User talk:Delicious carbuncle/Archive 4

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

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

Babaloo40 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - are you asking me a question about something? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually I am asking a few questions at the same time. Did you look at my revisions from the first time I posted an article about Sentry Basic? Did you read why I posted under a new name? Did you read the reasons why I believed it was not blatent advertising? And lastly is there anything specific I could do to get an approved article for Sentry Basic? Babaloo40 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see now that your other account is blocked. I tagged your articles as spam because of the guideline WP:SPAM. You should read that, as well as WP:COI. They might answer your questions. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, blocked and SSP filed. I hadn't refreshed the watchlist recently enough to catch the re-creation. I salted the main one, will salt the others as well if necessary. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppets
Hi DC, just thought I'd let you know that I have been accused of being you by Mark Bellinghaus and his companion Ernest Cunningham. I read the transcript of your sockpuppet case against weareallalone and I am 99% you are correct. Apologies, I'm not signing this post but I just wanted to show some solidarity with your predicament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.140.213.2 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're the second person who's contacted me on Wikipedia because Mark Bellinghaus has accused them of being me. I'm sorry. Not because being me is a bad thing, but because I've seen the craziness that comes with the accusation. The links on my user page are there for exactly that reason. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Having done a bit more research, although Weareallone and MMMovie are patently both Bellinghaus accounts, I'm not sure Papillonbleu is as well. I think this may be his business partner Ernest Cunningham.
 * See here: http://www.hecklerspray.com/who-killed-marilyn-monroe/200814531.php
 * Cunningham's comment on June 12th at 11pm betrays an indepth knowledge of the AfD nomination with reference to yourself and Restawhile.
 * Also, the comment on June 9th at 10.05pm is either Bellinghaus/Cunningham posting under the pseudonym mst3kster (in an attempt to insult a user who'd offended them on the board), and contains references to yourself and a healthy dose of bitterness about the AfD nomination. Again, I'm not signing this post as I do have an account and I don't really want it spoiled by Bellinghaus/Cunningham chasing me round the internet with abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.34.186 (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I skimmed the comments at that link, but I really don't care to read it all. I have no particular interest in Marilyn Monroe or the battles being fought among Monroe memorabilia collectors. Bellinghaus's article is clear self-promotion which is why I nominated it for deletion. I'm still mystified that it survived. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops!
Apparently I was wrong in my thinking, I thought the redirect was a joke at first, but after doing some investigation, I was wrong. I apologize. :)  D u s t i complain/compliment 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone makes mistakes. It's pointing to the right place now, which is what matters.  Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Go Drink
Agreed with you, wasn't speedyable. It's now at AfD if you want to weigh in. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Already did. I was going to AfD it right after I removed the speedy tag. :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark Bellinghaus
Hello, thanks for the tip. It is so confusing who is Bellinghaus-- and he seem to be confused about who you are! Personally I think some others are him as well as User:Mmmovie... but good advice for the change! Lets just say it's not the first time I have come across Mr Bellinghaus... Roger Blitzen (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can get confusing with all the sockpuppets floating around. Sometimes I'm not sure which troll I'm talking to. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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

SunDragon34 (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you re-tagged it and warned him. Looks like you don't need help from me. ;) I'll keep an eye on him. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


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

Re. User:Mattjones17
Thank you for contacting me. After a quick look, it is clear to me that this user is not a newbie. Probably, someone else's sockpuppet. It requires more investigation. But right now, I don't think that a block would be in order without further evidence of deliberate and continuous disruption or sockpuppetry. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a second look. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A fitting end
We now have a case of death by Slashdot! — Travis talk  23:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How very very appropriate! :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

xxxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.17.158 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the messages I left for you on your talk page. The guideline is WP:NOTABILITY, not who I decide is relevant. You should probably also see WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Oaklybuns
I'm assuming this is the rantings of annoyed user: User_talk:Oaklybuns but would like assurances that it is that. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're asking me to assure you that I haven't been commissioned by the Chinese secret service to remove a non-notable Nigerian poet's article from Wikipedia? I'm not going to do that, but thanks for bring it to my attention. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Re your later, message - content concerned REMOVED, Hope that was what you wanted, If you can admin to oversight even better :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it requires oversighting, but there's no reason to copypaste already deleted accusations from the original talk page where they were posted. Thanks for deleting that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Suasion
Hi Carbuncle,

