User talk:Delicious carbuncle/Archive 5

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

Archives

14 JAN 08 - 24 MAR 08
25 MAR 08 - 06 MAY 08
07 MAY 08 - 12 JUN 08
13 JUN 08 - 01 OCT 08

Page move

I moved /User talk:Delicious carbuncle/Archive 4 to User talk:Delicious carbuncle/Archive 4 where i assume it should have ended up. Just in case you need to update any links :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 16:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I manage to screw up making user pages every time. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thats what automated archiving and User:MiszaBot are meant for. You might want to give it a try. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 16:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind doing the archiving myself when I feel like it needs it, I just need to be more careful creating user pages. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow directions at the top of a talk page

You want to delete 'Fakin' Da Funk'.

This was a film on USA Networks that was one of the highest-rated films in 2000.

I'll have to dispute this with an administrator. Wikiusernewyork (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiusernewyork (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I wanted to delete it, I would have nominated it for deletion, which I haven't. You are welcome to bring this up with an admin, but I don't believe we have any dispute. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a dispute - I just don't understand the coi tags. I don't think fans should be included in the coi. Otherwise, who would do Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, Saving Private Ryan, Lost in Translation, and scores of other films and filmmakers? We should coi everything then. This is why it's not clear to me. Wikiusernewyork (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please see the discussion on the article's talk page. This has nothing to do with "fans". Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re The Genius Club

Okay...you are right...now how do we correct the article to eliminate NPOV problems?....let's get it right so we can delete tag. Any help on your part is appreciated... My best -- Lou Luigibob (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator has a conflict of interest, which is exactly what the tag says. I don't believe the tag should be removed as it alerts readers to that fact. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That had been bugging me for a bit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Losing the word for something happens to me more often than I'd like to admit. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AFD closing for Tim Chey

When closing the AfD, I saw that the only full delete comment (the other was a weak delete) only took into consideration one month's worth of google news hits. This new search revealed decent media coverage ranging back a few years, and notability is not temporary. I would argue that the articles help the subject to meet the first "criteria" for notability, especially if you take into account the last clause:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

By showing that the subject had received significant (though not necessarily exclusive) media coverage, I reasoned that the delete comment did not have all the information necessary to make a decision. If you still disagree with my closing after receiving explanation, I will gladly get another administrator's third opinion, and will not be opposed to changing my closure. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually look at the articles found in that search, you will see that the significant coverage guideline is not satisfied. Almost all references to Chey really are just passing mentions. Would you mind getting a second opinion? Please consider my nomination of the article as a !vote for deletion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your stance, I will agree to delete the article. Most of the News items do only give passing reference, so I can see why you believe it lacks notability. Sorry for the confusion. Malinaccier (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a closer look at the sourcing, and for reconsidering your original close. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet record

Hi DelCarb,

I'm actually just curious if you have any idea where I might find out the record number of sockpuppets held by one user. I know I'm probably nowhere near the record yet, but I'm still curious.

Thanks :) Meffed (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I enjoyed your edit summary with "colon is not a pipe, even if a colon is a pipe" -- very clever! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll let you know when the tshirts are printed. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI disputes with Sullivan Entertainment(or is it productions)

They appear to be finished and I plan to remove the COI tags in the relevant articles. If the disputes are not over I would like to volunteer myself for sorting them (the disputes) out. Sioraf (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tags let readers know that, as the notice says, "A major contributor to this article or its creator appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject". That hasn't changed, so please don't remove the tags. Interested readers can view the discussion on the article's talk page and the archived discussion from WP:COIN. You're welcome to start a new discussion on WP:COIN. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dariush Kashani - Not unremarkable and rising star.

There are many people out there who recognize this actor and google searches show he is gaining popularity. Please remove your request for deletion and stop being a bully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerhillinc (talk • contribs) 12:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be using a different Google than I am. Nominating an article for deletion is not bullying in any way. I suggest you read WP:NPA and reconsider your comment. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using a different Google than you are. He is a respected teacher at a well known acting school in LA, he is currently recurring on CBS' Ghost Whisperer and has an IMDB rating of around 5800 which means he isn't unremarkable. As a comparison, Wikipedia has an entry for Sandy Duncan who has an IMDB pro rating of around 7000. If you are a frustrated actor, I'm really sorry. We've put work into this Wikipedia listing, we don't see why there's such a strong intent in removing it. If he's that unremarkable...here's what we found via Google: http://movies.nytimes.com/person/1307723/Dariush-Kashani/filmography, http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?html_title=Homebody/Kabul%20(Play)&tols_title=Homebody/Kabul%20(Play)&byline=Ben%20Brantley&pdate=20040513&id=1084179623184, http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117916620.html?categoryid=33&cs=1. If you put any real time into doing research, you'd find he has worked in respected productions at major theatres in strong supporting roles. Most notably this quote from NY Times critic Ben Brantley..."Still, all of the principal performers have moments of letting the audience break through the dioramic stiltedness to glimpse the swirl of inner lives in conflict with a repressive reality. It happens when Priscilla and her Afghan guide (Firdous Bamji) watch a man of Kabul (Dariush Kashani) dissolve into tears listening to Frank Sinatra on a headset...."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerhillinc (talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this we you keep referring to? Are you more than one person? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are a theatre company.--Gingerhillinc (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that Wikipedia doesn't allow "group accounts" - each account should be used by only one person. In response to your earlier insinuation, no, I'm not a frustrated actor, I just don't think Mr Kashani meets the giudelines of WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just delete it. This is insane. All these rules for what purpose? To give people something to argue about. Congrats.--Gingerhillinc (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the one person per account thing has to do with copyright stuff. That's why you're not allowed to share an account. Burner0718 ^Wutsapnin? 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true - some people do love to argue. Burner0718 is right about the reason. See also WP:NOSHARE. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your G5 nomination of The Wordy Shipmates

Yo, I had a quick google of The Wordy Shipmates and the information checks out - it's a notable book and a worthy topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. Just because we can speedy delete the contribs of banned users, does not mean we should. Regards, the skomorokh 17:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but I thought it was policy to do so, per WP:BAN which states in part "If the banned editor is the only contributor to the page or its talk page, speedy deletion is invariably correct". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just between you and me, if there's an article on a legitimate topic and the content of the article is unproblematic, then a policy that tells you that to delete the article is an "invariably correct" course of action is pretty fucking stupid and ought to be ignored. Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware that this was anything beyond a local WP:CSD convention, and this should be brought up at WT:BAN. Regards, the skomorokh 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leon ousby

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

Have you seen Apron's talk, the closed AfD and now my talk? Getting interesting. TravellingCari 17:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's some of the least believable misspelling I've seen in a long time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not harming myself

Bringing it up may be considered a personal attack. We are talking about the Fossett article and all of sudden you accuse me of suicide.

The template was created to be used quickly in case someone else made a suicide threat. It does happen occasionally. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of anything. You are obviously in a confused state, so I was concerned about your safety and well-being. I'm sorry if you mistook my concern for a personal attack. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmovie

Easily taken care of--I undid that outing edit and locked down his talk page. I'm also about to shut off his email capability as well. Blueboy 96 22:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sure I haven't heard the last of this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took awhile to find where he'd done it ... spiked per G10. Blueboy 96 13:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me again. I would love it if you or someone could get my name removed from all over Mmmovie's talk page. Obviously its a pile of the usual. Luckily he is harassing someone other than me this week http://sciencereasonrationality.blogspot.com/2008/10/mark-bellinghauss-false-accusations-and.html BTW I don't think it was "misguided" of me to come to wiki. It was just to let you know I am being accused of your actions. I really wish you would not edit articles to do with Monroe and anything associated because its me that "gets it in the neck". I hope you understand. I have emailed blueboy re removal of my name from the above page, but no response to date. Regards Restawhile (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I had called you misguided, but I found where you may have thought I said that. I was refering to Bellinghaus' misguided attempt to bring his off-wiki harassment of you here, not to you being misguided. Just to be clear, it's the stuff in the history you want deleted, correct? There's nothing about you on the current version of the page.

