| Revision as of 10:37, 10 August 2014 view sourceBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,206 edits re Doug← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:41, 10 August 2014 view source Doug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,298 edits →You around?: emailNext edit → | ||
| Line 336: | Line 336: | ||
| Need advice. ] (]) 10:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | Need advice. ] (]) 10:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Yes, exhausted (insomnia) but here.--] (]) 10:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | :Yes, exhausted (insomnia) but here.--] (]) 10:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::Check your email. ] (]) 10:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:41, 10 August 2014
|
|
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.
Vandalism on Phineas and Ferb (season 4)
There is vandalism happening on a page on this wiki by IP Address 66.87.82.242 and he keeps changing the format by removing the Assistant Directors and Story Writers so it won't be, quote "cluttered". The format before he removed Assistant Directors and Story Writers was fine and on the Phineas and Ferb (season 3), Phineas and Ferb (season 2, and Phineas and Ferb (season 1). Please block him so he will stop ruining the page.
Douglas Youvan Info Box
What do you want me to do to validate the names of students and spouses? You should know that page has a $300 per month "offer" for page protection by "Wikipedians for Hire". I did report that to an admin. I am also aware that there are some wealthy people who want no name-association with Youvan, although my edit was factual. Frank Layden (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- All the material you added is not in the body and is not sourced. The hiring thing doesn't change the fact that policy must be followed. If you can't find reliable sources, you can't add it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I can work some of the names into the body, and the source becomes the published paper's author affiliations. The spouses can be found on "BeenVerified"; I suppose some of that info can be clipped into the talk page of the article. I don't think many other articles have been treated in such a stringent manner. Perhaps I can find original marriage certificates at county court houses and fax them to Wiki headquarters. One of those people could get very upset if other articles have simply trusted the editor's word. It would obviously receive a very strong complaint if I got it wrong. Obviously, it is the wrongly named person that would have it taken down. Frank Layden (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Most BLP articles are "treated" this way. Marriage certificates are not considered reliable sources as they are primary sources. I don't even understand what you mean by the "author affiliations." Frankly, the whole thing sounds loony to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- You win. Your edit stands. I will not revert. BTW, If you would want to write an article on a scientist who is obviously missing from Misplaced Pages, I could name him and perhaps cooperate, but I'm afraid my experience is not sufficient for your standards. We would need a sandbox for tutoring. Frank Layden (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your not reverting, but I don't think it of as winning, just remaining compliant with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I'd like to help you, but we seem to have a bit of a disconnect. You might learn better about wikipedia through someone else (I don't think of myself as being warm and fuzzy). Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user may be useful to you if you're interested.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Rather than hit one biography in what might seem to be an arbitrary enforcement of rules, why not propose to one of the bot-writers a program that flags names in info boxes that are not in the main text? Frank Layden (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your not reverting, but I don't think it of as winning, just remaining compliant with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I'd like to help you, but we seem to have a bit of a disconnect. You might learn better about wikipedia through someone else (I don't think of myself as being warm and fuzzy). Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user may be useful to you if you're interested.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- You win. Your edit stands. I will not revert. BTW, If you would want to write an article on a scientist who is obviously missing from Misplaced Pages, I could name him and perhaps cooperate, but I'm afraid my experience is not sufficient for your standards. We would need a sandbox for tutoring. Frank Layden (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Most BLP articles are "treated" this way. Marriage certificates are not considered reliable sources as they are primary sources. I don't even understand what you mean by the "author affiliations." Frankly, the whole thing sounds loony to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I can work some of the names into the body, and the source becomes the published paper's author affiliations. The spouses can be found on "BeenVerified"; I suppose some of that info can be clipped into the talk page of the article. I don't think many other articles have been treated in such a stringent manner. Perhaps I can find original marriage certificates at county court houses and fax them to Wiki headquarters. One of those people could get very upset if other articles have simply trusted the editor's word. It would obviously receive a very strong complaint if I got it wrong. Obviously, it is the wrongly named person that would have it taken down. Frank Layden (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Can you help me
Some users are deleting my work Hiberno Irish and hiding everything so it cant be reviewed, and they are accusing me of being a sockpuppit, can you help me retrive my work so it can be reviewed properly, or at least i can put it in my sand box
