User talk:Candleabracadabra

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

Proposed deletion of Bala Bala Sese[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Bala Bala Sese has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

film has not been released and does not have notable coverage, see WP:NF

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BOVINEBOY2008 22:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I replied to you on my talk page. Thanks for your help. Jersey92 (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not redundant[edit]

Text readers do not enter the infobox unless specifically placed there; all information should be as available to the disabled. Dru of Id (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What does saying someone is "an American politician" tell the reader that stating their political office doesn't? It is redundant. Unless they have held multiple offices it adds nothing and is potentially misleading. Also are you using "American" as some sort of ethnicity? Is someone of Indonesian heritage American? It's a useless tack on that mucks up the lead. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
You think someone should have to find the state and navigate through that to get to the United States for an American politician? It's a positional item, not ethnic - if they were an American who had been elected in another country, their nationality should be mentioned alongside where they hold office. It is a brief mention that tells anyone not familiar with the United States that an American 'Georgian', for example, isn't in Asia. Dru of Id (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I think most readers should know the 50 states. And if they don't there is an existing wikilink. If it's necessary to point out the country it should go after the state. ie. John Johnson is a Senator in Kentucky, U.S. But I think including the state is enough, just as Scotland, or a country's name in Africa is enough, without saying Scotland, United Kingdom or Botswana, Africa. Do all our readers know that Botswana is in Africa? No. Do they all know that Scotland is in the U.S.? No. But if they want to know where Kentucky, or Botswana, or more any other place they can always link on the place name. Have a great afternoon. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Americans make up less than 5% of the world's population; what percentage of readers they make up I don't know, but a global encyclopedia should be written for the sake of those unfamiliar with the subject, and 'most' are not familiar with the 50 U.S. states at all. 'Redundant' is adding what year someone was elected to the lead, to show a difference between the 4 days after the change of year (one of which is a U.S. holiday) and the previous year, two whole sentences before they get to the information in the body of the article. Again, this is a standardized format...and your revert before discussion was against WP:BRD. Dru of Id (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The state is wikilinked. As I noted above, there are lots of things people don't know, but we can't explain all of them in every article. That's why we link to related subjects. An article on a politician is not an article on the geography of the state he represents. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Liberty GB[edit]

Fair enough, but I think you'll find the article ends up getting deleted. I hadn't seen the earlier version(s) when I created what I thought would be a new page, but now that it has been recreated I have to agree with many of the complaints that were made about it. I'm not claiming mine is perfect or even brilliant, but it did at least pass muster in the deletion review. What the article is facing now is a nomination for deletion, and I was concerned that as it stood all the old objections were back on the table. My mass edit version has persuaded at least one person there to change their vote. I still will not be surprised if the whole article gets deleted, which will mean it can never be recreated. Emeraude (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The party is officially registered with the Electoral Commission as Liberty Great Britain. You ought to make a contribution at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty GB page. Emeraude (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of article "Rick Swann"[edit]

"14:58, 2 May 2014 Candleabracadabra (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rick Swann to Rick Swann (Does not appear to be notable. Let's sort it out ie. delete it. hasn't been edited in a while) (revert)"

This article had not been edited due to waiting on approval. I had been out of the country for 1 week and it was deleted (all work lost!) on my return. What's with this?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RikoLabudovic (talkcontribs) 17:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I moved the article into mainspace. It was subsequently deleted by user:Martijn Hoekstra as a copyright violation. See user:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Swann&action=edit&redlink=1 here. If you ask him I think he would be willing to email you what was there, but I don't think administrators will restore content deemed a copyright violation anywhere on Wikipedia including AfC space or userspace. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Central Elementary School (Albemarle, North Carolina)[edit]

I decided the article's talk page is better for the discussion we are having. It should have probably been discussed there once User:Doncram agreed to help. And thanks for all your contributions. Not all were kept, but I'm hoping the final result is satisfactory. I had to fix some of the sources when paragraphs were divided because when a paragraph ends without a source, I tend to wonder if the source is in the next paragraph. I used to assume this was true and didn't bother to fix the problem when I wrote articles, but somehow I don't anymore.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's looking a whole lot better. The whole school was moved including the additions to a new location? And then the additions were renovated and expanded as a new school while the original part of the building is being sold off? Is that correct? Or only the original 1924 part of the building was moved? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I see it's still not clear what happened. I will have to look for a history of the various schools involved, but here is what I believe to be true, which can't go in the article as of now because it's like WP:OR.
Central School was built in 1875 or 1899, depending on who you believe. Sometime prior to 1920, the building burned, but the exterior walls remained standing, so a new interior was built. In 1924, a new Albemarle High School was built next door, and the existing building became Central Elementary School. Now different sources give different dates for what happened next, but it was around 1955 that a new high school was built on Park Ridge Drive. Albemarle High School became Albemarle Junior High (and later Albemarle Middle). New sections were added to Central Elementary around that time. Around 1990, it was becoming clear that Central Elementary's oldest building was dangerous and needed replacing. The leading solution was to build a new Albemarle Middle, which they did, and put a new Central Elementary where Albemarle Middle had been. Eventually, the plan that I have already put in the article was the one selected. I need to find the date for the completion of the current Albemarle Middle.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
A link to a page related to this one is in the article, but here is the historic building. The new addition is in the back.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I moved it to article space. See what you think of it. I didn't find all the sources yet but I added what I remember reading. Maybe the sources can be found later.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I had to revert your reorganization. I know the description of what happened is very confusing and this is not typical of how Wikipedia articles work, but no one who reads the article as you left it is going to have any idea what is going on. It's absolutely necessary that we separate the two sets of buildings into two separate histories. Maybe it's not ideal yet, but there's no way it would have worked with the one long history.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Please don't just revert. The way it was organized didn't make sense. If you want to organize according to the buildings then you need to do so in a way that is cogent and comprehensible. It needs to organized and to be cogent to readers. I think it makes more sense to discuss the complex chronologically and to make it clear you are talking about multiple buildings, additions and renovations. If you are going to organize it somehow by building then you need to make that clear the section titles and content should be self explanatory as to what's being discussed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────But your way is the one that doesn't work. My way makes perfect sense to me because I know which buildings are which. Anyone who knows nothing about the schools will have no idea what is going on if they try to read your version.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You know which buildings are which, but the reader doesn't. That's the problem. It's not made clear to someone unfamiliar with the subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
But when I tried to read your version as if I knew nothing, it made no sense.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I did fix the lead. It said nothing about the fact Central Elementary used to be in a different location. I don't know how to fix the problem for now, but you don't seem to have changed anything, so maybe it's okay now. Maybe someone else can come up with a better solution. I do know that with your method, it wasn't even chronological becasue what we COULD have done was put the empty Central School building details at the end. But "History of the original building" doesn't work when histories of both locations are under that heading. I really hope the way it stands now is at least clearer. Photos would help, but photos on this site are a major pain and I don't have the talent to provide them.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brian Vala Nahed[edit]