As for editing the Marilyn and Bellinghaus-related articles, I do try to keep it to a minimum because I know that there may be some off-wiki backlash against you, despite many statements that we are different people. My involvement with Bellinghaus started when I noticed his self-promotion in various places here. It has been addressed in most places and I don't have any plans to edit anything else related to Bellinghaus. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DC, actually I looked at the Mmmovie talkpage just now and indeed there is nothing about me on there anymore, so perhaps blueboy has been in and done something - there was previously screeds of tripe with my name all over it, even yesterday. It seems Bellinghaus/Mmmovie is now completely blocked from editing on here, so all is well. I perhaps misinterpreted the "misguided" comment, sorry. Regards Pauline —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restawhile (talk • contribs) 04:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was blocked after some of his images were deleted and he went on a bit of a tirade. Speaking of which, thanks for that link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adding links

Hi,

I had been adding links to information pages - I did not read the policies before I did this and there was no harmful or any bad intentions. Does this mean this ISP is blocked from editing the pages now?

I have since read the policies about external linking and won't be addng any unnecessary links - but will contribute to the page with any new information.

218.185.56.80 (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been blocked (and won't be blocked if you follow the guidelines). Thanks for your message. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Thats great news - I am all about the guidelines now!

218.185.56.80 (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of poets

While I'm not challenging you on any individual cases (any I've looked at look about right), your edit summaries appear to indicate that you are applying the criterion of whether an entry on this list is redlinked in deciding to remove it. This does not appear to be valid, since differing degrees of notability are required to merit an article and to merit inclusion on a list such as this. See WP:PEOPLE. What say you?--Yumegusa (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PEOPLE#Lists_of_people actually states that people in lists should meet the notability requirement, so for a simple list like List of poets I don't think there's any ambiguity. WP:LIST is a little more vague about inclusion, so in a list of, say, "noise bands", there may be some room for debate. Nothing prevents editors from creating an article about a notable poet and then adding them to the list. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review Request

Would you kindly review the article as time permits? As a very green-nosed contributor here, I have spent some time reading and learning - my ignorance up until yesterday is embarrasing. Maybe you will find it no longer necessary for your three boxes at the article head? Thank you Mrtphotography (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really the wrong person to ask - I've been waiting for someone to nominate it for deletion. I see you've done a lot of work on the article, but it lacks even a single reliable source (see WP:RS). No offence intended to you or Ms O'Hara, but she doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and no amount of editing of the text will change that. Sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time Mrtphotography (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Andrew Blake (pornographer)

You missed one...

I saw your deletions of User:Mmmovie's images, but there was one image on my watchlist that didn't get deleted. Same particulars as the others, but it didn't get listed on the PUI discussion page. I suspect the filename confused TWINKLE. I really don't think this person understands the likely consequences of having their family pictures released into the public domain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. If he contacts me, I'll gladly restore him after ensuring that he accepts exactly what PD means. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mmmovie has been indef blocked for repeated attempts to "out" me by identifying me, incorrectly, as one of his off-wiki enemies. His talk page was protected after he accused the blocking admin of being part of a conspiracy against him and reposted the remarks which had been earlier deleted. If he contacts you, it will likely be through a different account. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ashley Roberts (model)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ashley Roberts (model), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Svetla Lubova

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Svetla Lubova, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Montana Bay

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Montana Bay, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirque Lodge COI

Please stop posting a coi tag because the article has been completely redone by someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.82.172 (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who did the copyediting on the article is very experienced in COI and copyright issues and they left it on. I'll ask for their opinion, but until then I'm going to replace the tag. If you have an issue with this, please discuss it on the article's talk page, not here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Svetla Lubova

I have nominated Svetla Lubova, an article 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. 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. RMHED (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC) RMHED (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're up early!

Good morning DelCarb. Wasn't expecting to see you up at this hour. I haven't even had my coffee yet. Cheers :) Henry Jacobsen (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little mischief before breakfast? I think in New Zealand where I'm alleged to live it's actually late, not early, isn't it? I can't remember. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. For some reason I thought you were in the US (no offense). Henry Jacobsen (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really I'm not in New Zealand. I'm just tweaking my stalker. Now stop your hijinks - I've got a busy day ~~and the AIV reporting on TWINKLE is broken at the moment~~! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see Twinkle is back up and running. That should make things easier for you. Henry Jacobsen (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Deletion Precedent

Am I correct in thinking that if Ginger Jolie, Svetla Lubova, etc are deleted, then this sets a precedent for other semi-non-notable people to be AFDed? I have had some trouble nominating non-notable articles for AFD only to have their subject accusing me of all sorts of underhand dealings - this precident would suggest a complete overhaul of the notability guidelines coupled with the purging of thousands of second rate articles. Which I'm not 100% opposed to, I have to say. Honey And Thyme (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Those cases show a difference in how WP:PORNBIO is being interpreted. The Ginger Jolie deletion relates to whether or not bios for marginally notable people are deleted if the AFD closes as "no consensus". I would expect that this will be applied at the discretion of the closing admin and therefore inconsistently, which is why I don't support the idea unless it is somehow codified. I think any less than famous Penthouse Pet would fail AFD at this point, given the current atmosphere. For a new user, you've started a lot of AFDs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I mean - my first AFD closed as no consensus and the article was kept. (Admittedly under pressure from the subject) Honey And Thyme (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that some editors -- based on your first action with this account being an AFD of an article for a WP editor -- suspect that you may be a sockpuppet of someone with an axe to grind. Jody Palmer asked, through her "SEO specialist", for her article to be deleted. Her case engenders a lot more sympathy than yours. Sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not after sympathy. But I see your reasoning. What exactly is the point of a No Consensus Close? Is it just a keep in disguise? Honey And Thyme (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no general agreement (consensus) that the article should be deleted, it isn't deleted. That's different from consensus to keep the article. although the result is the same. (Except in those cases when it is deleted despite what the policy states.) See WP:DEL. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with your user page

Hi there. I just saw your user page for the first time, and noticed that you have a userbox saying 'This user is being defamed on websites and blogs by Mark Bellinghaus.' I believe this may be a violation of Wikipedia's policy against making legal threats. Accusing someone of defamation is certainly a legal threat, and as such should be avoided if at all possible; if this userbox wasn't meant to be taken seriously, then I advise you to rewrite it to make that clearer, or just remove it altogether. If you do not reply to this message, I will proceed by nominating the userbox at WP:Miscellany for deletion. Terraxos (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors have seen my userpage but you are the first person to question it. I am aware of the WP:NLT policy. No legal threat is intended nor should be inferred from the use of the word "defamed", although I understand how you may be confusing the word with the legal sense of defamation. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. I probably should have known better than to accuse an experienced editor in relatively good standing of making a legal threat, but just thought it deserved comment... anyway, I'm sorry for the confusion, and can happily inform you I don't intend to take this to WP:MFD. :) Terraxos (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively good standing? Do you know something I don't? :) Thanks for reconsidering. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Meikle

No trouble at all if you want an AFD instead; just let me know. My thinking was, if it hadn't been requested by the subject, it was borderline enough that I wouldn't have deleted without an AFD; and if the subject had a chance to survive it, I wouldn't have deleted without an AFD even with the request. But the two taken together, I did. Not so much for efficiency, but to be kind to someone by removing their article soon after their request when it was clear to me what the AFD result would have been. Usually (as I understand it) we take the subject's desire "into account" if notability is borderline; in this case, where the border wasn't between keep and delete so much, but between CSD and AFD, I thought the subject's wishes should control. --barneca (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just saw your clarification at ANI, so most of the above can be safely ignored. --barneca (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's arguably notable, but when someone has requested deletion of their own bio, AFD !votes seem to be based on how the community feels about that person rather than policy and guidelines. I think we need to have a codified and recognized WP:OPTOUT policy so that at least we try to treat all cases fairly. I have no stake in Graham Meikle having an article here, so I'm letting this one drop rather than be WP:POINTy. Thanks for your clarification and offer to take to AFD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Ousby x6