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

Neelix (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a word, "suasion" is not commonly used. I see it used as part of the phrase "moral suasion", but very rarely outside of that. On WP, that is the usage in almost every case. Someone searching for "suasion" would be redirected to Persuasion, but it seems unnecessary, even possibly confusing to some readers, to include the word in the article. Perhaps you could place a link to Wiktionary? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Carbuncle,


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


 * Neelix (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any requirement for the term used as a redirect to be used in the article. My suggestion was just something for your consideration, but not something I would do myself or recommend. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

NTWICM!
Please refrain from posting such condescending patter on my talk page. It is unfortunate that you cannot see the positive in short articles, rather having preferred to cast aspersions on things you yourself cannot fathom. JeanLatore (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If by "condescending patter" you mean the templated message about speedy deletion nominations of inappropriate pages, then I'll stop when you stop creating them. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to self: blocked as sockpuppet of  Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

explanation
Syesha124, Lovato45, DemiLovato15, Maddy24, and Kristy22 are not sock accounts! Each of the accounts that I mentioned are used by different people that share the same IP address! I should know! Each of these accounts belong to different people in my family and people that I know! Syesha124 is my cousin, Lovato45 is my brother, DemiLovato15 is my sister, Maddy24 is my other cousin, and Kristy22 is my best friend. She comes over to use my computer sometimes because her computer is currently broken at the moment and she really can't afford to buy another one right now. So my family and I(including Kristy22 for now) all use the same computer and same IP address. 76.118.87.126 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Why isn't your IP blocked anymore? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

LASEK
Hi there

Are you sure the present acronym for LASEK (Keratectomy) is correct and not Keratomileusis? Although there are more Google results for the former, the latter is used in medical establishments such as the UK's NHS (see [] for an example.

Cheers

Jw (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure. The article's title is not LASEK, it's Photorefractive keratectomy. Keratomileusis seems to be used in the UK, so if you wanted to add it as an additional, alternative definition with the NICE reference, that would be fine by me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just what is this "past experience with this editor" that you speak of? I don't know you from Adam, good sir. JeanLatore (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Karancrack
Only thing I posed on that page was a warning to that user for another post. Proper thing to do there would be to revert back to the warnings. --Mhking (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't feel it was right to revert the edits to another user's talk page (per WP:TALK) but it was clearly spam, so I tagged it for speedy delete. You just happened to be the user who had left the first warning and therefore created the page. Twinkle left you the notice - sorry if it annoyed you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. I reverted it back to the original warnings. -Mhking (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry about that
The people at the UBS are not that used to the internet yet and made the page without permission from the founder of the station. It will not happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undergroundman1992 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Usman Hashmi
The big problem with Usman Hashmi is that his I.P. changes almost every other day. So all the I.P.s I marked are probably expired by now, and he already has another one today, and will have another one two days or so after that. Hard to catch, unfortunately. As for User:Stevvvv4444, I am not quite sure that he is a sockpuppet of Hasmi; I think he might be one of the accounts of User:75.51.79.197 All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

using freindly
what is this friendly thing you use to switch pagis? Homotlfqa83 (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fire Pits
Hi,

Please refer to the 'fire pit' talk page, I explained why I undid your image removal. In short, your first edit was reasonably, I can at least follow your logic enough to not undo it. However, the image provides a visualization of a rather vague idea (a fire pit kit). If you believe that there are tons of them out there and they are relatively similar then you may as well remove the caption altogether. I don't think mentioning where a particular product is from is 'spamming,' it is providing complete information. It is not as if I declared that 'Frazier Quarry has the best fire pit kits ever made, they are superior in quality and lower in price than all of their competitors. I don't even make a strong case for fire pit kits in the article, my only intention was to put something out there on fire pits. I happen to have permission to use their image and so I did.

Andy.W.Ellis (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I am not quite sure what needs correcting with the style, if you could give me some direction there, I would appreciate it. My only thought was to have something above the subject headings? Thanks, Andy.W.Ellis (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems clear from your contributions that you have some connection with Frazier Quarry, so WP:COI applies. It's not the image that is of concern, it's the attribution and link to the company website. To answer your second question, there are grammatical errors and unnecessary Capitalisations, for a start. Adding references would be a big help to improving the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Shenandoah Valley Bluestone
Hi Carbuncle,

sorry, i meant to post only on the SVB page.

best, Andy

Bluestone
Hi Carbuncle,

I guess I'm not following how if there is only one producer of a product, why it can not be mentioned. Let's say that hypothetically NASA was the only group that made space shuttles and it was a private corporation. If there were a spaceship article, would it not seem odd if NASA was neither linked nor mentioned?

