User talk:Consumed Crustacean/Archive 2

; Archives
	1. April 27, 2005 – May 21, 2006
	2. May 21, 2006 – August 9, 2006
	3. August 9, 2006 – January 14, 2007
	4. January 14, 2007 – March 24, 2010 ;

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Consumed Crustacean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

<^>^<User Talk Starts Here^<^>

^<>^><^><^<^^^><^<^><^><^<<^><^><^^^>^><>^<>^<>^>^<^<^>^<^>^<>^<><^>^<<^^

Lets Us Dance as Kirby! (>^.^)> -{Woo!} Smile Lee 05:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

<(^.^<) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

<(^o^)> -{Raise the roof!} Smile Lee 05:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(^0.0)> and the roof of the talk page is on fire... uh oh... I think you should rebuild it, or maybe I should :) Smile Lee 05:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User Talk Was Rebuilt Here (With dancing!)

(>'.' )> -(That's better and now it has dancing). When in the Consumed Crustacean Talk page, do as the Consumed Crustaceans do! <(^.^<)

Wow, this User Talk building is really nice, I took a long time on the interior decorating. You've probably noticed the green couch, it may be the only thing in this room, unless you count that plasma TV. But, I hope you like it. Smile Lee 09:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S There's probably a slice of cheesecake leftover from the inauguration. You can have it, and I'm pretty sure the Hormel's Chili and hot dogs are still good, so have at 'em. Smile Lee 05:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  <(°.^<)u2 are odd.

Only the oddest. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Main Page

How did you make it so no one can edit the main page?--Laura 00:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. What main page of what? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to my talk page.--Laura 13:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, talk page--Laura 10:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh?

What do you mean by that, friend? --HubHikari 02:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You sicked a few test templates on some vandals, but didn't sign them (ie. User talk:Anatomyofacraka). It's customary to sign everything in talk pages, including templates. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was a slip. Normally I remember. D: *pokes self in face* --HubHikari 01:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Fast Walker" article

The detection of "Fast Walker", if genuine, would be one of the more solid detections of UFOs, probably one of the most difficult of explain. If you AfD it, you can AfD the majority of UFO articles. MaxCosta 00:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW you should probably AfD the article "David fox the satanist" - I think it "seems rather stupid". MaxCosta 00:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why posting units should exist

If sites like GNAA can have a wiki article - they're far worst to be honest. Why not TPU.

Furthermore TPU is not a club nor is it about someone. It is an IDEA, come on wikipedia you know what they are surely.

Anyone with half a brain can join. Its not about abuse, its about the birth of a new internet where nothing is free from potential dispute by others, no one is safe. Before this gets deleted, which it probably will. I urge you to reconsider your speedy deletions. Think a little more. Give time for me to add more substance; ideology, methodolgy, a genuine study into why how and what the posting units does and how it exists. You've succesfully demonstrated the thing most people do, judge a book by its cover and for this i forgive your ignorance. This is not an attack on you merely an anoyyance at hasty decisions by people in power with nothing better to do at 23:31 GMT. To be honest I'm off to bed, and if this is still here in the morning I'll judge it as my second chance. Until tommorow.

PU—Preceding unsigned comment added by Posting Unit (talk • contribs)

GNAA is notable, because there are many people around the wide internets that know about them. The Posting Units gets no Google results, and is apparently owned by yourself, making this a clear vanity article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not own the posting units. I merely posted the article under the posting units username as a mock tribute to the group.. Is the username a problem I could change it if you like. Can you tell me what is going on as i'd really like to retire and go to bed.