Indeed, I'm going to start on an SSP report. In the mean time I'm tempted to speedy User:Leon Ousby as a BLP (the drugs/alcohol issue) and/or G4 StarM 23:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Orson20 StarM 23:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I think G4 applies here, doesn't it? There was also that odd claim that the subject had requested deletion, but I'm not taking anything at face value on this one... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's substantially different enough that G4 doesn't apply, I blanked the BLP section. There's something messy here. Don't know whether it's subject/management or what not. I think your original gut call that Orson=Ousby is correct, but I can't make heads or tails of the rest. Did you see the latest post on my talk by the newest incarnation? Told her (assuming based on name) to just start over. Something's rotten with so many people "independently" wanting to re-create and knowing who the deleting admin was. Something smells ducky StarM 02:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hi. I notice your user page currently links to a page off-wiki entitled "Jennifer J Dickinson and Mark Bellinghaus cyberstalking on Wikipedia". Can I ask that you either pursue dispute resolution if you feel there is an ongoing problem you must resolve, or else take this down. It seems unlikely to advance the goals of the project. Thanks for your understanding. --John (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no on-wiki dispute to be resolved. My userpage has been linked by Bellinghaus in his blog and elsewhere, misidentifying me as Pauline Berry. Hence the disclaimer on my userpage, and the link to her site. I do not control the content. While it may not advance the project, I don't feel that it hinders it either. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I disagree. By linking to an attack page which defames a living person, your user page is currently in breach of WP:BLP, and if you are not currently engaged in an on-wiki dispute it is hard to see how this advances the goals of the project. If you wish to have a disclaimer stating who you are not you can do so without defaming a living person. Thanks for your understanding. --John (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my site and I don't control the content, but it's hardly what I would call an attack page. Are you confusing it with the attack site that various users have tried to insert into Bellinghaus' article? I won't link to it here, but you can view the deleted article history to find it. This is not that site. There is currently no mention of Bellinghaus on my talk page, so I'm unclear how I'm violating WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:UP#NOT. You are not allowed to use your user page to make attacks on living people. I've removed the material from your user page. Please do not restore it. Thanks, --John (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty clear that you want the link deleted, but I find your rationale questionable. By my count this is the third reason you've given. I'm not making an attack on a living person. Can you please restore the userbox? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.--John (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DC - I have retitled my page to do with Bellinghaus on the link you point to from your user page - if it makes it a little easier for you. To people who haven't experienced the "Bellinghaus Effect" as you and I have, this is all about rules to be followed, but there is nothing to protect the innocent it seems? It seems the internet is a place where a nut can run wild, but normal people get their knuckles whacked (sorry, that sounds grumpy but its the only truth I can find for this situation) Restawhile (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it will make a difference here -- this seems to be more of an idealogical issue that one of actual rule enforcement -- but I do think it makes the web page seem like less of an angry reaction and more of a just-the-facts account of the situation. Not that anyone would blame you for being upset by what is going on. I think in these situations it's best not to give ammunition to the person who wants to play victim, but that's easy for me to say since anything I do here is blamed on you. Again, sorry about that. Thanks for making that change to the page title. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC you have been incredible. You have been a kind of "wiki Lancelot" :-) under the assumption you are a guy. John has been VERY insistent and I can see why that makes people on here wonder. But I have appreciated your concern or desire to do something about the abuse situation which no existing rules can fix - its a great relief after all I have been thru (and you know I never asked you to link to that page). But it seems MB has had a recent change of heart and in fact very ugly blogs about yourself being me are gone as of today, so in turn I am removing the page about wikipedia. So the link will be dead shortly and everybody happy. I have checked google and anything about this is just going to dead links except my own now, so I will put that right. Restawhile (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text for your user page

"If you have been directed to this page from outside wikipedia, please note there is no evidence whatsoever that this user name is that of Pauline Berry; in fact the evidence is quite the opposite." - which I am quite happy to sign. Suggest revisions if you wish. Ty 07:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting way to sidestep the issue. I prefer the status quo, which unobtrusively allows users to access a full explanation rather than a cryptic statement, but thanks for your offer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find some common ground re:the issue on my talk page. Have a look, let me know if you're interested. If yes, I'll end up creating a separate page for the discussion for us all to watch. ►BMW◄ 15:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been resolved because Bellinghaus has, as of today, removed his blogs so I am taking down the page about his wikipedia activities. The link is now dead. I am very happy, the first time in 2 years none of that stuff is online about me anymore Restawhile (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news. I suspect there are reasons other than our little drama here, but if we hastened it, I'm very glad. I'm a little disappointed that we didn't resolve the issue here on WP, but I think it was illuminating nonetheless. Do you mind if I leave your name on my user page for now, even though the link is dead? There are still a number of comments on various sites with my user name in them. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure DC. I don't mind, keep the link up, as I can see there is a principle at stake here. I have been watching these conversations with amazement actually. Its a little disturbing as there was definitely NO consensus that your link should be removed, yet certain editors are saying consensus had already been achieved (and that they are right, yet with no actual solid support of any particular rule). Additionally anyone who disagreed with the POV to remove the link was suddenly "not neutral" (um, so what are Ty & John then?). The "attack" label was so obviously a blind-siding attempt - and that false label is what the entire argument sat upon. I'm sorry if my opinion causes trouble, but its very transparent. Restawhile (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're still watching the all-out attack on my own talkpage. LOL ►BMW◄ 18:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. I decided it would be best for me to stay out of it. Tyrenius went so far as to delete the now-dead link from my user page. I have restored it with a request to reopen the ANI discussion, but I fully suspect my actions will be characterised as "disruption" in a further attempt to discredit me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a link that is still live and available on Google. You are continuing to game the system. Ty 18:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link is dead. Clicking on the link will take you to an error page. If by "available on Google", you mean that someone could search for the URL in Google and receive a cached version of the page, that is likely a very temporary result until Google drops it from its search results. Are you honestly suggesting that having the dead link on my user page means that I am directing people, after they discover that the link is dead, to return to my user page, copy the link, take the time to do a Google search on it, and look at the cached result which will probably be gone in a matter of days, if not hours? This really is getting ridiculous. There was no consensus at ANI to remove the live link, so the dead one can hardly be an issue. Reopen the ANI discussion if you wish. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you restore the link, if you have no intention for people to access the content? Clicking on it gets "page cannot be found". Copying the URL and putting it into google brings up link to the cached page. Sometimes the cache stays live indefinitely. As the page owner has chosen to delete it, the link does not respect their wishes either. It would show good faith to remove it, so we can all move on. I have received an email from MB, who has asked me to communicate an apology to those concerned for the distress he has caused and a wish to make peace. He has, he informs me, been deleting various of his blog posts. Over to you. Ty 19:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the link because I didn't appreciate your unilateral and autocratic action on my user page after you had failed to achieve your desired result at ANI. I cannot "make peace" with Bellinghaus since the dispute is not between the two of us, but between himself and others (although please see my note on ANI about Weareallone (talk · contribs)). Reopen the ANI discussion if you wish, but please don't misrepresent my position. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to my real life webpage if you wish, this means the google page will no longer be found at all. I have already self-identified all over the place on here so what the heck. Just an idea anyway.Restawhile (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cached page will disappear on its own, whether or not there are links to it. At this point I don't plan on making any changes until the issue is settled one way or the other. I'm not sure if I will want to stay involved with Wikipedia at all after this. I am pleased, though, to see how quickly you have set aside your past differences with Bellinghaus. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear this saga is putting you off being a wiki editor. I see you likely are being banned from editing the MB article. But I think, even though its obvious you have been "getting it from all sides", that you are still unbiased towards it. There is nothing you have edited on there that indicates anything but nueutrality and an aim towards balance, and balanced it is not. Perhaps some editors are expecting you to not be neutral, but the fact remains you see the article for just what it is, regardless of its subject's activities. It is still largely a "puff piece". It reads like the subject's own main website. Re putting differences aside with MB, yes, an apology was received. Aside from removing my pages about my experience I clearly explained in response I wish to not be contacted in any form again. I will be having nothing to do with MB (its all put me off Monroe anyway). Good luck DC, I think you are one of the "good guys" and have a lot to offer wikipedia. Long may you run. Restawhile (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to move on from this point. An uninvolved admin has made a decision, which was a condition you stipulated. A user page is still a wikipedia page and exists only by consensus of the community. It is not personal property. You have made good contributions and I hope you will continue to do so. I note your edit summary mentioning me. I saw the reversion, but left it to you to deal with. Ty 15:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I asked that an uninvolved admin remove the live link if that was consensus at ANI, since I question the neutrality of you and John. Incidentally, I note that you didn't revert Bellinghaus's last edit on his own bio before he was blocked, even though he removed sourced material. Instead, you fixed his references. The effort you're putting into having a non-functoning link removed seems completely out of proportion to whatever benefit there may be (and I can see none). I don't like being browbeaten, being inappropriately threatened with blocking, being nominated for spurious topic bans, or having my motives impugned, so I'll keep defending myself as long as I feel like I need to. This horse should have been buried long ago, but your repeated flogging has made it appear to be moving. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your wit DC :) (above), I am just going to nudge the lifeless horse one more time and ask a question, where did you find this link http://www.webcitation.org/5cTa0fjVR - I am trying to clear the internet of all this and didn't find that one, will send it to Team Bellinghaus to see if they can remove. I wonder what else is out there? My actual webpage, should you need it is: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restawhile (talk • contribs) 02:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's archive of the page that I created using the service at www.webcitation.org in case I needed to refer to it later and it had been removed from Bellinghaus' blog. It won't appear in Google searches, so you shouldn't need to worry about it. I also wonder what else is out there, but I suspect there's not much anyone can do about it now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MB saga

