User talk:Tao2911/Archive 3

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tao2911 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Case cleared. No sock, just a disgruntled editor who didn't like two other editors working together to improve a page with ownership issues (another editor has been recently banned for this issue on the Beat Generation page in question.)Tao2911 (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, my dealings with you on the Adi Da page suggest that you are a pompous bully who likes to throw adverbs and adjectives around. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. But I will continue to ask that you save original research and personal proselytizing for your own avenues of self-expression and not use wikipedia for that purpose. Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edit history indicates that you have grudge against the Adi Da. For at least the past year, it has been essentially impossible for anyone else to edit the article.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A completely ridiculous assertion, completely belied by the edit and discussion history on the page. We're done here. Please take your issues to the talk page of the article.Tao2911 (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Need some help?

Hello there I just saw the removal of this edit:

However, his Inka is never recorded in the Ryutaku-ji records and is also never announced through formal channels of the Myoshin-ji branch of the Japanese Rinzai lineage. This leads to speculation that Soen Nakagawa Roshi withdrew his authorization for Shimano to teach.[1]

Shouldn't only the last sentence be removed? In other words, aren't there sources for the rest? Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought there was no source at all - but if there is one and it goes uncontested, I won't be the one to do so. Personally, I think the accusation is accurate, from what I understand. Unfortunately I haven't yet seen a WP worthy source. After looking again, I still don't see any source for any of the passage...Tao2911 (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Genpo Merzel

Please do not re-add the completely unacceptable material to the article. WP:BLP is quite clear on the matter--and there wasn't a single reliable source cited in the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Please see you talk page - you are way out of line.Tao2911 (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• You are free to think so. The way I see it, I got WP:BLP on my side. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Total template blasting - no discussion, and accusing regular editor of vandalism for trying to save the work of a dozen other editors? You are bad news, monsieur.Tao2911 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Please don't make gender assumptions. But you do have a point: I slapped the wrong template here--it should have been this one, Template:Uw-biog3. I don't hope to think you see my point, but that's fine with me, even though it's a shame. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I see your point - but no rules in Wikipedia are set without conditions, and there are some significant issues here, none of which you showed any desire to parse out or work with other editors regards. Au revoir, Mr/Ms.Tao2911 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• There are no conditions. A BLP violation is a BLP violation. Stating in an article that someone is being accused of sexual misconduct, if it isn't properly verified, is basically accusing them of sexual misconduct. I don't see what there is here to work out. If it can't be properly verified, it shouldn't be in the article; it's as simple as that. We are not the news. If someone happens, WP doesn't have to jump on it. Wait. Wait until the reliable sources publish on it, then summarize it and stick it in the article. And if reliable sources don't publish on it, then that's it--it can't be in there.

  I made two edits to the article in a row, this one and this one, and each one had an edit summary explaining what the problem was. Don't accuse me of lack of communication or regard--I removed BLP violations, without any regard for who put them in there (because I didn't know and I certainly didn't care at that moment), but I took the time to explain what the problem was. And your response? reverted section blanking - possible vandalism. Admin?. Need I point out that besides being a personal attack, it is an edit summary that explains nothing of substance? Drmies (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You wiped out most of the page without comment in talk. That's called section blanking. I'm done. I don't care about the page. Please refrain from further comment here.Tao2911 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dennis Genpo Merzel. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. In this edit, you removed the only reliable source that the article had. That you can't read Dutch is your problem; there is no requirement that sources be in English. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

as if to prove my point that you seem barely competent enough to read, I haven't so much as touched that page in days. Other editors stepped in and tried to replace the work of dozens of previous editors that you felt was fine to just wipe out, including much totally uncontested bio material, well sourced. I alerted you to it, so you would continue to engage in your idiotic edit war. I'll let you battle others. And I didn't remove source solely because it was in Dutch (which I can decipher) but because thanks to you, there was no article left it was sourcing, you idiot. Please go away now.Tao2911 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that I am an idiot--since I am again trying to explain some of the basics to you. You don't use unreliable sources to verify BLPs. You don't remove reliable sources without a good reason. What the Dutch article verified was that the subject had been the student of a notable person. Are you sure you are here to help build an encyclopedia? Drmies (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Patronizing a veteran editor, as you have with me from the start, one who's ushered more than one page to GA status, without addressing any of your glaring mistakes or my points, only makes you seem more the ass you clearly are. Now, get back to ruining some more pages, and leave this one alone.Tao2911 (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Master, you have shown me the error of my ways. I bow to your veteran supremacy (after all, you have over 3,000 edits--I'm not even in the neighborhood), and will firmly believe, from now on, that your block log is simply the result of a conspiracy against you, as it usually is with people who are right. Seriously, I will grant that I was wrong about the Tricycle blog--it's a blog, but it's on Tricycle: The Buddhist Review, and that gives it credibility. The next time you remove it (I presume out of childish spite, with your usual venom thrown in), the next time you remove reliable sources (whether in Dutch or Esperanto) from the article, the next time you insult me or anyone else in an edit summary, we will meet on WP:CIVIL or WP:ANI (you've been there before--you know how it works). Calling people an idiot, an ass, whatever, may be OK in your world, but it's not OK here. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I am so put in my place. That's what you want to do right? Go around putting people in their place? Well done. Well placed efforts and energy. Now maybe go back and restore the rest of the totally innocuous, well-sourced bio info on the Merzel page. Moron. And save the template blasts, por favor.Tao2911 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oscar

