User talk:Delicious carbuncle/Archive 9

Notification of mentioning

Hello this is courtesy notice regarding the mention of one your actions in a WP:RFC/U. The RFC/U is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Thank you for your time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notification

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I will add my comment later today, when I get the chance. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Grant Cardone and whether he self-identifies as a Scientologist

Hi. I mentioned this point just now at Talk:Grant Cardone#Does he self-identify as a Scientologist? and Talk:List of Scientologists#Grant Cardone. It seems to me that the source cited for Cardone on the "list" page (a Hollywood Sentinel interview) might qualify as a documented self-identification, but rather than draw that conclusion all by myself, I would feel more comfortable if other people discussed it first. As for whether Cardone's being a Scientologist is relevant to his notability, that would be a separate question. Anyway, I wanted to call your attention to this since you had brought it up in the RFAR. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a great source, since Bruce Edwin is Cardone's manager, but I'm sure good sources can be found if someone wants to look for them. At least it is better than the original source. I just used that Cardone example because it was convenient. I don't edit Scientology-related articles or their talk pages, since I was warned for my sole edit to the BLP of someone who isn't even identified as a Scientologist. Thanks for your message and looking into this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not PROD

How can i propose the page to be deleted? All the other pages ("movies with adult-etc relations" "stuff portrayin adult-etc relations") have been deleted. Negativecharge (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AFD. You might wish to review the earlier AfD discussions first (there are links to them on the article's talk page). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make the requested page after reading the WP:AFD page. Negativecharge (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

.02

Inre: To phrase it as a support/oppose statement: In respect of the greater BLP issue, it is not appropriate to have an image of Rick Santorum...
May I suggest that your query, as phrased, invites more of a "Yes" or "No" response and "is it not appropriate" introduces the need for unnecessary and undesirable comprehensional calculus. Perhaps better phrased?...

Does the inclusion of Rick Santorum and/or Dan Savage photos legitimately improve this presentation?

...or something to that effect. Just my .02 FWIW JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping that we could reach a clear consensus on this so my phrasing as a yes/no (support/oppose) question was deliberate. On the other hand, I'm not trying to stifle discussion, so I will give it another try. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've no issue with your intent, it's just that the earler language introduced too much mental gymnastics into the equation. Your current edit is an improvement in that regard and I appreciate your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Still more. Reo raised an excellent point that your section title represents the obverse of your query. Perhaps you should rectify that by rewording the section title in some fashion to better associate the title with the question/responses. .02 JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Inre Santorum and Savage Images would work...but it's your call and your edit to make. I've been one of the few editorial voices active in talk over the holiday break and am concerned about the lack of other editorial input. That being said, I'm encouraged that this article development and oversight hasn't, as yet, been totally abandoned but is on a temporary hiatus. Thanks and sorry if this borders on pesky. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...

Just looked up Carbuncle and Carbuncle (gemstone). I think I would prefer the latter. Although I can't see either as being particularly delicious. -- Avanu (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Chacun à son goût, as they say. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

how?

how do you see this stuff so fast and how do you know if its true or not? Tide rolls 2 7/23/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tide rolls 2 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bot. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you really? — Waterfox ^~talk~ 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I am. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: this

It's basically all kicked off because I called for a topic ban on LiteralKa, aka Leon Kaiser, Head of GNAA PR and almost certainly the 'Gary Niger' chap on WR. It was discussed at ANI. The topic ban turned into an indef-block when it was clear he was being a bit of a twat on the project, and now the GNAA are upset, and as a result are kicking off. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is clear to me now. Rather petulant bunch, aren't they? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Petulant gives them too much credit. Mr Kaiser is just - how do you say - 'butthurt', I believe. R,B,I and be done with it. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

...and the 'homeless shelter' and library editing is, as far as I can see, completely made up. Most of the details in the press release - even those about other people - are either flat out incorrect or woefully out of date. I spent a week editing from the British Library once (for Fishery protection Squadron) - but I'm not homeless. My room was, indeed, only half painted when the BBC chap came, but he insisted on filming there. I still don't claim benefits from the government, and haven't for several years now, ever since I stopped being a student. As for being dumpy, well... I'm 5'7" and 145ish lbs. If WR are reading this - no doubt they are - me and Panyd have now moved on to watching Battlestar Galactica and a nice bottle of Shiraz on our dates. Babylon 5 just doesn't cut it anymore. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the GNAA are known for trolling, not for accuracy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Blp issue?

There should not be citations posted there that are not WP:rs and have no chance of addition to the article - please revert your edit, thanks. Gawker , alonelton and the blog are not BLP reliable citations so we don't need to publicize them as adding weight to content inclusion in that media comment section. 21:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Please explain to me what value you think reverting my removal of citations that do not qualify for inclusion to the article has ? Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the fact that those are not sources. The Wikipedia article itself has been discussed in those publications. With one exception, all are notable. If you would like to remove the last one and/or collapse the template, I would have no objection, but arguing that this is a BLP violation or an RS issue is a non-starter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You push BLP vio on to me too much - I often just work broadly without specific policy and within experienced editorial control - using what neutrality and common sense I have. - imo there is a violation in adding an unreliable external whether it mentions wikipedia or not - I won't remove it again, it belongs to you now. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Do you understand now that these are not sources for the article but citations of press mentions of the article? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You ask if I understand , " Do you understand now that these are not sources for the article" - of course I do - I removed them for that reason. Its not a specific vio its just you are reverting my removal of externals you are giving high talkpage profile and those externals are never going to be WP:rs for addition to the article. What value do you see in a not wiki reliable blog mention of our article - the answer I will tell you is none at all - benefit to the blog and the not reliable but none to us, and none to the living subject, none at all. Anyway as I said I won't remove them again so, enjoy them. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't for me to enjoy or not enjoy. The press template is used to denote press attention given to an article, which does not necessarily translate into benefit (or harm) for the subject of an article. It is usually a sign that someone thinks Wikipedia has done something right or, more often, wrong. Press citations do not usually make good sources for articles unless the controversy over the article becomes notable in and of itself. That was on the verge of happening in this case, but I hope reducing the protection level has let us avoid that. There really wasn't any need for knee jerk reactions - reasonable discussion will work just fine. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you adding unreliable externals to that section that will never have a chance of addition to the BLP - I see your additions as violations as they are of no benefit to the article you should not have added them to that section - I am happy to strongly oppose your additions in this case . Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Without meaning to be rude, I have tried my best to explain the difference between citations about the article and sources used in the article, but you just don't seem to be getting it. Feel free to take it to one of the noticeboards if it continues to bother you, but please do not keep posting about it here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX comments

