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)

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)

Sorry for not responding earlier, BiH. Without probing deeply, it looks like some rather destructive editing is going on at Jeremy Griffith. It also looks like possible sock puppetry involving Divinecomedy666 and Press2014. What's the other article you're referring to? It also doesn't look like you're involved in the editing of Griffith. Nor do I see any discussion of the edits on the article talk page. If you're interested in the issues, then I think you have to involve yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The second concern is this section, added by the same user, Divinecomedy666. By looking at his edits from the 2011 (I'm not sure for this), he/she attempted to add similar content to some other articles, which got my attention to review this issue deeply. I will remove controversial content from those articles and see what will happen. --BiH (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: Just as I thought, this user patrols this article and adds content opposing WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE policies, just as he/she did a couple of years ago, according to his/her edit history. I do not want to start editing war, so take a look yourself here. --BiH (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you should attempt to talk to the user. You should initiate a thread on the Griffith talk page (that's the user's primary focus) and let the user know on their talk page that you want them to contribute. I don't expect that they will respond as they have never used a talk page, article or user, since registering their account, but it's a necessary step if you want to take the high road. I have limited options. If I intervene content-wise, I lose the ability to intervene administratively. However, if you build a case, I may be able to take administrative action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Noted. Thank you. --BiH (talk) 17:33, 18 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)

Delete Yugopustynia[edit]

You deleted the site before I could elaborate on the subject, add valid references and correctly wikify it. It was already marked as a stub, andIt was marked for deletion at 4 AM in the morning according to danish local time. At the time I was so sleepy, I only had time for a short remark in the talk section. When I had the the time today, you had already deleted it. Why is Yugopustynia less eligible, than other micronations? Gywerd (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

All you did was copy material from a wiki to create the page. I saw nothing independent that established it as anything other than a hoax.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

1RR on Radical Feminism?[edit]

Hi Bbb23! A user directed me here from their talk page. In this edit on Radical feminism, they claimed that the article is subject to a 1RR restriction from the Men's Rights Movement probation. I cannot find anything about feminism on Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Article_probation. I was hoping for some clarification as I don't think that probation applies to Radical feminism (even when broadly construed) and honestly don't think it's needed. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is not subject to WP:MRMPS, but any edits related to the MRM, broadly construed, would be.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Should that notice on the talk page be removed then? EvergreenFir (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
For the moment, I would say yes (I see you did), in large part because a non-administrator added it for misguided reasons. There is no policy that prohibits adding the template to an article (unless it's clearly disruptive), but it would be better generally to leave such tasks to administrators. Just so you know, another administrator might more broadly interpret the terms of the probation to apply to Radical Feminism. Given the content, it's a blurry line.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A bit alarmed[edit]

I am a bit alarmed by Prcc's behavior at Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States and could really use some intervention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What exactly alarms you and what kind of intervention do you seek?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

James Valenti[edit]

Hello, Thank you for your response regarding recent changes to These were strictly factual: opera roles performed by James Valenti. What sort of proof/documentation is required to accept these additions to the page, as well as the photo submitted earlier this week.

Thank you for your time

Jamesvalentiopera (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

First, if you are Valenti or are affiliated with him, you have a conflict of interest, and it would be better if you didn't edit the article. Instead, you're welcome to propose changes to the article on the article talk page. With limited exceptions, Wikipedia cannot use copyrighted images. As far as I can tell, you grabbed that photo from some website and then uploaded it to Commons. Unless the image has the appropriate license, it can't be used. As for the "factual" changes, you need to provide reliable sources to support material you put in a Wikipedia article. Take a look at the welcome post on your talk page. It has many links that may help you understand how Wikipedia works (unfortunately often complicated).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I struck some of my comments above because I confused Valenti's picture with another - sorry. I removed it because of the caption you added, which was promotional ("Internationally Acclaimed Tenor, James Valenti"). There was another image that was removed from Commons and from the article. Do you have a relationship with User:Gmason32?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I will submit the proposed changes on the article talk page along with sources (links to newspaper articles reviewing the performances.) As for the photo, can it please be added with just the caption, James Valenti?

Thank you. Jamesvalentiopera (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for willing to use the talk page. As for the image, you uploaded it and said it was your own work. I'm assuming then that you are not Valenti; is that right? Where did you take the picture, meaning what's he standing in front of? Looks like a theater, perhaps an opera house?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The photo was taken on Mr. Valenti's iPhone by the doorman at the Plaza Hotel NYC on Sunday April 13. Thank you! Jamesvalentiopera (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I suppose technically that means the copyright belongs to the doorman, but I suppose he took it at Valenti's request. I'm going to change the description of the picture file and then I'll add it back to the article with an appropriate caption.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic! Really appreciate it! Jamesvalentiopera (talk) 23:07, 18 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).