User talk:Delicious carbuncle

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

WP:VILLAGE

Where did you get my first name? You don't appear to be an administrator (or else I'd be trying to get you desysopped), so where are you getting it from? Have the "cheerleader vandals" been spreading it around in another one of those annoying chain letters? Are you one of those cheerleader vandals? Are you looking me up on some social networking site? Haven't you heard of WP:OUTING? I have never posted my name here to my knowledge as this place gets rather controversial at times, and it's none of these malicious users' business who I am; an approximation should suffice. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know your first name. Or your last name. That should probably answer the rest of your somewhat odd questions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "DAVID EATS POOP LOL PORT CHARLOTTE PIRATES SUCK," basically saying what if this happened. It would just be too much of an coincidence for that to have been just a random name you threw in there. There's only been two other people on here to be able to figure out my real life name, both being User:LBHS Cheerleader vandals, one being recent, and one being quite a while back, both being oversighted. Now I have to wonder if you're a sockpuppet of the Cricket Communications IP LBHS meatpuppet because of your views on abuse reports, wiki vandalism not being a problem compared to other forms of abuse, and of course, because you know my name. I almost feel inclined to take this to WP:SSP, but I'd like to get a statement from you first. Are you a puppet master? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already left this message on your talk page, but I'm going to repeat it here for the benefit of my surprisingly large number of talk page watchers: I do not know your name. I choose a name at random for an example of simple vandalism in our discussion. I gather the name happens to be your actual first name. It is a very common male name in North America and the UK. You didn't comment on whether or not you also EAT POOP, so I'll assume that part wasn't as coincidentally accurate. Frankly, your reaction to this makes you seem a little unhinged, but feel free to ask for oversight and start an SPI case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam steps in

My sincere apologies for deleting something from your talk page, DC, but if PCHS-NJROTC is serious about oversighting, the material should be removed from the page beofre intervening edits are made. I'll explain more in a sec, just wanted to get this done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighting removes an entire version, so if more people wrote to your talk page before an oversighter showed up, their edits would have to be removed as well. You've each read each others comments, so I hope breaking the taboo of deleting comments from someone else's talk page isn't too big a deal. If it is, please let me know before re-adding them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since PCHS-NJROTC doesn't seem to be pursuing oversight, I'm going to restore the comments so that I can respond here. This is me letting you know. I understand why you did what you did and I am ok with it, but I suggest that it was not your action to take, especially considering the particulars here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave that up to you and him; if he's not going to pursue oversighting, then I've no particular standing here, and my request that you talk to me first is null and void. But I really recommend at least not re-adding the comment in all caps back (you could easily make it "MARK" and "CENTRAL HIGH RANGERS" or something), now that you know it bothers him. I would anticipate there are many people here who would consider restoring those comments disruptive, or outing, or something, whether he pursues oversighting or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the correct response at this point is for me to ask how you knew my name was MARK, accuse you of "outing" me, ask if you are the sockpuppet of someone, threaten to start an SPI case, and make cryptic references to implausible chain letters. And of course ask an oversighter to permanently remove your innocent comment. I'm sorry that PCHS-NJROTC is upset by this episode, but they do seem to be easily upset so I'm sure it happens a lot. My intention was only to restore the comments here so that I can respond, but because of your message I'm thinking of restoring all of them so that we can get this out in the open and fully resolved. Incidentally, what "standing" did you think you had here at all? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if your name isn't Mark, that would be dishonest. If it is Mark, then it would be an unproductive overreaction; you really should just quietly request oversight. Hopefully, in that case, someone would come along and try to help guide you through how to do that, if that's what you chose to do. I've explained my actions, and given my opinion, FWIW. Do what you think best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "an unproductive overreaction" is a fair way to characterize PCHS-NJROTC's actions in this, especially after I clearly stated that I did not know their name and could not have deliberately outed them. Thank you for attempting to guide them through this, but your however well-intentioned you were, your actions probably should have stopped there. You took it upon yourself to remove my comments and comments made by others on my talk page. I was ok to let that slide but then you claimed to have some sort of "standing" in this matter. Your word - what did you mean by it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps clarify things, then in my comment above, replace "...then I've no particular standing here, and my..." with "...then, since I've no particular standing here, my...". My intent was to emphasize that I'm in no particular position to tell you what to do. Last night, I asked you to talk to me first because I wanted the opportunity to explain once more why restoring comments that were potentially going to be oversighted was a big deal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cricket Communications LBHS Meatpuppet" puts his dos centavos in

