User talk:Delicious carbuncle

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.

Chiacig??

Thanks for the note, though it looks like I missed the party. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 11:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So...

So you did not read the dispute, the reason I posted the article under a new name, or give any information as to why these new revisions, references and rewritten explanations were considered blatent advertising. I just wanted some information as to what I could do to add the Sentry Basic article to Wikipedia now that it apparently has been flagged without anytime for consideration.

Babaloo40 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - are you asking me a question about something? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually I am asking a few questions at the same time. Did you look at my revisions from the first time I posted an article about Sentry Basic? Did you read why I posted under a new name? Did you read the reasons why I believed it was not blatent advertising? And lastly is there anything specific I could do to get an approved article for Sentry Basic? Babaloo40 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that your other account Hearsomeinfo (talk · contribs) is blocked. I tagged your articles as spam because of the guideline WP:SPAM. You should read that, as well as WP:COI. They might answer your questions. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, blocked and SSP filed. I hadn't refreshed the watchlist recently enough to catch the re-creation. I salted the main one, will salt the others as well if necessary. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets

Hi DC, just thought I'd let you know that I have been accused of being you by Mark Bellinghaus and his companion Ernest Cunningham. I read the transcript of your sockpuppet case against weareallalone and I am 99% you are correct. Apologies, I'm not signing this post but I just wanted to show some solidarity with your predicament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.140.213.2 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're the second person who's contacted me on Wikipedia because Mark Bellinghaus has accused them of being me. I'm sorry. Not because being me is a bad thing, but because I've seen the craziness that comes with the accusation. The links on my user page are there for exactly that reason. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having done a bit more research, although Weareallone and MMMovie are patently both Bellinghaus accounts, I'm not sure Papillonbleu is as well. I think this may be his business partner Ernest Cunningham.

See here: http://www.hecklerspray.com/who-killed-marilyn-monroe/200814531.php

Cunningham's comment on June 12th at 11pm betrays an indepth knowledge of the AfD nomination with reference to yourself and Restawhile.

Also, the comment on June 9th at 10.05pm is either Bellinghaus/Cunningham posting under the pseudonym mst3kster (in an attempt to insult a user who'd offended them on the board), and contains references to yourself and a healthy dose of bitterness about the AfD nomination. Again, I'm not signing this post as I do have an account and I don't really want it spoiled by Bellinghaus/Cunningham chasing me round the internet with abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.34.186 (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed the comments at that link, but I really don't care to read it all. I have no particular interest in Marilyn Monroe or the battles being fought among Monroe memorabilia collectors. Bellinghaus's article is clear self-promotion which is why I nominated it for deletion. I'm still mystified that it survived. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

Apparently I was wrong in my thinking, I thought the redirect was a joke at first, but after doing some investigation, I was wrong. I apologize. :) Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone makes mistakes. It's pointing to the right place now, which is what matters. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Drink

Agreed with you, wasn't speedyable. It's now at AfD if you want to weigh in. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already did. I was going to AfD it right after I removed the speedy tag. :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bellinghaus

Hello, thanks for the tip. It is so confusing who is Bellinghaus-- and he seem to be confused about who you are! Personally I think some others are him as well as User:Mmmovie... but good advice for the change! Lets just say it's not the first time I have come across Mr Bellinghaus... Roger Blitzen (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can get confusing with all the sockpuppets floating around. Sometimes I'm not sure which troll I'm talking to. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with article "Strategic campaign"

I think this article may be spam. The author removed the speedy deletion tag on it. I think he might actually be trying to write an honest article, but the neutrality seems off. I'm a new user; I don't quite know how to handle this. Can you help me out? This is the article: Strategic campaign. Thank you.

SunDragon34 (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you re-tagged it and warned him. Looks like you don't need help from me. ;) I'll keep an eye on him. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You really helped me out. Cheers. SunDragon34 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. User:Mattjones17

Thank you for contacting me. After a quick look, it is clear to me that this user is not a newbie. Probably, someone else's sockpuppet. It requires more investigation. But right now, I don't think that a block would be in order without further evidence of deliberate and continuous disruption or sockpuppetry. Regards, Húsönd 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a second look. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fitting end

We now have a case of death by Slashdot! —Travis ^talk 23:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How very very appropriate! :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

female directors

So you're the one who decides who's relevant and who's not??! WHY are you deleting all my revisions?? No particular reason for that, pal!

xxxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.17.158 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the messages I left for you on your talk page. The guideline is WP:NOTABILITY, not who I decide is relevant. You should probably also see WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Oaklybuns

I'm assuming this is the rantings of annoyed user: User_talk:Oaklybuns but would like assurances that it is that. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me to assure you that I haven't been commissioned by the Chinese secret service to remove a non-notable Nigerian poet's article from Wikipedia? I'm not going to do that, but thanks for bring it to my attention. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your later, message - content concerned REMOVED, Hope that was what you wanted, If you can admin to oversight even better :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it requires oversighting, but there's no reason to copypaste already deleted accusations from the original talk page where they were posted. Thanks for deleting that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suasion

Hi Carbuncle,

I was wondering why you feel that the term "suasion" does not deserve mention on the persuasion article. The reason you gave on your reversion of my edit (that suasion redirects to persuasion) is exactly the reason I added the term to the article: to justify the redirect. There are plenty of articles that use the term, so I don't see how a case can be made for saying that it has rare usage, nor would that seem a relevant argument if it did.

Neelix (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a word, "suasion" is not commonly used. I see it used as part of the phrase "moral suasion", but very rarely outside of that. On WP, that is the usage in almost every case. Someone searching for "suasion" would be redirected to Persuasion, but it seems unnecessary, even possibly confusing to some readers, to include the word in the article. Perhaps you could place a link to Wiktionary? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carbuncle,

Just to clarify: was your last comment a suggestion that a link to the Wiktionary article on "suasion" should be added to the persuasion article? The redirect needs to be justified by including the term somewhere in the article, so I suppose a Wiktionary link would suffice.

Neelix (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any requirement for the term used as a redirect to be used in the article. My suggestion was just something for your consideration, but not something I would do myself or recommend. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NTWICM!

Please refrain from posting such condescending patter on my talk page. It is unfortunate that you cannot see the positive in short articles, rather having preferred to cast aspersions on things you yourself cannot fathom. JeanLatore (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by "condescending patter" you mean the templated message about speedy deletion nominations of inappropriate pages, then I'll stop when you stop creating them. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surgicare

Yes, I spotted that that article had been deleted. Seems fair enough now - and the deletion of my article makes more sense... If what I wrote was blatant advertising then the Surgicare article certainly was! I'll have to base my articles on a better example next time...

Kind regards, RentaCenta (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

explanation

Syesha124, Lovato45, DemiLovato15, Maddy24, and Kristy22 are not sock accounts! Each of the accounts that I mentioned are used by different people that share the same IP address! I should know! Each of these accounts belong to different people in my family and people that I know! Syesha124 is my cousin, Lovato45 is my brother, DemiLovato15 is my sister, Maddy24 is my other cousin, and Kristy22 is my best friend. She comes over to use my computer sometimes because her computer is currently broken at the moment and she really can't afford to buy another one right now. So my family and I(including Kristy22 for now) all use the same computer and same IP address. 76.118.87.126 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]