User talk:Bbb23/Archive 9

Singer Ranina Reddy Discography
Hi. I have provided you weblinks which are proofs of Discography... of Indian Play Back Singer Ranina Reddy.. Pls see them and revert the edit done on the Discography Table. Thanks Vithurgod (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Pls see the sites mentioned by me. They are all references for the Discography of the Singer Ranina Reddy. 1. http://www.telugufilms.org/wiki/index.php?title=Chapter_6_Audio_Songs_Track_Listing 2. http://www.tsonglyrics.com/2011/07/maalai-mangum-neram-lyrics-rowthiram.html 3. http://www.magicalsongs.net/2011/01/ko-song-lyrics-tracklist.html#.T57Dn7NDu18 4. http://www.tsonglyrics.com/2010/11/engeyum-kadhal-song-track-list-lyrics.html You can see her name in the songs mentioned .. These are sites, which dont have any Copy Right issues. Its listing the name of the songs. Vithurgod (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Vithurgod (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Your recent editing history at David Hornsby shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tiptoety talk 16:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

David Hornsby
Hi. No hard feelings, eh? I know we don't generally use Twitter as a reliable source around here, but this seems to be an exceptional case. I don't really like using references in article leads at all, but for now, it seems like the best thing to do.

Unless there's some reason to believe that the "hornsbydavid" Twitter account doesn't belong to the article subject? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't - and am not - angry at you. I'm not even angry at Tiptoety for warning me of 3RR. I just don't like this kind of drama by article subjects, and I particularly don't like citing to that obnoxious comment by Hornsby.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I don't really like citing that obnoxious comment, either, of course, but I'd rather the article be accurate, particularly as it covers a living person. Hope you're enjoying the weekend! --MZMcBride (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Back to your original question about Twitter's reliability, I did notice that C.Fred mentioned that the Twitter account we're citing to is not verified. Normally, we wouldn't rely on a non-verified account.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Gianna Jessen
Hey, I totally get why you removed those tags, I'm more than willing to add rationale and references to the issues raised from the most recent AfD on the talk page. Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hyun Jin Moon rollback
FYI I rolled back your Hyun Jin Moon changes because most of the info was about Hyung Jin Moon. I made the same conflation yesterday, which is why I added a hatnote. Jokestress (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean Hyun and Hyung are two different sons? Lord (no pun intended). Your hatnote was a good idea, if only I had paid more attention to it. What about Preston? Is that a legitimate AKA? Is Hyun even notable? And thanks, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are separate brothers born 10 years apart. It's very complicated, as the older son was passed over as successor. Preston is a real anglicized name the older son uses. I tried to sort all this out yesterday, but I think the hatnotes may need to be even more clear. Almost all of them are notable as members of the True Family. Most hold church leadership positions, with the exceptions of those who are estranged or dead. Jokestress (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to let you sort it out. I won't even bother making a notability determination, although it'd be nice to know if Hyun actually has any real leadership positions in the church (along with secondary coverage of that).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Croatian Liberation Movement
Please, go to talk page and support your claim where I am wrong. You are apparently helping you friend Timbouctou. Where is your knowledge of this subject?--71.178.101.2 (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Commented on IP's Talk page and at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverts
If you're gonna revert, revert ;) I was trusting your judgement as to what was the "safe" version of the article until a regular discussion can take place.  When you finally gonna get the extra bit? ;)   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I had just composed a message for you on your Talk page but haven't saved it yet. So, I'll just copy most of it in here so we have everything in one place (not counting ANI):


 * The article is essentially where it was before the edit war began. The sourcing problems with the article predate the edit war. That's why I wanted to remove at least the more controversial unsourced material. It would be something I would do if I came across the article, even without a report at ANI. However, given how long the problem has existed, it wouldn't be the end of the world to leave it as is for a while. I'll leave it up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see now at ANI that you changed your description to "appropriate status". Does that mean I can remove the material? Just prefer to be clear. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. We're playing leap frog here. I saw you removed the legal problems section from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just went and did it. I had thought you had the first time.  My dog has surgery the other day, and today is feeling better and jumping up on me, a bit distracting, sorry about the botched edits.  In cases like this, yes, remove the obviously controversial and unsourced material, regardless of who is on what side.  No different that if you had just stumbled across the article and it wasn't ANI.  I trust your judgement, you don't have to be timid ;)  You probably have as much or more experience with this stuff than I do.  The admin bit didn't make me smarter, that is for sure.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, you were handling it perfectly fine without me, which is why I wanted you to make the revert, and made it clear I was backing your observation and handling. I was only trying to loan you my bit long enough that they understood it.  The bit is a very dangerous thing I've learned, like a loaded gun, and it is easy to shoot yourself if you aren't careful.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (still smiling) In some ways, I treat admins the same as other editors, and in other ways, I treat them more deferentially. Depends on the context. For example, at ANI, given that it's a board where people go for administrative intervention, I tend to be more deferential, even when the admin is new like you. That doesn't mean, of course, that I have to agree or that I won't express disagreement, but it would be unusual for me to go against an admin's "instruction". I'll think a little longer about whether I want to remove some of the other negative material in the article. Clearly, the legal problems section was the worst part. Glad you're dog is recovering nicely.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I try to defer to anyone that is wiser than I am. Problems should be solved without admins when possible.  Sometimes I will step into a situation that should be settled but isn't just to reinforce the authority of the editor handling the situation.  Sometimes you have to play the "authority card" (like where I used STOP), although that isn't my favorite thing to do.  If you look at my ANI discussions, you might think I have multiple personalities :D  I try to be as nice as the situation and participants will allow, which varies.  At ANI, I would consider any capable editor as my equal, particularly since I try to settle everything without the tools, like this case.  It is funny, you come in with a strong, definitive, neutral and reasonable opinion and they usually just listen.  I had to put the "I'm NOT an admin" box on my page before my RfA because several assumed I was and it caused confusion. I still haven't blocked anyone, btw.  Not in a rush to use the tools simply because I have them.  Oh, and the dog is fine.  She was spayed, which is still a fairly big deal for a girl to have all that removed.  And she is fine.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If I ever become an admin, I would tread very cautiously at first, as you have. I think it's a sign of good judgment. With experience comes knowledge, wisdom (hopefully), and confidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Krystal Ball
Thank you for editing the Rush Limbaugh boycott section into properly sourced form. I appreciate it. Let me know if you have any other suggestions to improve accuracy and sources on Krystal Ball's page.Catavar (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thanks for your support.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Bellesis etc.
Thanks for your good work on the two articles I mentioned at the BLP noticeboard. I would have worked on them myself, but I've been away for a while and wasn't feeling so sure of myself. best wishes, CheeseStakeholder (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I'm sure you'll soon get back in the thick of things.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My main job now is to figure out how to get Twinkle to work. :( CheeseStakeholder (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"Harassment by User:Andy Dingley"
Yep, like taking candy from a baby. At least I didn't have to look very hard. I am so tired of these kids who think that they couldn't possibly have been wrong. BTW, have you noticed how many Andys and Johns we have? At least there's only one Bbb, and one Drmies. Oh, and one Boing of course. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are several users whose ids start with bbb. Not sure what Drmies signifies. According to Google, "mies" means premiums in Dutch - is Google right? Maybe you meant dormies and left out the "o". Of those editors who use their real first names, someone could do a study how many Andys there are vs. how many Johns. My assumption, without checking, is that John is a much more common name than Andy. Enough trivia. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mies" is short for my real name. See Mies Bouwman--though her name must be a different derivation, from "Marie". Drmies (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Juggalos
Thank you for telling me about the category's nomination for deletion. I wouldn't imagine there'd be any reason to delete it, until I looked at the actual (and valid) reasons. However, I believe that Juggalos is not just a fan club. Look at the characteristics described on the Juggalo page. They could easily be applied to a religious sect or an ethnic people. Thank you for the comments, though. I do not mean to sound standoffish. Juggalo1010 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't sound standoffish, you're quite civil. I've commented on the deletion page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove Charlie Sheen from the category? Doesn't that constitute a category drain?  It would make me feel better if we add it back until the end of the deletion discussion.  Thank you, Juggalo1010 (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Actually, let's do the opposite. If the category survives, we can discuss whether Sheen belongs in the category. If you think that's wrong, you can comment on the category deletion page. I only removed Sheen because his page is on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've changed my mind. Delete it.  Juggalo1010 (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed on the deletion page. Any reason why the change of heart?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ranina Reddy
@Bbb23 Pls see these sites. These sites are Music Reviews of the songs Sung by Singer Ranina Reddy. They are sites, which satisfy your criteria of proof for her singing.. 1. http://tamil.way2movies.com/review_music/Rowthiram-Music-Review--Refreshing,-Simple-and-soft!-16279-105293.html 2. http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/telugu/musicreview/12396.html 3. http://www.thamarai.com/news-details.php?id=231 4. http://www.ragalahari.com/movies/musicreview/3526/dhada-music-review.aspx 5. http://www.myfirstshow.com/news/view/9464/SMS-Audio-Review.html Pls read them and Pls come to a CONSCENSUS in the Discography... Thanks.. Vithurgod (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Vithurgod (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@Bbb23. I request You to come to a Conscensus, as I have listed websites to add as Reference for the Discography.. Thanks Vithurgod (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Bbb23 : Pls see these websites. These are sites, which dont have any Copyright issues. These Sites are listing the Songs sung by her. Pls check them. 1. http://www.in.com/music/current-telugu/songs-92719.html. This is for the movie " Current" 2. http://www.in.com/music/artist/ranina-reddy-46853-1.html ( This reference lists all the songs she has sung. Pls See). I will wait for the Conscensus. Thanks Vithurgod (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vithurgod (talk • contribs)

