User talk:Bbb23

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.

Update to Shimon Gibson reverted.

I am trying to add to this site but my changes are rejected. You stated that my updates were not verifiable and unencyclopedic. I need clarification from you so that I can make corrections. I did add citations that pointed to existing web sites. If current existing websites cannot be used, what would be appropriate? I read the five pillars of Wikipedia and I cannot figure out what was not encyclopedic about my updates. I did not state an opinion, did not show bias, cited sources for my statements. I looked at other Wiki BLP (Biographies of Living people) entries with similar characteristics to serve as models, but I am still confused as to where I missed the boat. Could you point me to a BLP wiki that I can use as a standard to measure against? Any help will be appreciated.

Thank you Gretchen Cotter Gretchencotter (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Gretchen, the material you put in the article was cited only to a primary source. Generally - and in this instance - material needs to be cited to a secondary source to be sufficiently noteworthy to include in any article. Also the publications noted in the body are not well-sourced, some not sourced at all, and yet you are adding the material to the lead. Finally, we don't use parentheticals like "See next section"; it's too thesis/essay-like for encyclopedia articles. It also may cause problems in the future if the layout of the article is changed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The see next section was stupid on my part. Just meant that I would be adding a list of published books. When I continue with my updates I will be adding Publishers and ISBN numbers for books. I can look for additional sources for the other information. For the lead I was trying to say that Shimon is a university professor, an active archaeologist, not a former archaeologist, and that during his Archaeology he has authored books. I agree that the references to books should be moved, but since he is currently both a professor and an active director of a Dig, shouldn’t both of these be in the lead? Please bear with me as I continue to learn. Thank you for your feedback. Gretchen Cotter Gretchencotter (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

question on revert

Hello! I saw you reverted my edit here because it was unsourced according to you. This is really general knowledge about Charcot and it is on other WP pages as well (just checked). You even have a take on the same page saying he is an olympic winner. I love Charcot and I wanted to start adding things on his page in the English WP.

I do think your revert is a bit harsh. My add is not contentious and the article contains other info not sourced either. As does the entire WP! But sometimes we got to accept these no?

For example: Later on, Jean-Baptiste Charcot explored Rockall in 1921 and Eastern Greenland and Svalbard from 1925 until 1936. He died when Pourquoi-Pas? was wrecked in a storm off the coast of Iceland in 1936. A monument to Charcot was created in Reykjavík, Iceland by sculptor Einar Jónsson in 1936 and another by Ríkarður Jónsson in 1952.

All unsourced in the same way as mine. What is the difference?

Thanks for the feedback in advance!--Lepourquoipas (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The material you added is the kind of material that must be sourced, and you saying that it's "general knowledge" isn't good enough. If it really is general knowledge, it shouldn't be tough to find a reliable source to support it. As for other unsourced statements, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the answer. I guess whenever another wikipedian challenges you to find a source you should do it; fair enough. And I will. I do think though though that given the rest of the article and the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS elements, you could've gone for a mention of "source needed" next to my edit as I have seen it happen often. Why not go for that and wait I find the source, or someone else?

thanks!--Lepourquoipas (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I strongly dislike adding new material with {{cn}} tacked on. If I see that happen, although it does depend on the material, I revert it. So, that's "why not". Cute username.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Name comes from Charcot's boat. thanks for the answers. I still believe its a bit aggressive to revert an edit like mine in that particular context. think about it for the future. I was mad at u but that's ok. end of it as far as I'm concerned. all the best;).--Lepourquoipas (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello. I want to know why did you delete the sock puppet investigation I opened. Please ping me when replying. Thank you. LPS and MLP Fan (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: First, you filed it under the wrong master. If there is a named account, an SPI should always be filed under the named account (oldest created if more than one), never under an IP. Second, there was nothing to do. The named account was indeffed, and both IPs had already been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Anyway, at first, I thought opening a sockpuppet investigation of that IP user was unnecessary. LPS and MLP Fan (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

SPI Clerk

Hi. Can I ask why you removed me from the list of trainee-hopefuls? (Special:Diff/885178170) The summary of no thank you doesn't really explain why. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You deleted my page

Wow. You have deleted my Wikipedia page. I've spent time on it. It's not a hoax. It's real. Give me some time to get citations. Just undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorfolkIsland123 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No one is going to restore the article, and you've already been told that.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Gharaibeh

Dear Bbb23, I would like help or clarification regarding the deletion of article entitled "Gharaibeh." I was disheartened to see the article deleted based on the opinion of one Mossab Banat. The article was not a vanity article and was well referenced. The ethnic makeup of Jordan is such that one will see personal biases and prejudices factor into opinions such as the opinion of the person who requested the deletion of the article. I believe that the request was based on Mossab Banat's bigotry and Islamic extremism and not on concern for factual accuracy of the article. I believe the article was factually sound and the referenced tribe is well accomplished and notable: any quick google search will bear that fact. I am respectfully asking for you help in un-deleting the article and more referencesGharaibeh (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC) will be added by more users in short order. Sincerely, N. Gharaibeh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gharaibeh (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The article was deleted per AfD. I had nothing to do with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Bimal Bhikkhu Mahathera

