he leaves as obvious clues as he did last time. "Krish" to "Krishna" and the latter using the list of docs the former left the day before were dead giveaways, weren't they? :D He will have to be smarter than that next time. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I left a note about these aliases on the ISIS Talk page, saying to ignore and revert immediately if they reappeared. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've had a couple of emails from him. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi.. I am from persian wikipedia; so sorry if i have an awful language. I have question from you. Why did you revert my edit in Daniel Radcliffe. Because i add his official website in to an article!!--Farshid . Talk 08:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, there is no indication that the website is his official website. It has no About, and it doesn't pretend to be official. My assumption is that it's a fansite.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What about This?--Farshid . Talk 08:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Same problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Need eyes

Hi BBB - I don't know if you've seen the latest on Jose Antonio Vargas - would appreciate your input. Tendentious editing against consensus by RightCowLeftCoast including flooding the talk page in his usual way, and inserting material in the article despite not having agreement from anyone. His response now is to canvass various Wikigroups, some of which aren't listed as interested parties - I don't know what policy is on that. Thanks Tvoz/talk 03:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR in 24 hours restriction and P123ct1

Hi Bbb23. Many editors are restraining our edits in the restricted Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article in strict compliance with 1RR. However, editor P123ct1 appears to allow itself to flagrantly bypass 1RR in the last 24 hours, dropping the name of DougWeller, and giving itself unjust editing advantage. I am not even sure whether DW (who is only an involved editor in this article) is involved in this 1RR in the last 24 hours or not. I don't believe he is. So, I would like to bring these numerous changes to the article by P123ct1 and inconsistent edit summaries to your attention. For full disclosure, there are more edits made by P123ct1 in the last 24 hours that I have not included in the list below. BTW, P123ct1 has been officially notified previously.

I am fine with whatever decision you take. Worldedixor (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First one by User:P123ct1 moves text from lead to a new section. Second changes ] to ], ], ] The third one updated some figures. These are not exactly reprehensible edits, but they are also just counted as one revert as they are sequential as Pc123ct1 clearly stated in his edit summary. Um, the next one is a self-revert of a heading he just added - really? You're counting this as a revert? Then he completes a footnote with The next one comes right after that one and has the edit summary " (→‎top: Copy-ed - typo) " The next one fixes a footnote also as do the rest.

So what conclusion does one draw from this complaint? My own conclusion is that this added to other edits seems to meet our definition of hounding and I will support any complaint made to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller. I brought this matter objectively for the "consideration" of an uninvolved and unbiased admin. What you said above about me is untrue. What you said has the "appearance" of an involved admin favoritism of a certain editor to give it an unfair edit advantage. You also asked the "Question on gnomish editing, eg case changes, and what counts as a revert", and you did not get the answer you were pushing for, quite the opposite. Those are verifiable facts and you do not have consensus on your preferred interpretation. Let's wait for the consensus, and we all can have equal editing privileges. I see a lot of corrections that need to be made, but since any change has been deemed to be a revert, I and many editors have been waiting the 24 hours. Worldedixor (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, someone said I had been sent a notification, but I never received it. If there was one, it would be easily traceable. Self-reverts do not count as reverts - see CodeCat above. I didn't think tidying up a footnote counted as a revert, but will stand corrected if it is. Dougweller spelled out for all of us in "1RR Redux" on the Talk page that several reverts in a row with no intervening edits counted as one revert. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that P123ct1 has been notified. There certainly was one, and it is easily traceable. Dougweller is an involved admin. Worldedixor (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And if I considered myself uninvolved enough, I would have blocked you and I would be very surprised if anyone reversed it. Others in my situation might well have blocked you, but I didn't. I don't see the response I got as quite the opposite either. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

