Shah-E-Zaman (talk | contribs) →Zakir Naik Religion?: new section |
37.8.170.180 (talk) →Bbb23 the cunt: new section |
||
Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGzsWRLYf9M |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGzsWRLYf9M |
||
== Bbb23 the cunt == |
|||
Bbb23 you are issued from a cunt family, you are a bitch. And hell is coming, and I'm coming with it ;)--[[Special:Contributions/37.8.170.180|37.8.170.180]] ([[User talk:37.8.170.180|talk]]) 01:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:37, 24 November 2012
Sad man.
You can not block me. "Threat of evasion"? There is no threat. It will be evaded, and there's nothing you can do about it. I know more about computers, networks, etc than you ever will in your entire life time. It was no threat, it was a fact. It will continue to be changed back, for however long I choose to keep doing so, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Block this proxy, i don't care. There are tens of thousands... no, Hundreds of thousands more. You can never block them all. On top of which, Dynamic IPs can EASILY be changed by a simple router reset, only idiots think blocking an IP makes any difference at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.157.121 (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents-Discussion
Hi, I saw the noticeboard and can say that I was not involved in any of the incidents. What specific section of the page is the discussion you mentioned may pertain to me in?--Wikiz876 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Gosh, that was from November 3, and it was archived a while ago. You can find it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I saw the discussion and my username. My account was up for sock puppet investigations a while ago and at the time I only had one account. I have two accounts actually, Wikiz876, and Wikiz768 (I have to chose a different name) from my mobile. If that's sock puppetry, you can close the one account just to solve the issue. Beyond that I haven't edited much recently.Wikiz876 (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for undoing EverlastingGaze's revision. I despair over how to handle this extremely biased and stubborn editor who feels he owns the article. I tried various appeals, to the NPOV group, the Russia Group, and to Dispute Resolution, but have been unable to interest an administrator. I fear it will be difficult for me to avoid edit warring myself... Any suggestions welcome. cwmacdougall 0:52, 17 November 2012
- Yes, don't edit-war, no matter how frustrated you become, unless there is a clear exemption like obvious vandalism, which I don't think is present here. I am watching the article and the editor and will try to help if I can, but I can't get involved in the content dispute and still act administratively. Have you tried an RfC?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Don't know; when does repeated use of biased sources become vandalism? I haven't even begun to look at the more difficult to consider sources like Litvin, just obviously wrong ones like Serge. Anyway, RfC looks like an interesting place to try. Which section? cwmacdougall 1:20, 17 November 2012
A heads up
Concerning the page at Stephen H. Wendover, I feel you should know that I have requested page protection at WP:RFPP. It's an unpleasant solution to an unpleasant problem, but it may, by forcing demonstration of consensus for any changes, be the most productive way to end the war there. I do apologise if my actions there have made your job more difficult.
If you disagree strongly with the logic of my request or its likely outcome if granted, feel free to decline or remove it from RFPP. --Nouniquenames 06:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the heads up and the apology at the Wendover talk page. Per your authorization, I've removed the RFPP report. My general belief is that full locks on articles are warranted when it's clear there is an intractable content dispute and multiple editors are battling. Here, although there are some sporadic edits by other users, the battle is principally between two users. I don't like to "punish" other users when the dispute is better resolved through warnings and/or sanctions of the involved users. Locking the article would probably make my job easier, but, at least at this point, it seems the wrong way to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Your actions and threats are harmful and of course unfair !
A sockpuppet has nothing to do with me, I have all right like you do to modify an article if it is correctly quoted, you are threatening for totally invalid reasons, and again I ask you to stop. So yes I will modify again this article because it's true what is posted and correctly quoted ! Your actions in the Bourdin's article have been harmful for the article's credibility. So block me if you like but it's my belief that you have no right to do so since I have done nothing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.94.23.111 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Frederic Bourdin' article
Are you inventing new rules for Wikipedia ? Are you going to block everyone that don't agree with you ? I don't see why you keep cancelling changes when the modification are fair and verified. In that same article, Bourdin is quoted by the New yorker, you did not undo that part, why ? Bourdin's grandfather wanted his daughter to abort and it's a well known fact ! It's both in the film the imposter, in the telegraph as well as many other media. This information was in in his grandfather notebook. I don't know what your problem is but you are wrong on this all the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.14.80 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Was I edit warring at Australian Christian Lobby?