Dear Candleabracadabra, The scientists, such as Robert Winston , who are either talk show hosts or regulary appear in the media do meet Notability on Wikipedia's requirements. Behrouz "Brian" Vala Nahed, however, has only co-published some on-line scientific journals and has never appeared on the television nor has given any interviews to anyone. I just checked the Amazon and Google Books and found out that Mr. Nahed has not even published a single book so far, so I do not understand on what grounds this article was published in the first place. It looks to me like a job application form, listing all the qualifications and experience. (If co-writing a few on-line journals qualifies someone for an encyclopedic entry, perhaps I should nominate myself!) Furthermore, the article is unsourced and the "external links" only provide his job details and qualifications. I would be grateful for your input. Regards, Payam — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtheistIranian (talkcontribs) 18:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I basically agree. That's why I recommended merging to his wife's article in the deletion discussion. If you are asking about why I removed the notability tag, I did so because the article was already at a deletion discussion, so I didn't think that template was useful ie. the issue was already getting sorted out. If there weren't an article on his wife I would have said delete, but he can certainly be mentioned there and it's possible someone searching for him would find it useful to know who he is and that he married into a very prominent family. It's certainly possible that he will become notable in the future. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance or if I haven't explained myself properly. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I totally agree with your recommendations. Hopefully all the editors can reach a consensus and either delete the article for good or consider merging to Vanessa Kerry's article. Some wikipedia editors are even considering deleting the article on George Clooney's partner Amal Alamuddin despite her fame and celebrity status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtheistIranian (talkcontribs) 21:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

AFC Reviews[edit]

I keep finding excellent comments from you on articles in the creation queue. Did you know that commenting can be made even easier and that you can also ease the backlog at the same time by deploying the AFC Review Gadget? Some of your comments are so precise that you would have declined the article at once. The gadget helps you through the entire process. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Helper_script has full details. Hope this helps you. Face-smile.svg Fiddle Faddle 11:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The gadgets seem to be beyond my ken. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought so too, at first. But 10 minutes of head scratching helped a great deal. I still mess up at times, though. There is a reviewer help page where an experienced editor can give you a hand if you like? I'd love to see you enjoy using them and become very AfC productive, if you are willing. Fiddle Faddle 16:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
A man's got to know his limitations. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you fancy a bit of help I'm willing to give it a go. Face-smile.svg. Meanwhile, may I commend {{Afc comment}} to you to embrace your excellent comments? The gadget looks for that template when it does automatic tidying. Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for the afc comment link. I will try to use that going forward. As far as the other procedures, I started to read the policy pages but I got lost and consfused. I am a simpleton, which is not the worst thing in the world. Take care and have fun. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
A man who states that he is a simpleton is wise indeed. Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

COI Help[edit]

Hi Candle. I was wondering if you would be willing to review some correction requests I've made on a BLP page here (the second set of corrections that starts with "@Capitalismojo A couple other things") I do not have a financial connection in this case, but do have a potential COI and felt it best to play it safe. They previously waited 2-3 months for some other errors to be corrected, so I am a bit eager to ensure they don't wait that long again ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 22:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick look. I agree with the other editor that sourcing is needed to support the changes you are requesting. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fritanga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Maduro and Yuca
Eamus Catuli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Whelp
University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to HOK

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Candleabracadabra. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 22:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica1000 22:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Userfied a couple[edit]

In response to your request at WP:REFUND, I have userfied:

Have fun, and let me know if you want to delete them again. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Columbus Drive Bridge[edit]

A tag has been placed on Columbus Drive Bridge requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. KJ «Click Here» 07:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Liberty GB[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Liberty GB, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ivanvector (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the message. I actually saw the discussion, but as I was involved in the editing/ creating the article and in the DRV, I wanted to give others a chance to express their opinions and arguments so I can try to be objective and hear outside opinions to give the subject appropriate consideration. Thanks again for your courtesy in providing a courteous notice. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I think you should comment seeing as those who opposed the article in the first place are the instigators of this merge proposal. Emeraude (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Cuisine of Hawaii[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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.

I'm sorry but "there are too many photos" is not a policy based reason to gut the article of appropiate and encyclopedic photographic content. If you wish to discuss some or integrate some into gallery form that would be okay. U left lame ones only

Please don't wikilawyer. We don't use "policy based reasons" to guide our use of images, we use guidelines and you were pointed directly to the MOS, which you have repeatedly ignored. MOS:IMAGELOCATION specifically states "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar" and you've ignored this guideline. As a point of note, there are few, if any GA/FA articles that violate this guideline, and none that do so in the lead section as you have done. You are currently disrupting the article on Cuisine of Hawaii and you've been reverted by two different users who have asked you to stop. You were also given a good reason for why we don't use photos like this, especially in lead sections. If you can't use the talk page to explain and justify your edits, then I will be forced to pursue disciplinary measures. Thanks for your attention. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Cuisine of Hawaii[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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.

