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.

Please check out [1] now— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Sobchak0 (talk • contribs) 21:49 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You should tell to King of Hearts that you haven't blocked Siddheart for sock puppetry, but for edit warring. Report link. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you came to me about this. Spike Wilbury blocked the listed puppet for sock puppetry. I wasn't involved and don't know whom he had in mind as the master. King of Hearts can easily see the basis for my block of Siddheart and its duration. He didn't change that. If you're concerned about the sanctions or the closure of the report, you should approach one or both of those two administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bbb23. Siddheart (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently deleted 57th Berlin International Film Festival due to Wikipedia:CSD but it is an important subject with lots of details and reliable references available for it. Shouldn't we improve this article instead of deleting it. Really like to know your answer on this. Regards--Jockzain (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also like to know why you deleted this article. Guoguo914 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it had no references in it, only self-published external links, although references aren't necessary to withstand a speedy delete tag. It basically had just a few things in it: (1) the members of the jury, (2) the contestants, and (3) the fact that it happened. That ain't much to demonstrate a credible claim of significance. Perhaps the best thing in it were the films in competition, but, curiously, it didn't even have who won what award - despite the fact that it has existed since 2010. If you wish, Jockzain, I'll WP:USERFY it for you so you can improve it and move it back to article space. Let me know. Looks like some of the other annual film festivals have articles, too, and suffer from the same defects - but they weren't tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am willing to work on this article. Let me know as soon as you WP:USERFY it.--Jockzain (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's now at User:Jockzain/57th Berlin International Film Festival. Enjoy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting that out, Bbb23. Yes, it does look pretty poor now I can see what state it was in! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added award section with reference and some details about the festival with reference. I have moved it back to it's place. Thanks for your time and help.--Jockzain (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better to me. If it's tagged again (seems unlikely), I'll let another administrator evaluate it. If you have some time, you might want to work on the other articles by year. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I had tagged the article. Bbb23 did an excellent job, in explaining why he deleted it, in capturing why I tagged it. As to why I didn't tag all such articles at once, given that many suffered from the same malady (as pointed out), it was so that before I did so (given that there is no deadline) interested editors could have a chance to observe the problem, which is what happened. Before going through the possibly needless steps with all the other articles of deletion and userfication and improvement through reflecting a credible claim of significance. Given that I expect this series of articles will be improved, I'll certainly not tag them myself in the immediate future. Good work here by all. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am going to work on similar articles like that. But it will take time because there are large number of them. But I will improve them as much as I can.--Jockzain (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Good luck. All the best. Epeefleche (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the AN3 report for him trying to figure out if he was indeed edit warring... I'd just worked out that yes, he was warring when I discovered you'd blocked him already. So it looks like we've switched from last day when I did the blocking during your investigation. :) Tabercil (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we'll get to know each other this way by overlapping. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please I need your help now. A user has reported me for being sock puppet. what should i do? I am not a sock...... will you please help me now? I am asking you as a friend if you consider me. Thanks. Siddheart (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you with the socking issue. You posted a message at the report itself (even though it's closed). No one has blocked you for being a sock. As far as I can tell, the clerk did not make a determination that you were a sock. If you want to understand more about the status of the allegation, I suggest you talk to King of Hearts, the administrator/clerk who closed the report. In the meantime, the best thing you can do for yourself at Wikipedia is to behave properly, interact civilly with other editors, and avoid disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Drmies - What was the point in locking the article? I see no chance that the editor I reported is going to change his approach. Did you read his edit summaries and his talk page? Drmies is right, this makes us look as though we are like Yatzek. And did you see the SPI report he raised?[2] Obviously neither of us are going to leave Wikipedia, but I have seen editors leave or at least withdraw from articles because of actions such as this one. I'm a decent editor, I try my very best not to break the rules, Drmies is also, and now we can't improve the article because of an editor warrior who is trying to add racialist anthropology nonsense to an article against consensus at the talk page of the article? I'm sure you thought this was the right thing to do, but could I please beg you to reconsider? The SPI alone should convince you that locking it just stops good editors from working on it and only postpones the problem for a week. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, hopefully you've seen the dialog at AN3 and at least understand what I did wrong. I didn't respond here sooner because, frankly, I expected the user to be blocked for other reasons independent of the report, thus making the report moot. That hasn't happened ... yet. Anyway, to the extent you feel even a little slighted after my explanation, paint me as chastened.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this response. It did actually make me feel a bit "what's the point" - you know what a strain editing can be, and I seem to be involved too often in nationalistic/racist/ethnic etc areas where the environment is less than pleasant. Your response does help. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know getting involved in controversial areas of the project can often be frustrating, but it's thanks to editors like you that someone tries to keep some order to those articles. I admire you for it. If you're feeling put-upon (understandable), by all means take a break from it, but please don't give up on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't like to give up on things or run from them, so I doubt very much anything but incapacity or a huge change in the project will keep me away. Even though I approach some issues with dread. :-) Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23, @Doug — Sorry to change subject on you, but catching you both on same page at same time is something of a dream opportunity. Have a quick look here [3], and here [4]. At the Amazon page, click on the small purple link (back cover image) immediately below the orange book image that is prominent on page left. Backstory, nutshell, I went looking to see what WP had developed on Karl Popper, and specifically on his Conjectures volume. On reading the short WP article, the second paragraph (now in block quote) struck me as having a distinctly different voice than the first paragraph (frankly, second paragraph was better quality writing), and it seemed familiar. On a hunch I grabbed an appropriate segment of the WP text, and simply google searched it (no formal academic tools used). Immediately, the back cover text cropped up, making clear someone had plagiarized the whole back cover content of the Routledge volume, all but verbatim (one puffery-type word deleted). So, I converted the second paragraph into a block quote. And there it stands.