The Posting Units image you uploaded claims you as the owner, so it's obvious where I got that idea from (and I am, by the way, sticking to it). By the lack of Google results or independent sources, you havn't proven any notability at all. Can't just put every nonnotable thing in an encyclopedia. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

delete my page

I accidently messed up on the page of Ahni Luv can you plese delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilfella106 (talk • contribs)

I've marked it for deletion. I'm not an administrator myself, but it shouldn't take very long for one to respond and remove it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have permission of ODAN to put some paragraphs of ODAN webpage

Hi, This is the email and the permission to put the text:

Dear Raul,

Opus Dei Awareness Network, Inc. (ODAN) grants you permission to put the web page http://www.odan.org/questionable_practices.htm that appears on the Opus Dei Awareness Network, Inc. (ODAN) web site on Wikipedia.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne DiNicola Executive Director

From: Raúl Bermejo [1] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:48 PM To: odan@odan.org Subject: I need your permission to copy some paragraph of your page

Hi, and sorry for my bad english.

I am an editor of wikipedia. Can you help me, please? see this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_Opus_Dei If you read the historial, I try to put some paragraph about certain questionable practices of Opus Dei. But other wikipedian pro Opus Dei, says that it is a copyviolation to put some parts of this webpage to illustrate the bad practices of the work. Your page is: http://www.odan.org/questionable_practices.htm I need your permission to quote these paragraphs, Is it possible? Best regards Raul

Oi, responded in your talk page. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

O.K. thank you for your attention. Raul

Abyab

I don't like your deleting pages that aren't experiments. So DON@T DELETE1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abyab (talk • contribs)

I love you too. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 09:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i'll not do it again. Sonic 09:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me a description of vandalizing, and also a colour code, for exemple: 000 - Black That might not be correct, just lay it out like that, please? Sonic 09:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for the advise. Sonic 09:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what you meant by the colour code (do you want this? :S). On the other topic, from WP:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.". Those recent edits looked to possibly fall under that, and your blanking of my user page was definate vandalism of said page. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 10:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Winner Wikipedian

Congratulations! You are the current winner wikipedian. I have always been waiting for a wikipedian like you. I just can't find enough praise. What do you want to inprove wikipedia? Sonic 10:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Now confusion runs rampant. Wheeeeee. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 10:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And the dancing commences again! <(^.^<) Smile Lee 09:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Joseph D. Campbell

Concerning deletion of the article on Joseph D. Campbell. Now that I've found some verification of Dr. Campbell's biography, separate and distinct from his own books, what is the next step? I have requested on inter=library loan a copy of the article written by Arthur Sager and published Nov. 2002 in the Trumpeter, but as it is a British publication, it may be a while before it arrives. Bejnar 02:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See, I have serious doubts of the usefulness of your sources, as I have said in the AfD discussion. Neither are peer-reviewed, independently confirmed, or the likes. However, considering that the AfD may soon end and with this information just now coming to light (quite late in the process), you'll probably want to try Wikipedia:Deletion_review if it is deleted. They may grant you another discussion. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I grant that neither journal article is peer-reviewed, but both are mainsteam publications, and both are edited, "Medical Hypotheses" by Elsevier science editors. I am not sure what you mean by independantly confirmed. The publication can be confirmed by searches on Science Direct, which is how I found them. The Lemke article is also, I believe, confirmable in Gale-Thompson's First Search. If you mean the science behind the articles, that is a matter for the Hair analysis article. The AMA has been quite critical of the quality of US labs that do mineral analysis from hair samples, but the technique is well recognized, as can be seen by the number of scientific papers published using the technique. I am not the author of the original article, I just saw it on the delete list, and remembered when my New Mexico doctor told me about Joseph D. Campbell (Ph.D.) and hair analysis in the 1980's. What we are trying to do, as I understand it, is to confirm that Joseph D. Campbell did exist, that he did found a hair analysis lab, and that he does have scientific publications in the field. Am I missing something? Is the question that a pioneer in mineral hair analysis is not notable? Bejnar 14:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. None of the references establish his "pioneer" status. Lemke's letter to the editor calls him that, but doesn't provide reasons. The Medical Hypotheses paper seems to be written a bit late for a pioneering paper in this field, and besides that, Medical Hypotheses is meant to get the attention of other people to further investigate an idea. You can't call it a "mainstream" journal in the same way you could others, because their criteria for publishing is fairly lax, as their site says: Medical Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. (there is a reason they're called Hypotheses). It's not a particular sign of notability, and certainly doesn't prove that he's a pioneer of anything. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your effort on Links to Web Directories and Search engine. As you might see, I've been trying to help User:Chuck Marean understand why such lists of links aren't appropriate. It doesn't seem to be working... --mtz206 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed when I went to his talk page to warn him (though I was late, another user seems to have done it). Very strange :/ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

please

Can I please have just one more chance, Mr Cock Knocker, sir? I don't know what I'll do with my days if I can't vandalise wikis... Stinky 04:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

