User talk:Bbb23/Archive 4

Crew of TV series are important
Without the main crew of TV series (Crew of [[The Shield/Crew of ER/Crew of Another World/Crew of Deadwood) these shows would be nothing! It all begins with an idea from the writers. The directors and producers help bring those ideas to the screen. The vast majority of TV show pages have a section for cast and characters but not for the main crew. That needs to change! Repent of your sins! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.21.217 (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What were you trying to accomplish by listing the crew on the Talk page?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

United States Congress
While I found your assertion that my version was unsourced and OR laughable since it retained the only sourced claim made in the prior version, I found your "colloquial" claim incomprehensible. Can you point to whatever phrase or phrases you found colloquial? -Rrius (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Vinnie Vincent
Quit hiding the truth on Vincent. I attached verifiable links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.156.80 (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edits are inappropriate, BLP violations, and you risk a block if you continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How so? Please explain to me how adding information about Vincent's arrest is inappropriate? They had proper sources, and are important information for those who are seeking more info on Vinnie. Most of the information in that article is made up non-sense from Vincent himself that is solely opinion, not fact, without sources. I don't see you editing any of that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.156.80 (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your information wasn't properly sourced. It was a laundry list of poorly organized information with various imbedded URLs thrown in. It's unreadable and culminates in your comment: "The truth is out there, Vinnie. ;)". If you have anything more to say about this subject, take it to the Vincent Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

email
Hi Bbb23 - you got mail. Best regards. Rob. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

4 decades
The guy who's adding that info (presumably to 29 articles) has references within List of Major League Baseball players who played in four decades. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I looked, and the same editor created the list (yet one more useless (in my view) Wikipedia list). Do you think I should have left in the edit? Putting aside the source issue, why is it even noteworthy enough to include? Of course, given your user id, you probably have stronger feelings about this subject than I do. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. I think those entries may well be misguided, even if properly sourced. I wanted to get your take on it (and do you plan to revert all 29 articles?) before I take it to the baseball project and get some opinions. My hunch is they won't be too keen on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several issues. Putting aside whether the list article is notable, there's an inherent problem with the claim that there are only 29 players. You can certainly source that a particular player played for four decades, but it's logically much harder to claim these are the only ones. In addition, the list itself is relatively unsourced, and yet the claim in the Buckner article relies, implicitly, on the claim in the list article, which itself is unsourced and I suppose relies on the history in the Buckner article. It all seems problematic to me. I'd remove the claim from each individual article and then raise the issue of the list itself in the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another issue is that even if there are 29 at this moment, there could eventually be 30 or more, and then you have 29+ articles to change. I wonder if the guy is just excited over discovery this new (albeit somewhat artificial) fact, or if he's trying to promote a website. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What website would that be? He's a longtime editor of different kinds of articles. Looks like this article may have triggered his interest, but it doesn't look like he has any obvious association with the website (major site) or the article's author. Am I missing some linkage here?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * None that I've looked into. I'm just wondering what his sudden fascination is with this bit of trivia. If I get really desparate, I might ask him. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Strauss-Kahn
This is the feminist and anit-sexist reaction that Rob deleted

By feminists and anti-sexists
French and American feminist associations declared " [just] as Strauss-Kahn is to be presumed innocent until his guilt has been established, his accuser is entitled to respect and her word should not be in doubt until proven otherwise". A number of groups have subsequently denounced sexual violence against women and "the daily surge of misogynistic remarks by public figures, widely broadcast on our televisions, radios, in the workplace and on social networks." Carla Bruni-Sarkozy expressed support for the campaign on her official website.

More than 25,000 people, including TV hosts Christine Ockrent and Audrey Pulvar, comedian and actress Florence Foresti, journalist and writer Florence Montreynaud, Jean-Luc Mélenchon (former socialist, leader of the Left Party), and Benoît Hamon (French politician, member of the  Socialist Party), signed a petition started by French feminist groups. These groups included Osez le féminisme! ("Dare to be Feminist!"), La Barbe (French pun, "The Beard" but also "Enough!") and Paroles de Femmes ('"Women's Words"). The petition, entitled "Feminists Demand Freedom from Sexual Assault and Harassment", commenced: "We don't know what happened in New York last Saturday, but we do know what happened in France in the last week."

On May 22 in Paris, a group of several hundred men and women protested against what they called the "unabashed sexism" of politicians and commentators who sprang to Strauss-Kahn's defence following his arrest. Some held signs stating: "We are all chambermaids."


