This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Little green rosetta (talk | contribs) at 02:02, 30 December 2012 (→A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:02, 30 December 2012 by Little green rosetta (talk | contribs) (→A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
|
deltasim and the BLP vio
sup man, I never used this before so bear with me ok? I am a friend of realfatrabbit and he got blocked and asked me to let you know that deltasim didn't like the result of the edit war between him and relafatrabbit that you decided. It was about a BLP vio. deltasim I guess went to another admin called jamesbwatson and had realfatrabbit blocked. the admin called jamesbwatson then added back the stuff deltasim added that was the BLP vio which realfatrabbit kept removing and caused the edit war. anyways, thats that, he just wanted me to tell you. thanks man
This is the page about the war that deltasim went to another admin called jamesbwatson to add back http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive202#User:Deltasim_and_User:ArealFatRabbit_reported_by_Mephistophelian_.28Result:_Declined.29
oh yeah and the BLP vio and edit war was on kid icarus page
Request for some advice
Hi Bbb23... I noticed that you are an admin who has posted extensively at WP:BLPN and that you are also interested in LGBT issues, so I'm hoping you can offer me some advice. I created the article Brittany CoxXx, a trans woman who has had a career in both gay and trans porn. As Stonie (pre-transition), she appeared in the Borat movie in a cameo. The article has two images of Brittany but the image of Stonie has been removed. In this edit the image was removed with the summary "removed pre transition photo. generally offensive to show pre transition photos". It was re-added by an IP and re-removed with no edit summary. I haven't been around editing for quite a while, and am unsure what (if anything) to do, especially as I have little experience with trans issues. I don't want to create a BLP issue nor upset anyone, but I don't understand why an image of Stonie is inappropriate. Stonie appeared in lots of gay porn films and with full frontal nudity in the Borat movie. The photos were all released for use by Brittany's manager (OTRS confirmed) and so presumably Brittany does not object to their use. Stonie was arguably notable even prior to transition, and illustrating her pre-transition appearance seems appropriate to me in this case. Am I missing somethinh? Should I just re-add the image? Post for other views at WP:BLPN or WT:LGBT? Start an RfC? Drop it and leave the image off the page? Something else? Your advice would be appreciated. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ed, I don't know the answer or if there is even an answer. Two editors removed the photo. The first was subsequently indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. The second is part of the LGBT project and was recently blocked for a short period for sock puppetry, but as far as I can tell, edits in good standing. I doubt there is any specific policy or guideline on this issue, but there may be some sort of conventional approach. At the same time, I don't know how frequently it comes up considering what a small population there is of transsexuals and therefore articles about them. Because no one has demonstrated that there is anything inappropriate about putting in the image, I would assume going forward that the use of the image is subject to the usual guidelines of relevance. With images, the best general guideline is at WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE and the sections beneath it.
- I would re-add the image back to the section. At the same time, I would start a topic on the article talk page explaining what you're doing and why. Be clear, but there's no need to be defensive, i.e., assume that you have to defend your viewpoint. To some extent, WP's philosophy is that content is "good" unless there's a policy or guideline that prohibits it. It's not a philosophy I always agree with, but you might as well take advantage of it. :-)
- If nothing happens, you're okay. If editors object to the image, you should discuss the issue(s). If someone removes the image, don't reinsert it. Given the history, it's not clear whose burden it is per WP:BRD, but arguing it's the remover's burden would probably be contentious. Whatever you do, don't edit-war over it. If you're having trouble because not enough editors are participating in the discussion, I would leave a very neutral message at the LGBT project asking editors to weigh in. If that doesn't get you very far, my next forum would be BLPN.
