User talk:Delicious carbuncle/Archive 10

rapid deletion

Hi im saddened that you deemed all of my contributions to internet activism to be promotional and deleted them without so much as a discussion about deletion.

I am new to this but i am also an experienced reseracher and writer with a genuine contribution to make.

I can see how you may have seen it as promotional, but I need to know with more specificity what the key problems were.

In the absence of other input im assuming that it was not the text that i inserted that you objected to but the fact that the refrences that i made contained hyperlinks back to pages that would enbale readers to purchase the materials mentioned. if this is so i understand and would be happy to not inlcude such hyperlinks in future.

if it was that i was quoting from the same book, that is becuase the book is newly out and covers the topics in question. There were existing gaps for example in relation to anti-corporate activism, and my contributions were a genuine improvement, yet all of the text i placed has been removed becuase it was deemed promotional, seemingly without regard to whether it had intellectual value.

Would it not be better to have a deletion discussion and indicate that the hyperlinks should be removed.

Anyway, im prepared to learn by experience but i would like your honest feedback.

I would like to make a positive contribution to the pages about activism which is my academic speciality, but i could also just be discouraged.

From my experiences i can see it would be a mistake to put too much tiem into a wikipedia contribution becuase they can be axed very quickly and without discussion.

Activ9 (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that you seem to be interested in using Wikipedia to promote your book and, through that, yourself. I am sure that you are able to contribute in your area of expertise without it seeming like you are trying to promote yourself, and you are welcome to do so. Please read WP:COI before attempting any more editing, though. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks for responding, and i have read the notes about not being promotional. i understand that you deleted it for that reason, but i was hoping for some more specific feedback ot help me know how youd like it modified. This is becuase i still feel that my text was a valid contribution to some areas in which wikipedia actually had observable gaps, (anti- corporate activism; the security risks of using digital tools) but I'm guessing that the referencing and hyperlinking appears to be the issue.Id like to stop guessing and be given some definite guidance here. Its confusing becuase everything useful has been wiped not just the parts you thought overstepped the line. Im left a little confused as to whether citing a book is OK in several different places if it doesnt have hyperlinks leading back to the books page.?? Im not trying to annoy you im genuinely seeking constructive feedback on why 100% of my contributions were removed rather than just specific parts that offended wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.35.159 (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression from what you added that you are going to cite your own book as the source for whatever you add. If it is a good source, someone else will use it as a source here, so, given your conflict of interest, perhaps it would be best to let someone else with more Wikipedia experience fix up those articles. On the other hand, if you are willing to use other sources, read up on WP:RS and start editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for tipoff

I have deleted it but it looks like someone moved it from front page first. Victuallers (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

Account activation codes have been emailed.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 04:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of interaction ban

Please see enforcement request here. Prioryman (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can that be possible? You are under an interaction ban which prevents you from mentioning me, which I asked for because I was tired of you lying about me. And yet, here we are again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The enforcement request has been moved here at the request of Lothar von Richtofen. Prioryman (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle is represented by the solid line on the left, Prioryman is represented by the solid line on the right, and the broken line is Errantx

.

Re the ANI thread

Please do not do that ever again. You are supposed to be ignoring Prioryman, not calling for him to be sanctioned, nor asking for his sanctions to be updated or listed properly, nor interacting with him in any way whatsoever. The sole exception to your interaction ban was and remains Errantx's talkpage for the specific purpose of discussing/appealing the terms and conditions of the interaction ban itself. Consequently your recent post on Errantx's talk was a violation of the ban, and the only reason you are not blocked for 96 hours right now is because I'm getting charitable in my old age. Believe me, were this a couple years back I would not be acting in nearly so lenient a fashion.

Whatever the problems of Prioryman's editing, the community has decided that you are not the person to be dealing with or reporting these problems, as this causes far more drama than it resolves. Disregarding the community's wishes is normally a fast route out the exit door. This is a final warning. One more violation of the ban will be regarded as deliberate wikistalking and cynical breaking of restrictions, which will earn you several months' enforced vacation courtesy of yours truly. Please bear this in mind. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever noticed the amount of drama that is caused on Wikipedia because people like you don't want to deal with obvious and longstanding problems? You do what you need to do - I know how to fill out an unblock request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, you were warned, and knew full well that posting on ANI was in violation of the ban, as I think your post after my warning here shows quite nicely. You then went ahead and posted on ANI anyway, comparing Prioryman to a manager committing sexual harassment, which was ingenious but also a fairly blatant troll. Your post on ANI also shows that you have no intent of abiding by the restrictions you are under in the slightest, somehow thinking yourself to be above them. You are not. Please reflect on this for the next 75 days. We will see you then. Moreschi (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To admins reviewing unblock requests; please do not unblock or alter the block length without 1) carefully reviewing the ANI thread and 2) talking to me first. Moreschi (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you have blocked me for posting on ANI? In a thread regarding my actions, started by a person who is under the same terms as I am? You most certainly did not make clear that I would be blocked for that. I fully expected that I would not only be allowed to participate, but entitled to make statements in my own defence. Please unblock me immediately. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, DC is right. He is allowed to present his side in a dispute resolution forum. Prioryman made several pejorative statements about DC in that discussion as well and several editors called for blocks for both parties, but you only blocked DC. Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both he and Prioryman are not supposed to be presenting their sides in dispute resolution forums. This was made explicitly clear in the interaction ban, if you go back and find the original thread. I agree that Prioryman was in breach of the ban in posting on AE/ANI in the first place, as was DC for the post on ErrantX's talkpage that was related to Prioryman but unrelated to their mutual interaction ban. For this I was initially going to block both but then later decided to warn both, at which point I marked the thread as resolved assuming it was all over. Then DC went to troll ANI, which there is no way he could not have known would be in violation of the ban because 1) it was explicit in the interaction ban terms and 2) I'd just warned Prioryman for creating the thread in the first place. Moreschi (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, that was DC's first post to that ANI thread. If I were him, I would want to present my side in a forum where WP's administration is watching, especially after Prioryman trashed him in his comments. I don't think it is unreasonable to allow an editor a chance to present their side when they are the subject of discussion in a dispute resolution forum. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) There was absolutely no need to do so, as both had been warned for restriction violations and the thread was tagged as resolved and 2) he is banned from doing just that. So is Prioryman, but I cut him some slack because it was DC's initial post on ErrantX's talk that sparked this all off. Everyone is sick to their back teeth of him and Prioryman fighting at ANI, which is precisely why we have this interaction ban in the first place. I agree that 99 times out of 100 there would be no problem with someone spouting off angrily at a DR forum but this is the 1 time when they are specifically banned from doing just that. He knows this, and just in case he didn't, my warning made it very clear what the exceptions were to the interaction ban. Those do not include ANI. I am sorry, but I do not think his surprise at being blocked is in good faith, nor the unblock request. Moreschi (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, you know this is a bad block and isn't going to be allowed to stand. Why not just unblock now and we can skip all of the nonsense? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My outside opinion is that you should have taken the warning and dropped it. There was nothing to be gained from further commenting on the discussion. You and drama seem heavily intertwined in my experience and if the block serves to cull the drama then it's appropriate. SÆdon ^talk 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor deserves the chance to defend themselves when accused of malfeasance in a dispute resolution form. Prioryman made multiple comments in that discussion, DC made one. DC was blocked for it. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a court of law or almost any other venue I would agree without reservation. Justice, however, is not a relevant factor here. All of our policies, guidelines and practices are built for a singular purpose: building an encyclopedia. Actions should only be evaluated insofar as they contribute to that goal, and if they don't they are not appropriate. 75 days is probably a bit much though. 30 days seems more appropriate. SÆdon ^talk 23:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And editors and admins who are helping build the 'pedia should be treated fairly. Apparently, the only reason Prioryman was allowed to comment at will in the ANI thread and DC wasn't was because Prioryman got there first. Allowing DC a chance to defend himself, then moving the discussion to a conclusion, would not have disrupted the 'pedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saedon, without any slight intended, please stay out of this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No slight taken and I will respect your request. SÆdon ^talk 23:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Delicious carbuncle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See above Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The above discussion doesn't indicate why you should be unblocked. I have a feeling you're going to have to take your licks on this one and wait out the full block. An unblock seems unlikely, given the interaction ban you violated. However, I've reduced the block to 10 days, as 75 days was a bit too long. I don't believe that you actually literally compared Prioryman to a sexual predator (or whatever the comment at ANI was), I think you just meant to say that PM shouldn't be treated specially just because he writes good content (although you admittedly went down a weird path to make that comparison). But, given the interaction ban, appealing to ErrantX because PM reverted obvious vandalism is quite childish. Interaction ban means that you need to forget that Prioryman even exists. You clearly have not done this, and that is why you are currently blocked. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 23:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In what way did I violate the terms of the interaction ban? ErrantX's talk page was explicitly not included. What am I actually being blocked for? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For trolling. By complaining about an edit by PM which simply reverts unambiguously obvious vandalism, you are clearly baiting him and demonstrating to him that you are still monitoring his edits. This is a form of interaction, regardless of whether it transpired on Errant's talk page. Time to grow up. You're banned from interacting with PM. This means you need to forget he even exists, stop monitoring his edits, stop posting about him on off-wiki pages (although obviously that last one is a suggestion, as I can't force you to stop doing anything off-wiki, but it certainly is a suggestion you should take to heart). If you want to contribute here, then contribute. Write something. Obsessively monitoring someone else's edits is not a productive form of contribution to an encyclopedia, particularly when you are banned from interacting with that person. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 00:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of your interaction ban included a provision for posting certain types of complaints on Errant's talk page, but with this complaint you are clearly trying to walk as close to the line as you possibly can. This childishness will not be tolerated. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 00:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm blocked for being, in your opinion, childish? Sorry, that's not an acceptable reason. Please unblock me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC, why don't you take a break for a few hours? Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will. I'm in no hurry. In the spirit of accommodation, I am also willing to accept any length of block so long as Prioryman is given the same. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that would be more fair and just. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC, when you wake up in the morning I recommend checking the ANI discussion. If there is a majority of respondents supporting an unblock or block for both of you, I suggest posting another unblock request using the results of that discussion as the rationale. So far, most of those responding are supporting an unblock but it has only been an hour or so. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasecopy to ANI for me

