User talk:CraigCarlton

February 2018

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Carolina Reaper, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Meters (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Carolina Reaper, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Meters (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dragon's Breath (chili pepper), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Stop doing this. These are not minor edits, the link you are using is dead, and the material would not belong in the articles even if it were properly sourced. Meters (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Pepper X. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing my edits to Carolina Reaper, Pepper X and Dragon's Breath. All of those world's hottest pepper claims, that have been made outside of the 1.5 million for the Carolina Reaper, have never been confirmed by Guinness, and therefore may violate Guinness' US registered trademark, which I properly linked to their registration on the TESS at <http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:5389wn.5.47> and I listed their US Trademark registration number. Check the link and you will see that it is working Hello, I'm CraigCarlton. I noticed that you recently removed content from Carolina Reaper without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hello, I'm CraigCarlton. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dragons Breath without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hello, I'm CraigCarlton. I noticed that you recently removed content from Pepper X without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.CraigCarlton (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)CraigCarlton[reply]

For the fifth time it's a dead link. No-one can see it but you. There's no need to mention this here as well as on my unprotected talk page (and why my unprotected page when my main page is not protected?) Take it to one of the articles' talk pages or leave it alone.

You might want to read WP:CIR. Warning yourself is rather strange. Meters (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize, you are correct about the TESS search results, apparently once you search, you cannot use that URL to make a direct link back--you must start a new searchCraigCarlton (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Craig Carlton[reply]

This WIKI page contains potential Guinness TRADEMARK violations?

I am proposing adding to this page the following-- Since Guinness owns the US Registered Trademark on the term “world records” for “record breaking events or occurrences, whether relating to human beings, natural phenomena or otherwise occurring, record breaking attempts and outstanding and unusual achievements, failures and occurrences”, then any claim for the world’s hottest pepper must be confirmed by Guinness to be valid, and any claim not confirmed listed on this page, could be a violation of their US registered trademark. (The reference is --TESS - U.S. Trademark Search System, Registration No. 2966190).

I added this paragraph a few days ago, but was removed. I think that the Wiki pages should respect all registered trademark owners, when any postings potentially violate those trademarks--it should be noted, or the potential violations completely removed? In this particular trademark's case, it would be any claims for the world's hottest peppers, that have not been confirmed by Guinness, including any higher claims over the already confirmed 1.5 million Scovilles for the Carolina Reaper, that also have not been confirmed by Guinness? Otherwise we are encouraging a wild, wild West situation for these unconfirmed claims that potentially violate Guinness' registered trademark?CraigCarlton (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)CraigCarlton[reply]

This is in the wrong place. Content disputes are to be discussed on the article's talk page. This is your talk page. The only editor other than you who is likely to see this is me, since I am the only one who had ever posted to your talk page. Take it to the article talk page. And be prepared to

prove your claim that "world record" is a registered trademark. I would be very surprised if this is correct. "Guinness World Record" is very likely a registered trademark, but I doubt very much that "world record" is.
discuss why (in the unlikely event that your claim is correct) that Wikipedia should ignore all other reliable sources. We just had a Winter Olympics. World records were set. You seem to be saying that no-one can refer to these new records as world records until Guinness gets around to publishing them. Meters (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of this. Since you don't seem to understand what the problem is, or how to do things properly, and since I don't believe your claim inthe fist place, I'm going ot look into this and see if I can end this. Meters (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I expected, your claim is completely incorrect. The trademark discussed in TESS Registration No. 2966190 is 'Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of an oval with the words "GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS" bordering the interior portion of the oval; a single star positioned over a pedestal appears in the center of the oval'. So, "World Record" is not a trademarked term. Don't make this claim again, and don't ~~remove~~add material again based on your misunderstanding of what the actual trade mark is or what rights it gives teh trade mark owner. Hint, it does not prevent people form using the term. Meters (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY from CraigCarlton---The claim IS correct, if you view the "Goods and Services" CATEGORY that the mark is claimed for, is for “record breaking events or occurrences, whether relating to human beings, natural phenomena or otherwise occurring, record breaking attempts and outstanding and unusual achievements, failures and occurrences”. Then, any claim for the "world’s hottest pepper" absolutely must be confirmed by Guinness to be valid, and any claim not confirmed and listed on WIKI pages, could be a violation of the Guinness US registered trademarks--they own several US trademarks. (The reference is --TESS - U.S. Trademark Search System, Registration No. 2966190 under the “Goods and Service” catgory that the trademark is attached to).

However, at this point, it is up to Guinness to legally enforce their trademarks if there are any violations posted on WIKI currently, and since I am not their trademark lawyer or their legal agent, I personally cannot do any more.

