User talk:Delicious carbuncle

Template:Archive box collapsable

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Miller (sportscaster)

Hi, I closed this when it was very clear to me, based on the evidence presented at the time, that it would be a WP:SNOW keep. The 7-day listing was added only recently, so I thought this was "grandfathered" in under the old 5-day rules. Apologies if that was not the case. I also did a quick review of the article, and from a person completely unfamiliar with the person, it appeared that it would pass WP:N. You may also note that I declined a speedy keep on another listing on my talk page, because it needed to go on a bit longer. If you want to re-list it, go ahead, but to be frank, I don't know how to do (and don't care to learn how to do) a re-listing. I also am completely unfamiliar with sports commentators, so I have no interest in this one way or another. I would not be annoyed or insulted if you wanted to relist it because there may have been some canvassing. Please be kind and tell the user who contacted me, that you are re-listing it. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The AfD was started after the decision to extend AfDs to 7 days was made, so any grandfathering wouldn't apply. In addition, the summary of that decision states "All AFDs will now run a full 7 days. Early closures will be discouraged unless a valid reason can be given from Speedy keep or Criteria for speedy deletion". I'm more than a little surprised to hear an admin state that they aren't willing to learn how to relist something, but we're all volunteers here, I guess. I will take it to DRV instead of relisting it myself, and I will not be notifying the user who contacted you. The reason for both will be clear from reading through this ANI thread. Thanks for your response. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

CXL Section

Hello DC - I was just wondering how long we are going to give to change the CXL section as per the KC discussion page discussions - Best regards RH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.46 (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus about removing the questioned material. I was going to change it but got distracted by something else that was happening here. Feel free to go ahead and trim it, but please stop taunting Scubadiver99. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

DC - I made the edit, - consensus has won out and fair play, please be aware that Scubberdriver has been "going hell for leather" for far too long, and he may continue to upset the balance of the article. All the best RH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.58 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

There is an apology to you on another editors talkpage. I have explained that there is a possibility that you will not respond, which they will simply have to accept, so there is no reason for you to comment if you don't want to. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It's probably best that I don't respond, but I appreciate the thought that went into it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

re:Sug-ubon

I initially tagged it for speedy deletion (lack of context and also thought it was made up), but a Filipino sysop (or someone familiar with the area) declined the speedy and confirmed it was a real place. Notability is usually assumed with geographic locations, as in many cases, especially for non-Western locations, references may not be available in English. I was siding on the side of caution and attempting to assume good faith on behalf of the author, but if you feel strongly that its made up, feel free to take to AfD. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm sorry for not notifying you that I removed the ProD tag. That should have been common courtesy on my part :) - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply (and you were under no obligation to notify me when you removed the prod). I'm assuming that an article with no references which starts "Land of the Ebnex and Cooldudes" may be made-up place when a Google search turns up no hits. It may not be, but WP:BURDEN puts the onus on the article creator to verify claims. An English admin removed the CSD tag with an edit summary of "decline speedy - its a place" which I take to be a reference to the inherent notability of places, but not a confirmation that this place specifically exists. I'll take it to AfD and see what happens. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Casting out nines in pop culture

Hello. You have recently reverted one of my edits, and I think this may be due to some unfamiliarity with the subject matter. I have started a section at Talk:Casting_out_nines to describe why I feel that removal of Cirno as a pop culture reference should at the very least be discussed, and not simply summarily performed. Have a nice day. -moritheil^Talk 00:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - you have a nice day, too. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hudson Bay

I've revised the entry about fishing in Hudson Bay and I hope it's OK now. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You've quoted several sentences from an article entitled "A Run on the Banks: How "Factory Fishing" Decimated Newfoundland Cod". The quoted portion actually refers to Burin Peninsula which is hundreds of kilometres from Hudson Bay. So, no, it's not ok now and I'll be reverting it. You should probably read WP:OR. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'ver moved it to the Burin Peninsula. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Article for deletion / Agricultural Development Corporation

I noticed your tag for speedy deletion on this article and I do not understand the criteria you think is being violated. Please explain and give me the opportunity to fix the problems. Thank you, Winter2009 (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read over the notice on your talk page and follow the links for more information. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read the information and there are no copyright infringements in the content. Since that is the criteria you cite for deletion, I hope you could be specific, please? Thank you --Winter2009 —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, I'm not sure what is confusing you. You cut and pasted material to assemble the article - that is copyright infringement and not allowed here. Please read WP:COPYVIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

'''Request for Unprotection of Vibewire Wikipedia Page'''

Hi, I am a Vibewire representative I would like to request an unprotection of the Vibewire page that has been fully protected due to multiple perceived violation of criteria including- ‘obvious advertising’ and ‘possible spam/ copyvio’. I apologise for the improper article previously posted that resulted in much confusion. Our previous representative was not entirely aware of what content was acceptable/unacceptable and I would like to amend this by creating an account of the history and unbias information on Vibewire and will provide cited sources to verify my claims. Vibewire is a a non-profit organization not aiming to generate profits in any way and apologise for any implications of advertising previously posted. Thankyou for your time and I hope we can reach an amicable resolution. I can send an article for previous approval to post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibewire09 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Try contacting the admin who protected the page, User:MZMcBride (I'm not an admin). You should probably read a few guidelines before you get started: WP:CORP, WP:COI, and WP:USERNAME. Good luck. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation "Wednesday is indigo blue"

Hello and help! I'm new and learning my way around the Wiki code and standards. Not sure from your message if I should reply here or on my own talk page. I've read the various linked articles, but I don't understand how using my own material can be a copyright violation (you cite Barnes and Noble's url, which has nothing to do with my or my MIT Press publisher). I've got 5 books with MIT Press, which holds the copyright, but allows me to use any and all my material. What specifically is problematic? Using the jacket copy? The infobox:book template has a placeholder for book covers and the drop-down copyright list on the image upload page covers such an option, so I assumed it was ok. Am I in error? Perhaps I'll delete the jacket copy and put a description in my own words. Would that work? I appreciate your suggestions. Richard E. Cytowic (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:COPYRIGHT for information on using copyrighted material on Wikipedia. There's also the conflict of interest issue that you have already been notified about. It may be best if you wait for someone else to write your bio and start articles about your books. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Terror Inside

If copying the plot from imdb is the problem, I can re-write the plot section. Would that remove the deletion tag on it ? --Roaring Siren (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can show that it meets notability guidelines using reliable sources, I'll ask for it to be deleted at AfD, but, yes, copyright violation is the problem. Please read WP:COPYVIO carefully. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Al Farooj Fresh

As this article shows, Al Farooj Fresh was the first first fast-casual restaurant chain in UAE offering fresh shawerma sandwiches and chicken meals and enjoys wide popularity in the UAE. Please do remember that Wikipedia is International and just because it might not appear familiar to you does not mean the article is "unnotable". --Roaring Siren (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see a claim of notability in that. Perhaps you should consider that since you know nothing about my nationality, location, or familiarity with various regions of the world, that your comment about WP being international is quite possibly insulting and at the very least assuming bad faith on my part. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick reminder

Just a quick reminder that users shouldn't close or revert the closure of a deletion discussion (or indeed, any other discussion) that they have commented on earlier. Closures of any discussions need to be undertaken by uninvolved individuals. I would also suggest that if you have a problem with the closure of any discussion, be it a deletion discussion or any other discussion, you contact the user that closed the discussion and talk to them about your concerns, simply reverting them isn't helpful, it causes drama and hostility on the project and that is undesireable. Nick (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a non-admin closure of an AfD that wasn't clearly a keep and was closed early. The fact that I had commented in the discussion is immaterial (but is the reason I noticed it, since it was on my watchlist). Since the user didn't appear to be active, I re-opended the AfD, and left a note for the user telling them that I had done it and explaining my reasoning. That didn't seem like it would cause either drama or hostility. Since you've simply reverted back to the closure and left me this less-than-helpful note, I'll take it to DRV. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact you commented in the discussion is not immaterial, you want the article deleted, would you have objected to a non admin closure if the discussion was closed as a delete (as impractical as that is) ? It's a well known community norm that involved parties, i.e those that have come down on one side of a deletion discussion, do not close or revert the closure of discussions. If you had a concern about the closure, your first port of call is discussing the issue with the editor that closed the discussion, not reverting the closure then leaving a note "I've reverted your closure". Your next port of call would be to seek out an uninvolved administrator to confirm whether the discussion closure is OK or whether it's needing to be re-opened.