Hi Bbb23, I am new to Wiki. You are doing great and in the process you deleted the page I created "Bimal Bhikkhu Mahathera" citing the reason as G11. Let me assure you, its not directly G11 (promotion and advertising) although technically it may seem so due to use of certain words. Can you please revert it so that I can edit it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SintuC (talk • contribs) 12:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the draft for you. I strongly suggest you eliminate the promotional, effusive language from the article. You personally may feel that the subject walks on water, but articles here must be written in a neutral manner. Material like

"Venerable Bimal Bhikkhu Mahathera (12 November 1945- ) is a Buddhist monk and a social activist of the Indian subcontinent and works for peace and prosperity and the emancipation of the needy and destitute children.

Born and raised in a Buddhist family and having observed the misery of human sufferings since childhood, he chose to follow the path of truth, peace and non-violence. Thus, at an early age, he was ordained as a Monk forever."

must be rewritten.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul Atherton - Case Law

BB23 I am slightly bemused, what was self serving about citing case law on Paul Atherton's Wikipedia page. The amendment was referenced both by the published Judgement from the Royal Courts of Justice and from a recognised and reputable UK Newswire the Disability News Service https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/about-us/ be grateful of some clarification? 167.98.16.78 (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, take the issue to the article Talk page. You'll need a consensus to add any of that material.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi BB23 as you're aware not a prolific editor. I thought you meant this talk page. Is it the Talk page of Paul Atherton you mean or the Talk page of my contribution? Thanks for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.16.78 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I said "article Talk page", which obviously means the Atherton Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually you didn't you said "take to Talk page" which means nothing to an inexperienced user. Nor do you explain what exacly is required? With such immense amount of editing experiencing on your side I would have expected far more assistance for an inexperienced editor. You've also yet to explain why you deemed Case Law to be self-serving when the only thing it does is serve others, as can be demonstrated from the Twitter feed around the Subject (I'm unable to post a link on Wikipedia to the search but if you search Twitter with the quote "DWP Failed for years" you'll discover part of the debate, from many reputable sources, in respect to the case), would appreciate some clarification and what is actually required to do to "take to talk page" of Paul Atherton as things stand there's just a debate around the pages deletion back in 2012. Thanks. 93.186.152.12 (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Matt Bellamy

Hi Bbb23. A little while ago you protected this page from this repeated disruptive behavior. Protection ended yesterday and today the IP is up to the same again. Please could you look into it. Cheers. Robvanvee 14:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. Are you able to help here or should I ask elsewhere. This IP continues to add poorly sourced material to a BLP article. Cheers. Robvanvee 11:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is the latest edit that I'll refrain from reverting for now. Robvanvee 11:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done this time for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Robvanvee 14:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

Back with new IP, first edit is genre-warring on a Mariah Carey album article. Geolocates to the exact same place as previous MJH sock IP [1].--NØ 12:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Administrator changes

Evad37

There'sNoTime

Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ritchie333

CheckUser changes

There'sNoTime

Keegan • Ks0stm

Oversight changes

There'sNoTime

Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ramsey Campbell

Thanks for your feedback on my edits to this page. They're appreciated. I'm new to Wiki and am still learning how best to manage edits. I would like to add that although some aspects of the edits you have deleted do not fit with Wiki's policies, many others were, I feel, fine, such as biographical info etc. If I restore the edit and add citations where appropriate and edit some of the language that feels "promotional", would that be agreeable? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witbysea (talk • contribs) 14:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Witbysea: You can try, but if there are still problems with the material, don't be surprised if I undo your edit(s). Thank you for asking.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

One more thing. You might try making smaller edits and waiting to see if they stick.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witbysea (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

Could you please explain further why you undid my edit?

Your edit summary called it a "mess". It looks properly formatted to me.

I was going through my watchlist, looking for other instances, when I saw you reversion. Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You created a report on the Talk page of the case. I assume that was a mistake, but nonetheless, I had to delete it. Then you created a weird, possibly partial, report on the right page. The "mess" was a combination of both actions on your part. I reverted the project page edits because part of your edit put a "comment" in the wrong section, and the rest of it looked like you hit Publish before you were done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I created a union list, intended to contain all of the IP addresses this wikistalker has used. I wanted to see how often they re-used IP addresses they had used in the past. I wanted to see how often they re-used IP addresses that had been temporarily range-blocked.

  Did you mean to imply, in your comment above, that there was a wikidocument that barred this kind of use of WP:SPI talk page?

  I didn't realize you deleted this list.

  As for whether I put a "comment" in the wrong section... As with previous instances, I placed a brief history of the wikistalking prior to the diff with the evidence. If this is the incorrect format then previous reports were also incorrect. Did you mean to say the previous reports were incorrect? Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is my last comment to you. The Talk page is not a lab for you to play with. If you can't file a report properly on the project page, use your sandbox.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Geo Swan (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)