Bottom line question, what is one formally to do in such a case? I have never seen a "plagiarism suspected" tag or the like. Where and how does one bring such things forward? (Who tracks plagiarism accusations and resolutions?) If there is no current protocol, what existing course or mechanism could be used as a stop-gap? Finally, if there is no course, how does one initiate such—what is the course for significant change of process, in an area with COPYVIO and other legal ramifications? RSVP here, thanks. We can insert a section heading between this new Talk and the foregoing, if you wish. (PS, wrote embarrassingly curt Talk entry in response; this stuff angers me; [5].) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272:Sorry to be slow in responding. This was really straight copyvio so far as I can see. So WP:COPYVIO covers it. There are templates for this as well as Twinkle's tags and all of these and noticeboards, plagiarism, etc are mentioned at WP:COPYVIO. Post to my talk page if you need to know more, or ask User:Moonriddengirl if you think change is needed. Interestingly enough I looked at Popper's article and realised it had a lot more about the book than that pretty pathetic article, so I've turned it into a redirect. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and apologies again for the delay in replying. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where would I go to bring attention to long term abuse by an IP editor? The editor has been vandalizing P. J. Patterson for months now. See User_talk:50.30.49.20. Ping me in reply to get my attention please. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They just violated the 4th warning so I guess AIV will handle it. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Whoosh, I'm kind of pissed of because I just spent time with another admin to restore it. Please discuss with another admin User:RHaworth and restore it, he just reviewed the page. There is a clear lack of communication from you admin, you click on the delete button really quickly without discussing to anyone, that's complete lack of respect for contributors. TomT0m (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @TomT0m: perhaps I did not make things clear. There was absolutely no point in reposting the same unreferenced text - you were expected to improve the article before reposting. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @RHaworth: I did, I added the references that proved admissibility. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, what is the point of writing an admissible article without allowing other users to contribute ? Are not beginning of articles allowed on Wikipedia now ? This is absolutely not the spirit I like. Or no deletion is more valuable than creation. And individual work is more valuable than collaborative one. Can I at least recieve the deleted text to work it elsewhere with other people ? Every admin should do that, this would make them work a little bit more before pressing a delete button to save the encyclopedia from contributions. TomT0m (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You would get further with less aggression. Still, if you want me to move the article to your user space, I will. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I claim the right to protest. In fact I don't contribute a lot in enwiki, and I'm here following a topic do you contribute to Wikipedia ? on a french communautary website. Someone commented "I did but one of my article was just deleted, this refreshed me a lot and I stopped". As I don't really know well the english project, I decided to investigate and to see if it was not an overeaction, and tried to see what I could do here with a little chatting. So I try to see what the procedure is, and I try to chat with RHaworth, because it's a policy and because I think can little chat can smooth a lot things. So, I do everything in the rules, and he sent me the text and say the spam immediate deletion claim he did earlier was too much. I recreate the article adding references and notify the original author the article was recreated (he may work on it if wants to) ... The next day I discovered on the same chat the article was deleted again ! On the french forum, I have not even been notified here the article I created was deleted !

  So this might be in line with administrators here, I am still pissed. I tried to chat, I barely have has a result an admin who just click delete without doing the same, like a click on the "spam" button on a mail client. I don't know if you realize how violent and dissimetric it is. Contributors should have lawyers :). A newcomer welcomed like that won't become a contributor for sure. I demonstrated Willingness to talk, my answer is totally appropriate.