 * It seems he objected to the primary source cited first sentence but WP concerns about that are over OR and not soap-boxing. I wrote a passionate defense of the content (which I did not contribute) on the talk page.


 * Hope this helps with you thinking.


 * As remarked on the talk page I'm done with the article. I agree with ErrantX that the community should make a special effort policing BLP articles like this DSK one. I've given generously of my time but if my efforts are wilfully misunderstood in this way, indeed it's time to pack up.


 * I warn you, as noted in a comment on the talk page, that rape shield law, means that the mud-slinging in this case will take place outside the court-room. I don't doubt the article will be targeted, I suspect it already has been. FightingMac (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you "warning" me of?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I certainly didn't mean to be threatening if that's a concern. What I meant is that the article, whose creation I incidentally opposed, will be used as a battlefield for the trial's mud-slinging. I don't doubt the parties involved will employ editors to do it for them. The article plainly has problems with a WP:CRUSH editor (or perhaps you don't agree in which case we can have no common ground) as I expect you will find out in your efforts to maintain "neutrality". Let me know if you come to any conclusions in your thinking about feminist and anti-sexist reaction. You might like to contact Sue Gardner, the Canadian journalist and Wikimedia personage who, like you, took exception to the "Paris Match " paragraph I contributed and deleted: unfathomably, at least to me, she said it was sexist. But I'm basically out of here. Concluding remark. Enjoy. I shall be interested to see how you get on. FightingMac (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, that was indeed my concern. Maybe I'm not sufficiently cynical, although most people who know me think I am, but I kind of doubt that the parties in the criminal case will do anything with the WP article. As for sexist, I can kind of understand that. It sort of gets into what many people think rape is all about, which is violence and control, as opposed to sex. Therefore, when you start talking about how attractive or unattractive a rape victim is, it improperly transforms the discussion into a sexual one. And because there are undoubtedly more women rape victims than men, hence the sexism. Anyway, that's off-the-cuff speculation on my part. You'd have to ask Sue.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Naive. They'll be all over the article. That's why I opposed it, amongst just a handful to oppose it. FightingMac (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

ITN on/of
Now changed.  Chzz  ► 14:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Apology
My response to you on my talk page yesterday was out of line. Please accept my apologies. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Joe, I appreciate that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Jim Breyer
Hello Bbb23. We've had an email through WP:VRT asking about the resume tag on the Jim Breyer article, why it was put there and how the article can be improved enough to remove it. Given that you placed the tag, would you mind explaining on the talkpage why you felt it was warranted and what work the article needs? Thanks in advance,  Skomorokh   14:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Apology
A recent remark from me in an edit history was over the top and extremely discourteous. I apologise as noted on my talk page. FightingMac (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

SuperKombat World Grand Prix I
the event was notable in Europe, one of the biggest promotions. please do not remove it, respect my work! i did a lot for kickboxing's database on wikipedia and i still stop writing and updating stats and events if you do not let me. please respect my work! i added a lot of references with a lot of sites of profiles. thank you!

Cyperuspapyrus (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2011

please stop this, respect my work! you dont understand why people are "mean"? for such people like you
 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is on behalf of Cyperuspapyrus, who didn't read the WP:AN instructions. Don't worry: the thread is a boomerang.  Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner sexting scandal
Maybe you would like to revert what amounts to your fifth revision in as many hours? The timeline comment is factual and the consensus is to keep it.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Jim Breyer
Hello,

I noticed your tag "like a resume" on the Jim Breyer and wanted to understand you better.

Please keep in mind, Jim Breyer is holds tremendous value to investing and the entrepreneurship world. Such excellence and achievements are even recognized by Fortune Magazine to an extent that they placed him on the cover page, May 2011. Among other things, Jim Breyer was the first official investor of Facebook Inc. (of which he hold a board seat, among others, Walmart, Dell, Marvel,) a company that changed the way we view the word and connect and share with others. Also was voted smartest tech Investor of 2011.

Such people carry a large significance in the world and should be included on Wikipedia with full recognition. Please with your own recognizances remove the "looks like a resume" posting since listing the proper achievements was necessary in order to stand away from the crowd. Furthermore I do not understand why you do not tag people such as Timothy Draper, Vinod Khosla (I could keep going) who had alike contribution but still carry a valid page

Thank you -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkahvedzic (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At the request of another editor, I posted my reasons on the Breyer Talk page why the tag is appropriate. You should post your comments there, not here on my Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I was not aware of your post on the talk page. Since I started this here, your talk page, and to avoid confusion I would appreciate your response.

