User talk:B

File:StrikeSignalFlags.jpg

Please review this FUR and use in James G. Howes. May want to look at thread on WT:SCOUT too. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but from looking at the article, how do you know the cartoon is lampooning him? Something like that needs to be verified. --B (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He's the one that sent it to me. He was manager of the airport (see dates) and heavily involved in Scouts. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mail call. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Move of iOS (Apple)

When you move an article with a talk history, please also check the archiving templates on the talk page and adapt them. They have the talk page name in their configs. I already fixed Talk:iOS (Apple).--Oneiros (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The ANI

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For your civil and helpful comments on our dispute. Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·_Talkback_· 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Tag-prod removed-description

Hi. Your input is requested. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 19:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Closure of AFD for that Antarctica micronation hoax article

B, is it just me or is there something different about {{at}} from previous? Or is it hte format change that WP went through recently? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks all right to me, but it's probably been over a year since I've closed an AFD. If there is something I didn't do right, please feel free to fix it. --B (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like all you changed was to eliminate some whitespace. --B (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, B, I hope you are doing well. :) Thanks for your comment, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination). FYI, someone has replied to you, at the AFD page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Trouble with another editor

Hi B, You recently warned an editor about incivility (here). Because I saw that this editor was giving another editor a similar hard time and making similar edit war threats (here), I posted this to the third editor's talk page. Unfortunately, this set-off the warned editor. He has made nearly a dozen edits to the other editors talk page, so far (here) and has pasted the same edits to my talk page in several edits (here). Would you mind send along another word to him asking that he tone things down. I'd welcome any other suggestion, too. Thank you! Novaseminary (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

to B:...

thank you for your concern and consideration to this matter. And I agree largely with your assessments and points, but I have to say too, that it's not always so black and white, and while I understand your point about "personal attacks" sometimes life has it where things need to be stated bluntly and tell what's really going on. Especially if there's been a pattern of border-line harassment, second-guessing just about EVERYTHING, and other things. (I've tried to be civil and polite with him a number of times, but to no avail.) Also, there's the point that Nova does personally attack but on a way more SUBTLE AND SLY way that is hidden better, and tends to maybe fool people on the surface. The guy now is stalking me, and "watching" over me, with matters with other editors that are not even his business. Borderline harassment now. So it's not always easy to talk "solely" about the edit matters, when this guy is NOT just about that, but IS about personal issues.

look at what he did here just today as an example, to get me in more trouble. He wrote to you complaining about me writing on his talk page today BECAUSE HE CHIMED IN ON A MATTER THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM, with this other editor on the Christopher Columbus article, about a disagreement about a photo removal. If he can write junk about me on someone's talk page where there's an issue between me and another editor, then I have a right to put on Nova's talk page that it's wrong and how I feel. I was re-editing what I wrote, because there were other things that I left out that I wanted to say that he never read. (I try to contribute effectively and professionally and boldly to Wikipedia, and I have, for quite a while now...in various ways....on HUNDREDS of articles, and I've created a few. My goal is to bring good info, remove vandalism, remove POV, and contribute something meaningful. People like Nova sometimes make things demoralizing and discouraging.) But the point is that my thing with MG (which was NO violation, but simply telling him that I think it was spiteful of him to try to get a photo deleted from WP simply cuz he didn't want it on a specific article), was not really Nova's business. It's like the guy won't leave me alone. He wrote negative stuff on Mg's talk to simply HURT ME. It becomes apparent now that Nova is GOADING me to provoke to me go off to get me in trouble. (if you can't see that, at least to some degree, then I seriously question the reliability of the whole process, and those who oversee it....to be honest. Even though I know that nothing is perfect every second.)

He meddled in on a matter with an editor that has ZERO to do with anything with Nova, AT ALL. But because I'm on Nova's watchlist, and he's basically stalking me now (whether you agree with that word or not, it is what it is), he wants to find ANYTHING to chime in on to get me in some kind of trouble or build matters up worse, and stir things. Columbus picture dispute. No business of Nova's, yet Nova put his two cents and brought up my issues with "edit war" or "blocks". The guy is STALKING me and what I do, and is making things difficult, and it's bordering on harassment, which is against WP policy. It's getting CREEPY what he's doing with me now. Having me on his watchlist no doubt, and butting in on business that is not really his. The photo dispute with MG is between HIM AND ME, not Nova.