Sockblocked--and in light of the fact he's harassed other Wikipedians offsite, I proposed a full community ban here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link changed, it's now here. While I think it might be a good idea for you to to stay off his article for awhile, MB's off-wiki harassment has to end now. Blueboy 96 20:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blueboy96. I think it goes without saying that I support a ban here. I'm going to assume you meant on-wiki, not off-wikiharassment. As for the off-wiki stuff, note that Bellinghaus has culled some of the attack material from his blog and Pauline Berry has completely removed her web pages about him. I remain hopeful that their dispute is over. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gainer

11/28/2008

We at R.L. Crow do not wish to create any conflict with the editors at Wikipedia. We have tried to address the issues mentioned and are at a loss as to want is needed. Several other Wikipedia editors have helped edit the article to bring it into conformance. At one point we feel the article was even vandalized. You have our full cooperation in correcting and addressing your concerns. We are new to this and just do not understand what is needed. Any help you can give will be forever appreciated.

Thank you, K. St.Marie R.L. Crow Publications —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor395 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to respond here or by email at [email protected]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor395 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Editor395 (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You work for R.L. Crow, which publishes Bill Gainer's work. Have you read WP:COI? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitts-burgher

I wrote this article as someone who was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. My main reason for adding this article was to coincide with the article for "Sandwich." On the Sandwich article, there is an extensive list of regional sandwiches, which includes everything from Philly cheesesteaks to fluffernutters to kebabs. The Pitts-burgher (and Primanti Bros. in general) is a defining part of Pittsburgh history and culture, as you will read on the "Primanti Bros." article.

I did not add anything subjective, or anything to verbalize my opinion on the quality or influence of the sandwich. I simply wrote where the sandwich is made and what it contains. That is, what makes the sandwich unique.

If there are issues of me not having the authority to write this article, I would appreciate knowing what I need to do (not just a link to the criteria page) in order to get the article accepted, before you consider a deletion. Otherwise, I figure that if every other sandwich on the regional list deserves its own article page, then so does the Pitts-burgher.

I would also like to add that I just inserted an external link to primantibros.com, just to provide some extra legitimacy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyboardplaya (talk • contribs) 14:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V. Just because you enjoy a particular sandwich doesn't mean it needs to be on Wikipedia. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't state anywhere whether I like the sandwich or not (to be honest, it's hit or miss). My purpose for adding this article is that this sandwich is an essential part of Pittsburgh history and culture. In fact, it has been featured on American Eats on the History Channel, as well as on the Food Network.

Again, I have not written in any of my articles my opinions on the sandwich. I have merely posted some general information on its background and its ingredients. I do not see the harm in that, especially when the information is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyboardplaya (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take the time to read the guidelines I posted above and you will understand. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, my article fits your guidelines. The Pitts-burgher is a very famous and important sandwich in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Some people may be unaware of its official name, but any Pittsburgh native or sandwich expert will know of its preparation and history.

I've removed the prod tag and nominated it for a deletion discussion. You're welcome to make your case here rather than on my talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding

If you don't want it mentioned that that particular cover of the song is often attributed to Monroe--which it is, and which I'm also assuming with your obsession with her you are already aware of--then fine. Remove that. There is no need for rv. As recommended by WP:ROWN and in reverting help, "If the edit you are considering reverting can instead be improved (for example, to avoid weasel words, or to re-phrase in a more neutral way), then try to reword, rather than reverting."

Your revert removes viable information from the article (i.e. the listing of another cover artist--who's cover, ironically, is one of the more popular).

I am re-adding the cover artist's name back to the list, as it belongs there. I suggest you leave it alone as you are approaching WP:3RR. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? My obsession with whom? You can't just add unsourced material and stick a {{fact}} tag on it. Please read WP:V, where it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gainer / Ferricano COI

Hi - I saw you PRODed the Sinatra, Sinatra article and speedy deleted the Yossarian Universal News Service. Neeli Cherkovski seems to be notable to some extent - what are your thoughts of Paul Fericano? It looks like it has been written by someone with a vested COI, and without the Yossarian Universal News Service and the Sinatra poem, he doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Is it safer to go for an AFD? Richard Hock (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to wait and see if anyone found references for the Sinatra, Sinatra article before I decided on nominating Paul Fericano for AfD. Older articles like that one pre-date some of the notability guidelines, so there isn't necessarily any reason to assume that it was created by someone with a conflict of interest. Thanks for pointing those ones out at WP:COIN. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Record label on James Bay article

Hello. I noticed your recent edit summary on the James Bay page (How do you create a record label "out of a house"? That's preposterous! A house is much bigger than a record!) and felt compelled to respond. Although I agree with you in your stance that a house is much bigger than a record, that was not the contributor's intention in the paragraph. From the text it appears that the user is in fact referring to a record label starting in the house. They are not stating that a single vinyl LP was created out of the materials involved in the original assembly of the house. Indeed, that would be silly. But, it is entirely reasonable that a record label could have been formed within a house. As such, I feel that a revert of your edit is appropriate. If you feel that I am in the wrong, please present your argument on the James Bay talk page. Dubai Cube (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John, I just reverted your edit on Protests against the Iraq War! What a remarkable coincidence! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks for your bilingual support at ANI the other day if that was you! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I love u

I love you. 71.153.183.129 (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well aren't you the sweetest thing? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :) 71.153.183.129 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

santa baby

Unless you can present some sort of guideline that declares why any certain cover version of a song should not be listed in a section specifically labeled "cover versions" on an article about the actual song, there is no reason the artist should not be listed.

