User talk:UnicornSherbert

Speedy deletion nomination of David Skaith


A tag has been placed on David Skaith requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 15:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I see it has been deleted. It needs expansion before returning to main space. If no expansion appears then would move to delete the draft. UnicornSherbert (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mayor of Devon and Torbay


The article Mayor of Devon and Torbay has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "There will be no Mayor of Devon and Torbay. Such a position has not been proposed and is not a part of the final joint proposal submitted by the constituent councils."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.


 * My apologies, I assumed it would be like every other CCA. However, it appears that the the CCA will be in an executive of rotating chair: see paragraph 17 of the Devon and Torbay Devolution Deal. It may therefore be best to simply rename the article as "chair" in accordance with that paragraph. UnicornSherbert (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise! I figured as much, it's unusual for a CCA/CA not to have a directly elected mayor so no worries (mainly because Torbay had a bad experience with its mayoralty and scrapped it a few years ago so understandably are reluctant to have another one). On giving it a second thought I agree with your suggestion on renaming the article to "Chair of Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority" or perhaps more broadly to encompass the entire executive to something like "Devon and Torbay Executive" depending on how much can be written about the Chair alone. Just looking back to West Midlands Combined Authority when they operated in the same way without a mayor before but it seems a separate article for the chair/executive didn't exist for them, but I believe there should be one for Devon and Torbay in principle. LocalTrainTales (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe open a discussion? Similar arrangements of executive have their sole chair article. UnicornSherbert (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think opening a discussion is necessary at this early stage. As you've rightly said there are already articles in existence solely about the chair for similar bodies, and I was just putting that Executive-focus idea out there. I support your proposal to rename it to focus on the Chair of the DTCCA Executive so we can see how the article develops, and if there's any objections down the line from other people about scope then a discussion can always be opened later for expansion. LocalTrainTales (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mayor of Devon and Torbay


A tag has been placed on Mayor of Devon and Torbay requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOCK
I believe you are the indeffed user. Care to respond? DeCausa (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who that is. UnicornSherbert (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Have you ever had a Wikipedia account other than ? DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No. I started editing because my friend thought I would be good at it. UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Does "your friend" edit, or has in the past edited, Wikipedia? DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my response to the investigation. UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you will provide no answer to that question. Fair enough. You must admit it's curious that you have edited so many of the articles that TheBishopAndHolyPrince edited or created. In their short, dysfunctional and peculiar time with Wikipedia they got so many things wrong. You edited, I think, a dozen of the articles they created. Most of these, for instance, you were only an edit or two away from their last efforts eg . Didn't you feel the need to correct their obvious incompetence? DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said in my response, others also edited those pages. Are they also being reported? I do not propose to personally attack another user or former user, and I do not consider it is appropriate to do so. If a user has got certain edits wrong then they can be corrected by other users. Other than that, I refer you again to my response to the investigation. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's surely not a personal attack. We're discussing reverting or amending incompetent dysfunctional edits of a user that was indeffed because they were just creating valueless disruption for Wikipedia. Because of the huge overlap between your and their editing you must have surely seen that. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not responsible, and I cannot be held responsible, for someone else's actions. I additionally note that you did not answer my question whether you will report the other users who have edited the articles. I think all that needs to be said has been said. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any other users with the same degree of overlap as you. Would you care to name them? Whether it's "someone else's actions" is to be seen. The point I was making was different. TheBishopAndHolyPrince was ejected from Wikipedia because of their dysfunctional and disruptive incompetence. Because of your very notable overlap with their editing I'd like to understand how you have responded to their incompetence on the 65 articles you both edited - a substantial proportion of which have very little activity from other editors. DeCausa (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not propose to have an argument over a Wikipedia account, I far respect my dignity better than that and have far better things to do with my time. I would hope you do too, given it says you are a lawyer. I have said everything I need to and I will not respond to you any further as it appears you are seeking to unduly drag this out, in a campaign of harassment by the vexatious report but then coming to my talk page with abusive messages, when it is not needed. UnicornSherbert (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Abusive messages"? Are you perhaps taking my references to TheBishopAndHolyPrince's disruption, incompetence and dysfunction a little too personally given that you say you have no connection with them? I'm not aware that I've said anything about you in this thread that can be called "abusive". DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the messages are abusive against me or another user or former user. Wikipedia is not a battleground to abuse users. You came to my talk page with a hostile attitude believing under false pretences you own the entire page and I somehow owed you an explanation when frankly I do not. Out of courtesy to Wikipedia I set the record straight. I need not explain myself further to you and you are to cease immediately of any contact. Any further messages after the request to cease will be considered further harassment and will not receive a response. UnicornSherbert (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/TheBishopAndHolyPrince. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Girth Summit  (blether) 12:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)