I reverted this edit of yours. The award went to Melissa Leo. Favonian (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

ah. another page said she won. can't remember which one, but it should be fixed too. May have been the one devoted to the film?Tao2911 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

as I say in history, it was the Brit Academy that she won. My mistake. Corrected on the page.Tao2911 (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thank for checking and giving credit where credit is due. Favonian (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Dennis Genpo Merzel. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Addition of unsourced and removal of sourced material in a BLP. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion you are mentioned in

I lodged a complaint against Drmies for his edits on Merzels page. I did not mention you by name but you have been dragged into it. I recommend you have a look over there to see what has been said about you. Edit War:DrmiesGolgofrinchian (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

that guy is just a whole pile of bad news - and about 10% as bright as he thinks he is. I suspect he is about 15 - at least emotionally. good luck.Tao2911 (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Pearlasia Gamboa

Hi. I noticed you deleted material here. The material is in the article body with citations. The leded section is sometimes (often) written without citations if it summarized cited lines in the article body. Do you mind if I put the information back in? I can add the references from the article body to the lead if that would help. Thanks. 64.134.234.61 (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Your_witticism_are_not_falling_on_deaf_ears.

Hello, Tao2911. You have new messages at Geofferybard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I can dig it.

Marisol Deluna

Dear Tao, As a seasoned editor, I am requesting your hand. I began rebuilding this article after it was remarkably shortened. Yes, alone having her "early days" does not merit an article, however it helps tell her complete story. Can you revert your edits and allow me to build off it? I am a retired educator from New York and know her outreach without a personal connection.

As for her connection or lack there of with "Dale Eldred", (I read his Wiki article), Mrs. Deluna gave a talk recently whereas she mentioned a nameless sculpture teacher with whom she spent hours with while at art achool. He taught her beyond the basics of fashion to work within a square space (scarf) and garment construction from a textile/ rug collection he kept in his studio. Was it him? No idea. I found this interesting. This is not worthy of an inclusion in his article with verification I agree. Sad loss regardless. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

so interesting how you work in some detailed Eldred info here (but get cute and "forget" the name), and then Marisol shows up a day later and says a whole bunch more. What could it mean? Lol. Marisol, you work it baby!Tao2911 (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

All you need are sources. Every human being is worthy of a novel, a memoir, or biography, without exception. We are all special snowflakes. However, sadly perhaps, this does not mean they each get a wikipedia entry - the intent of which is not "tell people's stories" in your parlance (this may be your fundamental misunderstanding of what WP is and does). Ms Deluna is doubtless a fascinating person. The measure however of her worthiness here are SOURCES. Not her self-generated wedding announcement in the Times. Not a passing mention in a tiny trade magazine 10 years ago. Solid, notable, reliable secondary and tertiary sources demonstrating her cultural importance. Pony those up, write some objective prose, and you are in business. In the meantime...cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Tao, Thank you for your guidance. I have been aware of her designs and charity work for years as a New Yorker. Her page was up for deletion and survived after her article was all but erased by a man who personally attacked her in real life and covertly on Wikipedia. Other editors pinpointed this as a possibility. I phoned her design studio just last week and spoke to her assistant identifying myself by name and as a "Wikipedia Editor" with and interest in Mrs. Deluna. (At my age I have nothing to lose) She confirmed this attacker as "truth". Is she a fashion luminary? No. Yet is she notable? Yes. By Wikipedia standards? Yes, I can prove this with verifiable research and time.