- I think that's enough to start with. I'll watch the article and be here if you want to talk.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice. I think I will re-add the image and start a talk page discussion, and include a link to this discussion. I appreciate the friendly reminder, but I assure you that I am not the edit-warring type. :) Regards, EdChem (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
If you have a spare moment
Hi, I've only peripherally noticed this user before. Perhaps, as you've had interaction and warned him before, you'd at your leisure take a quick 3rd party view of . I'm not going to edit war with him as I only started this geo stub for disambiguation purposes, and am not remotely invested in Turkish/Armenian subjects but seems to be a lot of noise/reaction which isn't condusive to improving the stub. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've commented on the article talk page and left a message on the editor's talk page to look at my comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Which Turkish-Armenian subject? Are not we talking about a neighborhood in Istanbul? Or Pangaltı is an occupied Azerbaijani territory? Are you trying to imply ARBAA sanctions with that? On what basis? Also explain me how you decide the name of a neighborhood in 21st Century from a travel book of an Italian from more than a century ago? Since when De Amicis's Italian toponyms are 21st Century English common names? Which reliable sources you used to make that stub? You can answer me anywhere you wish; I will find and read. Why did you come here instead of challenging me on the article's TP? (Why and how do you know BBB23 warned me before? Which of the two you are following and why? Because you know they warned me before means you find it easier to hit me in the wound than discuss like two regular Wikipedians?) I have more questions but forget it. Sorry to occupy your page, BBB23. Merry Xmas. --E4024 (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- E4024, since you ask if you want to know I came here because your editing style had "check my block log" written all over it, and I wanted a third opinion. I would very much welcome calm collected contributions and your local expertise to make the stub representative of both modern Pangaltı and its apparently diverse and interesting history.
- Bbb23. As I said I'm not super interested in the subject, but two other editors have been encouraging, and the stub has a stub on tr.wp, so have added further (mainly retrospective) sources about the history of the 19th Century quarter. Cheers. Shouldn't need to contact you again. Merry Festive Season. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Which Turkish-Armenian subject? Are not we talking about a neighborhood in Istanbul? Or Pangaltı is an occupied Azerbaijani territory? Are you trying to imply ARBAA sanctions with that? On what basis? Also explain me how you decide the name of a neighborhood in 21st Century from a travel book of an Italian from more than a century ago? Since when De Amicis's Italian toponyms are 21st Century English common names? Which reliable sources you used to make that stub? You can answer me anywhere you wish; I will find and read. Why did you come here instead of challenging me on the article's TP? (Why and how do you know BBB23 warned me before? Which of the two you are following and why? Because you know they warned me before means you find it easier to hit me in the wound than discuss like two regular Wikipedians?) I have more questions but forget it. Sorry to occupy your page, BBB23. Merry Xmas. --E4024 (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your consideration regarding the 3RR report that I filed. I ended up taking a much longer break than 24 hours. It seems to have done me some good. We'll see how it goes. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm glad. Sometimes I think we should all be required to take occasional breaks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
please explain...
...how 'conflict of interest scandals' is a ridiculous section heading? if you prefer 'controversy' that is fine, that is the header used on her husband's page. please do not revert edits that you don't like. I was not aware that I needed consensus to add factually accurate, unbiased, well-sourced, notable information. ||||Tonight, you sleep with the fishes|Talk|| 22:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- We'll put aside your assumption ("edits that you don't like"). You do not need to obtain consensus to add (skipped your other assumptions) material to an article. However, once you are reverted, as I did, you should not re-add the material without obtaining consensus per WP:BRD. That you haven't done. I suggest you self-revert your re-addition and discuss it on the article talk page (in a bit greater depth than "we need a controversy section", which already has a non-neutral sound to it).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- You said the section title was ridiculous, and that was why you removed the section. Editor gave it a different title, which should be alright, as the same title is used on the same section with the same information on the article for her husband. This tells users the information is important enough to belong on wikipedia. So yes, it was readded, because it is important information. Editor also cleared up the wording and added more citations, so there should be no reason to exclude this information, other than not liking it. Also please explain how 'factually accurate, unbiased, well-sourced, notable' is assumptions - she DID get her husband those contracts, undisputed. Facts are not biased, therefor it is unbiased information. Editor used news sources, multiple news sources, therefor it is well-sourced, and this was a scandal, therefor it is notable. Deal with it. 108.246.242.125 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- The section header was a giveaway, but it wasn't the only reason for the reversion. Please log in when you edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have an account, I understand that you think registering to edit should be a requirement, but it is not, so please enforce only the rules that exist and not the rules you desire. 