Hi Bbb23
I noticed you locked down Australian Christian Lobby in the midst of one my edits. Do you believe I was edit warring? I rearranged some content so that it would be less disjointed. I also did some minor rewording and the small amount of content that I removed was archived on the talk page, with source intact and with an explanation of why I removed it.
If this article is constantly protected, I'm not sure how it will ever get to a point where it can be improved to the satisfaction of consensus. I wonder if there might be better way forward. - MrX 15:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- This article has a contentious history, and I'm not going to get into the content disputes. Since the last lock expired, too many editors have battled in the article. Whether your edits in particular are disputed/controversial would require me to analyze every edit (some are obvious). Don't think of my comments or the lock as an accusation against you personally. Think of it as an opportunity to work out ALL content issues on the talk page and not to resume editing the article after the lock expires without discussion and consensus on the talk page. When the lock expires, think at least three times before editing the article as the risk of blocks remains.
- As for a "better way", what would you suggest?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you in principle, but as per my comment on the article talk page, I think the protection is preventing a breakthrough. I say this based on my involvement with other controversial articles. Eventually, compromises are reached and the article is improved and becomes stable. My suggestion is to semi-protect it for two weeks and enforce 3RR. BTW, I agree that more/better discussion is needed on the talk page, although there is some filibustering which is not so helpful. - MrX 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I commented on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you in principle, but as per my comment on the article talk page, I think the protection is preventing a breakthrough. I say this based on my involvement with other controversial articles. Eventually, compromises are reached and the article is improved and becomes stable. My suggestion is to semi-protect it for two weeks and enforce 3RR. BTW, I agree that more/better discussion is needed on the talk page, although there is some filibustering which is not so helpful. - MrX 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Your edit on my talk page
Do you post this template to everyone who is editing on articles on the conflict in the middle east, or do you have some issue with my attempts to get articles to adhere to wikipedia standards? PerDaniel (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was notifying those who have recently been editing Operation Pillar of Cloud. The effort, which, frankly, is a tedious one, was not necessarily directed at any particular editor (I was picking them off in reverse chronological order). However, I did notice your comment on your talk page about "truth" and "neutral[ity]]". That, coupled with your comment here, gives me some cause for concern. The 1RR restriction, just like the normal 3RR restriction, with limited exceptions, is not concerned with your concept of truth or your concept of neutrality, so I'd tread cautiously.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- So you are simply trying to bully me from contributing. Thanks for beeing so frank. PerDaniel (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, you're welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- So you are simply trying to bully me from contributing. Thanks for beeing so frank. PerDaniel (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Your note on my page
You should take note of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alohamesamis#November_2012 this, before jumping to false conclusions. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Post script: You will need to look at the history because, as before, they have just removed the post. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I can see the history, and it's not pretty. Stop playing policeperson on their talk page. If the user wants to remove your templates, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. For you to insist is inappropriate and can lead to sanctions if you persist.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand fully. However it is not acceptable to read an edit summary calling another editor *a cunt* -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Now you're getting into a different issue from your behavior on the talk page. If you want to take Alohamesamis to WP:ANI based on incivility, that's your prerogative, but I have two comments. First, they were reacting to the "get bent" edit summary by John C. (don't know why it took so long for them to react - it was 10 days prior). Second, requests for civility blocks at ANI generally involve more noise than signal, so be prepared for a lot of pushback and very little satisfaction.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sure! It's not worthy of the time and effort. Thank you for your good advice. I appreciate it. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. User:7&6=thirteen has reported Alohamesamis at WP:AIV for incivility. In my view, it should be declined, but you never know. BTW, just so it's clear, I'm not condoning the comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sure! It's not worthy of the time and effort. Thank you for your good advice. I appreciate it. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Oops
Sorry for the edit conflicts. :)
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, at least we were on the same wavelength. I removed your notice from his talk page, although I kinda liked the color of yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
That '70s Show
Can you elaborate on your concerns about "copyright issues" in the external link removed from the That '70s Show article?--RadioFan (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's the same as linking to YouTube or some other site that has video that may be a copyright violation. There's no indication on the Flickr link that the images are free. In fact, it appears they are not. The first picture in the stream (I didn't bother looking at the rest) says "All Rights Reserved".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