War for the Throne

Hi, thanks for mantaining the articles about War for the Throne and its duplicate War for the Throne (Disney). I appreciate your help; I din't expect anyone to watch a short article. Bye --Starionwolf 04:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Dark Channel

Hello, I am the author of the Article on The Dark Channel, you have marked it for deletion because you say their is not enough notable sources for my article on the site. Well I hope this helps as noteable sources:

(Dee' 06:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

Just thought you might like to know that this page was delleted (speedy) as it has been deleted and recreated 3 times. The last one being a couple of hours before you added the proposed deletion tag. skorpion 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I only edited 1 time, the first time the article was blank and I tought someone had vandalized it. Why are you claiming I edited 3 times? (Dee' 10:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

He was not. He was merely pointing out that people in general had recreated the article three times, he wasn't specifically mentioning you. Thanks for the info, skorpion. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Runescape Hiscores

Why did you change my article on Runescape Hiscores??? I worked so hard on that!--Webstergenius 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And it serves no encyclopedic purpose at all. Its sole purpose seems to be to flaunt your own score or that of someone you know. It's fancruft, in any case. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk |

Talk:Abbey Girls

Your input is most welcome.--SB | T 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Lotus Eaters (Weinbaum)

I'm not sure what you mean by citing sources. It's an article about a short story. The story itself is the source. Johnny Pez 06:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's very useful to have a source linked to, especially one that certifies the notability of the story. An article might verge on the border of violating WP:OR or WP:V if absolutely no sources are given. Even an external link to a review or something would probably suffice. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to have to be more specific. What, in the article at hand, needs a citation? The original magazine publication? The plot summary? The list of collections the story appears in? Johnny Pez 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, any of those are probably suffecient. It just need something. At least one collection that it appears in would probably be enough. A plot summary or something might be nice as well, but not necessary. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Article now includes a link to a recent collection containing the story. Johnny Pez 15:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool :) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ReginaA

Greetings! I am glad to say that the above case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ReginaA, has all been taken care of. You can click the above link of see the entire June '06 archive. Thank you for taking the time to report this to the page. Regards, K ilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: New page on Chalapathi Rau M

Hi, Firstly, I am new to Wikipedia and this is the first page I have added. I see that the new page I have created is marked for deletion. I have already answered to the question on web presence(search on google, A9 etc) [2]. Who makes the final decison to keep or delete this page? What will that be based on? and, What else should I do? Thanks . Manikond@gmail.com 01:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The person who finally decides will be an admin. They make their decision based from what they see to be consensus within the AfD discussion. If better points are made on one side or another, the decision might swing to that side even if slightly more people side with the other. It kind of depends. Generally it's the majority of "votes" within the discussion, but if people are obviously misinformed or sock puppets they may be ignored. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The most useful thing to do would be to cite proof as to why this person meets the general criteria in WP:BIO and WP:N, as well as using sources in all of this which satisfy WP:N. A bit daunting, I'm sure :/. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have two more questions.

(a) How long will the topic be discussed before the admin makes a decision? I am working on getting more material for this article. Though this author is renowned in the India, his life and work happend in pre-internet era. Other then his books and quick reference to his name in online newspapers it is not easy to find other information on internet. I have to search through the archives and scan and post the information. But, this may take some time as I have to dig in to Indian newspaper archives from 1940 through 1984.
(b) Can I edit the page and remove the note "Hoax"? or should it be done by the admin or poster only?

Thank you for your time and patience.