Thanks.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkahvedzic (talk • contribs) 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to copy everything substantive you've said here to the Breyer Talk page, but your comments and any subsequent discussion by us or by other editors belongs there. This isn't a "private" issue but one that impacts the article itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I really wouldn't bother you, if it wasn't for you
you here said that it should be discussed at talkpage now I'm wondering if you had consulted first at talkpage before removing this line from his infobox? The line nationality is presented in other people's articles who are as much iconic and in a related area, you can see it being addressed in the archive of the talkpage. ChaChing! (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We've already been through this before. You believe some consensus was reached in that archive, and I disagree and suggested you take it to the Talk page for a real discussion. The nationality parm is meant for people whose nationality is ambiguous, which is not the case with Zuckerberg. Even the template says as much: "Nationality. May be used instead of citizenship (below) or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result." There's no confusion here. As for other articles, that's a red herring - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Finally, the other edit you picked on is not comparable. I reverted it because the sourcing was tangential to the assertion. Wouldn't it be better for you to talk about this on the Zuckerberg Talk page rather than on mine?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD
Please check this out since you contributed to the article: Articles for deletion/Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor).Steve Dufour (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio on Brad Pitt
Can you please explain your deletion based on copyvio? The information describing the video states it's copyrighted as a compilation based on U.S. copyright law. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're not really serious, are you? This is just Goldie Hawn revisited.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Very serious. The previous video did not state it was copyrighted, although it was. This one states it clearly. There has to be a pretty good legal reason to deny someone a valid copyright, I assume. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I will not go through this again with you. This is my last comment. I don't care what the YouTube person says (it's the same individual). It's immaterial to the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable;" "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines . . .links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis." I see no basis for excluding a video with a valid copyright notice - based on U.S. Copyright law. I don't think that arbitrary exclusions are valid. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Roberto Palazzolo
Hi Bbb23 - You commented on Palazzolo before, so I want to bring your attention to a new BLPN section I have presented at - Neutral BLP for Palazzolo

Struggling to find equity for this case, I was advised by an editor (after a long wiki journey) to give a few pithy examples of what has been written that is wrong, and then offer an alternative BLP, which I have done.

Thanks in advance for considering this case. I merely ask that someone adjudicate as my pleas to the present author fall on deaf ears.

--Fircks (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fircks, I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you, but I'm not sure if I will look at the Palazzolo article in the near term. Too many controversies and not enough time. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR Report on another editor
Given that I referenced a diff that involved you (reverting the editor under scrutiny) at this 3RR report, I thought I should let you know of it. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's kind of you to give me a heads up, but, unless I'm missing something, I don't believe I reverted RH. I did revert a couple of other edits to the article but not RH's. I also appear in some of the diffs in the report but only because I was the editor who edited just before RH.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Gym photos
Can you explain as to why the photos are of no relevancy to the Anthony Weiner scandal? Truthsort (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As you may recall, we've already had this discussion. You could try resurrecting it on the Weiner Talk page, but you'd have to obtain a consensus to insert the material. I'd rather keep any discussion there rather than here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

DSK comment request
Since your comment to DSK's Talk page has been used as a rationale for deleting a key section of the article, I ask that you comment again. Your original comment was that you ". . . question most of the Economic subsection. I thought this article was supposed to be about DSK's prosecution."

The economic and political impact, globally, by the arrest of the IMF's head, has been a relevant part of this article from its outset. The "Impact" section has been accepted as totally relevant. If a President or Prime Minister were arrested and forced to leave their position, the impact of their resignation would also be relevant. You'll also note that the article now includes trivia and digressions about much less relevant material: French rallies, French newspaper opinions about feminism, hotel training for maids, and an entire paragraph devoted to why the name of the maid accuser was and was not published. Those are major irrelevant digressions that still exist in the article.