None of the other information in the article is sourced and it contains claims that are of a much greater need for such documentation than the easily verified fact that the song was featured in a prominent indie film. In fact, a claim of the very same nature is already included in the article, naming a cover version from a fictional character no less, along with a mention of the children's movie in which the song is featured.

You have not felt the need to revert or remove any of that information. The version by the artist in question is a popular one which has not only garnered much publicity but the release of two singles. As seen in such articles as Walk This Way, Mad World, Light My Fire, Unchained Melody and countless others, when a song is well known enough to warrant its own article, the proper place for such singles infoboxes is in the article itself.

There is no need to remove the mention of the cover version or it's infobox for the single release.

Please to not turn this into an edit war. You have already violated WP:3RR and there is no need for your actions. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I haven't violated 3RR. Read WP:3RR if you aren't clear on the guideline. Second, I have repeatedly given you the reason for removing your unsourced addition from Santa Baby. Please read WP:BURDEN. Third, if you look at the edit history of the article, you will see that I have even today removed other unsourced material added to the article. I am applying the same guideline to your edits that I apply to anyone else's edits, so please don't make this personal. Fourth, if anyone is edit warring here, it is you, having been told several times now why you additions are not appropriate. If you keep this up, I will ask for you to be blocked. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of WP:3RR and what it states. You should read it. If you must, inspect the edit history of the article. Over December 2-3, 2008 you reverted the same article more than 3 times within a 24 hour period. There were no special circumstances. Under WP:3RR you have the potential to be blocked.

As far as the material, again, if you look at the history the original material you removed dealt with the artist of the song being mistaken for Marilyn Monroe. This is not the latest information you removed. You have not applied the same guidelines throughout the article. As previously stated none of the material in the article is sourced. Why do you not feel the entire Cover Version section be removed? Under the "guidelines" you appear to be using, it should be removed along with other portions of the article itself.

The simple fact that the version of the song was featured in a popular indie film is easily verifiable by anyone. If you wish to say that you have "challenged" that fact and that it now requires an inline citation, I will gladly at the film itself as citation and continue your work in implementing the "guidelines" by removing all unsourced content from the article for you.

You have been told multiple times why your reverts are unfounded and I will ask for you to be blocked if you continue to revert and violate guidelines again. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I did revert the article three times in a 24 hour period, the edits I was reverting were different each time. There's no reason to argue about this - if you think I am violating 3RR, please go ahead and report me. As stated in WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". That's you. You need to provide reliable sources for any material that you add to the article. The rest of the article needs sourcing, but that's no reason to let it get any worse than it already is. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop

Please stop removing relevant and sourced material to Santa Baby. Motion picture films are perfectly reputable sources for such facts as the one stated. There was no reason for you to remove such sourced material. Before, when it was unsourced, you could have tagged it as unsourced if you wished, but simply removing it was not helpful. Now that it is sourced there is no question about its verifiability. Your edits are starting to become disruptive. Please stop. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that you are the one removing material from the page. If you make a bold change, as you did, and it is reverted, you need to discuss it on the talk page instead of getting in an edit war with DC. --Smashville^talk 02:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to baited into 3RR, but I've had enough of this. You've added the same material to the article seven or eight times now and you don't seem to understand that it needs to be sourced or it's going to get reverted. Parroting my talk page messages back to me doesn't make it seem like you are actually paying any attention to what I'm trying to tell you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow WP:DR. Ask for WP:3O or article WP:RFC. Ty 03:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keratoconus

This time an editor is courteous and has engaged on both the article and my talk pages about his edits. The issue is a more minor one – the ordering of treatment sections. S/he feels that this should be in order from least invasive to most invasive, which is not unreasonable, but I feel that most common to least common is more in line with encyclopaedic thinking. There's some background on the article talk page, my talk page and the new editor's talk page which should cover everything. Thanks, and I hope you had a happy Christmas! — BillC ^talk 03:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back at Keratoconus! I really don't have an opinion on ordering - both ways make sense to me - but I'll give the section another read and leave a comment on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Smalls albums

Hi there, I understand your concern that these articles do not meet notability requirements, and I agree that they probably do not merit their own articles; however, they should first be tagged for notability and proposed for merger or deletion so other editors can weigh in and a consensus can be reached (Wikipedia:NOTABILITY#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines). I'd suggest you tag the articles and wait a couple of weeks for input before unilaterally redirecting them. Cheers Strobilus (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not how it works. This is a redirection per the guideline and does not require a deletion discussion since it's not a deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Can you please direct me to the part of WP:MUSIC that suggests an article can be redirected without discussion? I've reviewed the guideline and can't find the part you are referring to. Thanks Strobilus (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've already stated that you agree that the articles don't meet notability guidelines, I'm not going to play this game with you. Try asking at WP:EA or at WT:MUSIC. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Smalls

What is the purpose of continually deleting information from the Smalls pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnaredding (talk • contribs) 02:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this note as well as the discussion directly above this one. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a guideline, not a rule set in stone. Obviously I'm not the only person who thinks the articles should be left intact, so I will ask again, what is the purpose? Donnaredding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnaredding (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The albums are not notable in and of themselves. Please re-read the guideline if the purpose of the redirects wasn't clear the first time. I doubt we're going to agree on this, so please take your arguments somewhere else and stop undoing the redirects. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Delicious carbuncle

An IP has been restoring material I think we agreed not to restore on your user page. Am I correct that this matter was resolved to everyone's satisfaction some time ago? Best wishes, --John (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, I removed the link (which was already dead by that point) after someone at ANI suggested that the owner of that website might redirect the link to a well-known obscene shock site. I capitulated then because the discussion had become farcical (and hurtful to the aggrieved party in the offwiki dispute). I wasn't satisfied by that resolution, but it's not an issue I want to reopen. To answer the subtext of your question, no, it wasn't my IP restoring the material either during the original ANI discussion or more recently. That's what you were asking, wasn't it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but thanks for the reasssurance it wasn't you. I just generally feel uneasy reverting stuff from others' user pages that isn't obvious vandalism. This pushed the line and I note another admin blocked the IP shortly after I left the above message, so all's well that ends well. --John (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I took it the wrong way. Feel free to revert any changes on my user page that I don't make myself. I expect it will continue to happen from time to time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of semi-protecting it for a month as there has been a lot of vandalism since we spoke. I hope this is ok for you; obviously you can still edit it yourself, it merely prevents IPs and new accounts from editing (or moving) your page. If you have any comments or questions about this please let me know either here or on my talk. Best, --John (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of What's Following Me

Hi,

I am the author of the article "What's Following Me" which is an album by Eleanor McEvoy. The article was deleted today and I would like to work with you to fix the problems associated with the article so it can be reinstated.

I am fairly new to Wikipedia and have made some errors. This is my second article to be deleted for copyright problems. I am putting up album sites at the request Eleanor McEvoy, who is the owner of the albums.

Would you please help me learn how to do this correctly so that the articles can stay up on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your help, Editthis2662 Editthis2662 (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at your contributions. You've been on Wikipedia since August 2008 and seem to have solely edited or created articles related to Eleanor McEvoy. There seem to be a couple of separate issues here: the first is copyright infringement and the second is conflict of interest. Please read the links in the templated messages left on your talk page about the deleted articles. As for the conflict of interest issue, you state that you are doing this work "at the request Eleanor McEvoy". Please read WP:COI carefully. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human parasites

If human parasites encompass, as they do, hookworms, and merit (a very poorly written entry) on the subject, then what is the problem in referencing other articles regarding hookworm. Particularly well referenced ones?

The fact that the Human Parasites page is so poorly written, incomplete, and little referenced makes your deletion of a section virtuous in all those regards curious.

Oh, and I didn't like your use of the term soapboxing.