Card-Carrying
Why is "card-carrying", "current" or "active" not good to disambiguate if he were indeed a former member or not? I'm not protesting the decision, I would just like to know why. --78 Personal Appeals/Sarbanes-Oxley (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, your post here prompted me to revisit the article and the sentence about John Yoo's membership in the Federalist Society, and there was no source for it. So, I've removed it entirely. However, even assuming there was a source, "card-carrying" has clearly non-neutral overtones and is impermissible. "Active" is unnecessary. Unless something is qualified by a date, it generally means now, or at least as of the date of the cited source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mila Kunis
Bbb23 I have been attempting to clean up the Mila Kunis page per the senior editor requests. I have asked him and a fellow editor for assistance on one of his requests and nobody has responded to me. Perhaps you can clarify for me what the EL links issue is? I understand some of the issues relate to dead links. But I need clarification on what the rest of this relates to. I would appreciate and insight you could provide as I am trying to fulfill his request.Fsm83 (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Brian Hutchison
All I did to this profile was add his two latest plays to the list of the chart and broadway list. I gave links to the reviews of the plays that clearly mention his name. I also updated the overview that was a year out of date. I know you have a vendetta against anything I do so how is it not "malitious" that you reversed these perfectly proper changes. I actually spoke to Brian after seeing his latest play and he asked me to update his profile. I told him that I would try but I was sure that you would come in a change it back. Glad to know I judged you correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosmoking7 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I should add that I have given up (again)on this and on helping Wikipedia. I will leave it to you to follow Mr. Hutchison's career and make all the necessary changes to ensure that the entry stays current. Good luck. Nosmoking7 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

André Birotte Jr.
I have moved it over the "other" version so that your history is restored. Ernst, you know that was not a proper thing to do (and this wasn't a sorry stub). Bbb, I love you like a brother, but you didn't have to comment on Blofeld's work--that was not the topic of discussion. Ernst, I love like an uncle (and we go way back--to Üliger at least), but the question I asked you was not, as you know, in any way a comment on your editing. Now the two of you are duking it out through me. If you can't be friends, that's fine, but please don't find ways to get in each other's way. I prefer staying friends with the both you: I have a big tent, and in my master's house there are many rooms. I hope we can be done with this now; I'm going to "close" the discussion on my talk page. (I'm placing this here because it concerns Bbb's article.) Bbb, you can remove this if you like and put an end to it. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather leave your comments here, which, as usual, are incisive and constructive. I could say more here (my Talk page ) as to why I posted on your Talk page, but that would be too sly. I'll try to be more circumspect in the future, though, about any "controversial" comments I want to make on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update
Hey :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Article revisions: Fiona Graham
Hello, My apologies for editing the page without correctly citing. I have reviewed Wikipedia's policies for editing the pages of living persons and will edit the article citing correctly in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikey8D (talk • contribs) 01:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

brian hutchison
hi bbb23, this is brian hutchison (brickpipe) writing to you. User nosmoking is an acquaintance of mine from over the years, and after creating and updating my page I'm thrilled with the work he has done on my behalf. any credits he is adding is because it is indeed listed with imdb, ibdb, or is a credit from one of the many off broadway plays i'm a part of. i'm pretty objective about other people updating/correcting provided the facts and syntax are correct, but i'm actually personally pleased with the thoroughness with which my site has been correctly and frequently updated to reflect recent work. I'm sorry that you two seem to have some issues with correcting each others work, but i can tell you indeed, almost every minute detail he created under my profile is factually correct. Its not so much that i'm coming out of the woodwork, as i'm new to wikipedia, and am wanting to now about how articles are created and how information gets out there. Thanks for your time. BH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickpipe (talk • contribs) 04:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Brian, thank you for not insisting on changes to your article and coming here. I've posted a special Welcome notice on your Talk page that is tailored to people who want to edit their own articles or want friends to do so for them. It's hard for people like you and Nosmoking to come along and just jump in and edit Wikipedia in any significant way. For better or for worse, there are a lot of policies and guidelines here that govern how articles are worded and sourced. Then, when a user like Nosmoking comes along and someone like me removes his edits, he unfortunately assumes that I am being nasty or wanting to prevent the "truth". I'm an experienced editor who is about as neutral as they come, but I may be stricter than the average editor when it comes to sourcing, style, and procedure.


 * The best way to approach this is for you to make suggestions as to what to add or remove from your article on the Hutchison Talk page. Each change you suggest should be backed up by a reliable source. Also, the material has to be relevant to your life as an actor and be worded appropriately. The problem with what Nosmoking did was he removed material from the article that predates your latest work and he added your latest work to the opening (the lead) without a source. Instead, he stuck the source in the theater table, and he did it wrong (see WP:REF).