First, let me say that I am not a member of any "cheerleader cabal" out to get Mr.NJROTC... I doubt there really is any conspiracy other than in his little self-important mind. Most of the people who he thinks are cheerleaders out to get him were probably small-time vandals who were caught in Mr. NJROTC's little witch hunt to eradicate any form of evil from wikipedia. Ironically, he is the sort of editor who, by his actions, turns small-time vandals into "WoW's" or "Mr. Pelican Sh*t's" For him, it's all about his quest to become an admin, because PCHS-NJROTC is all about power. That's why he spends all his time on little crusades instead of trying to build an encyclopedia. Look through his user contributions- he has contributed almost nothing to article space, probably because he lacks the expertise in any area to contribute. But what he lacks in cerebral aptitude, he makes up for in zeal by being an Elmer Gantry-like character. Ironically, his chanches of a successful RFA are about as likely as him waking up one morning to six inches of snow outside his Charlotte County double wide trailer. And that's a good thing because as an admin, he'd be the biggest wiki-embarassment since User:Essjay. It is really sad that he has to attempt to discredit a user who actually has contributed to wikiepedia in every way like User:Delicious carbuncle (compare his contributions to User:PCHS-NJROTC and see what a difference there is between the two), in order to look like some sort of friggin' martyr. I actually used to be very active user to wikipedia until this place got taken over by jerks like PCHS-NJROTC. 69.171.160.241 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing your perspective on this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, play nice, don't scold Mr. Cricket for a personal attack... Notice that I did not jump in immediately to get you range blocked or tagged as a sockpuppet, I merely asked you if you are indeed a sockpuppet/meatpuppet at first, and then when you vandalized Lemon Bay High School, you ended up either in the wrong place at the wrong time, or you were caught red handed. Also, I'm not trying to discredit DC, I just found it unusual that he wrote my real life name (apparently in coincidence, and I'm believeing him on this one because it's AGF). I did not persue any kind of action against DC; I did not request sockpuppet investigation or post anything at AN/I. Your claim that it's all about adminship is wrong; I could honestly care less about adminship at this point. What is so special about adminship? It would be neat, but it's not my whole entire world. I will run for RfA again when I feel I am ready. What you're doing is abuse, and Cricket you should pray that I don't have to seriously go to the cops to get your service cut; I would rather it be handled informally outside of the legal system, but if you continue to be disruptive, I'm going to have to do something. DC, note that I'm not the only one that Cricket is harassing. He's just taking advantage of the situation. You shouldn't associate yourself with the troll. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bring this dispute here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it were that simple. Sadly, people are ignoring our requests not to be contacted on our talk pages. It's a nasty thing when one goes out like a super hero to get someone in trouble on Wiki, believe me; I learned that when I first got here which is why I personally try to avoid creating these kind of messes. "Thanks for providing your perspective on this" towards a blatant troll and then you go on a man hunt after an established user who only tries to help the project? Do you even know what that IP person has been doing? He called another user a "flaming homosexual," and he called me an "rotc dork." Did you completely miss the personal attack nature of his comments, basically calling me "trailor trash?" (and no, I do not live in a trailor or anything that resembles a trailor, nor am I a welfare bum, free lunch person, etc). Is that the kind of person you want to go on man hunts on behalf? Would you have even gotten involved in the LBHS case if it weren't for Mr. Cricket? Don't lie to me now. This person is probably banned for some pretty nasty issues just based on his modus operandi as an IP, and you're basically unintentionally, yet effectively meatpuppeting on his behalf. He's taking advantage of you, and probably laughing at us both. Seriously, if you think I've ever overstepped with any of the trolls I've ever dealt with, look in the mirror. You, if anybody, my fellow Wikipedian who I realise thinks you're doing the right thing, are being a "martyr" as Mr. Cricket accuses me of being. I'm trying to keep my cool here so we don't both get blocked, banned from contacting each other, and/or banned from AN/I, you should really try it yourself. Scandal related issues aside, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thread I started at ANI relates to your actions, not my actions, or our interactions. You seem to have the mistaken impression that I am angry with you or pursuing this on behalf of someone else. Both of those assumptions are wrong. I'm not interested in your disputes with IPs. If you can't leave brief, sensible messages here, I will just delete them without reading them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done arguing

Hello Delicious carbuncle, User:PCHS-NJROTC has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cut that out.

IF you're going to play "resurrect the zombie thread" at ANI, at least take it out of the archive, or mention that it's not archived. It looks like really bad form to bring a thread back like that, not to mention editwarring with other people. SirFozzie (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did take it out of the archive, but I always enjoy an unnecessary admonishment. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at the unresolved thread and offer an opinion? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are the same as others in that discussion, yes, he got it wrong. However, he apologized, promised not to do it again, and I think it should die there. SirFozzie (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading of that discussion seems to assume things that aren't present. It may be helpful if you could make at least a brief statement (at ANI, not here) which clearly says that this action was wrong. I'm not looking anyone to be punished but I do believe that PCHS-NJROTC should stay away from vandal-hunting and contacting ISPs since they seem to lack the critical reasoning skills and maturity required. For PCHS-NJROTC's sake, I'd like to see the issue closed, but I'm not willing just to let this slide into the archive without actually directly addressing the issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DC, what I want is simple; both of us to come out of this with our reputations here unharmed where harm will benefit no one. The more this continues, the more people look down upon both of us in my opinion; people are leaving negative feedback for both of us as this continues. I see nothing to be gained from the persistance of this thread. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. You have new messages at Sephiroth storm's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. You have new messages at Sephiroth storm's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your obsession on getting me topic banned

