Talk:Charles Karel Bouley/Archive 1

Untitled comments
She is a talk show host That Makes her notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.157.88 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 18 March 2007

HE is a radio-talk show host, but it's his openly gay lifestyle that makes him notable. ("Not that there's anything wrong with that!") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly A. Siebecke (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 April 2007

I would like to think being gay isn't why I'm notable, since most of the controversy on my page does not refer to anything gay. Karel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamkarel (talk • contribs) 18:05, 15 September 2007

Curse words in quotes
Is there some policy against curse words in quotes? This isn't disneyland after all. And since when is Mother a four letter word?

(Doug rosenberg (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Suspected copyright infringement
I suspect that the two "Karel" Bouley images uploaded have been done so without the permission of Mr.Bouley and/or the actual copyright owner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CharlesKarelBouley.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Youcan%27tsatthat%21.jpg SkagitRiverQueen 18:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I give my permission for those photos. Karel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamkarel (talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 September 2007

Karel Himself?
I'm fairly certain the 71.108.26.193 edits were made by Karel. On this morning's radio program around 12:08 AM PST, Karel commented on the Tony Snow article, saying he'd removed a number of negative comments from his Wikipedia entry. He then said that someone keeps putting them back, suggesting that "the right" is trying to keep the controversy alive. The edits from this IP address are the only ones I can find matching the edits he described on the air.

Karel, please understand that you cannot edit your own article in this manner, without creating a conflict of interest. Other editors, who have read and understand Wikipedia policy, will revert such edits, as you've already seen. Please review Wikipedia policy regarding conflict of interest edits, and point of view, so you can better understand what is expected of the Wikipedia community. -FeralDruid (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

An FYI: Karel seems to be now using IP address 96.240.42.168 Under this IP address, has still been making changes and removing negative facts in his Wikipedia article, despite being warned previously about doing so. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have to support this claim? -FeralDruid (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Karel made a post today in a Usenet newsgroup using his new email address that originated from IP address 96.240.42.168. I suppose it *is* possible that someone forged the post (used Karel's name and email address), but I sincerely doubt it was anybody but Karel.  SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Joy Diamond
I find myself questioning the edits made by JoyDiamond over the past few months. This user's edits appear to be fan-like in nature, and many appear to have been made for the purpose of sanitizing the content of the article (for example, removing comments about listener complaints, and having been reprimanded by KGO, over his comments about Ronald Reagan; removing comments about his having been fired by KFI; removing comments about his having married a friend for tax reasons; and most recently removing the deletion suggestion without discussion). There is a clear POV tone to JD's edits. -FeralDruid (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Follow-up. I'm pretty sure I've heard Karel comment on a friend named Joy, and can't help wondering if this is the same person.  -FeralDruid (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This article has been added to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I'm not convinced it meets notability requirements and no one but Joy Diamond seems to be interested in improving it. --Rtphokie (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This radio personality can meet notability guidelines if the references are improved. There are plenty of references both to his radio show and to a notable court case he was apparently involved in.  THis article needs some serious work to make it more encyclopedic and less resumeish.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspended
I wanted to amend my citation within the article to mention that Ronn Owens mentioned the indefinite suspension during his 11:00 hour. Specifically at 11:16 AM, and again at 11:37 AM. It was mentioned a third time during the hour, but I don't remember the time.

An editor commented today that on Nov 10, Karel had been fired. I haven't found any evidence of this yet. I'm reviewing the recordings from this morning to see if I can find any reference, and have asked the editor for more specific info. -FeralDruid (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

An editor -SkagitRiverQueen has been repeatedly editing this page with a decidedly non-neutral POV. 75.101.8.36 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And I say that the anonymous user 75.101.8.36 is the editor with a PPOV - and very possibly either a sympathetic KGO employee or friend of Karel. Anything recently negative about Karel has been removed by 75.101.8.36. Karel HAS had friends and relatives (and even himself) edit his Wikipedia entry in the past. Who's to say that 75.101.8.36 isn't another in a long line? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, look, this has got to stop. It is not necessary to include so much detail in the section about his suspension and firing. It is not necessary to include the text of the blog entry, nor is it necessary to include the text of Brad Kava's article. As the IP editor mentioned, this in encyclopedic, not a newspaper article. Citations exist for the purpose to referencing external sources -- we do not need to actually include the external text within the article. -FeralDruid (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also removed the section about the FCC fine, as it's speculative. -FeralDruid (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Trying for a more neutral tone
In my edit of 11/29.2008, I made several changes to the article. One was inserting the full text of the coarse language, as Wikipedia is not edited for the protection of minors. I rewrote the introduction, which was a bit awkward, and some removed editorial commentary in the third paragraph. One reference can no longer be accessed, so I deleted the footnote to it, and inserted a short quote from a blog where the subject commented on the action that resulted in his termination from KGO, in place of editorial commentary in that section as well. Hopefully, this will get the article back on track a bit. Sea photo Talk 07:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of my changes
Since all of my changes were reverted, I would like to invite comment on them. Here are several things I would like to improve in the article, some of which are style, and some NPOV. First, the full name of the subject should be in the lead, followed by alias or stage names. Generally, the profession should be presented in current tense, unless the subject has left it permanently. In the volatile radio business, this is especially true, although current employment status or location is relevant in the body of the text.