The topic is discussed for only five days. If it happens that you acquire the evidence after this time, and the article was deleted, you can use the WP:Deletion Review page to request that the deletion be overturned. As for the Hoax tag, I'm not too sure but would probably reccommend you leave that on there unless you "win" the AfD. Some people obviously still think it could be a hoax, hence the AfD in the first pace. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I'm glad to see someone else patrolling new pages. I was feeling rather lonely, rummaging through Wikipedia's dumping grounds. BTW, I tagged that "lesser known facts about George Washington" article for speedy deletion as an attack page after you tagged it for PROD, but of course I left the PROD on just in case. Erik the Rude 01:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's probably a far better deletion tag. Nice to meet you too ;) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Bionicle

Thanks for that explanation, it was truly baffling to me for a while there... what a strange and fascinating world this stuff is W guice 01:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No problemo. I just had a faint inkling of what it was from the lego commercials on TV. I had no idea there was a pre-teenish community based around all of it until I searched up articles on the Wikipedia after seeing the article that's now being AfD'd. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

FSM and Ed

There's an ongoing RFC about this sort of misbehavior. You may want to comment here or endorse some views. FeloniousMonk 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard Hoagland

I found it on es:Richard Hoagland, but upon taking a second look and seeing that it has no source there either, I guess it should be removed there as well. --M e rovingian {T C @} 21:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello Consumed Crustacean, are you interested in becoming an administrator? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-28 22:52Z

Well shucks, that's quite a question. Yes, sure I'm interested. However, I'm going to be off the Wikipedia for a few days, so I can't participate in any process or whatnot regarding this until then. My ISP just decided to cut out on me (not completely, but with 60% packetloss it isn't pleasant to even surf the Wikipedia). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me know when you're ready and I'll nominate you. In the meantime you can read about what the nomination process entails and the administrators' reading list. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 01:14Z

I'm not at this time ready to be nominated for administrator, nor do I really seek the additional work right this instant. Maybe at a later time, but I don't have enough time at the moment to comit to the Wikipedia, and I have enough on my plate as a patrolling non-admin. Thanks for the offer though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cheers. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-05 01:32Z

Skepdic.com link

I don't believe your Skepdic.com link is a good addition to the ionized bracelet page. The article itself is just a sarcastic overview of the obviously weak claims inside Q-Ray's commercials. Firstly, this isn't very academic and not at all encyclopedic. Secondly, the article is about ionized bracelets in general, not about the poor practices of QT Inc.

But, as your edit summary said, you were linking to it primarily because of the interesting articles it links to. I also argue with this. The first two articles that it links to are already linked to directly from the entry. Firstly, the Mayo Clinic study and secondly, Dr. Barrett's Quackwatch entry. Nearly all of the rest of the links deals exclusively with pain relief and arthritis, which have been thoroughly debunked by the Mayo Clinic study and the following FTC injunction. Further external linking on the subject is just beating a dead horse.

The remaining two links are Consumeraffairs.com's complaints about QT Inc's product and an article about some horse racer that mentions the Q-Ray bracelet tangentially. It was clear that the bracelet was on his left hand, while the article was about what he had in his right hand. It really has no bearing on the subject of ionized bracelet that's worth mentioning. As for the consumer complaints, again, they are either about pain relief or poor business practices on the part of QT Inc. Neither subject warrants further discussion within, or external linking from the entry in question.

Do you disagree with any of this? –Gunslinger47 03:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No disagreement. Keep it off. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Signatures

Sorry that my time was off. It wasn't that I was calling my timezone (UTC). I know that my timezone is (UTC-6). The last two entries I made on the Super Smash Bros. Brawl talk page I was on a different computer than my own and the clock on the computer was off, so when I added six hours, my time was inadvertantly one hour ahead. Thanks for looking into it, though. SaturnYoshi|TALK 14:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, if you sign with four tildes it should set the time correctly from the Wikipedia server. :S -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

An appology

I appologise for my edits on your page. They were just meant to be a joke. DavidJJJ 09:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Paquin controversy