108.246.242.125 (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, I assumed you were the editor who added the material, an understandable assumption. However, I didn't notice your first outrageous edit before you toned it down in which you said you weren't that editor. Assuming you are not the editor, which I do in good faith, I apologize to the registered account, but not to you. There are many editors who edit here without registration. Nothing wrong with that. OTOH, there is something wrong with your attitude, and my guess is it would be the same whether or not you registered. Anyway, no more posting here on my talk page. If you have something you wish to say, you can do so on the article talk page or at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for reverting that. Seeing only 9 bytes of change in the second revision, I (stupidly) assumed that the changes were only cosmetic, and failed to notice that 108.246 removed his lengthy rant against you. But I really should've checked the second diff; with Popups I have no excuse. — Francophonie&Androphilie 02:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Meh, the first edit was pretty bad. It's nice to know that people are looking out for my well-being.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, I definitely don't think you need to be looked after. I see language like that and I see red, more or less. Anyways, I'll let you go back to whatever hot-button issue prompted this post. — Francophonie&Androphilie 03:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Meh, the first edit was pretty bad. It's nice to know that people are looking out for my well-being.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have an account, I understand that you think registering to edit should be a requirement, but it is not, so please enforce only the rules that exist and not the rules you desire. 108.246.242.125 (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- The section header was a giveaway, but it wasn't the only reason for the reversion. Please log in when you edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- You said the section title was ridiculous, and that was why you removed the section. Editor gave it a different title, which should be alright, as the same title is used on the same section with the same information on the article for her husband. This tells users the information is important enough to belong on wikipedia. So yes, it was readded, because it is important information. Editor also cleared up the wording and added more citations, so there should be no reason to exclude this information, other than not liking it. Also please explain how 'factually accurate, unbiased, well-sourced, notable' is assumptions - she DID get her husband those contracts, undisputed. Facts are not biased, therefor it is unbiased information. Editor used news sources, multiple news sources, therefor it is well-sourced, and this was a scandal, therefor it is notable. Deal with it. 108.246.242.125 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: ANEW
I just wanted to make sure you knew I appreciated your attention and no hard feelings - my response on the page was mostly a rant on Misplaced Pages's sometimes too complex or arbitrary processes. DR04 (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. I left you a comment at ANEW (our posts overlapped here and there); I hope you find it helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for minimizing that discussion. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I was in complete agreement with your last comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Narayana Murthy
Hi Bbb23, I have been trying to edit Narayana Murthy for six months now. You were involved in the talk page for this article in the past. I have been repeatedly trying to discuss the list of awards on the talk page and without engaging on the talk page Kkm010 constantly unrolls the changes and refuses to discuss why he/she objects. Instead, he/she constantly just undoes the changes. While I have provided my reasons for why I think a certain way, he/she provides none. This is now very frustrating. What is also frustrating is that the same user constantly edits articles of other contemporaries of Narayana Murthy who all have spurious awards from unknown sources listed and yet kkm010 makes no effort to enforce some standard there. Can you please help in any way? --- Tib42 (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Tib42, I understand your frustration. At the same time, I'm not keen on reinvolving myself on the content issues. I've left a message on Ryan's talk page based on his post to the article talk page earlier this month. As you probably know, Ryan has limited time because of outside responsibilities, and the holidays, of course, only limit his time that much more. Try to be patient (I know you have been patient). Let's see what Ryan says before we proceed to the next step.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bbb23. I shall do as you suggest and wait for Ryan to respond. Thank you for your help. I am quite new to[REDACTED] and I find my first set of edits themselves have been rather frustrating. I will wait for Ryan and you to decide on how we should take this further. Thanks and happy holidays! --- Tib42 (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your understanding. I have one more suggestion, which you don't have to take. When you get frustrated, try editing other articles, even if it's just making small changes. Remember, Misplaced Pages has tons of articles, not just the Murthy article. Happy holidays to you, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bbb23. I shall do as you suggest and wait for Ryan to respond. Thank you for your help. I am quite new to[REDACTED] and I find my first set of edits themselves have been rather frustrating. I will wait for Ryan and you to decide on how we should take this further. Thanks and happy holidays! --- Tib42 (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The happiness of this season to you!