The comments in the collapse template stand out as a proclamation against the entire thread. It is primarily an administrative-style action to close or collapse a thread, and in it, he declares a swath of editors 'trolls'. I don't see why this is the same as editing a 'comment', since it is pretty much a required part of a collapse template action. As far as removing the unsigned editor comment, the only reasons I removed it was because it was unsigned *and* directly in response to the semi-administrative-style action that I was trying to fix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages

I certainly don't advocate summarily changing Talk page information, but when it is uncivil and merely seems to serve a cause of making more commotion, it seems like a simpler thing to just prune it a bit. -- Avanu (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, would there be any issue with changing the collapse comment from:

"Topic has become a long magnet for trolls coming simply to complain. Content is being discussed on the talk page and looks to have some resolution. Closing to prevent further descent into chaos"

to:

"Thread has become off-topic. Content is being discussed on the talk page and looks to have some resolution. Closing"

And then just moving the other comment from the top of the thread, into the bottom of the body of the thread? -- Avanu (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

People are responsible for their own actions. If someone makes an uncivil remark, why not ask them to change it themselves? Put your suggestion to ErrantX and they may reconsider their statement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurt by miscategorisation?

Please enlighten me as to how exactly you think Luke Evans or any gay actor would be hurt by miscategorising their sexuality. If you mean rumours and things which someone can see possibly written on Wikipedia, and for example, someone witnesses this and writes a blog post ~defaming said actor, I fail to see how that's really a concerning matter to policy here at all. There will always be speculation about people. Unverified statements will be removed. Also, to be honest, I really don't think anyone looks at categories and says, "Oh, wow, [actor] is LGBT, huh?" and this proceeds to what, epithet-calling in everyday life? I'm not sure what you meant. How is that "harming the BLP subject"? Claiming me as failing to acknowledge something you never made quite clear is pretty premature. (P.S. If you want to reply, please do so on my talk page, because I'll probably forget about my posting here.) Ss112 18:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't see how having speculation about your sexuality or religion stated as fact on one the top ten websites could be harmful? I doubt I can help you understand and if you're not interested enough to check back for my answer, I'm not going to waste my time trying. As to policy, WP:BLPCAT covers this, so that is what you should be following. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I remembered. Like I said, I very highly doubt a prospective someone would see the "LGBT people" category at the end of the article if said article was lacking an unbiased, sourced "personal life" section and that that would proceed to spread all over the Internet. I think you're placing a bit too much importance in what people take away from what categories a personality belongs to or not. Granted, it's there, but if someone weren't an editor, I have my doubts that they would notice. Ss112 15:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You are attempting to minimize the issue by making assumptions about how people use categories. Incidentally, how does one doubt something "highly"? Did you look down on it from a great height? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And you're attempting to overstate them. You know you had no real basis for disagreement in the first place if you're resorting to sarcastically picking apart my language, so nice work with that. If you've honestly never heard that phrasing before, I believe the appropriate phrase here would be "Google it." I think this has run its course. Good luck with your insinuations that the Internet will rage with commentary about someone's sexuality due to the inclusion of a category at the bottom of their Wikipedia article. If you want your pointless last word like so many people do, and like you did before the discussion closed on the talk page, feel free to take up your arguments there. Ss112 17:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not assuming how readers use categories or how noticeable they are is in no way overstating anything, it is simply not assuming. Thus far, you haven't actually advanced any arguments, only assumptions. My question about "highly doubt" was intended to show you the problem with it. If you don't want to listen because others make the same mistake, that's your choice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read your statement

Regarding your comment. Please read what you said again possibly update your statement accordingly if you feel it is warranted. I never "argued" if properly sourced information belonged in the article. I asked a question, simple as that. I feel your statement is a poor characterization of my edits on that page. Thanks. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No, a poor characterization of your edits would be "neutral". You clearly have a conflict of interest - why not leave other editors to sort out the mess that you helped cause? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a red herring. Your statement that editors (presumably me) argued for leaving out unsourced information is false. If you don't want to make a correction, that's your business. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there is anything to correct. An IP added unsourced information. You removed it as unsourced. Someone offered a source and you immediately questioned whether the information needed to be included. That is arguing against including sourced information, but I am sure you will say you were simply asking a question. This is the trouble with editors who have a conflict of interest - the presumption of good faith can no longer be applied. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's a straw man argument that you setup and answered. Brilliant of you. My question was germane because Im not sure what infomation is appropriate in a "list" type article. If I had wanted to argue against it, I would have done so. Please be more careful in the future when you attempt to ascertain someone's motives. Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, you really should not be involved in that list at all because of your conflict of interest. If you don't know what information is appropriate, someone else probably does. There are plenty of eyes on that article now. Leave it to other editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Adams Author

Can the fact that she (Stephanie Adams) is an author or a spirituality author be added to the bio again? It was removed for some odd reason, as was her actual page on here, but being an author is her primary profession now. I guess, given the debates going on, I'd be pushing it to note that she also has a publishing company called Goddessy and it is documented along with her 24 books via Amazon. Being an "author" or owning a publishing company is not controversial to state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ju4on (talk • contribs) 20:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear here - I'm not taking sides in this dispute. My interest is in seeing that Adams' entry in that page is dealt with in the same manner as the other entries. From what you have said, it sounds like Adams publishes her own books. Unless there are solid third-party sources which talk about the books, they probably aren't going to get mentioned. If there are, bring them up on the talk page, not here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Only 5 of her 24 books were published by Goddessy. The rest, according to a seach for her books on Amazon, were published by Dubsar house, New Age World, and a few others:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3AStephanie+Adams&keywords=Stephanie+Adams&ie=UTF8&qid=1314877935&sr=1-2-ent&field-contributor_id=B002HU467Y