All I was trying to do for ALL the WIKI users, trying to make a point that when ANY "World Record" claim is posted on WIKI, that Guinness must confirm that claim to be valid. Otherwise it will be a wild-wild West situation of everyone and their grandmothers making the "world's record" hottest pepper claims, to block and discourage legitimate claimants, that might be out there right now, currently beating the official Guinness-confirmed record.

For example, the fact that the Carolina Reaper has supposedly reached a new record of 2.2 million Scovilles, and did not submit that new "world record" to Guinness for confirmation, that unconfirmed new record should not be posted as a valid claim on WIKI.

Likewise, the Pepper X, according to its current WIKI page, there is no record on WIKI that that this new "world record" hottest pepper has been confirmed or is going to be confirmed by Guinness so far, so that unconfirmed claim should not be posted on WIKI, until confirmed by Guinness.

I hope that you will agree, that my suggestions are reasonable, so that actual facts are presented on WIKI, instead of copies of articles repeating those unconfirmed claims that have been used as references on WIKI, and only post actual Guinness-confirmed claims, so that the WIKI readers are reading the actual confirmed facts?

I did not want to start any controversy--just wanted to make sure that the facts presented on WIKI have been confirmed by a third party like Guinness, so that WIKI readers will know that they have been vetted and reviewed by a third impartial party? I think this is a reasonable expectation, that all of the WIKI articles ALWAYS presents actual facts and remains as a reliable and credible source of information, by removing unconfirmed heresay? Respectfully Submitted.CraigCarlton (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)CraigCarlton[reply]

No. As I already pointed out, the trademark you are referring to is "Guinness World Records" combined with the specific image described. Nothing in that description applies to simple use of the term "world record". Nothing prevents people from mentioning new world records that Guinness does not mention. You don't understand what you are talking about, and you are simply wrong. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this. Don't make this claim again. in an article or you will likely be blocked. Meters (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY from CarigCarlton--When you do a word search on TESS, you are looking for trademarked word or a combination of words. Sometimes, just the words themselves are trademarked, and sometimes they are included in a design, but the bottom line is, that the foundation of any trademark that includes word, are the words themselves. A trademark that is design only, is the Nike swatch for example. A words plus design trademark example is the Coca-Cola logo, which is exactly how Guinness has trademarked both the words and the design together.

Then, if you wanted to trademark the exact same words as someone else has already trademarked, you need to see what category or categories the previous trademarked words cover.  In the case of Guinness, according to a TESS word-search, Guinness has been trademarking the words "world record" under a very specific category of Goods and Services, which I quoted above, and that you can read on their registered trademark.

However, since neither of us are Guinness' trademark lawyers or legal representatives of Guinness, it is up to you and me and others in the WIKI community with any questions about this trademark issue, to contact Guinness directly on their CONTACT Is-Technical-Enquiry page at <http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/contact/technical-enquiry> as I have, so that their trademark lawyers can sort this trademark issue out, if it exists. It is up to the trademark owner and their lawyers to sort out if there are any violations on WIKI, never us, so any more discussions about the trademark should be sent to Guinness directly through their Contacts page, as I have already?

The other issue that would be helpful to solve any controversy about which is currently the "worlds hottest" pepper is to have Guinness keep their website updated as to which one is the hottest currently, at <http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/hottest-chili>

Here is what the website source code says--"This record is based on the heat of a chili pepper.

This record is to be attempted by an individual, team or company.

This record is measured both in Scoville heat units (SHU) and in American Spice Trade Association pungency units, using high performance liquid chromatography. These units measure the concentration of capsaicin in the pepper.

All records listed on our website are current and up-to-date."

But that text does not appear on the Guinness World Hottest page when loaded, because their IT person did a sloppy job of writing the Javascript for the page. And, that too could be corrected by WIKI readers, by sending a message to their Contact Us-Technical Enquires page to fix that glitch, as I have.

The BIGGER issue, a rather huge, MONSTER-sized issue about these "world record" hottest pepper claims on WIKI that have not been confirmed by Guinness, is that the 2.2 million claim for the Carolina Reaper, the WIKI page and claim for the Pepper X, plus the WIKI page and claim for the Dragon's Breath--all are examples that unconfirmed information can sneak into WIKI without anyone noticing?

And, when the heresay and unconfirmed information is pointed out, what will the WIKI community do about it? At a minimum, should they point out on those pages, that those claims are unconfirmed by Guinness? Or, remove those claims and completely remove those two WIKI pages, until they are confirmed by Guinness, then allow them to be put back up, once confirmed?