No, we did not ever actually decided on an end action; it seems consensus is WP:AGF. Being a bit too bold where discussion should have taken place first isn't always the best idea, but neither is assuming bad faith. I'm not saying that LBHSC was not in fact de facto banned, nor am I saying that she shouldn't have, but I am saying that it was a mistake to try to disassociate LBHSC from Bobabobabo without first discussing. I've admitted to being "wrong" in that particular incident (just the failure to discuss, not anything else to do with the LBHSC case); now it's time for you, DC, to admit to being wrong for assuming bad faith, refusing to accept peaceful resolution, and essentially bullying me around because you disagree with some of my actions. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't something that we can negotiate between ourselves. I believe you dissembled during our original discussion about this and during the ANI discussion. You are still unwilling to take responsibility for your actions. I wouldn't expect you to understand why I am calling for a topic ban, but please understand that this is not a personal matter. It would probably be best if you simply stopped posting on my talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You two need to disengage from one another. This endless ANI drama is not productive. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the diffs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its time to let this drop...really. You've yet to find another editor who agrees with your position and you've had quite a few outside editors weigh in; its very unlikely that further discussion or repetition of the same points is going to change that. I understand that you feel a concern here, but at some point you have to step back, notice that no one else is concerned, shrug and move on. Shell ^babelfish 04:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will shrug and move on at some point, but I'm not at that point yet. I'm sure there are plenty of editors who would agree with my position if they actually took the time to look at it. Of course, it's difficult if non-admin editors like Ryulong and Neutralhomer archive discussions before many people have a chance to see them. The earlier fiasco of a discussion could have been very brief and to the point if an admin or two had stepped in to say something as profoundly difficult as "editors should not unilaterally declare other editors to be banned", but for reasons which are very puzzling to me, no one did. Sir Fozzie siad here on my talk page "My thoughts are the same as others in that discussion, yes, he got it wrong" so I don't know why you think no one agreed with my position. Sir Fozzie declined my suggestion to post that at ANI. Any idea why, Shell? Do me a favour, read this diff and tell me the ban discussion is inappropriate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the part where Sir Fozzie also said "it should die there". The editor is not going to be sanctioned over this incident, there is absolutely no consensus even heading in that direction. Your continued re-opening of the threads and push for some sanctions is getting disruptive. Shell ^babelfish 01:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

While your opinion is most entertaining, it doesn't sway me in the least. You are looking for drama, Ryulong closed and archived your "yanked from Archives" thread and you start a new one. Give it up, Dude. Please don't post on my talk page anymore and leave the thread archived. If an admin disagrees with me, they will move it back. DO NOT EDIT WAR. Thank you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this as clear as I can. If you unarchive the "ban" discussion for User:PCHS-NJROTC, I will bring harrassment and disruption charges against you via ANI. You are disrupting the ANI process and harrassing User:PCHS-NJROTC. If you start any thread on AN, ANI or any board, I will also bring those charges of harrassment and disruption against you via ANI. You have been warned by several editors and many admin that your discussions are going nowhere and to stop. The next thing that happens is you going before ANI and a potential block for yourself, not User:PCHS-NJROTC. STOP NOW. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sorry I wasn't around to undo your premature archiving of that thread. I suspect that some of the more level-headed editors were on holiday and so neither saw nor participated in the discussion for that reason. I will be opening a new discussion on the issue shortly, so if you intend to disrupt that discussion as well, why don't you just go ahead and file whatever it is you are threatening to file now. I will start the new ban discussion after you are blocked yet again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You start it, I will archive it. Then I will open my request to see you banned for harrassment and continous and blatant disruption. Your previous attempts have failed, this one will fail. Even without me doing a damned thing, you are likely to get blocked for trying the community's patience. So, why not give up while you are ahead, eh? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm likely to get blocked without you doing anything, why is it so important to you to disrupt discussions that I start? Just so I'm clear on this - you are saying that you intend to archive any thread I start at AN or ANI or just ones about PCHS-NJROTC? What if I start an unrelated thread? Or one about you and the threats you are making here? Although it won't change my actions, I'd like to know which it is just out of curiosity. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not any thread, just ones about PCHS-NJROTC. Now, if PCHS-NJROTC says something really rude and crude to you, then I could understand your posting a thread. But for the same thing over and over and over and over when people have told you to let it go, even after reading the "evidence" you say proves your point, that is what upsets me. That is what I consider disruptive and harrassment. Stop that behavior and I go away. That is all I ask. Leave PCHS-NJROTC alone and I will leave you alone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't negotiate with terrorists. I think it would be best if you stop posting threats here. Please don't post here again, except to alert me to discussions you start about me on AN or ANI. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ask for my reponse, then tell me to go away. Odd. When you post your new little thread, I will post mine. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You gave your response, now please go away. And stay away. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was really only asking to be polite. I think you recall what happened the last time you couldn't stop posting here. Take the hint. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle, it looks like NeutralHomer will agree to avoid your talk page if you'll agree to avoid his (which I'm guessing won't be too difficult). Would that be all right with you? Shell ^babelfish 06:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I am a rational and intelligent adult, despite the impression you may get from the discussions that happen here. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks for the quick response. Shell ^babelfish 07:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Shell, take a look at the history of my talk page from September of this year. This isn't the first time Neutralhomer has had difficulty disengaging. They ended up being blocked for 3RR and declaring themselves "retired", so it didn't go anywhere at that time, but Neutralhomer clearly has an issue with me that is not related to PCHS-NJROTC. Just so you are clear on what is going on here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I recall the earlier discussions (some ended up on ANI, right?). In any case, hopefully this is a chance for disengagement. Shell ^babelfish 08:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong offers some helpful life coaching