As far as your request to see her prior articles, here is an early version:

http://web.archive.org/web/20051105221411/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Adams

And here is a later one:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110301055229/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Adams

This was the last edit according to Facebook's account of Wikipedia:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stephanie-Adams/108565435834571

I silently followed this page for years and noticed that IP User 69.143.17.59 and User Fasttimes68 are sockpuppets. User Hoary is a friend who also obstructed the article and made improper comments about the subject for over five years. Both should be banned from Wikipedia. You come to your own conclusions about the content in the article. Just trying to be helpful here. I will post this to the talk page too, if that is what you suggest. Ju4on (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For ease of communication, let's just pretend that you are Stephanie Adams and that Ju4on is simply the latest sockpuppet. I am not going to act as your advocate here. I am simply trying to ensure that your entry in that list is treated the same way as other entries, despite the past actions of all parties in this dispute. My suggestion to you is to quit while you are ahead. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not her nor am I a woman for that matter, unless I had a recent sex change, but I do admit that I have a great deal of respect for her and how she went about a different path from the usual models turned actresses. Ju4on (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate remarks

Whatever the outcome of a discussion about the advisability of allowing a minor to edit explicit areas in Wikipedia, this remark is highly inappropriate, and utterly unacceptable. Pointing a minor to a sexually explicit article is at best poor taste, and quite possible a criminal offence in some jurisdictions (IANAL). At any rate it is inflammatory, unnecessary and can only serve to bring the project into disrepute. Please rethink your approach, and consider that any repetition may well result in further action being taken against you.--Scott Mac 15:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Scott. As some editors have inexplicably found it appropriate to restore your comment, I suggest very strongly that you redact it yourself to stop the edit war. That might be a good way to avoid sanctions. Hans Adler 15:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully expected that some editors might not like my choice of example article, but the fact remains that Wikipedia has many such articles and under-age editors are free to read or edit them. It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that I should be sanctioned for pointing out something that is frequently raised in discussions of the issues with allowing minors unrestricted access here. If it helps, I will retract my comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think this is a "Tempest in a teapot" (per your edit summary) then you utterly lack the judgement to be commenting on such matters In most jurisdictions, wilfully exposing minors to sexually explicit material is socially unacceptable, if not downright criminal. It is true that Wikipedia (in common with much of the internet) can do little about minors viewing inappropriate material. It is arguable that the responsibility of protecting minors from such material rests not with Wikipedia but parents and those giving minors access to the internet - and thus it is a fair debating point as to whether or not Wikipedia ought to take any steps to prevent minors participating (and our views will legitimately differ here). However, deliberately encouraging minors to view inappropriate material is beyond the limits of that wiki debate - and certainly not a matter to joke about. A philosophical debate about children protection and censorship is not within the scope of this project. --Scott Mac 16:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I was neither making a joke nor attempting to start a philosophical debate. In the case at hand, we have someone identifying themselves as 13 and joining a Wikiproject about pornography. The question of whether or not that very limited scenario poses a problem is a fair one to discuss on ANI, I believe. This isn't about hypothetical children looking at hypothetical articles. Would your response have been the same if my example article were breast or penis? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the main problem wasn't so much that you brought up the article in this context, but that from the way you did so it isn't at all clear that you meant it as an example of the inappropriate (for 13-year-old) content which the project is in charge of. Your comment could well be read as an entirely non-sarcastic invitation to contemplate some porn pages with you and maybe, after a few weeks, come over to your place. If I didn't get the sarcasm, the odds are a 13-year-old doesn't get it either. Hans Adler 16:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I had not considered that my comment could be taken as any sort of personal invitation. That block discussion would have been quite interesting, I'm sure. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a lawyer, my thought is that the suggestion was ill-advised. Given the draconian punishments out there for anything involving kids and sex, and the broad way in which these laws tend to be written better to send the kid a link to the Disney web site.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some of these laws are ridiculously broad. But at least in Europe they tend to be applied by the courts much more reasonably than they are formulated. Hans Adler 17:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course you didn't consider it. In the context of your comments on the topic today and at other times this interpretation makes no sense at all. But not everybody knows you. In fact, though your user name is familiar to me, you are one of those editors who just don't stick in my mind, so I had to search the site before I was able to write the second sentence of this paragraph. Part of the problem is the similarity of your user name with "supreme deliciousness", which makes me conflate you with that other user, resulting in an inconsistent overall picture. Perhaps more importantly, the number of active Wikipedia users is far more than Dunbar's number. Hans Adler 17:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Northamerica1000

Do you have any account in mind ? Mtking ^(edits) 09:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't, actually. It is obvious that Northamerica1000 is an experienced editor using a new or alternate account. That shouldn't be taken to imply that they are a blocked or banned user. Rather than making assumptions, I thought I would simply ask, but they appear not to want to acknowledge the question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi, User:Jack Merridew and User:A Nobody are three accounts that contributed to the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron page - with User:Benjiboi being the most active - Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not assuming that Northamerica1000 is a banned user (but if I were, those would certainly be solid guesses). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. You have new messages at Tiptoety's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

california dreamin'

you beat me to that one, but i knew, somehow, it was going to be there.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You may get another chance. These things have a way of coming back. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

User - Chicago2011

Hi there - this is Chicago2011. I'm posting because Chicago2011, my original account, has been locked, as you know. I was told that I should continue editing as meghan.reilly, but that account is not mine, nor has it ever been. In fact, I can't even find that account on a Google search, so I'm a bit confused. Anyway, I'll plan on using this account (and only this account) from here on out. Just wanted to give you the heads up so that you're aware the issue has been resolved. Thanks! SquarePotato (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you should expect to be blocked shortly. Perhaps you should listen to the guidance offered to you on Chicago2011's talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr Rooter