The decision about trademark violations at this point is up to the Guinness lawyers, and the decision of removing or at least noting that unconfirmed information is appearing on WIKI, is up to the WIKI community to decide. I just have the hope that WIKI continues to exist as the solid and reliable source of information that it has been in the past, and when necessary, be able to call "heresay", heresay, and not presented on WIKI as actual facts, until confirmed? Respectfully SubmittedCraigCarlton (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)CraigCarlton[reply]

Are you for real? You've contacted Guinness and their trademark lawyers about this? They must be laughing their socks off. You simply do not understand what you are writing about. I suggest that you read Trademark and WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop making a fool of yourself. The reference you have provided does not state that Guinness has trademarked "world record". It has trademarked "Guinness World Records" Not even close to being the same thing. Wikipedia is not infringing on Guinness's trademark. by mentioning supposed world records that Guinness has not sanctioned.

Yes, material on Wikipedia should be verifiable. If it can't be sourced to reliable sources it should not be mentioned, but Guinness is not the only WP:reliable source as to what is a world record. Your suggestion that we should remove world records that are not sanctioned by Guinness (and even worse, the pages that mention them) is ridiculous. What's your next target? Are you going to go after the International Olympic Committee for having the temerity to suggest that world records were set at the recent Winter Olympics when Guinness has not sanctioned them yet? Here's a list to get you started World and Olympic records set at the 2018 Winter Olympics if you want to contact Guinness about these ones too, but whatever you choose to do, keep your misguided tilting at windmills out of Wikipedia's articles. User:Dennis Brown has already said he'll bock you if you don't. Meters (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CraigCarlton's reply--

It is always up to the trademark owner to enforce their trademarks. And Guinness has always been the final word on which pepper is currently the World's Hottest, at least since 1983, originally called in their book, the "World's Hottest Spice." Since 1983, there has not been any "World Record" hottest pepper official arbiter, other than Guinness.

So, any "World's Hottest Pepper" claims since then, have always been decided by Guinness, currently with a lab test presented to them, to confirm those claims. There is no Olympic Committee to check claims for the "world record" hottest pepper, so Guinness since 1983 has been the official arbiter for those claims.

I am not out to comment any other "world record" claims on WIKI--just asking questions about the three "World's Record" hottest claims that have not yet been confirmed by Guinness?

Then, the WIKI community should be the ones to decide what is included or taken out of WIKI, not you or me. Apparently the "World Record" hottest pepper is important enough of a WIKI topic, to expend this much time to write all of this text on my TALK page, to discuss it?

That is why I am suggesting, that instead of you and me doing anymore TALK on the subject, we let the WIKI community decide what to do about the three unconfirmed claims on WIKI, and also let Guinness' trademark lawyers decide what they want to enforce, if any enforcing is needed? Respectfully submitted to the WIKI community. CraigCarlton (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)CraigCarlton[reply]

- If you read WP:NLT, one of the problems is when someone uses the threat of legal action to chill discussion or change the actions of others. You are walking very close to that line. Let me put this in plain Texas talk for you. You are wrong about the whole Guiness thing and we aren't going to censor articles for using the phrase "world's hottest pepper". It isn't going to happen. If you continue down this path, I will simply block you from editing at all here. I'm tired of all this nonsense. If you add back any more this nonsense to articles and talk pages, again, I will block you for disruptive editing. There will be no more warnings. I'm appalled at the sheer ignorance in your claims, and the arrogance in how you present this argument. It is as if you are here to promote or protect Guinness, yet you lack the most basic understanding of how trademarks and copyright works. So: stop it or get blocked. If anyone see more of it, please ping me so that I may take action. I'm done with this silliness. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CraigCarlton reply--

I am NOT doing ANY editing on any WIKI pepper pages, so no need to block me now or in the future--just trying to having a civil discussion via the TALK pages. And I am still asking if the WIKI Community wants heresay on their pages that look like confirmed facts, that's all. The Flag at the top of the Pepper X page is confirming what I have been talking about--"This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources."

And there is nothing in my discussions that is suggesting that anyone is using "...the threat of legal action to chill discussion or change the actions of others." What I have been saying all along, is if any trademark violations exist with Guinness, concerning the unconfirmed World Record hottest pepper claims, it is entirely up to Guinness to sort that out. No one else can threaten or take legal actions on that issue, if it exists.

I think the whole World Records hottest pepper claims on WIKI, could be resolved within a few minutes and very easily, if the WIKI community added for the three unconfirmed World Record hottest pepper claims, that the 2.2 million for the Carolina Reaper, the Pepper X claim, and the Dragon's Breath claim, have not yet been confirmed by Guinness? Then, that should put this whole controversy to bed?