DoneThis is a ridiculous block that has little relevance to the issue at hand and will not stand. If Moreschi wants to play tough guy and refuses to unblock, I'm sure someone else will do so eventually. The community is not well served by admins who are more interested in reducing the "drama" than solving the problem. Prioryman's tiresome bleating seems to have distracted people from the central point that he agreed to abide by editing restrictions in order to be allowed to continue editing. He has repeatedly violated those restrictions and will continue to do so. This very thread is a violation of one of those restrictions. If the community was not serious about the sanctions, they should be withdrawn. If they are serious about them, they should ensure that they are properly recorded and that they are enforced. Framing this as a dispute between editors is really just ignoring what is at the root of the issue. Shooting the messenger will not solve the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I did not think that I was violating the interaction ban by making my post on ErrantX's talk page. If I had, I would not have made the post, or at least would have expected to be blocked. In fact, as far as I can tell, my current block is actually for posting in the ANI thread, which is completely perverse. ErrantX's talk page was explicitly excluded from the ban. I have no problem if people wish to change the terms of the ban to include the totality of Wikipedia, but I resent the implication that I was in violation of the ban as laid out. I will not mention Prioryman on-wiki, at all, anywhere, in any context, unless I have been told that I may do so. If I perceive that Prioryman has violated the terms of the interaction ban, I am apparently expected to start a thread on ANI asking for enforcement, but it is clear that I would be immediately blocked if I did this, so I will instead email an admin. I consider the current block to be completely unjustified, but I will wait it out if need be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for Errant to clarify the terms of the IBAN, no problem. Asking Errant to relay a message to Prioryman about an obviously unproblematic edit to revert obvious vandalism, that's a problem. Is that a blockable offense? Taken on its own, probably not. But it certainly indicates that you're not honoring the spirit of the interaction ban. You were clearly still monitoring his edits, and your request to relay the message is baiting. That, combined with the outburst on the ANI thread is why you're blocked. Basically, no one wants to deal with this kind of immature crap on ANI. The interaction ban was supposed to ensure that no one would have to. You can be pretty sure that any time the topic of this interaction ban shows up on ANI, one or both of you are going to get blocked for something. Why are you blocked and Prioryman isn't in this case? Probably because you were the instigator. I wouldn't be opposed to blocking Prioryman for a short time as well, but there doesn't seem to be agreement that it's necessary or justified. My advice would be to quietly wait out the block, spend some time away from Wikipedia to gather your thoughts, and then come back with the mindset that Prioryman doesn't even exist. Just do your thing, and forget about him. If you two happen to show up on the same page by coincidence, just walk away and find something else to do. That will guarantee that your block log doesn't get any longer. As I said before, I'd strongly suggest not discussing him off-wiki as well, to make it easier for you to forget that he exists. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 16:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear, my message was for ErrantX, not for Prioryman. I did not interact with Prioryman, even by proxy. What I did do was ask for ErrantX to follwo up on something related to Prioryman, and, incidentally, pointed out where Prioryman had violated one of his editing restrictions with the suggestion that Prioryman be reminded of that editing restriction. So what exactly am I blocked for, Scotty? The comment made on ErrantX's talk page? Because that was explicitly excluded from the ban. The comment on ANI? Because despite what Morechi says, there is nothing in their comment that suggests I would be blocked for making it. For being, in your opinion, childish? Because your opinion is not a reason for a block. Your latest reason is a "combination" of things, none of which on their own is grounds for a block. That's pretty weak stuff, Scotty. Why don't you just unblock me now? You know this won't last the whole 10 days and I'd prefer not to post another unblock. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request away. I'm certainly not going to unblock you, but maybe you can convince someone else. By the way, you're welcome for reducing the length of your block by 87%. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 06:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think there was any chance I would have stayed blocked for 75 days? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request number two

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Delicious carbuncle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As already stated, I have no problem at all if the terms of the interaction ban are amended to include all of Wikipedia, with any violations to be handled via email with admins. Neither the original blocking admin nor the admin who reduced the block has thus far been able to offer a sensible explanation for why I am blocked. Several editors have commented on ANI about this block and there doesn't seem to be much support for it. Why am I still blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you don't yet understand the reason for the block then it is difficult to justify an unblock when you've admitted that you were still "reviewing his contributions" despite the interaction ban Ϣere SpielChequers 23:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Uninvolved editor comment: While I think it is apparent that some kind of block or ban might have been warranted at some point, it is inherently unfair for one party to begin a thread and either not immediately block them or allow the other party to respond. You cannot remove DUE PROCESS from an editor and expect community support. Now if you have explicitly explained an alternative for accessing due process in response to such things, I would be willing to say you thought out the interaction ban fully. If one party can sneak into dispute threads and the other can't respond and there is no outlet for the second party to set things right, then you have a bad interaction ban, and therefore a bad block now. Equal treatment is about being fair to all parties. Reconsider how this interaction ban is structured or drop it, and apply consequences in an appropriate fashion going forward. If you like, be tough, but be fair, and do what is in the best interest of all Wikipedia editors. -- Avanu (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers, I reviewed the terms of Delicious carbuncle's interaction ban, both specifically his ban, and the general WP:IBAN page and I don't find reviewing an editor's contributions as a valid violation of an interaction ban. Could you explain your interpretation of his ban and explain how observation counts as a violation of DC's Wikipedia Interaction Ban? Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically one of them could stalk the other covertly and never act on or mention what they saw, and it would be difficult to spot that. But "they are banned from discussing each other". IBAN itself is broader "they are banned from interacting with each other in any way. For example," now granted the examples don't specifically include monitoring each other's edits; But the wording is not "they are banned from interacting with each other in the following ways:" Ϣere SpielChequers 01:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, however, looking at the specifics at the ban policy, it specifically says "Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason." This would apply to DC asking for enforcement as well as Prioryman asking for enforcement (which appears to be what started all this). Please let me know if I am missing some relevant part of policy. -- Avanu (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind there is a difference between asking "I'd like to review this article at FAC, but I see that x occasionally reverts vandalism on it - would it be a breach of my ban to get involved in that article?" and stalking the person you have an interaction ban with. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under Wikipedia does not have firm rules, I suppose I can see that you have discretion to view it in that way, although I can't say I see it strictly as applying to things that are not observable to both parties. The Banning policy for limited bans like an interaction ban specifically says that "editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other". This sort of interaction would necessarily make such edits observable by both parties but do not constitute interaction. I can see your point about the spirit of the ban not being followed, but I don't see strictly see that it is against policy to observe another editor's actions, and from what I can tell Delicious Carbuncle was asking whether the other editor's Interaction Bans were being recorded, which Prioryman took as a violation of the ban. I don't see where a strict reading of banning policy prohibits that. In fact, it seems to explicitly allow for it: "Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party." I appreciate that you are willing to discuss this, but I don't quite see how a ban is supportable via affirmative policy. The only policy support I can find for this ban is like I said a moment ago, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". -- Avanu (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avanu, I think you've quoted what to me is the nub of this "as long as they avoid each other". You seem to think that one can observe another editor's actions whilst avoiding them, to my mind if you are observing someone by monitoring their edits you are clearly not avoiding them. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers, given your and Prioryman's ties to Wiki UK, and DC's long-running feud with the current Wiki UK director, you were entirely the wrong admin to administer this unblock request. Defending one's mates is honorable. Blocking their foes isn't. --J N 466 13:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayen, I'm a member of the UK chapter but not of its board. I'll take your word that Prioryman is as well, but I don't know the whole membership list and don't accept that I'd be automatically considered involved in anything involving another member of the chapter. I don't quite follow your logic of linking various dots, and especially how I could be "entirely the wrong admin to handle this request" but as you clearly think I am involved I've asked at AN/I for another admin to consider the matter. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expecting an answer to my question before you bow out. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think DC should be unblocked, given that he has made clear to stick to the strict interpretation of the interaction ban. Scottywong wrote above that DC should forget about PM and should use the ten days block to do other things. However, if the goal is to let DC get PM out of his mind, then the block is not helping at all. DC is still logging on to Wikipedia and the only thing he can do here is argue about his block, which is a PM related issue.

If he is unblocked, then given that he has said that he is going to stick to the strict interpretation of the interaction ban, this would have the desired effect of DC persuing non-PM related matters here. If, however, DC is not unblocked and he serves out his 10 day ban, then he could say that he does not agree with the terms of the strict interpretation, as no deal was agreed to. I'm not saying that DC will indeed take this hard line, but it is obviously better to have DC unambiguously agree to the strict interpretation; in case of future problems, one can point to that.