There is a point where normal people would stop and move on. I really doubt that anything useful to either side will come about from the dispute. Be the better man and just find something to do that is not suggest that PCHS-NJROTC be banned.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't for you to decide what the result of discussion will be. Leave it alone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an outside observer who is seeing that nothing good will come out of stretching this shit out any longer.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then stick to observing. You've offered your advice, suggested that I'm not "normal", and told me to be a better "man" - now move along and let things go wherever they go. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let it rest D.c. It's time to move forward. There's plenty of other work that needs to be done, and I respect that you've taken on many sticky problems and gotten problems addressed. Don't get overly caught up in one dispute. But this is just my perspective, so feel free to disregard. Happy New Year Delicious carbuncle. I hope it's a great one for you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CofM, and the same to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

I e-mailed you. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like you don't care. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that I don't care, but what am I going to do about it? People are already really really touchy about my involvement with a related editor and it has made me the focus of an obsessive editor with a grudge against me, so I think I'll just let this one work itself out in the fullness of time. Thanks for the email, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. No problem. I only caught enough of the cheerleader user to find out that they were a sock. I didn't realise you were deeply involved in it. My apologies. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Delicious carbuncle/PCHS-NJROTC ban redux

User:Delicious carbuncle/PCHS-NJROTC ban redux, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Delicious carbuncle/PCHS-NJROTC ban redux and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Delicious carbuncle/PCHS-NJROTC ban redux during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Not trying to rehash this or propose any sanctions, just trying to keep this settled. Consensus is that we should both disengage. Happy New Year. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply at the MfD, but you are mistaken if you think this is in any way settled. Happy Near Year to you, too, and please stop posting on my talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle, please explain (here or in the MfD) why you created this page. The edit summary is not helpful in this regard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything on that page that is in any way improper, offensive, or against policy, so I don't feel that I need to explain myself -- and I resent being asked to explain myself under these circumstances -- but I will do so at the MfD. The edit summary "for my stalkers" was a bit of humour for the people who watch my contributions - I do not think that anyone is actually stalking me. You are usually a reasonable person, Newyorkbrad, but you seem to be looking for ill intent here and there is none. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DC, FYI, see Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down#January 2010 PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi, Delicious Carbuncle. Thanks for honouring me with a reassuring reply to my explanation, and being understanding about my...um..."delightfully"(?) mischievous sister, and for commenting kindly about my edits. Happy New Year! Classical Esther (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome, but you may have missed he point of my comments. Wikipedia does allow editors to pretend to be precocious home-schooled 13 year-old girls, but it does not allow editors to post copyrighted material as their own work. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean I should add references? :) I never meant to pretend it was my own work. I just never saw any other articles add references at the character descriptions. And actually, though I did get some help from the introduction of The Vicar of Wakefield, I wrote most of it myself.Classical Esther (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not interested in playing - try someone else. And please ask your sister not to email me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your manners

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

10 minutes. Add me to your ramblings, why not? Some people are getting very tired of your campaign being splattered all over the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Sorry, is this a joke? What was I blocked for 10 minutes for? As a demonstration of power, or was there actually a point to it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

I trust that you read the block rationale, "admin abuse"? You are not an admin, I am. Thus I was abusing my admin privileges - just like you are abusing WP process in your campaign to get the other party sanctioned. I can lose my flags for this... but it is worth it. Oh, and the reason why I "disappeared" is that I have a life which involves spending time with my children of a Sunday evening. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC) ps. Requesting unblock for a 10 minute sanction... It would really be a better use of your time simply to start an ANI thread on me. Really.[reply]

Ah, so you were simply acting like a petulant child because I reverted your premature closure. No wonder the block reason made no sense to me. I'm very happy to hear that you are spending time with your children - good for you. I mean that in all sincerity. I guess an apology won't be forthcoming? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the pantomime that that section has become? Imagine if you had not reinstated it, but simply came to my page to ask why... Apology? Yeah, sorry I even bothered to try... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned off the unblock request as the block has expired. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D.c., please disengage from this fight, broadly construed. Getting baited into responding to editors trying to harass you isn't going to do you any good. You can remove any posts from your talk page that aren't welcome, and editors can be blocked for stalking and harassing you. But if you respond in kind, you will be contributing to the problem and will likely be sanctioned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as disengaged as I'm likely to get - people can say what they want at AN and I'll let it all slide unless there's a real need for me to respond, but I was getting tired of having PCHS-NJROTC showing up on my talk page after so many requests. Don't get yourself involved in this one, it isn't going to end well. Thanks for the advice, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right or wrong, sometimes you have to let things play out. Life, and Wikipedia, aren't fair. I hope you had a good weekend and have a very pleasant week. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth

I have been following User:PCHS-NJROTC for a while now and I agree with pretty much everything you are saying about him. While I don't necessarily think he needs to be topic banned, he does need to realize that he isn't the law at Wikipedia. It almost seems like he gets off on getting people blocked and reporting them to ISPs. And his obsession with the cheerleader vandal and mmbabies is ludicrous. Thinking that the FBI is going to get involved because of Wikipedia vandalism? Personally, I think it should be a crime for reporting such issues. The FBI has more important things to worry about than high school girls adding innocent vandalism to a website that openly allows such behavior. His behavior might even provoke vandalism. It's a classic case of feeding the trolls. Anyway, just my two cents. Keegscee (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is reassuring to see some support for my beliefs about PCHS-NJROTC's behaviour. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed material

Hi there, buddy! Hope all is well with you, and a jolly happy new year to you. I hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty of removing a post from your talk page. It's a post from an IP, and I'm sure you're able to read it (and restore it if you want) in the page history. It seems to be attempting to "out" a user who's been involved in quite a few of the discussions on your page! It's linking to another website, (one of the greatest satirical works I've seen in a long time, I have to say. Me and my wife were chuckling to ourselves at some of the gags on there!). I don't imagine the activities of this fellow on other wikis really ought to be brought into the equasion, and as you're involved (and I was passing - mentioned it to my wife and artie in fact who is round, and they both thought I was doing the right thing! About the first time I've agreed with artie since boxing day!), the edits by the ip look like they aren't up to any good. Anyway, pal, if you think we've done the wrong thing, then please revert - no problem. Anyway, I've got a glass of port waiting for me and a fine block of roquefort, so I'll leave ya be. All the best, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bother to remove it because the information has been posted elsewhere on Wikipedia several times already and any action I took would be seen as antagonizing one side or the other in a fight that really doesn't have anything to do with me. I've lead the horses to the water, as it were, but if they don't want to drink, it's not my problem anymore. Speaking of which, enjoy your port, and give my best to the wife! Happy new year to you you all! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LBHS Cheerleader CU

Good idea re. the CU on this idiocy. I went ahead and filed one. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've watchlisted it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I've closed the AN thread on your proposed topic ban, finding consensus in its favour after a reasonably long discussion (permalink). The text of it reads "Delicious carbuncle is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of the users PCHS-NJROTC and Neutralhomer, either together or separately." I think this is sufficiently clear that there won't be any grey area misunderstandings. If you find this restriction onerous and have been otherwise editing peacefully a few months down the line, feel free to ask for it to be overturned at the relevant noticeboard. Regards, Skomorokh 15:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll find it onerous, but if I did I would be breaking the terms of the topic ban by asking for it to be rescinded since referring to the topic ban necessarily alludes to the editors I am banned from alluding to. See, I just did it there, but I hope you will let that one go. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's assume common sense applies and periodic good faith appeals that do not violate the spirit of the ban are acceptable (within reason). If anyone gives you shit about it, you can blame me and point to this comment (within reason). Regards, Skomorokh 15:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was joking, but thanks nonetheless. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been archived...

...more on what I was saying yesterday.

As I said--in the first place I agreed with you about PCHS. And believe me, my lack of action on that issue is far from "not wanting to give you the satisfaction"--it's just that there's not much more to do. He's addressed Problem #1 by agreeing to drop the whole "cheerleader vandal" thing (My brain twitches just TYPING that!); he's addressed Problem #2 by agreeing to moderate his abuse-patrolling stuff; and he's addressed Problem #3 by agreeing to leave you the hell alone. He's got a bunch of folks watching him, including me, so if he goes against any of those agreements, we'll deal with that problem then. Is there anything you feel we've missed, or a separate problem you don't think was addressed?
The Neutralhomer thing, I'll grant, is more complicated. I saw your reference to the other incident somewhere around the time I was writing up the topic ban; and in the search for diffs I think I ran across some of those posts you reference. My only issue with you bringing THAT up was the timing; when you raised your complaint, there was already an agreement on his user page to STOP interacting with you. I don't know if you hadn't seen it, or what the deal was, but the timing alone made it look petty and retaliatory. Again, I think we've addressed the current problem--he's enjoined from saying anything about you anywhere--so again, if he steps out of line, one of us will address it at the time. Did we miss something further there, and if so, what?
Believe me, I've got no wish to be Mad Power-Hungry Admin B***h From Hell, and I truly apologize if I seemed heavy-handed or one-sided in my actions. If you take anything away from this whole ordeal, I would hope you take one of the main points I wanted to make clear yesterday: if you think there's a problem with a user, and when that problem is raised you see that user behaving on the noticeboards in a way that is NOT improving their situation--no matter how badly you think the issue is going off the rails, back away from the problem and let the other guy shoot himself in the foot all on his own. He probably doesn't need your help in making himself look bad, and all too often you'll accomplish exactly what you DON'T want to do--drawing attention AWAY from him and TOWARDS you. That's what happened here, unfortunately. I'm hoping both PCHS and NH have the good sense not to come to your pages, and I trust that you'll have the good sense to stay away from both of them. If both of those statements are the case, then I think we're pretty much done, from my standpoint. Now: Do you have anything you'd like to say, or anything which wasn't addressed to your satisfaction? I'm open to listening. Thanks....GJC 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to reply to any specific points because of my topic ban, but I would likely just be reiterating what I have already said. I'm sure if you hadn't opened the topic ban discussion, someone else would have, so I have no issue with that. Thanks for being willing to discuss this. It did help, although it doesn't make me feel any differently about the result. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood (although my understanding is, if an admin asks directly about matters within the scope of your topic ban, you're free to answer--otherwise that would be the ultimate "gotcha" tactic, and something I for one would never implement. Still, though, I've got to admire your willingness to live up to the letter of the ban as well as the spirit.) I suppose if it were me, I would be unhappy about the outcome as well--but thanks for being reasonable. :) You may feel free to contact me if you have concerns about this ban (or, for that matter, if you feel it is being used by other users to "bait" you into violations--I won't stand for that, either.) Take care...GJC 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