CraigCarlton (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)CraigCarlton[reply]

February 2018

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. If you keep adding your unsubstantiated trademark claims to random pepper articles, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. As adding this claim seems to be the only purpose for your account, please note that this is your only warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like I'm reaching you here. Telling editors that they are violating Trademark law, and they must talk it out on the talk page is still disruptive and misleading. I've been as patient as I can be, yet firm enough that I somehow feel you should have understood that a block was coming for being disruptive. While you probably aren't violating WP:NLT directly, you actions are still skimming the spirit of the policy and seem designed to have a chilling effect, telling others they may be violating trademark law for what would be considered normal edits. Those two factors "chilling effect" and "law" combined will typically result in block if it is part of a larger pattern of editing, which your contribs show is the case. There are potentially tens of thousands of articles that would be in the same position, and this block is meant to prevent disruption to those pages, as well as the ones you have already jumped on.

Others are free to revert his edits regarding trademarks off the article talk pages. Encouraged to, in fact. You are welcome to appeal this block, using the guidance from WP:GAB, but I would tell the reviewing admin that my preference would be only if you accepted an indefinite topic ban on anything related to 1. Guinness (the company), 2. Any world's records, and 3) Trademarks. Even then, I'm not thrilled with the idea, but would be understanding under those terms and opposed without them. If you think people actually ARE violating the law, the place to contact is legal@wikimedia.org, but continuing to act like the enforcer of trademark law after being warned you are in the wrong, is not acceptable behavior here.

One final note: This talk page should be used only as it related to your block or genuine Wikipedia related information. Climbing on a soapbox about trademarks or similar will result in you losing access to editing here as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CraigCarlton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe that the block should be removed, because I did not do any disruptive editing to any of the three WIKI pepper pages themselves, I thought I was only having a civil discussion on those three pepper's TALK page regarding the "facts" about their heat levels and on my own TALK pages, about how the three pepper Scoville Heat Unit unconfirmed claims should appear on WIKI?

The exact same situation already exists on the WIKI page for the Red Savina pepper, where in 1994, Guinness confirmed that pepper to be the World's Hottest on the word of the developer, and without any confirmation of any lab tests. The WIKI Red Savina WIKI page at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Savina_pepper> tells the story that "Red Savina peppers were reported to a score up to 577,000 on the Scoville scale, but this oft-quoted figure was never verified" and then goes on to tell about a review of that pepper's heat level only found it to be about half as hot.

All I am asking, is for any of the peppers on WIKI that have unconfirmed World's Record hottest pepper Scoville Heat Unit claims, perhaps the WIKI community could make sure that those claims at least have an attached statement, just as the Red Savina does? As I read the WIKI policies, that seems to be a fundamental rule that keeps WIKI as the reliable reference source that it is--where unconfirmed "facts" are either removed from WIKI, or at least noted as such? Plus the unconfirmed claim for the 2 million SHU for the Trindad Moruga Scorpion should have a notation also? Respectfully submitted

CraigCarlton (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)CraigCarlton[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits were clearly disruptive. That you claim the edits were not disruptive means we cannot lift the block at this time. You'd need to convince us you understand why your edits were disruptive and convince us you wouldn't make the same edits again. Also, why are you capitalising "WIKI" like that? Yamla (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

break

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CraigCarlton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Community—I understand now why I was blocked, because I misunderstood that the Talk pages were there to discuss any details about an article, but that you could also be blocked for disruptive editing there, just like on the regular pages. Now that I know the rules for the Talk pages, I understand the blocking administrator's concerns and that I promise to do much better, and I am completely willing to use this Block as a learning experience, on how to use the Talk pages properly. I think that it is very important that all the pages on this important reference site are put together by consensus, and apologize if I mistook the Talk pages to be as open and free as I did, and will never do that ever again. I also apologize for putting Wiki in all caps, will never do that again either.CraigCarlton (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)CraigCarlton[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry, I don't buy it. This sounds exactly like you saying what you think we want to hear just to get unblocked. Obviously it is up to the reviewing admin, but you haven't addressed the merits that led to the block to begin with. The capitals in WIKI weren't the reason. The talk pages are pretty open, so that isn't the problem either. Again, I would not suggest unblocking you at all, but if you were, I would suggest the three restrictions I mentioned above, ie: only if you accepted an indefinite topic ban on anything related to 1. Guinness (the company), 2. Any world's records, and 3) Trademarks. If you then violated that topic ban and mentioned any of those, the block would be reinstated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]