BTW, the article is not about DSK's "prosecution," as you stated. But since FM is hiding behind your off-handed comments to delete valid material, your response is requested. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you want me to do. Do you want me to respond to something you or some other editor has said about the deletion of the material? I'm not going to spontaneously comment on something I've already commented on.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Message for you
Saw this on RCP. I have no idea what it is, just passing the message along in case you want to reply. --causa sui (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I don't really understand what that page is. As for the Jeff Andrus article, there have been repeated attempts (starting in early May of this year) to add a death date to the article but without reliable sources. So, each time that's done, I revert the change. I believe that's what Maddee moo is referring to in his edit summary accusing me of vandalism and then again in the page I don't understand. What is it anyway?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like an anon you were in some kind of dispute with is confused about where he should be leaving messages for you. --causa sui (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the editor (he's registered) created the page. An admin has admonished him for accusing me of vandalism and for putting "vandalism warnings into article space." I assume the same admin also deleted the page created by Maddee moo because it's gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Perry was on Childrens Hospital
That guy adding "Childrens Hospital" to Perry's filmography was me, but I forgot to login. Perry made a special guest appearance at the end of "The Black Doctor" and is even credited in the credits. There are MANY websites that says Perry guest starred on it, like TV.com, message boards on adultswim.com, and even in a review at daemonstv.com, where the critic claims Perry's appearance to be his favorite bit. Look up those websites and see for yourself, or wait for the next airing of the episode on [adult swim] if you have to. Now if you don't mind, I will re-add Childrens Hospital to the list.Shoesquashfan5000 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As a courtesy, I'll leave it in for a while so you can add a reliable source. Based on what you say, it shouldn't be that hard.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also like to apologize for my rude attitude towards you. Shoesquashfan5000 (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but really unnecessary; as things go here, I didn't think you were particularly rude. Anyway, we got it all sorted out.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena
I just want to add

He has continued his work at University and at Hospital 12 de Octubre It is a Reference of the Official Autonomous Madrid Government Bulletin. It is said that A A-V only was iand is in University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symbio04 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you please have a look to the A A-V page and see the unbased assertions and opinions of 2-3 people in a LPB?It was a long time I did not go into this page.Symbio04 (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted your latest changes because we just can't leave the article that messy, format- and style- wise. Please take the issues to the Talk page of the article (better than here) and explain what you want and why. I really would have tried to fix what you did if I understood it better.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Interlanguage links
Even after your advice I was still a little confused, so I'll give you the complete situation. I am developing a welcome template (shown below). As you can see, in the bottom right hand corner there are names of 9 other languages (Espanol, Deutsch, etc.), right now I'm trying to make each one a link so that if I clicked on Francais, I'd be brought to the homepage on French Wikipedia, and if I clicked on Italiano, I'd be brought to the homepage on Italian Wikipedia. Any ideas on how I might do that. Thanks in advance. Magister Scienta (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 Welcome, ! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are Users

Hello, , welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Magister Scienta, one of the many editors here, and I hope you decide to stay here and help contribute to Wikipedia.

Alternatively, drop a note on my talk page or type  here on |your talk page and someone will try to help.

If you enjoy being here, there are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Remember to always sign your name on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes  at the end of your post; this will automatically insert your username, a link to your |talk page, and a timestamp. As always though, the best way to learn about something is to experience it. Go and explore Wikipedia, the more time you spend on it, the more you'll know, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, Magister Scienta (talk) 29, 2024. Español · Deutsch · Français ·  Italiano  · עברית · Русский · 日本語 · Polski · فارسی


 * I changed just the Spanish one above. Is that what you want?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was talking about, thank you. Magister Scienta (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a problem though! When I make the changes to the template the link entirely disappears and it looks as if Deutsch is the first language listed. What's happening? Magister Scienta (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We may soon reach a limit on my "expertise" in this matter. However, where is the template?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The template can be found here. Note, for the time being it's linked as I wanted it, but as external links using URLs. Magister Scienta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC).
 * I changed the Spanish one to work right as a interwiki link. Follow that example. Also, on the help page I gave you, it explains what you need to do for inline links (different from the sidebar links).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you're help is very much appreciated. Magister Scienta (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen
I'm sorry that I said "Brookes Mueller" instead of Brooke Mueller on Charlie Sheen's page, that wasn't intentional I sometimes write too fast and misspell things without realizing it. I just wanted to tell you that so you don't think I tried to vandalize the page. Thanks. RoadHouse (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it never even occurred to me that what was obviously a typo was vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. RoadHouse (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin Halstead
Do you have a reliable source to back up the wording "con-man"? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki links
Anyone outside of the USA has no idea what a district attorney is. Your removal of the wikilink to this is US centric. --10Lskil (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I reinserted a link for the district attorney's office in NY. But please familiarize yourself with WP:OVERLINK. Many, even more experienced editors, mistakenly think we should link every word in every article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Palazzolo
I was somewhat surprised by your revert of my recent edits in which I incorporated some of the points made by Fircks in his BLP request. I have looked at those carefully, found additional sources and I think the changes are fully appropriate. I would appreciate if you would be more careful in this sensitive issue. Thank you. - DonCalo (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Motivating factors for media speculation
The last undo was for an "unreliable source", not because as you said: 'the material doesn't belong in the article'.

