User talk:D.C. Blake

Hi. I've been protecting Miley Cyrus for some time against vandalism. The pro-Cyrus vandals are almost as bad as the anti-Cyrus ones! At any rate, I appreciated this edit of yours [1], where you removes the overlinking on common words such as "actress". I did have a "what do you think about this" question. Couldn't anybody who has ever cracked a joke call themselves a comedian? Or maybe more to the point, any pop singer who has contributed a couple lines to a couple of her songs call herself a "songwriter"?

I can think of several ways to approach answering this question. As an example, if I had a Wiki article on myself...I don't, but if I did...it would say "Occupation: Engineer". But I would like it to say "Occupation: Engineer, novelist". And that would be fair...after all I did spend years writing novels. And I might yet try to sell them. For interested readers, wouldn't it be more candid to include "novelist"?

I'm bringing this up as I suspect there is quite a bit of "inflation" in Wiki bios. And I don't have a definite concept of how to handle it. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if you saw that as me shouting at you. I was trying to highlight the reasons as to why the song was not notable. hence maybe i should have emboldened the text instead of typing in capitals. Please do not speak to me in a patronising way. Your actions were not much better. Removing a merge discussion despite it not having reached a consensus is not an appropriate manner of editing because it does not assume good faith or manners. The discussion can be ongiong, such actions are not restricted by time. You seem to think that because you have made comments about myself and another editors view that the article should be redirected/merged that means you are correct and therefore the article stays. That is not how these processes work. Please do not remove the tag until a consensus is reached. And in future tone your warnings down. I have been editing for nearly one year and have hundreds of contributions. I am well-accustomed to neutral editing/neutral dispute resolution. The merge tag will allow all memebers of the wikipedia community to comment on the situation. Finally the AfD was aimed at deleting the article, this new discussion is regarding the merger. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No worries, broski. Cheers! 124.186.246.195 (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, you've been found out. All of your new accounts have been blocked, Pokerdance itself has been blocked for a month. Normally, in a circumstance like this, the Pokerdance account would have been indefinitely blocked. Inventing two new accounts in order to evade a block is a pretty serious matter.

I know you feel like you were tricked into agreeing to a 1RR rule. I agree that you shouldn't have agreed to it, but you accepted the restriction in order to get unblocked 18 hours early. It was a decision you made of your own free will. I wouldn't have taken it, and, if I had seen the offer before you accepted it, I would have advised you not to take it either.

In a month, return to editing using your Pokerdance account. Obey the 1RR restriction. It'll be over in about 9 months, and hopefully you will have learned to be more persuasive as a result. If you try to return early, you will be found out. I fully expect that the next block would be permanent.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the offer has been made that if you publicly repent as Pokerdance and reaffirm your 1RR adherence, you'll be unblocked. That one, I would advise you taking.—Kww(talk) 20:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]