|
Winter solstice 2012–2013 |
| — GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks, GerorgeLouis, here's to a new year of peace and tranquility on Misplaced Pages. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitation enforcement blocks
Certainly you have, at present, the ability to overturn an arbitaration enforcement block. May I point you to Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." which seems to me to apply? --Anthony Bradbury 22:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Of course if you feel happy then go ahead; I looked at this block and decided not to go near it! I am not sure that hte link you posted to me applies specifically.--Anthony Bradbury 22:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- The unblocking restrictions established in the ArbCom motion make clear that they only apply to reversing an action taken by another admin. Ankh.Morpork 22:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I, of course, have read the language at WP:AEBLOCK (although not the underlying decision), but I'm one of those people who finds clarity in something like, "The blocking administrator may overturn the sanction." The joy of being literal and the fear of being desysopped. :-) Anthony, I'm not sure which link you mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- This
Hi, Anthony, I know another admin may not unblock the editor without following very specific procedures, but I'm assuming I can unblock him if I choose to do so, right? WP:AEBLOCK doesn't explicitly address the issue, but it seems to me that its silence on the issue implies that it's okay.--Bbb23
This (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC) is what you said. What you do is entirely for you to decide.--Anthony Bradbury 23:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar. I didn't really think I was all that patient with it actually. I think I could do better. Thanks anyway. :) Merry Christmas.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic now created, you may wish to comment. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Would you consider re-blocking Zaalbar for an additional 48 hours? A little more than just an hour after coming off of his 24 hour block for edit warring on same sex marriage, he returned to edit warring on Matthew Shepard. This kind of deliberate disruption coming right after his block expires pretty much demonstrates that Zaalbar isn't serious about editing Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- At this point, I'd rather let the SPI run its course. Zaalbar has reverted twice at Shepard and hasn't insisted since Black Kite reverted, many hours ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued Block Evasion by User:Dannyboy1209
Hello Bbb23, just came by to tell you about this incident Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued Block Evasion by User:Dannyboy1209 of an Confirmed IP Sock (User:92.0.110.196)of Dannyboy1209 which you had blocked earlier. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
Can you semi protect Operation Pillar of Defense which is proving irresistible to a blocked user? Ankh.Morpork 22:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I semi'ed another article that the socks were attacking, and I blocked the IP at Operation Pillar, along with another IP, complained about at SPI by Marokwitz. It look quiet for now at Operation Pillar (at least quiet for that article). I'm trying to act quickly but no more than necessary. If there's more disruption, I'll reconsider. Obviously, if I'm off-wiki, you can ask another admin or go to RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks. Ankh.Morpork 23:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is a sock of Dalai lama ding dong. Can you semi protect the articles he is editing? Ankh.Morpork 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I blocked that IP and another rather than semi-protecting. I'm choosing one week for these blocks, but I'm not sure if it's long enough. I suppose I can always extend it. If there's further disruption after the blocks expire, it will be a LOT longer than a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is a sock of Dalai lama ding dong. Can you semi protect the articles he is editing? Ankh.Morpork 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks. Ankh.Morpork 23:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Block
Hi, Thanks for dealing with my unblock request I sent you over the Email, the process was getting a little over complicated. However, honestly, I highly doubt that knowing what you now, you would have given my edit a second glance on that history page list. So I can't respect your decision to stick with the block and let me stew through the process.--Mor2 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- On topic of edit warring on that article. I would point out this recent accumulated revert and the following revert cycle. The revert undid my edit due to "shamelessly blatant propagandizing"?! and at least two other edits, reinstating 'BilalSaleh' removal of sourced content. Disregarding my request to tag issues and the recent activity in the section that led to blocks. Removing my entry with less than informational edit summary, no attempt to discuss, just a righteous blunt revert.