I can also assure you that the closure of the discussion as no consensus is perfectly acceptable and the closure is highly unlikely to be overturned at deletion review - please remember that deletion review is not AfD take two, the only outcomes at deletion review will be to overturn the closure and re-open/re-list the discussion, or to endorse the closure. Now, I'm an administrator and I'm happy that the deletion discussion was no consensus (and defaults to Keep), there's certainly not a consensus to delete the article and given that you wanted an administrator to close the discussion, which I have done, what exactly is the problem now ? I can only conclude, given that your demand for an administrator to close the discussion has been fulfilled, you are only complaining because the closure did not go in your favour - would that be correct ? Nick (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that the article satisfies that notability requirement. I don't believe that a non-admin closure of an AfD that was not clearly keep and had not yet finished was correct. I don't believe that the decision of no-consensus is correct. These are not contradictory beliefs. The recent discussions around extending the run of AfDs to seven days reinforced both that AfDs should not be closed early and that non-admins should only ever be closing AfDs that are unambiguously keeps. I reverted the closure for those reasons. Had the user been active, I would have left them a note asking them to do it themselves, but since they were not, I went ahead and did it. Now, it's difficult for me to see what I did is a problem, since I was only correcting what appears to have been an obviously improper closure (and what I would have done regardless of whether I had an interest in the article's fate), but that hasn't stopped you from assuming that my motivations are based on my belief that the article should be deleted. I will take it to DRV because of that belief, since the keep arguments are for the most part not based on policy or guidelines and should be disregarded in my opinion. The issue of an improper closure is one of procedure. The issue of an incorrect closure is one of opinion. They are different issues and can be handled separately without bias. I appreciate that you're trying to minimize conflict here, but your accusatory tone isn't helping. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You said, "I reverted a non-admin closure of an AfD that wasn't clearly a keep and was closed early."

• Non-admins can close non-controversial Afds per WP:DPR#NAC.
• You're right, it wasn't "keep". Which is why I closed it as "no consensus".
• It wasn't "closed early". Afd process is 7 days. This one went 10 days. Yes, someone "relisted" it, which I find odd since it was never delisted in the first place or closed before the "relist" tag was put on the page. Regardless, relisting does not have a set time limit on it and doesn't automatically reset the original Afd 7 day limit.

Additionally, as Nick has pointed out, if you have !voted in an Afd, you aren't allowed to make any decisions as to the outcome of the Afd in which you !voted in nor are you allowed to reverse an Afd decision in which you !voted in. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We evidently disagree on this point, but I believe that it is generally only acceptable for non-admins to close AfDs that are unambiguously keep results. Relisted AfDs should run for seven days after relisting unless a consensus is formed before then (i.e., there should never be an early "no consensus" closure). Ron Ritzman has already pointed you to the guideline, so I'm not sure why you would argue anything different. And reversing an improper closure has nothing at all to with having participated in and AfD, as explained at length above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do evidently disagree. I read the guideline and it specifically says without necessarily waiting a further seven days. Keeps and No Consensus closures are open to non-admins unless they are controversial Afds. Only Deletes are off limits to non-admins and that's only because non-admins don't have the tools to delete the articles. The guideline further states, If closer feels that there has been substantive debate, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and it appears that consensus will not be achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. In this case, it was obvious and a no-consensus close was preferable. I will however note that all of that being said, and all that you've said, could be construed as moot since the banner at the top of guideline page says It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow (this guideline), though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the guidelines. About non-admin closures, the guideline states ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator and this was, as evidenced by this discussion, ambiguous. Further, Wikipedia:Non-admin closure suggests closing only Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep decisions after a full listing period. I believe this essay represents the general agreement about non-admin closures. As for the early closure, you are quoting out of context, and that sentence does not imply that relistings may be closed early. I'm at a loss to understand why you are expending the effort cherry-picking sentences out of guidelines if you are then going to declare them moot and imply that you are going to do whatever you want anyway by posting bolded and underlined WP:IAR loopholes here. I'll take it to DRV when I have a chance, but feel free to let me know how I'm wrong again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Farooj Fresh

I must have missed the trees for seeing the forest. Thank you for pointing out my boo-boo in my includeing that AME press release. I have removed it as a source in the article. I was so intent in digging up other stuff that I honestly overlooked it as PR, even as I was using it. Sheesh. I am embarrassed, truely. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Dc (is that an allowed shortening? I'm finding I prefer "Bigger" to "BD"?), I just wanted to note your comments at the AfD for AFF. I'm probably breaking all sorts of rules commenting here but nevermind. "I am probably going to stop participating in AfDs entirely" would be a sad waste of your evident talent, and if you deploy it to another part of wp that part will be all the better for it. I'm still fairly new round here but watching your speedy delete, copyvio and AfD actions on AFF have been a really useful learning exercise for me, if nothing else, so thank you. Bigger digger (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Administration

Thank you for your kind notification. Lasikladythai (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The ARS

I know we have bumped opinions a few times, but in all seriousness... might you consider joining the ARS? And after you stop chuckling... I think you do understand that it needs experienced and cool-headed editors such as yourself that through example act as internal conterbalance to some of the more "ethusiastic" ones. Like I said... we mave have bumped opinions, but I have a great deal of respect for you as an editor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. Having better examples around to learn from won't make any difference to those involved in a jihad. The respect is mutual - keep up your good work. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Orsi Kocsis

Hi , Can you provide me with additional feedback and advice on Orsi’s article. I have deleted and/or modified text to improve the article’s neutrality and added a number of additional references. There are plenty of primary references; the secondary references have been somewhat difficult to find due to the recent nature of Orsi’s work. However, I believe that RTL Klub and TV2, the two primary television networks in Hungary qualify as creditable references. Both of these networks have covered Orsi as Playboy’s Playmate of the Year and video tapes of them are still available. The notability guidelines for people state that Playboy Playmates and Playmates of the Year do qualify as notable, thus I am unclear how to address your comment regarding marginal notability Any further, and to the extent possible, specific help towards resolving these issues would be greatly appreciated. My goal is to have this article cleaned up as soon as possible. Thanks. Pete Rogers NYC (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is assumed in WP:PORNBIO that it is the larger-circulation English-language Playboy. Regardless, I have removed the tag, but please read WP:RS. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've added quite a few additional references. Can you remove the citation notice or suggest places in the article that require additional references? Thanks. Pete Rogers NYC (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the issue - you're not using reliable sources in the article, so I think the tag should remain. I don't believe Ms Kocis meets the general notability guideline or the porn actor guideline, but the Wikipedia community doesn't seem to care about deleting things these days so I can't be bothered to nominate the article for deletion. Feel free to remove the tag yourself if you wish. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads Up

Your edit history with DremGuy are mentioned as part of the discussion at WP:ANI#User:DreamGuy and User:174.0.39.30 68.146.162.11 (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it involves me at all, actually. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It did indirectly. You nominated Vince Orlando for deletion. I closed it as keep (only because you were the only editor arguing for deletion). DreamGuy reverted my close, Promethean reclosed it. That particular discussion could have used a little more discussion IMO but there were too many comments to justify a second relist. You're comments in the ARS MFD were almost spot on.