 * What we want to do to improve your article is to put the history of your notable acting work through the present in the body of the article with sources for everything. Then, the table and credit lists won't need sources because it will be done in the body. If there's something in the table or lists that isn't in the body, that entry would need a source. Then, in the lead, we can put the most important things (the highlights), and the lead also won't need sourcing because, again, the sources will be in the body. I'm willing to work with you to get this done.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi bbb23. Brian here again. Thanks so much for the thoughtful and thorough reply. Much appreciated. Truthfully I'm not sure if and when I'd get past this learning curve but the info is great to have. Best, BH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickpipe (talk • contribs) 12:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding, Brian. Let me know if you want to work on it together. If (big if) I have the time, I'll expand the article on my own.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't edit the Ryan Gosling article
Hello. I seem to share an IP address with someone who frequently receives messages about vandalism. I wanted to let you know that there is more than one person with this IP address, and not all of us are responsible for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.103 (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to leave one of those shared IP templates but I'm too dumb to do that, apparently; it requires the name of an organization and I have no clue. Do you know how to do that? Drmies (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I got it for you - its was a - -  You  really  can  16:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I do (to Drmies), thanks to YRC.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the user who started this discussion. I'd like to thank you all for responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.103 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we worked it out. It must be frustrating to be "accused" of vandalism when it was someone else using the same address. You know, although you're not required to do so, you could open an account at Wikipedia - it's easy and it doesn't cost anything, and it would then belong only to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Fiennes
Because that's the common way of presenting parents. Makes sense given that Fiennes has the family name of his father, not of this mother. Might be "patriarchal" but the reverse would be "matriarchal" and I can't see how that's better. Str1977 (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there's any guideline that says we have to list the father first. I don't normally object to listing the father first, but it's different when you go in and change something that listed the mother first to list the father first. That strikes me as taking a biased (on the part of Wikipedia, not necessarily on your part) position.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPN
Dog, what do you think you are doing?Logos.edition (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Telling you that you can't put material about Jesus at WP:BLPN. I thought that was pretty clear. Why would you even want to put such material on a noticeboard whose purpose is to bring up problems with articles about living people? Wikipedia is not a forum for religious material.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Still don't know what you're talking about, please explain further.Logos.edition (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff of one of your edits. What was your purpose in making that edit?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why, are you thinking that it is your job to post comments on my talk page about my edit to NBLP?Logos.edition (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Any concerned editor may post warnings when they are valid and warranted. Your material was inappropriate for BLPN, Bbb23 was right to warn you. I'm just a . Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To assist you in understanding the policies and guidelines at Wikipedia and to hopefully prevent you from being blocked for violating them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You have not fulfilled the requirement of my question: is there some dispute about me entering information onto the NBLP page? What is/are those disputes?Logos.edition (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're paying attention. As I said at the top, WP:BLPN is a noticeboard for editors to raise concerns about articles about living persons. For example, someone says at the Brad Pitt page that he stole some money. The assertion is not true and unsourced. Someone then goes to BLPN and says there's a problem at the Pitt article, and the issue is discussed. Your edit to BLPN said Jesus and quoted the bible. I'm not sure how that's helpful anywhere on Wikipedia, but it certainly isn't relevant to BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Dog, you're not understanding my question. Jesus is a living person. That information is properly sourced.Logos.edition (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're bordering on trolling here. Find something more constructive to do with your time.  Tide  rolls  21:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Is your dispute settled with me?Logos.edition (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute. You did something wrong. Even before Tide rolls's post, I suspected you were doing so intentionally but in the unlikely event you were really having trouble understanding, I gave it one last try. I'm now done.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so we are clear; Jesus is a living person; this information is properly sourced.Logos.edition (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so we are clear - find something more constructive to do with your time. You will be blocked for trolling should you continue your current disruptive behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Typical left-wing liberal anti-Christian pro-gay marriage administrative abuse. I think Jesus warned against Wikipedia admins, in Roman numeral 4. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * NOW who's trolling? Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  19:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mind your manners, Dennis Brown--you're still on probation. FWIW, I have Jimbo Wales and the London Whale on speed dial. (Does "speed dial" still mean anything?) Drmies (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Double secret probation? When I get off, you will be the first one I block.  For incivility.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  17:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speed dial is not uncivil, it's just arguably antiquated, although we naturally have an unsourced article on the subject. We'd have to ask teens and 20-somethings as to whether it's still used in contemporary vernacular. What happens when you delete a number from speed dial? It's a speedy delete. Bah-bah-bah-boom.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Do you think inviting Amadscientist to the ANI might be a good idea? You did link his talk page. Not templating, but politely asking in a personal message if he can help us clear something up? If so, you would be the appropriate party. If not, that's ok, was just an idea. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Couldn't hurt. I templated but added more to the template for context. Thanks, Dennis.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the one below him?  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  00:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I commented at ANI. Dennis, where do you get all this energy from? You are fighting so many fires it makes me dizzy (and I've been relatively busy myself). I don't want to sound like a mommy, but don't burn yourself out. Hopefully, you're not ignoring your real life away from Wikipedia. Balance, my friend.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am now belatedly taking my own advice. I'm holding up dinner because I keep getting sucked into so many discussions. And I'm hungry, too. Good night. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm actually pulling a light load now that I dropped all MMA stuff. I have time to spare. My time here varies by the time of year anyway.  Oh, and I have no kids and a very understanding wife, that probably helps. :)   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

P-Money
I'm not familiar enough with the elements in this case, but hoping you can help. And I'm about to leave for a few days with only the Kindle Fire. There are some BLP issues about a suppression order and sources, and I'm not sure that it needs to be in the article at all. There has been talk on the talk page that was deleted, in the history. Australian law is being invoked, I have no idea if it applies. It has been at ANI, etc. but my concern is the BLP issues, which you know better than I do. Not sure if it needs to go to BLPN or not, and would trust your judgement on it. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I said you needed balance - I never said you could go on vacation. :-) I've removed the suppression order sentence at P-Money and commented on the Talk page. Will watch it. Have a great time, wherever you're going.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll brag about it when I get back ;)  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  00:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm back from Las Vegas. Saw 3 great shows, consumed many adult beverages, gambled a little without result, and got to fly 1st class the whole way on someone else's nickel, something I've never done before.  Best of all, I put in a full hour of genuine work visiting a trade show, allowing me to expense out the entire trip to the company.  (told you I was going to brag ;)  Actually, the boss is a friend and we both went together and had a blast.  First time in 4 years I've gotten to do that, and it was sorely needed.  Oh, and it looks like they have left the article alone with your edits, which is a good thing.  Thanks again for your help there.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  04:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Joan E. Gerber - Dead or Alive?
Is Joan Gerber dead or alive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 09:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an odd question. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, absent a reliable source to the contrary, she's alive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He he he he! I second Bbb23 that it is an odd question. I sometimes use this site: http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/, you can try it, or a Google search. Sorry for stalking here! --' Tito Dutta '  ✉  20:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is neither an odd question, nor he he he stupid one.

