User talk:CarrieBee

Bree Olson
moved to article talk page

April 2011
Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Im sorry - I cannot follow the instructions - they are not very clear and I got completely lost. Generally I find instructions on wikipedia to be very hard to understand and it is not done with much organisation and there is info upon info and instructions linking to dozens of pages - all of which makes it really hard to follow. CarrieBee (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right - they are very confusing. The problem in this case was that it had been nominated before, so it needed a new discussion page - Articles for deletion/Pippa Middleton (2nd nomination). But the reason I removed the template was that you had not actually provided an argument for deletion there (though I realise you had on the talk page). But let's face it - it was never going to be deleted, especially not on the day of the royal wedding. Did you read through Articles for deletion/List of wedding guests of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton? Maybe if you nominate it in a few months time... but I happen to believe she has received the coverage necessary to establish notability. StAnselm (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin. If you're going to be rude I have no interest in helping. StAnselm (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, a new deletion discussion has been opened: Articles for deletion/Pippa Middleton (2nd nomination). StAnselm (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Number 1 Ponytail Barbie II.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Number 1 Ponytail Barbie II.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Vintage Number 3 Ponytail Barbie I.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vintage Number 3 Ponytail Barbie I.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Number 6 Ponytail Barbie red hair.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Number 6 Ponytail Barbie red hair.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Vintage Swirl Ponytail Barbie Brunette.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vintage Swirl Ponytail Barbie Brunette.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion
Recentism is a concern solved by time and NPOV, not by vandalism or good-faith deletion. Your deletion has been restored-- in future please do not delete large sections of articles without first obtaining consensus. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message but the entire section, because of the reasons mentioned in the talk page of the article, constitutes WP: Recentism. Whether this is historic is to be determined in time, not a priori. This is a news spike and has no place in an individual's article on WP. It was just one thing she said during an interview (like hundreds of commentators do every day in the news).   Moreover, there is controversy surrounding it as we go so that muddies the waters even more (again, see WP:Recentism).  And my deletion was not out of vandalism, but mainly becasue there needs to be consensus to keep misinformation, not consensus to remove it. Not like this has been a section that was in there for weeks and months and someone decided to remove it - in which case the "remove through consensus only" would be warranted. You dont insert controversial/questionable information into WP and then demand consensus to remove it. CarrieBee (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * Awww...Thank you. It looks good and I havent had lunch yet :) CarrieBee (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)