WOW! I have no further comments. Worldedixor (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I could respond re notifications, and these exchanges generally, but as my every word is always misinterpreted, I think I had better not. What I will say, however, is that I take great exception to having my every move in Misplaced Pages monitored by Worldedixor, my own userpages included, and this has been going for quite some time now. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is untrue. It's the other way around. Even placing tags on my well sourced edits. Even changing my correct edits to incorrect ones and then apologizing. Even attacking my (very few) non-English reliable sources even though they're expressly allowed by WP... Even changing whatever I write, and I write very little, in that article. I brought this uncomplicated 1RR matter to the attention of an uninvolved admin's "consideration" who was very clear that any change is an edit... and made sure to say that I am fine with his decision for objectivity.Worldedixor (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Your own userpages included"????. As if I am editing your user pages daily!!!!... It's the other way around. I have never edited your user pages not even once. By contrast, isn't it a fact that you have edited my talk page repeatedly, and isn't true that you have my talk page on your watch list? which, to be objective, is your right on WP. Worldedixor (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I said monitoring, not editing, and I don't keep watchlists on others. My repeated "edits" to your page are the sort of normal courteous messages I would leave for anyone. Querying or reverting an edit it not an attack. It is what we all do. I don't single anyone out. I made one apology for one mistake. The admin said technically any edit is a revert, but he qualified that. He said each admin exercises his own discretion over what is and is not a revert. You should not distort things. I am writing these words now for Bbb23's benefit, not yours, btw. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly not singling you out. There is verifiable evidence that I almost never edit or revert your edits. In fact you have reverted, tagged and edited far more of my well sourced edits than I ever did yours, often within minutes or a couple of hours. So, whose monitoring who? However, when "technically every edit is a revert", and I see an avalanche of edits by one out of many editors, do I have no right to bring it objectively to the attention of the admin to "exercise its own discretion over what is and is not a revert"? and to objectively and expressly state "I am fine with whatever decision you take"?.Worldedixor (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

When I look to see if there's a revert with consecutive edits is the net effect of the group of edits. There is a limited exception to that, but it's not applicable here, so I won't complicate things by mentioning it. Looking at P123ct1's edits on August 21, he reverted once, and that was the consecutive edits ending at 07:16. The remainder of his edits on August 21, except the last group, were copy edits, mostly changing and improving refs, none of which I would count as a revert. The last group of consecutive edits ending at 14:17 was a partial self-revert of the first group and copy edits. Thus, that doesn't count, either. Hence, no violation of WP:1RR. I don't want to get into the remainder of the charges and countercharges, but I would add that it's a bit troubling that P123ct1 said he wasn't officially alerted to the sanctions. It's kind of hard to miss, and it's still on their talk page. Please pay a little more attention to posts on your talk page. However, that in and of itself is not sanctionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23: I did get a notification, but genuinely thought it was in connection with another article I had only just finished copy-editing when I received it. It didn't cross my mind that it had anything to do with the ISIS page. That is why I was so surprised when it was pointed out. I had clearly misinterpreted "Syria-related articles". I am still not clear why I had it, though, and would be grateful if you could briefly explain why and the consequences. Can I add that I make no distinction between editors when altering anything and always monitor the page for changes, and of course Worldedixor has the right to question anything he is not happy about and ask for clarity. If we were all clearer about what constituted a revert, I think there would have been none of this, but you have explained how this varies from admin to admin, which does make things difficult for us. The editing is noticeably slower on the ISIS page now because of the 1RR and I think I was just bolder than most. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: The alert of the existence of sanctions has no blame attached to it. Technically, it is not required to block someone for violating 1RR. However, it is required to impose discretionary sanctions. I've alerted a lot of editors, generally those who are active in editing the articles that these sanctions cover. I said there is discretion among admins. I didn't mean to imply that a user has no way of knowing what to expect. Many violations are easy, and it would be highly unusual for admins to disagree. I wouldn't let this prevent you from editing this or any other article as long as you approach it with the kind of circumspection it merits.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What about gnomish editing, like making small changes to the grammar in passages written in broken English by those whose mother tongue is not English, or whenever the grammar is awkward, always of course being careful not to change the sense? Those are not technically reverts that could lead to infraction of the 1RR rule, are they? I would have thought the answer was obvious, but changes like this may be disputed by some editors in the highly charged atmosphere caused by uncertainties over the 1RR rule recently, which is why I have stopped making them, although I have never been challenged over gnomish editing like this before, in any article I have copy-edited. --P123ct1 (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's always hard to comment without concrete examples, but, generally, grammatical edits, true copy edits, and other minor changes that don't change any substance should not be counted as reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR in 24 hours restriction and Prisencolinensinainciusol

Hi Bbb23.

Unless it has already been duly notified of sanctions, this appears to be an unintended disruption as I don't believe Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) knows that it has actually violated the 1RR per 24 hour restriction on the IS article. I leave you the facts for your consideration.