Thank you--Twominds (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Also user Mury1975 removed my references from Hiberno Irish and them tagged it, unreferenced,,should he not be blocked for doing things like that--Twominds (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
User:DEPPLOVE23
Based on this user's creations of articles about Calvin and Hobbes The Animated Cartoon Series, which appear to exist only in a Wikia page created by a user there named "Dude899 AKA ToonBoyDan", I believe this user is just the latest in a long line of socks of ToonBoyDan. Should that SPI page be updated to include this new sock (so that any future investigations can include this current behavior for comparison, and so that all of this user's contributions can be deleted under WP:CSD#G5)? WikiDan61ReadMe!! 17:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, but the connection is too tenous for me to label him a puppet. Other than the Wikia page, there's very little that connects DEPPLOVE23 and the ToonBoyDan's socks. DEPPLOVE23 could have just picked it up from there on his own. TBD is transparent. He always talks about himself here, very pleased with himself. His writing style is also different. I can't do it. BTW, a CU would not work because the accounts are stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Apologies and thanks
Sorry it's a bank holiday weekend over here, I saw the ping yesterday and was going to do it this evening as there are multiple similarties. I was only on breifly this morning, and when I returned to the SPI was closed, by yourself. Sorry once again that I didnt get back quick enough, and thanks for your additional work on the SPI. Murry1975 (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. It was a lot of work, but I understand we all have outside lives. I hope you enjoyed your holiday.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, most would have waited until I got back to them. Not back in work until Tuesday, so another family day tomorrow. Thanks again. Murry1975 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, I'm not the most patient person, more's the pity, plus the user was bothering me on my talk page. But you're absolutely right, I could have waited. I could have even blocked the user temporarily for disruption if they had persisted in disruptive edits pending an outcome of the SPI. Family days are good; have fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, most would have waited until I got back to them. Not back in work until Tuesday, so another family day tomorrow. Thanks again. Murry1975 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
elector SPI
Out of curiosity, what were you going to say in that "Elector" SPI before the CU dropped their results?Gaijin42 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, obviously I was going to post it publicly, but now it's no longer needed, I'd rather keep it to myself. I've saved my notes. I will say I was going to endorse the CU (heh).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Would this probable 3RR report amount to anything?
See the history of the article. The user is at 5-6 reverts, and is claiming BLP exemption due to BLP. Other discussions include; Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#List_of_pornographic_actors_who_appeared_in_mainstream_films and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Why_Wikipedia_is_a_joke. If I were to file a report, where do you think it would go due to the application of the supposed BLP exemption? Tutelary (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- My advice is not to go to AN3, regardless of whether the BLP exemption applies or doesn't apply. The issues are being discussed in enough forums and with enough administrative attention. Why add another venue?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Redbranch
Many apologies, I just didn't have time to respond immediately and then simply forgot. Great work there. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Aca2910
I just went to his page to template it and you beat me to it! Sorry to be so slow. Should I also raise a pro forma SPI so there's a record? Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary, Doug. I wouldn't endorse a CU when something is so obvious, so the report would just be closed as "dealt with". The block log and the tag on the user page are enough of a record--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- And I wouldn't ask for a CU. Ok. I just thought it would make it easier if there were another one. Callanecc told me "If you use Twinkle to make reports, edit the SPI page after you've filed the case and change
– This SPI case is open. to 
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser. and leave a note in the admin section that you're just filing for the record. If you use the box on the main WP:SPI page, when you make the report note in the |admincomment= parameter that you're filing it for the record and that will automatically close the case. That way the clerks can archive it straight away." That's what I was going to do once I found what he told me! Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- If that's what Callanecc said to do in these circumstances, by all means do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- To clarify a bit further the tag (and hence category) are generally enough, unless they've introduced something new with this sock, or there is more than one. For example, a new or different to normal naming convention or different behaviour which should be recorded as something to match against in the future. Otherwise yeah the category will do. Having said though that there's no real harm in filing it for the record except that it uses up a bit of time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Callanecc, I'm glad Doug understands, but I don't. What exactly causes the SPI to close automatically?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you use the inputbox (top section on WP:SPI in the collapsed section) it opens a template for filing, if you enter anything in the