  In the end, we have an admissible subject, a willingful contributor, and an article without any chance to be bettered by community because he is silently without talking deleted. I understand better some of the person in the chat who said it was really hard to contribute to Wikipedia nowdays and stopped. If you don't know what to do, nobody will communicate and explain what you did wrong. This is a problem for a project who rely on willingfulness. TomT0m (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You have a right to protest, and if it makes you feel better to vent, more power to you, but if you want to make progress here, you'll have to lose the attitude. So, putting your protest aside for the moment (some of it I understand and some of it, unfortunately, I can't follow, probably because of the language barrier), please address the last two sentences of my previous comment. If you want to give up, that's up to you. If you want to work on the article, I can move it to your user space. Again, please don't go off on a tangent. Just tell me what you want me to do at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point I'd be happy if you recognized that there might be a problem in the way you handle things here and that maybe change are to be made. As I said I'm not really here to work myself on the article, although I did add sources, but more to understand how some good faith contributors actually stopped contributing. I think I understood. You actually ask a lot of a contributor. He REALLY has a lot to do to prove its willingness, almost to beg. Considering I do not really want to work on this article myself as I on't know the subject, I won't ask you to send me the article. It's to easy to just push a delete button and wait for the user to beg to retrieve the text so that he and others can work on the text. There is a lot of collateral damages and this imply to lose good contributors. When you admin delete some article, and I understand it's your job, the author and contributors should be notified and provided with options to go on without having to be pissed, then calm of, then beg. I heard there is a Draft space here, why did we not even speak of it ? I think this option should have been provided to me, why did not this happens ??? These are real questions, and not me beeing aggressive. I'm not nice probably here, but not aggressive. TomT0m (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not interested in such a discussion. On your talk page is a Welcome message. One of the links is to WP:Q. Perhaps one of the forums listed on that page will be helpful to you. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You should, that's your job. Who really has an attitude ? TomT0m (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is apparently operating now as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.191.188.170. If it is obvious please block the IP and if not let me know and I will have to file an SPI. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious, Brewcrewer. I've blocked the IP for a week and increased the block duration of the master to two weeks from today. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I consider G30 sufficiently notable that an executive director of it is very likely to be notable, and will be working on it; I therefore reverted the redirect. What really needs attention is the main article. I'll be trying to do that also. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding why you described my edit changing the term "marched" to "frog marched" as unhelpful vandalism. At the time of Wigton's arrest numerous media outlets used the term "frog marched" to describe the circumstances surrounding Wigton's arrest. To say someone was "marched" can be interpreted in a number of ways, soldiers march onto the battle field, celebrants march in parades. In this case Giuliani deliberately had this man arrested in front of colleagues, was handcuffed and frog marched out to maximize his public humiliation. By leaving out the word frog, the impact is lost. Following is a quote from thecrimereport.com about Giuliani and his use of perp walks to shame people, I think it explains it well.

"Giuliani also helped pioneer the use of perp walks for white-collar criminals, who were accustomed to more genteel treatment.

In 1987, Richard Wigton, an executive at Wall Street’s Kidder, Peabody, was frog-marched out of his 18th-floor office in handcuffs for alleged insider trading. He was in tears as he faced a media phalanx outside.

Giuliani called the arrest “a lesson to people who want to be millionaires in their 30s.”