Please stop reverting back to the old version of this page. It contains false information that is damaging. The information i have placed is 100% correct and has been written by the company itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmpolito (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read the message I left on your talk page about why I am reverting and please read WP:COPYVIO. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we come to a compromise. i'm only trying to add facts about the company. Is it the references to websites? I can remove the famous plumbers and quotes section.. but I believe that services that the company provides is valid and deserves a spot on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmpolito (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read the message I left on your talk page about why I am reverting and please read WP:COPYVIO. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Junior Admin Squad

Wikipedia:Junior Admin Squad, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Junior Admin Squad and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Junior Admin Squad during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. œ^™ 10:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot or concept art

I know for a fact that Triangle Studios is fine with the file being used on Wikipedia as an illustration to the article. Is it not sufficient to just correct the file's description from "screenshot" to "concept art"? It could still be used. Apart from this, the information on the file is correct. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave that question for those who are more familiar with free-use rules. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I ask you because you are the one who tagged the file. You obviously have some knowledge in the field, or you wouldn't have tagged it. Also, instead of removing my edits even after I've changed them, maybe it is better to discuss it first on the talk page of articles? Just as suggestion. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no excuse for singling out an individual who has been the target of harassment. Please stop before you get blocked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You might also get blocked because you too broke the three revert rule. Also, you didn't respond to what I said about you tagging the file. :) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about being blocked. I have already responded to your question about the image - let the deletion discussion work it out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Your recent editing history at Encyclopedia Dramatica shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Before you remove my edits again...

...be so kind to take a look here. I started a new topic on the Encyclopedia Dramatica talk page, and I hope you are willing to discuss this further with me on there. I am positive we will be able to reach some sort of concensus on this issue without engaging in pointless edit-warring. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See above. Also, please go away. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Biker poetry

You could be correct on your suspicion of a self published author on the page... but to remove the whole section is really not appropriate. You must also remember that self published authors are often well known in their genre and often perform. So please do us all a favor and seek to make this a better article rather than just tear the darn thing down.

If you have an issue with a "notable author" fine, talk about it, follow up and do what you believe to be right and correct per the Wikipedia guidelines for editing. You removed an entire section that was just updated within the last few hours. We could have discussed this. I've put a lot of time into this and have noted that some people attempt to use it for their own links page... don't like that either, but the bottom line is that regardless of your feelings about the subject it is a real, and legitimate topic.

I spotted a link to a "prominent" poet that may have been questionable myself, but with you having REMOVED the whole section how the heck am I to follow up?

Sorry, but you appear to be a lose cannon. Please prove me wrong. Since first posting, I have made a few changes and spoken with another editor who helped me a lot. I will be attempting to address the concerns, I want this article to fall within Wikipedia standards. Thanks for you input. Akbikerpoet (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want the article to "fall within Wikipedia standards", you need to take the time to understand what those standards are. I didn't remove the list because I'm a loose cannon, I removed it because it has no place here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Biker poetry

Alright, I was able to reconstruct much of the section you removed, but please don't do that again. I noted that you took issue with the links going to personal websites... well none of these guys have made it into the history books yet, so links to their sites appeared to be the best option. If there is a Wikipedia standard that states this is not acceptable, I would be happy to comply.

All of these poets are well known in Biker poetry circles, at least one has a Masters of Fine Arts Degree, has a radio show on poetry and has edited at least one anthology. Another has a doctorate has performed all over the country, has numerous CD's out and is a professor... and has been published in darn near every motorcycle magazine I have ever read. Another has published a magazine been published in at least two anthologies, been a major contributor to special editions in periodicals and has a book out with another one the way. Another has been has a book out, a CD, has performed all over the East coast, been interviewed on radio been in at least a couple of anthologies and is like the others, well known in the field. All of the people listed are well known in their area or poetry.

The only site I work on is Biker poetry and I have received some very good input from editors over the time it has been under development. I visit it from time to time to verify links and have dropped or otherwise updated many since this project began. I do not need someone just going in and destroying things. So, please, I rely on people like you with the experience to make an article worthwhile. I will work on this over the next few days. Thanks for you input. Akbikerpoet (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As another editor has pointed out on the talk page, a list of links to personal websites is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. I hope you understand that this isn't a comment on the genre of "biker poetry", but the vast majority of artists and poets will never be listed in Wikipedia. You may wish to devote your time to creating a website where you can give these poets the recognition you feel they deserve. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take another look at the article and attempt to make the changes. I should be able to find citations on 2 to 3 of these folks anyway that would solidify their position as prominent. I'll get those up and begin one by one to rebuild that section. Sorry about the short response, but man I'm not really good at editing this stuff and writing it was a real challenge for me. I have a lot going on as well but believe this is important and should be on Wikipedia. I do appreciate that there are standards and will strive to remain within the guidelines. I was able to track down two folks that basically added themselves to the article in a rather blatant attempt at self promotion. I told them that if they are going to "dabble" they need to keep what they post in compliance... or stay out. I'm pretty sure they won't be a problem anymore. One of the really pleasant things about bikers is that we do have a belief in respect and follow a hierarchy of sorts.

I want to point out that numerous issues were brought up by you but I have only been able to track down one... that of the "Prominent poets" list. What else is short of the standards? I have one heck of a lot of independent citations listed. Books, websites and even video... I've worked hard at updating links to assure they are still relevant...so what are the other issues you were referring to? Thanks, Akbikerpoet (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:RS before you do anything else. Note that self-published, vanity-press, or small-press books are usually not considered reliable sources. (Yes, I know this makes up the bulk of poetry books.) Look at the templates at the top of the article and read the linked guidelines in each one, they may help explain the deficiencies. I think it is possible that Biker poetry could be a decent article, otherwise I would have asked for it to be deleted. Having said that, I doubt there is enough on any one of those authors to merit listing them individually. Perhaps it would be better if you tried to find better references covering the genre. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

