User talk:CharlieEchoTango/Archive 10

User:Picker78
Hey, CharlieEchoTango. The Non-penetrative sex article will be unprotected again in a couple of hours (if full-protection wears off at its given Wikipedia time of "04:30, 3 November 2012") and Picker78 will likely be back soon afterward. I'm thinking that it's best to put it on semi-protection for the time being, soon after full-protection wears off, and to simply block Picker78 whenever we see him. You up for the task? The only reason I'm for semi-protection for the time being is because I might want to fix this article up a bit more; there's already one tweak I'll be making (the addition of "vulva" to the Fingering listing), per the Penis discussion on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm not really interested in keeping up with the article. Since the full protection is expiring, I'll restore semi, and if he comes back again, report to AIV or SPI. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 02:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, understandable. I'm certainly not as interested in reverting him on that one order change he keeps making, but his edits to the article have largely been based on his personal POV. It's that personal POV and not much for deferring to reliable sources that I mostly have a problem with when it comes to his editing that article. Anyway, thank you. I'll be turned away from WP:AIV because it'll be seen as a content dispute/blocked user matter, and I don't think a sockpuppet investigation will be needed, though. He's usually been blocked per WP:DUCK. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

fr:Aviation royale du Canada
Bonjour, j'ai vu que tu as ajouté les nombres des aéronefs de l'ARC, il faudrait que tu mettes une référence pour chaque, sinon je devrai les enlever. Merci, Amqui (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, je les ai enlever pour maintenant. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 00:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * D'accord, merci, Amqui (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Michael L.J. Apuzzo
Thank you for taking the time to review my submission.

I have gone through several stages of revision and I am currently at a "wall". I hope this is not too much to ask, but are you able to pin point the issues in the article that is preventing the submission from being accepted?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.117.154.85 (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A thorough explanation was posted by on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael L.J. Apuzzo, M.D., Ph.D. - CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 00:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

189.220.19.117 | 201.160.131.251
I would like you to intervene in a conflict between two anonymous parties (one is irrelevant) in an article about Frederator Studios... well I guess around all Nickelodeon-related articles. It has come to my attention that 189.220.19.117, a Mexico-based IP, who is currently blocked for disruptive editing by You personally shares the same quirks with another Mexico IP Now if I reckon correctly sockpuppetry is still prohibited by Wikipedia's rules, right? Is there anything you can do? Sincerely, ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Both shares the same ISP owner Cablemas Telecomunicaciones SA de CV located on Sevilla, 4, Piso 6, Col. Juarez, Mexico
 * Both change and edit the same articles
 * The same Lists of animated series, the same Frederator Studios and the same Nickelodeon articles
 * And, surprise, both insert the phrase "mundi's world" everywhere they go
 * Blocked. The proper place to report this kind of disruptive editing is at WP:AIV. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 02:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Soul Artist Management
Hi CharlieEchoTango, Hope you are well! Thank you for editing the Soul Artist Management submission. I was hoping to get any additional feedback from you on how I can move forward in getting the page approved. Please let me know, I feel as the sources I have are all reputable and there are many of them. Thank you in advance for your assistance, I really appreciate it.

ETA: Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmg02 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Very Best, Mallory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmg02 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please see WP:ORG, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. "Soul Artist Management believes in management with heart", "its roster of stellar talent", etc; these are not neutral statements suitable for an encyclopedia—Wikipedia is not a tool for promotion. As for the sources, they are not adequate for showing notability, also a key requirement. Independent, reliable, third-party sources (usually two or three comprehensive media articles), must be provided to show that the organization is noteworthy enough for inclusion. Regards, CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 14:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to confused with...
I am restoring the Not to be confused with tag on MGM Resorts International because there are people out there who might assume that MGM Resorts International is affiliated with Resorts International Holdings which owns and operates casinos using the Resorts and Resorts International name. In the future it would be appreciated if you would please discuss it first on the talkpage and not blindly remove something without talk to the original contributor of that text. TYIA. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Jason Bernabei - TriCastle Realty - TV Show Host "The Realty Insiders"
Hello Charlie Echo Tango:

Please advise on your denial of my submission for "The Realty Insiders" TV show host here in SD. The comments provided are appreciated, but more guidance would be greatly appreciated. I would think that a TV show that airs here in SD would qualify under the "Golden Rule," but perhaps not. I wish to commit myself to writing for Wikipedia in hopes of furthering my Journalism pursuits ultimately. If you could give me more specifics, it would certainly help in future postings. Thank you so much.