Wikipedia may be the domain of information and existence to you computer maniacs, who are probably ankle-chained to the chair and watched over by you parole officers, but that doesn't mean it's true. No source for this, but most of the people with whom i talked to, who have worked with her, have said that she passed away last summer. If you don't believe me listen to one of them; Rob Paulsen's Talkin Toons interview Bill Farmer, they mention between the 16 and 17 mark.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet, papers or (get the idea). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

New reply!
Heads up! I have posted two new replies in Talk:Arin Paul. --' Tito Dutta '  ✉  20:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not intended
My Firefox browser has started doing that randomly over the last few weeks- dunno why or how. I was just going back in to amend it when I saw you already had. Thanks. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, blame it on Firefox. :-) I was going to add your new section back in but I'll let you do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released
Hey Bbb23! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey there
Please don't revert edits and say unsourced when this isn't obviously something you're involved in. I helped get Justin this episode. He is shooting it in Atlanta this weekend. It's all over every industry news source. You're making us on wikipedia look amateur. Look at who is sourcing the info. Mine is impeccable. Best of luck. Donmike10 (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's "all over every industry news source", then you should have no problem sourcing it. Theoretically, everything should be sourced here, but I'm willing to let some of that go in film/television/actor articles in certain circumstances. Thus, for example, if Gaston's involvement in the series was in the series article AND it was sourced, I'd let it go. But you put him in the series article without any source for it. I would even let it go if it were documented at IMDb, even though IMDb is not deemed a reliable source, but I checked and couldn't find Gaston listed (or Moreen for that matter, whom you also added to the cast in the series article). How can you say your source is "impeccable" when you don't even cite it? Surely you've been around Wikipedia long enough to know these things.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll add it to imdb tomorrow Donmike10 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's a pure dodge, which only reinforces the notion that IMDb is not reliable, i.e., anyone can add whatever they want to it. Why don't you source the material here with one of the industry sources you mention? I don't really much care what you do at IMDb, but wouldn't that be best for Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll find sources in the office, tomorrow. at some point i'll make sure that i source it. on wikipedia, always look to who added information. it's easy to fabricate "evidence" by referencing industry websites. that's what i mean when i say what i put down is impeccable. Donmike10 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, now it sounds like you're making an argument that industry sources are also unreliable. I do take into account who makes an edit, but, at the same time, I hold everyone to a high standard. You can't just say what you write is "impeccable" and expect other editors just to accept that as some sort of privileged sourcing method. I'll wait to see your sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand and agree but that is obviously the nature of any website at all. It's always a problem. My company owns a few websites. People use these as evidence to site, etc. It's all easily manipulatable obviously. That's the nature of doing this. It's not limited to entertainment sites. Donmike10 (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why "easily manipulable" websites are generally not considered reliable sources, whereas newspaper sites, reputable magazine sites, and published books are.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - but they're still used as are sites by supposed experts. I love reading the arguments on religious beliefs and climate change where everyone has "legitimate" sources. It's straight humor.

subpage
Hi. If you have a sec would you mind removing the CSD tag on the Bellesiles subpage, placing a G8-exempt? Rationale...being used for BLPN and article Talk discussion. I could do it myself (IAR) but probably quicker this way around. Thanks :) --92.6.200.56 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC).
 * I'm not an admin and can't do that - nor should you, even though I understand what you're saying. If you had a registered account, you could put it in your sandbox. Honestly, I'm not sure whether you're allowed to do what you did (creating a subpage off of the Bellesiles Talk page). I'll try to figure this out unless you have another suggestion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be an admin incidentally, it's just replacing a tag with another. It's already excluded by the SD template as far as I can see: "This does not include pages which are useful to the project such as user talk pages, talk page archives, information for a future article, etc." and CSD page "This excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia". As it's purpose is for discussing/developing the existing article it's covered imo. Every GA review is on a Talk subpage, so subpages there are certainly common. I suppose it could be moved so it's a subpage of the article, that might (?) "deorphan" it. The click here to contest button looked like it'd place reasoning on the subpage. The reason I didn't de-tag myself is to save time avoiding the probable 'don't self remove csd tag' notice requiring I then explain it's usefulness. Anyway, perhaps there's a better way to approach it. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a better grasp of all this than I do, or at least you write like you do. :-) I've asked an admin to look at it, but he may not have time until later. My suggestion is wait to see whether it's deleted or declined. If it's deleted, shoot a note to the deleting admin with your points.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're very kind. :-) I forgot it isn't possible to make an article subpage (technical restriction). I might come up with a good way to handle it. After dinner maybe. If it is deleted in the meantime, it's retrievable anyway. Cheers, --92.6.200.56 (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's all okay now, deleted and restored. Happy to help.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup it's all okay. It's such a lovely day today. I'll be spending time looking at water birds. Hope you have a good day too. 92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Seacrest
Thank you for your helpful tips to my Ryan Seacrest article. I will revise accordingly. However, I wish you would not have reverted back to the original because not i need to reformat it all over again. If you had left it as is, I could have gone through an make the corrections you noted. Or, another user could have helped to make these changes. Is this typical practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millanna (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but there were too many problems. What you could do, if you wish, is to edit your old version, copy it from the edit window to your sandbox, and then work with it in your sandbox. After you have the material the way you want and you think it'll pass muster, I would take one piece at a time and edit the actual article. After you've done your first piece, wait to see if it's acceptable per WP policies and guidelines before going on to your next change. In that way, you won't have all of your work thrown out at once.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi- I went ahead and made all of your noted changes but now it won’t let me update because the page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millanna (talk • contribs) 18:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. First, I asked you to do it in your sandbox and we would take it one piece at a time. Second, you are an autoconfirmed user and did make the changes to the article. Now, I'm compelled to look at all those changes en masse yet again.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have made all of your noted changes so there should not be an issue. I am working now on shortening the intro but other than that all requirements have been met. Thanks for your help but I think I'm fine now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millanna (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the help at Witch house (music genre). Every time I walk away from it and come back I find more to either remove or fix. It was a mess with people fighting and inserting POV into each others sentences whether it fit or not. Just trying to sort through the refs was a nightmare they had added so many of them in attempts to out ref each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
 * You're welcome but your work was much harder.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
...for taking a scythe to this. I'm IP 99 on vacation (it's rainy), and as usual, you're a great asset. Cheers, 71.241.199.226 (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey there, sorry it's raining while you're on vacation. I'm not on vacation, and it's sunny. There's no justice in this world. Glad to be of help.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You been talking to Joe Hubbard about justice? They've rezoned his district (or redistricted his zone); I think he doesn't live in his own district anymore. IP, you should have known better than to vacation in Maine. Don't get eaten by aliens; you're in Stephen King country. Enjoy your vacation, and if it makes you feel better, let me tell you I once went bicycling through Sweden where it rained two out of three weeks. Bbb, in case you need a stick more than a gentle prompt, will you run already? RFP has a backlog; you can get to work in eight days if you hurry up. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Drmies, it's entirely possible to get good lobster and lobster rolls here now, the rental rates are low and the place isn't overrun by tourists. No mosquitoes, either. All things considered we'll deal with the vicissitudes of weather. 71.241.199.226 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I gotta say good lobster, low rates, fewer tourists, and no mosquitoes are huge pluses in my vacation book. We once went to Hope, Canada, in July. On the way from Vancouver to Hope, we stopped at a trailhead (we like to hike). About 3-4 minutes on the trail, we were attacked by swarms of mosquitoes (sort of like Hitchock's The Birds). We rather hysterically ran back to the car, jumped in, and slammed the doors. We had welts all over. Dreadful. See how lucky you are?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mrs. Drmies spent a summer in a camp in Maine as a sailing instructor. I'm kind of jealous of her; I've never been up there. I've also never had a lobster roll... Drmies (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the last three days it's been lobster, crab rolls, lobster rolls--if you get the latter at the right shack or general store on the coast it's ridiculously good. Drmies, you've got to visit Maine and try them. I've been researching this since the late 90s, with a purely analytical intent, you understand. I've been besieged by mosquitoes and biting flies while trying to work by the water in late summer, but never had a problem in mid-May. One drawback to visiting off-season is that we're usually the first renters in a house for the year, so we're the test case for plumbing woes or rodent incursions. Still worth it. 71.241.200.94 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