Worldedixor (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, not sure what happens now to my lonesome 1RR per 24 hours that I seem to have lost with the 2RR above. Is it a fact of life that I must now wait for another 24 hours? or can I revert the 2RR now? Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't violate WP:1RR just because another editor has done so, regardless of whether they reverted you or someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23. Understood.Worldedixor (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

One new thing to bring to your attention, Bbb23. Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) is on its 3RR or 4RR in 24 hours. This is the latest revert ]. It could be either ignoring the notice of sanctions or perhaps not aware of its own Talk page. Its reverts are intentionally or unintentionally disruptive. This is brought to your attention for your consideration. Worldedixor (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of being tagged for violating 1RR policy, and I'm trying not to revert any edits. However I don't consider ] to break this rule, if anything it's just a partial reversion.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A courteous note to let you know that, in general, a partial reversion of another editor's edit is still a reversion. However, the decision here ultimately lies with the uninvolved admin Bbb23. I had left you a message on your Talk page. I personally am happy to know that you are now aware of the WP:1RR sanctions and you are complying like the rest of us. Have a nice day. Worldedixor (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That last edit seems to have added a link, how is that a revert? Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR and footnotes

Could you clarify whether alterations to footnotes (tidying up and correcting) count as reverts, please? I do an awful lot of this on the ISIS page. I take it from your last comment in the last but one section that I have not broken the 1RR yet, but please could you confirm so that I can be quite sure? I also had another query, in my last comment in that section, on the sanctions notice. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: I was crystal clear. I said "no violation of 1RR". If you're talking about the alteration of the refs themselves, that was one of the reasons I didn't find many of your edits to be reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Could you clear up another point I have about reverts? It is permitted to make several reverts in a row as long as there are no intervening edits, but can several separate and unrelated reverts be made in one "save"? It seems a good way to obviate the intervening edits problem, but I'm not sure it is quite "ethical". I will admit to having done it several times in the past few days and am now feeling uncomfortable about it. I only did it because my "reverts needed" list was piling up, and tbh, I don't think anyone would have disputed they were needed (edits not reflecting citations accurately, so corrected, edits that had undone consensus decisions, statements not backed up by their citations, so tagged, that sort of thing). --P123ct1 (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Consecutive edits never count as more than one revert. Each time you hit Save, your edit is concluded. If you want to revert different editors at the precise same time, you would have to do it so that you hit Save once, meaning you'd have to include the "reverts" in the same edit. Every time you hit Save, you run the risk that someone else will edit the article before you do your next Save. However, if that happens and you later claim that you intended the edits to be consecutive, an administrator will probably look at the timing to see if your assertion is plausible. However, you might be blocked before someone does that. It's not always easy for administrators to look at every detail.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I always check to see if my reverts are consecutive. If I did two reverts in a row and they were not consecutive, because there was an intervening edit, I would revert one of them, so a self-revert, and that way not break the 1RR. If I understood Dougweller correctly at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Reverts and 1RR, that would be one way of not breaking the 1RR. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup, Doug is right, and that's a very good, albeit rarely used, practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned a discussion here at

WP:ANI#Should these articles still be under the community place Syrian Civil War sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nathan Thrall

Hi. I noticed you removed the speedy deletion tag from Nathan Thrall a few hours after it was placed there. Would you please explain why you think it would be appropriate to do that for an article that does not mention any notability claims and has only a personal website of the individual as a given source?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A7 is not applicable if there are credible claims of significance. It doesn't have to be sourced. In addition, as I stated in my edit summary, I find it unseemly when an editor removes material from an article and then tags it. Take it to AfD if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK

I noticed a comment here which pointed out that WP:BLPTALK includes "and not related to making content choices". I did a quick search to find discussions on that wording, and found your comment at WT:Biographies of living persons/Archive 36#talk pages. I guess the wording might not matter so long as enough editors understand the principles of BLP? Or, would it be worth trying to rephrase that? Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you want to rephrase. My original comment back in March 2013 (lord) seems to be phrased properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

My first link shows a current discussion where an editor is of the opinion that comments related to "making content choices" cannot be removed from a BLP talk page per WP:BLPTALK. Your comment in the archive confirms my opinion that the BLPTALK wording gives the wrong impression. Your comment in March 2013 is perfect—I'm wondering if it might be worth trying to rephrase what BLPTALK says. The right place for me to raise this is WT:BLP, but I thought I would get your opinion first in view of the fact that your comment is about the only thing I could find on the merits of the wording.