You then won't get long discussions on AN/I that the strict interpretation is not valid, that only the old agrement was agreed to by both parties, that while the strict interpretation was suggested it never had the consensus needed in order to be imposed without consent etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis, whether or not the block is lifted, I am acting as if the terms of the interaction ban have changed and I will not discuss Prioryman anywhere on Wikipedia without prior assurances that I may do so. If anyone files an RFC/U regarding Prioryman or an ArbCom case is launched that pertains to Prioryman, I will ask ArbCom to allow me to contribute. Excluding me from any such process would be clearly prejudicial, so I fully expect that they would grant this request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good attitude. From the perspective of the people saying that you made a mistake by discussing, the block serves no useful purpose anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers, I am banned from interacting with Prioryman. Moreschi offered one entirely false justification for his 75 day block, ScottyWong offered a different yet equally invalid reason, and you have offered still a third. Can you please state clearly and succinctly how I am in violation of the interaction ban? It is difficult to appeal something that appears to be so amorphous. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DC, sorry if you think we are inconsistent or unclear. There is an interaction ban between you and Prioryman. We are hoping that you can come to accept that and find other things to do here on the pedia. Watching Prioryman with an intent to ask for the IBAN to be lifted if someone else starts an RFC or ArbCom case involving him leaves me to suspect that you haven't yet accepted that. I do note the assurances you've given above, but at the same time you don't seem to accept that monitoring Prioryman's edits was itself a breach of an interaction ban. Of course it is possible that in monitoring your own watchlist you will come across edits by Prioryman on a page you've edited, and such circumstances might well lead to you asking an admin to advise whether either or both of you can still edit that page. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is inconsistent. DC arguably violated the ban by posting on ErrantX's page. Prioryman blatantly violated the ban by starting drama at AE and ANI. Nobody Ent 11:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers, I'm sorry, but I don't think you have answered my question at all. What part of the interaction ban have I violated? Note that this is not asking you to speculate on what I may do in the future or what I may be thinking. I would like to know why I have been blocked, but every response I have been given so far seems to be some vague hand-waving toward the interaction ban and some kind of IDONTLIKEIT statement. I have been blocked on the grounds that I violated an interaction ban - what, specifically, did I do that was in violation? It is difficult for me to address this in an unblock request if I am not told what specific action is at issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DC, there is an interaction ban between you and Prioryman. You seem to regard monitoring Prioryman's edits and as you've just said below "so any otherwise valid observations I may have about Prioryman's actions are dismissed" as compatible with avoiding him (if you meant only actions with regard to yourself then please clarify that). I, and as I understand it others, don't consider that to be avoiding him. If the two of you do inadvertently cross paths then that's different, but this is a big project with nearly four million articles surely you can find something that interests you that doesn't involve him? Ϣere SpielChequers 15:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that there is an interaction ban between Prioryman and myself. What part of that interaction ban have I violated? This is a very simple question - why is it so hard to give me a straight answer? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of avoiding him you said you were monitoring his edits. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tthere is no avoidance ban. Yes, I said I was monitoring Prioryman's edits for violations of his many editing restrictions. We are agreed on that. Now, what part of the interaction ban have I violated? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well IBAN does say "as long as they avoid each other". I think what we have here is a disagreement as to whether monitoring someone's edits is compatible with an interaction ban. Clearly you think that it is, I hope that it is equally clear that I and some others disagree. On a separate note, as you've probable seen elsewhere in this thread I've responded to Jayen's concern by asking for another admin to review that unblock decline, however I don't see that should stop me from having to explain my decline to you. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see the full sentence that you cherry-picked that quotation from: "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are banned from interacting with each other in any way". That goes beyond disingenuous. At this point I think it should be clear to everyone that you are not actually enforcing the interaction ban, you are enforcing something that you desire to be implied by the idea of an interaction ban. It is impossible for you to give a clear action to my question, because there quite simply is no reason, under the actual interaction ban for me to be banned. It would be nice if you stopped trying to justify this and simply unblocked me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC I suggest you reread the thread that set out your interaction ban. I didn't participate in that discussion, but the issue of whether you were free to pursue Prioryman was clearly a major theme. Errant said "you need to stop commenting on, pursuing or raising issues with each other (both on and off wiki)." It would be really helpful if you would take that advice. You may not consider that monitoring someone's edits is pursuing them, but clearly some of us do. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC, if you go beyond the wording of civility what it comes down to is don't be excessively annoying to other editors. No one is terribly interested in refereeing squabbles between editors and parsing out who exactly is being more disruptive, we just want the drama to stop. While both of you have failed to disengage, you kowtow less, and, in most societies, including Wikipedia, that results in a greater negative reaction than verbally stating/promising to follow the rules while actually not. So, at this point, I'd suggest you should decide what your priority is: if it is to resume editing your best best is a unblock with a simple declarative sentence I will not interact in any with Prioryman; if I feel he is violating our ban I will privately email administrator(s). If your priority is to be treated fairly and evenly -- no human society actually does that, certainly not Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 11:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Ent, much of my effort here on Wikipedia deals with unequal treatment of editors here. There is a disturbing "us and them" mentality here on Wikipedia, where the "them" varies but the "us" is always the same. To some extent this is human nature, but much of it is completely avoidable and easily identified. At the moment, I appear to be strongly associated with "them" so any otherwise valid observations I may have about Prioryman's actions are dismissed and the wagons circle around him. That's not unexpected, but I am not willing to sit out an unjustified block simply because people find my foolish desire for rational administration to be annoying. Your advice is good advice, but I would prefer that the unblocking admin is fully aware of my intentions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC, I've unblocked you per my comments here and your acceptance of the terms outlined by you in the unblock request above. The interaction ban applies to all of wikipedia and you'll handle any violations via email with admins. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ban wording

Does this work for you? (Please focus only on the wording and make no statements about the other editor). Nobody Ent 17:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence is malformed, but it is probably a moot point. I don't think there is much confusion about what a complete interaction ban means. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you agree to this?

The community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue on Wikipedia. Reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor is not permitted on Wikipedia. If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the interaction ban or has a question regarding the ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy, appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom.

-- Avanu (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no issues on other projects and any attempt to impose a ban across all WMF projects, even a voluntary one, has obvious enforcement issues. Change the wording of "within the scope of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation" to "on Wikipedia", add "on Wikipedia" after "is not permitted" (since it is otherwise contradicted in the next sentence) and I can agree to it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. -- Avanu (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI

While you are free to leave comments on another user's talk page, leaving comments like you did here: [1] is not appropriate, as per WP:TPNO. Remember, I'm not leaving this message to annoy you, I'm doing it so that I will be able to refer back to it in the future should you decide to keep doing this. Thanks.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 19:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't need any more evidence of your behaviour, but I'll add it to the list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding This thread is for input about Fae's ability to serve as administrator. As you are involved, it is recommended that you recuse but do not have to. You are free to participate in discussions. Please keep them civil and constructive. The thread is User:Fae. Thank you.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a barnstar. Like you care ;)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For doing a world of good across the project while rarely taking the easy road. Thank you for holding WP to a higher standard and doing so with style – and a unique sense of humor. Draco^E 03:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the barnstars that make it all worthwhile. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Workshop&diff=495338735&oldid=495334174

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Workshop&diff=495339144&oldid=495339012

Would this be an accurate account of what happened? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking for earlier identification of Ash, that sounds accurate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#Proposals_by_Michaeldsuarez – I've proposed some facts of finding and remedies that might concern you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

I mentioned you here. Wnt (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Fæ Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 620 words and 7 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 22:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed your section a bit (to 503 words, I believe) so don't worry about the bot message. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Lord Roem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration note

Hello Delicious carbuncle. Per a request by drafting arbitrator SirFozzie in the Fae case, I have added you as a party. If you have any questions about this, please direct them to him. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this request made? What leeway will I have to amend my evidence, given that I was made a party after the evidence phase closed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was something SirFozzie told the clerks earlier this morning. As per changing or expanding your evidence, I haven't heard anything yet. If you want an extension in time, ask him. I'm just forwarding the message. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a party, you're automatically given twice the word/diff limits as everyone else. Go ahead and expand your evidence at any time; I'm sure that none of the Arbs will mind. NW (Talk) 04:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to offer a belated thank-you for the courtesy notification. I always appreciate a friendly heads-up when I've been mentioned. 28bytes (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eveidence and workshop

Want do you think about those additions? Are they accurate? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is an accurate account, although I haven't verified the dates or times. Thanks for checking with me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know: [2]. Please don't take it as finding fault, but rather as what may be useful advice before the evidence deadline passes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Thread

You have been mentioned in a thread on ANI

You didn't just mention me, you made false statements about what I said and provided an out-of-context diff to support your statement. That is really not going to help your case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_interaction_ban_violation Nobody Ent 12:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My email to the Arb who set the terms of interaction quoted in my comment has gone unanswered. It would have been preferable for ArbCom, the clerks, or any of the admins posting on the talk page to deal with this issue rather than have it become an ANI issue, but I am not surprised. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC, Elen of the Roads was ill; she has now addressed the issue. J N 466 16:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude...

Sorry bro, but whisky tango foxtrot ? You don't put your feet up on the desk and pop your gum while the judge is considering whether or tossing you in the slammer. You already prodded JC into a ban vote. Tarc (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decision&diff=501801756&oldid=501800517. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if it comes across that way, but I was merely stating the obvious. If ArbCom chooses to ban me, they will, and I will accept it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New finding and possible ban

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#Delicious_carbuncle:_bad_blood_and_feuding – I'm just letting you now about this new finding. The call for banning you has strengthened: [3], [4]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, but I am following the case as closely as time permits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Fæ has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Fæ is admonished for making personal attacks and making ad hominem attacks on others based on perceived affiliation.
Fæ is hereby limited to one account, and expressly denied the option of a fresh WP:CLEANSTART. Should Fæ wish to change the name of the one account he is allowed to use, he must receive prior permission from the Arbitration Committee before editing under any other username. Fæ must provide a list of all accounts they have controlled to the Committee, with any objections to making the accounts publicly listed. The Committee will then advise Fæ of whether they will need to list the objected to account(s) publicly.
As Fæ likely would have had his administrator status revoked as a result of this case, his resignation of tools is considered as "under controversial circumstances", and they cannot get the tools back without first standing for a fresh request for adminship. Should they run for RfA again, they must publicly link to the statement on their user page announcing the accounts they have used previously.
For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
For creating a page on an external webpage designed to harass another user, Michaeldsuarez is banned indefinitely from the English language Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban one year after its enactment.
Delicious carbuncle is severely admonished for posting another editor's non-disclosed private information on an external website and warned that should they do so again, they will face sanctions, up to and including an indefinite site ban from Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Gibbs, Jr.