Supposedly someone here claims to work for the "telenovela" industry (even if it's a blatant lie), would that fall under "Conflict of interest"?? Platinum Star (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're going to have to give me a little more information than that. I don't know what editor you're talking about or what article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm referring to this editor. I've warned him several times for posting unsourced info, yet his comments (on the edit summary) seem to imply that his info is always right. Also, his userpage says he "work in telenovela business" and his edits are mainly from telenovela articles. Platinum Star (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just because the editor works for a particular industry does not mean they have a conflict when editing articles related to the industry. Obviously, someone can work in the film industry and edit film articles. Conflicts have to be more direct than that. For example, an editor would have a conflict if they edit an article about a film studio and they work for the studio itself. What all this means is you're going to have to work out any content disputes you have with the editor on a case-by-case basis unless you can establish a clear pattern of misbehavior. Obviously, material added to articles here generally must be sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm referring to this editor. I've warned him several times for posting unsourced info, yet his comments (on the edit summary) seem to imply that his info is always right. Also, his userpage says he "work in telenovela business" and his edits are mainly from telenovela articles. Platinum Star (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
hello
admin attention needed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Gilabrand_reported_by_User:Supreme_Deliciousness_.28Result:_.29 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've commented at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Have replied there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- have replied, --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Have replied there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearing things up with Frederic Bourdin
Hi, Bbb. I'm trying to sort out a rather complicated situation here, and could use your help. The user who got into a whole hissyfit with you over Frederic Bourdin, and who got blocked for repeating a potentially libelous claim that you'd removed about Bourdin's grandfather, calling you an idiot, and making legal threats, has asked several editors, including Jimbo (most notably) and me (most relevantly) to help him. I don't know if this came up before, but he claims to be Bourdin himself, and a geolocation check on the IP he used to use indicates that this is quite likely the case (see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Frederic Bourdin's article for my explanation). To me, it looks like he didn't know about several relevant policies, and while I support the idea of WP:CIR, he seems to get what I'm explaining to him, and I think this might be a case where the best course of action is to give him enough rope.
Obviously he has a major COI, so I've advised him to file a COI edit request, which he appears willing to do. Now, of course, you (or an uninvolved admin, at least) have grounds for a new indefblock and an autoblock in that he's socking, but if he's going to not violate any policies this time around (and I'll gladly take him to ANV if he does), I think this is a solid IAR case, since he could stand to benefit the encyclopedia if he can provide documentation for the assertions he wants to put into the article. At the moment, I'm not sure how to proceed, and as any effective route would require an admin's involvement (either to unblock his old account completely, unblock his old account's access to its talk page so he can file a request, give this new account the go-ahead if it complies with policy, etc.), I was wondering what you'd advise. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have no sympathy for the individual. If you look back at the original problem, he made a legal threat and was blocked for that (and, yes, he claimed to be Bourdin). As far as I know, he has never retracted that threat and on that basis alone should not be permitted to edit here. Since that time, he has repeatedly evaded the block and is apparently doing so again. You might discuss the issues with User:Dennis Brown as Dennis, I believe, took the last administrative actions against him, and Dennis is not involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis appears to be away for Thanksgiving. Any advice on who I should take it to instead? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Smart Dennis. Why don't you give me a bit more information (I'm sure I could figure it out if I were less lazy). What account or IP is raising the current ruckus?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- User:Idontfeelthesame. As I've said, I'd report him for block evasion if I didn't think he had a point. I'm no huge fan of his, and he doesn't exactly have nice things to say about you (I've given him the WP:CIV/WP:AGF speech), but what he says is that the information he wanted to add is true, and verified by reliable sources. And since any editing he'd do now, he'd have to do via {{request edit}}, I think that covers the content side. On the policy side, he said on Jimbo's page that he didn't know about the lawyering rule, and he clearly doesn't know socking policy either, otherwise he wouldn't be, you know, admitting to socking. I've explained COI to him, I can explain WP:SOCK to him for future reference, and content guidelines would come up on the article's talk page. The way I see it, this is an editor who broke policy due to incompetence and clearly only has a single (morally dubious) purpose, but if he'll agree to typical unblocking requirements (reading certain policies, no COI editing, etc.), I don't think he's done anything that warrants continuing the indefblock.