|admincomment=parameter the report will be automatically marked as closed when the page is saved (and hence report is filed). Hope that makes it a bit clearer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)- Crystal-clear, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Time is far too precious to waste so I'll try to avoid this in the future. There is never enough time to do what I want to do here and I'm sure it's true of you two as well. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Crystal-clear, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you use the inputbox (top section on WP:SPI in the collapsed section) it opens a template for filing, if you enter anything in the
- Callanecc, I'm glad Doug understands, but I don't. What exactly causes the SPI to close automatically?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- To clarify a bit further the tag (and hence category) are generally enough, unless they've introduced something new with this sock, or there is more than one. For example, a new or different to normal naming convention or different behaviour which should be recorded as something to match against in the future. Otherwise yeah the category will do. Having said though that there's no real harm in filing it for the record except that it uses up a bit of time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- If that's what Callanecc said to do in these circumstances, by all means do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- And I wouldn't ask for a CU. Ok. I just thought it would make it easier if there were another one. Callanecc told me "If you use Twinkle to make reports, edit the SPI page after you've filed the case and change
"tagging a lot of old articles"
That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm rummaging through Category:All unreferenced BLPs because I'm getting fed up of seeing them stagnating. Most of them are eligible for WP:BLPPROD; I don't use proposed deletion because I cannot see the use of a process which can be overruled at a whim (i.e. anyone can ask for it to be restored at any point). That said, I didn't tag many for speedy deletion, did I?--Launchballer 09:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Several, certainly enough to annoy me a bit. I understand your frustration, but that's not a justification for tagging them. As I'm sure you know, references aren't necessary to get past an A7. Please try to contain your frustration in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm embarrassed to say, I didn't know that. (Actually, I went through far more than the CSD log would show - I AfDd most of them.) Sorry if I annoyed you.--Launchballer 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'll live.
--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'll live.
- I'm embarrassed to say, I didn't know that. (Actually, I went through far more than the CSD log would show - I AfDd most of them.) Sorry if I annoyed you.--Launchballer 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Sergio Busquets
Hello.
I believe this has been brought to your attention before, but can you offer a few minutes of your time to view this editing issue being discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sergio_Busquets#Champions_League_Incident_Revisited
I disagreed with the inclusion of a paragraph that I felt wasn't relevant. However, a consensus was reached, or at least 79.49.159.166 decided it was and reverted to the original comment. The language used though to address the incident I feel is not supported by the sources and doesn't provide the reader with a neutral and unbiased view and have rephrased it to highlight the facts that I believe should be mentioned. Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't recall ever being involved in this before.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The above report was made against me on 15 July 2014 regarding contributions I made to the article. You assessed the concerns and made a decision.
There is now, however, an IP address whose sole contributions on WP is to this Sergio Busquets article, constantly reverting edits made to clarify a particular incident by ignoring the reported material in the media which I believe is not in the interests of WP's guidelines on neutrality. I presume seeking consultation with an admin is the correct course of action here, or would you advise WP:DRN? Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- It depends. If you believe the problem with the IP is a conduct issue as opposed to a content dispute, then you should go to the appropriate noticeboard. Just remember that a lot of things that strike editors as misconduct are at bottom still content disputes. If it is a content dispute, even if contentious, there are various dispute resolution mechanisms. DRN is one possibility.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, many thanks for your help. Panhead2014 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Feedback request on one of the articles you've recently protected
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Permanent_death#rfc_ADF653E. Please help us determine whether of not Path of Exile belongs on the list of games featuring permanent death. Thanks. I really need that username (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| Thank you for your help and for fixing the SPI page which I messed up entirely, It's very much appreciated, |
- Thanks, Davey, filing SPI reports is tough for many people, not just you. It helped that I was somewhat familiar with the issues before clerking the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Oh well that's a relief I guess :) Anyway thanks, have a nice day, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Babymetal
Hi! I'm sorry to disturb you here.
It's about this: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Moscow Connection reported by User:SilentDan297 (Result: Both warned).
Could you look at this and comment: Talk:Babymetal#Disruptive edits by SilentDan297?
Please help cause I'm frustrated. Since I returned to Misplaced Pages 2 weeks ago I do nothing but what I think is defending the Babymetal article from a very disruptive and uncooperative editor named SilentDan297 (who, by the way, can't read Japanese and seem to fail to understand basic things about the band whose article he edits).