I saw that George W. Gibbs, Jr. was among Wikipedia's most requested articles and thought I might write an article about him. Then, I noticed that you had a user page about him. Do you intend to post it in the main space, perhaps in its current form or in some expanded form with additional references? If not, would you be agreeable to my writing a page about Gibbs? If you wish to save the topic for yourself, because you have already done some work on it, I will skip it and move on to another topic. I have many new and existing topics to work on. Donner60 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for that article to be placed in my userspace following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Gibbs, Jr.. it is not my work. I have no doubt that Gibbs meets the notability criteria, but decided not to work on it until the situation with biographies of living people improved. I'm still waiting for that to happen. Feel free to move the article into your own userspace or the mainspace to work on it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead with it. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done and in main space as George W. Gibbs, Jr.. Donner60 (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This really should hold up. One of the four users who had this deleted the last time has not edited since 2010 because he/she was found to be a user of sockpuppets. Another has fewer than 50 edits over the past 22 months. Another of the four objected to lack of coverage. I cited 2 books and 6 newspaper articles, which I think should be enough. I also found a few extra facts of interest. Rather slim support for deletion even of the first version. Donner60 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Note that you have been mentioned in connection with this thread: Wikipedia:COIN#Stephanie_Adams. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have been asked to withdraw from the topic, but I don't think a brief response to Milowent will do any harm. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wikipediocracy

what's your WPO account name? I keep thinking you're "Mason' based on no evidence whatsoever :)

-Vocal@WPO --85.117.21.243 (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General note: Introducing factual errors on Types of rape.

Interesting. I was given the information by a TN sex therapist, and assumed that it was correct. Looking more closely, I see now that it is a little more complicated than I had understood. It is legal in TN to have sex with a 13 year old if you are 4 years (or less) older than that person. It's called a "close in age" exception. It looks like more than one state has this kind of variant in statutory rape laws. Thanks for checking my scholarship, I'll be more careful in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feysoul (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested speedy deletion of Zeus Mortgage

I've contested the speedy, see the article talk page. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian of Seattle

This is Colton Cosmic. Delicious Carbuncle, I give you four instances of policy and you come back with some metaphor? "Let the cat out of the bag" that's not policy. What is that? Are you going to skin it in more than one way next? Listen, the dude was in court and the court official told him take off the mask. It wasn't his decision. Immediately after that, when confronted by multiple TV channel entities, yeah he took it off again and spoke to them. Did he surrender his privacy by that? No! I figure he was reeling from the court taking from him something he intended to protect. As Wikipedia editors, we can't parse that as "it's open season on Phoenix Jones now, and he has only himself to blame." I am saying that nothing Phoenix Jones' alter ego has done makes him other than a private person entitled to WP:BLP's protections accorded to private people. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.28.74 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By knowingly and deliberately identifying himself to the press, yes, he essentially did surrender his privacy. I am sympathetic to his situation, but he must have foreseen that this might happen. If this was a BLP issue, I would be happy to help, but it simply is not, under the circumstances. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zeus (dog), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Discovery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me what to do, robot. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Guimond

You PRODded this, and I deleted it. Only then did I see that it had been PRODded before. I haven't before met the situation where a PRODded article is not dePRODded or restored but simply re-created, but having scratched my head and re-read WP:PROD, I conclude that it's not eligible, so I have restored it. Consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

Hello. I need help. I have drawn the following map for the article Innocence of Muslims movie. I have made an edit request on section 23, but no-one seems to care. Can you put the image into the article please. Thank you.----Camoka5 (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is fully-protected, I am not able to edit it either. I suggest you ask again on the talk page. I also suggest that you tell people the source of your information (because they will ask) and point out that it is already used on other language Wikipedias. Sorry I can't be of more help. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rachel marsden

THanks for leaving me a comment about my deletions from rachel marsden's page. I deleted non-sourced material that was listed as fact. It needs to be deleted if there is no source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.82.133 (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are provided in the body of the article and in Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy. Given the history of the article, you should discuss any concerns you have on the talk page before making changes to the article. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean history of the article? The citation must be in wiki format, or else it should be deleted. What am I missing here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.82.133 (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing an understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines. The sources are provided in the body of the article. They do not need to be cited in the lede. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moscowsky admitting to trolling?

Hi DC, could you review User talk:Pontmarcheur. It appears Moscowsky is admitting to trolling. Is that how you read it? Zad68 14:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their comment could be read to mean that, but it is probably best to assume good intentions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right... I think it could be a language issue. Anyway it's being put behind us now. Cheers... Zad68 03:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adrian Chen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Salon and Anonymous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Harris

I got a message about removing the Chris Harris having cancer part of his page without a citation. I am not sure how to add a citation, but he said it was a lie on his Twitter page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.11.118 (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Monmouthpedia MOU signatories page.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Monmouthpedia MOU signatories page.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for a blindingly transparent attempt to skirt the limits of the interaction ban at ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsurprised. I'm not bothering with the unblock template, because it only seems to attract people with grudges, but if anyone wants to unblock or reduce the length of this silly block, feel free. Otherwise, I'll see you in two weeks. Oh, would someone mind deleting or redirecting the pseudoscience spam magnet Natural breast enhancement and related edits by User:Lucy346? I was just about to deal with that when my block kicked in. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't have gotten yourself blocked in such a silly fashion. No, I feel no inclination to shorten the block. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you thought that it was worth your time to make a comment? I am not terribly bothered by the block, other than it interrupted what I was about to do, but let's not pretend it serves any useful purpose, either. If I choose to be, I'll still be here editing after ChrisO/L'ecrivant/Helatrobus/Prioryman/etc is banned. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. I couldn't help but wonder whether you wanted to take a break or not. If you were doing something useful before, you did the world a disfavor with that bybothetical example of bameless beditors. Those interaction bans must be taken seriously since this enormous bunch of disruptive editors, of which you are one, have a tendency to clog up the system. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for your viewing pleasure: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural breast enhancement. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy does not appear to be new to the site. I just spent some time looking at artificial breasticles--a great way to spend a Saturday morning, so thanks very much for that. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your remarks anyway, and I won't quarrel with them, except to say that in those cases the other side will argue the same thing--that they were right, and acted in accordance with guidelines, etc. I was not following the Benjiboy affair, and in the Cirt affair I have changed my opinion, so to speak, while at the same time becoming convinced that both sides were disruptive in how they acted out their disagreements. But please note that I am more knowledgeable about the santorum business than the Scientology stuff, and I don't really have an opinion, in the absence of firm knowledge, of your involvement with it. I just wish I had never read the santorum talk page and those constant renaming proposals, for instance. Still, I'm wondering how you so easily broke this interaction ban. An answer would be helpful, in that it may help differentiate between recurring, increasingly long blocks or a possible shortening of the current one. I'm all ears, if you can phrase it in a way that avoids lengthy in-depth research into old quarrels. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "other side" can make whatever arguments they wish, but the community and/or ArbCom seem to have already settled those questions. Framing these disputes as some kind of partisan battle is a big part of the problem. It is all too easy for the community to see things in terms of "us" and "them" (and when you see someone going out of their way to define a "them" group, your bullshit meter should start going off). That ANI discussion is a farce. It has nothing to do with outing - it is just another attempt by Prioryman get rid of an enemy. YRC's passionate approach will undoubtedly get him banned soon enough, but I didn't want to see it done on trumped-up outing charges without pointing out that Prioryman had done the same thing last week (to one of "them") and was able to be unblocked by claiming that he was unaware of Volunteer Marek's wishes (here is where Prioryman agrees not to refer to VM by their former username). It was possible for me to break the interaction ban because I am willing to sit out whatever block I was going to be given. It's just that simple. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And since you are so willing to sit out blocks, I have lengthened the block for your continued breaches of the interaction ban during this very discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Fut Perf, that's not going to work. For one thing, there is a long-standing custom of giving blocked users a bit of leeway on their own talk page. For another, I was responding to comments and questions put to me here by an admin. Let's not even talk about your open hostility to me in our past dealings. I'm content to sit out blocks for things that I have done, but I'm not going to let some admin with an axe to grind put the boot in while I'm down. I'm not going to bother filing an unblock, but I expect the block to reversed soonish. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing open contempt for the rules of the ban ("It was possible for me to break the interaction ban because I am willing to sit out whatever block I was going to be given") does not count as "a bit of leeway", and whatever you were responding to is neither here nor there: it is your responsibility to stick to the ban in no matter what context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fut Perf, you seem to have misunderstood me. I have no interest in discussing this with you, just having your block reversed. If you feel the block should stand, ask for a review on AN or ANI. I think you know how that will turn out. Stop wasting my time and reverse your block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC, please point to past discussions where you and Future Perfect disagreed about something, and I will include that in an ANI or AN post asking for community input into his lengthening of this block. Future Perfect, DC should be allowed to have a conversation about the circumstances around his block with an admin on his user talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread for those watching this page. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fut. Perf., I don't want to undo your lengthening the block (I'm from that generation that respects authority), so I'm hoping that you will: I don't agree at all. I asked a question, and I think it's DC's right to answer it, as Cla68 says--mind you, it was a moderated answer. Sure, they answered it in a way that suggests they will get themselves blocked again, but that's for the next time, not this time. DC, between you, me, and a couple of dozen editors, I don't doubt very much that "Prioryman['s tactic was] get rid of an enemy" and that "YRC's passionate approach will undoubtedly get him banned soon enough". That doesn't alter the fact (well, in my opinion it's a fact) that there was OUTING and that YRC's block and possible ban are correct. Two, or four, wrongs don't make a right. Now I'm headed off to ANI, I suppose. I think this will call for more delicious beers to make up for the impending et cetera.
DC, one more thing. I don't agree with the block increase, but this last one is the fourth time, if I'm reading the log correctly, that you've been blocked for violating the interaction ban. You've been here since 2008, you've made almost 20,000 edits--certainly there was/is more to Wikipedia than this, whatever "this" is. The next time I couldn't oppose a much, much longer block, and it might well be an indef block. Not that I'm telling you anything you don't already know, I suppose. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker) DC was just telling it like it is. You want more women on WP? De-sysop the likes of Future Perfect. What a petty, vindictive block extension by someone with a history of trying to get rid of DC. And Doc Mies, I would have expected better of you, and I’m saying this as the owner of a pair of “tits” who usually enjoys your wry sense of humor. (I now see you've redacted that since then, thanks.)