Hawaii regional cuisine[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Viriditas. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Hawaii regional cuisine, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The consensus in previous discussions was to leave this as a redirect until good reliable sources are added and there's enough content to merit a separate article. I actually believe this is possible, so if you want to collaborate with the Hawaii project on this in a sandbox or draft namespace, I highly encourage you to do so. But restoring an unsourced stub is not acceptable, so I reverted back to the consensus redirect. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Final warning[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Viriditas. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Candleabracadabra, enough with the warnings on Viriditas's talk page. That sort of passive-aggressiveness is blockable, and no one actually believes you're "sad". You warned them, they reverted, you keep on warning. Besides, I don't see any personal attacks on their part that requires a final warning. Now, Viriditas, for some reason Candleetc. doesn't want you here, so stay away--returning here is also blockable. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Drmies that's total bullshit. He's been asked at least 4 (or 5 I think now) times to stop posting here. I said I would stop posting on his page (and I have now even though he continues to post here). He's made personal attacks he's lied, he's canvassed and all I want is just to discuss the content. I'm certainly going to respond to attacks (particularly dishonest ones). He finally admitted that he SAW the comment on the talkpage that he ignored for so long even after i resposted it. So let's move forward. I trust you will block him the next time he posts here. It's enough. I am happy to discuss the photos and any other content issues but I will not be harassed. Including by you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Eh, no. Not bullshit. If Viriditas returns they will be blocked. If you persist in harassing them by templating on their talk page, you will be blocked! Isn't that the epitome of fairness? Now, how am I harassing you? I'm not even templating you, Regular Editor. Now, if you had asked me, or other some other fair and balanced admin, to stop them from posting on your talk page, it would have been done post-haste. It's just that leaving pissy templates and edit summaries only gets you so far. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
It is bullshit Drmies, because you aren't warning them or threatening them, you're threatening me and I'm not the one who goes around templating, lying, canvassing and attacking. I only defend myself since shithole admins certainly aren't going to do it for me. You want examples? Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess you missed where I warned Viriditas by way of pinging them and telling them etc. etc. But sure, I'd love an example of a "shithole admin", yes! Drmies (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I certainly noticed that you only told him to stop harassing me after I pointed out the impropriety of warning me when I wasn't the one doing the harassing and templating and lying and continually posting to a usertalk page after repeatedly being asked to stop. There's your example, typical blaming the victim. But I do appreciate that you at least took some corrective action once the problem was pointed out to you. Perhaps there is hope for you. Not really, but it's funny to say anyway. His response to you was funny too. "I have no desire to post there" and yet he couldn't help himself. Is there a treatment program for that kind of thing? His response on the article talk page isn't surprising either. No content discussion at all despite all my best efforts. Oh well. Take care. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess he's still reading here, he finally engaged in some discussion. Hallelujah! Of course, he disagree with every photo I want included and is adamant that every one I would get rid of is critical. I'm just glad he's able to embrace his strong desire not to post here. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You have been here long enough, certainly combined, to know that we can ping now, so your smug little "once it was pointed out to you" is patently false (anyone who reads this will see that I notified Viriditas while telling them not to post here). It's just another example of your "help I'm being repressed" attitude, which you've had for years, and which is one of the things that have gotten you into trouble. Now, make no more references to Viriditas's or anyone else's mental health ("is there a treatment program for that kind of thing") or I will block you for making personal attacks. Same with making false statements about refactoring on article talk pages, same with making personal references in article talk page section headings, and I'll leave you with that quadruple compound noun. Happy days. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Anyone reading the actual diffs can see that you finally posted to him on May 17 and 3:48 after I pointed out to you that you were behaving inappropriately. I do think it's good, as I noted above, that once I pointed out your bullshit to you, you then made an effort to do better. But this false attacking and dishonest allegation making seems a bit of a step backward. Nice try though. I am sure you are aware that making false allegations and attacks is a civility violation? How unbecoming! I look forward to your forthcoming apology. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
It should also be noted that once Viriditas was forced to stop with his disruptions and dishonest attacks here, some progress was actually made in improving the article. Perhaps next time you can act sooner and not wait until your bullshit is pointed out to you. Encyclopedia building is, after all, the goal here right? I would note that he made another false attack on the article talk page recently, but I'm sure you'll bring it up with him posthaste as I've now reminded you of how damaging dishonest attacks are to collegial encyclopedia building. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed he made the false attack on two article talk pages. And so it goes.. I'm sure helpful and constructive admin moderation will be forthcoming soon! Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Candleabracadabra, are you not familiar with Special:Notifications? By linking Viriditas' name in his comment above (you can see where Drmies seems to be addressing Viriditas directly), Drmies made sure that he was notified of the comment and able to see where he was being discussed and what the outcome of that discussion was. That type of notification (which Drmies referred to as ping) is perfectly adequate warning. Let's assume you weren't aware of that. Nathan T 22:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii regional cuisine[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Viriditas. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Hawaii regional cuisine, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The consensus in previous discussions was to leave this as a redirect until good reliable sources are added and there's enough content to merit a separate article. I actually believe this is possible, so if you want to collaborate with the Hawaii project on this in a sandbox or draft namespace, I highly encourage you to do so. But restoring an unsourced stub is not acceptable, so I reverted back to the consensus redirect. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It appears you either didn't read what I wrote or you didn't understand. First, we already have a good, reliably sourced section on HRC in the cuisine of Hawaii article, and previous discussion determined it should stay there until the time came to split it out and expand it. Good reliable sources don't include "Hawaii for Dummies" or "Lonely Planet Kauai", they include the best sources already listed in the cuisine of Hawaii article. I've really tried to AGF, but I'm getting the sense that there is a serious WP:COMPETENCE problem here. There is no rationale for you to restore an unsourced stub and then add poor sources to support the stub, when we already have a good, reliably sourced subsection on the topic in the appropriate parent article. Finally, you are supposed to take this right to the talk page for discussion after you have been reverted. You're not supposed to continue reverting. Is any of this making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I noticed you also engaged in canvassing. Next time, you want outside input at least have the courtesy to use neutral phrasing and ask for an opinion instead of making a bunch of attacks. I posted this here because I am trying to communicate with you. I didn't appreciate your templated warning any more than you like templated warnings. Try treating your fellow editors with some respect. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Please stop communicating with me, and start communicating on the appropriate talk pages about the continuing problems with your edits. Is this making sense? Asking for input from members of WikiProject Hawaii and editors already engaged in the dispute is not canvassing. You really need to start thinking before you say these kinds of things and slow down. Stop reverting and start discussing. I'm not seeing you discussing these issues, so please start now. I'm getting very tired of having my time wasted by you. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with asking for outside opinions and input. It's unfortunate that's not what you did. Please try to act more respectfully and to engage in communication instead of templating, attacking, and treating Wikipedia as a battlefield. YOu said there were too many photos so I removed two. Why did you revert? WHy do you think those photos should be reincluded but not the others? Please focus on content and explain yourself so we can work through this instead of engaging in disruptive battlefield tactics, antagonistic templatings, removing my attempts at communications on your talkpage, and refrain from making dishonest misrepresentations of my edits. Thanks! Let's start fresh and try to forget all the nastiness you've engaged in. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Please stop distracting the discussion from your continuing problematic edits and changing the subject. WikiProject Hawaii members, as well as Food and Drink members were contacted, including the relevant disputants. That is called discussion notification. Your assumption that this is canvassing or not acceptable is completely and totally wrong, much like your misinterpretations of the MOS, article layout and design, restoration of unsourced stubs, and your knowledge of what a reliable source is (it's not a blurb from a book for Dummies or a travel guide). There's no nastiness here, just a continuing, failed attempt to get you to directly engage in discussion on the talk page about your edits and to stop reverting. Is any of this making sense yet, or do we need to escalate this further? You are continuing to waste a great deal of my time without making a single edit on the talk page acknowledging the problems with your edits. I'm not going to put up with it. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Listen, I think you've lied enough. You made a personal appeal to a colleague with attacks in it. That isn't appropriate. If you want to request input make a neutrally worded request and let them judge for themselves. You've behaved abominably and it needs to stop. As you've removed my messages from your talk page and refused my efforts to communicate with you I must insist that you not post here at all. No templated warnings or anything else. I read the talk pages and initiated the discussion there that you ignored, so if you don't want to hear from me I don't want to hear from you. Got it? I really think you should reflect on your actions and I'm sure you'll see that you've acted like a real prick, including the above message where you misrepresent your own actions and attack me falsely again. This is a very disturbing pattern of behavior from you. All I've asked is that you focus on content and explain yourself while comporting yourself with basic principles of respect and courtesy. Thanks!!! See you on the article talk page. I look forward to reading your explanation of why you removed the photos I added and readded the photos I removed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
How funny! You use the word "listen" but don't understand what it means. It means stop edit warring and use the talk page. Have you done that? Nope, you haven't engaged with the four editors who have questioned your edits at all. What did you do instead? You ignored their concerns and started your own thread without addressing any of the topics on the talk page! "Listen", how funny! And as if disrupting the cuisine of Hawaii article against consensus wasn't enough for you, you then launched an entirely new campaign of disruption and restored an unsourced stub, duplicating what we already have in the parent topic. When asked to take your concerns to the talk page, did you listen? Nope. There's an entire discussion thread on talk that shows no participation from you, once again. But you're still reverting, edit warring, and now making personal attacks. And you've made the rookie mistake of demanding other editors prove your edits aren't good, when it's the other way around; you have to prove how your edits improved the article. Stop wasting my time. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Read the talkpage again. I initiated a section on the photos which you ignored. You instead started your own section and attacked me. So I reposted my concerns AGAIN for you to respond on content which you still haven't done. I also asked you to stop posting here. Your behavior is disrespectful, dishonest, and abusive. I feel sorry for you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I just did. I see that you started a discussion prior to the one I started, and this is the first time I saw it. As for the section I started, I do not see it as an attack at all. Use the talk page to respond to the concerns there and explain how your edits improved the article, and if the participating editors agree, they will be added back. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hawaiian cuisine[edit]

