User talk:Dunny0123

Speedy deletion ?
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Stephen2nd (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC) These 22 members of the 1925 cabinet meeting of NSDAP, have been listed on the German Wikipedia for several years, the 22 member numbers are each individually referenced from 22 published authors. All I have done is transferred these numbers to the English Wikipedia, and added images to them. The details of the 22 individuals, are taken directly from their existing articles on their names. As an editor for several years, I believe that cross referencing existing allowed Wikipedia articles should not be disallowed. If you wish to change the title or any of the text you are welcome. Please keep the article until this matter has been debated. Stephen2nd (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to contest your deletion, which I wish to do ? Stephen2nd (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's my mistake, and I've restored the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Revert at 3RR
Obviously I was unclear.

Equally obviously, I am not going to argue with you on that noticeboard, or at all. I am just uncertain why I would not be notified of a matter in which I have been involved. I would appreciate it if you could help me to understand.

The main gist of my complaint is that I was not notified of *this* complaint at *this* Noticeboard, which concerns a matter I have carefully followed, and in which I have offered to help a new user. The comment about the AE complaint was merely intended to demonstrate that Trangabellam well knows that I am involved. I am all over the article talk page, for one thing, and I have discussed, and Aryan Valley and Trangabellam's behavior there with Trangabellam so recently that it doesn't seem as though it would have slipped their mind.

I am totally unfamiliar with the workings of the 3RR board, so it's possible (as always!) that I am the one who misunderstood something. I would appreciate a clarification. I just got back from an appointment and haven't had a chance to look at the links there yet.

Was your point that it's a behavioral Noticeboard and so the issue at hand solely concerns ? If so, maybe I was off-topic, yeah. There is a much larger picture here, however, and I feel that context matters here. I had previously warned Minaro that they seemed to be trying to set him up for some sort of a block, and to refrain from giving them grounds to say he was edit-warring, so I will be telling him that that I can't help him if he doesn't listen to me. I will look at the links in the section and talk to him about whatever behavior was complained of there. As an aside, yes, there have in the past been issues of competency with Minaro, but since I got him calmed down and explained reliable sources to him, which nobody had done until then, he has been doing quite well with that, to the point of correctly pointing out that a source is not on the perennial sources list. So he is responsive, and here to build an encyclopedia, yes. English is still going to be his 6th or 7th language, but I can definitely help him with that until he finds another way to work around it.

I am not requesting any particular action on your part beyond this clarification.

But was your revert based on the belief that I was injecting a separate complaint? Should I rephrase? Just let this complaint go and help him with his appeal? Expedite the AE complaint about editors who lose an AfD then edit-war (this) article into their preferred version, which is not the one that survived AfD? Figure out whether to add to that complaint whatever went on at 3RR? And what is to be done about the point-y version of the article?

Is it appropriate to open another AfD, since the text is now completely different? I ask the latter on behalf on Minaro, since that is probably what he cares about the most in this process. I will advise him to draft an accurate version of the article meanwhile, probably off-wiki at this point, lest some sinister motive be imputed to doing so. If I had been around at the time, I would have suggested that he continue to work on it in Draft rather than publish when he did, but I was blissfully unaware of all this until I saw the article at AfD. It's been going on for quite a while though, and the provocation should definitely be considered IMHO. Somewhere.

Your input would be appreciated. Elinruby (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to pare this down if you want me to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Mmm ok. You said that the section was not the place for my complaint. Ok, except that I am in this story? And was pinged there by one of the parties? So I am uncertain what I am did wrong specifically that I are warning me not to do again. I will be happy to refrain from anything you don't want me to do. Can we start there? Also, Minaro123 told me he doesn't want to file an appeal until after his exams, so I withdraw my questions about that. Is that better? Sorry if I was unclear. Elinruby (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's true that Minaro123 did ping you, but you weren't involved in the edit war, so why would you call yourself a "highly involved user" in your comments? And why should you have been notified as you said in your comment? This whole business that you have with Trangabellam has nothing to do with the edit war or the administrator's ruling, which preceded your comments. And, btw, AN3 is not like ANI. Discussions are rarely "closed" - they just eventually archive. A ruling by an admin is generally the equivalent of a closure, although editors do sometimes comment post-ruling, usually to ask for clarifications. Your comments weren't of that sort.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Depends on what you mean by "edit war". I stopped reverting TB and K3 because of DS, yes. TB said discretionary sanctions did not apply. Then Minaro got topic banned as a discretionary sanction. See why I was confused? Meanwhile, since Minaro isn't going to appeal this until after his exams, the triage I was asking you to help me with becomes a lot less urgent. I'll ask Liz what I should do about the article being completely different now, then decide where and whether to take issue with what happened there. I loathe the drama boards, but it does seem kind of wrong.