Yes, we ladies like a bit of fair play. DC is all about fair play, and they’ve always been fiercely protective of the rights of notable people unfortunate enough to have Wikipedia biographies. More often than not DC’s posts are a joy to read, what with the odd literary reference thrown in for good measure; and some of their edit summaries are gorgeous little works of art. Go on Doc, deprive me of this for the next four weeks. At your own peril ;)

Seeing DC blocked for referring to someone who is all about gaming the system and getting away with it big time makes me never want to even add another reference to this project. Could somebody privileged please do the right thing and unblock DC? Draco^E 00:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Draco, I have no idea what you're talking about--why would I want to block anyone? Talk page stalkers are great to have, unless they butt in with remarks like "De-sysop the likes of Future Perfect", which are unlikely to be effective a. in having those likes de-sysoped and b. in having the blocked ones unblocked. In other words, they're just not smart. Note also that I tweaked my language, and will apologize to any lady I run into between now and midnight. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Including you, of course. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you feel, Doc, I guess I'm "just not smart". I can live with that.

That doesn't make DC any less of a fascinating proposition. I will miss their lovely and well-crafted missives more than I will ever regret not having the time to read up on all of your avuncular and ultimately macho contributions. And since this seems to be a PSB kinda night, here you go. And yes, it's about the sweetness that is DC.

Best wishes to you and yours,

A somewhat disappointed Draco^E 01:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to help DC here and was hoping to find a reason. What Jayen466 is doing (and what you're suggesting, that I would block you?), and what Cla68 was saying on AN, that's not going to be a reason for anyone to reduce the block. But I'll stop: clearly I'm not helping. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I'm not sure what the issue is here. The community has said that Prioryman and I are both under an interaction ban and we face a series of escalating blocks if either of us refers to the other. I know that if I refer to Prioryman I should expect that to be blocked. To put it simply - I will accept the consequences of my actions. To suggest that my statement means I am ignoring the ban is some pretty screwy logic even by Wikipedia standards. As far as Drmies count of how many times I have been blocked under this interaction ban, it is quite simply wrong. Fut Perf blocked me for a "violation" which simply was not one and I was unblocked. Moreschi blocked me for 75(!) days, Snotty Wong "reduced" the bogus block to 10 days, and then I was unblocked within hours. Really, this is the first legitimate block under that interaction ban, so two weeks is pretty harsh. In the same time period, Prioryman has violated the interaction ban more than once, but got off with a warning (for example here & more than once in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ). Now I know there are going to be people who will say that I have just violated the interaction ban again by daring to type the letters P_R_I_O_R_Y_M_A_N, but those people clearly have some kind of larger issue that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. To be frank, I thought the ANI discussion in which YRC was being railroaded needed an injection of truth and some levity, both of which I hope I provided. If I'm blocked for that, fine, but I am not going to let some vindictive admin like Fut Perf abuse process because they have a chip on their shoulder. This is the second time they have blocked me and run off to bed so they don't have to deal with the consequences. Perhaps their parents should tell them "no blocks close to bedtime"? Now, does someone clueful want to reduce my block to "time served" or something more in keeping with the offence? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Delicious carbuncle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can someone please reverse Fut Perf's purely vindictive block extension? It is discussed here on WP:AN but that will be archived shortly as the discussion seems to have died out. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is going to appear odd: I have reduced the block, but not based on this unblock request. Indeed, this is NOT an unblock request, and should have been declined accordingly. The attempt to lengthen the discussion below is a horrendous attempt to break how AN works. If a discussion falls off without action, we all know what that means - very inappropriate. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks for reducing the block back to the original length, Bwilkins, and for the inadvertent comedy. "A horrendous attempt to break how AN works"? Classic. See you folks in a couple of weeks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tap tap ... is this thing on?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Would someone mind posting the following in this WP:AN discussion. Thanks.

I hate to seem impatient, especially since I expect I will be staying blocked for the original term of two weeks, but I have no intention of sitting out a vindictive four week block made by an admin who seems to bear me ill will. Fut Perf extended a block because of a comment I made on my talk page in response to poking by Drmies. Fut Perf calls it "a gratuitous expression of hostility" but there is actually no hostility behind it. It is a confident prediction based on years of observing Wikipedia. Even if it were "hostile", blocked users are typically extended some leeway on their own talk pages. If Fut Perf's intention was to prevent me from invoking the name of the other party in the interaction ban, perhaps revoking talk page access would have been the correct course of action, but their block extension seems to be purely and gratuitously punitive. This is the second time they have blocked me under their flawed reading of the ban. The other block was soon undone. In both cases, Fut Perf blocked me and then claimed that they would be unable to discuss the block because they were going to bed. In this last case, I asked Fut Perf to raise a discussion of the block extension at WP:AN or WP:ANI. They replied that there was "no reason to". This is not the type of behaviour that we should expect from our admins. At this point, I'm just looking for the block extension to be reversed (I take it as a given that Fut Perf will refrain from using their tools in cases related to me). I have outlined why the original two week block may be overly harsh, but I understand that opinions may differ and, as I have said, I am prepared to sit it out. Anyone care to do the honours? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Zad68. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of requests

This is a two-part request for my talk page watchers. The first part is easy - please remove the list of 2012 election endorsements from Equality Pennsylvania (and anywhere else you find them). The second part may require a bit more work. The user who added those election endorsements User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast has been creating a number of poorly sourced BLPs of female bodybuilders. The sole source in some of these -- www.amg-lite.com -- appears to be a promotional site and unaffiliated with any of the governing bodies of the sport. If someone is feeling brave, they could take a look at these BLPs. (If they are feeling especially brave, they could also take a look at the articles created by User:Fbb fan.) If no one feels like tackling the second part, I will get to it when my block expires, but I would appreciate it if someone could deal with the first part and leave a helpful note with Female bodybuilder enthusiast. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very exciting project. The AN thread died, softly or otherwise. Consider filing an unblock request when the "original" two weeks run out, OK? Some words will be required--it's not a formality. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, Drmies. Why would I file an unblock request after I'm no longer blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGF that Drmies was unaware that the block was reduced, as per the AN thread. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming anything, which is why I said that I didn't understand what was being said and asked for clarification. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while the family and I were puking the AN thread apparently concluded with a block reduction. No, I had no idea. Sorry--I'll do what I do better and stay away. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bwilkins! Funny how you didn't block Prioryman for blatantly and repeatedly breaking his interaction ban with DC during the Fæ arbcom case. Oh, I forgot. This project is all about double standards. Draco^E 23:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of AGF ... I don't typically monitor ArbCom cases, and know little of the IB between those editors. Why the attack on me here? Heck, I'm the one who reduced the block! Funny that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry I got you mixed up with the blocking admin. Apologies all around. Draco^E 21:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a slightly different set of admins who failed to block "Prioryman" in that situation. And, if you're still interested in why?, then the reason given by ErrantX was that it was just too hard to think about at the time. Apparently people were being too noisy.. or something. So remember people, please be calm in the face of blatant cronyism. If you just stop complaining, things will go your way. Honest, not rug-sweeping at all.101.118.3.166 (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't poke the admins. I'm the one that will get bitten. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a totally different subject, I can't decide if User:Buck Winston is a Benjiboi sockpuppet or an Otto4711 sockpuppet. Shall we start a pool? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)re[reply]

Once upon a time I received a similar request from a friend that was languishing on remand in Leicester goal. I had a dispute over the censorship regime where they were attempting to limit the length of my letters to my friend. The exact phrase was "Making waves is one thing but please remember that waves can swamp" this was in response to an argument I was having with the prison Governor, my response was "This is between me and them, it has nothing to do with you, so keep your nose out of it. OK! To those that may be reading this let be remind you of the words of Kropotkin to Lenin. Let me just say that if the authorities here are looking for a fight then bring it on!" The letter was posted 'care of' the prison governor with a note that I was not bound his rules that he had no authority over me and he could just suck it up CC Home Office, Inspector of Prisons, local MP. John lilburne (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

	The tired and emotional award
	Hells to the Y_E_A_H. Nice to see you back in fine form. With any luck, the likes of Beeeyotch? Purr to the lease? at Dawn and their equally biased enablers will soon be history. Mad props! Draco^E 14:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Luther Pierce, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hunter (novel) and National Vanguard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DPL bot for noticing that. It was like that before I reverted all the crap that someone put in there. I'm sure no one will bother fixing it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin MacDonald

I undid your Kevin MacDonald edit removing mention of Golden Dawn. What do you mean by 'This article is awful, but let's not make it worse.'? If you give a better explanation of why mention of Golden Dawn should be removed, then you can remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.210.105 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment was by me. P.S. another edit you made removed mention of him being an atheist, well this video says he is an atheist if that makes any difference? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3kwfrFNYioE Matthew Fennell (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: atheism is not a religion, and per WP:BLPCAT, we only put people in religion categories if we have reliable sources where they identify themselves as having a particular religious belief. Even then, it should only be included if it is relevant to the subject's notability. As for the Golden Dawn remark, it is trivial and doesn't belong in the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

diy

"(Images should illustrate what is already in the article, not add new original research via captions. If they don't help the reader, leave them out. Stop being a dick.)"

your very nice, polite, & helpful commentaries in the article's edit history have made it clear that you DO NOT understand wp:or

i invite you to re-read the material & comment on the diy talk page

the photos are not original research, & there is no wp rule about "photos should not add material which is not already in the text"

you have also reached the limit of the r3 rule on this article

have a nice day

Lx 121 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on the talk page, but this is a wholly transparent attempt to get back at me because I removed your inappropriate and misguided addition to Claes Oldenberg. This won't end well for you, so I suggest you get over it and move on. Also, please don't post on my talk page if you can't format your posts properly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you write your comments & i'll write mine :) i do appreciate that you've at least stopped making snide comments in the edit histories Lx 121 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

If you could point out where WP guidelines are not followed in my additions to the William Luther Pierce article i would be happy to try fixing it. Cheers.Sethane (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many separate things wrong with it and I don't have the time to explain them all, which is why I pointed you at the help for "new" editors. You could try your question at Wikipedia:Help desk. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. No problem. Thanks anyways. Cheers. Sethane (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An idea

SO HIGH

HITS FROM THE BONG

BOB MARLEY

We going to get HIGH???

