User talk:Delicious carbuncle/Archive 1

A Dose of Rock 'n' Roll

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on A Dose of Rock 'n' Roll. The reason is:

photo books not covered by CSD A7

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RFR

Your request for Rollback has been modified, [Click here] to see...--Kushan I.A.K.J 12:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A Dose of Rock 'n' Roll

I fixed the AfD formatting for you on this page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of World Plumbing Council

A tag has been placed on World Plumbing Council, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Keratoconus

Hi there. I have also noticed the edits on the C3R section in Keratoconus, which have been going on for some time. I have tried getting the parties (I think there is more than one) to respond, but without success. Let's see if your message on the talk page produces results. Best regards, — BillC ^talk 18:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

C3-R is the original and most commonly used term to describe collagen crosslinking. It was presented by Dr. Boxer Wachler at the American Academy of Ophthalmology Annual Meeting several years ago. Subsequent acronyms as CCL and CXL have recently been developed. Therefore, it is appropriate to include C3-R in the mileau.

There are two types of techniques to perform CCL, CXL, and C3-R: without epithelium developed by the German group and with epithelium intact which was developed by Dr. Boxer Wachler. Therefore it is appropriate to cite Dr. Boxer Wachler is this regard. This does not constitute an advertisement, but references an important aspect of crosslinking and it factual, not hype.

Scubadiver99 ^talk 20:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert borsody

I moved the article to the proper name so that both would be picked up by the deleting admin. There was no need to nominate it for deletion manually. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said right above, the deleting admin would pick up the redirect (most usually do). Doing so leaves a good trail for possible future recreations of this article. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Frost Fight

I responded on my talk page. —Noah 06:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

^F_L^c is wishing you a Happy Valentine's Day! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the love by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/HapValDay!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jason Spevack

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Jason Spevack, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! . Greswik (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod on Ben Baller

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Ben Baller, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atama^chat 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Premature Valentine

Well, same thing as my Christmas greeting, which you probably didn't get. I just go around editing and send that to pretty much anyone that I see. And... I saw you. ^F_L^c 18:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

hello

see repley from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:200.153.155.50&redirect=no at Talk:International standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.156.96 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Keratoconus

Just dropping by to say I fully approve of the stance you are taking here, and your attempts to bring the parties to discussion. I'm keeping a close eye on things myself and won't hesitate to help bring this to a satisfactory conclusion. Regards, — BillC ^talk 23:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI. A shame really. I had requested a period of semi-protection for the article to see if that would induce him to create an account and bring him to the negotiating table, but it was declined, perhaps unsurprisingly, and he was blocked instead. — BillC ^talk 18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Yeah, I've had a trawl through his talk page and archives. Even had a quick look at the admin notice board, and was tempted to post there too... Figured I might as well point out another occurrence of poor choice for categories. I spent ages back in December recategorising everything that was in Category:American musical groups and Category:British musical groups. It was in excess of 5,000 articles, of which I think 99% were recategorised properly, with maybe a handful that may find better cats in the future. As you said, what is the point in categorising an article when it will need to be redone later, and is also no longer listed in a convenient place to see that it needs a better category. Since everyone else can do it properly... hope this guy starts paying attention or something is done soon. Anyway, now I have ranted for ages and for no real reason I'll stop. Happy editing! Nouse4aname (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ARV

"I'd like to ask you to use the very process you've been running to undo all of the automated cleanup you've been doing" was posted by Pichpich. --Gary King (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to leave me on the AIV? I thought we resolved that with the quote. Also, let me know if my message on the ANI is acceptable and if I can continue to revert my edits or not. --Gary King (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just realized that the thread had been archived. Kind of frustrating how some of the junk wikidrama threads on ANI get a lot of attention, while things like this are quietly archived without anyone noticing. I'm not entirely sure where to go from here. I've just placed a bot request to fix the whole thing. Perhaps you can chip in with your own comments. For some reason, I get the feeling that nobody wants to touch this with a ten-foot pole. Pichpich (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Use "vandalism" label with care please.

Re User_talk:Sreejiagriman#February_2008 and edit to Hygiene - please be careful about using the word vandalism - you were correct to revert it, but not to label this as vandalism. -- Chriswaterguy talk 23:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see how that's vandalism according to the policy, though it's arguable from an ordinary English point of view. "Spam" seems to me a much more accurate criticism and more likely to be understood by the perpetrator. Especially important in such cases, it's generally people who have already shown they don't "get" Wikipedia policy.

