User talk:Bbb23: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s). Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

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

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

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

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

Hi Bbb23

I was surprised and disappointed by your revert[1] of my small enhnacement to {{Sockpuppet category}}, so I have opened a discussion at Template talk:Sockpuppet#Sockpuppet_categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bbb23,

I am a Presidency member of the political party United for Macedonia. That means that I know what I am changing here. In my language, it is not transcripted Boskoski, but Boshkoski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionmindMKD (talk • contribs) 23:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LionmindMKD: I have reverted you again and left you a warning on your Talk page. First, you have a WP:COI and shouldn't even be editing the article. Second, you cannot add material that is unsourced to the article, and all of the material you inserted is unsourced. Finally, and most important, the material you added about the president of the party's alleged arrest is a WP:BLP violation. Don't touch the article again.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The protection on the page Eddie Vedder was expected to be expiring at 21st February but hasn't expired till now. Please go and fix the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A71D:3ADB:0:0:7AD:88B1 (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a "problem".--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why you don't wish to be called a Dude? I think dude is a good word for addressing. Is this because it is a slang or informal word? Another thing how about calling you Pal? Are you female?
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^☎ 16:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can call me Sire. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re more of a “Buddy” than a “Dude”, Bbb. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over time I've grown fond of "Bbb"; not sure who started using it first (Drmies?), no doubt to save typing, but it's mostly used now by Wikipedia friends in an affectionate manner. I don't think of myself as a warm and fuzzy guy, so it's refreshing. As my mother used to say when I was a kid and I said I didn't care if so-and-so didn't like me, "everyone wants to be liked." Wise lady, my mother.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I shouldn't tell you that you are often referred to as "the Beebs" on IRC.^{please don't block me} Praxidicae (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "do" IRC. Would that I had as much money as Justin, but I think that temperamentally we aren't too much alike. I wonder if he likes opera. I thought the Beebs was reserved for Beeblebrox.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Masumrezarock100, no one should be called "dude" unless it is by someone who knows them really well and knows they're OK with it. "Beebs" is, indeed, Beeblebrox, as far as I'm concerned. Who is, as far as I'm concerned, a really good guy and, possible, "dude" to some people. Bbb, I hope your mother is alive, well, and in good health. If she is, please tell her I'm proud of her for raising her boy right. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, directly adressing someone as "dude" is perfectly acceptable in southern California and nowhere else. It's still better than "bruh" though. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having lived in southern Califonia, I would say that calling someone dude is common, not necessarily acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've opened a case about this. Can you help me? things are getting out of hand with them. They speak the same way and have some sort of a political agenda (historical revisionism perhaps). Barjimoa (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See if I'm wrong.thank you. Barjimoa (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty confident about it tho. Barjimoa (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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