- That's just my two cents. I could be overlooking a policy here, or just being too lenient in my assessment. As for involved-admin status, I don't think there's any rule against your unblocking him, since, even if you weren't the blocking admin, you definitely were in favor of it, and since Dennis is away, an unblocking admin wouldn't be able to ask his opinion regardless; involvement would only be an issue if you were going to deny, in which case I'd find an uninvolved admin who's good at French (so I don't have to re-explain this every time) - any recommendations? I know that Kudpung's fluent, and Drmies might be able to understand it. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 00:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, nothing you've said convinces me that this person should be permitted to edit here. I don't believe this is an issue of incompetence but pure disruption. And it doesn't require an uninvolved admin who's fluent in French, either. If this were a case where there is something in a bio that is harmful to the subject, that would be a different story, but this is all about him wanting to add the stuff about his grandfather. Utter garbage; even if it's true, how the hell is it relevant? Nor do I understand why he's contacting all these different editors with the same diatribe. If you want to go to another admin who's good with socking, you can try User:Berean Hunter; he's also very level-headed. In the meanwhile, I will file an SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm no huge fan of his, so I may decline to proceed on his behalf... we'll see. SPI-wise, do you even need to file a report when he's confessed to it? Here's a diff of him saying it. Since it's in French, the relevant parts are: "je suis bloqué" ("I am blocked") and "Alors a moins que vous preniez sur vous de me débloquer (ce que j'apprecierai vraiment), je veux dire mon vrai profil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Francparler" ("So that, at the very least, you can take it upon yourself to unblock me [he appears to not understand quite how blocking and unblocking work], I'll tell you my real profile: User:Francparler.") — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't feel comfortable blocking him. He should be blocked. Hence, the SPI report - also to document the new puppet. BTW, I'm reasonably fluent in French, although I appreciate the extra efforts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm no huge fan of his, so I may decline to proceed on his behalf... we'll see. SPI-wise, do you even need to file a report when he's confessed to it? Here's a diff of him saying it. Since it's in French, the relevant parts are: "je suis bloqué" ("I am blocked") and "Alors a moins que vous preniez sur vous de me débloquer (ce que j'apprecierai vraiment), je veux dire mon vrai profil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Francparler" ("So that, at the very least, you can take it upon yourself to unblock me [he appears to not understand quite how blocking and unblocking work], I'll tell you my real profile: User:Francparler.") — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, nothing you've said convinces me that this person should be permitted to edit here. I don't believe this is an issue of incompetence but pure disruption. And it doesn't require an uninvolved admin who's fluent in French, either. If this were a case where there is something in a bio that is harmful to the subject, that would be a different story, but this is all about him wanting to add the stuff about his grandfather. Utter garbage; even if it's true, how the hell is it relevant? Nor do I understand why he's contacting all these different editors with the same diatribe. If you want to go to another admin who's good with socking, you can try User:Berean Hunter; he's also very level-headed. In the meanwhile, I will file an SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Smart Dennis. Why don't you give me a bit more information (I'm sure I could figure it out if I were less lazy). What account or IP is raising the current ruckus?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis appears to be away for Thanksgiving. Any advice on who I should take it to instead? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Request for comment
You are receiving this message because you have submitted at least one edit to the Frank_L._VanderSloot article during the past thirty days. Your attention is called to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Get stuffed
![]() |
Happy Thanksgiving |
A big thank you from me to you. little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 05:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC) |
Hey, lgr, happy holidays!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Block change
Hey Bbb23 - I extended your block of Factcolony to indefinite as they claim via UTRS that their account was compromised (by their brother). I noted as such on the talk page. Happy Thanksgiving! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Don't I get the day off? Looks like you "worked" on your Thanksgiving. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi there BBB, i am retired as of the 20th of this month, but could not resist to drop by and leave you this message and/or headsup,
Finally this person got what he deserved, i have been on the receiving end of his antics, calling me a SMART ASS and a WANKER for a minor difference of opinion. This is the comment on the punishment, the headsup: don't know if he has others, but he has also contributed (and shouted at me!) with this IP (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.243.15.177). One also has to "admire" the first message of this archive, titled "Sad man" (the vandal has the guts to call YOU the sad one?!)...
Keep up the good work, glad to (have) be(en) of help --AL (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I confess to being a bit lost as to how you figure into all of this, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- By "how you figure into all of this" you mean "how did you discover the situation"? I hope so, i hope it does not mean "this is none of your business" or i would be deeply sad after only wanting to congratulate you on blocking this person who resorts to picking on/insulting others in summaries or messages, never seen him had a kind word to anyone (as little as "hello" or similar). In case your words mean "how did you find out", it's easy: i checked Banana Fingers' contributions after eyeing an article he/i edited for several months going for the last time, then clicked on his talkpage and discovered he had been blocked by you, so i came here to congratulate on doing what should have been done a long time ago, and to warn you about this other IP Banana has (don't know if he has a static or a dynamic one, if it's static it's pretty obvious he will use it to avoid scrutiny as his account will be "out of order" for 30 days), simple as that; another reason for my message was, i repeat, my direct involvement with this guy in the past, with him insulting me as he has several other users.