If you want to improve human parasites I recommend speedy deletion of the hookworms section since a well written page on that subject already exists. One the authors of Human Parasites obviously did not even take the time to read let alone link to. See my addition to the talk page.

FQ1513 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hookworm article is already linked in Human parasites, as the very first word in the "Hookworm" section. The section you added appears to be covered in that article, as well as having its own separate article. I believe it's best to keep a general article, uh, general and cover the specifics elsewhere. I'm sorry if you took offence to my use of the term soapboxing. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a 23 year-old girl ..I love Mark bellinghaus since I was a child. I believe that he is innocent but He is bad luck these days if some some one tell sth non-sense about him...He helped poor people alot but now they forget everything, God know every thing about us and it's enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallyfish (talk • contribs) 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is innocent of what, exactly? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrage ..I have been a fan of Mark bellinghaus all my life. He is not some kind of old rag puppet that can be hurled about like you are a fiece dog. he is a fine man and deserves better treaetment ...and if you have been put up to this by a chinaman then so much the worse. They forget the good things and just remember all the hurt ..God can find it to find answers and the truth, his and Marilyn more than carbuncle can ever know, they are part of Holy Relic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallyfish (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about what you are outraged about? Are you a member of the Church of Marilyn? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Marginal product of labor, which you proposed for deletion. 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! Smallman12q (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an example to the article. Hopefully now you will see that having an article on marginal product of labor is needed to understand diminishing marginal returns and increasing marginal returns.Smallman12q (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Seems to overlap quite a bit with Marginal product, especially in the definition. Nice table, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse YOU

I would prefer that you not bite me, rather come to me and tell me that you have concerns, not come waiving an ax. The two that I closed were fine closures, and I was basically summing up the consensus below. I don't know who YOU think you are to come accusing me of fowl play when in fact I wasn't in the wrong. As far as the final warning, the user was in fact BLOCKED for edit warring after I issued a warning when in fact the user should've already been blocked. So basically, what I'm saying, is please don't speak to me unless you in fact have something constructive to say. Thanks, Dusti^SPEAK!! 07:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'll just use per WP:SNOW in the future, my bad on wording. Dusti^SPEAK!! 07:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page so the conversation is all together. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

I guess you and I have different interpretations of CSD A7. According to the guideline, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." In my view, if the article makes any claim at all that the person might qualify as notable, unless it's obviously impossible ("Richie Cunningham was the first man to walk on the Moon."), I have to decline the speedy. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we just differ on what constitutes "significance or importance". Simply being a radio personality or actor is not in itself worthy of note. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, that's a controversial statement in itself. ;-) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every actor and DJ I've ever met would agree with you on that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the same subject, I declined the speedy for notability at Mo'Rockin, although I could be wrong because I don't know a lot about what makes bands notable. The claim of having a permanent gig at Epcot seems more notable than most band articles on Wikipedia to me ... fine by me if you'd like to AfD them, though. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

You have been active for more than a year, have not been blocked, have made more than 10,000 edits, and are active both in articles and project-space. You should consider running for adminship.

I should warn you that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Issacharoff (2nd nomination) may come to haunt you in a hypothetical RFA. Let's compare your nomination to mine:

Problem	1st nomination	2nd nomination
References	"Poorly referenced"	"Poorly referenced"
autobiography	"it may violate the autobiography guideline"	"probable autobiography"
Sockpuppet	"based on evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Issacharoff	"(see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Issacharoff and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Issacharoff (2nd))"

Notice the similarities? Notice also that the article was deleted both times?

Now read part of the rationale for an opposition to my last RFA: "I do not trust with a delete button someone who thinks "I have not actually read the article but I think it might be autobiographical" is a valid deletion reason." [2] Of course, that was not my full deletion reason. You should be prepared for opposition the same way I was opposed - for daring to nominate an article that was actually deleted for a valid reason.

Addendum: I fixed your editnotice to this page, which someone hacked, so you should ask for it to be protected.

Just a few notes, since I was dropping by to talk about the declined speedy:

Yep, at least watchlist User_talk:(name)/Editnotice, and I'll full-protect it if you like. I complained about hackable edit notices once, with no results.
If you want to run for admin, let's look carefully at your speedy tagging first, that's something the RFA community is currently sensitive about.
RFA has changed dramatically over the last year; that's my current area of study. Read over the last 50 RFAs or so and I don't think you'll see anything irredeemably "toxic"; in fact, you'll see a lot of people being friendly and diligent. That's my take, anyway.
The note above mine was written by User:Kivel, who used to be someone else who exercised WP:RTV. Welcome back, Kivel :) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice about RFAs, but I have no aspirations toward becoming an admin. The RFA would probably be an interesting experience though, so perhaps I'll reconsider this at some point. I've watchlisted my edit notice now - no protection necessary. I foolishly assumed it was only editable by me - what's to stop pranksters from creating edit notices for users who aren't aware of this feature?

Not a damn thing, which is why I brought it up at WP:VPT. Maybe the legal concept of standing is relevant here ... my editnotice wasn't actually defaced, but yours was. Maybe you'd be more sympathetic. Re: adminship ... I only poked my nose in here because the biggest problem at RFA is that there's a steady supply of people who claim that RFA is shit for one reason or another; all I ask is that you not repeat the rumor until/unless you actually read a lot of recent RFAs and form your own opinion. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Mo'Rockin, playing daily at Disney's Epcot really doesn't make them any more notable than the poor kid inside the Mickey Mouse(tm) suit. There's an unfortunate coincidence that there's a similarly named band (The Mo'Rockin Project) that has gotten some media attention. Besides, the article only says they began performing at the Morocco showcase in 1999, so there's no claim of notability based on daily performances. I'm happy to take it to AfD if you think that's necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about The Mo'Rockin Project; I am so not the band guy. All I'm looking for from taggers on A7 is that they stop and think, "Might we actually want this company/band/person on a Wikipedia page? Did they assert what seemed like notability to them, but it's not enough for us, but if we told them that it's not enough and we need more, they might give us more?" In this case, given the name confusion, I have no problem with you re-tagging as A7 (even better would be copyvio if you can find a copyvio). Hopefully someone who knows more about bands than I do will make the deletion decision. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help and reply on the keratoconus article. If you need any of the backstory let me know. I am 100% certain that scubadiver99 & corneadoc are editing for commercial purposes and to distort the truth... On a medical article no less! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpowers (talk • contribs) 08:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know the backstory (see Talk:Keratoconus/Archive2#Corneal_Collagen_Crosslinking_with_Riboflavin_Section_and_Boxer_Wachler. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Keratoconus

Hi there. I deliberated for a long time on this one. It's really not a good idea, generally, to protect talk pages. And my decision, written on WP:RFPP was "decline". Then I read the comments in detail and decided that they were rude, not constructive and did violate WP:NPA in parts. And I thought that semi-protection for a week might be enough to disrupt the pattern of this behaviour, and it was probably worth a try. So that's what I've done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern with protecting talk pages. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious Carbuncle - is that your real name ? I don't think so, so why don't you allow others to use a "nic name". And you never said nothing to "CorneaDoc" who because (he says) is a Dr should give his real name. I was told to sign a name and thats what I have been doing. I don't want a talk page where people write this and that away from the talk page and from that more time is spent on wiki - please do have a life out side of wiki you know !

Plus over years now you seem to know not too muc about Keratoconus or BillC, this is why there are problems on the article and you will not allow others to teach you.

On top of this wikipedia says they are an encyclopedia, but say there is a disclaimer on the end of each page, is there really ? why does wiki promote it self as something its clearly not, it should say right at the top of each page clearly that it is inaccurate, as you your self say there is this so.

It is rude to me that there are lies being told, what you say about my rudness is a syptom of that not the cause of the rudness, you are only say that i was over the top rude only because you can not answer questions by going through the problem, but are going round it.