I'm wondering why DreamGuy didn't !vote in the AFD since he obviously wanted it deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Been working on something...

The seed idea for this article was given me by Bongomatic three weeks ago. When I finally got to it earlier today, I was so caught up I had to keep chugging away ubtil I reached this point. Now I'm looking for input. User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Final Inch Any advice? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking me to look for, so I didn't do much more than scan it over, but you've got some typos in the Reception section and the infobox has some unlikely links. What kind of feedback do you want, Michael? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I look at it this way (smile)... you are a diligent editor and if there is a weakness in the article, you will be able to look at it with neutral eyes. I have jusy gone though to correct some typos, address a bit of weasel and POV, and have moved that source from infobox to actually cite a date in the article. All I hope for is an extra set of eyes. With best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a few changes. I won't be offended at all if you don't keep them - it was just easier then writing them down. National Immunization Day next? I'm doing an experiment of my own, with predictable results. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your tweaks are appreciated. I do think that "National Immunization Day" will merit it own article with research. I will now see what I can do about your experiment. Happy editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll consider my hypothesis proven. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Scubadiver99 Proposal

DC, I have only been interested in having things represented on wiki in a fair way. I am reaching out to you to propose a truce between us. Are you open to that? Farmhouse00 (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are the sockpuppeteer behind User:Scubadiver99, it may surprise you to learn that I don't consider that we are involved in a battle. If your interest is in having things represented fairly here, there should be no issues. What do you have in mind? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose to put the past behind us and move forward with a team-like mindset. We're both intelligent people and I think our energies directed in this way will be most productive in the future. Farmhouse00 (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's just meaningless corporate-speak. It seems to me like you want me to change what I'm doing while you go on doing the same thing as you were. I guess I'm just not as intelligent as you thought I was, so I don't think you and I would be a very good team. Sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if my comment caused any offense. I only intended to extend out an olive branch. Farmhouse0 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want from me. If you stop with the sockpuppetry, insertion of material against consensus, COI promotional editing, and spurious accusations we shouldn't have any problems. Please stop leaving me messages. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

DC, not cool to keep blocking me. With a new username, I am allowed to participate on wiki. Please do not have me blocked. I will stop leaving you messages. Agreed? Farmhouse000 (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm replying here to clear up some misconceptions you seem to have. I'm not blocking you. You are being blocked by admins because you are continuing to create sockpuppets. At this point I don't even need to ask for you to be blocked, it just gets done quietly and efficiently by one of the friendly admins who have watchlisted my talkpage. Users who are blocked need to ask for unblocking on their "primary" account (in your case Scubadiver99 makes the most sense). You really don't need to negotiate anything with me, I'm not in a position of power or influence here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Blocked again. This is fun! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What it lacks in challenge, it makes up for in repeated playability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kinda like a monkey with a miniature cymbal? ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• See this thread and my response. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I came to late too see the "mediation " thread, but I assume it was similar to this. Sorry for the annoyance. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Structured Product Labeling

Delicious,

Please stop removing the links on the Structured Product Labeling website. If you have suggestions of how information can be provided to readers in a better way, please do so. If you do a wikipedia search on Operating Systems you'll find links to Microsoft, Linux, Solaris, etc. This is a new standard being required by the FDA and pharmaceutical companies need as much access to information and solutions as possible. These are informative links. I know you are just doing what you think is correct, but there is not bias or harm being done here. The links provide additional access and information for readers.

Thanks for your understanding.

Ctrautman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctrautman1 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right - I think what I am doing is correct. Wikipedia is not the place for these links. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to add a DMOZ link to the article, but I couldn't find an appropriate category. Info on the template is here if you would like to add a link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pilates Golf

We are trying to raise awareness of the benefits of Pilates Golf here in the UK. We run and own the business Pilates Golf here in the UK, under www.pilatesgolf.co.uk (which includes www.PilatesMedway.co.uk etc ...) Many people have asked us What is Pilates Golf?. We have indeed cribbed from our own website and are happy to put a credit to our own materials that we have written, but don;t know the protocol for attributing content as it is not a G11 Copyright infringement. We need you help. Thanks in advance. (TimeMakerSystems (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Do you run the business or are you creating the article for a client? Please see the instructions for releasing copyright in the messages left on your talk page. You should also read WP:COI carefully. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lorne ABony

hi, i just was looking and made some edits to lorne abony's page, what exactly are you referring to when you say it is copyrighted material? the citations come from verifiable sources, with multiple references, ie: business week, national post, etc. i even removed certain parts of the bio that couldnt be completely verified (ie: raising x amount of money in financing and acquiring x amount of companies). those are facts stated on the fluidmusic.com/team.html page and i have removed those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhalliworth53 (talk • contribs)

It was copied verbatim from http://www.fluidmusic.com/team.html. Please read WP:COPYVIO. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong sir: I think you intentionally reverted the edit without even so much as glancing.

"verbatim–adverb 1. in exactly the same words; word for word: to repeat something verbatim. "

This is the edit I made: "Lorne Abony is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fluid Music ("Fluid"), a public company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange ("TSX") [1]. Fluid Music is a private label music aggregation and distribution company focused on the distribution and monetization of a vast array of user generated music content. Fluid Music Canada, Inc. owns the rights to over 2 million DRM-free music tracks, as well as a music library containing over 5 million DRM-free music tracks. Its primary objective is to expose, promote and market this content through its proprietary channels and to expand these operations into next-generation markets. [2] Prior to Fluid, Abony was the founder and Chief Executive Officer of FUN Technologies ("FUN"). Founded in 2001, FUN grew to become the world's largest online casual games and fantasy sports provider with over 35 million registered customers. FUN was a publicly traded company listed on the London Stock Exchange and TSX. When Fun was listed on the TSX, Abony was the youngest CEO of any company listed on the exchange [3].

FUN was one of the fastest growing companies in the history of the Toronto Stock Exchange.[4] . In March 2006, American media giant Liberty Media acquired FUN[5]in a transaction valuing the company at $484 million[6].

Prior to FUN, Abony was the co-founder and former President of "Petopia.com"[7]. Petopia was an online pet food and supply destination that was sold to Petco in 2000.

This is the fluidmusic.com page:

Lorne Abony is the Chief Executive Officer of Fluid Music ("Fluid"). Prior to Fluid, Mr. Abony was the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Fun Technologies ("Fun"). Founded in 2001, Fun grew to become the world's largest online casual games and fantasy sports provider with over 35 million registered games customers. Prior to becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Media, Fun was a publicly traded company listed on the stock Exchanges of both London ("LSE") and Toronto ("TSX").

When Fun was listed on the TSX, Mr. Abony was the youngest CEO of any company listed on the exchange. Fun was one of the fastest growing companies in the history of the Toronto Stock Exchange. In less than three years the company raised over $160 million in five rounds of equity financings, including its IPO. Mr. Abony also led Fun in completing eight strategic acquisitions for a total consideration of $128 million.

