User talk:Bbb23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • 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.


Your edits are favourable to Belfort.

Kate Mulgrew[edit]

Have you considered that changing a living subject's marital status to indicate a marriage without proper sourcing may be a violation of WP:BLP? Really, I don't understand what the deal is here. They got divorced. You can look at the divorce lawsuit yourself on the New York Supreme Court web site. (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The divorce was acknowledged by her Facebook account when a LA weekly article was posted. She talks about her new boyfriend in the Q & A. [1][2]

Facebook is not a reliable source for most BLP material. I saw the LA Weekly article, and it never mentions Hagan or divorce. She can have 16 boyfriends - it doesn't mean she's divorced.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

SockPuppet Investigation Immediately closed by an administrator when the accused requested him to close it- Need Immediate attention[edit]

Hi User:Bbb23,

I had opened a sock puppet investigation on two users Shriram and Lihaas on India General election page- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shriram. One of them suddently made a request to another Administrator ( RequestMadeHere ) to close the investigation and the page was immediately closed.

Excerpt- User:JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The immediate closure of topic looks suspicious. Please do the necessary.

Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Soorejmg, it looks like your SPI has been dealt with appropriately (closed and archived). At this point, You should consider yourself fortunate that no one has blocked you for obvious WP:CANVASSING and the filing of a baseless report. Please don't comment any further on this issue on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Well, opening an SPI on two editors who are obviously not the same person is pretty offensive, don't you think? ES&L 16:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Soorejmg has sent this message to six different administrators. See User talk:Soorejmg#Canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Bbb23, I created the page,_Beskar,_Krueger_and_Pletcher,_S.C.&action=edit&redlink=1 . You deleted it. I'd be happy to add more, but I thought what I had was concise and worthy. I'd like to have it published again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxfieldelijah (talkcontribs) 01:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

First, there's nothing encyclopedically significant about the law firm. Second, you have an obvious conflict of interest as you are associated with the firm. That said, if you want me to WP:USERFY it, let me know, although I honestly think it's a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

Bbb23, thank you for your feedback. This is all new to me. I looked at as a model, which led me to believe that encyclopedic significance is more a matter of opinion than formula. At this time I am not requesting WP:USERFY .

Thanks for letting me know. I don't think much of the Michael Best & Friedrich LLP article, particularly the resume-advertising-like tone, but it's a much bigger firm than yours with multiple offices.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for revert[edit]

Hey Bbb, just wanted to say thanks for reverting that IP over at WP:EWN that created a report against me. I was just about to reply to it, but you got to it before I can. Again, thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was a disruptive report by a disruptive user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Rather than Edit war, Request Help[edit]

Hey Bbb, The post you placed the notice board was appropriate, I do not wis to engage in edit war as it is being lodged against me. My are o apply good faith post as I requested help, and I dont need contest of who can pee the farthest, I have data and supporting facts to the issue, with supporting references, much of the page is based OPED media not factual investigation reports,that I have. Please advise and place notice of edit war as well as correcting speculation post supported by OPED's not factual data reports

I'm afraid I have great difficulty following anything you write. In any event, thus far, you have posted nothing in connection with Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 that is constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


A single purpose account has been editwarring at radical feminism and is taking their "push" (as they describe it) to Feminism. They've already been advised by a bot that they are involved in an editwar on radical feminism. In fact that conflict needs looking at. It involved 4 users Ging287, Gorgi88, NFLjunkie and Drowninginlimbo. In fact in this edit summary NFLjunkie is showing the underlying problem here - Men's rights advocates trying to give their issues more prominence in other articles[1]. IMHO I'd let them all have it for this one. On the other hand they all seem to be rather new editors unaware of how bad their behaviour is, but I note also you've notified two of them of the Men's rights probation before these incidents occured. If you get a chance could you take a look--Cailil talk 10:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for closing down that report for being invalid. Do you think you can inform FrostPawn that his reason for constantly having to restore his preferred version (or rather why he thinks I'm restoring my preferred version) is wrong? Because I'm clearly not getting through to him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I rarely become involved in content disputes unless there is a policy violation that requires administrative action. This issue doesn't seem to fall into that category, so I'm afraid you're going to have to use the traditional dispute resolution mechanisms.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why such a step is necessary. It's just like he doesn't read what I've been saying to him at all and is insisting that I'm wrong in this matter, even though I've instituted his change in a better method.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hopper suggestion[edit]

You might want to ask how this user dealt with a certain long-term iphopper with a penchant for a certain type of attack on a certain class of target pages. It's not quick or simple, but it can be done. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about this discussion. I'll ping Maralia to see if they want to contribute anything. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You assume correctly. Good luck. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
And good luck with this. Minor variations are more than acceptable; I covered mine in panko before frying. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Drmies, I'll tell the cook in the house (not me) about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm watching Chopped. One of the ingredients is Dim sum--or, I suppose, some elements that are found in dim sum. Have you eaten this food/style? It looks fascinating and fun. I wonder if we can get that here. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Dim sum is very common in Southern California because of the large Asian population. The largest number of "authentic" Chinese restaurants are east of downtown LA (not in Chinatown, which is in downtown), and particularly on Sundays, Asians and Whites flock to them for dim sum.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Before he answers that: you mentioned panko. To make a seriously good schnitzel with Panko: pulse the crumbs a few times in a Robot coupe. Don't pulverize them to powder, just a few good pulses. Then proceed with the dredging of the cutlets, and pan fry. Panko used like this is better than any pre-packaged "bread crumbs" I've tried. Excellent crunch ;) Doc talk 02:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree, Doc9871 - Panko beats any other store-bought bread crumbs hands down. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
In my case, I have Alton Brown to thank for it--I didn't know it existed. Dutch "bread crumbs" are beschuit ground almost to dust, but panko, that's good eats. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

More Carthage44 socks[edit]

I mentioned your previous work on socks of Carthage44/Redmen44 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carthage44. You might even be interested in following up there on the latest suspected IP block evasion. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Please advise[edit]

Hello again. Once again, I have encountered two (apparently connected) issues on two different article with what seems to be destructive editing] which probably violates WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE (the entire "Anthropology" section is created in this manner). This user is obviously misusing Wikipedia to publish his own personal critique about Griffith’s thesis which has not been published elsewhere. None of the sources he refers to discuss Griffith’s work. I would suggest the complete removal of this section due to WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE policy.

The same applies for this section, a breach of WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE policy. I would suggest the complete removal of this section as well.

Finally, by looking at this user's edit history, it seems to me that he owns and operates WP:SPA, only used for editing these two article. Could you please look into this? I will be waiting for your insights. Thanks. --BiH (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for deleting that page. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).