United States District Court for the Central District of California
Jacqueline Nguyen has received her Ninth Circuit commission per http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=3227&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na so I have restored my edits to that article, as the receipt of her commission to the Ninth Circuit is primae facie evidence that she has left the District Court. Safiel (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Who am I to argue with prima facie evidence?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Savourna Stevenson
Thank you for your helpful comments and actions. I am interested in up-dating information for Savourna Stevenson ( which, as mentioned, is not in very good shape ) but have no previous experience editing Wikipedia. I shall attempt to do the required homework on Wikipedia policies, guidelines and writing style before attempting any future edits, but would find it very helpful to run future edits past an experienced editor before it goes public. Is this possible and can, for example, an edit be double-checked by an experienced editor while still in the sandbox? I would be most grateful for your help before I proceed. Frasergord (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just passing through: Fraser, my advice to new editors who work on material they are acquainted with (or people they like) is usually the same: start by finding the reliable sources (see WP:RS) using Google News and Books. Write it neutrally, and don't draw conclusions about style, success, beauty, etc. based on your own thoughts and observation. Write only what the sources give you. It may not be as exciting as you want the article to be, but it's more likely to be neutral. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Frasergord, for wanting to improve your Wikipedia skills and contributions. If you let me know when you have something in your sandbox for me to review, I'll be happy to do so. I can't promise I'll do it immediately after you tell me (depending on time constraints), but I'll get to it. Just leave a heads up here. Also, if you have a question, you can drop a line here, too, and I'll do my best to answer it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bbb23, for your kind offer. I realize that I will need all the help I can get.

Having looked more closely at Wikipedia policies and other WP articles I can see that I need to start by being absolutely neutral and without personal opinion. However, when it comes to the strict principles of citations, primary & secondary sources and 'no original research', I quickly find that I have some paradoxical difficulties ...

I have recently up-dated the content of Savourna Stevenson's own website and so currently have access to a comprehensive archive of all her recordings, collaborations, commissions, articles, interviews, reviews, videos, music scores, etc, etc, for the last 30 years. She originally brought to my attention that some members of the press are inclined to pick up their background information for newspaper articles about her from Wikipedia and that this is irritating becaues her Wikipedia article is currently so inaccurate and badly researched  ...

Although I hope I could put together a more accurate Wikipedia article ( than the current one ) complete with citations from press articles taken from reputable newpapers and magazines from the last 30 years, I am left with the dilema that I have some of the most relevant information sitting on the desk in from of me, but this information is nowhere to be found within a suitable citation!? Take for example a simple list like a discography ... which may not have been printed in any previous article or book, but I actually have a copy of every recording ever made by Savourna Stevenson on my desk so that I can check the dates and the details? Perhaps I even have a reputable article which lists a discography, but gets it wrong ... which then is the correct and accurate information to list in the Wikipedia article? As must be the case with many biographies of living persons on Wikipedia, there may be few or no respected books already published on the subject - so does this mean that there should be no Wikipedia article at all for those people?

I am quite sure it is essential that disputed information, known to be incorrect, is always removed from Wikipedia ... but if only absolutely 100% verifiable information was listed, then Wikipedia would be almost without articles! I would be most interested to get your comments on this before I have another look at the Savourna Stevenson article.

Sorry to be long-winded -  its a big subject for a complete beginner. With thanks Frasergord (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I already commented a bit at Drmies's Talk page (you're leaving a lot of messages). Short answer. In an ideal world, material is accurate and verifiable. However, if material can't be verified, it can't be included.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - I shall pay special attention to my conflict of interest, in addition to my other areas of inexperience, and will ensure that I declare this COI. My principle concern is that the Wikipedia article should become factual/accurate and I will happily take advice from other editors regarding neutrality.

As a helpful contribution to my learning curve, can you please suggest two or three ideal examples of Wikipedia articles which I can study ... which contain similar biographies of living persons/musicians, not working within an obvious mainstream category, who have work extending back over 30 years and more. I realize that my first poor attempts at editing were largely based on the existing content/format/lack of citation of the current Stevenson article ... and I should obviously be using a more ideal article as my starting template. With thanks again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frasergord (talk • contribs) 09:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Bellesiles
You may be interested in Sockpuppet investigations/Lou Sander. Regards, --92.6.200.56 (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. That's a rather extensive report (a lot of work). You, of course, aren't compelled to answer, but who are you? As this particular IP, you only started editing a few days ago. No one learns how to file a report like that in just a few days. Some don't learn how for years. I'm not accusing you of anything nefarious, just curious.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, whoever you are, you did an outstanding job and your efforts paid off. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Marco Rubio page
Could we agree on this?


 * "Rubio's amendment, co-sponsored by Joe Manchin (D - WV), to allow employers exemptions from the Health and Human Services Department's contraceptive mandate for religious or moral reasons, failed to pass the Senate."--68.173.248.54 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for coming to talk. That version sounds okay to me, actually. However, another editor edited the article to put in a different version. His version is okay, although I think I like yours a little better, even though the cited source, unfortunately, supports the old version the best. In any event, I think we should leave the article alone for at least 24 hours. Even if you and I amicably agree on a reasonable version, technically either of us would violate 3RR if we edited the article again, and I'd rather avoid that, even if it's unlikely.

Just out of curiosity, why'd you want to take out the image?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an awfully unflattering image, having him staring directly into the teleprompter with such a listless countenance. You don't think we can do better than that?--68.173.248.54 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless a picture is truly awful, I generally don't pay much attention, but at least now I understand your reason. FWIW, I don't agree with your perception of the image. I didn't think he was looking at a teleprompter - looks to me like he's just looking to the side (wouldn't the teleprompter, if there was one, be more in front of him?). Also, it's true he's not smiling, but I don't think he looks listless, just serious. He's a nice looking guy. I don't think it's unflattering. The infobox picture is much better, but that's why it gets more prominent placement. Also, it's one thing to replace a picture, but why remove it? Are there other pictures we have of him you'd prefer to see?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

War crimes conviction
I added the material in good faith and i do not think the warning template you left on my talk page is justified. Please remove it. To me the removal of this material seems to be biased. A war crime conviction is a big deal and can not simply be left out. Please explain in detail what was wrong with my good faith addition to these articles so that i can fix it. If there is something wrong with my writing style than please correct my writing. I am not a native speaker. KualaLumpur12 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've opened a discussion of the issues involved with tribunal's decision at WP:BLPN (section is War crimes). Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Don't worry about not being a native speaker - you communicate quite well.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, then i will further discuss in that forum. How about the warning template on my talk page? I think it is not justified nor helpful. Please remove it. Thank you. DragonGirl2012 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not on your Talk page, it's on KualaLumpur12's Talk page. Please look at WP:SOCK. Please also explain why you are using multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

neat title
like the title you used on that notice board. Albert14nx05y (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Films
It seems to me that you take a special interest in articles about movies. Am I correct?