Andy.W.Ellis (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you have a specific article in mind? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)o


 * I did, I was referring to the inclusion of the sole quarry/retailer of dimension bluestone (Shenandoah Valley Bluestone) being The Frazier Quarry. I understand that a unique stone does not hold the same level of global importance as would space travel, but at the same time, it seems that mentioning the sole provider is more informative than it is anything else.  With regard to COI, let's go with another hypothetical.  Let's say there is a really interesting endangered species that lives specifically one region of the world and there is a city employee charged with the task of creating a Wikipedia page to raise awareness that whereever he is from exists and hopefully generate tourism through information, not advertisement.  As a part of that page he includes that his native land is the one place in the world that has "X" species.  He then realizes that there is no page for "X" species and decides to create one.  In the page of "X" species, would it be inappropriate for him to mention its native land, because in doing so he is indirectly promoting tourism to the place where he has an interest?

206.248.193.66 (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It clear that you have some connection with the Frazier Quarry and that you are resistant to follow the advice of several editors about your conflict of interest. While not wanting to get dragged into your hypothetical situations, if "a city employee" is "charged with the task" of editing Wikipedia, that clearly is in violation of the WP:COI guideline, however noble their motivations. You clearly have a connection with a for-profit commercial business, not NASA or an endangered species. Please read the guideline again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not deny that I have a connection to Frazier Quarry, I am not being paid for writing the page however. I am attempting to present points on a neutral level, but more importantly I think that my local heritage deserves to be accessed most effectively.  Secondly, it is not my intention off undue resistance to editors, I have changed what they have asked and resorted to discussion rather than re-editing to suit my thoughts. I recognize that individuals such as yourself have more experience than I do with regard to Wikipedia and I feel that I have somehow gotten on your bad side.  This is because I am creating articles with reference to an area that I know about while attempting to be neutral. The issue at hand here is neutrality, and for some reason it appears to me that you don't believe that I am attempting to be informational while remaining neutral part of WP:COI says that even if one was getting paid or had a financial stake, that is not problematic unless it is presented in a non-neutral fashion.  My point about NASA or any other unique product is that you do not cross the line of neutrality by citing where its from and an endangered species is a closer parallel because the limestone is literally only from one area and one quarry and if it were shut down, there would be no more (the difference is that there would be the potential for someone to open another).  It's less that I'm trying to be difficult and more that I want to resolve these issues and be an appropriate contributor. Thanks, Andy.W.Ellis (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally clearly admitting that you have a conflict of interest. I'll put it as plainly as I can - your edits are not neutral, and not in keeping with WP guidelines, which is why they keep getting changed by myself and other editors. I'm not interested in debating this issue, so please stop trying to convince me otherwise. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are going to edit something, you should be prepared to discuss your rationale, throwing out a link should not be considered sufficient. I would argue that you do not regard me neutrally as an editor and therefore you shouldn't edit anything that I write. Or if you believe me to not be writing in a neutral manner, you could take steps to correct that rather than preventing useful information from being disseminated.  I won't write anything more to you, I realize I'm wasting my time, but if what I'm writing is so blatantly biased, you need not take it upon yourself to be the one to come down on it, others surely will.  Everyone else has been more than willing to help me make acceptable pages and you just slash and burn my contributions.  You refuse to recognize my intent as being neutral whether or not I have become effective presenting it.  I hope that in the future you treat new editors with more courtesy (ukexpat has been very helpful) rather than trying to alienate someone that wants to contribute.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy.W.Ellis (talk • contribs) 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you misunderstand my replies. As I say, I'm not willing to enter into a debate, but I don't mean to discourage you from editing, merely to follow the guidelines which have been repeatedly cited to you. I'm not targetting you in any way, but if you keep making COI or promotional edits, it is quite likely I (or another editor) will change them. Not because you made them, but because they violate guidelines or policies. I'm sorry if you found my bluntness to be discourteous. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate you clarifying, I also do think that this information is important and I am not trying to spam. Would you be willing to look over something in my user page before I post it and let me know what does not sound neutral?  I honestly think that there is information of interest to the general public but I don't know anyone from the general public that would care enough to find resources to write about it.  Typically bluntness does not bother me, I apologize for reading the wrong attitude into what you wrote. Andy.W.Ellis (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm the wrong person to ask to review your article, but I'm glad we understand each other better now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Tri North Lighting
Hello,

I have been working with another editor on this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NawlinWiki