Kindly, Adam P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiAdamPro (talk • contribs) 08:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "golden rule", but your article was declined because the references provided are listings and therefore not adequate to show notability; see WP:42. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 13:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Faut vraiment faire quelque chose
Salut Charlie. A peine le blocage de Alpha and Omega (film) expiré, l'IP 95.107.224.87 recommance à pourrir la page. Là, je préconise le blocage car j'en ai marre de toujours voir la page vandalisé. Cordialement Supporterhéninois (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Trudeau article
Hi, Charlie. I just want to say that I think it's a pretty tremendous assumption of bad faith to call another editor's attempt to fix a glaring WP:BLP issue "whitewash," period. I live in the United States at the moment and am not involved in Trudeau's campaign at all. My concern with his biography is the same as I would have with any biography of a living person (and have had on numerous occasions in the past with biographies of people from all walks of life). I boiled down the base content without removing any key facts to bring it inline with WP:UNDUE and removed the ridiculous amount of commentary (which isn't appropriate in any case, and is a blatant violation of WP:COATRACK). If you'd like to take a stab at remedying the issues (other than simply reverting), please do so. But in an article of a bit more than a dozen substantial paragraphs, two of its largest should not be dedicated to something that fit in a one week news cycle. It is the very definition of undue. jæs (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies if it came across as rude, I meant to say that the gutting amounted to a whitewash, not necessarily to accuse you of doing it on purpose. That said, when you leave out everything but "Trudeau made comments. He apologized", you are leaving out much of the context of the controvery and how the comments were perceived. Including a balanced selection of these reactions for context is not a WP:COATRACK as you suggest, since they relate directly to the controversy and are not an attempt to sneak unrelated subjects in the article. The argument that the two paragraphs is overblown and lead to excessive focus is covered in WP:UNDUE, which you cited correctly in your edit summary. That's certainly something that can be discussed on the article's talk page -- how much weight should we give this controversy?


 * Which leads to me to this : two paragraphs might be a bit much given the shallowness of the current article, but the reaction generated by his comments are an integral part of the controversy, so they must be included somehow. If it can be fairly and accurately described in one paragraph, then that's great, but a wholesale removal is not a solution.


 * P.S. Quite disappointed that you chose to edit war over this. You were bold, I reverted, and now it should have been discussed. You engaged in discussion and before even waiting for a reply you claimed BLP to remove the edit again, that's not in the spirit of BRD at all. I agree with you it was not written in a disinterested way, I myself removed some of the overrhetoric a few days ago, but your claim that the paragraphs are BLP violations is grossly exagerated. Confusing perceived neutrality and WP:UNDUE issues for BLP violations is a dangerous slope. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 01:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My wp:blp concerns weren't "grossly exaggerated," and after reviewing the recent history of the article, I think the situation is actually worse than I originally feared. I've raised the issue at wp:blpn, as a result.  Several of your edits have significantly reduced the neutrality of the content of the article, which I think is pretty stunning given your position as an administrator on the project.  You should absolutely know better than to make some of the edits you have at that article recently, and if you think undoing my attempt to fix them per wp:blp was even remotely appropriate, you clearly don't understand the wp:blp policy.  jæs (talk)  01:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just read your comments re the BLP board. Two of my early edits have not been great and I should have seen earlier that the original writing was clearly not neutral, but your selective misrepresentation of my editing on this article is unwarranted. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 01:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't being selective, your edits introduced wp:blp issues. I tried to fix some of those issues, not even knowing that you were the creator of a good portion of them.  You then reverted my objective, uninvolved best efforts wholesale.  Getting it "half right" or "fixing it later" isn't acceptable with a wp:blp.  If there's a bunch of non-neutral language, original research, and undue commentary in a blp, it has to come out until we get it right.  What was "unwarranted" was your undoing my edit and calling my attempt to fix the problems "whitewash."  I found that to be remarkable at the time, but seeing that you created several significant bits of what I was trying to fix was pretty stunning.  I am of the opinion that administrators should be held to a higher standard, but in the case of your earlier edits and your revert today, you wouldn't even have passed the baseline standard for a wp:blp. jæs (talk)  01:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement
On November 23, 24 and 25, 2012, I engaged in biased editing on a biography of a living person, Justin Trudeau, under my own account and IP, as well as this misleading user name, and to a lesser extent this undeclared sock. My partisanship led me to violate the core principles this encyclopedia is built upon. Not content to simply get away with covert editing, I kept digging my hole, in bad faith, up to the very last moment, as evidenced in the section right above this one. Even though my reprehensible actions did not, at any time, involve abuse of administrative privileges, I betrayed the trust of the community and therefore am no longer fit to be an administrator. I have asked that the permission be removed effective immediately. My resignation of the tools is obviously done under a cloud.

I am also permanently disengaging from the Justin Trudeau article. This is not an admission that the gutted version of the article is fair. It omits large parts of the controversy and is essentially a whitewash. Ironically, if the section had been written in a neutral and disinterested way in the first place, it wouldn't have been gutted and the readers of the article would be better served than they are now. So I'm going to have to wear the responsibility for that, too.