Liberty Media's acquisition of Fun (which began in March 2006 and was completed in December 2007) valued Fun at US$484 million.

Prior to founding Fun, Mr. Abony was the co-founder and former President of "Petopia.com". Petopia was an online pet food and supply destination that was sold to Petco, the world's largest pet products retailer in 2000.

Mr. Abony previously practiced corporate and securities law at a major Toronto law firm. He holds an M.B.A. from Columbia Business School, an LL.B/J.D. from the International Law Center at the University of Windsor and a B.A. from McGill University. Mr. Abony is an Ambassador for the Province of New Brunswick and also served on the board of directors of both Jump TV and CinemaNow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhalliworth53 (talk • contribs)

You are right, I saw that you had inserted a section with the same title and I recognized some of the content, so I assumed you had reinserted the same material again. I see now that you have paraphrased and/or altered some of it, but there are still sentences which are word-for-word the same. Please read over WP:COPYVIO again. It would be nice if you signed your posts (and it would be nicer still if you took it for granted that if I use a word, I know what it means). And please don't call me sir. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carbuncle, I have done a complete revision of the lorne abony page, would you care to check it out and let me know if i am on the right track? would appreciate it greatly. thank you--70.52.130.139 (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was only concerned about the copyright issue, which I believe you have dealt with. I don't think that Lorne Abony meets the WP:NOTABILITY guideline, but I frequently feel that way about articles which other editors think are just fine. For that reason I haven't taken a close look at it, but I don't see any glaring issues. You may want to look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for advice about using named references. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. But, as I have been contributing to Wikipedia much longer than you have, I am very aware of the policies. The problem I had and have with your edit, which I previously reverted, is that you are removing one name from a list of several. As alluded to in my revision, if you remove one name that has no citation, you should remove all of them. Since you continue to go after this issue, my question is, why haven't you removed all of the other names that have no citation in the article. Why focus on only one name? In fact, the article is tagged as having no references or sources. Why haven't you addressed that issue instead of simply focusing on one individual and removing his name? Personally, I have no vested interest in your edit. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. What does bother me is that you are going after one individual. As an experienced editor, I am sure you understand that style of editing is frowned upon. As you attempted to detail Wikipedia policy to me in your comment, I feel that this fact needs to be brought to you attention. Overall, however, I find this edit war nonsense a waste of everybody's time and energy.

Finally, good luck in your sockpuppet quest. From reading over the many comments on your talk page, it appears as if you have been accused of just that issue. (Alex West (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

Let's cut to the chase - Wikipedia isn't a promotional vehicle for Scott Shaw. If you are aware of the policies, please try to follow them. As the long-time editor that you are, I'm sure you know where to go if you have an issue with my actions. You note that I have been accused of all kinds of things here on my talk page and elsewhere (sockpuppetry being one of the least surprising) - is that relevant? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah

Definitely among the top 10 edit summaries ever ([1]). Well-played. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And an awesome comment, too. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Kate Brenner

I removed the prod as it had already been prodded and deprodded in October 2007. She seems like a pretty average Playboy model, the only other hint of notability is this from her bio: "I started out as a child actress at 3 years old, and I was pretty successful at it. I did tons of commercials, and had parts in movies and TV shows. I even had a reoccurring role on Days of Our Lives. Impressed, guys?? I thought so. ;) You may have been been too busy watching Macgyver or The A Team to have seen me." IMDB doesn't list these roles, so she may have acted under another name. Fences&Windows 17:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I should looked farther back in the history. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI Post on ASE

I have boldly closed your ANI post on ASE. It seems you are block shopping and two users have said that no admin assistance is needed. Please stay as far away from each other as you can and you will not have any issues with each other. No good can come from that ANI post. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a solution proposed by Tantalus39 that I was agreeable with, even though it clearly isn't my preferred solution. I've reverted you, so I guess the next part of WP:BOLD is discussion. You're welcome to voice your opinion here if you think the ANI thread is too public. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. Tan39 said to leave each other alone...I said the same...and you agree. What else is there to discuss? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-read what Tan39 said: "I won't issue any blocks - but if I were a completely uninvolved admin, I'd issue a final warning against disruption - to both editors. This bullshit needs to stop on all fronts - Allstarecho's accusations, DC's baiting, and DC's persistent whining on this page". I'm waiting for an uninvolved admin to do what Tan39 suggested, or resolve it some other way. Please don't attempt to close it again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And could someone please define "block-shopping" for me? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not, but I don't think you need to wait for an "uninvolved" admin to tell you to "chill". Tan39 is right, the "bullshit needs to stop on all fronts" as he put it. If you were to make first step and do what Tan39 said, it will look good on you. Right now though, it is just beating a dead horse.

"Block Shopping" to me means going to any and all admins requesting a user be blocked. Don't like the answer one gives, you move onto the next and on and on and on until you get that block. That is what it means to me anyway. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't approached any admins individually. I took an issue to ANI to get it resolved. Why would you think that I would want to close the discussion until it was resolved? ANI is a forum for discussion and resolution of issues, so I would expect a variety of opinions from a variety of editors. And I'm not looking for an uninvolved admin to tell me to chill - did you not read or understand the long message I posted? This isn't something that can be solved by unilateral action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am from the school of "find your corner and stay there". I don't think blocks should be issued unless absolutely necessary. Here is one of those places. I think you both can find a corner of Wikipedia and stay there and avoid each other, no comments, no accusations, no nothing and co-exsist and no one gets blocked. But that is just me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already stated that I'm not necessarily looking for a block. I'm certain that Allstarecho will get himself blocked in due course. I know that despite your name you're not actually very neutral in this instance, but surely you can see that I'm not going around making things up just to annoy Allstarecho? The latest episode with the redirects from article namespace into his userspace was a complete farce. Check the various deletion discussions - I don't believe I nominated a single one of those. Why single me out as "harassing" him? I'm tired of the accusations. If retreating to a neutral corner means everyone ignoring egregious violations of WP guidelines and consensus, I don't see that as a great solution. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

DC I think you got some input from some admins and an editor or two. So I'd let the ANI report go. Also, your response to Tan seemed sarcastic. You might want to clarify it. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

CoM, I do believe you were told to steer clear of me. So...steer back that-a-way. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

CoM's comment was meant for me, so let's not start with the bickering on my talk page. My response to Tan39 was not sarcastic at all, but I've repeatedly said that I agree with it so I don't think it needs further clarification. In retrospect, I should have started the thread at AN, not ANI, because there is less non-admin involvement there, which leads to issues being taken slightly more seriously. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your message. I've striked the comment. But why would I get blocked? I am an uninvolved editor who has had very little, if anything to do with either of you and I was merely offering my neutral assessment of the situation. I was supporting you because the evidence was against Allstarecho NOT because I was choosing a side. I can't be blocked for that, can I? I gave a judgement based on the evidence given by both parties and I'm told that that is how it is done at ANI.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There are probably several editors and a few admins who are annoyed by that thread, for various reasons. Your statement might have been misinterpreted as an attack on Allstarecho, and if people are looking to block someone in that thread I wouldn't want it to be you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Take care now, and please try to avoid getting YOURSELF blocked.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your comments to Damiens.rf

You are a little late on the uptake. I made those comments yesterday (seemed like longer, but oh well) and didn't respond to his "comeback". I am letting his complete distruction of a page speak for itself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, please make sure your name, at least, shows up in your sig so I know who to respond to next time. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Scott Shaw sockpuppets

Thanks! Good to see the back of these annoying timewasters, or rather timewaster, even if it took three years. Flapdragon (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Nalini Sharma

Hi Delicious carbuncle! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Nalini Sharma- because: the article makes a credible claim of importance or significance. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly can't see the claim of notability, but I have nominated it for AfD discussion, so it doesn't really matter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lists of people by nationality

No harm done here, I believe. I've moved some back to sub-cats (and created 2 or 3 sub-cats to accommodate). The category was a bit messy and now less so. I've given a minority of articles the same treatment as the majority which would seem fair. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)).