_______ Would you mind looking at what I just did. I was having a big problem with the code for some reason on one reference... but eventually got it fixed. I've listed three authors as prominent and placed references in the reference section. These folks are very well known in Biker poetry but are also well known in poetry in general. I found independent articles in the Boston Globe and WGBN Boston on two of them and the biggest one of all, with the most ink out there is Dr. Martin Jack Rosenblum. I was able to find a story from the UWM Post in Milwaukee where he teaches. This guy headed up the Archives for Harley Davidson and has more ink than anyone I know having been a regular contributor to dozens of magazines. Let me know if this story works. I think it is in compliance with WP:RS Thanks for your time on this Akbikerpoet (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh... I believe the article falls within the "notability" requirements so I would like to see that notation removed. There are numerous links throughout the article that should satisfy notability. Thanks Akbikerpoet (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you posted a call in the Poetry project calling for someone to take an interest in Biker poetry. Well someone did and did a fine job. The article has received a major re-do and looks wonderful. It has been abbreviated considerably but the meat of the article remains. The work of Diane Wakoski was emphasized to include a wonderful quote from The Motorcycle Betrayal Poems. Thank you for taking an interest in this. The article has been improved a great deal. Akbikerpoet (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

New user wanting to help

Hi there,

So, I just created this account minutes ago and decided to spend part of the day editing Wikipedia articles that have poor grammar and punctuation (I'm a bit of an English snob ;)). So, I clicked on "Random article" and it actually brought me to one of the articles you recently fixed up (looks like someone was inserting garbage links or something). Anyway, I checked out your contributions and I suddenly didn't care about grammar and punctuation errors on the site anymore. I think I could gear my efforts toward fighting vandals and people who are just trying to get their own websites in the links sections of articles. So, I guess what I'm getting at is that I'd like some direction from you. Is there a certain page or program you use to alert you to dubious posts?

--WFF12 (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider myself a vandal fighter (in fact, I think the whole paradigm of "fighting" vandals is misguided and leads to more vandalism). I would suggest that you stick with correcting grammar and punctuation until you have more experience with Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	You just make this a very fun place :) Monkeytrout (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I do it for the children. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about editing that other user's comments earlier. They had misspelled your handle, so I thought that was acceptable exception to the rule. Monkeytrout (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I checked out the sockpuppet account. I wonder if some of the things "Tokyoboy66six" put down is deliberately aimed towards me since I've been removing the various spams that has been abounding about Hicks and Loughmiller. Thanks for catching that. I'd hate it if a guy like that were to do something to make me lose my account.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Lakhvinder Cheema and User:Shakehandsman

The clearest reading of your rationale at this AFD is that you are accusing Shakehandsman (talk · contribs) of racism. Can you please comment on that in light of WP:NPA, or consider refactoring your comment if it is not coming across as you intended? If there is a problem, whether with his conduct or yours, I'd like to see it made express rather than merely insinuated and then dealt with. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am preparing an RFC/U which I hope will deal with the issues uncovered. As far as the rationale goes, I am stating an observation made while looking through Shakehandsman's contributions. Any reading of racism is yours. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Claiming it's a neutral observation and that "Any reading of racism is yours" is incredibly disingenuous given that I am asking you to explain why you went out of your way to comment in an AFD nom on how you think the article's author focuses on writing about "bad things done by brown people." You chose those loaded words and you chose to put them there as part of a rationale for deleting an article. So try again to explain that, or remove that statement from your AFD nom. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You've had my answer. Feel free to remove it yourself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

certifying

Hi Thanks for starting the request for comment. I agree that there are significant concerns here. It appears that you might have to fill in some other sections: for example the "attempts to resolve" and the "certifying dispute" section for it to go. Obviously, 'm happy for you to the #1 in both of these since you initiated this. --Slp1 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for pointing that out. I did start one of these before, but that was a long time ago when everything seemed so much brighter and more hopeful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I understand the sentiment about the past etc. I'm wondering if I could make a suggestion. I rather agree with Off2riorob/youreallycan's comments about the RFC not being set out to allow the uninitiated see the problems quickly and clearly. It is important that things listed be very obvious problems, particularly ones that have received push-back from other editors. As I mentioned, I will be adding further examples later, but in the meantime maybe you would be willing to go through the statement/evidence with that in mind, and perhaps consider some edits. For example, I don't think there is an obvious problem with the Jepson and Dyas-Elliott redirects. I'm also not sure adding references to articles with negative information/titles in them will be the strongest evidence to outsiders, though I agree that if there are lots more examples it does show a pattern. Just a thought. --Slp1 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Re SB

You said:

Or, to put it another way, what harm will come (to Wikipedia) from not allowing ScottyBerg to edit for a few days while this gets sorted out?

Enormous harm, which I fear have already been delivered. (Sorry to be cryptic, but I cannot elaborate.) Frankly, I now really hope that the evidence comes in against Scotty, because the alternative will be a major black mark on WP.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What's one more enormous black mark? If you feel like being less cryptic, email me, but I don't have a dog in this race and I'm not likely to read through a lot of suppositions and assumptions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I'm going to have to raise this Merridew question at ANI. You can't be citing an indef'd user's opinion from two years ago as having any value to this current discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I appear to be doing just that, so your assertion that I "can't be" is wrong. I don't think raising this matter on ANI is a good idea, but it seems to be too late. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It looked to me like you were trying to pull a fast one. You know, I don't recall that we've had any serious disputes before, and I'd just as soon keep it that way. But some of the stuff you've been doing lately is a head-scratcher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we're still friends. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

While I don't have any enemies here, I'll concede that there are some users that I don't talk to very often. :) If you have solid evidence that Ash = Fae, and you're concerned about openly "outing", you should take it offline to your most trusted admin. If Ash = Fae, and if Ash left under a volcanic cloud, then he/she's probably got no business being an admin. But if they're not the same user, that would be a different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You're very fond of conditional statements. I have no reason to contact any admins offline about this matter, trusted or otherwise. If you have doubts, and you seem to, I suggest you ask ArbCom about it. I think I may have said that before. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the accuser, which is you. However, given the result of the next section, even if they are the same guy, wikipedia does not consider them to be, so that's probably the end of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have questions regarding the identity of the user, please contact ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to, since I'm not making the accusations. And if you continue to make those accusations without providing evidence, you're liable to be hit by your own boomerang. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