--Mor2 (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- There was some unusual activity on the article today. The first edit, the one that, among other things, undid your edit, was that editor's first revert of the day and therefore did not violate 1RR. There then followed a series of reverts, but they all related to Carvotta being declared a sock, and your edit got swallowed up in that. Reverting an indefinitely blocked sock is an exemption to 1RR. In any event, that article is a relentless pressure cooker. You kind of have to expect that if you want to edit it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- All I know that he reverted two edits and (included mine), both of which are already undid something(stated in the edit summary). If you are saying that it's ok to do multiple reverts of content that is already a subject of controversy, as long as you do it in one cumulative edit, then... respect to the technicalities? I assumed that if I revert his edit and ask him kindly to make multiple edits with consecutive edit summaries or take it to the talk page, I'll be in violation of at least one rule. NM forget it, have a good day. --Mor2 (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, I'm not saying anything about what you call "cumulative" edits, if I understand you properly. In my view, Sepsis II reverted twice. The only issue was whether the second revert was exempt because it was reverting a sock, and although there may be a fine timing issue, I think most would find that it was exempt. As for the substance of Sepsis's edits, you're absolutely welcome to discuss that on the article talk page. BTW, there's nothing wrong with discussing these kinds of issues with admins so you avoid violating policy. Most editors don't do it, but it can be very useful. I personally don't mind discussing these questions with you, but I also know you're unhappy with me, so you could always raise them on another admin's talk page. Entirely up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- All I know that he reverted two edits and (included mine), both of which are already undid something(stated in the edit summary). If you are saying that it's ok to do multiple reverts of content that is already a subject of controversy, as long as you do it in one cumulative edit, then... respect to the technicalities? I assumed that if I revert his edit and ask him kindly to make multiple edits with consecutive edit summaries or take it to the talk page, I'll be in violation of at least one rule. NM forget it, have a good day. --Mor2 (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- There was some unusual activity on the article today. The first edit, the one that, among other things, undid your edit, was that editor's first revert of the day and therefore did not violate 1RR. There then followed a series of reverts, but they all related to Carvotta being declared a sock, and your edit got swallowed up in that. Reverting an indefinitely blocked sock is an exemption to 1RR. In any event, that article is a relentless pressure cooker. You kind of have to expect that if you want to edit it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Sigh
Thanks... That's a bit more clear. :) Kuru (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Edit War
My favourite edit war warrior admin (you blocked me twice :-) I hope you had a beautiful Christmas. Wish you a very happy New Year. Users RS4815, VecihiHürkuş and Dr.K. seem to be in a fierce edit war over Turkey. FYI. --E4024 (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- The war appears to be over as Vecihi Hürkuş has been blocked. Before being blocked, though, they came up with a doozy of an edit summary ("Stop using Misplaced Pages for pathetic irredentist masturbations"). I wish you a happy blockless new year with nothing but polite, clear edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I had not seen that that user was blocked but I doubt the war has ended or that they were the only warrior. BTW thanks for your good wishes. I have always known to be a very polite person, although since I began editing WP I have had some difficulty biting my tongue. (Please don't ask me why. :-) All the same your words come just after I have given a clue of repentance. Peace. --E4024 (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Human rights abuses in Kashmir
Half of the page Human rights abuses in Kashmir was deleted by User:Darkness_Shines before you marked it as protected. The user deleted it as copy pasted but failed to prove from where it was copy pasted. You had to check the edit summary but you didnt rather you destroyed the work of others. I‘m requesting please see the edit summary and the talk page and act as it desires. Thank you. MehrajMir (Talk) 17:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unless there's a policy issue, locking an article does not endorse a particular version sought by one of the editors. The material that DS removed was recently added by you. If there's a clear consensus to re-add some or all of it, that can, of course, be done after the lock expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Offense / Offence
Not sure about American spelling, but according to Misplaced Pages: Offence (law), a violation of the penal law Offense (sports), the action of engaging an opposing team with the objective of scoring Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just the vagaries of problematic articles created by geocentric editors. Just look it up in the dictionary. I assure you that "offense" is the correct spelling in the modern American legal system.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take your word for it. Now I just need to make some shanges to the page on Aluminium! (jk) Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think offense (regardless of spelling) is the wrong word here. According to , an offense appears to relate more to a misdemeanor. Money laundering seems pretty clear that it is a crime, not an offence. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- In modern American federal law, the word offense is generic and doesn't just relate to misdemeanors. However, if you wish to replace "offenses" with "crimes", that would be acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Will do, and will add a reference on the talk page.Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand. What kind of reference, and why would you add it to the talk page? Do you mean just an explanation of the change?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, an explanation of the change on the talk page - is that not right? Wanted to maintain transparency. Was that redundant?Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I see what you did - no problem at all, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank You For The Advice!