If anyone wants to weigh on the photos at Hawaiian cuisine (the ones I added and the ones I removed can be seen in the history) I would welcome additional opinions. Viriditas has been asked repeatedly not to post here any more since he's shown a pattern of dishonesty, attacks, templating, and other disruptions (canvassing etc). If he posts here again he should be blocked. I will also not be posting to his page unless it's necessary in response to any further attacks from him here. I hope admin intervention won't be necessary. Unfortunately he refuses to discuss the content issues. I suspect this is because there really is no bases for his serial reverts. Sad. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Notable locations[edit]

Nomination of Native Hawaiian cuisine for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Native Hawaiian cuisine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native Hawaiian cuisine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Native Hawaiian cuisine[edit]

We now have two articles, including Cuisine of Hawaii. Let's limit the first to discussion of the cuisine and foodstuffs present in Hawaii before Captain Cook. Beef, salmon and rice were not present. All of those dishes and foods can be discussed in Cuisine of Hawaii. Otherwise, why have two articles? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Cullen, I greatly respect your efforts on Wikipedia so I hope you will carefully consider the comments I am about to make. I offer them with sincerity and respect even if I am not the greatest diplomat in history. Native Hawaiian cuisine did not cease with the arrival of Captain Cook. Nor did it end with the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom. Nor did it end with the arrival of large numbers of immigrants to work the plantations of the Big Five (Hawaii). It also didn't end with the influx of disease brought by Europeans. It didn't end when taro, pigs, cattle, pineapples or Spam Musubi were introduced. It adapted, just like any cuisine, and it lives on. There is a long history of benevolent white men trying to mythologize and ideolize native people. It is its own form of insidious bigotry. Native people are not prohibited from using plastic, microwaves, skidoos or any other modern technologies. Native Americans were in fact active in building NY's skyscrapers. I am sorry if this seems like a lecture or that I'm being pedantic but this is a very very serious issue and large problem on Wikipedia. Systemic bias is not constructive. As per my talkpage comment, I agree that parts of the article were too thrown together. But isolating Native Hawaiian cuisine as if in some time capsule pre-European conquest is grotesque. Roy's was built by a Hawaiian who was also very involved in Hawaii regional cuisine (I still don't have an answer on whether we should capitalize it or not). Please take some time to think about these issues and work with me to integrate the economic and cultural aspects that influenced Native Hawaiian peoples and cuisine without gutting the subject to make it some kind of objectionable stereotype of stone age peoples. As another example, horses are not native the continental United States but they are integral to the cultures of many tribes. On a final note, I was very disappointed that user:Kelapstick chose to terminate the AfD discussion. I think it's helpful to get input and opinions. His actions were objectionable, destructive and a bit arrogant, even though I am sure he meant well. Wikipedia is crowdsourced and we need eyes on disputed subjects to make sure we get them right. Thank you for taking the time to drop me a note. I am happy to discuss the issues with you here and/ or on the talkpage and I appreciate your consideration of the points I have raised. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't read your entire long winded comment here, except the part where you praise Cullen (which is always a good idea) and you call my closing of your disruptive Articles for Deletion actionable (I will refrain from using acronyms, as you mentioned that you have not managed to learn them up in your 3+ years of editing here). Now, please understand, Articles for Deletion is not a forum to get input into how the article should look or what direction it should take. It is a forum to discuss if the article should be deleted. Full stop. That is why it is called articles for deleition. You created the article, you were the only contributor, if you wanted it to be deleted, all you had to do was blank the page and it would be deleted, or you could redirect it to Cuisine of Hawaii. If you want to discuss the article, that is what the talk page is for. Now can you please dispense with the holier than thou bullshit, it is wearing pretty thin. If you want to nominate your own article for deletion again, go ahead, I will not close it. If you think my closure was actionable, report me at the administrators noticeboard. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Kelapstick, next time you have a question or concern about my work I hope that you will assume good faith and bring it up with me first. If you look at the article history you will see that I did not in fact create the article. I restored it and added to it. As part of a broader acrimonious dispute it was suggested to me to split that sujbect out and then the very same editor stated that there was an established consensus that it should not exist as an independent article. It was redirected. I reverted. It was moved to draft space and redirected again. So I thought, hey, you know what? Let's get some opinions on this issue and see what other people think. I worded an AfD as neutrally as I possibly could and solicited input on how best to handle the subject. You terminated it prematurely. I think that's unfortunate and not constructive. I'm well aware that admins don't make mistakes, but maybe next time you will discuss the issue with me before reverting or interfering or obstructing my efforts here. Editing can be a bit daunting and frustrating, but I find that seeking out consensus is useful even if I occasionally do not agree with the outcome. Again, it would have been nice to get some input and eyes and suggestions on the article, but because you closed the discussion that will not happen now. I assume you mean objectionable where you said actionable? I do not believe your decision is actionable. It was just misguided, damaging, and highly unfortunate. Your comments to me also come across generally (here and elsewhere) as a bit snide. I'm sorry if you don't care for me or my sense of humor. Sometimes all I have left is to laugh, but I don't begrudge you for taking offense. You do your thing and I'll do mine. You might think about showing a little more restraint in how you handle matters where I'm involved though as your poop-colored glasses may be influencing your decision making. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a concept in the study of the culture, art, archeology and yes, cuisine of the people of the Americas before 1492 expressed in our article Pre-Columbian era. 1492 is a perfectly acceptable and logical and legitimate dividing line in that history, though clearly first contact varied from place to place. That does not mean that Native American culture (or cuisine) ended 500+ years ago but rather that it changed and shifted dramatically. I've been reading about Comanche culture recently, after extensive reading about the Sioux in years past. Those 18th and 19th century mounted horse warrior cultures absolutely would not have come into existence if Europeans (the Spanish) hadn't brought horses to the Americas. Similarly, if we are to have two main articles about Hawaiian cuisine, it seems self-evident to me that 1778 ought to be the dividing line. The first would describe the food supply and the cuisine of the Polynesians from ~500 CE to Cook's arrival, and the second the developments since. Each should have a brief section summarizing the other, with a link to the other. Of course, there is much to be said about how the cuisine of the Native Hawaiian people has changed and adapted since 1778, but that should be covered primarily in the second article, Cuisine of Hawaii. The pre-Columbian concept shows no disrespect to Native American cultures of 150, 300 or 450 years ago. Similarly here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Certainly there have been a series of momentous events over the years that have dramatically shaped Native Hawaiian cuisine. But I point you to Native American cuisine. I think it would be inappropriate to suggest that any of these cuisines ceased to exist or to be native or whatever after European influence. As you note with the horse example, adaptation, assimilation and other forces come into play. I have no objection to an article on pre-European contact Hawaii, but nothing about the title or the subject of Native Hawaiian cuisine suggests that it should end there. I reiterate my most strenuous objection to that notion being totally inappropriate and offensive. Roy's was developed and established by a Hawaiian. For us to exclude any and all modern aspects, influences, adaptations, fusions, innovations or influences from the development of Native cuisine is just wrong. I don't know how I can put any more forcefully. If you want to write an article on Pre-Captain Cook Hawaiian cuisine you have my blessing. But that is not the same as Native Hawaiian cuisine by any means. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
In my view, it is less about exclusion than about delineation. Leaving aside the issue of the best title for each of the two articles, I believe that if we are to have two broad articles about Hawaiian cuisine, then 1778 is the logical year of demarcation. Before that year, we are talking about the foods of a relatively stable, isolated and homogeneous culture. After that date, we are talking about the foods of a period of dramatic change and the interactions and collisions of half a dozen or more cultures in the context of world trade. To me, the distinction is clear. That most certainly does not mean that the native culture ceased to exist, and it still exists in a changed form. But I do think that it is clear that it was forever changed at that point in time in such a dramatic way that a demarcation between two eras is clear, and that the change started in 1778. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Native cuisine of Hawaii for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Native cuisine of Hawaii is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native cuisine of Hawaii until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Games and such[edit]

I'm about to archive my talk page after having taken a bit of a break from editing, but I did want to let you know that I had read the articles you'd pointed me to. Cool stuff! The transreality gaming article reminded me of Sphero, which I've been thinking of trying out sometime. One of my side projects is VR-based, and it may end up being the next "notable" thing I do... assuming of course that the iPhone game I'm working on doesn't become the next Flappy Bird or 2048, which would of course be nice. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the note User:28bytes! I appreciate it. The section title made me jump as it was the first thing I saw and I thought it was someone making another accusation against me. I am in some hot soup as per usual. It's always good times on the Wiki!!! Enjoy all your endeavors my friend. God bless and happy trails wherever your journies along the Matrix take you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Please do keep me posted! I would enjoy looking into and reading about these projects as they develop. I can't promise I will understand it all.. but I will Joust with it as best I can. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh and User:28bytes I created an article on Leo's Fortune recently. Haven't played it but it's supposed to be pretty hot stuff. Or cool stuff maybe? Hip stuff? Nice graphics and gameplay. Party on. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh and Real life escape game. Will a real life Joust game with flying ostriches be far off? I wonder. I like that better than all this Scream nonsense anyway. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I meant Saw. Time for bed. Sweet dreams!!! Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Denise Donnelly for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Denise Donnelly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinion pieces and External links/further reading[edit]

About this revert AFAIK there is no restriction against opinion pieces or biased links as external links. I do think readers would want to know more about why supporters of the school think one way and why opponents think one way.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't added as an external link, it was added as further reading and was the only material listed in that section. Further reading should be high quality sources that provide a greater understanding of the subject. I don't think that opinion piece would fly as an external link either. My understanding is that opinion pieces don't fly here at all, but there are probably rare exceptions. Why do you think that piece should be included? Aren't criticisms of the schools and the administration already included quite substantially? And if we did start including opinions wouldn't it be appropriate to also include ones in support of the schools and their exceptionally high test scores and college placement rates? How many opinions would we include? Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Tinga (dish) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Puebla, Mexico, Chalma and Tostada
Piqueteadero (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Maduro and Yuca
Alaea salt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Poke (food)
Andy Sundberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hackensack
Andy Vidak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hanford
Batida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tumbler
Breadfruit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Capric
Cecily McMillan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Scott Walker
Chrysopsis floridana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Riverview, Florida
Climate variability (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Variability
Cuisine of Hawaii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Spam
Culture of the Native Hawaiians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Polynesian
Cyanea angustifolia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cyanea
East Coast Regional Trail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Edgewater, Florida
Hawaii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Poi
Inamona (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ogo
Leo's Fortune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Roly-poly
Nisshodo Candy Store (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Manju
Plume hunting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Feather headdress
Thornby Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lake Monroe
Traci Brimhall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Fellowship
Woodbridge Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Riverside Drive

