User talk:Carolyn Baker III

November 2010

Per this comment. This is an encyclopedia. If you want to type lots of swear words over and over again, there are plenty of websites where you can do so; this isn't one of them. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article on Sideways was deleted by a discussion, because the editors who commented agreed that it wasn't notable enough (the link is on Mathew's page). The way Wikipedia works is that if you want to restore an article that's been deleted, there's a page to do that (WP:DRV). If you ignore that and just create it again (as Mathew did) it'll just get deleted again. I know it's a bit complicated, but you can still write about the Sideways character at his space at List of Decepticons for the time being. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you very much. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for sock puppetry

Please do not create sock puppets again, as you did with User:Bunkerdiver, whom I just blocked. Consider this your only warning; if you continue to abuse multiple accounts, then you will be blocked for sock puppetry. Regards, –MuZemike 01:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're on notice!

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sarujo (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carolyn Baker III. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sarujo (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

Your userpage, including the comment that your "int" (which most people will assume means "IQ") is 89, will show up in Google searches for your name. I strongly recommend that you delete this immediately. In fact, given that we have no way of knowing that you are in fact Carolyn Baker III and you could potentially be someone who dislikes her, I may very well feel constrained to delete this comment myself if you do not. Please respond here promptly. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Clear heels, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. — Gfoley4 Wanna chat? 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Clear heels. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. — Gfoley4 Wanna chat? 01:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clear45.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Clear45.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck handles

I have raised the issue of this redirect here Log/2010 November 8 . Thanks. Fainites barleyscribs 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual imperialism

Please work in the page in sandbox space (e.g. at User:Carolyn Baker III/Sexual imperialism. Articles can't be in articlespace until they're complete. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Your comment is requested back at the WQA. I would suggest that you answer the question and not try to avoid them. Thank you. Sarujo (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse you but I haven't been hounding you, this is the first time I've actually come to regarding your delay. And no, this is a serious issue that can only be resolved by your full cooperation with the admins. You're walking a thin line right now, so it's best that follow along. As there's no telling what may become of you. You were asked a question, so it's in your best interest to respond back at WQA. Sarujo (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPs

Hi. If you have a serious concern that an editor is sockpuppeting with an IP, including double voting, I would suggest filing a report atWP:SPI (rather than edit warring on his talkpage!) Fainites barleyscribs 22:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the WP:SPI. Read the section on evidence. Then go to the submissions section here. Replace the word SOCKMASTER with the name of the ediitor who you think is socking and then click the button immediately below marked "use this button for most applications". That will take you to the page that creates a report. Follow the instructions. In the evidence section, provide diffs that show what you allege. As I understand it the editor accepts it is the same IP and says it is a college/work IP. You therefore need to provide behavioural evidence - civilly. Don't forget you may well be wrong. You must also notify the editor and give him the link to the page so he can defend himself. (All editors occasionally forget to log in and end up with an IP editing their stuff. This is not sockpuppetry.) If there has already been an investigation in respect of this user that should come up. Fainites barleyscribs 10:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not encouraging you to post a sockpuppet investigation request. Really I am saying put up or shut up! If you have a genuine reason to believe he is using a sockpuppet to double-vote at AfD's or create the appearance of false consensus on talkpages or in articles then by all means, make a report. Just arguing it at length at Projecst and article talkpages without pursuing it properly is merely disruptive and tends to derail discussions.Fainites barleyscribs 15:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]