Did you know that the Houston Press cited an earlier version of the Hightower High School article (which you reverted) as a way of showing malcontent with the principal. I tried to rewrite this in an NPOV manner. WhisperToMe 22:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Wacky, even. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As for my removing it, if that's questioned; it wasn't particularily encyclopedically useful as it was. Most of it was pretty questionable, and it didn't give a single source. But if it had actually mentioned the controversy over this suspension (and cited sources), it likely would have stayed. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your removing of the edit was justified. It's just funny how the edit removed turned out to be used anyway :) WhisperToMe 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

about the fluffle

The "fluffle" is a name that me and my mate give to a hackle. we came up with it at the ISCRIM meeting at Bisley. fluffle - fluffy puffy thing. it is only a joke name, so dont re-direct it to hackle.

I see. You don't seem to understand the Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia, not a place for hosting a person's personal jokes. Sorry, but I will see this removed. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet

"If the accuser has not formed a proper evidence page, you are allowed to remove the notice from your user page." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acromagalin (talk • contribs)

I have formed an evidence page. Did you even click the link on the notice? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In the notes for suspect, it says: " The evidence page is linked from the template on your userpage and is situated on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/YourUsername page". On that page, it says that no project with that name exists. I did click the link on the notice, but that is for a different person. I am not that person, and that person did not set me up to create this account for his benefit.Acromagalin 04:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The evidence page uses the puppetmaster's name, because you are a suspected sock puppet. That's just how the Wikipedia rolls, don't blame me. It is linked from the template, you're just arguing semantics. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I see....for the record I deleted it the first time because I went to it said in Wikipedia (/myusername) and it said a project did not exist so I thought an evidence page hadn't been created. Acromagalin 04:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the first time I had not yet linked you to the suspect's page, and the link for the evidence page in the template was far larger than the suspect's page (as well as right there in the middle), I doubt this. Sorry if I seem cynical, but I've dealt with many many vandals. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I did see the link, I disregarded it because I was too concerned with figuring out what a sockpuppet was. Immediately after clicking on the notes for suspect I tried visiting the /username page with no luck, and figured it was ok to delete it. Your cynicism is understood and I see that you are an experienced user, but why would I put so much effort into explaining myself if I didn't mean to break the rules. Acromagalin 04:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aura (paranormal)

Why did you remove the links that I put on Aura (paranormal) they are related to Aura (paranormal). John R G 18:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Read my reasonsing. Not only is the actual relation sort of poor, but they don't meet WP:WEB. The one I removed first was an outright advertisement for some book. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The sites that I put on Aura (paranormal) are about Auras and how to see auras so I feel that they are important links for that site. I feel that they need to be put back on Aura (paranormal). John R G 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Please don't add nonsense to my page. If you can to talk to me, fins, but don't vandalise my user pasge. Thank you Reggae Sanderz 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to use the same type of language that I and others do in our vandal edit summaries, but what I added to your userpage was not nonsense. Sockpuppet suspects are not supposed to remove that template unless the evidence page doesn't exist and whatnot. It clearly does. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because so-called "sockpuppets" are treated like lowly peasants who have nothing better to do then vandalize thie site. It tells other users that all my edits are counterproductive and I'm here to make good articles, not bad ones. Imagine someone suspecting you. Reggae Sanderz 19:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's respectable. However, I'm not going to drop it. A number of new users magically showed up when Scottydukes' speedyable article went up for deletion, and attempted to have it kept. That's always suspicious. There are way too many vandals on the Wikipedia not to be cautious. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed your notability tag at Bobbi Ethier

If you wish to replace it, discuss the matter, or view my explanation for removal, feel free. I left my remarks at Talk:Bobbi Ethier. BigNate37_T·C 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's all good now. The article has a substantial amount of information, and the fact that she was more than only an MLA candidate makes it even better. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Houston Gay and Lesbian Film Festival