(And now I get warned... But every time I look away, he changes the article again! I will either have to go away from the article forever or face a block. And I night well be the only one who is qualified to look after the article cause it needs someone who follows the band and who can read both Japanese and English.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there's not much I can do with respect to the content dispute and your frustration. Without delving deep into the discussion and past discussions I don't see any obvious consensus for how the article should read. I think the best thing you can do is to try to get more editors involved, and taking the position that you are the only "qualified" editor to make decisions about the article is not going to help in a project that believes in collaboration among editors. From an administrative point of view, all I can tell you is to avoid misconduct on the article, regardless of whether you think you're "right". If you don't have the patience to do that, then focus on something else that's less trying for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Arbitrary Deletion
No more posting about this issue here or anywhere else on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why did you speedy delete without even asking the page Sean James Sutton when the actor in question is in a major motion picture? Your decision puzzles me. Straitjacket Man (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion rarely involves "asking" the creator of the article. I didn't see any serious claim of significance in Sutton's having a role in a not-yet-released movie. What makes you so interested in the Suttons (you created Martin Sutton as well)?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- "You" didn't see any significance. So it was a personal decision then? And my personal motives are under question as well? I thought Misplaced Pages was objective. (By the way, did you see the article in the Guardian about how elitist/male-dominated Misplaced Pages editors are. Don't you want new blood? New editors to help out? More women involved? The moment someone tries to edit here they get pounced upon by an established editor which is very frustrating.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straitjacket Man (talk • contribs) 21:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Straitjacket Man, "speedy deletion" is a process by which articles that typically lack any kind of sourcing are deleted because no reliable claim of importance is made for the subject. That applied in this case--someone can hardly be "best known" for something (Peruchazhi) that isn't even released yet. No references to reliable sources were provided for the article--and I note that Martin Sutton suffered from the same ill--and since the IMDB entry suggests this person has not played roles of great significance, deletion was entirely justified. Bbb is not obligated, as the deleting administrator, to discuss this with you; it was someone else who nominated the article for deletion and notified you on your talk page.
I don't know if you're charging Bbb with sexism--well, perhaps he's a man hater, since you're name is not Straitjacket Woman, but I doubt it very much, and the charge is really silly. If your subject becomes written up in reliable sources you are welcome to resubmit the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion; circling wagons. Misplaced Pages editors come across as extremely protective and unwelcoming to newcomers. (I won't even bother answering your somewhat curious comments about sexism!) Straitjacket Man (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Those were your comments, dude. Now leave Bbb alone; he's got lots more articles to delete. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Your comment makes no sense. Bbb is being subjective. If Bbb or other editors would like a sensible, rational, debate about this I'm happy to talk. But Bbb won't. Bbb deletes and leaves. Misplaced Pages truly is unwelcoming to newcomers. Straitjacket Man (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Sockpuppet
Hi, Bbb23. Awhile ago you blocked an Ip due to sock puppetry. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucasantunes09/Archive. Well, he is back . Could you do something about it? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Lecen. Actually, I blocked no IPs as a result of that SPI, but only because they hadn't been active recently at the time. Nor has this IP address ever edited before. Nonetheless, I agree that the IP is the same person, and I've blocked them for a month. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. The reason why they were not editing at that time was because both articles were protected. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Insult at Jack Wilshere
Hi, Could you please help me hide a insulting edit summary at Jack Wilshere who tries to insult me (male) in a no good way? It would be highly appreciated. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Let me know if it happens again.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Let's hope it does not happen again. QED237 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Would you care to re-look at the block of User:Joncmaxwell?
Joncmaxwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Tomgglass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There's been no follow-up at the SPI case. I've got a feeling it'll get shot down as a fishing expedition, so I'm not expecting any further information there.
That said, Joncmaxwell has been willing to engage in a civil discussion about the guidelines for inclusion of candidates in the infobox. I have a feeling that he's starting to grasp how Misplaced Pages works in that department. I've also got a feeling that the tone of his edits reads differently that the Tomgglass account or its obvious sockpuppets.
I have one misgiving: about the time Joncmaxwell appealed his block last night, two IPs edited Talk:Texas gubernatorial election, 2014. One geolocates to Houston. The other ties to a different ISP in the Dallas metroplex, and Joncmaxwell has admitted to living in the Dallas area.