What brought me here is this edit. I don't understand why you reverted this. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For better or for worse, I watch a lot of film articles - not the easiest articles to watch, actually. I couldn't see any obvious support for the addition of Cassius. Is it correct? If so, feel free to restore it, although if it isn't too much trouble, please let me know what you base it on. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the film, and Paul is indeed Cassius. Actually, one of the reasons I didn't really like the film, is because that fact was too obvious from an early point on. Debresser (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. This gets into the weird world of film articles. Generally, to say something in any article, it has to be sourced. Film articles permit assertions that are based on the editor's knowledge. Most frequently, it is restricted to the plot section. There, we have to accept what an editor says as "truth" unless we've seen the film and dispute it. This can often be contentious, unfortunately, which only highlights the problem with allowing WP:OR, even in this limited context. Then, sometimes that same phenomenon spills over into cast members. You're saying that the character's name is Cassius. Not that I disbelieve you, but there's no source for that (other than you). Usually, when I see someone change the name of a charater in a film article, I just look at IMDb. I don't "cite" it because it's not considered reliable, but generally for released films, its cast lists aren't bad (upcoming films are often a joke). In this instance, IMDb didn't say Cassius, there was no explanation for the change, and I reverted. End of discourse. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * i understand and to a certain amount agree with your point about the difference between the plot section and cast section. So let's keep your revert. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, thanks, always good talking to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you all have time to watch movies you're not wiki-ing off enough. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My mother always told me that if I wiki-off too much, I would go blind. Don't know how she knew that given that Wikipedia didn't exist at the time, but she was a very bright lady. As it happens, it's quite the opposite. I wiki too much, and it's causing me to go blind.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Bourque
Thanks for working on it. I did readd the city council stuff though, as the existing Ryerson Review of Journalism reference actually does already support it (it just hadn't been footnoted that way.) Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, I commented about that at BLPN before I saw your edit. Thanks for putting it back in with a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed
Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed your question from the help desk
Hey Bbb23, I removed your question from the help desk because it could be misconstrued as canvassing. I'll try to get an answer back to you as soon as I can. Ryan Vesey Review me!  02:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as I thought, I asked that exact question 11 months ago. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 210 Interestingly enough, the final/best answer came from User:Jenks24 himself.  I'm going to point him to this on his talk page, he may find it interesting.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  02:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'm not entirely sure that it directly falls under the category of canvassing; however, in my experience referring to an RfA anywhere on Wikipedia has been referred to as canvassing before. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  02:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Saw the removal at the help desk and figured I'd comment to: As indicated at that link, its the bot update frequency. There is no way to make a template count votes and update itself. Also, I think the concern about canvasing is a bit overly cautious, but I guess better safe then sorry. Monty  845  02:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Except that the bot now updates every 15 minutes. I'm not sure canvassing fits precisely when it's not the candidate but another person, but damn people get crazy at the slightest whiff of advertising at RFA. When I was talking to Jenks about his nomination, I opined that "that the advice seen here is, in my experience, just wrong in practice". What do you all think?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What about it do you find wrong? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with a user page notice hurting a candidate. But at least for most editors, it seems unlikely that they get many visits to their user page in a given week. Obviously a bunch will come FROM RFA while scrutinizing the candidate, but a notice isn't exactly helping them... Ultimately, as RFA is supposed to be no big deal, I'd advocate skipping the notice in that spirit, but I think it causing harm is unlikely. Monty  845  04:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Digging up exactly which would be difficult, but I remember at least one RFA where someone raised a big stink because of the candidate's "canvassing" by posting just such a notice in their userspace, and receiving multiple opposes based on that. Let me be very clear that I am not saying I have any problem with such a notice. What I am saying is that the advice that posting it is fine, may not be correct if people perceive it as canvassing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We should probably move this discussion to somewhere in RFA space, but the current statement about its advisability is way too strongly in favor and should be revised. Monty  845  06:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Gee, you ask a technical question, and it opens up a can of worms. Since posting my question I've been off-Wiki. As for Ryan removing my question, it never in my wildest dreams would have occurred to me that the question was canvassing. However, I understand Ryan was only trying to help, and I've now gotten my answer, so that's no biggie. As for the notice and the instructions at WP:RFA/N, I don't see the notice as a big problem and I also don't see it as particlarly helpful to the nominee. Unlike Fuhghettaboutit, I suppose I'm not as concerned with perceptions, particularly if I don't think they are reasonably founded. Someone is always raising a big stink about something, and I don't see why we have to react in a way that validates the stink.

If editors are interested in RfAs, they can watch WP:RFA or put the little chart on their userpage or both. Another reason why the notice isn't really needed.

If you folk continue this discussion elsewhere, please give me a heads up so I can follow it.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you are talking about RFA notices and it hurting or helping people. I had one comment about it at my RFA, and the whole time I left up a giant page full of what some have called the "pre-RFA" on my talk page.  I left it there instead of archiving it as to be open about it.  Plus I used the template RFA notice.  So, my whole talk page was nothing but people talking about me going RfA, and it didn't seem to make much of a negative impact.  It is almost like it depends on the mood of the crowd on any given day.  Or maybe because I was so obvious and open about it, there was no perceived "deception". It was probably the most RFA littered candidate talk page in the history of RFAs, regardless.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I haven't seen any opposes for having the notice but I have seen opposes due to preparation (which I find ridiculous). Personally, the worst opposes I have seen were people who opposed an editor solely because they used Admin coaching.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  21:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that kind of oppose makes sense. It isn't like we want our admins to be thoughtful, cautious and well prepared, now do we? Next thing you know, civility will break out and Wikipedia will never be the same.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  11:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Invitation
Out of a sheer penchant for drivel, I've penned an essay on BLP noteworthiness. I don't know what I expect from having done so. But I thought I'd share it with you because you're a regular BLP contributor, and I value your understanding of current policy and guidelines, as well as you opinion of if and how they might be improved. If you don't have time or interest, no hard feelings. In fact, if you think I'm being wrongheaded, please leave a comment to that effect. All the best. JFHJr (㊟) 10:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, John, seems like lately I haven't been contributing as much to BLPN as usual, being busy elsewhere, but I've noticed that you have been your usual busy and helpful self. I have a few comments on your essay, which I will leave on its Talk page. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been in court. Ha. As always, I appreciate your mind and your time. JFHJr (㊟) 10:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you've been convicted so we can then add it to your user page, with the proper weight, of course. --Bbb23 (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, another John? Like we don't have enough of them on Wikpipedia. Bbb: you'd pass with flying colors. You know what I mean. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed you would. Where's the john? JFHJr (㊟) 03:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack, and lies
Believe it or not, the lies I was referring to were about the three African HIV studies, and their interpretation. They were not about any individual, or editor. I'm fine with the reversion. Tftobin (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining the meaning of what you wrote. I've reread it, and although I'm willing to accept that's what you meant, the preceding paragraph, in particular the last part about lackeys, makes it difficult for a reader not to tie the comment about lies to the editor. In addition, even without the last paragraph, the material attacks another editor, even if it's not as egregious as calling an editor a liar. I'm glad you're okay with the reversion because I think it's better for you not to have that comment on Alexander's Talk page directly after the block, where it's already received a fair amount of administrator attention. You're, of course, welcome to repost something there that addresses the content issues in a more substantive fashion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Riley. Too bad we're in the same time zone, albeit in different countries, then perhaps we wouldn't "compete" as much.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Terrible twos
I stand corrected (but don't want to lengthen that thread on Drmies's page). Lady of  Shalott  01:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, poor Drmies and his wonderful Talk page (it's like a neighborhood tavern). I commented only because of the last silliness by Lucifer. And, I confess, a bit of self-indulgence. If it were my Talk page, I'd remove the whole thing, but Drmies is generally more tolerant than I am. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Italics and quotes
Thanks for pointing that out in I spy. I don't know where I mis-learned that italics should be in quotes (or has the rule changed recently?), but no-one else has commented or (as far as I've noticed) de-italicised my quotes. I've just finished a batch of article creation in most of which I've got italicised quotes, so might, if I feel energetic, wander back to them and straighten them out. As I often say when welcoming newbies, there's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia, but it's an interesting journey. Pam D  07:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just had a browse through the history of MOS:TEXT and can see that quotes have been specifically not in italics since at least 2006, so not a case of a recent change. Just my misunderstanding somewhere along the line! Pam  D  07:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what you mean. Wikipedia is nothing if not complex and detailed. My favorites are the guidelines that address a certain issue, but after reading them, I'm still not 100% sure what they mean. One example is the two bullet points in #3 of WP:HYPHEN that address the adverb issue. I've had arguments - I mean discussions - about when to use a hyphen in certain word strings, and both the other editor and I point to the same thing in support of our opposite views. I usually let it go as it's really not a big deal. Anyway, as for the game article, you did the hard part, which was finding sources. My copy edits afterwards were much easier.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