One issue is a question of citation (which I corrected), the other issue is of relevance. Since these are separate, your comment 'one more time' is misjudged.

Regarding the issue of relevance: CBS were saying it was just money, sex & power - but (among other sources) Jerusalem Post gave evidence that anti semitism could also be a factor. The fact that the woman claimed to be a Muslim is a further topic of discussion - but I have refrained from editing this in, despite various islamic news agencies calling this a reason to push prosecution.--10Lskil (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I reverted once before for not belonging in article ("spin commentary"). Then, Joe reverted based on reliable sources. So, my one more time comment refers back to both reversions. In any event, my suggestion is you participate in the discussion on the article's Talk page rather than coming here. In that way, you'll hopefully be able to explain your reasoning and get more reactions from editors other than just me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from. However - since Joe only asked for stronger citation evidence, it would appear that he agrees with me that by supplying that requested evidence (as I then did), it becomes a significant issue. --10Lskil (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the discussion on the Talk page, you'll see that Joe had another reason for agreeing with my reversion besides the issue of reliable sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, and agree that it would be best to discuss on the article's talk page. Thank you, and happy editing! JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to your note
Please, do first anything you go to advise to others. My work is strictly based on valid and reliable literature and mainstream media and the court documents. Wikipedia rules are only second to them.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stick to commenting on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, do the same and give strong reasons for your changes there!--71.191.31.183 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Yield Burning Updates re Michael Lissack
JPMorgan Chase just agreed to pay more than $200 million in a municipal yield burning case. If one bothers to read the refences in this article it is clear that all of the municipal reinvestment, derivatives, and yield burning cases started with Lissack. To remove this material is to deny the reader an up to date picture of yield burning and of Lissack's role in uncovering the mess. The material was removed before the settlement was made public. But the settlement is public now (and on the front page of the WSJ) .... the material should stay. 108.7.60.23 (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) another whistle blower from municipal finance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.60.23 (talk)

If one reads United States of America ex rel Michael R Lissack v Sakura see http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1380058.html the ties between the present cases and Lissack are obvious. The man blew the whistle on an on-going scandal (in fact that is the ONLY reason he is in Wikipedia in the first place). The reader should be allowed to see the full picture. JMHO. 108.7.60.23 (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) another muni bond whistleblower. 108.7.60.23 (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your willingness to discuss this now, but let's keep it on the Lissack Talk page. We're just duplicating it here, and it's better for other editors (besides you and me) to see it there.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

agreed 108.7.60.23 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Matthew Perry pic
Why had you deleted Matthew Perry's new picture? I don't see the reason. What "distorted" it has? Electroguv (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, sorry; I figured out the problem. Retorts were corrected by changing pic's size, photo from 2007 TFF was placed below. Electroguv (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you figured it out, it doesn't look distorted anymore. He looks a bit grim, but the previous picture wasn't wonderful, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Response - Busic
All references are reliable, no personal analysis of any kind committed. Please, avoid quick disqualifications and misinterpretations of the edits there.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Louis Van Amstel
I can't see why you are reverting either.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 01:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see a few problems with, mainly the youtube as a source, but the things like wikilinks are valid. You shouldn't revert the whole revision just for one small section.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 01:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sincerely puzzled by why you think the IP's reversions were appropriate. There were so many things wrong with them. In any event, the IP has been blocked for a week, and the article has been restored to its previous state (which still leaves a lot to be desired).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that there were problems, but the wikilinks and such were helpful and valid. The problematic portions should have been removed, not the whole revision. Anyways, I won't argue the issue, just commenting.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 03:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Who do you think you are?
Whitewashing biography of a terrorist is immoral and disgusting business.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC) This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Zvonko Bušić‎, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are repeating the behavior that got you blocked before. You also used an edit summary that was intentionally deceptive. Therefore, I am giving you a single warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.31.183 (talk)