After nearly three years of twisting in the wind, Wigton was cleared when the investigation was trash-canned. But Wigton was ruined. Near the end of his life, in 2006, he described himself as “a victim of Giuliani’s ambition.” Parnellg (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parnellg (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, you're talking about an edit and revert that occurred six months ago. Second, the cited sources do not support the term you want to use. If you can find a reliable source that supports it (not thecrimereport.com), fine, but it's a specific kind of march and probably not applicable here. I do agree, though, that it's not vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy notification, I made reference to one of your deletions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion of articles about music and film festivals and would welcome your perspective there. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what you mean by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cherryholmes_III%3A_Don%27t_Believe&diff=612049853&oldid=612030649 basless tag? The article is pretty much non-notable, and it should be deleted according to A1. WooHoo! • Talk to BrandonWu! 03:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BrandonWu, if you think that article should be deleted per WP:CSD#A1, then you should not be tagging articles for deletion. I see you tagged it for deletion again, and this time it was declined by WilyD. If you keep doing that sort of thing, you risk being blocked for disruptive tagging. You're young and inexperienced at Wikipedia (at least based on this account). Perhaps you should take more time to learn speedy deletion policy before tagging articles. If you have specific questions, I'm happy to answer them, but first read the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even I won't nominate it for anything and I nominate a lot of stuff for XFD, and the reason I won't: It won an award, which to my mind is a pass of WP:NALBUM.--Launchballer 14:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Launchballer - If it won an award, why isn't that mentioned in the article? Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he means nominated.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have meant nominated; I read the article far too quickly. Now actively considering sending to AfD.--Launchballer 14:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there is obviously a difference. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I see you were the one who deleted ဂၽြန္ဂို and indeffed JohnGo333. The article has been recreated by Johngosoeya3d, and Discospinster has deleted it and userfied it to User:Johngosoeya3d/ဂၽြန္ဂို. I can't see the Burmese letters, but I note there were also Jon Ko and User:JohnGoFight, although there seem to be multiple birth dates involved, and that the new account has also created an unsubmitted draft at Draft:John Go. I was thinking of starting an SPI, but I have to go to work soon and frankly this makes my head swim with the differences between versions. What do you think - block evasion, or are there two non-notable John Gos being promoted? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth hurting your head and trying to figure out the details. The new account is indeffed. I've blocked accounts as an SPI clerk with far less evidence than this. I've also deleted all the pages he created. Thanks for tipping me off.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop in at A Voice for Men, I'm not going to argue that the existing article was a bastion of NPOV, but the recent edits and edit warring by an IP are not helping the article in any shape or form. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I had to block both of you for violating WP:1RR on the article. It's never a good idea to warn and report someone for possible sanctions when you yourself have violated the policy. I blocked the IP for twice as long because their editing was significantly more disruptive than yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi Bbb23 - you asked me to inform you if I saw any activity from Lgfcd's IPs. All three of the following IPs lit up over the last three days: 200.219.132.103, 200.219.132.104, and 200.219.132.105. Kyteto (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyteto, all three IPs have been blocked before for two weeks, two by me and one by another administrator. I've reblocked all three, this time for three months. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor of this page wrote the following: "This needs to be referenced to a reliable secondary source, not to Bryant's book itself. Tom Harrison Talk 13:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)"

In accordance with the editor's directive, I'm using a secondary source that was peer-reviewed and published by a prominent international publisher. I'm also using the word alleged, so I'm not in violation of defamatory content. Indeed, I'm discussing the decision of a U.S. District Court Judge.

I'm adhering to the editor's directives, so your erasure of the content I added is contravening the editor of the page.Nick 19:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickBryant (talk • contribs)

After reverting this: File:MGSV Ground Zeroes boxart.jpg, I've noticed a pattern. There appears to be a connection: [6], [7] « Ryūkotsusei » 16:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a cursory review, and I can't follow it well enough to block. You could reopen the SPI (you'd have to provide more diffs than you've done here) and someone would then look at it. You could try providing more diffs here, but I don't promise anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just FYI, the user above, who you just blocked as a "vandalism-only account" is indeed that, but is also the latest incarnation of sock master Daffyduck1234. I've been alerting DoRD to the socks, which come at a regular rate and edit a pretty tightly defined suite of articles. I've assembled a list of their known socks here, as preparation for putting together an LTA page. BMK (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to give me some diffs connecting CV to something confirmed, I'll tag the account. Otherwise, I'll let DoRD take care of it. Either way, thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, just being blocked is sufficient, thanks. BMK (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just checked and DoRD changed it to a checkuser block. BMK (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't DoRD great? I don't know what I'd do without him. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find this remark offensive and not in spirit of AGF/CIVIL. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please review and allow to create the article Gladson samuel ES samuels.gladson (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I not only deleted it, I prevented it from being recreated. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is a fair version. I don't know why Hell in bucket removed stuff from there, and your edit recovered a typo(I had talked to bushranger about that), it also removed some recently discussed material. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "discussion" was not useful. Let it be. Is the typo yours? If not, forget it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mine though. Ball is in your court, I had my revert. Are you free enough for protecting a page? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you and left in the typo fix. Now you can stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I had no problem like I added before. I guess I didn't explained my previous request that well, I actually wanted protection for the article, Potential superpower. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record my removal was the mistaken block notice and one of a spi notice [[8]]. I had previously been unaware that there was a dispute between others I just saw it when I was checking if I clicked alert the editor button. The issue is resolved but User:OccultZone I'm curious what exactly was unfair about removing a duplicate block notice [[9]] for a banned user. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: Their issue, some people add template for making it easier. Templates are sometimes automated, and they don't include the extended explanation. I don't know if anything is wrong with removing double notices but I would've contacted the block poster. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something funny is going on at List of outlaw motorcycle clubs... a bot appears to have reverted your pp template. You might want to have a look. — Brianhe (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe, thanks for taking the trouble to alert me, but it's not what you think. I added semi-protection to the article. In so doing, I removed pending changes. The bot removed the pending changes template, which was the correct thing to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]