He gave me explicit instructions on what I needed to do for this, can you please remove the speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D453g (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. I've just copied the speedy deletion notice from their talk page to yours. I guess they undeleted to your user space or something similar. You should read it carefully. An admin, possibly even NawlinWiki, will look at the article and decide if it should be speedily deleted or not. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jay Leslie
I declined your speedy request -. I don't think the article is just a straight cut and paste. It doesn't really read like an advertisement either, although it could be cleaned up in line with WP:BLP a little better. So far, though, the article has only had one author. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. You might have removed the copyvio from the article. The first sentence of one section is a word-for-word copy of the page I linked on copyvio tag (and on the talk page) and the rest is a rewording with much of the original structure left intact. I'll take it to AfD, since I've now looked at the links and a couple of them appear to be completely unrelated to the subject. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

AdamBraniff75
Hi Dc-- I went ahead and did the honors (see my comment on Mangojuice's talk page). I noticed the same thing you did, last night, and was waiting for one other person to confirm, which you did for me. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Antandrus. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter Härtling
I have added the bibliography and awards section from the German wikipedia. I don't believe this qualifies as a speedy delete any more, if it ever did, but you may still wish to list it at AfD. I should draw your attention to the fact that Peter Härtling passes WP:CREATIVE, I know of at least one independent book that has been written about him and his works. I translated the article from the German wikipedia, so I don't have any sources, but I can the external links from there - although they all link to German sites. Rje (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No need for an AfD, but without the awards, there really didn't seem to be an assertion of notability. Thanks for adding the additional material. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pierre Laffillé
You marked this for speedy as nn. True the article in t=place showed almost nothing, but there were interwiki links to the frWP, which should have alerted you to go there, where you would have seen that there was an extensive article. Even without reading any French, there's a list of prizes and a long list of exhibitions. Do not speedy in such a case. Simply copy the French text over into the article and mark it for translation. I did, and, since I do read French, I will translate it soon when I have a chance. If I didn;t, someone else would..

Apparently you did just the same with an article from the German Wikipedia, above. Please check first if there are interlanguage links, and dont repeat the error. In fact, if its a person from another country, it's wise to check the appropriate WP even if the links are not given explicitly--often there will be a usable article. This is one ofthe way we build links to the other wikis and enrich our content. . DGG (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As you note, neither article had any assertion of notability and I am unfortunately unable to speak either German or French, so it is unproductive for me to check foreign language sites. Perhaps you should be leaving messages for the article creators that they should assert notability, or copy the foreign-langauge text over as you did. Thanks for your note. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I consider it reckless to delete articles based on material you are unable to read. The existence of the interwiki links obviously doe not prove notability, but looking at them will indicate the extent to which there is some support and references.  DGG (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't the case here. I nominated the article based on a lack of any assertion of notability, not the existence of text I couldn't read. You declined the speedy as detailed above. I think that's how the system is supposed to work. What puzzles me is why you have returned to browbeat me rather than reminding the creators of the articles in question that they should simply include some assertion of notability in articles they create, in order to avoid similar problems in the future. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Gluck
Hello, I must say I am quite astonished about the brutality and the severity with which my arcticle Barbara Gluck was deleted. Some history : I created the page at approx 1 PM my time. After a few minutes, I got a tag from a bot telling that I was infringing some copyrights. I did not deny at all, and immediately I clearly put a note in the arcticle for reference (I had already put the ref of the link in the arcticle). In the discussion page, I said I was a beginner in enWP (not in others), I said I would rephrase/rewrite as soon as possible but I needed time as it was very late for me and, despite the fact that I am quite "pround" of my English level, English is not my mother tongue so I am quite slow to write. Unfortunately, the discussion page is also deleted... Did you take time to read the discussion page before adding your tag ? Did you check frWP to see what I wrote on fr:Barbara Gluck in French ? In short, what can be done to reload the page or at least the discussion page ? Regards, Jatayou (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You should contact User:Gb, the admin who deleted the article, but since it was a copyright violation, it is unlikely that they will recreate the article in your userspace. Please see WP:COPYVIO for more information. I'm sure they deleted the article with no more or less severity or brutality than any other article. I didn't make any comment about your English -- which seems fine to me -- so I'm not sure why you bring it up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for my English... Now, in practical, I had about 20 minutes to put the banner hangon and furthermore, I ignored the existence of this banner at the time ! Anyway, I will try to create a good arcticle next time. Jatayou (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Then WHERE?
Then where would I ask that! And do NOT say an off-site board. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me to make suggestions, only to ask you to please stop abusing talk pages. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I give up! I have found this captain his story and still he remove my kind words! Perhaps he is just too rude to help. King of the Fondue (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to self: indef blocked for repeated incivility. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for the support!!! Check it Out Honorific titles in popular music with any feedback it looks good nowTalk:Honorific titles in popular music Kelvin Martinez (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. You put a lot of work into that article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Scott Shefler
There is no reason for deletion of Abt Electronics. It has been successfully posted on Wikipedia for over a month now. All that has changed is that I added an Image. I will take it down if it does not comply. Please do not remove the whole page. Shefler2 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with the image you posted. Please carefully read the notice left on your talk page. You may wish to read WP:COI as well. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Food Photography
I am an expert on food photography, and have published an magazine article on the subject at http://www.shutterbug.net/features/1204insider/index.html The additions I made were my own writing, how can you say it violated copyright? The only thing that could be considered conflict of interest is a link to my website at the end, which is exactly what the author of the article on food styling did at the Food stylist article - put their web link at the end. And regarding the article about Dennis Ray Davis, how is this different from the article WRITTEN BY HIMSELF on Mark Robert Halper, and using his own websites as primary support for the article? Double standards are all I can see here.
 * The text you posted was a cut-and-paste of the link you provided above. You may be the author, but the page states "Copyright © SOURCE INTERLINK MEDIA All rights reserved". You should read Donating copyrighted materials, which was linked from the WP:COPYVIO link I left on your talk page. I've just removed the link on Food stylist (again), for the same reason I removed your link. Thanks for pointing it out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:
Yeah, I just tried to revert the edit using HG, and since it was the first edit, I tagged the article. I did not choose what type of deletion tag. Sorry about any inconvenience. Montgomery&#39; 39 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not know that the page was just created, so I tried to revert the edit, and that was when HG "suggested" that I tag the page.Montgomery&#39; 39 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When i decided to tag the page for deletion using huggle, I was  not able to choose the tag.  Montgomery&#39; 39 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given up on getting a reasonable answer, so I'm not going to bother moving this to your talk page with the rest of the conversation. I'm sure you'll get your rollback rights restored when you have demonstrated some familiarity with the WP guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just please let me try one more time.  The "edit" that I was trying to undo was the creation of the page.  Of course, since I was unable to, Huggle suggested that i tag the page.  Montgomery&#39; 39 (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You said before "I did not know that the page was just created", and it had already been tagged for deletion by someone else before your actions. If you used Huggle to undo the last edit, it would have removed the existing speedy tag. Instead, you added another inappropriate speedy tag. And then you did it again. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion - it won't get your rollback restored and it seems to be going in circles. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh, so that's the problem. You see, I accidentally tagged the page twice using Huggle.  Sorry about the inconvenience.  Montgomery&#39; 39 (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Traceless Biometrics
Your reversion of my edits makes no sense at all.

