Excuse me, Delicious carbuncle, but the edit I made to A-Frame does not constitute vandalism. I notice that you had earlier reverted edits by sockpuppets of Swamilive, but I think you'll find that the bit I've put back in is in fact verifiably notable and cited. Please don't assume that because you have not heard of something that it isn't real, and furthermore, notable. Edemehpecne (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the source you cited in your recent edits, and can confirm that it does not appear to meet the reliable sources guideline]]. In addition, if you wish to edit again, you will need to do so under your original username, first correcting the problems that led to your original block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)21:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, how are you? Note that I was only one of three editors to revert your changes. You know, if you stuck to editing Live (band) articles and etc, I don't think anyone would care one way or the other, but if you insist on adding nonsense to articles and harrassing Dominus, you're just going to keep getting your accounts blocked. Why don't you just stop? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DelCarb, I'm doing just fine. It's interesting that you say nobody would care if I stuck to editing Live articles, since I'm pretty sure you were the only one who bothered to revert the articles about the singles. If you're serious about nobody caring, then I will gladly create a new account (probably called "Live singles editor") for just that purpose. Something tells me, though, that you and I have a love-hate relationship just strong enough to make such a proposed harmony impossible. I don't really WANT to be vandalizing pages (note that the A-Frame edits were actually valid ones). But, it's nice to keep in touch with you, and this seems to be an effective way of doing so. I'd trade e-mails with you instead, if that would make you happier. Meanwhile, I'm afraid I'm just going to have to keep evading blocks. Do remember what I mentioned on a few of my sock accounts. I've managed ways around the account creation problem. This isn't just to pull your leg. I seriously have done this. I'd be willing to participate constructively to Wikipedia and maybe even report the loophole to someone who has some say in the overall code. MediaWiki people, presumably. BUT....you and I keep crossing paths. In a perfect world, you and I could actually work together to prevent other vandals from ruining this community. Do you think we can work toward a perfect world? The first thing I'd need from you is some sort of guarantee that you will allow a Swamilive sockpuppet to exist without intervention, so long as such a sockpuppet contributes only constructively. I'm curious about your view on this. Again, I can hinder the project or I can help it. So long as you keep provoking me, I'm afraid you'll only find me to be an annoyance. Is that REALLY what you want? Do you really want to have to report sockpuppets every few days until....whenever? Probably not. Let's try to work together. (Incidentally, Dominus is a great guy. I haven't bothered him for awhile.)Edemehpecne (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about this new account that edits constructively, because this account was edit-warring to add unconstructive information to the encyclopedia, and would have been blocked on its own edits even if it had not been a sockpuppet. Moreover, you didn't appear to understand that you were editing inappropriately. Are you sure you know the rules well enough to avoid breaking them? If you do, you could probably make a persuasive case for unblocking at your original account; maybe you should spend a few weeks reading the rules and observing, then request an unblock with a specific plan for editing differently. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) FisherQueen is right (as usual). Most Live singles just aren't notable per WP:MUSIC and if I wasn't redirecting them, someone else eventually would have. Please don't take this personally, but I don't really care whether or not you edit here, so long as you do it constructively. I don't know why you think that I'm your nemesis. I'm not sure how you think I'm provoking you, unless it's by getting your sockpuppets blocked. Which I'll keep doing as long as I need to. Sorry about that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delicious carbuncle :) Come on. We were made for each other. I keep creating 'em. You keep blocking 'em. It's the beauty of perpetual motion. See you in 6 months, or less if I'm right about the loophole thing. Edemehpecne (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think it's as easy as that. The Swamilive account has been blocked to the extent that I can't even edit its talk page. The talk page would have been my only avenue. Do you have an alternate suggestion? Edemehpecne (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple of options. Email for an unblock per WP:APPEAL, or just ask for an unblock on this account but let them know it's for the Swamilive username. I strongly suggest you don't do this until you're serious about following the rules. See you around. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
