Jump to content

User talk:Bbb23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


User Ninne manne

Hello - I see that you have been dealing with user Ninnemanne; I wanted to bring user Ninne manne to your attention, who I think is a sockpuppet of the former. And actively trying to create the same article Draft:Sandeep Valluri, though not hugely successfully. I have already reported it to SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ninnemanne. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) As the scent of DUCK is in the air, I think I'll go ahead and block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just not fast enough. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hello Bbb23! I'm 23r2, and I recently received a WP:SD for my page 'Juesao Junior Military Program'. Obviously, I completely understand the edit made, for I hadn't given any proof/reason, and I am just wondering if there was any way I could improve it to a state where it could be published? Thanks, 23r2 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was unsourced, and I could not independently find that the so-called program exists, which is why I deleted it as a hoax. You can't "publish" hoaxes; doing so is considered vandalism, and you risk being blocked for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, of course, as mentioned, understood, any way I could improve it to get it published? 23r2 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TPA

Hi Bbb23. Could you revoke talk page access for Fajliarabby? They spammed their talk page after you blocked them. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One another subject: Dude, I'd just written a killer response on the DRV. Rejected! BusterD (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I got my shoulder replaced this week and my one-handed typing needs improvement. Activist (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had trouble believing it was intentional. Sorry about your shoulder.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G11

Out of interest, why was the G11 declined (for The Misguided)?

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Axad12: It's not irredeemably " exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". Some clean up is all it would need. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you.
Can I request clarification on one point, albeit that it was not relevant to the decision here? In my admittedly limited experience of speedy deletion requests it seems that some users are prepared to authorise speedy deletion of material in draftspace and some users are not. Is this just a question of the luck of the draw (in terms of who deals with a request) or is there some underlying policy issue which I'm failing to grasp and which therefore looks like inconsistency due to a misunderstanding on my part?
Any help on this point would be much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Axad12: I have stricter criteria for G11's that some (most?). Bbb23 is more insightfully incisive/decisive than I. There is a wide range of admin discretion at work, so sometimes it does depend on who sees it first, though I do not generally decline myself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say though that I don't care where the promotional content is. If it meets my criteria, I will delete it, though I only do one iteration. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fair amount of discretion on G11s, but mostly on the gray ones. I don't think this particular one was gray at all; indeed, I thought it was relatively well written.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Axad12, that's a G11 that will most likely be declined by every admin, including me. Please keep that in mind when you put things up for speedy deletion. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify...
I nominated the article under G11 as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", which it seemed to me was in accordance with the recent result of the declined AfC which described the draft as "reading like an advertisement".
While accepting that the text might have been amended, the fact that the SPA creator had recently been blocked made that prospect rather unlikely.
For the sake of my future understanding, where have I erred here? Is it the fact that the likelihood of clean-up is irrelevant and even if I was correct (and there were no future edits to the draft) it would have been deleted after 6 months anyway with no harm done? Axad12 (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't particularly read like an advertisement either. Even assuming that User:Bonadea's comment that "The quotations from reviews are decidedly cherry-picked" is correct (I haven't checked), while that's still a neutrality issue, it's not one that calls for deletion of the draft - it would still be coherent if the Reception section were just removed. —Cryptic 03:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still be grateful for clarification on my post above (assuming, for the sake of argument, that a draft did read like an advertisement). Axad12 (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone trying to follow this thread, the page in question is Draft:The Misguided, and a block of the creator was decided at ANI. The article may continue to languish at AfC due to its issues but I agree with others that the page is not an obvious G11 candidate. EdJohnston (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Axad12: Perplexingly, blocking does not always mean the content met WP:G11. I weigh each candidate on its merits. Creator in this instance, "is indef blocked for WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND among many other issues," so that's apart from the quality of the draft in question. I infer the creator has a serious WP:COI with more at stake than, "don't delete my babies!' Having ones "babies" deleted is traumatic enough on its own. Hope that helps. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the block was unrelated to the quality of the article - although the user could as easily have been blocked as a promo only account if he hadn't made a complete fool of himself at ANI.
The reason I mentioned the user being blocked was because that meant that the draft was unlikely to be improved - but as I said above, presumably that is irrelevant if it means that the draft would then just remain unpublished for 6 months and then get deleted. Axad12 (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an administrator who had a lot of frustrating interactions in the last week with the blocked editor, I too agree that the draft does not qualify for G11 deletion. We should not let the fact that the primary author behaved like a monumental pain in the ass cloud our assessment of the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, the G11 nomination wasn't due to the pedigree of the creator but was rather to do with the comments left by the AfC reviewer - albeit that I now see that that was not grounds for a G11 nomination in any event.
Thanks all for clarifying my understanding of the process, very much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=1264549029"