Nonetheless, Joncmaxwell is willing to engage, and I'm inclined to return the favor. Would you look back through his edits and see if you support either an outright unblock or an unblock conditioned that he not re-add Glass to the Texas gubernatorial election, 2014 infobox? Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- C.Fred, since you wrote this, a CU has been conducted and there've been comments by the CU, Ponyo. Please take a look and tell me what your thoughts are at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The comment about the geolocation goes right back to what I saw yesterday. My gut still says it's not the same person as Glass; however, I've got a feeling that he isn't totally independent of Glass either—as in, they're probably both members of some organization or another. I'm still willing to engage the user about the article and keep some civil dialogue going forward, but I'm not sure I'm ready to hit the unblock button right now. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- There's also the name issue. I'm going to close the report, keeping Joncmaxwell and CarlJJarvis blocked as suspected, not confirmed. Given that there's suspected sock puppetry involved, if you later decide you want to unblock Joncmaxwell, please consult with me first. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd completely forgotten that I opened the report, so I left a note on the SPI page but didn't actually close it. The line blurs in these kinds of cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- There's also the name issue. I'm going to close the report, keeping Joncmaxwell and CarlJJarvis blocked as suspected, not confirmed. Given that there's suspected sock puppetry involved, if you later decide you want to unblock Joncmaxwell, please consult with me first. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The comment about the geolocation goes right back to what I saw yesterday. My gut still says it's not the same person as Glass; however, I've got a feeling that he isn't totally independent of Glass either—as in, they're probably both members of some organization or another. I'm still willing to engage the user about the article and keep some civil dialogue going forward, but I'm not sure I'm ready to hit the unblock button right now. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Men's Rights probation question
Now I've generally believed that the Men's Rights probation was targeted at topics. However I've seen a number of times where it appears to be more directed at people, not from administration or sanctions, but from comments along the lines of "mra's are getting involved, maybe Men's rights sanctions are applicable" (this is not a direct quote, but a paraphrase). My question is then is this line of thinking accurate? Because it seems to me to fall against the probation, and into battleground behavior. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Disruptive comments related to men's rights are indeed encompassed by the terms of the probation and therefore sanctionable. I can't, of course, say what I would do without a real case to evaluate.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm thinking of comments like this , specifically the sentence "If men's rights editors (MRAs) are editing this article, that also needs attention, per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation." This leads me to believe that they think that editors are under the probation and not the subject material. From my perspective this goes against the last bullet point of how to not be sanctioned "Leave room for differences, having different points of view represented is why we're so good at creating articles with a Neutral point of view!". --Kyohyi (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think Flyer22 is simply trying to explain that edits to the article may be subject to the men's rights sanctions, and I agree. Perhaps he could have phrased it a little differently by referring to the subject of men's rights rather than labeling editors as advocates of a particular point of view.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm thinking of comments like this , specifically the sentence "If men's rights editors (MRAs) are editing this article, that also needs attention, per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation." This leads me to believe that they think that editors are under the probation and not the subject material. From my perspective this goes against the last bullet point of how to not be sanctioned "Leave room for differences, having different points of view represented is why we're so good at creating articles with a Neutral point of view!". --Kyohyi (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I meant, Bbb23. Thank you. I'm female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry about that. I try to be careful and use the plural pronoun when I don't know the gender of the user, but sometimes I slip up. I'll try to remember for the future, and it's clearly on your user page now I've looked at it. Big family and your history is very entertaining. Me, I have only two siblings, and I'm the youngest. I think it's better that way because I often got what I wanted because of that. :-) All in all, I think the middle children have the rawest deal. Feel free to correct me again if I screw up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I meant, Bbb23. Thank you. I'm female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
William Levy (actor)
Hi, sorry to bother you. I do not want to start an edit war in the articles William Levy, but the picture is putting that ip, is copyrighted and has been marked for deletion . --Damián (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I nominated it for deletion, and in retrospect, I should have probably tagged it for speedy deletion. That said, everyone's been blocked, at least for a bit, so things have quieted down. I have the article on my watchlist, so at least when I'm on wiki, I can see what's happening. Thanks for your sensitivity to the edit-warring issue; it does you credit.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Domestic Violence Article Sanctions