With my unreserved apologies,

CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 03:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I noticed these events at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and at the article itself. I have mixed feelings here. On the one hand I am impressed with your honesty in declaring these sock accounts (which appear to have been used for various politically motivated edits). On the other hand, there is the timing: not just that this comes with jæs calling you out, but that the edits appeared just prior to the by-election in Calgary Centre on November 26, and you waited until November 28 to come forward like this. It gives the appearance of editing in the hopes of influencing the by-election. Trudeau himself said that his comments might have influenced the outcome of the by-election . Is that part of the context here, or am I reading too much into this? Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really. The timing is only relevant insofar as I wrote the section immediately after the scandal broke, the editing was certainly partisan but wasn't done specifically in the hopes of influencing the by-election, and I doubt it would have—this story was the top story on most media outlets and certainly a large number of Calgary Centre voters had already been exposed to it, a lot more than the 10,000 people who read the Wikipedia article since then. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 05:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Anyway, thanks for taking responsibility for your conduct and the courage it takes to come forward like this. I agree with Moe's sentiments immediately below. Best wishes, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just took a look at the situation with the edits to the article and the use of your accounts, and yes, it does appear to be a clear-cut case of misuse of alternate accounts. For voluntarily stepping down and disclosing your biased editing, I have a certain amount of respect for, despite how tremendously wrong it was of you for making those edits. It's something you could have kept from the community along with being in a position of power and/or respect and you chose not to, so kudos for accepting responsibility for your own actions, unlike a percentage of the site who would never do such a thing. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  04:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I'm going to assume User:74.13.202.11 was also an undisclosed IP which you used to disrupt Fluffernutter's RFA? Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  04:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite a while ago, but yes. Embarrassing. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 05:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * o_O Well I uh...never knew you cared! But seriously, I do want to commend you on taking responsibility for your recent actions. I saw your post go up on BN and while you know as well as anyone else that your behavior wasn't okay in any way, you've become a member of the small set of people who are willing to own up and atone for going off the rails. I hope you'll stick around and do whatever it is that made you happy enough on Wikipedia to join up here in the first place. Get your feet back under you, reconsider what's important. Maybe eat a few (9000?) fluffernutter sandwiches, if you're feeling wild. A mistake needn't be everything, especially if you're willing to go back to working for the greater good :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 06:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fluffernutter said it more eloquently than I can, but while your actions are clearly not appropriate, it means a lot when somebody is willing to own up to their mistakes, and I hope that you stick around.  Snowolf How can I help? 06:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I confess myself to have been very disappointed when I heard what you did, but your honesty is as refreshing as it is impressive. Thank you for doing the right thing, and I hope your wikibreak does not last any longer than you need in order to recharge. Best wishes, AGK  [•] 14:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Having come across this fairly randomly while doing adminny things, I want to just pile on and say that this kind of honesty and taking responsibility is commendable. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I agree. Character is more important than any bit, and in the end, you showed you have plenty.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick question?
Hi, Charlie. From your original statement and along the lines of Moe Epsilon's question above, I understand your desire is to disclose or acknowledge all of your former sockpuppets (even ones you might not have recalled when drafting your statement). It looks like an additional IP address of yours probably made the nom on this MfD earlier this year (along with some other edits), where two of your other accounts also were involved. Is it reasonable to assume User:70.48.78.19 was you? jæs (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was on a wikibreak at the time, but edited a few times either logged out or using my sock. While I don't recall making these specific edits, based on their content and the overlap with my sock account, I'm pretty sure it was me, yes.
 * By the way, as I don't keep track of my assigned IPs over time, it's quite difficult to proactively disclose them, especially given that I rarely edit logged out. Both in this case and in the Fluffernutter case, based on the childish edits and the hour of the night at which they were made, it's quite likely that I was less than sober, so there goes the memory. When I took a step back the other day and realized that I had to come clean, I did so to the best of my ability with the recent events in mind—I knew I had no other major skeleton in my backyard, and I wasn't in the mood to dig for old, stray bones. But I'm not trying to conceal them and I will own up to any past misbehaviour, however silly and embarrassing. I apologize again for all the trouble. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 06:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thanks for clarifying.  jæs (talk)  06:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Laxmi Vilas Palace Bharatpur
I create the page for Laxmi Vilas Palace Bharatpur and it was rejected. would appreciate if i can know the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahimvir (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, CharlieEchoTango. This is not a direct response to Mahimvir's question, but I came here coincidentally to let you know that I had nominated Laxmi Vilas Palace Bharatpur (in mainspace) for speedy deletion under G12 (copyright), G11 (advertising) and G8 (redirect to self). The nominated article contained essentially the same text as the AfC submission, but with a redirect to itself on the first line, so at first sight it didn't look like an article. Thing is, the text in the AfC appears to be copied from the Laxmi Vilas Palace website. I felt we should mark it some way at AfC to ensure the text doesn't make it into mainspace again, but I wasn't sure of the best way to do that. I thought I should bring it to your attention. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)