I'm confused about your message on my talk page. Why wasn't my edit constructive? It was relevant to the article and I provided a reference. What more do I have to do to make a "constructive" edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.235.156.34 (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, the edit indicated bias against liberals which violates Wikipedia's policy of giving all articles a neutral point of view. Secondly, you used Conservapedia as a source. Wikis are not considered reliable sources (not even Wikipedia itself) as the content is user-controlled and can change wildly within a very short space of time. Therefore, we need a static page that is also reliable. Finally, Conservapedia doesn't even try to hide it's bias, so even if it wasn't a Wiki, I seriously doubt it would be considered reliable. I hope that clears things up for you. If not, feel free to ask what doesn't make sense and I'll get back to you as soon as possible. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've (indirectly) brought up an edit of yours...

FYI, See [1]. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've commented there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. One of us is going about this wrong, and I honestly think it's not just us. What is meant by "unsourced" needs to be clarified for the whole BLP discussion to actually get anywhere. Otherwise we'll end up agreeing (after forever) about what to do about unsourced BLPs but then start disagreeing about what makes for an unsourced BLP. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's really a cause for concern - whether or not the article in question was unsourced, I think we can agree that it was not well sourced, even for the stub that it was. Whatever the general resolution with unsourced (or poorly sourced) BLPs, there will no doubt be plenty of disputes over individual articles. In typical Wikipedia fashion, these will be settled on a case-by-case basis with no consistent rationale. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your infobox

I like that first infobox on your user page. I hope you don't mind that I speculated about its origins (see WP:SPI/Johnyajohn). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were close - it was the on-wiki actions of Mr Bellinghaus alone that lead to the userbox, but I came to understand that Marilyn Monroe seems to be a magnet for a certain type of person. Good luck with this one! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sheesh, what with people stabbing homes and such. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of male performers in gay porn films

FYI: I started an RfC about the redlinked entries in this article. Them From Space 16:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

1st. 14:31, 1 February 2010[2]

2nd. 15:59, 1 February 2010[3]

3rd. 16:30, 1 February 2010[4]

This may fall under the BLP exception, regardless, can you let the RFC run its course first please? And cite policy for this removal? Thanks. Ikip 01:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped editing the article well before you showed up and stated "if anyone wants to revert my changes, I won't agree with your actions, but neither will I revert you" just a couple of lines above one of your comments on the talk page. Perhaps you missed it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Investigation

FYI, I fixed your wikilink here. You were missing a space between the URL and the first word of the description.--kelapstick (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination)

Hi, Delicious carbuncle. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus in September 2009, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of New Articles conversation

We started a conversation here and you dropped out for some reason. Please continue. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the guideline over again or ask for someone else's opinion, but I've already shown you that you are wrong - why repeat myself? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why you care so much about gay porn? You seem 1000 times more interested in it than anyone I've ever met. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just a phase I'm going through. Maybe I'll grow out of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised at your answer, not what I expected. To be honest with you my work in "the project" hasn't been very rewarding as of lately and I find that working on about any other unrelated topic to be more enjoyable. I'm a major contributor to Joseph Stack partly because it "hit close to home" (literally). - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February, 2010

Please don't do this.[5] More than one editor has now objected to this as an outing, and edit warring to do that is unseemly. I think you've shot yourself in the foot as far as your complaint going anywhere. The best thing now is to simply close down the AN/I report. I am going to delete it one more time with a request that we have a full discussion regarding inclusion of this kind of information in an AN/I report. Please don't reflexively edit war over something like this. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That exact set of information has been discussed at ANI it was determined not to be "outing". Please see the diffs I have already provided. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate. He's objecting strongly to your bringing this up, and it is quite flimsy. When you get blocked, then unblocked, for doing something, it isn't a great idea to keep doing it. If you think that being let off the hook one time entitles you to rehash this every time you get into a dispute with the editor, you're stretching the outcome of that AN/I thread. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comment in the thread, you haven't read or understood what's being said. I hear what you are saying, but I disagree. I was unblocked because the block wasn't appropriate - do you not get that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Ban Notice