So now you are using the word "attacker"? There are no "other editors". Just a bunch of SPA's which I and others noticed because of the identical way they all spew the same nonsense about there being one man behind the edits of the article when there have been literally dozens of editors erasing unverifiable claims from that page. Don't take my word for it Tao. Please check the edit history and you will see this woman is in complete denial about who erased the bulk of the article. BbBlick (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I read her initial article and absolutely agree that it was a bit of a novela. However, if you can please assist me in reverting the edits you made so that I can build off it- Sources in "Google News Archives" etc. can allow for growth. (If I do the revert, it will be reversed by others)

Time to now put my grandchildren to bed. Your reference of a "Snowflake" is endearing. I will share this with them. Beth. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Things don't work like that. I maintain my position that the page should be deleted. I am not going to help you to preserve it, especially by reverting my completely justified edits in order to recreate an un-Wikified page in order for you to learn how to edit here. Such is the learning curve. Your education continues, grasshopper!Tao2911 (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Tao, You have made yourself clear. I am not going to quarrel. This isn't about us. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I was one of the editors that has been singled out by this abusive posse of pro Deluna supporters as an alleged "man" now being called an attacker. I encourage you to view the edit history to that page as it will show what this woman says is a complete lie. Neither I nor the other editors who have been wrongly accused as being this fictitious "man" did most of the editing (or erasing) in this article. We are just a useful scapegoat for people in complete denial as to the lack of notability of the subject of the article. Is it possible "Elizabeth", that what dozens of editors have been saying for months now is true and this designer is not notable enough for an article? Make up whatever fictitious shady characters you want, DOZENS of neutral editors all concur there is a complete lack of coverage on the subject! The denial, blaming, lying, and scapegoating is ridiculous! I am getting pretty tired of you and the other user accounts blatatly lying about who actually deleted most of the nonsense out of this article. These are all easy to verify lies you are telling and every time I have challeneged you for more information, you and others ignore the question or change your story. You are wrongfully accusing me and others and are now using even more inflamotory language by calling me first a man, and now an "attacker". How dare you! You are blatatly misinforming and being defamatory! I am not stating anything false, you however, are clinging to a fantasy version of the real reason this article is deemed unimportant. Very sad indeed. BbBlick (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean "blatantly." Let's take it down a notch shall we, and maybe not do this on my talk page, hmmm? Seems a bit silly to get so worked up over a figure whose page is likely headed for deletion anyway. I would generally support the sock puppet allegation being put forth here - sorry Grandma Beth, but it does beg the question why you would suddenly find such a cause in Ms Deluna. I was sort of chuckling at your messages, with their seemingly pretty transparent theatrical cover story, with detailed facts of Deluna's story - Deluna is a self-promoter, clearly, and a grand fantasist, probably. But whatever. The page should go. I will support efforts toward that end.Tao2911 (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

August 9, 2011 New York, New York USA

Dear Editor "Tao",

I am the "Subject" of the page in question. This can be confirmed by e-mailing me at marisol@marisoldeluna.com since I do not have an edit account on Wikipedia nor have a desire to obtain one.

Specific details pertaining to legal matters as alluded by editor ElizabethCB123 (who spoke to one of my assistants last week to seek information about my work) is being dealt with by the Bexar District Attorney's Office as he is on notice. This is not speculation as the man contacted me via Facebook and e-mail gloating at the time of his Wikipedia edits. However please note, I do not agree with using the word "Attack" as this is a huge word and should be reconsidered.

Dale Eldred- I never knew I was included in an article about my late mentor until you made mention of it. My relationship with Dale and his family was relatively common knowledge to those who knew us. I was a fashion student who spent more time in the sculpture department or his private studio off campus. I flew back for his memorial service and have kept in contact with his son Ean in Portland through the years after he attended school in New York. I was encouraged to move to New York in part by Dale's advisement as a result to is son's time spent at Cooper Union. Does this merit being included in his life's history according to Wikipedia? Only if one were to include every student he ever taught. He was a brilliant man. If you knew Dale, you of course know Stretch. He opened his studio to me recently and has a stunning photo above a door of Dale that leads him into his work space. He is sorely missed.

Please keep in mind topics being judged without full insight into the reasoning can be misunderstood. I read your comments of a "Promotional Nature". Not once has a project emerged due to: "Oh, I located you on Wikipedia". It is my life's work that is truly meaningful to me and others. If the article about me is deleted, so be it.