I was just curious, but I suspected there was more to it. I see what you are doing now. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For future reference...

Discussions regarding an article belong on an article's talk page. Further, redirecting new editors to the talk page of an editor on the opposing side of a viewpoint to yours could be misinterpreted as being in bad faith. Please see wp:tpg for additional clarification. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

J, the discussion at the BLP noticeboard is going nowhere - please just let it be archived. I have no idea how you or anyone else might interpret my suggestion to take an obviously pointless discussion between yourself and one other editor to your talk page rather than the article's talk page as bad faith. Also, I don't know what you're trying to imply by putting "new" in italics. Can you clarify? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I'd like just as much to see the discussion leave wp:blp/n as you would, as I've never felt there were legitimate wp:blp concerns to begin with, and have said so numerous times. However, "pointless" is probably not an accurate way to describe one of the longest running discussions I've seen on wp:blp/n in some time... (Mind you, it is not a discussion I started. Further, your assertion that others who have commented and then chosen to not continue to elaborate are no longer "defending" their concerns is not the best argument for your position.) In any event, others have felt the content is relevant and should be included, and thus the discussion, if it continues, should continue on the article talk page. As I said, redirecting editors who may not be familiar with talk page guidelines to an "opposing" editor's talk page is simply not the proper way to "close" the discussion. Once again, please see wp:tpg if you need further clarification. Best of luck, take care. I'll be happy to respond at the article's talk page if you have any further concerns, but will unwatch your talk page at this point. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked two simple and straightforward questions and, rather than answering them, you seem to be trying rehash something from a discussion elsewhere. If you would like, we can discuss that afterward, but I doubt we would get anywhere based on previous interactions. In the meantime, can you could reply to my original questions? You seem to be insinuating something, but I'm not quite sure what it is, so I don't know how to proceed. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes.

Hi. I believe you have had a discussion regarding the use of userboxes on your user page, and I would appreciate if you had any advice about the use of mine. I am of the opinion that a statement of belief is fine (and for that matter, I do believe SK killed JL.) Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I did have some unnecessary trouble with userboxes in the past but those have all been settled to everyone's satisfaction and an admin has protected my userpage so that vandals won't cause further upset. Looking at the history of your userpage you're likely to run afoul of WP:BLP with your userbox. Imagine if someone were to have a userbox that says "I believe Thalweg and Nimbus runs a white slavery ring which illegally imports babies from impoverished nations". Newyorkbrad is really only trying to help, but I don't think that further discussion at ANI will achieve any other result. Good luck with the rocket, by the way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers

My not responding on that thread was nothing personal. I don't read and respond every single request at RSN - there's only 24 hours in a day! And I didn't realize that you had posted that one. But after your prodding I've put in my 2 cents. Cheers. Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take it personally at all. Thanks for your 2 cents. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

AllStarEcho's Talk Page

ASE has asked repeatedly that you do not post on his talk page. I would ask that you not post there any further. You are doing nothing but fanning the flames and could find yourself with a restriction similar to ASE's. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that I will be sanctioned for informing Allstarecho that I have started an ANI discussion about his violation of his community sanction or for asking him to strike obvious personal attacks. I suggest you take a step back and try to look at things from a more, shall we say, neutral point of view. What is the cause of the problem here - my actions or Allstarecho's actions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

DC, I really don't care whose actions are the problem, my note is only to say not to post on his talk page. He asked nicely, then not so nicely. I think you should respect his wishes and leave him alone. If in the future you need to place any kind of notice on his page, have an admin do it. Just respect his wishes and move along. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of seeming impolite, your opinion and advice in this matter means nothing to me. Your reply makes it clear that you aren't able to look at this dispassionately. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"a Homo"

Word usage: I apologise, as I was typing those sentences I was running short on time and was trying to say all I had to say before I left.

I will no longer use the words "a homo" and instead will type the full "homosexual" however, I don't think using abbreviations like "a homo" make my point any less valid or relevant.

Cheers TotallyTempo (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Montana Bay

I have nominated Montana Bay, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Bay. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Epbr123 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It passed WP:PORNBIO at the time I created it, which was actually only for completeness sake when the bio of a particular Penthouse Pet, Ginger Jolie, was being deleted despite meeting WP:PORNBIO (both then and now). I don't participate in AFD discussions anymore so I won't be commenting there, but I realise that it is likely to be deleted. Thanks for the notification. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility

This comment to AN/I does not advance the discussion. You might consider refactoring or removing it, as it is a bit rude. Please try to stay focused on topic. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone will survive. Thanks for your note. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather than evading the underlying concern, being more receptive to that feedback would be constructive. These notes wasn't posted here because everyone's survival depended on them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're attempting to say here, or why. Can you be more specific? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

See my reply at the ANI you filed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see my apology at ANI. Thanks for your guidance in this matter. I am sure we will become friends eventually. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Catch - Spam link disguised as reference in Taco

Really good catch on this edit to Taco. Hiding spam links as inline cites in unrelated articles is a new one to me. Ever clever, these humans. Geoff ^{T C} 15:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't entirely unrelated, but it certainly wasn't a reference. Those nutty humans! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

unhelpful title

See my comments:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Exciting_opportunity for_junior_admin_squad_member to_use their_amazing_powers_of_rollback.21 Ikip (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell if your comments are a request, or a demand, or what exactly. At any rate, I'm ignoring them. The problem has been addressed and the topic will be marked resolved once editors like you stop trying to create drama where there is none. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

An observation. You also never contacted the editor you are tattling on at ANI. Which is a courteousy, but the little contact I have had from you today, I don't see you as being very courteous. Ikip (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my bluntness comes of as discourteous. Do you think that bringing a spammer to the attention of admins is "tattling"? Should I have ignored it? Do you think that overt spammers need to be notified of actions against them, even after they have ignored earlier warnings? These aren't rhetorical questions, please reply here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I was trying to help you originally. I was giving you a suggestion to help you present the case, because I was confused. Then the way you handled my suggestion, and your argument right away with Roux (who I disagree with a lot to) made me have to take the time to study it. Lets keep the conversation from now on at ANI please. Ikip (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The topic at ANI is closed now, and there's no reason to annoy anyone else with this. I would appreciate it if you answered my questions, if only as a courtesy. There are only three and they are very quite simple. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Hey buddy

It's me - I have to say I had dinner with ol' Dukey last night, and my wife was telling him about your chivalry in saving him from the people who want his petition on a page - he was very grateful, and he wanted to shake you by the hand. I tell you, we had a good old chat - we've been pals for a long time and it's always nice to catch up over some Heineken. Now, I've been following your career with interest - my wife thinks you're fantastic, and we were shocked to see you being hurt at the hands of those brutes on the Incidents page. If you ask me, some of those teenagers and brutes need a good sound thrashing with a whip-hand. and I think I'm the one to do it. if any of those snakes were in my town, I'd have them on a table and being battered by nuns before you can say Jack-bo!

So, hey, buddy, here's a metaphorical handshake and a joke for you... Q. why did roux weep at the loss of his small bread???