1) The material you have reverted back in doesn't actually have anything to do with the particular technical concept descriped in the article - the material removed is general material about the legal, social and polical ramifications of biometrics in general and is covered in length in the many articles we have on the matter. It's pure WP:COATRACK in that article.

2) Your use of tools was rather lazy if you don't mind me saying - I've been around a bit and don't mind. But a new editor would have seen a) A message telling them they didn't leave an edit summary - which I did and b) a warning saying they committed vandalism. Vandalism is very specifically defined in policy and does not extent to good faith editors make judgements about what should or should not be included in articles.

This is actually an area I have expertise in and was going to read and clean-up - is it worth me bothering or are you just going to revert all my edits as vandalism without actually reading them? --193.146.209.5 (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your IP seems to be responsible for several incidents of vandalism, both before and after the content removal which I reverted. I'd suggest that you create a user account if you intend to continue with that particular article, rather than risk being reverted again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But that doesn't actually answer his question does it? What was wrong with *that* particular edit and why did you give a incorrect warning that stated that he didn't leave an edit summary when he clearly did. (I was reverted a number of times as well while trying to clean the article up). Did you read the actual edit or not? Because your non-answer suggests not. You know it's an abuse of tools to use them for non-vandalism edits and they can be removed on that basis? right? --129.11.76.215 (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about the warning I left for the now-blocked IP. Read it again carefully. Please stop trolling on my talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Watch video
Check out the video. Its really well done and does a side-by-side comparison of the current view of Gay Head Light and a 1975 view, showing the billboard in the foreground. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * YouTube videos are not considered acceptable references. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to self: indef blocked for repeated incivility. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Question from a spammer
I had a link to a diy pcb page added to the bottom of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printed_circuit_board and apparently it has been removed. I don't see any reason why it should of been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prxbl (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see this section on your talk page entitled "Link spam". Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk)