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion and Ancient Hawaiian cuisine[edit]

Salt, fuller version, photos etc. History.here Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

HRC v. Hrc [2]

Urhobo[edit]

The surrounding sentences on p. 464 are:

"The Urhobo encourage communality, mutual assistance and interdependence amongst people in a society. They demand justice and, as much as possible, avoid fighting by seeking redress in the indigenous courts presided over by elders whom they traditionally respect. Children are taught to respect and obey their parents. The culture of the Urhobo is distinct in the practices and rites performed at birth, circumcision of male and female children, premarital virginity, marriage ceremonies, and death, as well as in the kinds of food and the manner of preparation and consumption such as Ukodo, Oghewvwri, Irhiboto, Ovwovwo, (Ophopho), Okpariku and Amiedi. Although their way of life is peculiar, this does not mean that anyone who behaves like an Urhobo simply because he has been socialized in an Urhobo family and social system is automatically an Urhobo." --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 19:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool user:Atethnekos, thanks. How were you able to get the full context? I added Wikilinks to your comment so I can nav the subjects. I hope you don't mind. Thanks again. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The method is to search for things that you suppose will also be on the page in question. If you reasonably search "language", you get a snippet above the snippet you had on p. 464. You can make out "indigenous courts presided over" at the bottom of this snippet, and if you search for that, then you get the next snippet which connects to the one you had. A bit of a hack, but it can help in some situations. Have you ever used WP:REX? --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 19:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"Maybe I'm completely wrong"[edit]

I don't know about that. But I do know it is not a game, and there is no gamesmanship involved in the following message--and for the interested onlookers I'll confirm that it gives me no pleasure to write this. In the spirit of collaborative editing and a collegial atmosphere, which you correctly noted as important, please apologize to Kelapstick, whom you accused of "gamesmanship" with intent to disrupt, here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native cuisine of Hawaii. Even if Kelapstick (the guy with the "poop-colored glasses") had erred one way or another, there is no warrant for accusing him of dishonesty. You've also insulted the hell out of Viriditas, of course, accusing him of "lying habitually" and engaging in battlefield tactics and "dishonest attacks", to mention but a few of the choice words you had for them on their talk page. And whether you apologize to either one or not, please consider this a final warning for personal attacks, because I will block you next time you engage in such harassment, and then you can take me to ANI for admin abuse when your block, which will be brief, runs out. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I ever accused Kelapstick of Gamesmanship. Perhaps you misunderstood one of my comments? He speedy closed the last AfD. Now we are at AfD again. It's been an enormous waste of my time and a great source of frustration. I do think he owes me an apology, but I understand that admins don't make mistakes. I can only imagine if I had redirected an article after a "speedy keep" close at an AfD. But there's a lot of bullshit that goes on here and sometimes it stinks. Kelapstick has also followed me to other articles and engaged in damaging edits. He also voted to delete the same article he closed the AfD for as Speedy Keep yesterday. SO consider this a final warning that Kelapstick's disruptive behavior and gamesmanship is not acceptable. Now I said it and I stand by it. You want to explain his dishonest assertion that the article is "author requests deletion"? It's bullshit. He knows it. You know it. I know it. So there we have it. If you want to explain a speedy keep close and his false accusations that I am trying to delete the article go for it. But this is more b.s. from you Drmies. I have no doubt that you are eager to block me. I've been a witness to various abuses by you including the extent to which you will go to enforce you personal POV on article content. That's why I try to avoid you but you chose to involve yourself in the Hawaii drama. As far as personal attacks, shove em. You and your buddy hasfajen have been launching jibes at me for a long time and I've put up with them. So take your own medicine. You want to clean up the personal attacks? Start with your buddies and their disruption and unprovoked personal attacks on me. You've been warned. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually where you accuse me of gamesmanship is right here. Suggesting that I am hiding something by moving a page. And even in the post above. Gamesmanship is nominating an article for deletion to prove a point. Something that you have done twice. It is also copying and pasting an article to a new page with a similar title because the you "can't have a redirect deleted when it's contentious", as you so eloquently put it. I have done my best to clean up the messes that you leave behind, don't get mad at me if you don't understand the rules.
Actually, I was talking about Viriditas. His edit history speaks for itself. You are welcome to defend redirecting and userfying an article after an AfD was closed as speedy keep and other repeated moves against consensus. But these actions speak for themselves. We all know what would happen to me if I did something like that. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's get one thing straight first. When I "followed you around" to other articles, and "engaged in damaging edits" I removed a YouTube preparation instruction and a blogspot post from your "references", and after you whined about them being " the best sources we have", I added a reference to an actual book.
Now, I do agree with you, the moves and redirects were done out of process. And I am not saying that Viriditas is without fault in the matter, but they way to deal with it is not more out of process moves, redirects, copies and pastes, and AfDs. The way to handle it is not flying off the handle and lobbing personal attacks in every direction. You are the only one responding with personal attacks and unfounded accusations without evidence, which is the reason that you are the only one whom has been blocked to date.
I also notice you have not managed to point me to the exact diffs where I "attacked you", instead you resort to the standard "these actions speak for themselves" rhetoric. Now if you think I am going to apologize to you, then you have another thing coming, and I certainly don't expect one from you, I know it's not your style. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
user:Kelapstick it's clear that my editing abilities and policy knowledge aren't up to your standards. You weren't able to get me indefinitely blocked as a sock, but your buddy did block me for "harassing" you (wp:harassment), which is a little strange since I don't post on your talk page, follow you to articles, or vote to delete article subjects you are working on (those are things you do to me), but be that as it may, I think it best if we go our separate ways. Fare thee well. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems someone has to follow you around to clean up the mess you make of articles, AfDs, and moves, but if you want to file a complaint about me, by all means you know where you can do it. Since you brought it up, yes I did file a sockpuppet investigation request. That is of public record. I do believe that you are a reincarnation of ChildofMidnight for the following:
  • Your writing style has the same choppy feel to it
  • You both have the same interest in food and architecture/architects
  • You both cry foul to AN/I or Jimbo's talk page when you don't get your way
  • You are both prone to disruptive moves when an AfD isn't going your way
  • You both constantly complain about other editors using these exact words abuse, bullying, and harassment
  • You both mass create marginally notable articles using questionable sources
  • You supported my RfA despite us having no prior interaction, never having participated in an RfA before or since
That is about all I have for now, but if you feel it best that we go our separate ways, than I can accept that. It has been a slice. Consider this my last post on this page, other than mandatory notifications. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I hope you're wrong. ChildofMidnight and I got along fairly well back when I was known as User:Pharmboy, back in 2008, before I took a long wikibreak. I don't recognize it, but that doesn't mean much. Dennis Brown |  | WER 17:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Now I'm wondering if I need to use some sock-foo and look closer. Dennis Brown |  | WER 19:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(Occitan)Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Now would you please point me to the exact location where I attacked you, because I don't recall. I recall mentioning that you should have learned more about Wikipedia policy and process than you seem to have over your extended tenure here. I recall asking you to cut your holier than thou bull shit, but that is more of a request not like calling someone a dick is, in fact that essay itself says that calling someone a dick is a dick-move... --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
You nominated the article for deletion, but don't want it to deleted? And you aren't aware that this might cause confusion and a bit of disarray in the bureaucracy of Wikipedia? There are methods for getting discussion on an article - RfCs, reviews, etc. Asking for something to be deleted, but not really wanting it deleted, is just a disruptive abuse of a process with a defined purpose. Nathan T 23:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Candleabracadabra, I was not, nor have I ever been, eager to block you. I was loath to block you, but your continued rants against an administrator who tried his best to help you out, that's just not acceptable. You know what's next: a block template and an opportunity to ask for an unblock, and I've already told you that I invite the scrutiny of my peers at ANI. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Drmies you are full of shit. As has been pointed out to you, you should not be blocking where you are involved. You have a long history of conflict with me. But despite your abusive actions and the fact that you can get away with them, rest assured I consider it an honor to be blocked by you. I am sure that you believe you are an honest decent fellow. Some of the worst liars begin with lies to themselves. I stand by all of my comments. They are true and accurate. The abuse I described is 100% real. Far from me needing to be blocked, the editors attacking me should be, but it will never happen. I don't sweat it, but I'm not going to stay silent about the abuse. Dishonest, bullying and harasment are not okay. The abusive history and the NUMEROUS accusations of bad faith against me and the other attacks I endure from your buddies and other ne'er do wells speak for themselves. I have always been absolutely transparent about my reasoning and motives, and I am very happy with the work I've done here. I am most proud that I have stood up against some of the worst admin abuse, dishonesty and harassment by POV pushers like Drmies and other dishonest characters that abuse Wikipedia to advance their personal point of view and gang up on people they disagree with. Drmies ridiculous "full professor is no more notable than associate professor" commentary is a perfect example. Drmies, you want to be held in high esteem and to be highly respected. But respect is earned and there is very little about your behavior or how you treat others that merits respect. You should stop drinking so much and reflect on who you are as a person. Seriously. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Imagine if I treated Hapfsjen like you treated this anon editor here. We both know his English grammar is poor and his English comprehension is poor. But when I see his messy edits I leave them alone to avoid conflict. But you Drmies, you treat people like shit. Like your "I want to delete this article period by period" edit comment of an academic and holocaust survivor. You don't get to act to like an anti-semite and bully people you disagree with and then cry foul when editors point out that you are abusive. Your actions speak for themselves. Your first actions as an admin were to impose your POV on a contentious article. And your statement that you don't want to block me is a blatant lie. You have said just the opposite in the past and participated in accusations of socking to try and get me blocked indefinitely. This is on top of our long running conflict. So you lie as much as you want and you can block me if I point out the facts that demonstrate you're a liar, but bigotry, bullying, bias, prejudice, discrimination and other abuses are wrong. I'm limited to how much I can speak out about your actions because, perversely, speaking out against the worst abuses on Wikipedia is punishable. But the facts speak for themselves. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