Your revert of the ban notice I left on User:Bayshore would be correct if I was aware of which account was the main one, I only added the notice after the user was blocked for being a banned user, It better helps users who are currently in conflict/discussions with the banned account to be aware of the fact the user is Banned. I will leave it up to you as to wether or not to change it back i dont care either way. Cheers ZooPro 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have undid the edit for now until I can find out who the main account is. Cheers ZooPro 04:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user is blocked, has made very few edits, and any admin considering unblocking will check the block log. The tag is inappropriate regardless of whether or not you know who the puppetmaster is. I've taken you at your typo-ridden word that you don't care, so I've reverted. Cheers! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who has been blocked in the past you sure seem to think you are correct, it would be unwise to keep reverting experienced editors. The user is "Bannned and Blocked" i suggest you read up on the what those two things actually mean they are in fact very different before reverting any of my changes again. ZooPro 03:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi, how are you? I'm fine, thanks. I'm sorry that you were embarrassed by my revert, but coming here and making threatening noises is only going to make you look worse. I suggest you stop making suggestions to editors with much more experience and sense than you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of your talk page I am not the only one to question your edits. I have never been blocked or even come close to it so that puts me in a better standing then you from the get go. I have wasted enough of my valuable time on discussing this with you. ZooPro 05:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing some much-needed levity here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just some Wikilove.

Hi Delicious. You and I seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. Let's call a WP:TRUCE. I'm leaving this note to let you know I'm going to do my best to provide you my best WP:AGF of your actions and comments, and I trust you will do the same, and to ask that you not WP:BITE.

I have been editing on Wikipedia tangentially for about a year and have recently taken more interest in Wikipolicy and proper article formatting and such. Ash and meco seem to be civil and efficient editors, and so I'm learning from some of their article edits and Wiki-involvement. I can see how you might have perceived that as trolling you, however, I was just learning from those other editors, who have themselves had interactions with you. I absolutely intend to continue editing and participating, and am not interested in an account...which does not automatically make me a troll (WP:IP!=VANDAL).

If there are specific actions that you would like from me that would improve my editing skills and/or to make Wikipedia a better place, please just let me know on my talk page, but please remember that I usually keep that page clear.

Please consider yourself showered with the best WikiLove I know how to give. WP:LOVE, 38.109.88.196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This seems awfully disingenuous given every other action you've made relating to me. I'm not calling you a troll because you are using an IP, I'm calling you a troll because you are trolling. You been using that IP since 5 February is a lot less than the year you claim - would you like to identify the other IPs or accounts you've used in the past? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe "every other action I've made relating to you" has been malicious, as you imply. I've been using this IP since I switched service providers. And I don't believe using other IP's in the past is relevant here. I am behaving in an entirely civil manner in accordance with all Wikipolicies, and with the advice given to me by another editor with regard to dealing with possible disruptive editing.

If you believe my actions in the past have somehow been trolling or hurtful somehow, I'll gladly apologize now in order for you to be able to move past it...without even asking for you to provide diffs. In case you missed the beginning of this thread, I'll repost here: Let's call a WP:TRUCE. I'm leaving this note to let you know I'm going to do my best to provide you my best WP:AGF of your actions and comments, and I trust you will do the same, and to ask that you not WP:BITE.

Please read WP:TRUCE. You can take my position for what it's worth, or not. The ball is entirely in your court and the results, at this point, will only reflect upon you. I've made all the effort I see necessary, and hope your reaction is positive and welcoming. Regards, 38.109.88.196 (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosing your other accounts would be a positive demonstration of good faith, but I didn't really expect you to do that. Your words here lack any kind of sincerity but I will take you at your word and see what happens from here on in. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you do not believe this is the only IP I am currently posting from. You are welcome to WP:CHECKUSER on me if that will help assuage your concerns. I am glad, however, that you are willing AGF, as is Wikipolicy. See you on the boards. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing believe that 38.109.88.196 is the only IP you are currently posting from, but your phrasing again highlights your rather slippery use of words. You said you've been editing here for about a year, yet that IP only has edits dating back about a month. So the question was about the IPs you used prior to this and any accounts you may have used. Care to be more forthcoming? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated above that: "I've been using this IP since I switched service providers. And I don't believe using other IP's in the past is relevant here." I've also stated that "You are welcome to WP:CHECKUSER on me". I don't know who you think I am or why you think you are being trolled. I'm not going to resopnd in this thread anymore, so you can post anything you want below this. I'm going to end this matter with your own promise: " (You) will take (me) at your word and see what happens from here on in. " I think that's the most civil way to leave this matter and start anew...that's what a WP:TRUCE is. Regards, 38.109.88.196 (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who shows up unexpectedly on my talk page to tell me that you are would like to clear up the apparent misconception I have of you, you seem less than interested actually doing anything that might assist that effort. My contributions are available for anyone to see at any time (with the exception of the many deleted contributions and a few mysteriously oversighted contributions). I'm not sure why you are reluctant to disclose your previous IPs. I'm not sure why you won't affirm that you have not edited using Wikipedia accounts. I'm not sure why you suggest checkuser, since it is clearly not appropriate here. If you are truly interested in improving our interactions, please return and continue the conversation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, even given all your multiple hesitations and curiosities, you are just going to have to WP:AGF and "take me at my word and see what happens from here on in.". Over and out. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already taken you at your word and seen what happens. I'll keep looking, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo Code

Hi, Delicious carbuncle, thank you for using the {{rescue}} tag, the main organizing tool for the Article Rescue Squadron, on Zoo Code!