Marisol Deluna- Cole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.242.78 (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh brother. Thanks for the fascinating bio, Marisol, I mean Beth, I mean Marisol. You sure do like to talk about yourself! If only everyone else would cooperate, right? Keep up the fight for fame and gain!Tao2911 (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Acutally it can be ok

Are you aware more than one official link can be appropriate? See WP:ELOFFICIAL. Your diff makes me think you were unaware. Jesanj (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And then you just made this edit... My o my. Weren't some of those categores verified before you started removing sources? Jesanj (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, my dear. If there is no source, how can there be a category? Unless you know the subject, or are the subject, which is exactly the issue we are up against.Tao2911 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you attempted to use online databases to read the San Antonio Express-News sources I've mentioned on the talk page? Jesanj (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not yet - no time now. Try later.Tao2911 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't done the research, maybe you should reconsider being so adamant on the talk pages that coverage doesn't exist. Jesanj (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have done plenty of research, thanks - my efforts in last hours have mainly been looking into the complex yet transparent web of sock and meat puppetry going on by the primary editors of the Deluna page. maybe you can help look into that if you have the spare time? Also, one story in the SA paper probably isn't going to radically alter my assessment. but I will look forward to reading it with great anticipation.Tao2911 (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link for me, or are you just going to have me bang around in your footsteps online? Because that probably isn't going to happen. If you have some evidence, as I've already asked, why not present it?Tao2911 (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have little experience investigating those cases, sorry. There are 5 SA paper mentions devoted to her with word counts ranging from the 300s to 600s. Are research databases available to you (local library, etc.) unable to retreive those articles? Jesanj (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sitting in a library either. Have you looked into whether or not your local library has an online code to databases so that you can access them from other computers? Jesanj (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marisol Deluna. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

in the immortal words of the Beatest Bard: it ain't me, babe.Tao2911 (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ElizabethCB123. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mr. Brown (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

dude, don't template blast. And what are you talking about? It a virtual puppet show over there and you are blasting me?Tao2911 (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been more than respectful with you, but you've continually attacked me as being a puppet, now alleging that I'm acting all "high and mighty"? Again, if you think you have a valid allegation, then go ahead and ask for an investigation - don't just keep alleging crap without doing anything about it. --Mr. Brown (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So touchy! I'm just waiting for admin action - what can a poor puppet fighter do? You accused me of being a sock, without seeming to do any research, just because you didn't like my comments. Seen that before. I was cleared forthwith. Did I go to your page and have a fit? I've never "attacked you" - I suggested that you may be a meat puppet, though other editors are obviously socks. You may very well be acting at Deluna's request - you are certainly making some bad edits and decisions. But carry on. Do your thing.Tao2911 (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you can see with this article, there are a number of socks working their magic. What am I to do? I go to the article and see that it has been reduced to one sentence by one single user, yourself, along with a handful of users attempting to make changes to the article, which are only reverted by yourself. Am I wrong for reverting the article to a time prior to destructive edits by a single user? No. Given the totality of the circumstances, reverting the article prior to your edits really wasn't in bad faith.

And oh yes, I have Deluna on SPEED DIAL and I'm in CONSTANT contact with her <eyeroll>! Ridiculous. --Mr. Brown (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Tao, I've mentioned something like this before, about how you shouldn't accuse others of being socks and pointing out who you think they are in real life (even if what appears to be the real life person has posted) but a user asked me to remind you. Here's what I think. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm... I found this personal attack of yours. I quote, "you are a shameless self-promoter who created this page as a grotesque exercise in tedious autobiography using at least 4 different ID's (likely upwards of 8), who has gotten friends to act as meat puppets to monitor it and bully other voices off of it including using legal threats, and to understand clearly that you are not worthy of a wikipedia page just because you imagine yourself to be famous". Can you please strike/withdraw/apologize for that and any allegations the user is the subject of the article? I know the sock investigation is taking a while but that is no excuse. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

I brought up your behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_from_Tao2911. Jesanj (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note, Nycfashion also claimed to be Marisol Deluna years ago and added several photos to her original article as well as her design label and claimed copyright and ownership over them lending credence over the fact the subject of the article has been actively involved in the creation of her page from its inception. Aa1232011 (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the account did essentially claim it was Deluna in a diff by saying "my company": [2] Jesanj (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, user IP 64.134.242.78 also claimed to be Marisol Deluna herself a few days ago (you can see her letter on this page above) and gave detailed and unpublished information on her friendship and college professor. I believe she really was her following these edits and debates. Aa1232011 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Have faith in this if you want. A fan could have also contacted her. Jesanj (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We could all continue making excuses for the side we support with could be, maybe, possibly etc. These claims are stated as fact by the editors themselves, not me. Neither editor said anything about being a fan so its an assumption on your part because with all due respect, you are the one having faith on certain editors on here. I am not looking to convince you since you have clearly chosen a side. But as a person who has been legally threatened and accused of being an "attacker" in real life by ElizabethCB123 as well as LegalEagleUSA and the IP claiming to be Deluna (see above), I don't take this whole debacle lightly. I hope you never know the feling.Aa1232011 (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen this kind of thing a few times here. My assessment is that Jesanj is being driven more now by her investment in opposing me and having a page to document her time spent than in seeing the situation objectively - which, if he/she could step back for a second and actually read the history of the page and its talk record as I and others have (though believe me, I am not objective anymore - I know what I believe) you can't help but deduce that Deluna is behind the whole mess. She's a shameless self-promoter (Jesanj used the same phrase herself in one apparently brief moment of clarity) who create this page as an apparently important cog in her press machinations. I've just contacted some old school chums and asked about her - I heard some stories that would curl your toes. Not least of which is her claiming to be both a Republican and Zen Buddhist on Facebook (that alone is enough to melt my brain.) She is not a savory character - but heck, I assert she's clearly fabricating grandiose if pathetically transparent lies here, posing as some nice little old lady in New York who just happens to have awareness of every single biographical and business detail of nobody scarf designer from Texas. Gee - ok! Give her a star! She's good at pretending to be nice, too.Tao2911 (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