close the thread...
Thanks for bringing a bit of lightheartedness to that awful thread. I think I am going to never join in such a thread on that cat issue or anything related to who is a Jew either. Such, and similar topics will never get resolved through such discussions. I support the simple guidelines we have got and talkpage discussions when dispute arrises. We got there in the end at Miliband. Anyway, well done for reducing instead of increasing dramah there Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I appreciated your closure at BLPN (if I were braver ...), as well as Cyclone's closure at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Brave is as brave does - imo you have enuf respect to reduce dramah and close such a thread - I closed it on your authority/say so. - Best regards-Rob - Your really good work/contributions - neutrality and experience at BLPN is an asset to the project. I am especially in agreement with the way we are sometimes in disagreement. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very well put. I'm pleased, of course, that you respect my contributions, but I'm even happier that you respect our disagreements. Disagreement is healthy and there's no reason to take it personally as, unfortunately, many editors do.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

number
You have 4106th place in most edits. Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:  A   user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010.  22:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A brief explanation of CIDR ranges...
...Per your confusion on AN/I. An IP address the way it is normally written, such as 123.45.67.89, is composed of four decimal numbers, each of which are between 0 and 255. For a computer, this is really one 32-bit binary number, divided for readability into four 8-bit segments (bytes). In CIDR notation, the IP address before the / denotes the start of the range, and the number after the / is the number of bits in the IP address to include in the range. If you have a range like a.b.c.d/n, only n bits in a.b.c.d count. One way to think about calculating the range is to cross out the last (32 - n) bits in a.b.c.d; any valid address that matches the remaining bits is included in the range. So if you have a CIDR range like 123.45.67.0/24, 24 bits (the first three decimal numbers) matter, and the last 8 bits don't. That means any address from 123.45.67.0 to 123.45.67.255 would fit in the range. Smaller numbers mean bigger ranges; a /24 contains 256 IP addresses, while a /25 only contains 128.

In the example on AN/I, the range is a /20, meaning that the last byte doesn't matter, nor does the last half of the second-to-last byte (from 0 to 15). So the range 98.85.0.0/20 includes all addresses from 98.85.0.0 to 98.85.15.255. The IP part never begins in the middle of the range; 98.85.1.0/20 means exactly the same thing as 98.85.0.0/20 because the .1 is part of the irrelevant 12 bits; there isn't a single range that includes, say, 98.85.1.0 to 98.85.16.255. If you wanted to express that range, you'd need to either do multiple ranges (98.85.0.0/20 and 98.85.16.0/24 would cover from 98.85.0.0 to 98.85.16.255) or expand the range by one bit (98.85.0.0/19 would cover 98.85.0.0 to 98.85.31.255).