N in the edit history[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to reply to your question, that N in an edit history appears when that edit creates a new page. For instance, if your user page was a red link but an edit added characters to the page that made it 'exist,' then the edit summary will have a N in it, as in a New page. KJ «Click Here» 21:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Kkj11210 But that test page I created didn't seem to create an N in the edit history. Nor did the article I apparently created for Native Hawaiian cuisine, which, combined with the numerous moves and redirects confused me. Why doesn't the redirect that existed before I created the article show up in the edit history? Thanks for your assistance Kkj11210 but I am still confused. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Block[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Drmies (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Funny?[edit]

"Lethal to Jews" is lethally funny."... Drmies (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I misquoted Cullen328: it should have read "fatal" (this, of course, in response to Cullen's recipe for almost fat-free refried beans, "No lard, though, which is fatal for Jews." Nice try, Candle, but I think you should try harder if you want to paint me as an antisemite, which is low even by your standards: we typically allow blocked editors to vent, though I think you've gone way past that. You may, by the way, be interested in Antisemitism#Usage, for that hyphen.

    I see you haven't placed an unblock request; perhaps you aren't interested in having other admins look at the behavior that led to your block. I will tell you, though, that no amount of mudslinging on your part is going to make me WP:INVOLVED to the point where I won't block you if you sling this mud on others. As for me, water off a duck's back. Drmies (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of the context. Cullen328 made a joke about eating a pork product being fatal to a Jew. You responded with "Lethal to Jews" is lethally funny.
You're welcome to defend your comment or explain why you think it's funny. It's offensive, insensitive and inappropriate. You obviously learned nothing and remain unrepentant from your past experiences where numerous editors pointed out to you that it was disrespectful to use an edit summary along the lines of "I am going to delete this article one redundant comma at a time" on a biographical article about an academic and holocaust survivor who had already complained publicly about how their biography was being handled on Wikipedia. I accept that we were raised differently and have different values. I don't think attacking, bullying, harassing, intimidating and disrespecting people who aren't in a position to defend themselves is ever acceptable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Since I am the other involved editor, then please let me observe that I have had a close and friendly relationship with Drmies for several years, and like his talk page as a place where I can crack a bad joke from time to time. I started it, and found nothing offensive at all about Drmies' reply. I see that the two of you are not fond of each other. So be it. But I would appreciate it if this harmless joke that I initiated would not be used as a tool in a wider dispute. Thank you for your consideration. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Satanic Verses'[edit]

Hello Candleabracadabra,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Satanic Verses' for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Mabalu (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you take a second look at this Angus Kennedy[edit]