Thanks, Benji! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Widmer

I looked at this article quite closely, and I don't think it meets the criteria CSD A7, as it asserts that he is a writer and editor that has worked on or with many things (including two books). The subject may not be notable in spite of this, and there certainly seems to be a conflict of interest as the author seems to be the person in question, so I suspect it would probably get deleted after going through AFD. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the messages Delicious Carbuncle. You're a true friend and you can come again, anytime. When I know about making web pages, I may build one just for kids. They're more like me -- they're smart. They're true-blue. They've got pep and they're funny. They don't take things too seriously either. And they make the very best playmates. I'd really like to have one of my very own. Ciao! Rererere Lala Lapis F111 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to have left you any messages, but thanks for dropping by anyway. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You left some very good messages! In reply, I have some simple demands. Bruce Springsteen's birthday will be designated a national holiday. All horses will be required to prove their identity or face imprisonment. Measure your current body weight and body dimensions. Scout the market for protein powders, flaxseed oil, weight gain supplements, etc. to hasten weight gain. Dress in camouflage from head to toe and don't disregard a face mask. I look forwards to working with you. That's where the pep is at! Rererere Lala Lapis F111 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't know very much about horses (except from what I've read about that poor Mr Hands fellow). The other things seem reasonable and I will get back to you when they are done. Cheers! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible photographic memory

...How can you possibly expect someone to remember every IP they've contributed from? J.M. Archer (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask what you're talking about but if you wanted me to know I'm sure you would have told me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone looks to have left you a nice, polite message above and your response was:

would you like to identify the other IPs or accounts you've used in the past? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Makes absolutely no sense to me.

J.M. Archer (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It made sense to me and the person it was in response to, which was the point. Please move along now. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Delicious, it made no sense to me either. But keep on assuming good faith. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you will come to understand it in time, after a period of deep reflection. This almost made me spit my beverage out all over the keyboard. Thanks for adding some humour to this difficult situation. But don't keep on trolling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage your poor attitude. Your edits will speak for themselves. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hope so too. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure. What a nice person you are. J.M. Archer (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people like me, others don't, but I guess that's true of all of us, so you were probably trying to make some point by saying that. Your user page says that you are a professional writer, but I seem to have difficulty following you. Why did you come to my talk page and what is it that you want? If it was simply to insult me, consider it done and go away. If it was something else, can you get to the point? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PROD contested

This is to notify you that some articles you PRODded have been contested by someone writing into OTRS. They are:

In accordance with PROD policy, they have been undeleted. You may wish to nominate them for AFD. Please note that I am not watching this page; if you reply and want me to read your reply, you will need to notify me on my talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Please be advised that a WQA regarding your edits has been posted here. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know how that works out. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from calling other editor's trolls. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and especially do not call me a troll while posting statedly unwelcome messages to my talk page after continuing to revert my perfectly fair edits. If you're interested in pursuing any further interaction with me, do so in a formal DR process. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following me to an article, refactoring another editor's comments, complaining about the standard canned warning I left on your talk page, and reverting my change? I'm willing to bet that even the most patient editor here will understand why I'm calling you a troll again. Please just stop this, I'm not interested in playing with you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you participate in the Dispute Resolution process and start editing civilly. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Please stay away from my talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ash

I commented on that page. Can we keep the discussion there? Bearian (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Ash likes me posting on his talk page, but I assume they won't break if it is mitigated by your presence. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be disingenuous. I looked at site:wikipediareview.com carbuncle and found that someone with an userid similar to yours had posted many times at said site. How do you explain that? Bearian (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain yourself, and tell the whole truth, or go away. Bearian (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been disingenuous at all. I do not want my Wikipedia account or username to be associated with Wikipedia Review because, as you know, it has a dubious reputation here. I have repeatedly asked Ash not to try to associate me with Wikipedia Review. When he alleged some kind of admin/Wikipedia Review conspiracy, I chose the first admin from this list who I recognized as part of the LGBT Project (you happened to be the last active admin at that time). These very serious but completely unsubstantiated allegations have still not been removed, despite another editor expressing similar concerns. I note that rather than dealing with that issue, and despite the guidance of WP:UP#NOT, you have !voted to KEEP Ash's "evidence" page rather than encourage them to file an RFC/U or keep the page on their own PC until such time as they are ready to file. With all due respect, you seem to have lost your objectivity here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you explain this? Bearian (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have reached your conclusion without waiting for my reply. It seems unlikely that anything I say will be believed if it differs from your interpretation. Which is fine, because I don't feel compelled to explain that link, but I may do so if it becomes relevant in the future. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Colom

Why is this person continously deleted. I've sited a source from his website. Then I sited the page where his publication is online, and it was still deleted. There's no better source than the actual publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rscottms (talk • contribs) 02:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTABILITY. Anthony Colom just doesn't meet the Wikipedia guideline for inclusion yet - perhaps he will one day. Thanks. 02:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, please read your own talk page--Work permit (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I don't understand how a writer and editor in our states only urban magazine doesn't meet guidelines. I've admired this man's Publisher's Point in this magazine for 5 or 6 years. Please explain ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rscottms (talk • contribs) 04:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this on the articles talk page. Click on the blue link in the sentence before this one, that link will take you there. Then hit "edit" on the section titled "Anthony Colom" and discuss it there.--Work permit (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pg508

Here. It doesn't mention that venue.--droptone (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]