I believe that on Wikipedia, it is impossible to issue a rangeblock for a range larger than a /16, and blocks bigger than /20 are fairly rare due to the risk of collateral damage when blocking large numbers of IPs. Hope this helps! Bobby Tables (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ask and ye shall receive. I understood most of it. To understand more, I'd have to sit down with paper and pencil and start figuring out bits. Too much work, and I'm satisfied that an appropriate range block was issued. Thanks very much for taking the time to explain it in such detail.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your revert
Can you sepcify what exactly do you find challengeable in the disputed sentence? --hydrox (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated, the test is not whether information is challengeable. Most information needs to be sourced regardless of whether I'm challenging its accuracy. In this case, the assertion "Informally referred to as the High Court or by the acronym SCOTUS" requires a source. I've read the policy section you cite, so if it makes you feel any better, I'm challenging the assertion. Frankly, I also don't like the idea of saying something is referred to without saying by whom.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It just strikes me as rather obvious that the United States Supreme Court is referred to as SCOTUS - I am not American and even I am very well familiar with this acronoym. I tried searching both Merriam-Webster and Oxford English Dictionary for SCOTUS, but neither of them recognize the acronym, although many less-renowned online sources confirm the validity   --hydrox (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning that SCOTUS exists. The issue is whether we want to prominently say in the lead that the Supreme Court is informally referred to as SCOTUS. I think the source needs to do more than just verify its existence. Frankly, the citation tag is also for the High Court, which I've almost never heard used in modern times.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true (about High Court, though I am no US legal expert for reasons above). You have not apparently understood when to use the citation needed template and what it is for. It is for challenging facts in the article. To me as a passing reader, it seems like you want to challenge whether SCOTUS means the Supreme Court, because that is exactly what it says in the article, and that you are asking for help in finding a citation for this claim. As I have no kind of expertise in this field, I can not help you whether this informal acronym is popular enough to merit mentioning in lead-in, but starting a thread on the article talk page (as you seem to have already done), as well as marking the sentence with a request to clarify (with clarify), rather than verify (as no facts are in dispute), might be a good start. Anyway, I meanwhile found a semi-reliable citation for the fact, so I consider the citation part resolved.. --hydrox (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jay Brannan
I was unaware of the discussion on BLPN. However, WP:BLP is quite clear that information that is currently disputed and under discussion should be left out until such time as a consensus is achieved. That is, we are instructed to err on the side of least harm. If and when a consensus is formed for the inclusion of the category, it can be added again. Until such consensus is achieved, it should be left out. Yworo (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, you also undid my sorting of the categories unnecessarily. Please don't undo edits when all you want to do was insert a single line. Yworo (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a WP:BLPCAT issue, and the category meets the requirements. There are a whole bunch of experienced editors arguing about this, and there's been no decision to remove the category pending the end of discussion. If you want to go to BLPN and contribute and make a case for removing it, fine, but don't unilaterally do it yourself. I've undid your removal again but, as a courtesy, kept it sorted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Per BLP, contested content is indeed left out until and unless consensus is achieved. This is clear on the BLP policy page, of which BLPCAT is a small section, and subject to the main BLP statements, not the other way around. Your choice to restore strongly contested content on a BLP was poorly conceived. Always, always err on the side of caution and consideration for the subject in editing BLPs. Note: I have removed the cat in question per OTRS ticket 2008020210003368. Do not re-add. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 11:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to touch your reversion, but I resent the way Yworo went about this. Even assuming he (my apologies if I have the gender wrong) had the "right" to unilaterally change it based on policy, once I told him about the discussion on BLPN, the least he could have done was to inform all the editors there of what he did and why. The irony is I don't have a problem with keeping the category out until the issues are resolved, even though I believe the category belongs. It's a procedural issue, a collaborative issue, and one about respect for other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit warring to include disputed content on a BLP because you "resent the way" an editor "goes about" removing said content is not an allowable exception to the BLP policy. Really, I am sure you know better. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 11:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call two reversions edit warring, and I'm disappointed at your harsh interpretation of my actions and my motives.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping with David Deida its good to have a second pair of eyes on it!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I wish someone would send me real cookies. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Stana Katic
I fail to understand your removal of content at Stana Katic and have reverted it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not worth arguing over, but here are my reasons. First, as I said in the edit summary, it's trivial information how many languages she speaks unless it's connected to her notability as an actress. For example, if she appeared in foreign pictures speaking a foreign language. Second, the sentence is sourced by something that is not on the Internet, so is much harder to verify. So, we accept that the editor who checked it is acting in good faith and that the source supports the assertion. However, as just happened, another editor comes along and changes the assertion without explanation. Do I really think the new editor looked at the paper source and verified it? I doubt it, but how do I question it? It's frustrating. Anyway, if none of my reasons persuades you otherwise, that's fine - I don't care enough to raise it as an issue on the Talk page. Thanks for the courtesy of giving me a heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Louis Van Amstel. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. v/r - TP 21:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I hate to template a regular, but ya'all are edit warring. I've neglected to block you or Jww047 as I hope ya'all will take the page protection as a hint to discuss on the talk page.--v/r - TP 21:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to look more closely at the history: SPI report; ANI report; Floquenbeam's block. I have nothing to discuss with Jww047 and will not discuss anything with Jww047 unless I first see signs that s/he knows how to edit in good faith, which I seriously doubt. You have left the Louis Van Amstel article in a poor state because the last edit/reversion was made by Jww047. Of course, I cannot change that because of the full protection, but I also will not change it after the protection expires, not unless my reversion of the latest change would not be considered inappropriate by you or any other admin. I apologize if these remarks sound contentious, but it's very hard to do good work in an environment that permits Jww047 to edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't aware of all of that until just now. I also wasn't aware the user was also the IP and there was a history of BLP concerns.  I've struck it all out, feel free to remove from your talk page.--v/r - TP 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've also noticed that you reverted Jww047's change. My biggest concern, of course, is the integrity of the article itself, and it's taken a fair amount of hard work to get it this far.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