I'm assuming of course that someone who hasn't yet been blocked is still considered someone worth trying to engage with and explain policy to.

Pardon the ramble - I know there's too much to do for you to engage with every transgressor in such a way, but I've been thinking about issues like how template warnings could be improved to offer more help to a newbie. --Chriswaterguy talk 11:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ray tracing

You are mistaken on ray tracing - please read what WP:MOS has to say about repeating the article name in subsection names ("Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy"). This clearly means that unless absolutely necessary, the words "ray tracing" should not be used in the section headings. Warning ME for changing these subsections is a bit beyond the pale.

In your (generally valid) comment regarding clarity being more important than a style guideline - okay. But how does changing a "Ray tracing in real time" section to a "In real time" section within an article called Ray tracing (!) create confusion? It's perfectly clear AND follows the style guideline. You wouldn't call a subsection "History of New York City" either within the New York City article.

Noting here, for clarity's sake, that I am the previously anonymous IP (I was, and may be again, editing from a different location). I would not want to try and create the idea that I am using sockpupettry. Ingolfson (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rick Lewis

Your AfD nomination of Rick Lewis is incomplete. Please review the instructions at WP:AFD to make sure that you a) place the appropriate template on the nominated article & b) create the AfD discussion page for the article. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Last Warning? Vandalism?

Now listen up. Two last warnings? That's pretty surprising. Didn't think that was possible.

Point no 1. The keratoconus comment was actually described as "(Not supported by the reference)". Have you read the article? Also, you've reverted my comment that the chairs and tables at the Evening Star are made out of railway sleepers. They are. Perhaps you could email them and ask.

Fair enough, revert my edits if you don't think they're referenced enough, but vandalism? That's pushing it a bit far. An over-zealous moderator is possibly as dangerous as a vandal.

Also, Beefy Bitter was a one-off beer produced by the Dark Star Brewing Company. I've had some. "Jerk, Beefy!" (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Disinformation?

1. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=julian+barnes+crepuscular&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a 2. Okay, it's Romanian, not Bulgarian. Or vice versa. Looks like some malicious vandalism to me! "Jerk, Beefy!" (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could see my reply on his talk page. — BillC ^talk 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Declined AIV of "Jerk, Beefy!"

Re your message: As I noted in my decline note, there was no recent edits by this user. You reported him at 02:43, 29 February 2008 while his last edit was at 21:09, February 26, 2008 to the article you referenced. He had a later edit at 21:03, February 28, 2008 that was not vandalism. WP:AIV is for reporting currently active vandals. In this case, the editor was not currently active (roughly defined as within the last hour) and the edits in question were not simple vandalism. Instead, I would recommend that if you have issues with this editor's contributions that you post them to WP:ANI. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Voting

Sorry, I have problems with my english if editing "fast"... then if I do, I use IP, if I have time to use dictionary, review, etc. I login and use my username. In the particular case of voting, I used the comments of my (not wikipedist) friend (the IP is from my second office, with a ADSL connection with IP like 200.153.*.*), then it is "in principle" a real "more one" vote. But you correct, it is technically the some person with 2 votes. I taked off this IP vote, it is now only a comment. --Krauss (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

... then, what your "tie-breaking vote" now? --Krauss (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Beef Trouble

Hi- This is Chris Parkinson here. I think I may have been the subject of a case of mistaken identity. Andy was supposed to be helping to promote my book, not make trouble on wikipedia! Sorry for any problems he has caused- the first I heard about it was when he told me yesterday! Jerry Fodor (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not completely sure what you mean by a Meatpuppet Master! However, I'm happy to leave my comment up here for a bit. Would rather not that it was up here permanently - just couldn't think of a better way to send you a message. Jerry Fodor (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

KC

We have a problem on the KC talk page. — BillC ^talk 00:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts here. I too am becoming increasingly inclined to walk away from the article. — BillC ^talk 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Where was Charlie Clements Born?