S.E. Cupp
how is it not neutral? in an interview on CNN she admitted growing up wealthy. i guess the truth isn't neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.148.171 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First, we'd need to cite a reliable source supporting it. Second, we'd need to word it differently because it's odd just to say she "grew up wealthy".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments
There was also no policy based reason for moving the extended discussion off the Rfa as User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz did...yet left the trolling comment, which Malleus did selectively to be obnoxious. Arbcom did Malleus no favors by not banning him completely from Rfa's. While we don't want Rfa's hijacked by peripherals why leave his question up, then remove the exchange...better to have it all together in one place or the other...either on the Rfa's or its talk page...that was my point and it wasn't about "logic" so no idea where that came from. I'm not going to revert it again, but you're not doing him any favors, frankly.--MONGO 18:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. In my view, the comments should not have been removed from the main page, at least not without permission of the editors. Instead, it would have been better to collapse it and then, if the editors wished, discuss it on the Talk page. I suppose an admin could remove comments as "disruptive" if they wished, but Kiefer isn't an admin. Therefore, he, like you and me, can only remove comments based on policy considerations. However, I didn't feel like going that far back in the history to undo what Kiefer did. In any event, the discussion on the Talk page has gone nowhere really. As for leaving Malleus's comment, it feels wrong to remove it when Malleus seems to have absented himself and can't defend it or discuss it. Finally, I'm not trying to do anyone any favors or do anyone a disservice - the thought never occurred to me. I just reacted to an editor removing another editor's comment without much thought as to the editors involved. I have no history with either you or Malleus, and I never even heard of Avicennasis before the RfA.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough...I concur that the best course of action may have been to collapse it...that way, neither Malleus nor I is, I dunno, insulted. I also think it would be nice to have the crats referee some of these Rfa's better...though they stay out of these sorts of things so they don't appear partial of course. Perhaps as at arbcom cases, Rfa's need clerks to do housekeeping such as this.--MONGO 23:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would have been nice for an admin to take a position on what Kiefer did and even what you and I did, but like it or not we had to fend for ourselves. WP:RFA addresses some of the problems that comments and questions may cause, but it doesn't seem to differentiate between admins and non-admins with respect to any remedy and it only slightly touches on remedy ("Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored"). I particularly like this sentence: "Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse." That's a mouthful of convoluted negatives.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Kate Winslet
Hi. Which part of "can and should be added to biographical articles" (at WP:Authority control) was not clear to you? I will not accept your edit warring to overturn a broad consensus, so recorded, to add this information. As I said in my most recent edit summary, you are of course welcome to try to overturn that consensus. You could start an RFC at Wikipedia Talk:Authority control or somewhere even wider, for example. Incidentally that is a separate article, not just the template doc. You are also welcome to provide a more substantial reason than your opinion for not wanting the template on that particular article, but it is already on lots of other actor and actress articles so you need a pretty good reason specific to Kate, I think. --Mirokado (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What is not clear to me is what "community consensus" went into the creation of WP:Authority control and what "community consensus" was reached to justify that phrase you quote? Frankly, that WP article completely baffles me as I don't even know what it is - a policy? a guideline? an essay? an amusement park?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mirokado, anyone can write anything on Wikipedia pages- that's the point of it being a wiki. That page is not a guideline or a policy, no matter how many times it says "must". I have tagged it as an essay, as, so far as I can tell, that's what it is. J Milburn (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have two concerns here. Mirokado's dictatorial tone isn't needed. It's an essay. OTOH, what harm does it do to add the template? It seems to be a very useful template that's in extensive use on other Wikipedias, and maybe we should start doing this too. How about a caution to Mirokado to discuss when meeting resistance, and to otherwise allow addition where it meets no resistance? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My own thoughts- I'm not clear on what the template's really for. None of those links would be worth adding to an external link section, as opposed to (say) the links on TaxonIds. Personally, I'm generally supportive of these kind of links. I'm not fussed by persondata- I don't care for it, but it's not visible to the reader; this, however, is actually on the article, and so, for me, it needs to have some positive good. While you may be right about it not doing great amounts of harm, "what harm does it do" isn't really a justification. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In Mirokado's defense, it wasn't an eassay until J Milburn tagged it as such. Before that, it was a nothing. How do you find it useful for the Winslet article? The first link is in German (not useful at all and would probably be impermissible as an EL). The second link has some information about the Golden Hat and Sense and Sensibility; that's no big deal - already in the body. The third link is more information on what she's done, which we already know, anyway. The fourth link (WorldCat) is marginally useful, but we could stick that in the EL if we wished. As far as I'm concerned, it's clutter and it's clutter in an already bloated article that takes forever to edit (now it has to resolve yet one more template).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all these comments and the health warning now added to the AC essay. Whatever my response might have been it would have been a little less "decisive" with that in place. As far as discussing is concerned, I did start this section... I can suggest here a few benefits of including such standardised data for any article and for Wikipedia as a whole:
 * Library catalogues are a good jumping-off point for any further investigation a non-casual reader might want to undertake. Clearly the article references etc are one such starter, but there are benefits to a uniform user interface across all (biographical) articles which this helps provide. How useful each is for any particular article might of course vary. The library information will like other computer systems improve with time.
 * The VIAF record is a summary of many other interconnected records. It presents a very pretty graphic illustrating how extensive a person's presence in various national libraries is (quite a lot of entries in Kate's case). Since that links to all the others in the template and is in English, that would be a good choice if you only want one extra link. It is in fact what I use to generate the template definition.
 * These links are a formal way of stating who among many of the same name the article is referring to. That is also more useful in some cases than others.
 * In addition, once such information is present in an article in a standardised format, it is easy to transform it later. Such things as authority control, persondata and infobox fields are all steps in the direction of one sort of improved user experience. --Mirokado (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, you sound like the essay, a promoter of the template globally. In addition, I think you should remove the template voluntarily from the Winslet article and obtain consensus for using it on the Winslet Talk page as it has been challenged.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not "promoting it" as you could see from my edit history if you wished. I add it as a matter of until-now-unchallenged routine to biographical articles I happen to look at. In the same way other editors sooner or later add info boxes to articles I have created. I most certainly do not say "you cannot add that because I don't want it" and I think neither you, I nor anybody else is in fact allowed to behave like that. Your first edit summary of "unhelpful template" seems to be asserting that your opinion can determine what others are allowed to add to Wikipedia. Did you seriously think that another experienced editor would add something that he did not think would improve the article? We get so used to reverting vandalism that perhaps it is possible to forget that Wikipedia grows by collaborative improvement and that we should provide a good reason for any reversion.
 * Obviously if you are going to use article loading speed as an excuse for blocking article improvements involving templates you should get rid of the 125 or whatever cite * template invocations in the references, the article will probably load much faster then.
 * I will not be the only editor who wants to add the template, so I have replaced it by a brief comment as we do in other situations where it is necessary to ensure article stability. --Mirokado (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I regret my use of the word "graciously" below.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A certain amount of irritation is natural, so I'll use the words "admirably collegial editing" for the change. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Har, sorry if I seemed too snacky, but I meant what I said about good edit summaries. I won't bother to take this any further, the presence or absence of the template on one article among many is not cosmically important. Let's move on. --Mirokado (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Mirokado has graciously removed the template and replaced it with this internal comment: "please seek consensus on the talk page before adding Authority control to this article". Nicely done, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just one last comment from me: I have just realised that you posted the above just before I posted my response. It is unfortunate that the posts overlapped and there was no edit conflict report. I most certainly regret that what I wrote appeared to be ignoring what you said (I would have changed it a bit...). --Mirokado (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Richard Quest
Why did you reverese my edit? It was well-sourced and factual. Please explain your reasoning. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.30.185 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The material in the Huffington article that you slid in through the back door as an external link is a BLP violation and has been rejected in the body multiple times. Please don't add it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is a BLP violation, then you should take note that the same assertion is also on the talk page: Talk:Richard Quest Elizium23 (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain why this is a BLP violation and/or provide a link where I can learn this. Here is another source:  http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_s3i7LuqYdavTYx6pbbwmLN   The facts of this incident are not in dispute.  I actually read about it in yet another source.  Truth is an absolute defense for defamation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.30.185 (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is Reuters considered a reliable source? http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/19/us-quest-idUSN1832900220080419  I note that in Don King's article, a reference is made to the fact that he killed two people.  Why can this exist and not the informetion on Richard Quest?  Again, thank you in advance.