Hhhhhhey pal!!! I heard you're up for smokin up a storm? I'm a got a giant bud the size of my face with your user id scrawled on it, how about I fire up a giant fat one and we can get pot-hepped and roast some sure hep-beans? Heck, it'll be like those old heady days!! Just say the word and I'll drop round with the "Good Stuff" and then we can start adding some articles to our watchlists and re-ro-ver-ting some vandalism! Hep hep! Spark up an owl for old times sake! Hep hep! What would Cypress Hill do? Smokey JoJo 2 (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confusing me with Russavia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Please see my edit here. I no longer wish to have any involvement in this matter, nor to be mentioned in connection with it, as I have already made clear to you. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand why you would feel that way. No one else seems to want to touch it either. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Manual talkback notice informing you that I've responded to your comments at AN. Feel free to delete this notice just as you would a templated one. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but there's no need to tell me, I'm watching the thread. 23:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I'd still appreciate a response to my latest question, or, alternatively, a comment here acknowledging that you've seen it and will be declining to respond. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 00:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I said that I wasn't in the moods for trolls today, I meant you. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks and unfounded accusations by User:Delicious carbuncle. Thank you. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nice job at hanging yourself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment to me, which he cited in that AN/I thread, is definitely starting to look prescient, I will give you that much. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

Quite revolting. Mind if I ask its origin? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its origins are lost in the mists of time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, bon appetit. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 06:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

Hello,

I come in peace for all Wikipedia.

I see several of your edits and concerns are very well placed, but sadly, your choice of words has not been the best possible. It often leads to a direct conflict with the wikipedia community which has often seen you as a major distraction/menace.

May I please ask you to Assume good faith towards everyone who posts, even those who look like they are opposing your point of view. Things would go a lot smoother that way, and we can all work together to contribute as a community!!!

Thanks and cheers!!!

P.S. I am willing to offer my services to put up your POV to the community in a more neutral way so that people can also see your well-intentioned actions. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep your helpful advice and kind offer in mind. Have you seen this? I'd be interested to know how you would put this to the community in a neutral way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have indeed read that blog post of yours. And I do believe that the blog post itself is written in a very neutral manner, and I do not think it need be put in a more neutral manner. What i am actually concerned about are your actual commenting on Wikipedia, like here and here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to suggest how I can put this to the community in a more neutral way? I am anxious to hear your ideas. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An olive branch?

Listen, DC, I can agree that the addition of the couple image could be a bit WP:POINTy, even if I believe in good faith it makes sense there. As you've seen, I've left it out now, because I don't want to stir this more than needed -we can discuss it another time. However I feel the topic of the paragraph honestly makes sense. I've rewritten it from scratch now. Can we work on it constructively? --Cyclopia ^talk 18:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, if you don't realize that attitudes towards displays of same-sex public affection have changed dramatically in the last 30+ years. This is a subject worthy of serious attention, not cherry-picking quotes from Google book previews. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree, but at least it's a start. Better than either nothing or the mess that was there before. That's just to have a start. We have no deadline and I feel that cherry picking is anyway an improvement. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. I have stopped watching the page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of Living Persons

		The BLP Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on biographies of living persons and for your participation and collaboration at the respective noticeboard. It is, oftentimes, a thankless and frustrating area of editing, so I wanted to recognize your contributions. And I hope this show of appreciation doesn't violate your {{Romeo notice}} principles! jæs (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=5149102&diff=527043789&oldid=527042586

I realise this wasn't intentional, but please don't judge what would be good for other people's mental health if you are not a psychologist or psychiatrist. It has a strong tendency to result in rather horrible situations, where "in order to protect you", people remove all free will from the victim. I had a friend, for example, who was forcefully removed from a conference he was completely ready to do, because the head of it found out he had been suffering severe depression, and decided, on her head, that it would be better for him not to go.

It was not better, it actually set him back, as it blocked him from taking steps towards improvement, and meant that a lot of preparation suddenly had become useless, but such preparation has costs, which he'd have to pay again next time. So, please, refrain from amateur psychology. It really, really doesn't help people. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that your friend had that experience. I have a friend who really likes pugs. Not in a sexual way, of course, but they find them delightful. Sadly, they are not able to own one themselves, for reasons which I won't go into. Your turn. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy that

I just noticed that we registered on exactly the same day. Funny thing!
Hope you have a happy Christmas, anyway, since I'm here. Also, you may like to know that I've replied to you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711.
Cheers =) Spitfire^Tally-ho! 03:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are clearly sockpuppets of each other. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitutes

It takes a certain type of person to do that at the DYK page. I got the impression she had worked as a prostitute for years not to her desire, but how many whores exactly would change their career if they could. Sex slavery I suppose is different, but I meant nothing malicious by connecting it to other sex workers. It was completely inappropriate for you to bring that up at the DYK page like that.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time knowing just what is appropriate on Wikipedia. It seems like anyone is free to edit the biographies of named living people, but not to question the actions of pseudonymous editors. But you are right, I should simply have suggested you take more time and care with your editing. Quality, not quantity? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Child protection

From the policy you yourself cited: "You should raise your concerns only by email; questions or accusations directed against a particular editor in project space may result in a block for the editor who posted them."

If you raise accusations of this sort against an editor again publicly, it will result in a block, as protection of living persons applies on every page. This is not an invitation to discuss any individual here, and doing so will lead to a block and (if necessary) protection of this page too. If you have any questions about the warning I'm giving you in general, without discussing any individual, please feel free to ask. If you are concerned about an editor's behavior in this vein, the above-referenced policy gives a clear way to handle it, and that is the only acceptable way to handle it. Please refrain from publicly accusing any editor of such or linking to any blog, etc., making such an accusation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very familiar with the policy. I am a strong proponent of the idea that any allegations relating to this policy be handled off-wiki by ARBCOM. Of course, if ARBCOM is not handling allegations sent to them, the fundamental assumption of the purpose of that policy has been broken. I am also a strong proponent of our BLP policy. By your interpretation, RfC/U discussions would generally violate it. I do not think that the intention of WP:BLP is to stifle discussions about pseudonymous Wikipedia editors, but I think my point has been made now so I won't argue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you bringing a case where you believe ArbCom has not acted properly to Jimbo or the WMF. In both cases, however, it can be done just fine by email to them as well. If you would like to bring this issue to their attention, please do so by that method. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do things your way, I'll do things mine. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This matter was brought to my attention through a request to suppress the thread on Jimmy Wales' talk page (I've declined that request). I don't think Seraphimblade is being blunt enough, and you have disregarded his comments, so I must warn you that if you do ever again make an allegation on-site of that sort, you will be blocked from editing. The policy, Wikipedia:Child protection, is abundantly clear that concerns of this nature must not be discussed on-site (let alone discussed with reference to the specific user account or individual in question), and to disregard a policy with legal implications is reckless and wrong. In the event the Arbitration Committee fails in its duty to promptly action child protection concerns, I suggest you contact the Wikimedia Foundation instead. You must not do this again. Thank you, AGK [•] 11:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start at the beginning, AGK - I have not disregarded Seraphimblade's comments at all. I have acknowledged them by responding and I have refrained from doing what I was told not to do. Before we continue, are you speaking for yourself here or for ArbCom? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popping in because of your email to ArbCom, DC, to note that no, AGK is speaking for himself, not the committee, but that at least two of the rest of us who have looked at this thread have individually come to the same conclusion. I think your statement above ("I have not disregarded Seraphimblade's comments at all.") is by all appearances at odds with your own words in response to Seraphimblade ("You do things your way, I'll do things mine.") While I'll agree that ArbCom often does nothing with complaints, and is often less than ideally communicative with complainants, I will also endorse Seraphimblade and AGK's points, which is that you are not permitted to raise such issues about identified individuals on-wiki. I expect that if you ever do so in the future, you will be blocked. You are encouraged to continue appropriate vigilance, but I trust this communication is sufficiently and explicitly clear that future on-wiki posting is itself a policy violation and will not be tolerated. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only way that I can have disregarded the advice is by not following it. I have followed it. In the event that I do what I have been asked not to do, I can be considered to have disregarded it. Unless and until that happens, I have not disregarded it. It is actually quite easy to understand, so I'm not sure why this is even a matter for discussion. My comment was about Seraphimblade's suggestion for how to deal with ArbCom issue. Suffice to say that I view his suggestion of emailing Jimbo and/or the WMF as unlikely to achieve a satisfactory result within my lifetime. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGK. An editor in that thread indicated that he did, in fact, contact Arbcom, who did nothing. I have two questions for you

1) Were you a member of that body when that body ignored the request?