 * I gather that you reverted me because my actions weren't being complained of and for purposes of 3RR that made me not involved? At this point I'm just trying to identify what was wrong with what I did, so I don't repeat it. If that's correct, then that is the clarification I was asking for. Thanks, and thanks also for the clarification re closing; I didn't realize that. Elinruby (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * TB said discretionary sanctions did apply. - Care to provide a diff? What I told you was that a similar article came under DS (ARBIPA) but there was no 30/500 restriction in ARBIPA. An administrator confirmed the same. TrangaBellam (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

TB, as I've said a couple of times in a couple of places now, I did not ask *you*. I asked BB to explain something to me. It involves you only peripherally and I told Bbb23 I wasn't here to argue or to ask for anything other than a clarification. I am absolutely not going to argue with you here either. Elinruby (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Revert at 3RR
I usually don't post to 3RR, so I'm not sure what I should do with Homosexuality in ancient Greece, so I will leave it in your experienced hands. Since you just removed my report without taking any action and I don't understand you edit summary and you left no other reply, I'll leave everything as it is since I know an admin would obviously do something if it was needed, and I posted in the first place to prevent an edit war. I'll be busy for a few days, so if something needs done you might need to contact one of the other editors in the article. Best wishes from Los Angeles.  // Timothy :: talk  00:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Congrats, you win, I'm out.  // Timothy :: talk  03:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

31 hour block
I made a pun using an ip address on the talk page of ScottishFinnishRadish. Prior to that I made an adjustment of adding (SAW) to a post I made (my router or something is using different ip's every so often for some reason) on the Islamism article talk page. The first instance was a harmless joke, but a light warning would have been enough. The other was fixing an oversight I made. A 31 hour block for disruptive edits (I'm not entirely sure how they were disruptive) seems very excessive with no warning. I don't like logging in because it's a hassle for me (it's its own thing). So, could you please explain what's going on here?

Lede or Follow (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, don't edit Wikipedia without logging in, especially if your edits are going to be trollish-appearing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * see also: logged-out sockpuppetry and good hand-bad hand accounts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you for clearing that up. It's unfortunate to see an admin with over 14 years of experience doing this, and if that's what I can look forward to... I don't see this improving with admin experience as I understand there's a rigorous vetting process. So, that being the case, you won't have to worry about me editing Wikipedia again without logging in, or even if I am logged in, because I think I won't be editing any further. Thank you for your time.
 * Lede or Follow (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize for getting upset and have struck out my above comments. This is a problem and I'm going to have to stop editing to avoid any more of this. If I fix the issues that cause this, maybe I can edit again (though I'm not sure if the underlying issues causing this can be fixed).

Lede or Follow (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

RedesignSucksYuck
I'm concerned that we silence and block editors on sight for contributions such as. Although the sarcastic tone is unhelpful, the editor makes several valid points with which many of us agree, though I'd have tried to phrase them more diplomatically. We have several new accounts with similar names, clearly created by regular readers for the purpose of expressing disappointment with the new skin, and there is a risk of being seen to suppress their views. Certes (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're "clearly created by regular readers". Many have been found to be socks. Personally, I hate the new skin and have reinstated the old one, but creating new accounts with inflammatory personal-agenda usernames is not appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Five accounts seem to have some linkages, the first two of whom you blocked personally: RedesignSucksYuck, Vector2022SucksBalls, Sodthisstupiddesign, Tortuga666, and Vector2022isTrash. I can't shake the feeling that this is the same person. I thought these might be socks, per Sockpuppet investigations/Sodthisstupiddesign, but my request for a CU was declined. At the risk of seeming like I am admin-shopping, do you agree that a CU isn't warranted? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The decline was reasonable. Wouldn't surprise me, though, if a check was run but the results not disclosed. Only your friendly CheckUser knows for sure. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of these have indeed been checked. and  were checked at Sockpuppet_investigations/Vector2022isTrash/Archive, where they were found to be unrelated to each other.  was apparently checked per . I don't think it's reasonable to run a CU on every new account complaining about the design for the reasons I outlined at the SPI, though there may be grounds to check them for other reasons. For example, I think it was fair to check Mr. "Trash" against Mr. "Sucks Balls" based on the evidence presented. Spicy (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, that's all good to know.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)