He DOES have personal issues against me, and his sole pattern and goal with me is to have me kicked off of WP. For real or imagined infractions, big or small. Conveniently leaving things out, being petty, bringing up things to simply get a person in trouble, exaggerating things, omitting other things, and never admitting his own flaws one iota. He made it personal first, not me. Believe that. thanks for your attention though to this matter. Sweetpoet (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Guys, both of you need to disengage. Novaseminary, don't go to Special:Contributions/Sweetpoet and don't provoke him by "informing" other users about him. Mgiganteus1 has been here since 2006 and is capable of researching Sweetpoet's history or responding to him as needed without your assistance. Sweetpoet, stop flying off the handle every time Novaseminary interacts with you. It takes two to tango. Either one of you could choose right now that you are going to end it. Both of you, in this case, were in the wrong - Novaseminary for butting in and Sweetpoet for responding as you did - and both of you need to stop it. You're going to come into contact with each other on articles from time to time, but you can keep discussions off of each other's talk pages, keep them on article talk pages, and keep them focused on the articles themselves, not on personalities. If both of you don't choose to disengage and tone it down, it's only going to escalate to the point where both of you are banned. --B (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Mea culpa: for some reason, I forgot to do this, even though you'll notice that I added the result to the automatically generated part of the edit summary so that anyone clicking on the section link of the edit summary in a watchlist would get straight to the "retitled" (or not) section. That's what comes of trying to be too clever, you forget to take the initial basic step! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 15:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you for your consideration in the matter. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --B (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment by Taric25

User:Taric25 is currently harrassing me. It started when I simply disagreed with his edit warring complaint regarding Active Banana. You denied the complaint, which you correctly did. On that same complaint page, he fights back by complaining that I don't write summaries in any of my edits. I replied back saying basically that hardly anyone makes summaries on very simple edits, and I did make one snard remark to make things even. He writes on my Talk page asking for an apology, and I told him he drew first blood. Now, he's editing my user page, saying that it is an attack page. It is not an attack page. One, both users have been banned from Wikipedia for the things I mentioned on my page. And two, it serves a examples for me of confrontations I've faced in the past. I want this user to stop bothering me, and to go on and attend to other issues that need attention. This guy is extremely over-sensative. I don't want to file this report and that report just yet. I just need and admin like yourself to tell this user to stop stalking me. Groink (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Wetcloth20

His block has been lifted, and it looks like Wetcloth20 (talk · contribs) is continuing to ignore the manual of style and already starting to edit war again over my his undoing his inappropriate use of a table format for a cast list at The King and the Clown and changing a heading at Im Su-jeong. I left him a warning and pointed him to WP:MOSFILM on his talk page, but he is continuing his reverting and claiming he will "report me" for cleaning up behind him. Can you take a look? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use rollback for anything other than simple vandalism or other permitted purposes. Regarding this particular change, where in MOSFILM is it addressed? --B (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, where is it addressed? I originally saw that "Im a Cyborg but thats OK" had tables so I thought "King and the clown" ought to have it too. Wetcloth20 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus of the film project is very clear that tables should not be used for cast lists. If it can't be written as a proper prose casting section, it should be a simple list, and more ideally just merged into the plot section. I've fixed WP:FILMCAST to better clarify this per Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(film)/Archive_6#Tables, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines/Archive_2#Cast_lists, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_20#Cast_section, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_26#Tables_in_casts. And frankly, from this and his AIV report, it seems like Wetcloth20 just wants to avoid scrutiny after his previous disruptions and dismissal of our manuals of style and the words of experienced editors. And you were told in my first revert that it was not correct, but rather than accept the correction, you just reverted and continued to argue. As a note, you mentioned to him to ask editors from Project Films, which I AM, I am even a coordinator for the project. I am one of several editors who wrote the current Manual of Style, so I do speak as someone who knows how a film article should be formatted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you freaking kidding me? All I did was remove the word "nominations"? Wetcloth20 (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is repeatedly doing it. Please see WP:BRD. When an edit you make is reverted, the proper course of action is to discuss it, not to make it again. --B (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The section is not limited to awards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yodel Australia

Hello B, Thanks very much for the review. I have really tried hard to make the sources for this article as reliable as possible.