Update: I checked my WT:BLP link and see that the matter has just been raised at WT:BLP#Material related to content choices. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnuniq, I've made some preliminary comments there.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of José Ramón Oyola

I was late in seeing and responding to your notice of speedy deletion: 00:56, 16 August 2014 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page José Ramón Oyola (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP) Mr. Oyola was chairman of the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico (GDB) which has been in the news recently as GDB presided over the slide that led Puerto Rico to be the first state-level jurisdiction in the nation to fall into junk-bond status. Pr4ever (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Gopi Chand Narang removals and user Narang 5

Hi Bbb23,

I see that you are the admin who placed the block on Narang_5 for edit warring on Gopi Chand Narang. Now 2 anon IP SPAs with a shared range have made similar removals. I haven't done enough with Sockpuppet investigation filing to know whether this enough evidence of block evasion / worth starting an investigation over, or if it would be better just to seek page protection, and your thoughts on this would be helpful.Dialectric (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dialectric: I've semi-protected the article for a week and increased Narang 5's block to two weeks for the block evasion. I chose not to block the two IPs as they are dynamic and it would serve little purpose. However, if they, other IPs, or even named accounts cause any disruption to related pages, please let me know. I reverted the latest edit to the article. Thanks.

1RR in 24 hours restriction and Corriebertus

Hi Bbb23. I noticed that Corriebertus (talk) has not been notified of sanctions. I will leave the following for your consideration.

Worldedixor (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Worldedixor: those are three consecutive edits and, together, constitute one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There may be some confusion here. The sanctions notice is not necessary for an editor to be blocked for exceeding 1RR, they are separate. See Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct, but, as I think I've mentioned before, I generally don't block for a 1RR violation if there's been no alert, even though I know I can. Also, the question of whether to alert someone is discretionary, and despite the language of the alert, I don't alert someone just because they've edited an article regulated by the sanctions. It's tiresome.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Got it Bbb23. Worldedixor (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

However, its 1RR has reverted well discussed entries that another editor, P123ct1, almost perfected following long discussions. I though the notice would help it wake up. Worldedixor (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor's point deserves a separate discussion, as I've noticed this quite often happens on the ISIS and al-Baghdadi pages. It is very disheartening. I can't think of a fool-proof way of preventing reverts of well-thought out consensus agreements. Not that one would want to prevent a better idea, of course not, but it is sometimes very obvious that editors have no inkling of previous lengthy discussions and conclusions on the Talk page when making their reverts and exactly why a passage is worded a certain way. Is this just something we have to live with in an encyclopaedia that is open to all to edit? It seems like an uphill battle sometimes. I am not sure which forum is the best place to discuss this. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You've pinpointed the problem. People act without reading the talk page. There is no solution to that. I know I've done it. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not being able to immediately implement a consensus doesn't bother me. First, a great many editors think they've reached a consensus when they haven't. This happens more often than not. Second, if it's that strong a consensus, some other editor who hasn't reverted can do it. Finally, if that doesn't happen, it can wait. Very little is as urgent as some think. We are not a blog, even though on some "current events" it seems like we are.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What about the yo-yoing problem? There are a handful of well-thought through edits that have consensus in both the ISIS and al-Baghadi pages that go in and out like clockwork and the question is never resolved. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can make a case that a particular editor is defying a clear consensus repeatedly, then that editor can be blocked per the discretionary sanctions (assuming they've been previously alerted). Also, edit warring may be sanctionable even if it's not a breach of 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And this is why I really don't like the language "well-discussed" that was suggested. It can mean almost anything. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. Most of the time the yo-yoing is caused by different editors who fly in from nowhere and change something without reading the Talk pages, fly out again forever, and are reverted by those who have been in on why the passages stand as they do. That isn't edit-warring. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well, life is tough in the fast lane. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sandip Goswami