Bbb23,
I'm sorry about all that. I realized that I skipped the help pages on Misplaced Pages. From now on, if you guys give me the chance, I'll try to improve. I did not mean to send in all that. Since I was not familiar with Misplaced Pages, I thought it was the right thing to save often. I have read Misplaced Pages's help pages and will try to follow it. Thank you guys for giving me the chance!
Chipuchu (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Confusion about correct application of BADEMPHASIS?
If you have a minute, I'd like you to join this discussion: User_talk:Belchfire#Confusion_about_correct_application_of_BADEMPHASIS.3F
It concerns this edit of yours:
Belchfire-TALK 02:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have no interest in joining the discussion. I suggest you skip the crap about banned editors, allegedly pointy edits, etc., and just focus on the content.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
gen+gen : of+possessive
Could you explain your rationale for preserving the possessive marker ('s) after the genitive indicator "of", specifically in the clause "he compared the comedian's rise to that of Adolf Hitler's"? Typically the double genitive is used when the plain "of" might change the meaning inappropriately (as in the different meanings of the phrases "a picture of Hitler"/"a picture of Hitler's"), and in specifically idiomatic phrases. There are several "of N's" phrases that are specifically ungrammatical, not only in formal written English, but even in conversational English (with, of course, some variation).
As opposed to a phrase like "friends of Hitler's" (which I judge as grammatical), the phrase "that of Hitler's" does strike me as one of these ungrammatical phrases. There are several such phrases that are discussed in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language as fitting into "Alternating patterns of complementation", perhaps most broadly showing a pattern of ungrammaticality when the the noun preceding "of" is not one that is materially owned, and is more in a relationship of association with the following noun, if it is a single quality or relationship that is being identified.
Let me add, however, that if the phrase were referring to accomplishments and it referred one among several accomplishments, I would hear "an accomplishment of Hitler's" as a grammatical construction.
Do you stand by your edit? I stand by mine, but would like to hear your case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.242.34 (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's an impressive post. I'll consult with someone else and get back to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- User:Bwilkins changed the text back to your version. I've now reread it and decided I was wrong in the first instance. Happy editing!--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Use of quotes on conversion therapy
Rather than edit warring, let's take this quote dispute to the article talk page. I started a section at Talk:Conversion therapy to discuss this, please discuss there before further reverts. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you look a couple of sections up, you'll see that I have no plans to become involved in the content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Userpage Shield | |
| For meritorious defense of my userpage from vandalism by means of Speedy deletion tagging on 23 December, 2012. Many thanks!. Cdtew (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC) |
- Glad I could help, Clark.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
December 2012
Maybe before you advise me to use the talk page, you should check the last post on the talk page. I had already commented, HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR[REDACTED] HARD. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Captricity page
Hi, I created a page on Captricity that was deleted by you. I would like to make a page that better conforms to the standards and is allowed to remain. I did read the style guides and it seemed to conform, but I must have missed something. Could you possibly provide me with more feedback on why the page was removed so that I can improve and avoid the same mistakes again? As you can see, I'm new to Misplaced Pages, though I have experience with other wiki-based encyclopedias in the past. Any advice you can give would be great appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and help. AMS135246 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- It was a combination of two things. First and foremost, it read like an advertisement. The Phrase "quickly and cheaply" and the "while often compared" sentence in the lead don't bode well for the rest of the article. The History section was way too personal from Chen's point of view, reads like a fansite. It was also part of the second reason, which was copyright infringement - you either copied or closely paraphrased text from the company's website, which is not permissible. The Products section also reads like an ad of the various "features" of the products, again with phrases like "currently available for free". It doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, but more like an extension of the company's website.
- You need far more secondary sourcing. Of all the sources you had, the best was the launch award. I have no idea whether it was a notable award, but looking at the award's website, it looked reasonably reliable. In contrast, the pandodaily looks more like a personal blog and therefore not reliable. The remainder of the sources were all self-published and add very little, if any, value.