Stylistically, I would like to see the paragraph starting with "After twenty-two months on KFI" rewritten because some of the phrasing is redundant.

I have a NPOV issue with the following sentence:

"'Rather than taking full responsibility for the controversial remarks aired, Bouley said that he takes 'responsibility' for the incident but '[it's] not my fault', choosing to blame the young, newly-hired KGO engineer instead.'"

Which is why I replaced a short quote of the host's own comments. Regardless of whether the opinion expressed above is accurate, it is not encyclopedic, which is the standard we should be striving towards.

The section stating:

"'The FCC has not announced what, if any, fine(s) may be imposed on KGO or Bouley for this incident. There is, however, precedence that the fine could go as high as $945,000 with each instance of the f-word being fined at $315,000.'"

Should be deleted per both OR and because Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. If the FCC takes an action, it should then be incorporated into the article with citations. We went around this on the Bernie Ward page until he was convicted. A review of the edit history of that article will illustrate a lot of the points I have written about.

Lastly, the entire section about his private or current life should be removed unless it can be footnoted, per WP:BIO

I'll wait a day or two before making changes in the article so that anyone interested can comment here. This way we can avoid non productive reversions.

One last thing I will ask those who edit, please use the "show preview" button to assess your changes before posting. Multiple edits in a short time period are confusing to follow and invite wholesale reversion. I look forward to your comments and suggestions. Together we can improve this article. Thanks! Sea photo Talk 23:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been going back and forth on this as well. I don't think the FCC comment should be here, as it's speculative. I've removed it before, but it keeps getting put back. I also don't think it's necessary to have quotes from Karel discussing the firing incident. We include citations so that we don't have to include quotes from external sources. There are references to KGO, to Karel's site, and I think also to the Brad Kava article. That should be sufficient. I also agree that the article should start with Karel's full name, as it has in the past. People randomly seem to come into this article and change it. -FeralDruid (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so...I notice all of the "citation needed" additions and can understand why they are necessary. My question on the current life section is this: you want a citation for the statement about his "wife" Karen Dittman, but what exactly do you want the citation for? That she is his platonic wife or that he married her for insurance protection or that she has since moved to Texas or all of it? Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Likely all of the above. The problem with edits such as this is that there's no evidence, other than his having said so on his radio program a few years ago, when they got married in the first place.  -FeralDruid (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

May '09 Reversion
I just reverted three anonymous edits by 173.51.20.250. In addition to including unsourced detail, they also appear to be sanitizing sections of the article. -FeralDruid (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Karel, are you editing the article again? -FeralDruid (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Response
As you have no doubt noticed I have not attempted any more editing on Karel's Page for almost a year. AS delightful as you gentlemen are, you wore me out! Karel's has made NO edit's either, to him that is my task.

There were no citations for Karel's parent's dates and it was an unnecessary addition that was VERY upsetting to Karel. So... I removed them this evening and corrected his Mom's legal name.

I know very well who is making these changes as she has been an ongoing problem since the earliest Karel chat and in other venues. I will leave that for you to judge.

I worked VERY hard to write and rewrite to your specifications. As I said then, I will not edit unless I feel an absolute necessity. I have been very upset seeing the ongoing and sometimes egregious changes of Karel's page, but I place my trust in you as you fix them. Feral are you still listening to Karel? Respectfully JoyDiamond (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't listened to him since he was fired from KGO.


 * Karel has edited the page in the past, of his own admission. I commented on it above, regarding an edit he made a couple of years ago.  He admitted on the radio to having made changes, and cited a "right wing conspiracy" to revert his edits.  But in reviewing the edits in question, it was clear he was trying to sanitize the article.  At the time I chastised him for doing so, mentioning WP:NPOV and WP:COI.


 * From what you said above, it doesn't sound as though you made the edits earlier today. You'd have used your registered account to do so.  And I'm generally suspicious of anonymous edits, especially when they appear to sanitize text and include no citations for the included text.