I've responded on Quest's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice regarding personal attacks against Jakew
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ... regarding personal attacks by Tftobin against Jakew, you saw something like this from User:AlexanderLondon. Thanks. 04:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision
Let me know if you see any more problems there. That situation is a bit more complicated, and there is more than meets the eye going on, so I figured it was best to give one last, final warning. If I'm wrong, we will find out soon enough, and blocks are cheap. Odd subject to be an SPA on, but most of his contribs are fine, and he is rather new to editing here. I think I sufficiently explained the consequences that any future action will not require debate at ANI. Yes, you probably disagree, but you like me anyway :) I just felt it was still short of the mark to block him, once you considered all the circumstances, including the DRN that went no where because no one was available to help them, and ended up making it worse.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you know someone willing, they really need an objective party to just add a little formality and mediate over at the talk page over there. This would help more than anything else.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're, of course, right on both points (I disagree and like you anyway). It's also hard to fault anyone for giving people another chance. I think your least persuasive argument was Tftobin's being a newbie. It's true that he hasn't been editing at WP long, but he's a bright fellow and he's had ample warnings about his conduct and personal attacks. I think he cares more about the substance of he considers "correct" than he does about Wikipedia's rules, and I doubt seriously that will change. As for your comment about "objective party", surely you're not thinking of me?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One more thing. I don't see this as a civility block or even a civility ban (if there is such a thing). The incivility is a problem, but my focus was on Tftobin's interference with improving and/or maintaining the integrity of the related articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but stating it that way made it clear that I would consider anything borderline as a reason to block :) I've never civility blocked before, even when I wanted to.  And being a newb wasn't 'the' reason, but someone who has been here less than 6 months gets a little extra slack on the less offenses, not the big ones.  If you go through, you see that they tried to resolve this time and time, and they couldn't get outside help, and they all just got frustrated.  The others were also rude at times, he just pushed it passed the bar, but they weren't completely innocent.  I didn't want to change the dynamic of editing by blocking someone who was 25% more rude than the others.  They do need someone in there, if you know someone.  I've already enough projects with mentoring and all, or I would.  Ugh.  What a topic to fight over.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember the scene in The Wizard of Oz where the lion is having his mane trimmed? "with a snip, snip, here, and a snip, snip, there ..." --Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "....doesn't pay well, but you get to keep all the tips!" (sorry, you started it).  Oh, and if you check his talk page, then my talk page, you might see that there is a reasonable chance I actually made the right choice this time. ;)  I get it right half the time, but just think of all the good editors I didn't have to block, and who instead might become productive fellow editors.  It is worth being wrong half the time for that.  Of course, part of it is that I follow up with strong warnings mixed with friendly gestures.  All I can figure is that most admins aren't comfortable doing that.  It does take more time.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  00:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd seen your comment on his Talk page but hadn't seen his comment on yours. It was a nice comment he left for you. I also note that the OP at ANI accepted his apology and wanted to move on, so maybe this will all work out. It's tough for a cynic like me to believe in fairies (Peter Pan), but I do remember clapping for Twinkle Bell when I was a kid.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This was one of my motivations for seeking the bit. Not to use the tools, but to find ways to keep others from using their tools.  We need editors more than log entries on a block log.  Sometimes the complaining party just wants someone to "spank" them in public a bit, get them to realize their mistakes, and move on.  It is actually a dangerous line to walk sometimes, as not everyone enjoys being spanked.  I get some heat for it, particularly via email, but I can handle it.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  01:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

BIo
mY F1ng3Rz s0m3+timEz m355 up.

He actually seems like a nice enough chap, figured a hello from time to time to remind him I'm here is a good thing. Hoping to convince him to work on other projects. If you look the less heated portions of the discussions, in archives, you see a different picture. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a funny typo in the circum, uh, stances. It was also nice to see something added to his Talk page that wasn't reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please undo your closure
I said I was not going to check in the thread. However, I indicated a place to leave messages if anyone had any questions or warnings for me. And the thread is unresolved. That is not a proper closure. Please undo it and leave it for other admins to consider. Thank you. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC) And by the way no I do not just mean his block log. Have fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=arthur+rubin&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search+noticeboards+%26+archives&fulltext=Search --76.180.172.75 (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your points do not change my mind about the closure. However, you're welcome to ask User:Moreschi, who contributed to the discussion. I note you've already talked to him on his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The chance anything will get addressed by resurrecting the thread at this point are slim. Still, it was a bad closure. Threads should only get closed when they are resolved or there is nothing to resolve. Look it up. It's documented. And an IP shouldn't have to tell an admin that. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not an admin. Second, if you feel there's something unresolved that requires administrative action, you can open a new topic and, if relevant, refer to the old one.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)