User talk:DrDelos

All I'm asking is for the source to be cited. Use tags so that it is properly cited. For information on this, see WP:CITET. It would also help if the specific audio file where they discuss this is mentioned, as there are about 10 hours of audio on the page mentioned by SignOfTheTimes on the talk pages. Thanks. Gravee 17:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your 'WP:CITET' is your boy scout manual. If the boy scout manual says to start a fire by rubbing two sticks together, only a dope would rub two sticks together if he/she had a BIC lighter in their pocket. This is not an Earth changing matter and it is not the kind of thing worthy of a press release or newspaper story. They are engaged, they have shown that they are in numerous photographs all over the net and declared that they are engaged in 'official' declarations on their OWN personal web pages and public MySpace pages as well as on Chantal's talk show. Further verification is not called for - this is not a life or death issue, except to delusional fanatics. Delusional personalities will continue to find fault with any and all 'proof' offered. DrDelos 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol. I'm not saying that it isn't true.  But if it is, and you wish it to be on wikipedia, then you must follow wikipedia's policy.  Just like you have to follow the laws of physics when creating a fire, you can't do so with just water and a wish. Gravee 17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

". . . then you must follow wikipedia's policy" No. There are hundreds of thousands of 'things' described on Wikipedia pages that are *not* verified in any conceivable way, yet they remain. Hundreds of thousands of statements that are far more important than an engagement notice between two rock band singers.

The only statement that has a reference on James' page is the drinking urine claim. Not one other assertion made in that article is verified or has requests for citation EXCEPT the engagement notice. If the engagement was NOT true, both James and Chantal would be clamoring to have it removed. Instead, they have offered more upon more evidence that the claim is true. On the other side, I count 3, maybe 4 'fans' with no contact with any members of either of the bands and an obstinate refusal to take any affirmative steps to actually determine the truth. As long as you keep vandalizing the pages, I will keep correcting them. If you want to learn the truth, several of us have told you how.DrDelos 22:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Chantal Claret & Little --Neon white (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Jimmy Urine
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources.

Myspace is not considered a reliable source, neither is a dead link. Pleas do not remove reference section templates from this article. --Neon white 17:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Neon white 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I know Chantal. I moderate her Morningwood forum. I know for a fact that she is engaged to James. SHE asked ME to stay on top of her Wikipedia article because it was being vandalized over and over with specific problems concerning the engagement reference. I have been doing that. It was the complaints about the official status of the engagement that caused her to make postings and blog entries on her board, MySpace and elsewhere to state for the record that she IS engaged to James. James did the same thing. The matter is settled. Go back and read the entire history of the Chantal Claret article with particular attention to the engagement issue. Anybody can claim that any reference given here is questionable. Example: IMDB lists Chantal Claret as being married to James. She is not. If somebody edited her article here to say she was married and used the IMDB as a reference, they would STILL be wrong. Sources and references can always make mistakes. The nature of Wikipedia tends to correct those mistakes over time. When hundreds of people who know the subject or have personal knowledge of a fact in an article, it is only a matter of time before the article is edited to include the fact. If, over time, that fact is incorrect, somebody else will fix it. Eventually the article is boiled down to the true facts. That boiling down process finally got to the bottom of the engagement reference. Go back and look at how long this article has essentially stayed unchanged. Chantal and James both peruse their listings and correct errors that creep in.

Since it appears that making drastic edits here on Wikipedai is your hobby, I suggest that you find some topic of more importance than bios of two musicians to hack up. There are millions of entries that you haven't ever even seen. Just think of all the edits that lie before you without anyone who will repair your slash and burn modifications over and over.

DrDelos 22:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did about 32 seconds worth of research and found a perfect example for you. Captain & Tennille It is a rather substantial biography with virtually NO sources or references. When you bring that bio up to snuff, come on back to Chantal's and even James' bios. There really is no justification at all to destroy the bios of relatively unknown artists like Chantal and James for lack of references (that you approve of) when there are articles like the Captain & Tennille example about extremely famous people which has practically no source or reference material.