I've found multiple reliable sources that mention him which I cited in the AfD. Also I went down this research path. He is one of the three mentioned chocolate tasters on the front page. Valoem talk contrib 02:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I took another look and updated my view. Thanks for your efforts! I hope all is well and you're enjoying life. Please let me know if I can ever be of any assistance. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, though I may disagree, specifically on the nominators subconscious suggestion that all sources related to this person cannot be confirmed at independent. Valoem talk contrib 14:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
There is coverage. I just think it's a subject best treated in a combined article because the coverage doesn't seems to me to be substantial enough for an independent article. But you know that (since I said it twice in the discussion). :) What else you got cooking? Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that being once of the few chocolate taster that have received coverage, hints at the least some form of notability, NBC News, NBC, The Telegraph, and Huff Post passes WP:GNG in independent reliable sources, the argument of this being paid news is pure speculation which I why I ask you to reconsider. Valoem talk contrib 14:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I looked at one of the sources and it featured a picture of a different chocolate taster. And I think another cite you listed (the first one?) mentioned him but the article wasn't really about him? Is there a "category:chocolate taster"? I'm trying to do my best wp:compromise and to abide by wp:preserve. I don't really have an objection to the article being stand-alone, but he did spend 22 years editing that publication (and that article is very short and could use expansion) where he could be noted and his follow on career mentioned. Seems like a good outcome to me. Can't please everyone? At least you aren't accusing me of disruption or some kind of other mischief. I try to just do my best and give my best opinion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Always appreciated! :) Valoem talk contrib 15:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Surfing Goat Dairy[edit]

Hello Candleabracadabra,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Surfing Goat Dairy for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beverly Gannon[edit]

Hello, Candleabracadabra. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Beverly Gannon, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Beverly Gannon to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Cheers, LindsayHello 10:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions pertaining to Climate variability[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Drmies (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Deep Creek State Forest[edit]

This is not the same as the Deep Creek Conservation Area. Compare the maps at http://freshfromflorida.s3.amazonaws.com/DCSF%2520FINAL%2520EXHIBITS%2520A-M.pdf and http://www.sjrwmd.com/recreationguide/deepcreek/map_property.html.

Here's some info about Watson Island State Forest: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/ARC/Agendas/2010/June/ITEM_6Watson.pdf http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Florida-Forest-Service/Our-Forests/State-Forests/Current-State-Forest-Management-Plans --NE2 16:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yikes as to your first point. I will take a closer look. And thanks I will see what those sources look like. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pollo Tropical may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Pollo Tropical, a part of Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc.,<ref>[[http://www.frgi.com Fiesta Restaurant Group website]</ref> owns and operates more than 95
  • Restaurant Group website]</ref> owns and operates more than 95 locations in the United States (Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee plus four licensed units located on college campuses in Florida.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

COI Help[edit]

Hi Candle. I was wondering if you were still available to contribute to articles where I have a COI. I have just a couple items left from a Request Edit I submitted 30 days ago here. That is to move the "Notable Alumni" section (which is a huge list) to this article per WP:ORGLISTS (FYI I wrote that essay) and to remove the poorly sourced/unsourced Knowledge Management System section. CorporateM (Talk) 21:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

CM, I tightened up and reorged the KMS section. I haven't looked into the sources, but the section is sourced. I'm not clear on why it should be removed? Is it not noted in the sources cited?
As far as the alumni, I think it's worth including the most notable alumni in the main article as well as linking to the sub-article that includes a broader list of alumni (and current notable employees). The article says McKC has produced more S&P 500 CEOs than any other company, so it seems reasonable to me to list some of the most notable ones. That seems to be a pretty significant part of McKC's significance in corporate culture. Let me know if you think I'm off base or I can be of any further assistance. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't notice somebody added secondary sources to the knowledge management section, but it seems they did so erroneously. It uses citations 61-63 and 22. 22 and 63 do not even mention knowledge management. 63 is just the company website. And 61 is a profile on Anil Kumar that I think is saying he opened a specific location, not the entire system. It kinda looks like somebody just pasted random sources there to prevent me from getting it deleted, as those weren't there when I submitted the Request Edit. I can provide copies of these articles if you do not have access to some of them.
Regarding the list, I offered this as a properly-sourced and concise replacement. As always it may not be perfect, but it's better than the spammy list and has actual sources. CorporateM (Talk) 20:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
CM, I'm kind of a meh on your proposed version of the alumni list section. I think I actually prefer the listings sylistically and you've left off some figures I like having included (Gorman for example). I think the current version says much the same things as far as influential leaders and being a launching pad as your proposed version.
As far as the KMS section I'm afraid I'm just not interested enough to dig in much further. I can't really tell if maybe the section was added by someone promoting themselves and hyping a contribution that may not be significant, or whether it's an important part of the company's operations and culture. It seems somewhat interesting and I'm just not into consultancy enough to want to dig in and see whether the sources cover it with any substance. Sorry!
I did what I could, and now Dilbert and I are going to get back to online solitaire. I did see in the news today that China is recommending or pushing against Chinese companies using large U.S. consultancy firms. I think that's pretty interesting. These are all just my opinions of course and you're welcome to seek out consensus for your changes elsewhere. Good luck and good tidings! Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It's possible removing the list is actually a bad edit, which could explain why I am having such a hard time finding someone to make it. (though the entire list is unsourced as it were) There probably should be information about Knowledge Management, just that it should be cited to sources that actually support the text. I guess for now the best thing to do is for me to move on until I am prepared to offer a re-write with sources. CorporateM (Talk) 22:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
BTW - this source says Boult Hall at the top then goes on to describe how a Boalt Hall student was the lawyer that won the case in the 9th circuit. It then says "the lawsuit was later settled". It might have looked like a secondary source coming from Berkeley, but it looks like they were actually the ones hired as lawyers against him. Anyways, I'll come back with something more organized later and maybe a picture, etc. but I've probably been enough of a bother to you for one day. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 03:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Per your interest in beef dishes (e.g. the new Shredded beef article you created), check out the new List of beef dishes and feel free to expand it. Cheers, NorthAmerica1000 08:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

4 Rivers Smokehouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Gainesville
Banga (soup) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Scotch bonnet
Bunny chow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kadoma
Fish Hawk Creek Preserve (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Riverview, Florida
James T. Butts, Jr. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to South Bay, California
Paul Weston (politician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hydrophobia
Pohole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hawaiian cuisine
Tacoma Streetcar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Washington State
The Saffron Swastika (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tour de force
Wolf Branch nature Preserve (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cabbage palm

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Prime Prep Academy[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Gonzmart[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Richard Gonzmart has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient footnotes; see WP:ILC

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)