I'm new here, and a little confused. Am I permitted to edit the domestic violence article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Domestic_violence Casusbelli1 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- You have to read the alert I left on your talk page and then read carefully the probation sanctions themselves. You can edit the article as long as you don't run afoul of the restrictions. If you have specific questions about a particular restriction, let me know. As a general rule, though, a new editor should proceed cautiously when editing and especially when editing in controversial areas of wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying Bbb23. I read the sanctions (twice) and still came away a little confused. All of this seems somewhat arcane, but I'm sure I'll get the hang of it. I will proceed with caution in my edits, carefully check my sources, and hope for the best. Casusbelli1 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's also sometimes best to propose edits on the talk page first. Additions can be tweaked that way as well, just as easily as if they were being tweaked in the article, and WP:Consensus is easier to achieve in that way; well, it's often more accurate than WP:Silent consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Skynyrdman
I don't think the account is the owner of the farm either. It's a meatpuppet of the owner. That's a form of sockpuppetry according to WP:SOCK. If SPI is not the right place to report a blocked user using a paid editor, then where should it go? I can't believe that a blocked editor can evade his block by paying someone to make the edits. Meters (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I know meat puppetry is mentioned in the policy, but SPI doesn't normally block someone as a sock for being a meat puppet, not that I'm sympathetic to meat puppets myself. I understand your point, but I have very little guidance for you. If you think what the user is doing is contrary to policy, I'd take them to ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at it. I don't think I'll bother taking it to ANI. In the two weeks it took to get a simple "wrong forum" answer the paid editor has stopped editing and has blanked his talk page. I may raise the question of how to handle these situations in the future if I can figure out where to ask it. I won't be at all surprised if I'm told the appropriate forum is indeed SPI. There's no point in including meat puppetry in the definition of sockpuppetry if SPI won't act on as clear a case as this. It seems like a hole big enough to drive a truck through. Meters (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomgglass
Hey there. I noticed you blocked a handful of accounts as sockpuppets of Tomgglass, but I don't think that's actually the case here. For the Tomgglass and Tgglass accounts, there was never any overlap in their edits, and the first account stopped editing a few weeks before it was blocked, so I think the claim of a lost password is legitimate. I know how the other two editors, Joncmaxwell and CarlJJarvis, came to create their accounts, and can attest that they are different people, not sockpuppets, who were made aware of the TX election page infobox dispute off-site. I think this is a classic case of earnest but policy-ignorant editors stumbling around and stepping on toes with no ill intent. I don't think any of them desire to harm the project. I hope you'll take that into consideration. I'm going to ping @C.Fred: since he has been involved in this as well. Cheers. —Torchiest edits 17:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm aware of all this as is C.Fred. It's kind of complicated, and at this point I'm in a holding pattern on the issue. I do think that if Jon is unblocked, Carl should be as well, but I'm not sure yet what's going to happen or when. I know C.Fred has been having an ongoing discussion with Jon on Jon's talk page. Not sure what C.Fred's latest thoughts are. (The first two accounts will not be unblocked, at least not in the foreseeable future.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, but I'm not sure I see how there is an abuse of multiple accounts situation with the first two accounts. I could totally understand a temporary block for edit warring, but indefinite seems disproportionate. Thanks for the reply. —Torchiest edits 17:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- One of the reasons I'll support an unblock of Jon is that he has been willing to engage and gain a feel for the guidelines. As for the Carl account, if he engaged the same way, I'd support an unblock for him too. —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- C.Fred, I'm leaning toward unblocking both accounts. I wouldn't impose any conditions in the unblock, but I would warn the users that disruption may be met with blocks. With respect to Jon, would that work for you? As for Carl, I personally don't mind unblocking him now with the same warning. However, if you believe a discussion is needed first, then I'm okay with that, but I think you should let him know on his talk page (I've already left him a brief message in response to his unblock request to be patient). I'll wait to hear from you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm on board with an unblock of both with no conditions. —C.Fred (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, C.Fred, you didn't say whether you objected to the warning, so I'll assume you don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done. One final note: thanks for your hard work in all this, C.Fred.