A. Because he wanted his roll back!!!

okay it's not the best but I think I've had one heineken too many. my eyes are seeing two of everything, and my wife is currently mopping my brow. I wish you could meet her - she's a doll!

Keep up the good work and Non illegitimis carborundum ...

your pal in the soft south Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and brightening my day. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

94.192.38.247

You feel it is necessary to get involved in something and continue vandalism for another user why? Leave this to the admins and the experienced users who were apart of the discussion previously. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You are very much in the wrong about this, as you were last time. Please let it go. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it as vandalism but I won't template you this time. Let's stop for a second and you explain to me why you find it necessary to revert a WhoIs template? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my edit comments, read the talk page. It's all there. Go ahead and template me all you like, but please stop making threats towards me. Or anyone else, for that matter. It isn't very, uh, collegial. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Loving the attitude. Until you can drop that attitude, we are done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't invite you over for a chat. You showed up spouting nonsense and now you're flouncing off without having even gotten the scent of a clue. I'll stay here by myself with my attitude and have a cup of tea. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Read WP:HAR and WP:DICK, also WP:DTTR. While the last one doesn't count to your "post" on my talk page, still make want to take a read. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying I'm harrassing you? How do you figure? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Was this supposed to bother me? Look you may have bothered ASE with your harrassment, but you aren't going to bother me. So you can shove off now, Buckwheat...you aren't bothering me, you are just some teenager who hasn't had the computer taken away yet. Go find a corner of the internet and stay there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning I'm going to give you - the next nasty comment or false accusation of harassment you make about me will be reported as a personal attack. I'm letting this one slide because I know you have some form of disability, but that excuse only cuts you so much slack. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Using my Aspergers to attack me. Nice, a new low too. Go have your fun, you aren't bothering me and you don't scare me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, just go away. I'm not attacking you at all - you're coming to my talk page to leave nasty comments. Why would you think I'm trying to "scare" you? Perhaps it is time to take a break from the computer for a little while... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why were the supplementary External Links removed from this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_consultant

01:28, 25 July 2009 Delicious carbuncle (talk | contribs) m (1,281 bytes) (→External links: rm unnecessary external links per WP:EL) (undo)

You removed all of the relevant business links from this article. Some were ASTC members, some were not. This is NOT and ASTC or STC web page, or an ASTC / STC wiki entry, they have their own sites. Persons finding this page that are looking for Theatre Consulting services, or more information about the subject, would be well served to visit the web sites of the companies that were removed. The ASTC and STC are no more than trade organizations that promote their member companies, so if you are trying to eliminate 'self-promotion', you have not been complete in your task.

It also would have been courteous to have e-mailed the affected sites owner's to discuss this change BEFORE implementing it. I suspect that all of the affected site owners would agree that ASTC & STC does NOT have a corner on this market, and that all companies meeting the decription of "Theatre Consultant" would be welcome to list themselves. I respectfully request that the sites that were removed be reinstated. - E. Friend, Owner, Teqniqal Systems, LLC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.71.231 (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL for information on Wikipedia's policy about external links. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Contact lens GAR notification

Contact lens has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RFA reform

Hi, I checked out Wikipedia:Junior Admin Squad which looks good. But concencus seems to have developed that the trainees will actually be admins - even though this has been rejected before, there is new evidence now and folk who were previously skeptical are now supporting. So its likely Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Coaching_with_Tools will be going into play , though your page will be an option if it gets rejected. I love your badge, is it possible it could be used on the other page? FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the new proposal is a good one and will likely yield results, but I'm not quite ready to give up on the Junior Admin Squad yet. The focus is a bit different - becoming an admin is not necessarily the ultimate goal - and the pace is slower, which may be more appropriate for some. I don't think there's any reason why they can't happily co-exist. I'd prefer to use the badge to identify WP:JAS and avoid confusion, but, that said, I'd be happy to endorse its use elsewhere if my proposal fails to take off. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A late thank you

I am only a month late (snicker), but I nonetheless wanted to thank you for resolving the COI issue here. Obviously I missed the whole event even though this is one of the topics that I do try to keep up with (but from my edit history you can see that I am not exactly a vigorously active member on here). For several reasons, I am glad that I missed all of it. It is so much easier to read the issues after the fact than to be in the middle of them! Anyway, thanks again. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 18:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome, of course, but I really didn't do anything except add my voice to what others were already saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You...

...for closing that ANI thread. Not so it would "get me out of trouble", but so the insults would stop. I never thought my Asperger's Syndrome would ever be called into question and someone actually say I didn't really have it. That hurt. I want to thank you for not keeping that going. While we have problems to work out, that showed that you aren't the careless person I made you out to be. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry your Asperger's became the focus of the discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Needling the National Acupuncture Detoxification Association

I dont' think I was soapboxing. What I was doing was adding valuable content to an article that was previously heavily biased and strictly focusing on certain types of research. The article previously did not accurately or comprehensively represent what acupuncture detoxification is. Just because I mention the National Acupuncture Detoxification Association, doesn't mean I'm soapboxing. without NADA, there is no acupuncture detoxification. The subject is very different than "acupuncture" as many acupuncturists would point out. Teaching counselors and nurses how to put in 5 points in the ear and give away the treatment for free is not the same thing as full body acupuncture as performed by licensed acupuncturists who charge $70 to $150 per hour in the US . This needs to be clarified on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freesophia (talk • contribs)

You showed up at the same time as another editor with a clear conflict of interest due to his involvement with NADA. I suggest you read WP:COI, too, just for reference, and WP:TRUTH. You seem to be involved in discussing things on Talk:Acupuncture, which is probably the right place for this discussion. Please sign your comments with ~~~~. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NH & ANI

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I really appreciated your support regarding this, and your well-justified proposal that NH be subject to supervision. I think it would have been ideal to leave it open a while longer, though it seems he is getting lenient treatment for some reason. Your thread will be pertinent the next time he has an aggressive tantrum though. Huge Thanks. Izzedine (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Delicious_carbuncle_and_the_List_of_Hustler_Honeys_article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

Incomplete CFD

Hi, I noticed that you placed a CFD on the category for Films released by Cloud Ten Pictures, but you did not complete the nomination process by adding it to the discussion log. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like TWINKLE broke while adding the CFD. I've undone my edit rather than bother following through and attracting nasty comments. Thanks for pointing it out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AFD/List of Hustler Honeys

I don't think they know that you tagged List of Hustler Honeys for rescue. I think you should leave them a message. -- allen四names 05:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Skype chat

I'll try to let you know. I don't want to say too much, because, well I got this dumped on me, if X doesn't get around to it either, I don't want Kohs attacking him in turn. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 209 FCs served} 17:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If I can help out just let me know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Ashley Roberts (model)

I have nominated Ashley Roberts (model), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Roberts (model). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Epbr123 (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Svetla Lubova

I have nominated Svetla Lubova, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svetla Lubova (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Epbr123 (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kimber Lee

The article Kimber Lee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Epbr123 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Men of Israel

Perhaps beating a dead horse is the wrong way to go? The issue has been vectored to COIN and the talkpage should correctly remain drama-free. The rest is simply unneeded drama which is not improving the article but stirring trouble instigated from ... wait for it ... Wikipedia Review and a blocked user socking through anon IP. We can agree to disagree but let's agree that editors need to be treated civilly no matter what WR states and article talkpages are not for building soapboxes, conducting witch-hunts or amassing halls of shame to discourage contributions. If you have actual constructive content to offer then please do that instead. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am doing none of the things you list. I am attempting to discuss this at WP:COIN. Please stop removing my remarks. No one has been outed, no one has been accused of "sockpuppetry", and I have not been uncivil. Please try to get some perspective here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Gibbs. Jr