DrDelos 00:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If an article is being excessively vandalized you can request protection at WP:Request for page protection. Wikipedia requires reliable and verifiable sources for all articles, especially those about living persons. It is not based on personal opinions or what people might think they know. Myspace pages and forums are not considered reliable as they are self-published and there is no guarantee to their accuracy. Ideally a third party source is the best source for article about people. The IMDB would likely be acceptable as a reliable source, if no other source can be found that is contrary to their info then, as far as wikipedia is concerned, that is the verfiable fact. If there is ambiguity over the fact then the best action is to either leave it out entirely or to explain the ambiguity. The state of any other article has no relevance to the state of this article, i am not personally responsible for all wikipedia content being up to standards. If you feel that particular article needs improving then tag it 'unreferenced'. If you are to be believed and have a personal relationship with any subject of this article then I suggest you read the guidelines on a conflict of interest. --Neon white 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So Wikipedia ". . . requires reliable and verifiable sources for all articles"??? That is absolute bull and I just showed you a perfect example above. Why won't you try to delete everything in the Captain & Tennille article that isn't referenced? You won't because you are acting like a typical schoolyard bully. ie. You pick on the less popular and/or smaller kids so you won't be exposed as a bluffing bluster. You are trying to use the "rules" here to fight against common sense. Read 'The Death of Common Sense' to understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. References must be used with COMMON SENSE. I just showed that by means of the IMDB entry for Chantal. That precious reference is WRONG. Quit bullying this article. There are MILLIONS of others here that you can hack up and fall back on the "rules" to help you. DrDelos 05:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Verifiability has always been a core policy on wikipedia whether you like it or not. I have nothing to do with the Captain & Tennille article, it has no relevence here as i said i am not responsible for all wikipedia content, if you want it looked at then tag it and someone will get round to it. Common sense has nothing to do with this. Any living person needs to be well sourced. There is no such thing as right or wrong on wikipedia only objective verfiability. --Neon white (talk) 17:26, 5 December

2007 (UTC)

Please read 'The Death of Common Sense'. You just exposed precisely what the problem here is. "There is no such thing as right or wrong on wikipedia only objective verfiability" That is the most moronic statement that I have ever read on Wikipedia. There IS right and wrong. The IMDB says Chantal and James are married - they are NOT married the IMDB is WRONG - utterly and entirely wrong. BUT somebody with your complete lack of understanding WHY rules exist here could and would use IMDB to assert that Chantal and James WERE amrried. You would be WRONG but verifiable. Does that knock a little cognitive dissonance into your teeny tiny little world? You are vandalizing the page by deleting what you delete. You are just being a thug. Take a look at the article again. Is there a reference for her name? No. And Chantal Claret is a STAGE name - but you leave that part. You seem to think you can just delete anything willy nilly, but you can't wihtout being a thug and a vandal. You can ask for referemces for CONTROVERSIAL statements, and delete them if those are not furnished, but NOT the bulk of the entire article. You clearly don't understand the 'rule' you are claiming to use and you clearly don't understand WHY the rule exists. Try to learn both. DrDelos (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What verifiable sources says is what goes on wikipedia not what you think, not what anyone else thinks. Your personal attacks and adding of unsourced speculation will no longer be tolerated. Original research can and will be removed and as the article largely consists of nothing but unsourced speculation then it will be removed according to the guidelines. You have made no attempt to find any proper citations for this article or discuss it in a civil way, merely added unsourced info and citations that dont exist. You cannot use myspace as a reliable source. --Neon white (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Neon white (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what verifiable sources are as I was a Nexialist for 5 years. I have not posted ANY "original research", I just replace what you chop out. Go back through the history and you will see that. You have been too lazy from the very beginning of your involvement on this article to look at the history. The engagement business was settled by consensus back in June when all the appropriate links were live. Could you please explain to me, without any more bulling or threats, exactly why this article should be treated any differently than the vast vast majority of similar articles on Wikipedia? I suspect you can't and won't because the only real difference is the involvement of your ego. You wouldn't try your vindictive tactics anyplace else, and you shouldn't continue to use them here. And BTW, I am not disruting Wikipedia, you are by doing thoughtless hatchet jobs of editing that are calculated to cause trouble. Let anyone look back at what you've done here or on the Morningwood article or on the Little Jimme Urine articles and they'll see who is being disruptive and the deliberate pattern you are following. DrDelos (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything that is not cited is OR and can be removed. All articles on wikipedia follow the same plicy on verifiablity and original research no-one is suggesting they shouldn't. --Neon white (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chantal Claret
An article that you have been involved in editing, Chantal Claret, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. --Neon white (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. --Neon white (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to help...
...is on my talk page. *Cremepuff 222*  21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

SSP case
Your input is requested here: Suspected_sock_puppets. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My closing comment at the case page...

While it is possible these two are socks, I am more inclined to think this is a case of two people interested in the same article. So I cannot block based on WP:SOCK at this time. This seems to me more of a case of content dispute and I urge the parties to use the Dispute resolution system. Also of concern are the claims by DrDelos and Signofthetimes that they know the subject (by itself not an issue) but are also acting on her behalf and at her request. Subjects of articles are not allowed to dictate article content. See WP:BLP. Also, user accounts are limited to one per person; they should not be used by more than one person and can not be used by an organization. Please heed. I'm posting this to DrDelos and Signofthetimes's user talk pages too. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 15:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)