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you. —Torchiest edits 01:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, C.Fred, you didn't say whether you objected to the warning, so I'll assume you don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm on board with an unblock of both with no conditions. —C.Fred (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- C.Fred, I'm leaning toward unblocking both accounts. I wouldn't impose any conditions in the unblock, but I would warn the users that disruption may be met with blocks. With respect to Jon, would that work for you? As for Carl, I personally don't mind unblocking him now with the same warning. However, if you believe a discussion is needed first, then I'm okay with that, but I think you should let him know on his talk page (I've already left him a brief message in response to his unblock request to be patient). I'll wait to hear from you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- One of the reasons I'll support an unblock of Jon is that he has been willing to engage and gain a feel for the guidelines. As for the Carl account, if he engaged the same way, I'd support an unblock for him too. —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, but I'm not sure I see how there is an abuse of multiple accounts situation with the first two accounts. I could totally understand a temporary block for edit warring, but indefinite seems disproportionate. Thanks for the reply. —Torchiest edits 17:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Whack-a-mole
Hi, I saw that you'd blocked User:70.74.161.145 as a block evading sock - User:70.74.181.52 seems to be another one. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 21:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Reply markup problems
Hi. In case you’re not aware, adding a colon at the beginning of a reply like ::::* creates multiple single-item lists rather than a single nested list. It creates a whole new <dl> tree around a single bullet list. Replies like the following:
::** ::*** ::****
add to the lists created by the preceding markup rather than closing them and creating entirely new ones. You can’t really tell the difference visually, but being inconsistent with them is semantically weird, and can cause issues with things like screen readers announcing multiple new lists with each post. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're way out of my depth. The amount I know about wiki mark-up you could put on the head of a pin. You're right, though, that visually it looked fine to me, but even putting aside the mark-up issues, I don't even know what you mean by "screen readers announcing multiple new lists with each post." I don't promise to follow your suggestions, though, to the extent I even understand them, not because I think you're wrong, just because I know I'll forget.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Screen readers are an accessibility product for sight-disabled people. They help them use computers by reading the screen to them. I can try and explain the list markup, but if you’d rather not bother, feel free to tell me to shut up.
: and * and # at the beginning of a line each create a different type of HTML list item. This is a bulleted list:
| Markup | Renders as |
|---|---|
* Something * Another thing * Something else |
|
If you use multiple *s, it makes a list inside the list. Here, I add a bulleted sub-list to the first item:
| Markup | Renders as |
|---|---|
* Something ** A sub-thing relating to ''Something'' * Another thing * Something else |
|
If I’m not helping or I’m just being confusing, or if you’d just rather I not, I’m sorry and I’ll stop. But please let me know either way! —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'll let you keep going at least for a while. It's very kind of you, actually. I got the part about the screen reader. I got the bulleted list part. I still don't understand the mixing of colons and asterisks. I've seen them mixed in different ways, but I think you did something like :::*:, which I don't think I'd seen before, and it confused me. Also, I'm kinda practical, so it was harder, too. If I have ::::* and I want to nest a comment below it, I copy it and paste it and then insert a colon anywhere before the asterisk. I wasn't sure what to do with your blend. Back to you, teach.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, what you want to do is insert a colon (or asterisk, whichever) at the end, just before your reply. It’s easier to show why with numbered lists. This one has an indented list (the colon markup) inside the numbered list:
| Markup | Renders as |
|---|---|
# Something #: A sub-thing relating to ''Something'' # Another thing # Something else |
|
The first character on each line is #, so each line is an item of the same numbered list. Adding a colon after with #: means the numbered item contains an indented list.
But if it’s instead marked up like this:
| Markup | Renders as |
|---|---|
# Something :# A sub-thing relating to ''Something'' # Another thing # Something else |
|
This is equivalent to:
| Markup | Renders as |
|---|---|
# Something :# A sub-thing relating to ''Something'' # Another thing # Something else |
|
That’s three separate lists. You can tell by looking at the first character on each line; changing that character between lines tells the wiki to end the list. There’s a numbered list of one; a separate indented list containing another numbered sub-list of one; and a numbered list of two.
Longer strings of colons and asterisks just mean more lists inside other lists. So :::*: would come about this way:
| Markup | Renders as |
|---|---|
Hey guys you should change this. -Some User (talk) : Change what? - Some other guy (talk) :: This thing over there on that page. -Some User (talk) ::: Oh, you have a good point! - Some other guy (talk) :::* '''Disagree''', and I need a bullet point! --Someone else (talk) :::*: But I don't like bullets. -Some User (talk) |
Hey guys you should change this. -Some User (talk)
|
If you were to look at the rendered HTML markup for those last two lines, you’d see a bulleted list inside those preceding indented lists, and then an indented list inside that bulleted list inside the preceding indented lists. But they’re all part of the same outer list, because each line begins the same way as the one before.
The bottom line is… it’s actually really pretty weird to use list markup for discussion replies. So I’m kind of eager for Flow. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank You
I very appreciate with your comment Lee788
You around?
Need advice. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, exhausted (insomnia) but here.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Check your email. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)