2) Do you personally feel that child safety is less important than making sure wikipedia doesn't look bad? Because given the lack of response from Arbcom to the initial request and this current crusade against DC, it sure as fuck looks that way to me.101.118.26.92 (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC, I was not speaking for the committee. (If you are not already aware, arbitrators are always speaking for themselves unless they explicitly state otherwise; the usual designation is by closing a comment with 'For the Arbitration Committee'.) Jonathan's assessment of your rebuttal that you "did not [disregard] Seraphimblade's comment at all" says precisely what I would have said, so I will simply reiterate my warning that, if you ever again discuss allegations of this nature on-site, you will be blocked from editing.
In my experience, my colleagues and I attend to child protection e-mails more promptly than almost any other message to our mailing list. However, should a message of yours go unanswered, then you should not bring up your concerns on-site (which requires us to contain the potential damage caused by your making of such an accusation); rather, you should e-mail us as obnoxiously as you can (so that we cannot ignore your message). If that fails, then you should e-mail another appropriate party (like the WMF Office). AGK [•] 21:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, if you "attend to child protection e-mails more promptly than almost any other message", perhaps you will explain why, in the case the prompted this, ArbCom did not block the user in question after you were informed of the situation in November by Claritas? This question is open to any member of ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen that email, but I should point out that a very large number of email of the sort that arrive in ArbCom's inbox are very much unsubstantiated and basically amount to "[X] is a paedophile and should be blocked on my say-so", if that much. If you want to insure swift action on such reports, then the allegations need to be substantiated with diffs and pointers to definite proof. — Coren ^(talk) 23:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't you seen that email? Are you saying that you have not yet read it or that it was not sent to ArbCom? In this particular case, there is no lack of evidence with diffs and pointers and even pictures. Did no one from ArbCom read my blog post? Coren, you were involved in a discussion about it - did you not think to read it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that Coren wasn't on the Committee this year. He only rejoined the mailing list this week after the election results were announced. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that we should be following your blog? — Coren ^(talk) 00:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that it would be irresponsible of any admin to comment in such a discussion without having read the post. It's not my blog - I just contribute an occasional post. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NYB, can you give me a sense of how often you receive these types of emails (unsubstantiated or not)? How many would you get in an average month (just to make it simpler, if you get 10 emails about the same user, call it one)? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The number varies and I haven't kept track of them, but it wouldn't be a massive number. As you can imagine, some of the allegations that come in are far better substantiated than others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, NYB. I imagine it is a fairly small number, but I would be interested to know if the number of users reported per month is closer to 2 or closer to 10? AGK suggests that there are legal implications to the policy - when you say you aren't keeping track of cases, is ArbCom keeping track? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bill. You, too. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I just wanted to quickly apologize for misreading your sarcasm at ANI yesterday. The comment had left me scratching my head, but I guess it was close enough to what Alansohn was saying that I took it literally. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary - I did not expect my comment to be taken seriously, but I should not have made a facetious comment in the first place. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adjwilley, Carbuncle has quite a habit for sarcam, and they can run into personal attacks sometimes off-wikipedia. Pass a Method talk 00:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a little sarcasm and humor is fine, in good taste. The problem is, though, that it's hard to tell when someone is being sarcastic in writing because you're missing the vocal inflections and facial expressions that let you know it's sarcasm. One way I've seen used that makes the sarcasm more obvious is to throw in an emoticon at the end. :-D Another way that I sometimes see (on Wikipedia) is to put a </sarcasm> tag at the end of the sarcasm. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pass a Method is still angry because I outed him on Commons as a troll. :-D Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think I'm going to politely excuse myself from the remainder of this conversation *runs for the door* ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amirite Page

Hi Delicious Carbuncle,

I wanted to apologize if I seemed a bit rude earlier and also for asking my brother to create the account James,

I would be grateful if you read my reasons as to why the Amirite article shouldn't be deleted.

Look forward to hearing from you,

Best,

Philip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure everything will work out just fine, Philip. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

FYI: Might interest you PeterWesco (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I considered adding Meanie to the Craddock1 SPI (but ended up opting for simplicity). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised to find myself in this position, but...

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Amirite. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reverted now, so no harm done. I'm not bothered by the rant, and I think it adds some humour to an otherwise dull AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. See also WP:AN/I#Proposal to ban User:Craddock1 from further comment on the Amirite AfD, based on the aforementioned and several other incidents. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craddock1 asked me to pass along his apologies. I managed to forget about it until just now, rather defeating the purpose of telling you this on his behalf, as he was unblocked five minutes ago. Still, better late than never. His unblock is conditional on remaining civil, among other things. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wishes to apologize for something they have said to or about me, I'm sure they know how to do that. Please don't take it on yourself to ask people for apologies on my behalf. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. I saw the 'purchase request' while the AfD was going on by the same method as you. I was not sure if that would cross the line of WP:OUT so I opted to not include it in the conversation. There will be continued issues with the user if he is allowed to stay. Good to see someone bothered to research the entire situation as much as I did. PeterWesco (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The answer to your question of 4 Jan is yes, and please take your suggested action. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Zamora

Not sure how you feel about it but early closure of the Diane Zamora AfD doesn't seem to be an appropriate non-admin closure based on WP:NAC, WP:NACD and Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin closure wouldn't have made a difference in this case. I'm leaving it alone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi. I've been trying to watch the Jodie Foster article today. I noticed your recent edits and I was just wondering, are you an admin? I don't have a problem with your edits, but I'm just wondering if you're an admin who could possibly help watchlist the page for the next few days? --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, just someone with an understanding of the policies here. Although I am a keen observer of activities related to former child stars, my interest is generally in the editors, not the edits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, as can be seen on her talk page, there's a 3-way "split" with regards to how (or if) she should be categorized in light of last night's speech. I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, (I personally don't see any justification whatsoever for the "lesbian" cats people keep repeatedly adding and I could see at least some rationale for the "LGBT" cats, but I don't have any problem with no cats), but since the mainstream media (including what would most definitely be considered reliable sources) have almost unanimously decided to draw their own conclusion and make the declaration that she "came out" as "gay" last night (see the numerous sources cited on her talk page), I have a feeling there will be plenty more editors coming to add the categories back again and again and citing reliable sources. If you were an admin I could revert and simply cite your post on the talk page, but as it is, yours is just one opinion of many, so you might want to watchlist the page, since I'm going to need to sign off shortly. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins have no special insights, just special rights. Foster's sexuality will undoubtedly be discussed in the body of the article, but the policy on categories is clear and I will remove additions of the categories as required. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not special insights, but they do tend to have experience. In particular, more than the types of editors who would engage in WP:Synthesis by continuously paraphrasing her speech last night. As you can see on the article's talk page, I actually agree with you, so I'm not trying to belittle your opinion because you're not an admin. It would just be something I could easily cite in edit summaries if you were. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. You have new messages at Francophonie&Androphilie's talk page.
Message added 22:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jodie Foster

It would be a BLP violation to file her specifically in Category:Lesbian actors or Category:Bisexual actors, based on an original research assumption, instead of the label-nonspecific Category:LGBT actors. However, her statement was entirely clear and unambiguous that she is LGBT — and thus the label-neutral categories are wholly valid and fully in accordance with her own statement. You're the one who has it wrong here, not me: if she's out as LGBT, she can be categorized as LGBT no matter how specific she is or isn't about which particular quadrant of the community she identifies with. The only thing we can't do is categorize her more specifically than that until she clarifies her identity more specifically than that — but we most certainly can categorize her in accordance with what she has already said, which the label-neutral "LGBT" categories most certainly are. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, you're the one who needs to "read" the talk page here, not me, because I had already replied to your post on the talk page before I readded the categories. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is clear. The categories cannot be added. And I did not tell you to read the talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that "the policy is quite clear" — however, as I've already pointed out more than once both here and at Talk:Jodie Foster, what's clear is that the categories that have actually been chosen so far most certainly can be added. She is permitted to be filed in label-nonspecific "LGBT" categories, as she most certainly and unequivocally did come out as LGBT — the only thing we cannot do, in the absence of further clarification from her, is to recat her in specifically "lesbian" subcategories rather than nonspecific "LGBT" ones. Unless you're presuming to have special secret insight into what she meant last night that's eluded everybody else including Ms. Foster herself, that is the correct reading of WP:BLP as it pertains to this matter, because the label-neutral categories are in full accordance with what she said. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When she says that she is bisexual or a lesbian, then it will be "unequivocal" and you may add the categories. Until, it is a violation of WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When she says that she is bisexual or lesbian, then we can replace the nonspecific "LGBT" categories with the more specific "lesbian" or "bisexual" subcategories. However, she did say quite explicitly that she is "LGBT", and therefore the general categories are already valid, and there is no valid basis for debate about that. The fact that she wasn't more specific than she was certainly means we can't use the more specific subcategories instead of the general ones — but her statement was quite clear and unmistakable that she is LGBT. Bearcat (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can supply a reference wherein she says she is "LGBT" rather than making an oblique statement, the categories do not apply. Please read the policy again. I'm not sure how it could be any clearer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless she said something revealing during the 7 seconds when the audio disappeared, it's only safe to quote her speech, where she danced around it, and let the readers draw their own conclusions. In short, the LGBT categories are not appropriate to use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She explicitly identified herself as LGBT; the speech was entirely clear and left no room for doubt unless you're being tendentiously obtuse or irredeemably stupid. She did not "dance around" that at all. The only thing she failed to do was to specifically clarify which particular subgroup of the larger LGBT community, lesbian or bisexual, she identifies with — and accordingly, BLP does not preclude using the general LGBT categories, but only precludes funnelling her into the lesbian or bisexual-specific subcategories. For the record, I personally wrote almost every word in WP:CATGRS, and spent a big chunk of today personally removing LGBT categories from several people whose articles did not properly support them — so I'm quite intimately familiar with what BLP does and does not allow when it comes to LGBT categorization, and am almost certainly the last person on Wikipedia who would ever need to be "schooled" on the subject by anybody else. And as for "edit warring", you are the only person in the dispute who's even come close to WP:3RR (let alone the fact that you've passed it by a mile). Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may misunderstand the meaning of the word "explicitly". You don't get to choose Foster's sexuality for her, Bearcat, no matter what your contributions to policy. I have no interest in arguing about this and you don't seem to have any argument to make other than you know what she meant. Just stop it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding that she belonged in "lesbian" or "bisexual" subcategories would be "arguing that I know what she meant". Stating that label-nonspecific general LGBT categories are valid under BLP is simply the facts of what she said. I'm not particularly interested in prolonging an argument about this either, but the text of her speech was entirely sufficient for the purposes of BLP to warrant categorization as "LGBT"; the only thing it failed to do was to clarify her identity more specifically than that. I'm not presuming to "know what she meant"; I'm reading an exact word-for-word transcript of what she said. The burden of proof is on the claim that she might have meant something else, because the words are in no way ambiguous or unclear — the only thing they're not is precisely specific about which individual letter in the LGBT spectrum she happens to fall under, but that oversight is not incompatible with the nonspecific "LGBT" categories. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the standard sources that I saw tended to say she "came out - sort of". So unless you've got a category called "LGBT - sort of", it's not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. You have new messages at Francophonie&Androphilie's talk page.
Message added 18:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Some Jokes For You!