I took out any mention of an organization. Is this okay? --Hglff 04:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What? The mention of the organization wasn't necessarily the issue at all. It's the notability of it. Eh, I'm at a defecit of things to say to explain it at the moment, which is unusual for me. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, “A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact.” The HGLFF is an educational tool offered to a very broad audience ranging beyond just sexual orientation. The festival takes place in venues all around Houston, TX. They’ve also had artists and activists from around the U.S come to Houston for lectures and panel discussions broadening their audience even further. I’ve also edited the article by adding more history, a link to their website and citing from reliable resources such as the Houston Press and The Houston Chronicle. Please help understand what's missing. --Hglff 03:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, umm, now that you've cited decent sources, nothing's really missing in my mind. Feel free to remove the tag. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hightower again

The guy who posted that Paquin rant is back. I'm not sure what to do with the rant he re-posted. For now I stated that it was in the older version of the article and that it was removed for a lack of sources.

The Press article does mention the FBISD dress code "over-enforcement". WhisperToMe 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tribalwar

Look for ^BuGs^. And I make it personal? --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 07:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You could very well have edited that out, rather than seeking to outright delete the page. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted. I acaully had to have someone else remove it because I did not want them getting this user name... now that they have it I have nothing to hide. But information like this will be reposted on this article because that;s what they do. If a number of crediable users said keep, then I say I was wrong, but as far as I can tell, most of them are "new" users and a lot of the AFD is a WP:NPA. I stated only that it has WP:NPOV. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 07:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand. The article is watchlisted. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this AFD inherently violates WP:NPA. When Shane was embarrased on a separate website he threatened this action. This type of vindictive action is totally against wiki policy and should be removed per your own rules. 166.214.96.243 00:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Tinleg

Yeah, but others have apparently agreed with some of his points, or at least want the article deleted. Tribalwar's article isn't clearcut, this AfD would have happened eventually anyways. If it was removed, one of the "delete" folks would probably just renominate it. May as well let it play through. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough

Please stop posting that "sock" tag on my page. Just because I commented in an AFD doesn't mean my account belongs to User:Scottydukes. How would you feel if your page was vandalized like that? Reggae Sanderz 10:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that you are doing the right thing Crustacean. You have sharp eyes and you managed to pick reggae out for a sock puppet. Kudos to you. -ScotchMB 23:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't so much sharp eyes as a load of brand new users giving suspicious keep votes after Scottydukes failted to sock puppet just by changing his signature. In any case, I'm leaving the sockpuppet template off of Reggae's page now because, according to the "Notes for the suspect" that are linked to by it, the template can be removed if there's no checkuser or anything within a week. So long as he doesn't remove the username from the evidence page, though, all is good. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Juan Andres Espinoza

Hi, sorry for removing your delete tag. I can't believe I didn't realise that was a vanity page. Ah well, we're in agreement now, that' what counts! Mallanox 00:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just to drop by and mention an idea, but perhaps if this user persists in page creation you can userfy it by moving to userspace and placing {{Userfy warning}} or something on the talk page, and then speedy the resulting redirect under CSD G6 (housekeeping). I mention this for two reasons - CC's talk page is still on my watch list, and I've been in this situation a day or two ago and the user was more than happy to move the information to his userspace but after deletion I was unable to reproduce his efforts. BigNate37_T·C 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Gar, I didn't know about the userfy warning template, very useful. Generally I would do the move, or at the very least a {{userfy}} template along with the standard deletion one, but there's no content on this article right now. The warning template I will definately use, though. Nice to see you're watching ;) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on the Greek Sexuality AfD?

It's pretty obvious to me as well that we've got ourselves a reasonable case of sockpuppetry. Do you think it's worthwhile taking it to the appropriate authorities, or is it sufficiently low-grade that it doesn't matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigHaz (talk • contribs)

It's incredibly blatent, especially with the IP addresses. Therefore I don't know that it's going to cause enough trouble to bother. If he/she/they start using it to mess with the article (exceeding 3RR and such), then I'd be concerned. I don't know, but I'm probably not going to bother at this time. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)