Hello. This is https://en.wikipedia.org/Sandip_Goswami . Please read http://www.amazon.com/Sandip-Goswami/e/B00JZ59958/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_3?qid=1408833088&sr=8-3 , https://www.google.co.in/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=AxL5U9itEYbDoAPw5YKIBA#q=poet+sandip+goswami . I have no word. sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soukarsha Dutta (talk • contribs) 23:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting my mistakes. I hope it's not too much trouble. I'm sure I'll learn the ins and outs soon, and I would appreciate any helpful advice that you are willing to give me. TinaG (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You're pretty inexperienced to be tagging articles, but taking it to AfD after I removed the tag is the correct thing to do if you think it doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. Do you understand what is and what isn't A7-eligible? There are even some administrators who get it wrong occasionally.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a fast learner, so I should get better real soon, especially if you don't mind giving me some pointers. My current understanding of A7 is that, any article, "that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", is a decent candidate for A7. Also, articles whose "claim of significance or importance given is not credible", might qualify. I think only a few my A7 tags were inappropriate, whereas several did result in deletion, which I take to mean that my instincts are decent, if not fully honed at this point. What do you think about Östersund bid for the 2002 Winter Olympics? TinaG (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please reread WP:CSD#A7 and answer the question again. You're missing key information in your answer above.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again...

I owe you thanks for your assistance on the Motion Picture rating articles. I noticed a comment at SPI that it was "too obvious" for a checkuser. While I appreciate the assistance I obviously don't want to create extra unneceassry work for people helping me with a problem. I think DJmex will be back again if his form is anything to go by, so do you have any suggestions on how I should approach it? Should I report it at SPI but not request a user check (I guess I can leave that to the discretion of the admin who takes up the case?) or maybe ANI would be better when it is an obvious continuation of disruption, or perhaps AIV? Betty Logan (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Betty Logan, you should go to SPI and open up a new report. I don't mind your coming to me to block the new account, either, but ANI and AIV are the wrong venues. If you open up a new report, there's nothing wrong with requesting a CU. However, admins with CU privileges will often wait to see if a clerk endorses the request. Depends on the individual CU, whether they are familiar with the master from another time, and how backlogged we are. We're pretty backlogged right now, which is why I didn't want to make extra work for them, although it would probably be a relatively simple check. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Diamondlease: Page deleted

I had created following page http://en.wikipedia.org/Diamondlease on wiki and was trying to obtain more information from other sources regarding the Diamondlease. Unfortunately page was deleted and so now i wont be able to add more information on this page. Could you please tell me if i will gather more information about diamondlease then how can i add this information to the page which was deleted or how can add more information to this page so that it can be reviewed and published on the wiki. or can we recreate the deleted page with more information about organisation

I would appreciate if you as an admin can point me right direction so that we can recreate Diamondlease page as per wiki guidelines.

First, you used two different IP addresses to leave this post. You need to use your registered account. Do you have more than one? Second, who is "we"? Also, please learn to WP:SIGN your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Air Pegasus

Hello Bbb23, I was trying to create an article on "Air Pegasus" and found that you've previously deleted the page. Could you please move the text to a draft page so i can work on addressing its promotional content issues? Thankyou. Trinidade (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, can't do that. It was deleted per G11 and G12. Copyright infringements can't be restored, even to user space. I can tell you it was a brief version of what's on the website cited in the delete, so it wouldn't help you much.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, i'll start from scratch then. Thanks a lot. Trinidade (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Your Scalia edit

And you don't think saying that only "liberals" are critical of the judge in that section isn't POV? Or earlier comparing his method to knight's isn't? C'mon.--Aichik (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think you can override community consensus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive263#Proposed_indefinite_topic_ban_for_User:Memills_from_issues_related_to_men.27s_rights.2C_broadly_construed

There was not a consensus to topic ban Memills and that you are trying to impose one when the community has rejected it is very telling of your intentions. I invite you to reverse this action before I take to the noticeboards. Tutelary (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Memills (again)

Hi Bbb23, it appears that User:Memills continues to edit tendentiously on the page Masculism. I gathered some diff links on his talk page. His edit and revert (without consensus) are the latest actions in slow-moving edit war that centers over a paragraph about the connection between masculinism and evolutionary psychology. His first change was in May 2013, the edit was (partially) reverted. He restored most of his edit in October 2013, but his edit was reverted again. He restored his edit again this month and got reverted again. He re-reverted. What makes it even worse is that he has been edit warring over text-book examples of WP:Synth and editorializing. He basically claims that a source from 1989 contains a rebuttal to a statement from a source from 2012 when in fact that older source is completely unrelated to the article and says nothing about the newer source. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)