All I know is that this shit got personal when from the start of my editing her page, I got repeatedly accused by pretty much all of her supporters of being a man who had threatened, "attacked" her in real life, and who had a notice against me with the district attorneys office. To say nothing of the numerous legal threats they sent my way. For the record, all lies. I am not a man who knows her, there is no complaint (I checked), and I have never been anyones "attacker". You'd think all these legally savvy people would know better than to behave in such a manner.Aa1232011 (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're wrong I used that phrase. I acknowledged there appeared to be obvious promotion, and I'm aware from the page's history that there a history of promotion. I found reliable sources and wrote 4 lines after you got the article down to a sentence. You said you sorted through the mess, and threw out pointless sources. Well I added reliable ones. In that sense, we're on the same team. I don't want to go back to page history and all that crap to see if there is a WP:DUCK. You opened a case, and I'll let an uninvolved administrator do a duck test if appropriate. I provided content. Jesanj (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

go back to talk page: "shameless promotion makes you skeptical", to ECB123. It is not insignificant to spend a few minutes on history - you spent much longer needlessly finding sources. As for DUCK test, just the things she's said to you or in discussions you've been involved in should have yours going wildly! Instead you go after me in my frustration, largely caused by your blindness to the obvious. The sources themselves are thrown into question by Deluna and her proxies behavior here. It is of a piece. Motive and methodology. She is patently non-notable, and I think even your sources demonstrate this, so I find all of this incredibly tedious. If we were on the same side you'd be helping to get a new AfD page going.Tao2911 (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please start a thread at somewhere like WP:ANI if you have been on the receiving end of legal threats here. Do you have diffs? Jesanj (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If this was meant as a reply to me, you can't be serious! You couldn't have missed the huge blue box in Deluna's talk page where LegalEagleUSA started the accusations http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marisol_Deluna&diff=prev&oldid=438088312 here? Or even <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&diff=prev&oldid=438352318 here>. This is on this very page written by Elizabeth referring to me: "Her page was up for deletion and survived after her article was all but erased by a man who personally attacked her in real life and covertly on Wikipedia. Other editors pinpointed this as a possibility. I phoned her design studio just last week and spoke to her assistant identifying myself by name and as a "Wikipedia Editor" with and interest in Mrs. Deluna. (At my age I have nothing to lose) She confirmed this attacker as "truth"." Also there is this one by Elizabeth <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ElizabethCB123&diff=next&oldid=442554673 here>. This is bordering on denial.Aa1232011 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Looked. Didn't see it. Can you provide a diff? If you are blaming me for your behavior I disagree. Jesanj (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Checked it - it was Msnicki. Apologies, for presuming you assessed the situation in the way I deem most sensible. I'm not blaming you. But I still think the duck in the room quacks loudest.Tao2911 (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Jesanj (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to forget some things or not read? I made it clear that the threatened outing in the first diff was inappropriate -- it's what brought me to this topic.[3] I thought you were bringing up something new. As for legal threats (real or perceived) you see in that diff or others, if you think the problem has not been dealt with then go to an appropriate noticeboard. Yes, of course the one by Elizabeth was inappropriate, but it appears to be withdrawn?/archived? I thought whatever it was died down. But if you don't think it has been dealt with, take your grievances somewhere, please. Jesanj (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/ElizabethCB123

I instigated a sock investigation of this user. I was proven correct, and at least 5 blocks have now been implemented. User accused me of harassment, and being a sock myself. I was cleared on all counts. So I'm archiving all this nonsense, and moving forward with new deletion nomination of Marisol Deluna page.