I only called someone Scudbby as a short form way to write Scubberdriver - what a big sin ?! you are only trying to take the focus of you, as clearly you don't know nothing and has been had by others. Its people like you who have help drive people in to a treatment which if they know the truth about, they would vomit....and more... RH

I have no expertise in Keratoconus treatment and I've always tried to be clear about that. If Scubadiver99 and Corneadoc (who I believe to be the same person) are telling lies, can you please give a clear and concise summary to show that? I will be happy to copy it to the talk page for you. Please sign your posts with ~~~~ if you expect me to pay attention to you. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its all there already, please look through it, really all this is just gross what is going on - those who want to twist the truth are the ones who are going to be "nicey nice" and savvy at editing the article. Those who have no time for these shallow endeavors end up having try to counter this mindless activity. Its clear that Dr BW has a marketing person who's job is to spend time with these shallow ends, he is on facebook now but its not him ! its his marketing person posting on there AS HIM, they got mixed up on their post which showed this to be the case - so there is an organized unethical editing/marketing gong on, but forget about facebook, its wiki which is getting used and used for their profiteering ends, which has been going on a very long time - too long. 149.254.49.123 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC) RH[reply]

Also I think its best to just leave information on what is happening (the US trails) and what has been proven (through out Europe) which is the only method of Crosslinking which requires the Epithelim to come off as an very important requirement for treatment. Thats the only thing which warrents a line or two in the article, nothing more, nothing less. "they" are trying to confuse matters - don't fall for it. Look on Pub Med howmany studies there are on the Epi on, the only one for Epi on is on that article ? the other one is just an Ad, not science at all, but that's shown ?? Anyway thanks for listening, but let more on to doing something to represent things correctly, please 149.254.49.123 (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC) RH[reply]

- - - Please let me know a quick way (with out further replies needed from me on this page) to send you an attachment which is of very importance. Thanks RH**** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.103 (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the "e-mail this user" link on the left hand side, but I'm not sure if this is available to unregistered users. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's right, there must be another way ? have you got a "throw away email" ? (and you said on the Keratoconus page, that we are pushing our "views" and "opinion" - that is not true, we are stating facts, how many peer reviewed articles is there for Epi on on Pub Med ? there one and thats from the Dr who is pushig it, which has been disproved anyway. And I am not using more than one "ID" - don't make accusations you can back up. Why havn';t you asked for our questions to be answered by the other two ? Anyway, do you want the attachment or what ? Some people have not got the time to have a talk page here on Wiki - RH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.101 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't make accusations you can't back up"? I'm really not sure what you're talking about (and don't try to explain it to me, I would know if I had accused you of anything, so assume that you took something the wrong way). I'm not sure what it is you are trying to send me, but I don't have a throwaway email account. Perhaps you could post it online somewhere and leave a link to it here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, it has now reached a good Wikipedian with out the hullabaloo, thanks RH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.57 (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Banners

From the history section of User talk:Delicious carbuncle/Prinzzess it appears that you had that page moved because the article was deleted. As you know there are many things that should not be on user pages or user sub-pages including project banners. Would you please remove the project banners from that page so that the page is not put into any of the categories that are generated by the project banners? Thank you.

JimCubb (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! It hadn't occurred to me that the talk page had been moved as well. Thanks for the heads up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries when nominating pages for deletion.

Please can I ask that when you nominate an article for deletion, you add an appropriate edit summary for the AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion: Step number three suggests you use a summary such as "Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]". This makes it easier for those watching the log to easily access discussion pages. "grrr" isn't very informative or useful. Thanks! Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no harm in asking! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what you mean with your response? The edit summary usage does not appear to be optional. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the page history. Optional or not, it isn't used consistently. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other people don't do it is not an excuse to not do it yourself! Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right again! If you feel the need to belabour such a minor point even more, feel free to leave me more platitudes after you've left similarly helpful comments on everyone else's talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a minor point, and yes I have let other people know. You should have taken my original comment in good faith as a pointer rather than respond as you have. AfD's aside, "grrr" is an inappropriate edit summary to use for any page as it gives no indication of what the edit actually is! Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're right! I'd love to stay and play this game with you, but I have other things to do. Since you don't actually need me to participate in this, just go ahead and leave whatever advice, criticisms, and/or well-wishes here and I'll agree with you when I get back. Thanks again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drew powers

Done. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I responded on your talk page and at the RfA. So you know, the reason why I didn't recognize you is that I rarely keep track of names or really look at who I respond to in situations like that. Perhaps it is foolish. I probably would have said the same thing to any arbitrary person (probably not to Jimbo though). As you can tell, it was nothing personal and the ending rhetoric was probably over the top. But yeah, once a situation like that can be brought to an abrupt end at ANI the better. The longer something is allowed to stay open, the longer it festers. I detest that place and I detest what it does to people. Going there makes my skin absolutely crawl. If you need to, my email and talk page are open to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't bothered that you didn't recall my name. I didn't take it personally - I don't think anyone is meant take anything you do personally. Or seriously, for that matter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

helminths since they have therapeutic benefit must be mutualistic symbionts

Parasite is a subclass of symbiont, so helminths must be symbionts, the question is what type: Commensal, mutualist or parasitic?

Since both organism benefits, from the definition of a mutualistic symbiont: The term "mutualism" describes any relationship between individuals of different species where both individuals derive a fitness benefit.[14] Generally, only lifelong interactions involving close physical and biochemical contact can properly be considered symbiotic. Mutualistic relationships may be either obligate for both species, obligate for one but facultative for the other, or facultative for both. Many biologists restrict the definition of symbiosis to close mutualist relationships.

Therefore helminths used in helminthic therapy are by definition mutualistic symbionts.

So I am rolling back my change in forty eight hours unless I get a counter argument on my talk page.

FQ1513 (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since helminths are commonly considered parasites, I don't think a counter argument is required or should be expected. Perhaps you'd like to stop and reconsider your position? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since helminths are by definition mutualistic symbionts and this is an encyclopedia perhaps we should be more concerned with presenting the truth and facts as described in the symbiont section of wikipedia than in common misconceptions? A parasite is a kind of symbiont, one that derives a fitness benefit from its host who suffers a fitness cost. A mutualist relationship is where both derive a fitness benefit, which is clearly the case here. This is a matter of accuracy. So what is it you are suggesting I reconsider? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FQ1513 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to express this view on the appropriate article's talk page, but helminths are commonly viewed as parasites and should be identified as parasites in articles. Please don't pretend that you don't understand what I'm saying - your talk page shows you've been through this before. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be polite, my talk page shows nothing on this topic and if you are generalizing from other conversations you are making assumptions. I will transfer this conversation to the article talk.FQ1513 (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't intending to be impolite, just direct. Thanks for taking the conversation elsewhere. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Igbo people are criminals'

I guess Mewecleff has decided to come out and sabotage the Igbo people article again! This would be the fifth time that he has been warned not to vandallise one article! I don't know, what else can be done? -- Ukabia (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD's

~~Do you ever build anything instead of destroy other people's work?~~ TomCat4680 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for personal attacks. Please retract your remarks here and at Talk:Fuel TV. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm sorry I will but please retract your afds, since so far no one has agreed with you. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a negotiation - I don't believe those local sportscasters meet the criteria for inclusion, so I nominated those articles for deletion. It isn't personal. Please retract your statement above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that this is related to [this]. Just making sure that you realise, that above the notability info you've directed TomCat to, it does say "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". Fol de rol troll (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm pretty familiar with the guidelines. TomCat4680 referenced a specific section in his vote, which is why I directed him back to it. I haven't seen any evidence yet that the subject meets any notability guideline, but if sufficient numbers of editors !vote to keep, the guidelines are moot anyway. At least in my experience. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Brandstatter

Your nomination has initiated some major improvements to the article. Might you consider a withdrawal of the nom? Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel TV