I've noticed you've undone the Charlie Clements article, stating that he was born in Kent, however at the time of his birth Sidcup had been amalgamated into London. A lot of references were changed, because at the time they had taken place they were indeed in London, and not Kent. --IAFYM 20:29 07th March 2008 (UTC)

Lee Strasberg

I disagree with your reverts to my edits about Lee Strasberg. Lee Strasberg had an important place in Monroe History - she was his most notable pupil. What I submitted are the facts about her will, supported with news articles. Lee Strasberg was a beneficiary, who did not follow the will as indicated, and this battle continued into his post-mortem when he passed his share of the Monroe Estate to Anna Strasberg.--Papillonbleu (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mark Bellinghaus

I disagree with your comments about the Mark Bellinghaus article, and the subject's notability. There are 29 references which support the article, which come from notable press sources, including the AP. Additionally, Bellinghaus' findings were covered by other notables such as Michael Shermer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer, with Shermer's article featured as a source to the Bellinghaus article. You stated that most of the sources used were Bellinghaus' own, which is absolutely a misstatement when one reviews the article's reference list. This article should not be deleted. Subject has plentiful notability in areas mentioned in article and backed up with references. --Papillonbleu (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Please read my answer to your accusations. at the site you created. Thank you.

Weareallone (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Google Books

Hi. I noticed that you recently removed a link to Google Books here citing WP:Links which seemed a bit ambiguous to me. I'm assuming you removed the link because it's linked to copywritten material published in violation of the copyright? I'm asking, not to give you a hard time, rather, I'm trying to figure out if there is there a policy against linking to Google Books that I don't know about.

For example, I have included a link to Google books in the citation I added to Walter Bowie. However, since that was published before January 1, 1923, the copyright has expired and it is in public domain.

Is there a broader policy or essay on using links to Google Books as the URL field in a citation template? Toddst1 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Actually, as I understand it, linking to copywritten material is OK as long as the site the the link is pointing to is not violating the copyright, per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. That's why I was asking - one may assert that Google books is violating the author's copyright, or, as I believe the assertion has been made by Google, using it under "fair use". I'm not an IP law expert, and this Google Books falls into kind of a grey area in my opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Universal Core

How the heck did you find that PowerPoint presentation??? I googled the life out of this term for copyvio... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

...other portions of the article... hm, hadn't thought of that. Thanks for the tip! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Addict_Clothing Article

Hi Carbuncle,

I was wondering if you could help me get to grips with what blatent advertising is in the case of the article you listed for speedily deletion? I have been a fan since I was 14 of this company and have followed their movements, especially through their music and their acclaimed collections throughout the years and think they deserve a wiki page because of the high profile stuff they have done and in my opinion interesting.

However, I know its hard to get a company listed on here and I was wondering where I was going wrong; is there a specific bit that's wrong?

Best regards,

(Mischa.wgreen (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Weareallone

I suggest posting this information to WP:RFCU. Ty 03:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that couldn't be done on RFCU. However, I support your SSP post. You have done the right thing. Clearly an eye needs to be kept on the edits of these users. However, AfD is not a vote: it's a debate, although obviously numbers in support does have a strong effect, if they are credible users, that is. Ty 07:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Jeanne Carmen

I would suggest that you go back and clarify your "meatpuppet" comments that were addressed to User:Pinkadelica. If you are implying that this user is acting as a meatpuppet for another editor, you are making a direct, serious personal attack against another editor who was clearly involved in working on this article before any issues that you and User:Weareallone have were carried onto the page. I would suggest the two of you work out your differences between yourselves and not involve otherwise uninvolved editors in your dispute. If you did not mean this as an accusation against Pinkadelica, then kindly reword your comments. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod from Johnson Kitto, article creator protested its deletion, brought to AfD

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Johnson Kitto, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson Kitto, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! -- Atama^chat 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

Thanks for youre message! I've just been editing recent changes articles - but thank you for advice about speedy deletions! I won't waste any more time! Flutterdance (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for policing Steve Bennett's article. I've left a message on the IP's talk page. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"patent nonsense"

Hey there, just a reminder to be careful what you call "patent nonsense" ([1]). Patent nonsense is gibberish that's completely incoherent, like 2#$(*#OPINO#930$ or something. That article, was a perfect candidate for {{db-band}}, though. Thanks, --Nsevs • Talk 21:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

SIP Magazine

Hi! I am a reader of SIP Magazine and I'm now helping to make their entry sound more encyclopedic. Would you kind enough to guide me on this? Cus no matter how much we try to fix this, you keep trying to delete it.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lighthouse hero (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

MyOutdoorTV

I have been working with J Milburn (talk)on wikipedia to get a new article written for our site. What is being asked for speedy deletion was our original article that ran on wikipedia for about 6 months. Please help me understand - our website has well over 100K visitors and works with agencies and producers around the country that use wikipedia and ask about myoutdoortv page. Again I have been working with J Milburn and decided the best thing to do was go back to our original approved version.