While I am glad that we're still friends, I would prefer that you make such predictions on your own talk page. Please stop posting here unless it's about something else. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U

Can you provide a diff to evidence that Ash = Fae? Nobody Ent 23:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you contact ArbCom for any questions about the self-identification of those users. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

DC, since you did not provide any evidence that the two users are the same person I contacted the ArbCom, per your suggestion. In their responses they did not indicate that the two users are the same person. Therefore I have deleted the RFC/U as having been improperly certified. You are welcome to create a fresh RFC/U on Fae alone, but it should not include unproven allegations of other identities.   Will Beback  talk 

Thanks for letting me know. I respect that you held to the courage of your convictions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Fae connected

"That image was deleted by Fæ on 11 Novemeber 2011 (log) " -- that's not the date I see in the log, though the rest of the argument seems to hold up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where that date came from - fixed now. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal Of External Link

Hi,

I added an external link to the article 'Electronic Mailing List' which was immediately removed as spam. I can accept that although the website contained commercial content it also contained information and advice to help people build a subscribed email list. This is only my second use of Wikipedia and I can accept your decision, but I do find it strange that other external links attached to this article are also commercial websites yet have not been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfds (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Those links should not have been there either. I have removed them now. Please read WP:EL for guidance about external links. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI block/ban against you was stopped

At "12:25" today, the request to block/ban you was rejected as "no consensus" by admin User:Nobody Ent, to avoid discussing other public methods to out the related user, in this thread (closure diff-link):

• WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal

Many of us did not see evidence of any serious intent to harrass or out a person who seemed to be socking as 2 different non-disclosed usernames. However, as you likely know, it would be best to avoid that person and the related hostile cohort usernames in the near future, if possible. However, if people are wp:socking under other usernames, then further conflicts are understandable. Be careful. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. When I was responding to the requests to re-open the closure. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• 2nd closure, by admin: This time ANI was closed, a 2nd time, as "almost enacted" by an actual admin, User:28bytes, at "23:36" 31 January 2012, in post diff-2135. I am sorry you were dragged through the ordeal for 5 whole days (27-31 January!), when other incidents are ended quickly like "closed cuz 24 hours (yawn)". However, if you had not sacrificed all your time to explain the broader picture during those "117 hours", then I am not sure how many editors would have tried to defend all the subtle attacks.
  Even in 2012 now, WP:ANI remains a dangerous venue, with no "due process" and I wish "wiki-public defenders" could be requested to help actually check the evidence so that someone such as yourself would NOT have to burn 5 continuous days to clarify the issues. Basically, ANI needs to demand (mandatory) "rules of evidence" and no more begging the question by placing a person's username in a heading followed by an unfounded claim of "harrassment and outing" which "prejudices the jury" against a fair view: court cases are always titled "A versus B" and never "A v. nefarious harrasser User:B". However, I hope you can see now why another person would be tempted to create a new username and pretend to leave WP, when several people gang up against them, even though you remained courageous to defend yourself during those 117 hours. Not everyone is that strong. Meanwhile, perhaps next time someone insults you (repeatedly?), first raise an issue at WP:WQT to build a history of evidence, even if the results seem too lame at first. Anyway, I hope you will not quit WP over this incident. Many of us are seeking to make fair judgments here. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman

This notice is being sent to you because you participated in this RFC, which was placed on indefinite hold when the user who was the subject abruptly retired from Wikipedia. As of today that user has announed that they are no longer retired and are retuning to the project. This does not mean that the RFC must be re-opened, but it can be if anyone feels there is a need for the discussion to continue. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There was serious discussion of banning me for re-opening Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ (originally Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ash), and my actions are under a great deal of scrutiny at the moment, so re-opening Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman may be seen by some as foolishly and deliberately thumbing my nose at my critics. I'll do it shortly. Thanks for the notification. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

format

Too much bold => shouting. Calm is more persuasive. Nobody Ent 16:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No shouting is implied or should be inferred from my use of bold text. It is for visual, not aural, emphasis since I know that people will be glossing over much of what is written on that page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. You have new messages at CycloneGU's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Don't know if you're watchlisting, but I replied again. CycloneGU (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Edit warring

Stop it.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And if you are keeping count: You will hit 3/rr first so just take it to the talk page before it becomes a problem. Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please start a discussion on the talk page justifying how such a poor quality image aids readers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:Keepsake Box Revision

You removed an addition and link from the Keepsake Box page yesterday with the comment regarding newly added promotional material. I appreciate that per se it may appear that way, however it was added at the recommendation of Wiki editor Sionk as a response to this suggested article for inclusion.

Sionk's recommendation was: "to include a paragraph and photo in the Keepsake box article, may be a reasonable solution. It is clearly an outstanding example of such a box and you have citations to prove the box exists and is of some note. Bear in mind the Keepsake box article is about Keepsake box's in general, so you would need to avoid adding to much about this particular box. Hope that makes sense"

The box has been the subject of magazine articles and a BBC news feature (albeit regional), and the weblink is to an information page on the history of the box, and resides in the Features section of a website that includes excellent reference materials (and not an advert or call to action to be seen anywhere).

I would appreciate it greatly if you would revisit the matter, and I look forward to hearing from you. Nickydav (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

It would be polite if you had responded to this question (but maybe you are exceptionally busy and forgot). Nickydav is a new Wikipedia contributor and I don't believe they intended to make the addition to the Keepsake box article overly promotional. However, because the article is currently so short, I can see why you may have thought the additions to be too lengthy. I'll add something much shorter - the article could do with an illustration of a prime example of a Keepsake box. Sionk (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it would have been polite, but as it happens I was busy at the time and simply dismissed it as someone attempting to follow bad advice about adding promotional content. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day

	The You make me smile with my heart award
	Thank you for deleting the animated image from the article on you know what and for generally standing up for the ladies. The fact that you're having to defend your common-sense decision says a lot about the state this project is in. I for one sure wish there were more of you. Your contributions are one of the reasons people like me haven't quit yet. ♥ DracoE 19:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Just testing out WikiLove if you don't mind :) YumYamNam (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, but new accounts leaving me messages usually end up getting blocked in fairly short order. I don't know why, but I've seen it happen... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: Your comment on Jimbo's talk page

