Perthis 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 adiscussion, because the editors who commented agreed that it wasn'tnotable 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 atList of Decepticons for the time being. Thanks.Black Kite (t)(c)01:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll need to look at the listings for each day atWP:AFD, and see if there are any Transformers articles there. If you find any, you can comment on them.Black Kite (t)(c)01:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please do not createsock puppets again, as you did withUser:Bunkerdiver, whom I just blocked. Consider this your only warning; if you continue to abuse multiple accounts, thenyou will be blocked for sock puppetry. Regards, –MuZemike01:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion atWikipedia: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 atWikipedia: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, 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 ofyour recent edits, such as the one you made toClear heels, did not appear to be constructive and has beenreverted or removed. Please usethe sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read thewelcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be foundhere. Thank you.—Gfoley4Wanna chat?01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atClear heels. Your edits appear to constitutevandalism and have beenreverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. The reverted edit can be foundhere. Thank you.—Gfoley4Wanna chat?01:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the issue of this redirect hereLog/2010 November 8. Thanks.Fainites^barleyscribs16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please work in the page in sandbox space (e.g. atUser: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]

Your comment is requested back at theWQA. 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]

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^barleyscribs22:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to theWP:SPI. Read the section on evidence. Then go to the submissions sectionhere. 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 providebehavioural 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 isnot sockpuppetry.) If there has already been an investigation in respect of this user that should come up.Fainites^barleyscribs10:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I am notencouraging 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^barleyscribs15:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]