Really? Bimini? Really??
You've NEVER heard Bimini and Atlantis mentioned in the same sentence? Really? Where the fuck do you live? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with Bimini or Atlantis. For the third or fourth time, YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources. Also, please see WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to self: indef blocked for repeated incivility. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Guidance
I happen being an amateur out of the Madison area of Badger State. My editing is new. Please help me about editing Wikipedia and using sources. MDCCCXLVIII (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left you some helpful advice on your talk page already. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to self: indef blocked - sock of  Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Our Sandwich Battle
I'm not sock puppet. You don't see me going back and changing all the stuff you reverted for Roboscreech, just that one image because I disagree with it. I just don't buy your arguments for this one. Why can't you just continue discussing it on the talk page instead of trying to get my account deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkboxer (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be interested in editing constructively, which is perhaps why you view this as a "battle". I'm not interested in having arguments with people, particularly when I think they're disruptive sockpuppets. Please sign your posts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "battle" thing was referring to how I think this discussion is a bit silly. I don't actually want to fight you. Drunkboxer (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, but I didn't think that. Now please stop leaving comments on my talk page. Thanks for signing your post. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to self: blocked as sock/meatpuppet of  Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Eyesurgeon
Other Wikipedians have been reverting that user's edits. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Hovea (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding external link question
Dear editor, I've a question for adding external link. I found a good resource and I think this is a reference for the topic. What's factor to consider it appropiate to add in the wiki page?

Ronnyedwards (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:EL, which is linked in the notices already left on your talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Self esteem
You send me a warning twice for external link in 'self esteem'. How about this link.. http://nathanielbranden.wordpress.com/ I see this is just a personal blog where he just campaign his reputation. I compare the resource I found vs his own it's similar. Why do you let his link stay. Need your reason to understand the rule by this case. Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnyedwards (talk • contribs) 06:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

it was my fault. Sorry.
i am sorry. i did not aim to make advertisement for any web site. i just wanted to add articles. i will be more carefull. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr surgeon (talk • contribs) 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Loan
Iam glad to help. :)--SkyWalker (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Frank Gross
The content of the article is not to emphasize his personal business activities but rather to highlight his unusual contributions to the community as recognized by several service organizations and both the provincial and federal governments. I was only trying to add human interest information by stating what you pointed out.

Frank Gross has special recognition as a widely known philanthropist and only Chatham-Kent citizen in history to be honored with a provincial medal (for good citizenship). Such a medal and distinction are rare, especially for citizenship activities. --Paul144 (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the discussion at the AfD, rather than do this in two places at once. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese
I was just making fun of the idiot that posted it. It's probably gibberish he got from random sources. Not important enough to leave my comment there. I was also, to some extent, ridiculing the guy that raised the complaint. A case of "running to Mommy" over something that seems insignificant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thanks again for removing that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Swamilive (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to self: indef blocked for sockpuppetry and harassment Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Swamilive sock puppet
Further evidence of your stalker from back in July may be of interest. 24.109.207.40 makes a peculiar comment and then Swamilive shortly thereafter pipes up to agree with the anon's cryptic joke. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting

Cheers! Double Blue (Talk) 05:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They seem to be admitting the sockpuppetry at Suspected_sock_puppets/Swamilive, so adding it is unnecessary, but there is a pattern of harassment being revealed that may explain the odd contributions you provided. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See history of 216.XXX.XXX.XXX contributions to A-Frame. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, well found. Good to see he's been blocked not only for sock-puppetry but also harassment/disruption. I hope he gets the message to stop. Double Blue  (Talk) 19:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One can always hope. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's some trolling
why is there a talk to judy blume page if you cannot send a message to judy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachstar93 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep your trolling off my talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

your the troll

fine welcome to this encyclopedia - why do you do this? it is hurtful to call anyone a troll specially if they came with a question for judy blume - not a troll!!!