Sorry about that. I just wanted to prevent Niabot's mistakes from misleading readers. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Look at what has already transpired on Commons - this isn't an argument where facts will matter that much, unfortunately. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Final warning

One more post of this style and you're blocked. (Noting especially the taunting pattern of edit summaries.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what purpose you think you serving here, but it is neither reducing "drama" nor furthering an interaction ban which will prevent future occurrences. Please restore my comment and stop acting like a dick. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

IBAN

Per both your agreements I am imposing a binding interaction ban on you and Prioryman. Please do not comment on, or otherwise interact with him, at any venue. If you want to appeal the ban for any reason please do so on my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban), or to Arbcom. I hope that satisfies everyone. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you noticed my response at AN before you enacted this (because Fut Perfect decided they didn't like it and removed it). Either way, thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup I did (which is why I closed it off), but only because it was brought to my attention. I'm not sure why it was removed (because it brought some level of resolution to the issue) but I figured best to let sleeping dogs lie :) thanks. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a cynical person might suggest that the answer lies in an examination of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2, but I assume that it was done with only the best interests of Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

This [1] edit, including its edit summary, again contained a hostile, taunting comment on your opponent, which was not essential to the purely procedural suggestion you were ostensibly making. While the latter would have been okay, the former is not. This was a breach of the interaction ban and I have blocked you for 48 hours accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You may note the section immediately above this one in which the terms of the interaction ban are clearly noted. While my edit summary of "Helatrobus wants to have his cake and eat it, toooooooooooo" was petty and unnecessary, it was not a violation of the interaction ban. If you (wrongly) consider that it was, Prioryman also violated the terms and should similarly be (wrongly) blocked. I would say that you are looking increasingly less than impartial in this matter, but perhaps you just have an itchy trigger finger. Are you going to unblock me yourself, or do I need to post an unblock request? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Delicious carbuncle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hot on the heels of yesterday's iffy block of Pigsonthewing, Fut Perf has blocked me for "a breach" of a newly enacted interaction ban. The admin who placed the ban explicitly stated that their talk page was "excluded from the ban", so there was no breach. Fut Perf seems to have some personal interest in this. They removing my agreement to the ban from a WP:AN discussion in which the terms of the interaction ban were being negotiated and threatened me with a block, which seems an odd way to reduce troublesome interactions. Additionally, Fut Perf was temporarily de-sysopped as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2, a case in which the person with whom I am now banning from interacting was de-sysopped. I suggest that Fut Perf is acting out in a misguided attempt to support his colleague, which would be a misuse of the tools. I had hoped that they would unblock me and correct the block log themselves, but they appear to have gone inactive just at the time I left my request for them. Can someone please unblock me now and have a word with Fut Perf? Thanks.

Decline reason:

You were given an explicit warning that if you kept taunting Prioryman with edit summaries like that, Fut. Perf would block you. You then did exactly what he warned you not to do, and he blocked you. This isn't rocket science here. 28bytes (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fut Perf seems to have trouble controlling their emotions, so I didn't take that warning seriously. Regardless, I was not blocked for that, I was blocked for violating an interaction ban, which is something I did not do. And I don;t think you were the most appropriate person to deny my unblock request, do you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Delicious carbuncle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No "breach" of an interaction ban occurred.

Decline reason:

Don't poke the bear.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Delicious carbuncle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm not sure how to put this more clearly, but no "breach" of an interaction ban occurred. That was what I was blocked for. I did not do that. Please unblock me. Thanks!

Decline reason:

I don't know how to put this more clearly, nobody is interested in listening to your attempts to wiki-lawyer your way around this interaction ban. What you did is not excusable regardless of whether you violated the specific terms of the ban. Grow up. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since you at least acknowledge that your edit summary was "petty and unnecessary", I guess there's something of a basis for unblocking you. However, I would want to come away from this with one unmistakable clarification: if ErrantX spoke of his page being "exempt" from the interaction ban, that does not mean his page is a place on which you are simply free to continue your fights. The consensus on AN was for a full interaction ban, not an interaction ban with loopholes. The exemption – and I hope ErrantX will agree with this interpretation – is meant for providing a place where either of you could post a brief, neutrally worded notification or request for advice if they feel that, for instance, the other party has been in breach of the rules. It is not meant to provide an opportunity for continued sniping at each other. If you can agree to this understanding, I'd have no problems seeing you unblocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I never had any other understanding, but neither did I think it was a page that Prioryman would continue his vexatious comments about me after the discussion that had just concluded. You took umbrage at the edit summary of my single comment and blocked me after ErrantX had responded, asked us to let the issue drop, and, notably, not blocked either one of us. No action was necessary on your part. In fact, given your relationship with Prioryman, I think you misused your tools. What did you think you were preventing by blocking me? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What most blocks are meant to prevent: more of the same. Question: if it was always your understanding that Errant's talkpage was not for further sniping, why then did you use it for just that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There was no reason to assume that there would be more of the same - the issue had been closed on the talkpage of the admin who placed the interaction ban. I made my comment at 18:14 UTC, ErrantX responded at 18:25 UTC. I made no further comments on their talk page or anywhere else about Prioryman, although I had made other edits. At 7:24 UTC the next day you blocked me. The admin who placed the interaction ban hadn't seen fit to block me. No other admin blocked me. Yet, many hours later, you -- an admin with a personal involvement in this from your association with Prioryman in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 -- blocked me. Why don't you cut to the chase, unblock me, and recuse yourself from any further admin actions involving me? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Note for fellow admins: It will soon be bedtime where I am, and I won't be online for most of tomorrow, so if anybody wishes to unblock, feel free to do so without waiting to consult me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Delicious carbuncle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See above.