--Ajbaer2 (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

SIP Magazine (Philippines) tagged for speedy deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, SIP Magazine (Philippines), has been tagged for speedy deletion as it is substantially the same as a previous artilce which was speedily deleted (SIP Magazine which was recreated as a redirect. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigHairRef | Talk 20:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SIP Magazine (Philippines), I agree with its deletion, however note that it can only be speedy deleted under db-author if only the creator has worked on the article. "provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author" is the quote from WP:CSD, Thanks The Dominator (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom Fun

Hey Carbuncle, it wasn't an AfD it was speedied. I was mulling the article over at WP:AFC and raised a few questions about it, but couldn't find the copyright vio text in my searches so I let it pass. Thanks for clearing it up.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Crossca

I've removed this temporarily. AGFing and all, a block after no warnings is a bit harsh. _GB^T/C 21:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous - where is there any evidence, or assertion, that the image in question is of an underage girl, and thus illegal? Hundreds of images of naked people get uploaded to Wikipedia every day. Where there's a clear breach of policy, fine, then they are deleted and the editor / IP concerned warned and / or dealt with accordingly. There's no evidence to suggest that in this instance, and in the absence of that you should recall that WP is not censored. Your implicit suggestion that I would countenance that sort of activity is, by the way, somewhat offensive. _GB^T/C 22:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I also saw them, in a jurisdiction with similar laws, and reached the conclusion that there wasn't the slightest reason to assume they were pictures of anything more inappropriate than women with less than super-model sized breasts. Slap the user concerned for uploading inappropriate images (on the basis that Breast is already properly illustrated), if you like. Slapping them for anything harsher, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is a severe lack of good faith. _GB^T/C 22:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

ISM Boston

I see no reason why our company, ISM, should not be allowed to place unbiased, factual information on Wikipedia. Other companies that are very similar to ours have listings that are almost identical- Avenue A/Razorfish, for example. Why don't you delete them as well? Wiki is supposed to provide information on everything in the world, not just things editors like and not those they don't. And if the people who have information don't publish it, how are wiki users suppsoed to find it? Is the idea to deliberately delete certain information from wikipedia so that people have to search the internet instead? It just doesn't make any sense. Kmnicholas (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ISM Boston deserves its place in reality

In answer to your question, please read WP:NOT. Other articles are dealt with on their own merits. If you think they are blatant advertising, you could tag them as such. Please take the time to read the information I and other editors are giving you. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

These details have been carefully read. There is a clear bias against our organisation that is unjustified. Further deletion will result in press activity both digital and print with the deleting person's details being published.

According to your argument, which is "Go and read WP:NOT," we consider the statement under "Wikipedia is not a soapbox:"

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any organizations and does not set up affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Furthermore, those interested in promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

Our page is clearly falling in line with this statement, yet we are continually plagues by editors claiming our basic, factual listing is 'Blatant Advertising.' Our company listing is THIRD-PARTY VERIFIABLE and is written in an OBJECTIVE UNBIASED STYLE. This is without question, as it presents only solid facts and uses no superlatives whatsoever.

Deleting a listing that falls within the criteria for Wikipedia is a clear violation of the sites purpose- to deliver an on-going source of encyclopedic information to the populous of the world that is based on fact and relies on that populous for reasonable editing of the publication in relation to reality. In our case, the case of ISM, we are a truly unique company that is representing itself with the utmost professionalism and is engaging in a kind of business not replicated elsewhere. Our justification for representation is equal to other advertising firms, who are also well justified in being presented to people who are interested in unique marketing methods of the current day.

We are one of the only agencies to specialise in a specific industry, a movement that is unique and ground-breaking. ISM represents the start of something very interesting and a shift in business practise in our field. It is wrong to exclude a simple listing for a business that is of great importance to those people who are interested in the subject.

Talk: ISM Boston

I just posted something to ANI about the threat on Talk: ISM Boston. Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Socks

Well done. At least you got some kind of result out of it. Hopefully, it will not be a future problem. Ty 02:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

advice about speedies

Please be careful about placing speedy tags on articles within a few minutes of their creation, if it seems possible that there might be more to be said. It's worth checking that the subject might conceivably in fact be worthy of an article. Just my advice.

also, asserting someone to be a professor at a major university (or any other position of any plausible importance) is enough of an assertion of notability to pass speedy. Speedy nn is only for no claims of importance whatsoever. DGG (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

world of Wikipedia

I think that The world of Wikipedia article should definitely not be deleted. It says good things about Wikipedia. Kristy22 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)