See User:Delicious carbuncle/George W. Gibbs, Jr. for the copy. JForget 15:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Apache Stone

Yeah, I guess I got it wrong somewhere with that AFD - but thanks for the email about it, very useful, I'll be changing my vote at the AFD to keep. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrators Noticeboard

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deleting_talk_comments. Thank you. --Dbratland (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just a thought - reconsider removing this editor's comments. Merely refraining from replying to them probably was the best course of action... Tan | 39 23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I did that. It didn't stop others from replying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Harassment

You are entering harassment territory. I suggest you refrain from taking part in threads that have nothing to do with you simply to bash me. -->David Shankbone 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

David, if you think that was directed specifically at you, I will strike it. I would hate to have a misunderstanding cause bad feelings between us. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to harass someone, at least be a man and own up to it. You shouldn't strike the comment, you should remove it and refrain from similar petty stalking in the future. -->David Shankbone 20:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

By petty stalking, you mean don't look at noticeboards in case you've posted there recently? I'm afraid I can't do that, David. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been raised here -->David Shankbone 22:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for letting me know. I'm sorry that you felt that was necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Obviously, I disagree your "reasoning" (if you have given any) for the speedy deletions for a few articles I created as reasonable. However, free free do whatever you want, after all, this is wikipedia. I don't really care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynotswim (talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My reasons for asking for deletion are because you have cut-and-pasted material into Wikipedia which is a copyright violation. Please read the notice I left on your talk page about Ping Pong Playa carefully. There is also copyright violation in The Other Half (2006 film) and I'll probably find more instances if I keep looking. Copyright is taken seriously here and your account may be blocked if you continue to do this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyond parody

As recent edits have shown, it's a waste of time, we are now back to "COI? what COI?" the feeble response of the administrators about this is astonishing, I can only assume that Beniboi has some powerful friends, I can't make sense of it otherwise. Besides editing, I also donate money to the foundation - that's about to end. What a waste of time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't bear Benjiboi any malice and I don't think you do either, but the situation has become a bit frustrating. Would you agree to stop tagging articles as COI if Benjiboi stops editing articles where he has a conflict of interest, as I have proposed? If so, I think we may be able to find some support for this, because everyone is tired of this whole mess. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't actually tagged that many, so that wouldn't be an issue for me. I just think as a general principle, that we can't be seen to be turning a blind eye to behaviour that would get a new editor banned in minutes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing on Outlaw Motorcycle Club.

Formatting? If you see a formatting problem in an article, fix it. Don't revert entire edits because you found a formatting mistake somewhere. And please refrain from further disruptive editing.--Dbratland (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem confused. I reverted your edit because you cut-and-pasted the citations you had offered on the talk page as citations with the edit summary "moving citations in into to end of statements covered by them. Adding more hollister riot citations. Revise into statement a bit". You did not return to revise the text dump, but that is not important, since this is the same material that we have been discussing endlessly on the talk page without any progress. I left a comment on the talk page noting my action. I'm not sure why you are labelling my edit as disruptive when it appears that your actions are the issue here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Second warning

Please stop your disruptive editing of Outlaw motorcycle club. If there is a formatting problem you do not know how to fix, please explain the problem or seek assistance on how to correct it. --Dbratland (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is somewhat more to this than the formatting, which I am sure you know from my comments on the talk page. If you are attempting to bait me into an edit war, it won't work. If you are attempting to cast me as disruptive, it may work temporarily, but it won't last. Please enter into the discussion on the talk page, or explore the other options already presented to you. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Adminstrators noticeboard notice

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding Disruptive editing of Outlaw motorcycle club. The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you.--Dbratland (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Chrissie Bixler

Love research. Though Bixler is purported to have been "Sheila" in the "Wall Street" episode of Spin City, this dosn't seem to be the case, as there is no character shown named Sheila. There is an IMDB listing for a Christine Sanchez-Bixler, but this does not appear to be the one in question. More likely though is a Christina Connell who was on That 70's Show and her aka is Chrissie Carnell. I susect this last is indeed the subject of the article... and if so, does not have enough under her belt to show notability. Nice job. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone has to keep you busy! ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No accident

I think you know full well that you were edit-warring - three reverts in under five hours. Grsz¹¹ 21:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know exactly what I was doing and I noted it all on the article's talk page. What I wasn't doing was edit warring. I'm sure you mean well, but by warning one party -- me, the one who was discussing their edits on the talk page -- and not the other, you show yourself to be responding in a knee-jerk manner to a frivolous complaint at ANI. The next time you see me doing something like this, you can assume I either know what I'm doing or I'm trying to get myself blocked and skip the warning. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps then you should re-read over WP:Edit-warring. No matter who is "right" (which you very well may have been) doesn't entitle you to make three reverts. Grsz¹¹ 21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? Perhaps you should re-read that guideline. I don't think anyone who actually looks at the situation will think I was edit warring. Thanks for stopping by. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was busy IRL following my message here, but just now replied at the ANI section. Grsz¹¹ 21:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

K5 International

Hi, Delicious carbuncle. Thanks for filing the copyvio report on K5 International. I deleted it because it is -- as you reported-- a conglomeration of copypastes from multiple web pages and would need to be rewritten from scratch. I checked out the accounts you mentioned as sockpuppets on the Talk:K5 International page. While I believe that they were undoubtedly created as SPA accounts for the company, if not the same actual person, the accounts editing histories don't overlap. Three of them ceased editing in 2008, one edited only in March 2009 and the other in July 2009. So I don't think a sockpuppet case is warranted. Thanks again for keeping an eye out for this kind of thing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Who do you think I am?

A sockpuppet? Why do you suspect me being a sockpuppeter? I used multiple accounts, so I can secure my account (7107delicious (talk · contribs)) in any other places other than my laptop!--Das Sicherheit ^{SPRICHT MIT MIR, ODER...} 02:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I never suggested you were a sockpuppet. It's probably best to keep this discussion at ANI, so I'll transfer any further comments there. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up! I think User:Fastily beat me to the block, but that's not too surprising, considering his user name! If you ever see any similar vandalism or abuse, please feel free to contact myself, or any other administrator. I'm not prone to calling people names, but racist's are scum. Shoe scraping's. You get the picture on how I feel about the issue, I'm sure! Good work spotting that! Kudos! Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Robbie Moffatt

I've redirected it back to its original destination. Hope this is ok. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I beat you to it. :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we both had the same idea at about the same time. :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Howard Moss

That's why I love Wikipedia. There's always someone smarter than me! Cheers! --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 16:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not smarter, just able to recall past events (sometimes). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See above warnings

Read them again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Delicious Carbuncle -

I know you asked to indent when commenting on your talk page, just not sure how. Also, I duplicated this note from my talk page. I'm a nubee so let me know which is a better forum to ask my questions.

I added content to the "facilitation" page on Wikipedia and cited a book I wrote as the source. I've received two warnings about advertising or inappropriate external links, spamming, and using WP for advertizing and promoting my book.

Can I add content from something I've written and can I add my book to the reference list? If yes, what are the boundaries for doing so without violating the policies?

Thanks!