quick question
Just got back from vacation. Is the Jww40 (or whatever, too lazy to look it up, I think you know who I mean) situation you mentioned on my talk page last week resolved, or do I need to look into something? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not resolved (I noticed you were absent). The Louis Van Amstel is currently protected because of issues associated with Jww047 and various IPs that all of us assume are sockpuppets. Hullaballoo and I have been trying to get some action taken, but we've only been partly successful. We opened a WP:SPI, but for reasons that are still unclear to me, the master (Jww047) was not blocked, just the IPs. If you look at the section just above this one, you'll see links to the SPI report, the ANI report, and, of course, your comments on Jww047's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a little catch-up reading just now showed me that it isn't resolved. I'll look into this a little later today, I need to be productive IRL for a bit; but I remember being certain at the time that JWW047 was the same editor using the IP, so if the IP is blocked, the account should be too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree. Be careful, though - not that I need to tell you your business - but more than one admin has now been involved and you need to be cognizant of that. I've seen admins fight over the use or alleged misuse of admin tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Subconsciously not really wanting to be an admin anymore is somewhat liberating, allowing one to do what one thinks is right without worrying too much about the consequences. OK, thanks for the tip, I'll try to rein in any rash behavior.  Any particular place I need to look to see these admin opinions besides the ANI thread and the SPI? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. Just the actions of the admin (TP) involved in the AVI report (also in the above section), who seems to be very nice but quite cautious. For example, despite Jww047's removing twice TP's own comments at AVI, TP issued two warnings, the second more severe than the first, but took no other action. This is not the first time that Jww047, or his puppets, have deceptively altered noticeboards, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked into it, and am prepared to block Jww047 for 29 days. I've left notes at User talk:HelloAnnyong and User talk:TParis, just to be sure they don't know something I don't know, but it seems pretty clear cut to me.  To be fair, though, It's easier for me, since I'm already familiar with this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Not that it's important, but why 29?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anal retentiveness, mostly. The two IP's were blocked for a month, two days ago. But now that you mention it, I'll probably round it to a month, since after those blocks were placed they've still continued the same behavior. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate your advice at section "Malicious program in my computer" from the WP reference desk. Please see Reference desk/Computing for what turned out to be the solution (and to be aware so it won't happen to you). Thanks again! Hamamelis (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad your problem was fixed, but I don't think I was one of the people who helped you. I know I've never contributed to the reference desk, usually only to the help desk.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

TFDs
Please merge the nominations into one discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure how to do that, but if you can but feel you need my permission because I'm the nominator, go right ahead. I agree they should be together. BTW, can't you respond to the color issues on the Talk page? If the templates survive, it would be better if they didn't stick out so much.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas
Sorry, but what's "not supported by the sources"? "revealed" vs "wrote"; "for the first time"? - where had this been known before?. Frankly his essay was a bombshell with some "punch". Snori (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "for the first time" is not supported by the source. It's your assumption, maybe an accurate assumption, but we don't know it for sure and therefore can't say it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Sheens picture
I think we should use this more recent picture of Mr. Sheen. I admit he looks awful in it but aren't we supposed to show living people how they look like today? More importantly the video fom which the picture was taken was published by Mr. Sheen himself. You can still find it on YouTube. I like him but I find the change in his appearance from 2009 to 2011 significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.164.107 (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The picture is gone and will hopefully stay gone. In the future, I suggest you raise this kind of an issue on the article Talk page rather than on mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Listing of Fiona Graham at the dispute resolution noticeboard
Hi Bbb23. Just letting you know that an editor has taken this article to the DRN. As an editor who participated in the recent edits, you might be interested. Regards Your Lord and Master (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I just got back from a wikibreak, and I'm playing catch-up (very time-consuming), so I don't think I'll get to the Graham issues right away as it looks like it would take some time for me to contribute constructively to the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Poulenc
I am very knowledgeable about Poulenc, and YOU aren't. The Poulenc page is now much better than it used to be. You never found is lacking before, although it was. I don't intend to wage war against people who do not know the first thing about Poulenc. If you intend to improve this page, revert YOUR TOTALLY INCOMPETENT CHANGE. Don't write to me again. B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.155.178 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Film
Please explain to me how my addition of the URL http://friendsthemovie.com is a "senseless edit" to this category. Clicking on the URL verifiably sends you to the Warner Bros. main website, which indicates that even if the movie isn't in any stage of development, the studio still took the initiative to register that URL for potential future use. That's absolutely relevant to the topic and it's something visitors to the page might find interesting to know. There's no hearsay involved here. WB registered that URL. This is a clear-cut fact. So what's the problem here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.74.18.149 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting aside that the assertion is unsourced, the key thing that is wrong with it is your assumption as to Warner Bros.'s motives. You don't know why they've registered the domain. All you could do at best is to cite to something that shows they've registered the domain and somehow cite to the source of the website to show that it redirects to Warner Bros.'s website.


 * If something happens with the possible movie that is of interest and is reported in reliable third-party sources, fine, but until then, the material doesn't belong in the article. If you feel strongly about it, take it up on the Talk page of the article itself and see what kind of reaction you get from other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)