In case your words meant "this discussion does not concern you at all, butt out", well excuse me. Reply please as to if your sentiment is A or B. Thanks. --AL (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I meant absolutely nothing negative about you. As you said, I just didn't understand how you came into the picture. Thanks for explaining it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Many many thanks for the quick reply! As i said before keep up the good work(s), and sorry for any misunderstanding on my part due to my message. I will return as an editor most likely (the site is more "good" than it is "bad"), but i will go now on a long wikibreak nonetheless. --AL (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Enjoy your break.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
?
Bbb23, the discussion at AN clearly shows that the rules are valid, and I showed at the report that Gilabrand personally received a warning about the rules, and an admin already notified her about the report I filed: [1], so why havent you taken action against her ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but nothing compels me take action. If you wish, you could update the report at WP:ANEW pointing to the discussion at WP:AN and see if another admin is more receptive to the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Great job! --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a bit surprised and puzzled. I thought you'd be unhappy with my response. What'd I do right? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Great job! --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
ViperSnake151 Talk 03:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks, ViperSnake, there appears to still be disruption on the article. I'll keep it on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Frederic Bourdin
Hi! It might be best if you step back from this one going forward, because his personal animosity towards you appears to be part of the problem. If he's going to end up banned, then it's best that he come to understand that it's for good cause, not because one person has it in for him (which I don't think is true of you, but he thinks it is, and that's relevant). Best to let others evaluate it independently. And save yourself the headache! :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Jimbo, My latest comments at WP:ANI express my current views on the issues here. That may change if the situation changes or if more information is revealed to me, but I have to continue to act as I believe is best, not for the editor, but for the project. A lot of disruptive editors say horrible things about admins (and other editors). We can't let that sort of misplaced venom deter us from doing our "jobs". You may not agree with my views, but I hope you at least understand them. They certainly have nothing to do specifically with this editor. I don't "dislike" him any more than I dislike any editor I feel is a liability to the project because of their conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- You went out of your way to make a very friendly, diplomatic request, and I don't think my response demonstrated any appreciation of that. I haven't changed my position, but the way you approached me is appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red
Is continuing his "ownership by reversion" at Frank L. VanderSloot letting no edits go in other than his own -- which now number nigh unto 400. I think it might be worthwhile for you to look at the underlying WP:BLP issues therein, as RIR seems to think that it is not edit war if he reverts everything in sight <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're very brave, Collect, to continue the battle about this article. I have no desire to become involved. One possibility is to bring RIR to ANI and ask for an article ban, assuming you think it's justified (I haven't looked enough). I don't know if any other editors should also be article-banned; the article is a continuing maelstrom of disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my talk page. This was a tricky situation, because the IP editor was obviously acting in good faith. In fact, this comment you made was not quite fair, since they had added not only content, but references. It did seem, however, that they didn't understand much about Wikipedia - it was possible that they didn't know why their edits weren't "sticking". As to my part in this, I have commented on the noticeboard, for wha it's worth. But thanks for your help. StAnselm (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've commented at the IP's talk page, and I've responded to your comment at WP:ANEW. I'd appreciate it if you would continue the dialog at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I will say something more here, since you had used the word "gently". The wording and the picture of the dove didn't do very much for me, because of the bad blood that has existed between MrX and myself in recent months. Anyway, I thought I was being careful, and was very surprised this morning to find that I had been reported. At this point in time, I find it hard to accept on face value MrX's comment that he would "hate to see anyone blocked". StAnselm (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, that comment was an edit conflict - I didn't see the "continue the dialog at WP:ANEW" bit. StAnselm (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Zakir Naik Religion?
Hello, Several Wikipedians doubted about his school of teachings and that's why I changed it to Muslim. He never uttered Salafi as his belief. Even the reference attached with his belief is totally irrelevant.I urge you to discuss this matter with me. Shah-E-Zaman (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGzsWRLYf9M
Bbb23 the cunt
Bbb23 you are issued from a cunt family, you are a bitch. And hell is coming, and I'm coming with it ;)--37.8.170.180 (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)