There are many sources that are completely about the company in the newspapers. fulfilNET is the parent company of Yodel. See the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th & 11th sources. They are primarily about fulfilNET or Yodel. Also I have had other reviews by Qwerp, see User_talk:QwerpQwertus#Yodel_Australia. He would like it to be put live. Please let me know what you think. I have really really tried to make this information as reliable as possible. This is my first Wikipedia article and I appreciate any help that you can offer me. Thanks - Natkolk (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Please try to keep the discussion in one place. --B (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No Easter Bunny?

Dude, that's harsh. Of course there's an Easter bunny; Santa told me so. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fiction written as reality is one of my annoyances on Wikipedia. Pictures don't show a fictional character - they show the actor portraying the fictional character. The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and Captain Kirk do not exist. --B (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Fort Weaver Road

Whoops; pardon my mistake. However, would you object to the page being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickm93 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no preference one way or the other. If you would like to have it deleted, you can use the {{subst:prod}} tag, which will open a one-week period during which users can object to its removal. If a user objects, you can nominate it at Articles for deletion. --B (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No-star barnstar

(for editors too lazy to subst in the template)...

I found this[1] very funny, as well as helpful. Thanks for bringing some good cheer to the project. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

your recent block.

You recently blocked User:Hkwon for violating the 3RR on a talk page, with a few hours of the block expiring, the user is straight back to edit warring on an article that he is been damn close to breaking 3RR on a number of occasions. As I type this message, he has not broken 3RR (he is currently on 3 reverts within 24 hours) - perhaps as the blocking admin, it might be a good idea to give a damn stern warning, before this results in another 3RR report and a longer block for the user.

the article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimchi&action=history

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a different page than he was blocked for and he hasn't reverted since early this morning (14 hours ago). I'm not inclined to reblock unless it resumes. The dish looks delicious, though. Also, unless there is something that requires specialized knowledge that any admin looking at it couldn't determine, it's best to keep the request on WP:AN3 so that it will preclude any accusation that one admin "has it out" for him. --B (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

User UnclePaco

Hello, B.

You were involved in the investigation of the user UnclePaco two years ago. I've recently accused him of operating a sockpuppet, user CashRules. But an admin expressed doubt about the way the UnclePaco case was resolved. Would you comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnclePaco, please? Thank you. SamEV (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. --B (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. SamEV (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good case. But what more should I do to strengthen it, if anything? SamEV (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. The new checkuser process makes no sense whatsoever to me. With the old one, you added your diffs and the checkuser was done. There was no debate. There was no defense. Either the checkuser confirmed the suspicion or they didn't. There might have been a backlog just because there were only one or two active checkusers, particularly after Essjay left since he was doing a lionshare of the work, but there wasn't a lengthy debate. Just a cursory glance at their contributions makes it obvious they are the same. They both use lower case "3rr" [2][3]. Neither of them knows how to make an internal link in an edit summary. [4][5]. The user began his editing history by reverting back to a [version of the article from August 2007 very similar to this August 2007 one by self-identified UnclePaco IP 64.131.205.111 (talk · contribs). The IP user admits at [6] that he is UnclePaco. CashRules is either very unlucky to have picked that version out of a hat to revert to or he is UnclePaco. The contributions alone more than confirm it. I have no idea what in the world more needs to be done to get a checkuser to bless it. --B (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure this is part of the checkuser process? Elockid told me that "Unfortunately, the socks of UnclePaco seem to have gone stale, so checkuser won't really be helpful unless you suspect that CashRules as other socks around. For now, I'd recommend filing an SPI case without checkuser." So that's what I did. That means the're won't be a checkuser in this case?

Those diffs are excellent. They'll be part of the new evidence I'll add tonight or tomorrow.

And that's right! Their DDP versions are identical with the sole difference being the image, which is not in the second version (diff of the two versions).

So not only does CashRules return to a favorite article of user UnclePaco's, but to the same starting version of UnclePaco's! SamEV (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I read that you couldn't reference wikipedia as a source. So that is why I placed it in the edit summary. [7] SamEV reverts everything I place in. I didn't want to give him another reason to revert it. He found one anyway. [8] As you can see here I know how to place in references (this was the previous edit) [9]. CashRules (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)