Dear Carboo! I have followed your troubles on Jimbels page about the April Fools Problem! Here are some of my favourite jokes! They would be amazing on the front page on April the First!

Q: What did the big tumble dryer say to the little tumble dryer?

A: Sssssth! Ssssssthrrrrrr! Sssss! Ssssthrrrrr! Thrrrrrr!

Q: Why did the orange stop?

A: It was swallowed by a vortex!

Q: Where do cats come from?

A: Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Cats"!

Q: Why do woolly mammoths have tusks?

A: They're knitting needles!

Q: Why do you always think about skinheads in the bath?

A: It's because skinheads are looking in the window.

Q: What do you call a man who suffocates people with cornflakes?

A: A menace!

Oliver o revilo (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open source plans

Dear carbuncle

You reverted my edits to the article for Tractor adding open source tractor plans, you also deleted other users contributions of documenting the Open Source Ecology project tractor which I didn't add. I have no association with OSE other than I think it is an interesting and useful project, one of the reasons I added the plans is because of the Wikipedia Zero project. I also wanted to play around with other kinds of media available other than the usual photos and the occasional video.

I'm interested to know what you think about this sort of resource being included on Wikipedia pages.

As you may know Wikipedia Zero offers free access to Wikipedia over mobile to people who may have no other affordable access to information, so far it's been quite successful. I know about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not's Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, I would suggest that if Wikipedia is potentially the only source of information available to some people it is our duty of care to provide them with potentially really useful information like open source plans for farming machinery that use readily accessible parts. I'd be happy to add plans from other projects as well as well but OSE is currently the "only game in town". Wikipedia Zero only provides access to Wikipedia for free, not Wikimedia Commons, it seems for accessibility and people actually being aware of that this available the article is the best place to put it.

Please let me know what you think

Cheers

Mrjohncummings (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't revert your edits, I removed all material related to that project. You are aware of WP:NOT but you seem to be saying that it doesn't apply in this case because I have a personal duty of care to every citizen of the world which includes providing them free access to plans for open sourced tractor parts. Is that correct? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Sorry I didn't mean to say you reverted my edits, was a bit tired so my message was a bit windy. My point was that if Wikipedia is potentially the only source of information for some people it's where the rubber meets the road for me on Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, a normally helpful rule that is stopping people getting potentially really helpful information. I was asking your opinion as someone who's been around here for a while what you thought.

Mrjohncummings (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion does not count for much here, so feel free to ignore it. Wikipedia is billed as an encyclopedia, which means that it covers many subjects but in limited detail. Despite the oft-quoted "sum of all human knowledge", it will never and can never be any such thing. There is a great deal of "potentially really helpful information" that will never be included in Wikipedia, for any number of reasons. This type of material would be right at home on Wikiversity, which seems to allow pretty much anything. Perhaps the answer is for the WMF to expand Wikipedia Zero to include all WMF projects? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, expanding Wikipedia Zero to all Wikimedia projects is something I hope they do. It would also be really nice if there was a way of jumping between related information on different projects in a better way, currently it's just a link to a search result which is creaky and often points to the wrong thing. Cheers Mrjohncummings (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. You have new messages at Johnandmitchy's talk page.
Message added 15:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Boot fetishism page

I have made the page active again because the page that you keep redirecting this page to has none of the relevant content of the original page. Furthermore, a vote to merge the pages would have to be taken. You can advocate for a merge but to just get rid of a page willy-nilly isn't constructive & could be considered bad faith.Stereorock (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Boot fetishism" is nothing more or less than shoe fetishism and is adequately covered at the main topic. There is no need for a separate article (or a merge discussion). If you think there is information that is missing from the main article, feel free to copy it over. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not merely shoe fetishism. That is like saying we don't need an article on West Virgina because we have an article about the U.S.A.! There IS a need for a merge discussion at the very least!Stereorock (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is shoe fetishism by definition. Someone looking for information will find what they are looking for at Shoe fetishism instead of an unsourced article stuffed with boot images. Sorry if that upsets you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milken

Nice corrections. Thank you. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has to defend one of history's greatest white collar criminals, it might as well be me. Sadly. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Marilyn and the “psychic drugs”

Sorry… but English is not my first language (I’m a native-speaker of Brazilian Portuguese…), so I think I’ve made a mistake — in fact, I should write “psychiatric drugs”, like the barbiturates that killed her.

Well, I’ve written that paragraph without an external reference because I thought what I’ve written was a largely-known fact, maybe with some references even inside that article before my edit. But, sorry anyway…--MaGioZal (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. What you wrote seemed more like an opinion, not an objective statement of facts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you need to see this conversation

This conversation is taking place on my talk page. I know your name as an editor, probably because it is memorable, but I have no recollection of meeting you except at an occasional deletion discussion or on a talk page. The discussion calls your motivation into question. I am not about to be drawn into that, but I feel you need both to see it and have the right of reply should you choose. I don't mind whether we agree, you and I. All I ask is that any reaction you may have is kept in good taste. After all I am hosting the party, so to speak, though the hosting of it was not of my making. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Resolute feels such antipathy towards me, but this is the second time in a month that they have made such attacks. Thanks for letting me know, Timtrent. I'll be nice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Notify page creator if possible"

Glad to see we're agreeing for once! And this the same day that Shirt58 congratulates me for a job well done on an outing incident... I should see if I can do something to make Binksternet happy, and go for a triple-threat among users I pissed off way back when. Anyways, just dropping by to tell you that I reverted your G10 notification @ User talk:Sandstein, since you presumably intended it for 3abos (talk · contribs). (Bobrayner had already templated Sandstein, who created the original redirect, when he tried to G4 it, and it's only because I'd seen that that I thought to uncheck "notify page creator if possible" when I AfD'ed.) Obviously feel free to add the template to 3abos's talk page, if you see fit to do so. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you let the messages pile up on Sandstein's page, he'll delete the page and indef the user in order to save time, since that's what is going to happen anyway. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heterophobia

PinkAmpers& rightfully pointed out that my removal of the G10 was unclear. Think of it as a decline, and I apologize for my poor edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it would work. You should extend your block of User:3abos to indef: 3abos = three abos. I might "assume good faith" if an Australian IP hadn't been involved in that edit war. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WMUK board

DC, note that Mike is the secretary, rather than the chair, of WMUK. [5] Best, Andreas JN 466 05:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've corrected it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What...

... is it that you don't understand about my comment? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I didn't understand it? I did. Please tone it down. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but please try to do so civilly. Your belligerence makes it difficult to have a constructive discussion and, frankly, it is just unpleasant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you understood it then went out of your way to ignore it? I'm not so sure that's what "constructive discussion" is supposed to be about. You should read about the golden rule. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, our interaction isn't the topic of the discussion and it isn't a worthwhile use of anyone's time reading about it. Are we done now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor was it a worthwhile use of anyone's time to read your comments about how you got your opponents banned, and how this was "advice" for us.

Except, of course, that it made some of us a little more aware of the sort of tactics in use by you and others to try to defeat the proposal initiated by Prioryman that was under discussion in that thread. In that respect, some of us have learned a lot. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. I did not get "my opponents" banned. The editors to whom I was referring got themselves banned. They were banned for things that they did, not anything that I may have said. You say you are now aware of the tactics I am using - can you say what you think those tactics are? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Peter

I don't see Pete Forsyth at this page. Can you help me find him?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is no longer a staff member. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm writing to him.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas^t 07:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that has much to do with me, but thanks for letting me know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is notice that you are not welcome on my talk page under any circumstances. I do not need to explain why. Consider this a most polite request. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 17:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's much politer than the edit summary you used when deleting my attempt to explain why I had reverted your changes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black thong whale tail.jpeg

Hi friend, why do you want the uploaded image to be deleted? fuzzy and incompetently edited is hardly a very good reason as to why an upload should be deleted. My upload is not breaching any copyright laws, as it's my own work. Besides the quality is just fine, this site don't need it bigger. So It does not make sense to delete it. I also noticed you removed from two articles, your given reasons were: Rm image which does not depict "hale tail" as defined in article and Rm copyvio and unecessary image additions. Regarding the Whale tail article, the uploaded image does in fact fit the definition of a whale tail. A whale tail is the upper section of the thong which depicts the tail of a whale, and the uploaded image does depict the tail of a whale. Regarding the second article Thong (clothing), I do not understand why you say it's unnecessary image additions. IT was very necessary, the gallery showed different designs and forms of thongs, except an actual thong which was what my image corrected on. Jushne (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New reply in Commons.Jushne (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting here or on my Commons talk page. If there is something I need to reply to in the deletion discussion I will see it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Penises on Commons

You're six years late. odder (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok - things haven't changed much. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This includes personal attacks made in edit summaries, like this one. I have not personally attacked you, why do you feel the need to attack me? If you're not capable of having a constructive argument without name calling, then please refrain from participating in future arguments. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 22:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm done with that conversation, Scotty. I think everyone but you is done with it. I clicked "save page" before fixing my edit summary. I'll try not to let it happen again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm willing to be done with it if everyone else is. I'm pretty sure we're not going to change each other's opinions. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 23:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human–goat sexual intercourse merge with Zoophilia

An editor just undid your merge of the Human–goat sexual intercourse article without giving a valid reason for un-merging; I decided that you may want to know about it. For the record, I sometimes have run-ins with the editor in question, and have reverted him at times because he often makes edits that need to be reverted or cleaned up. Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]