Also, it's been entertaining reading the notes on your talk page. You remind me of Dr. Laura ... getting right to the point.Facilitation Author (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The line between spamming and adding useful content is sometimes blurry, but from your contributions it seems like you are mostly interested in using Wikipedia to promote your books. It may be a perfectly appropriate source for some of these articles, but there is an obvious conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI and WP:SPAM. They might help. You can ask your questions at WP:EAR, but you'll likely get similar advice. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Gottcha. Thanks for replying so quickly. Happy Turkey Day! Facilitation Author (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

In hopes of heading off an edit war, I've opened a discussion on ANI about the Chris Rush albums here [2]. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My next step was a return trip to the user's talk page rather than a revert, but taking it to ANI probably takes us to the inevitable conclusion that much faster. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to go to Chris Rush / First Rush. It looks like a 3RR might happen there. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I think I know how this all ends so I'm staying away from that particular edit war. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Paid editing

Hi, I saw your comment about this and over the last few days I have been having a few issues at a company article that has been worked on by a dynamic ip claiming to be a student doing it for class work, I feel it is either a worker or a paid editor, the ip got angry when I removed what I felt was excessive citation to the company web site and recently, yeaterday, links have been add to places the don't support the claims of assiciation by indiviual living people, you go to the link and there is no content supporting the claim of association, there has been some discussion on my talk page and the talk pages of the various ip 130 and recently the ip has been attempting to remove comments about his association to the company and his vandalism to other articles after I removed content I was unhappy with so the ip removed the same kind of content from other articles, just now another editor has reverted the ips removal of content on my talkpake and I have reverted the ip's removal of content on the disputed articles talk page, no worries and no pressure, let me know if you have time to ahve a look, I am no expert as regards company articles or paid editing, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• the article Booz_&_Company
• the article talk page Talk:Booz &_Company
• the section on my talkpage the ip tried to remove User talk:Off2riorob#booz_.26_co.
• talkpage of one the ip's today, with recent warnings User talk:130.64.186.156

The IPs are from Tufts University, so I think you should follow WP:AGF and assume they are telling the truth. I agree that the lists of alumni aren't appropriate for this article unless they are backed up by something. I'll see if I help you out somehow. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Off2riorob (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice (again!)

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Direct link is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dealing with Delicious carbuncle on David Shankbone image. Regards, GiantSnowman 02:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What, again? :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, "Are you on crack" is not appropriate. It's not grossly abusive, but it's not very civil either.

I doubt (hope?) that you meant it as harshly as it can be taken, but it's not good form when we use language like that around here. It increases drama and stress rather than helping calm incidents.

Please keep that in mind in the future. You've been around long enough - you know what effects "harmless" language that's pushy can have at times. The last thing any of us need is a large ANI blowup over a throwaway line. It can be hard to keep them from ever sneaking out, but it's not good.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And, for the record, I don't support him having been pushing buttons - but that wasn't a good response. Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My "are you on crack" comment was not meant to be any more offensive than an equivalent phrase such as "you must be joking" or "you can't be serious", which is to say, not meant to be offensive. I will admit that I was momentarily stunned by the comment that preceded it but I probably shouldn't have said it. Thanks for the note. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment/meta: Noting that ANI was inappropriately used in this instance, and that that was indicated by result. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hey, no worries! GiantSnowman 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Shawn Hollenbach

Hello Delicious carbuncle, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Shawn Hollenbach has been removed. It was removed by BaggyJeansBoy with the following edit summary 'The sourcing has proven the notability of this subject. ~~~~'. Please consider discussing your concerns with BaggyJeansBoy before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Red links

My apologies about the red links! I will try better next time to check for related articles. BIONICLE233♥♠♣ 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked you for two days pending the outcome of that discussion. If there's anything you wish to contribute, post it here, and I (or someone else) will copy it there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I was in the midst of responding when I was blocked. It would have been nice if I had been given a chance to respond before being blocked based on Benjiboi's accusation. My response is below.

Benjiboi's identity is known and has been confirmed by him both in discussions and in his edits. It has been openly discussed several times - see for example Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 37#Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward. I posted the offending link on WP:AN, so I'm not sure why it is necessary to open a thread here. If my action is considered outing, I will be happy to refactor my comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied to ANI. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please post the below to ANI, thanks. Anyone?

So before I even had a chance to respond, I've been blocked for "outing" someone who has already confirmed their identity, but now seems to be denying it. The "outing" was a link posted in this discussion at WP:AN. It seems odd that I would post a link on the admins noticeboard if I had any concerns about outing. It also seems odd that with all the admin attention that thread likely received, no one other than Benjboi has expressed the opinion that I am "wikihounding" them. While Benjiboi may actually believe this, his behaviour is indistinguishable from someone who is attempting to prevent editors from participating in certain articles or subject areas: aggressive reverting, ad hominem attacks, unnecessarily long discussions, accusations of wikihounding, thinly veiled accusations of homophobia, and a tendency to portray editors with opposing opinions as ganging up or colluding.

I have repeatedly asked Benjiboi to stop associating me with Wikipedia Review, which they continue to do with no evidence whatsoever. Yet when I post a link that does not even provide Benjiboi's real name, I am blocked. Let me repost part of the ANI thread linked earlier:

• At least as early as January 2008, Benjiboi is asked (during the first AfD for the now deleted bio of DJ Pusspuss) about his connection to DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.
• In early September, the COI questions noted in the first AfD were brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.
• For the past two months, at this ANI thread, this WP:COIN thread, and a couple of AfDs, Benjiboi has steadfastly denied any conflict of interest in DJ Pusspuss, Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, etc, etc
• Now that a diff from 2006 is produced in which Benjiboi states that he is "the archivist for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Inc. in San Francisco" with the same email used by DJ Pusspuss, Sister Kitty Catalyst, and the freelance journalist who shell not be named, Benjiboi states that the diff "was made by someone else" using his account.
• It seems odd that after so much fuss, Benjiboi didn't earlier offer that "someone else" had used their account. And if "someone else" was responsible for the 2006 diff, it can only be assumed that the same "someone else" went back in May 2007 to remove only the email address from that comment.

The claim that someone else used their account is simply not credible. Benjiboi have not like that what they posted links their WP account with their off-wiki personas, but that cat is already out of the bag. They have a vested interest in resisting this connection because of the possible conflicts of interest that it highlights. The argument that their personal safety is jeopardized rings hollow since in real life they are an openly gay LGBT activist.

It would nice if someone left an appropriately contrite message in the log when they unblock me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not going to post this one -- I'll link to it, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please just post it - the bulleted list is copied from an ANI thread which has already been linked to in the discussion and was not a cause for concern at the time. I'm already blocked for this "outing", so where's the harm? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In the event that oversight decides to clean up these past edits -- which I admit appears unlikely at this point -- I'd rather not give them more work to do. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked you since there seemed to be some serious doubt as to whether it would even be possible to out Benjeboi given his record of autobiographical writings. Please, please don't weigh into the discussion at ANI. Thanks and all the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Tempting as it is to clear up a couple of points, I'll gladly stay away from that ANI thread. No point in fanning the flames. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Keratoconus edit

Hi, I saw the message regarding edit to keratoconus and requesting reason for edit. I posted this reason on discussion page: "European approval is only for the ultraviolet light machine, it does not address epithelium status which is up to the treating ophthalmologist." Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.11.160 (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference used for that sentence only mentions the procedure with the epithelium removed. If you have a reliable sources that go into greater detail about the European approval status, feel free to add them to the article, and perhaps that particular sentence needs to be reworded to distinguish the European and US statuses. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

BLPN

FWIW, I raised the issue regarding sources at WP:BLPN, hopefully that will help you to get some more eyes on it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)