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fuel TV. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Please respond to my comment on Talk:Fuel TV like I originally asked before you kept reverting me, per content dispute resolution policy; instead of sending me 3rr warnings. If I have to follow the rules, so do you. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do have to follow the rules, so perhaps you should take the time to find out what they are. I haven't violated 3RR. I'd appreciate it if you would take a step back from all of this. I have no desire to become engaged in a personal dispute with you or anyone else. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::I don't want to get into a personal dispute either, I want to resolve it civility. Please respond to my comments on Talk:Fuel TV (this is the third time I've asked now) per content dispute resolution guidelines if you consider the content questionable, put a tag up (which you didn't do) and discuss it on the talkpage until a consensus has been reached (which it hasn't), don't simply remove it and get in 3RR wars. (which, yes you did do). I'm trying to make friends on Wiki, but you've been less than friendly to me today. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really prefer that if you come to my talk page to argue with me, you at least do in sensibly. While you have reverted my change three times in 24 hours, I haven't done the same, both of which are easily verified by looking at the article's history. Please don't come here and toss random guidelines, kittens, or cookies at me unless you have something worth saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::::Answer my request at post at Talk:Fuel TV then instead of accusing me of things you did yourself FIRST. Don't accuse me of violating policy if you're not going to follow it yourself, thats just plain hypocritical. I'm really getting sick of your "do as I say, not as I do" and "I refuse to admit that I'm wrong even when others prove they're right" attitude. Either follow policy and answer my comment at Talk:Fuel TV instead of reverting or I'll report you for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:P.S. The cookies and kittens mean I'm willing to be civil with you and respect your opinion. I don't know what your problem is and why you can't do the same. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is pointless. I suggest you go ahead and report me. I'm asking you for the second time to please stay away from my talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you both step away from the Fuel TV for a bit and cut out the sniping and tit-for-tat? Otherwise, I'll fully protect the article for your own good. The alternative is handing out blocks. Acroterion _(talk) 02:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're threatening to block me. I hope I've misunderstood what you were implying. I haven't touched Fuel TV in, oh, nine hours, so I can't really step away from it. I'd appreciate a clarification here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that you both are at 3RR, but have not crossed it. As I stated at AE, blocks would be punitive, and I'm not getting into a discussion of the preferred version: as I said, I'm willing to protect the article to force discussion, and won't take sides. I'd rather not block anybody, and you both should know better. Acroterion _(talk) 03:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article history again. TomCat4680 has reverted three times. I have reverted twice. Again you appear to be threatening to block me with "I'd rather not block anybody". Please be clear that you are not. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is protected now: nobody is in danger of being blocked, I was stating it as the undesirable alternative to protection. Both of you are poking each other with sharp sticks. I suggest an RfC so some other editors can comment. Acroterion _(talk) 03:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have misread the situation. TomCat4860 appears to be upset that I have nominated one of their articles for deletion. I suspect that is the motivation behind their reverts. I've already stated on the article's talk page that I'm not going to be involved further in the article. So long as TomCat4680 stops their accusations against me, I have no interest in them or their activities. An RfC is a waste of everyone's time.

My concern, however, is not with the article at all, but with your appearance on my talk page to warn me about 3RR, which I haven't committed, and your thinly-veiled threats to block me. You have yet to tell me what you would be considering blocking me for. I have asked you to clarify but you have instead continued to dance around with vague language. So, I'll ask one last time - please clearly state that you are not and were not threatening to block me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both parties are reading too much into other people's comments - Tomcat4680 thought SPA had something to do with sockpuppets. I view blocking as an undesirable way to resolve edit wars and said as much: my use of the plural may have implied more than was intended. However: Neither of you have crossed 3RR, but I view this [3]] edit as a revert. Feel free to disagree, but you appear to me to have reverted the list of redlinked shows three times. Bear in mind that I had the article watchlisted because I was the one a couple of days ago who de-spammed the article, cleaned out the massive copyvios and blocked the SPA that was doing it. Then I see two editors poking each other with a sharp stick and decide to intervene to keep them both out of trouble.

To put it plainly: I had no intention of blocking either of you. Protection is the way to go in this case. Acroterion _(talk) 04:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I wasn't reverting an edit but rather selectively removing a section consisting of red links, I'll disagree that my initial edit counts as a revert. Regardless, I don't believe this is a content dispute at all but a case of a user who has had their feelings hurt over a deletion nomination and started lashing out, so protection will do little to alleviate that. I hope it subsides soon. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about Rpleonar (talk · contribs). Next time, a COI warning would be in order, as the block (which was in fact, not mine) did not block account creation. Acroterion _(talk) 04:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked closely at the account until just then. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'll keep an eye on the account. By the way, I, at least, consider it a revert if you've removed/replaced content in a substantially similar manner, whether you used "revert" or not. I believe that is a fairly common interpretation, and certainly in the spirit of the rule. I've tried to avoid interpreting Tomcat's feelings on the subject and to stick to the matter at hand, which was, seriously, to keep you both out of trouble. Acroterion _(talk) 04:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Him nominating the article I started for afd has nothing to do with this; his plan backfired, the discussion so far resulted in no one agreeing with his deletion nomination. In fact the exact opposite of what he wanted happened, everyone agreed that the person WAS notable and proved it by expanding the article ten fold with a dozen independent reliable sources. Contrarily, I think he's the one that's mad at me because of this and like I said earlier, he refuses to admit he's wrong even though dozens have proved themselves right. Instead he tries to discredit everyone with policy that proves absolutely nothing. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the above comment helpful? Please stop goading DC. Editors are entitled to disagree. Acroterion _(talk) 14:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to believe that local sportscasters aren't notable. Will Jim Brandstatter be kept? I'm sure it will, thanks to canvassing by you and User:Ikipp, but that won't make me angry. I've asked you twice to stay away from my talk page. Regardless of what it says on your userpage, it's now pretty obvious that you're just a kid, so I'm not taking any of this personally. Stay off here, stop making silly accusations about me, stick to editing your TV/sports articles, and we won't have a problem. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::Fine I'll leave you alone but DON'T tell me what article I can and can't edit. I'll edit whatever I want. You're not my boss. and I'll continue to believe all living people are notable. And you're the only one being immature here. I was willing to be civil by offering you an olive branch (cats and cookies) and you threw my gifts back in my face. We can agree to disagree but that was just uncalled for. And you keep reporting me for violations like "canvassing" instead of coming to a consensus. Stop assuming bad faith and start being civil. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you very nicely and clearly to stay away from my talk page three times now. Acroterion also suggested that you stay away, but you don't seem to be getting the message. I'm sorry, but I've run out of patience. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Good idea, poor more gas on the fire. I took the high road and asked for an RfC on Talk:Fuel TV. How does reporting me solve anything? I guess its your modus operandi to knock over sand castles because you think they're ugly instead of helping the builder make it better by giving him tools and making suggestions. What are you hoping to accomplish by this? To prove you're right? To get an apology? To get me blocked? I doubt any of these will happen and in the end it just proves how uncivil you are. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry for everything I said and did. I was totally out of line and I never should have let it escalate as far as it did. I hope you can forgive me. I'll never bother you again and I hope you can just forget this nonsense some day. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was never a personal thing with me and will soon be forgotten. Apology accepted. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re TomCat4680

I note that his talkpage comments that he has both Aspergers Syndrome and Bipolar Disorder; he may be 29 chronologically, but his developmental age (and his social interaction skills) may vary considerably. Per WP practice, and very much in this case, I think we should limit our comments upon what was said, and not on the person or their possible reasons for saying it. This is just a comment, and nothing heavy or anything. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now, and it explains why I was mistaken about his age. The reason I mentioned it in the first place was actually to cut him a little slack for his outbursts, but I guess I need to be more careful about making such assumptions and comments. Lesson learned. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]