User talk:BubbaJoe123456

The list of founding brothers of Brothers in Unity and a large number of the notable alumni are referenced to the 1841 Catalogue. Is it your standing that that is not reliable?Naraht (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I had only trimmed the names which didn't have a membership source, but if they're listed in the catalogue, I guess that's sufficient, although the catalog isn't truly an RS, given that it's published by the society itself. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, BubbaJoe123456. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! ~2026-12223-02 (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi BubbaJoe123456. I wanted to let you know that I removed the CSD tag you placed on the above page. I would consider being ranked among the top players in California to be a credible claim of significance, so the article doesn't meet the criteria of A7 in my opinion. Feel free to take it to AFD if you still want it deleted. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! On the Goliath Ventures page you removed all references to Danny De Hek even though there are reliable sources documenting his involvement in exposing the fraud and helping bringing it down. Including sources such as: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2026/03/01/feds-orlando-crypto-firm-ceo-lived-a-high-life-on-others-money/

Where his involvement is outlined:

The federal charges were no surprise to Danny de Hek, a New Zealand blogger sued for defamation last year by Goliath Ventures for accusatory articles and videos he posted about the company and Delgado. In the posts, de Hek called out Goliath as a Ponzi scheme defrauding its investors. “I have no personal vendetta, mate. Never invested in a Ponzi scheme,” said de Hek, whose internet investigations were highlighted in a New York Times story in 2022. “What I’ve found is I don’t believe anyone gets any real justice in these cases so I cause disruption in this industry.” The 124-page lawsuit filed against de Hek in September in Circuit Court in Orlando said, “Over the span of mere weeks, defendant Danny de Hek, the self-styled ‘Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger,’ unleashed a relentless online smear campaign against plaintiffs Goliath Ventures, Inc. and its CEO, Chris Delgado.” The blogger told the Sentinel he had no money to hire a lawyer but planned to fight the lawsuit as best he could unless he could find an attorney in America willing to take up his defense. That might not be necessary now. In the wake of Delgado’s arrest, the lawsuit was dismissed by company lawyers Thursday, though they left open the possibility they’d refile it.

Can you please reconsider the changes you made to [Goliath Ventures]] page? M20294135122 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC) Stop undoing the changes, they're all correct. The 1951 date and the 2026 death date are two facts. If the undoing is happening, prove otherwise. How will you know it's alive from a social media message?--~2026-15171-53 (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, BubbaJoe123456. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you again for your previous assistance regarding the Mirud (singer) article. I wanted to briefly bring to your attention that there was a vandalism edit earlier today, which has since been reverted by other editors. The edit contained clearly defamatory content and was flagged under BLP policy. Given the prior situation involving concerning messages related to the article, I thought it would be appropriate to make you aware in case any further monitoring is needed. I understand that this may simply be routine vandalism, but I wanted to ensure transparency and keep you informed. Thank you again for your time and for helping maintain the integrity of the page. Mirudeditor2 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The article is on my watchlist, so I'd see any changes made. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Tuzla High School has already been removed—let’s just keep it in blue as a placeholder. Are you the boss around here? Don’t stick your nose into everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostantinopolisli Kostantinopulos (talk • contribs) 07:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, may I discuss Arsjad Rasjid article?

I'd like to make changes to the introduction by removing the section about Arsjad's position in the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin), which has become irrelevant. Instead, I'd like to update it to reflect the Indonesian Wikipedia page.

I'd also like to update the Business Career section to reflect the Indonesian Wikipedia page. Since this figure is from Indonesia, I believe it's more relevant to use information from the Indonesian Wikipedia. Sikenarikuning (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Joe, just wondering why the additions to SJK 171’s section of appearances and shows were deleted. These are all verifiable. Thank you. ChristineDefazioArts (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Add:

2025: SJK 171 spoke at the Whitney Museum of American Art with TAKI 183, FUTURA 2000, Michael Lawrence and MIKE 171 at Gordon Matta-Clark and NYC Graffiti Culture 1972-73, May 17, 2025. ChristineDefazioArts (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! For something to be included in Wikipedia, it needs to have a reliable source. If you want to add content to that page, please provide a citation to a reliable source. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! There is the Whitney Museum for the talk, and the exhibition catalog published by Beyond the Streets for the Matta-Clark show. I just don’t know how to actually add the links for citation. ChristineDefazioArts (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

There's a good tutorial on how to include references here. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Very helpful ChristineDefazioArts (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Add recent exhibition history:

2025: SJK 171's work was featured in the exhibition "Gordon Matta-Clark: NYC Graffiti Archive 1972/3", March 20-May 17, 2025. 2025: SJK 171 spoke at the Whitney Museum of American Art with TAKI 183, FUTURA 2000, Michael Lawrence and MIKE 171 at Gordon Matta-Clark and NYC Graffiti Culture 1972-73, May 17, 2025. 2026: Founders of the Ghost Yard, SJK 171 and MIKE 171 were featured in the exhibition "Tales from the Ghost Yard featuring MIKE 171, SJK 171, SNAKE 1 and T-KID 170, Bronx Art Space, January 8-February 14, 2026. The Ghost Yard on 10th Avenue between 207th and 215th Streets along the Harlem River could be called the most important yard in New York City in writing art history. It was here that writers painted many of the first and last pieces on the subway trains from 1972 to 1987. SJK 171, MIKE 171, and FRANK 207 began writing in the Ghost Yard in 1971 and the first development of pieces by SJK 171 with colors and designs took place there. ChristineDefazioArts (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That was easy. ChristineDefazioArts (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Glad it worked! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm an admin who works in the speedy delete arena. I usually don't leave messages when I decline speedy delete requests, but I wanted to let you know what was going on since I just declined six speedy requests you made for various musicians and producers (specifically, Justin Raisen, Bob Marlette, Andrew Goldstein (musician), Fab Dupont, Cass Dillon, and Matt Bayles). Basically, I had to decline all those speedy requests because the articles and/or their subjects have credible claims of significance. This doesn't mean that all these subjects meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In fact, I'd say several of them do not. But b/c there are credible claims of significance, I'm not allowed to speedy delete the articles and they must be brought up for WP:AfD. For more on claims of significant, check out this essay. Sincerely, --SouthernNights (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I apparently misunderstood what constitutes a credible claim of significance. I'll make sure to read up more on that - sorry to create work for you! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

It's all good. I suspect several of those articles won't survive an AfD b/c of notability issues. So I hope you will bring some of them up for that. SouthernNights (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, please don’t remove sourced content from these lists without giving a reason in your edit summary. Also please don’t use visual editor on them, as it causes issues with the template source. Cheers! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I had removed destinations that don't appear to still be flown, based on flightconnections - I'll make sure to be more fulsome in my edit summaries going forward. Also, re: visual editor, is there a reason other than intertia to use that template? It seems extremely cumbersome to need to change all the field numbers anytime a row gets added or removed. Wouldn't just using a table be simpler? With that said, I'll make sure to watch out for the row issue going forward. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The field numbers get added BY visual editor - they're not there by default if you use the source editor. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@BubbaJoe123456 again, by using VE on Port Sudan New International Airport you’ve completely messed up the source - as I stated above, VE adds in the field codes unnecessarily and messes up other formatting. Please take a look at the diffs in question and tidy up after VE. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the issue now. For simplicity, I swapped over to a standard table, so the VE problem won't arise again. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

No, please don't do that. That template is the agreed standard for each and every of the thousands of airport articles on Wikipedia. Visual Editor problems are problems for the maintainers of VE, we shouldn't be altering Wikipedia source text because VE is broken. I'm asking please stop trying to use VE on this particular template, since it appears to cause problems. Other editors seem not to have issues though, so not sure what's happening. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, I'll revert then. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I've manually fixed it for now Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks. While I have you, is flightconnections.com considered an RS for airline destinations, for either service existing, or no longer existing? For example, if it shows that "airline X has a flight from A to B tomorrow, click here to purchase it." is that a sufficient source to cite to add "airline X destination B" to airport A's article, or do we need a news story saying "airline X is starting service from A to B"? Similarly, if flightconnections doesn't show that airline X has service from A to B, is that sufficient to delete B as a destination for airline X in the airport A destinations table, or do we need a news story saying "airline X has dropped its service on the A to B route"? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Personally I'm not a fan of that site as it's essentially just a booking site. However, there wasn't any consensus to label it anything other than reliable the last time it was at RSN… although that could have been because I was dumb and lumped it in with unrelated sources and caused a flame war. Perhaps it's worth revisiting at WP:RSN? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Ben Field (alleged murderer), which you proposed for deletion. His case is significant enough to justify an article even if he is innocent, for a number of reasons listed in my edit summary, but primarily as a potential high-profile miscarriage of justice. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TRCRF22 (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. There's a discussion at WP:BLPN regarding this situation that you might want to join, given your interest in the topic. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @BubbaJoe123456:, I've been on here 20+ years (too long!) as an editor and so I'm very aware that WP:BLP can still be applied to a bio of a deceased person who is "very recently" deceased, however several points:

1) This part of the guidelines is very rarely used on Wiki. You're only the second user in thousands of similar edits I've made to restore the BLP template. I'd suggest that's because most users would apply WP:COMMONSENSE in this instance.

2) The guideline doesn't specify what "very recent" means and suggests it can mean months or even years, but more importantly states that it should be enforced when sourcing for confirmation of their death is weak or aspects of it are in question.

With those points in mind, is there any particular reason why you wish to keep the template on her talk page? It is a flexible policy in this instance but I'm happy to keep the template if there is an identifiable purpose for it being there. Thank you Jkaharper (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Not a big deal, I just thought that, since BLP still applies, might be a bit premature to remove the template. My bad to not look at your history before reverting - had I seen, I wouldn't have. Looks like it's been removed now. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello BubbaJoe123456,

when you deal with disputed content, please don't refer to BRD as if it was a policy justifying reverts. Disputed content can be removed and needs to stay removed until a consensus is found; actual policy sections mandating this are WP:BLPRESTORE, WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. There is no special protection for "stable" revisions; consensus formed through editing alone ends in the moment there is a dispute (cf. Wikipedia:Consensus § Through editing). Without talk page consensus, it would be inappropriate to restore disputed material just because it had been in the article for a long time. So in the case of the article about John Petrucci, policy was on your side, but that has nothing to do with the "BRD" essay. Forcibly restoring stable revisions just because they're stable is an action limited to administrators when protecting pages (WP:PREFER) and not something justified by any other policy.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I had misunderstood that. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)