fine keep it then and get herpes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachstar93 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked you nicely. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to self: User:Rachstar93 indef blocked as vandalism only account Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Click house
This article has been listed for an AfD vote. Harr o 5 22:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing apart from a Music WikiProject tag. Harr o 5 12:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The link to Tambunan is valid.
The link shows Tambunan Village Resort Centre. Which is the only popular resort in tambunan. I'm promoting it through the link to Tambunan so that people who search for it knows how it feels on that place and they will interested to come to that place. Please reconsider on putting the Link to the gallery. Thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shally87 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The resort isn't even mentioned in the article. Please stop placing spam links to your blog. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My user page
Thank you for cleaning the vandalism off my user page.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  13:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Judy Blume
I am very sorry for not responding earlier but school was starting up and I was getting back into that schedule. It has been a few weeks since I tagged her but apparently she must have lived in the region otherwise i wouldn't have tagged her. If you have any other questions tell me and i'll look for you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Test Page?
It appears you created a page (‎Delicious carbuncle/spam stuff) that was supposed to be a user subpage, but accidentally got put into the mainspace. I was just giving you a heads up - I didn't want to tag it if there was something else going on. Cheers!  TN ‑ X - Man  13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I always forget the "User:" when making subpages. Sigh. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. It looks like Algebraist has redirected it. Cheers!  TN ‑ X - Man  13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Road to avonlea
why did you delete the guest stars section? thats all factual and non editorial---why the deletion please? Csheppard1 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted the guest stars section before it was unreferenced, trivial, and didn't really add anything for the reader that they wouldn't get in more detail from IMDB. If you feel strongly about it, you're welcome to put it back. I'll be trimming some more from that article when I get a chance. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My Favorite Wife
The revision you are talking about was made by: (cur) (last) 15:35, 13 September 2008 Rogerd (Talk | contribs) (5,641 bytes) (link Pedro de Cordoba) (undo) "Savolya 13 September 2008" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savolya (talk • contribs) 21:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. What?
Yeah, umm, what? My videos? What videos? I have no clue what you are talking about.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.186.171 (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See Special:Contributions/76.171.186.171. If you weren't the person using that IP in May 2007, don't worry about it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Swamilive
Does look like a duck to you? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's not a duck, it's someone doing a duck impression. I am a slightly surprised, though, because I thought the sockmaster duckmaster was starting to see how little satisfaction they could get from that game (see User talk:Edemehpecne). Oh well. Did they recreate Stan Jacobsen also, or is there another sock needing to be blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They created it. I didn't realise that the site they used as a reference was user editable. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't hold it against you, Cambridge. Odd that my IP was blocked until sometime tomorrow, but I'm editing this page now.  By the way, DelCarb...I'm thinking of using this username as my sincere Wikipedian username....free from all vandalism, etc.  Are you willing to let me try this out without immediately socking me?  I'd really appreciate it.  Stanley Jacobsen (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, after our discussion yesterday where I thought FisherQueen and I might have been getting through to you, you went on a little vandalism spree with ? Now you're here gloating about avoiding your block and you're asking me not to report this sock? I have a hard time believing your sincerity, but it's a moot point. If you want to edit here you'll need to ask for an unblock on your main account and explain why you should be unblocked. Then it's for an admin to decide, not me. Sorry, dude, I thought this one over, but I really can't help you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Image status questions
appears to be past its expiration date. I think all images from User:Mmmovie are in the same situation with regard to their "public domain" but copyrighted claims, but only some of them are obviously copyright violations, and not of all of those are being used in articles. I don't think I will ever understand image permissions on Wikipedia. Can you take a look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted that one. I don't have time to go through the other ones right now.
 * The main available solutions for image problems are:
 * If it's a copyvio from a known website,
 * If there is no source, {{subst:nsd}}
 * If there is a source but no license, {{subst:nld}}
 * If there is a "by permission" or a non-commercial license, db-i3
 * If there is a free license tag but it seems likely that the given source has not released the image under that license, {{subst:npd}}
 * If there is a free license tag that is otherwise implausible, PUI
 * If there is a non-free license tag and no rationale, {{subst:nrd}}
 * If there is a non-free license tag and a rationale but the image is replaceable, {{subst:rfu}}
 * If there is a non-free license tag and a rationale, but the rationale is insufficient or does not comply with WP:NFURG,
 * I think that covers everything. Good luck :) Stifle (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think. What was the tag on the just-deleted one? I recall it got changed at least once. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think. What was the tag on the just-deleted one? I recall it got changed at least once. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Originally PD-release; changed to non-free television screenshot. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Leavened vs. Unleavenved
Please see discussion here.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 22:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Would like a response
Dear Friend,

Everyone should be able to contribute to Wikipedia.

The problem comes when people 'skew' things to suit some agenda.

However, not everyone is a part of that agenda and by issuing 'COI' tags, when they are not COIs, can hurt an individual exposed to the public.

It's great to be incognito and change people's bios, but I think upon reflection there's something wrong with being the 'sole' source of someone's bio and if someone adds or deletes, then they have to be accountable to someone 'in charge' of the bio. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, is it? I'm not entirely certain of that purpose either.

I'm not trying to get anyone worked up or mad, I'm just trying to be honest with you and share my opinions. I respect you and see your a great editor.