- So, if you want to continue trying - and I don't want to discourage you - keep any new articles as detached and neutral as possible; dry may not be interesting, but at least it will get past the speedy deletion stage. Stick to facts. Don't even think about copying from websites or anywhere else. Concentrate on secondary, reliable sources, references that comment on the subject, rather than the subject commenting on itself. The more prominent the source the better.
- I hope that helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Unblock request
Hey Bbb23 - Happy Holidays! There is an unblock request up at UTRS where User:Pathologyresident5 has agreed to no longer link to any of their research and instead work on various medical articles. Would you be ok if I were to unblock and monitor them? I would of course make it a bright line requirement that any future promotion or linking to their work or clinic would lead to an immediate re-block of their account. --Jezebel'sPonyo 16:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me, thanks for checking. Have a safe and happy new year!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring: Løverne
The creator of this article, Biker No 1 is avoiding SD tags and deletion s by continually recreating this page, along with MC Lions. Thought I'd bring it to your attention. Cdtew (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- User:Acroterion seems to be dealing with the situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Iranian Space Agency
God only knows why but an IP posted on my talk page to look into a content dispute here. Looking over the page history Scythian77 has been reverting IP's at will for over a year. Since 24 April 2011 he has reverted this edit 28 times, and these reverts are his only edits to the article He calls the IP's vandals and sockpuppets. The content is sourced and a quick Google shows plenty of sources to back the edit. What is the best course of action? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- You left a note on Scythian's talk page, which was a good idea. According to one of the edit summaries, the issue was discussed a couple of years ago, but, even if true, that doesn't justify reverting these recent edits that are sourced to 2012 references. Frankly, Scythian should discuss the content on the article talk page rather than reverting, but the IP is also in danger of breaching 3RR. If you like, you can point Scythian to this discusion. They should know better than to toss terms like vandal and sock around without strong evidence, which appears to be lacking here, certainly on the issue of vandalism. The IP is now using the vandalism label as well, no doubt defensively.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- I also posted on the article talk page, and let the IP know about 3RR. I will let Scythian know about this post as well. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Please reconsider
I appreciate that you are trying to reduce drama, but the boomerang proposal had garnered no opposition, so at this point the consensus is actually in favor of a block. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- If another admin disagrees with me, fine; otherwise, a punitive block is not going to happen. No more opening cans of worms. Please spend your time doing something else (no implication of bad faith, btw).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Block of Drmies
- Well, I disagree with it. This was a bad move to make without discussion first, Bbb. I'm not going to reblock, because I'd consider myself involved with respect to Drmies, but I'd strongly urge you to reverse your action. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Bbb23; it wasn't a punitive block. It was a "I can see where this is going, knock it the hell off" block. If you can't distinguish between the two - or understand why unblocking your admin nominator is potentially a problem - I have some serious concerns. Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ironholds, does that mean that any admin who considers themselves a friend of Drmies is involved? I apologize for not discussing this with you first, but there's been so much stuff flying about today, it takes my breath away. And blocks of admins in heated discussions. What is the purpose? Really? I know you can't see me, but I'm just sitting here shaking my head in wonderment at the whole thing. But I suppose that's just the way it is here sometimes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- The purpose of the blocks? Because they were uncivil. And that's it. We, as administrators, have a duty to enforce policy and maintain Misplaced Pages - and one of the policies and things necessary for its maintenance is the construction of a collaborative rather than combative atmosphere. This is utterly impossible to maintain if "but mummy, the other boy started with the nasty words" is a legitimate excuse. And in regards to Drmies: how on earth could you have passed RfA and not at any point picked up WP:INVOLVED? Would you be comfortable with a judge passing sentence on his golfing buddy? Ironholds (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- But we don't normally issue civility blocks based on that kind of stuff without any warning. Why should Drmies be treated differently? As for being involved, as I indicated before, Drmies has an awful lot of buddies. In any event, on the involved issue, do you want me to reblock Drmies? Is that your preference?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- And I think it's swell that he has so many friends, and if any of them had unblocked him instead of you I'd be sticking precisely the same messages on their talkpages. Unless he has 700 odd friends, all, coincidentally, admins, there were other people who could've handled it - and forgive me if I don't take advice on when we do and do not issue civility blocks from an administrator who self-admittedly thinks they can unblock their friends. Frankly, at this point I'd advise you to leave it alone. No unblocks. No reblocks. Learn when to take action and when not to for future disputes. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Then that's what I'll do; I'll leave it alone. I'll also take to heart (seriously) your advice. Hopefully, it'll never come up - it certainly never has before. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- And I think it's swell that he has so many friends, and if any of them had unblocked him instead of you I'd be sticking precisely the same messages on their talkpages. Unless he has 700 odd friends, all, coincidentally, admins, there were other people who could've handled it - and forgive me if I don't take advice on when we do and do not issue civility blocks from an administrator who self-admittedly thinks they can unblock their friends. Frankly, at this point I'd advise you to leave it alone. No unblocks. No reblocks. Learn when to take action and when not to for future disputes. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Bbb, I appreciate you sticking your neck out. I only have one quibble: I think you should have unblocked Scotty also. Neither of us should have been blocked, of course, no matter what Ironholds might think he was preventing. If I had been online when all this was happening, unblocking Scotty (if I could at that time) was the first thing I would have done. Why this wasn't preceded by a warning is a mystery to me. Words first, Ironholds, then blocks, in any dispute which is obviously not threatening the project or a BLP but is nothing but a disagreement between grown-ups. Yes, in the real world people call each other names--it's in primary school where schoolmasters have to step in, not here. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- As I said at AN, when I could get a word in edgewise, I did not know Scotty had been blocked until after he had been unblocked by Floq. Scotty is not on my watchllist, and despite someone (don't remember who) saying I should have "researched" it, I think that's frankly silly. Am I supposed to assume that Ironholds blocked other persons and check his contributions? What about other admins blocking/unblocking at the same time? I didn't know that YRC was blocked, either, until after the fact.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Seriously?
Seriously? You expect consensus in order to undo your actions when you failed to obtain consensus to before hand? Are you trying to get de-sysopped? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually Bbb23 there says, rather puzzlingly, "administrative consensus", not "consensus". I'm not sure why administrators' opinions are now more important than the community, though.
- Incidentally, but on a related note, I've undone your "admin only" close of the other thread on that page. In that case too, individual administrators do not get to override community consensus. --Demiurge1000 (talk)
International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)
Done, I hope your happy with the result. I will restore the rewrite later, perhaps instead of being outraged you ought to compare them, I acted in good faith here and asked the other guy to expand the sections he is most interested in, of course that was not good enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't "outraged". You know I can't take a position on the content issues without losing my ability to act administratively. I'm simply trying to be fair. Thank you for self-reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fair? An editor makes how many reverts which include BLP and linkvios and I am the one getting bollocked. The rewrite was a massive improvement. I broke no policy's and told you I was rewriting it and would not touch the article for a while, which is what I did. All you have done here is enable the other guy. Very bad call. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call hours "a while", but if you disagree with me, you're welcome to ask another admin their view.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with everyone, it's one of my personality flaws
I have now noticed you are getting a lot of shite over the unblock, so sorry for having dropped more in your lap. Personally I think your doing OK, have a good new year. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with everyone, it's one of my personality flaws
- I wouldn't call hours "a while", but if you disagree with me, you're welcome to ask another admin their view.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fair? An editor makes how many reverts which include BLP and linkvios and I am the one getting bollocked. The rewrite was a massive improvement. I broke no policy's and told you I was rewriting it and would not touch the article for a while, which is what I did. All you have done here is enable the other guy. Very bad call. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Dropping by
Just an oldtimer dropping by. While everyone can have Wikifriends and Wikienemies, certain people are just too close to an administrator for that administrator to take controversial actions with regard to. Spouses or siblings who edit are one category. RFA nominators are another. I passed RFA in February 2008 and have had very little to do with two of my RFA nominators since then and I still consider myself precluded from taking action with respect to them. I know you're new and people can disagree on involved status, but I figured my experience might be helpful. MBisanz 01:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Matthew, would that others would criticize with such grace.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Let the water roll off your back. No harm, no foul little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 02:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC) |