Accept reason:

User acknowledged that it was best not to use edit summaries like that for which they were blocked. Blocking admin has no issue with unblock as per above. Samir 14:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I probably helped earn you this block by charging Future Perfect that 10 cents for threatening you. Cla68 (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he just blocked me to avoid paying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding Info Back

To sources that had Stephanie Adams in them for a while but were recently removed. I was told by a friend about it and wanted to edit it myself, since this site is an open project for everyone. 108.41.21.51 (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Who is your friend, do I know them? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am traveling and on a different computer. Well, my friend is definitely not Fasttimes68, who keeps blanking Adams on pages that mention her as an author, model, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_24 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairleigh_Dickinson_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelmina_Models http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playboy_Playmate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people:_A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_writers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astrologers

I am new here and do not know how to go about complaining. Perhaps you can since you have before. And it appears on the playmates of 1992 talk page that a user named HJMitchell also warned Fasttimes68 to stop but he hasn't. Adams has several fans clubs on the net and word gets around fast when someone vandalizes information about her. 74.101.6.200 (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If this was anywhere but Wikipedia, I would assume you were the same person who contacted me the last time this issue came up and that you are Adams herself. But, since you say that you're a new user, I must assume good faith and take you at your word. I think the problem here is that we have an editor who has a marked dislike for Adams and should be banned from anything to do with them, but we also have someone creating sockpuppets to promote Adams here. This makes people understandably disinclined to get involved. As for me, I've been involved and while I would like to see both parts of the issue addressed, I'm not going to spend any more time on it. Say hello to your friend for me! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Will do. By the way, are there any other editors or links on here that might be helpful in resolving this issue? You definitely seem to be a long time expert on here. 74.101.6.200 (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the very model of a modern Wikipedian! If you are in touch with Adams or her reps, you should advise them to send an email to OTRS detailing the issues and the history. Advise her as well that generating media attention about an issue relating to biographies of living people seems to be helpful in at least mitigating the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can, ask Adams to get in touch. My email is enabled here. I may be able to assist in resolving this, but would prefer to keep the games off my talkpage. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see your e-mail, what/where is it? 74.101.6.200 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

On the left hand side (possibly hidden in something labelled "toolbox") there should be a link that says "email this user". It will only be available to a registered user who has themselves enabled email. I am not sure if new accounts can send email immediately, but even blocked accounts can usually send email once they add one in their preferences. See WP:EMAIL. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not in your toolbox, are you sure it should be there, but I just registered and included mine. Hellotoyoumyfriend (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Try this link. If that doesn't work, it is likely not allowed for new users. I have just used the contact form on her website, so perhaps she will get in touch as a result of that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It worked. Thank you! Hellotoyoumyfriend (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC) I better clarify or people might think I am her or her agent. Ha! It worked, meant your contact form on here. I had to confirm my e-mail in order to access yours. Thanks again! Hellotoyoumyfriend (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're aware, but the above user is a sock farm. Calabe1992 18:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm hopeful that communicating with Adams will help resolve the situation. While there are problems on both sides of this, there is an actual person involved here. If I can listen to what Adams has to say and try to help her resolve this, I'm willing to engage an IP or two in conversation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Delicious carbuncle. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Logging out to make problematic edits

Was this edit done by you? If it was, it was logging out to make problematic edits, a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. Wikitaka (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I never log out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

User:Delicious carbuncle/Stephanie Adams is ready for you to work on. AniMate 00:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Had a brain fart and copy paste moved this. Give me a second to fix this. AniMate 00:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed with the history intact. AniMate 00:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi

• So what's the plan, then? I will never stop posting, btw, I am intrigued by your work.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please give Milowent a time-out? I have asked them to stop posting on the talk page of an article I am working on on my own userspace, and they have responded by removing my request for the talk page to be deleted. Combined with their statement above -- "I will never stop posting" -- it is clear that they are simply trying to annoy me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Listen you are restoring controversial article content on a BLP that has been warred over many times. This concerns me. I simply asked what was going on and you've been deleting my comments. I do not assume bad faith, I just asked to know what is going on.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What is "going on" is that I am working on an article in my userspace. Now please go away. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy declined

I declined the speedy request on the Stephanie Adams talkpage because it doesn't satisfy the criteria for WP:CSD#G7. A WP:Miscellany for deletion request might succeed, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please just delete and salt the page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Reopened ANI discussion

Back on 28 March I closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which I thought was finished with. You later posted a further comment below the closed section, and, having read your comment, I decided that the issue was perhaps not as unambiguously finished as I had thought, so I reverted my closure. Nobody posted any more comments to the section, and it is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Wiki user:Fasttimes68 is vandalizing pages referencing celebrity model Stephanie_Adams. However, an editor has now suggested that I should have informed those who contributed to the discussion that it had been reopened, so I am doing so. It is very likely that nobody had any more to add, but if you would have done so then I apologise for not informing you at the time. If you do wish to say any more about it then it will be necessary to open a new section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, since the old one is archived. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and thank you for re-opening that discussion at the time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

File:Metalfistbarnstar.png		The Metal Fist Barnstar
		I am awarding you the Metal In The Ass "Metal Fist" Barnstar for your sterling work on the "Up Your Ass" article. I look forward to the day it will grace this Encyclopedia with its presence.

Metalintheass (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was involved in a discussion on the SCUM Manifesto and noticed that there was no article on this related Solanas play. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Note

Per WP:NPA, please do not call editors "odious little weasel"s. 28bytes (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Lately I have become very confused about what constitutes a personal attack. Other editors outright lied about me in an effort to get me banned but even though making accusations without evidence is covered in WP:NPA, when I asked for blocks, I was ignored. And that wasn't even without evidence - it was demonstrably false allegations. I am not a homophobe, yet editors can imply that I am or even openly state it without fear of being blocked. On the other hand, Silver Seren is an odious little weasel and I am warned for saying so. It's all very troubling. If only the guidelines were applied in a manner that was at least vaguely consistent, perhaps people would have a chance of knowing when they were breaking the rules and when they were just being bullied by an admin with a dislike for them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Who's bullying you? It was a polite request, not a block or even a {{warning}}. And yes, you can get warned for saying things even if they're self-evidently true; that's pretty much the point of NPA. 28bytes (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right. It was a polite request and I was unnecessarily rude. I'm sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. :) Happy editing, 28bytes (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)