If another person purposefully 'skews' his point of view by including only negative reviews of the film in question, for instance, how is that fair and democratic in the spirit of Wikipedia?

Why someone is 'obsessed' with another person's biography is puzzling, but again, I'm trying to find answers without causing contempt or animosity among the various editors.

You seem extremely intelligent and I have a great deal of respect for you.

If there's something I can do to resolve the situation, please let me know.

Warmest regards,

Pastor Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by PastorGreg (talk • contribs) 06:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't add any reviews, either positive or negative, to the article. Thank you for your very kind words about me, which, coming from someone on the internet who has never met nor interacted with me before, obviously mean a great deal to me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Tim Chey references: Thanks Carbuncle! I think it was my mistake that there were no references, and I appreciate your cleaning up after me. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Drmies. The activity around Tim Chey finally made me look closely enough at it to decide that it wasn't worth keeping and sent it to AFD. Thanks for trimming those articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeztheham is NOT a Swamilive sock
Hi Delicious carbuncle. I do like to read up on your recent activity, even if I don't edit pages that you're involved in. But, I couldn't help notice that you added Jeztheham to a subsection involving me on the AIV page (or whatever it's called). I know it must be very hard for you to take anything I say seriously at this point, but I want you to know that this user has nothing to do with me. I don't know how to do this myself, but I'm sure that if you checked that user's IP it would not correspond to the range of IPs I typically use. I wouldn't even bother bringing this up under any normal circumstances, but you've recently tried to get a few users blocked under the assumption that they are socks of mine. I don't think this is fair to the users in question. If Jeztheham is stalking you, or you perceive him/her to be doing so, then I'm sorry you have to go through that. But, to use the "Swamilive sockpuppet" blanket excuse to get rid of someone completely random seems to be a bit of a cop-out to me. And, it's definitely not fair to the actual user. If it would satisfy you, then request a checkuser on him or something. You will find that Jeztheham is likely nowhere near me. I'm mainly concerned about how you might use the Swamilive name in a generalized way to get editors you disagree with blocked. It's not at all fair to use my name as a means to relieve yourself of ANY editor. I might be your most prominent vandal, but that doesn't mean I'm your only one. Frankly, you have a history of making some pretty controversial and in-your-face edits and reverts. It wouldn't surprise me if other people decided to get on your case about it. You DO ask for it sometimes. PalmofYourhand (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to get anyone blocked unfairly, but when they show up in your checkuser results or start wikistalking me, you can see why I might assume that they are you? Anyway, I've passed along your message. Next time, just let the blocking admin know directly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For real
DelCarb...I am really curious why you believe blocking sock after sock after sock after sock after sock will get me off Wikipedia. I've obviously found ways around the blocking measures, as we've discussed countless times before. Wikipedia is one of the top ten visited sites on the Internet. You can't possibly expect to keep it free of vandalism. Even if all the admins and bots combined forces, they'd still be far overwhelmed with vandals. I understand your efforts to keep the community clean, I really do. But, Wikipedia was doomed from the moment Jimbo Wales thought of it. The nature of the site makes it uncontrollable. You can block my sockpuppets until the cows come home, but it won't make a difference. Even if I give up at some point, you've got hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other vandals to take care of. I say, stop wasting your time with me specifically, because even if you get rid of me and all my socks, Wikipedia will continue to be a suburban underpass. Repaint it all you want, but the next morning you'll find that it's been tagged anew. Let me have my one account (which I will not use as a vandal account), and you'll be rid of me. I'm only asking for one account that you don't interfere with. Please understand that I'm taking the realist perspective when I write this. If we work together, there will be far less grief for both of us. I, for one, would like to see that. FrameSplit (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One last time: request an unblock on the account of your choosing. Or create an account, stop trolling me, follow the rules, and no one will notice or care. It's really up to you how this plays out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. Yes, Jimbo thought of it.  Not of the concept of a wiki in general, but of Wikipedia in general.  LOL FrameSplit (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap. Of course, other people had had the idea; but it was Jimmy's fantastic foresight actually to invest in it. For this the world owes him a considerable debt. The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on.
 * ...Yep, that quote does confirm what I said. You forgot to sign. 72.35.4.220 (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I chose that quote because it gives Jimmy Wales credit where it is due. You seem to have missed the "other people had had the idea" part, or you're just trolling. Take a look at Interpedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, tell me about your connection with Mark Bellinghaus. 72.35.4.220 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's all in my talk page history. Help yourself. Stop trolling here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 72.35.4.220 (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)