 * However, I also get the impression, from your second sentence, that you're editing as Karel's proxy, on Karel's behalf. If this is the case, it seems to me to still violate WP:COI.  I agree there's no reason to include the dates next to his parents' names, so won't argue that point.  But please make sure he understands this isn't an auto-biography, and that he can't treat it as such.  -FeralDruid (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
Karel has made no edits for years, since you properly chastised him. Also, I am NOT editing as Karel's proxy but of my own volition. The Changes I made were in response to Karel mentioning on the air last night that the dates of his parents death upset him greatly. We both understand this is not an autobiography. Again, he simply has neither the time or the interest in editing. The accuracy of the edits made by the woman I mentioned are not accurate and sometimes mean spirited. He DOES read his Wiki article from time to time in the interest of what is being said now. I may edit from time to time after a year off in the interest of accurate reporting, but not as Karel's friend but as an objective reporter whom has access to the true facts. OK? 05:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoyDiamond (talk • contribs)


 * Okay, thanks for clarifying. -FeralDruid (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to be insensitive here, but the feelings of the subject of any article don't matter. If a relevant fact can be sourced, it should be included. If not verifiable, it should be deleted (as was done here).  There are many BLP articles that include information that the subject would no doubt wish excluded for a variety of reasons; amongst ex-KGO hosts the Bernie Ward article comes to mind immediately. Sea photo Talk  19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Seaphoto: RELEVANT verifiable facts should absolutely be included regardless of feelings. As FeralD agreed above, the death dates of one's parents are not relevant to anything. Thanks for your input. JoyDiamond (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Birth/Death Dates
Saying that the inclusion of these dates is as relevant as it is irrelevant is a ridiculous argument. I just went through and looked at about 20 bio pages, and not one of them lists the birth and death dates of the subject's parents. Why are you insisting on putting it back, when two editors (myself and one other) have agreed they don't belong? -FeralDruid (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm insisting because I believe I *am* right. From what I can see, there's no logical reason why the dates can't be there and I challenge you to find one (other than your 20-other-articles-can't-be-wrong argument) to support your edit. Having the dates there hurts no one (as Karel's personal and biased friend Joy stated in a previous edit) and, I believe, the information adds to the biographical nature of the article. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

20 articles picked at random to demonstrate that listing the birth and death dates of the subject's parents isn't at all common. Further, you haven't explained why these dates are at all relevant to the article. Frankly I'm inclined to go directly to a request for comments, rather than get involved in another edit war with you. -FeralDruid (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in an "edit war", either - but I am tired of your heavy-handedness when it comes to edits to this article. Because I hadn't read the talk comments above before replying to you here, I now notice that one of your reasons for not keeping the birth-death dates was because there was no reference to the dates being correct. In response to that, I have included verifiable sources (and made an appropriate date correction). Personally, I believe you might not be seeing things (regarding this article) from a NPOV. Last year I acquiesced to your heavy-handedness and compromised regarding the Joe the Plumber edits - maybe you could consider making a compromise in this case? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My reason for removing the birth and death dates is that I do not consider them relevant. Regarding my perceived heavy-handedness, I take a rather strong view toward edits in this particular article due to numerous attempts in the past to sanitize the content -- by random IP edits, by Joy Diamond, and by Karel himself.  Regarding your edits last year, my issue was with your copying paragraphs of text from Karel's blog into the article.  You particularly felt it was necessary to archive what he wrote on his blog, as he edited it the following day.  But that's not what this site is for, and copying text from his blog violated his copyright.  We can't just copy large portions of text from other people's writing, including blogs.  That's what citations are for.  Should the author choose to change the text later, that's his prerogative.  -FeralDruid (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked a number of BLP articles about radio personalities (and a couple of Presidents, just to see if the standards change with increased notability), and don't see the birth/death statistics of the parents in any of them; it seems like a form of trivia and stylistically awkward. For that reason, and the sake of consistency, I would remove the dates as not being relevant, but I would like to first hear your reasons why you feel so strongly that information should be included in the article. Sea photo Talk 05:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well...I will start by saying that one person's "awkward inclusion" is another's "straightforward facts". Because I am an amateur genealogist, I see the life/death dates of ones ancestors relevant to the lives of the living. As someone who would just come across the Karel article from a curiosity/informational standpoint, I still see the information as relevant - one reason being that Karel has often referred to his parents in one way or another on his shows (especially his mother). Because he *is* still living (and he is still relatively young), I see the information interesting and relevant to his biography that his parents are *not* still living. I also want to make it clear that my inclusion of the dates was not (as Karel's personal friend Joy Diamond alluded), meant to hurt Karel in any way, but to add to his article informationally. If any are willing to do so, I'm willing to have other editors and or administrators weigh in here. Whatever the consensus, so shall be the final decision. Fair enough? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already stated my position. I would say the dates would matter if there was some significant event attached, such as living to 100, having been at the WTC on 9/11, or being the subject of a wrongful death lawsuit.  As it is I just don't see them adding anything to the content of the article, beyond just being random pieces of data.  -FeralDruid (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that, I don't see a compelling reason to include that information Sea photo Talk 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...well...can you come up with a compelling reason why NOT to include the information (other than the lame excuse of, "well, other articles don't include that information")? Seriously, what does it hurt to leave it?  It's not incorrect, it's not uninformative, and it's not taking up a bunch of space on the page, so...? I mean, come on - you can't consider thinking outside the box for once?  SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thinking outside the box is often overrated LOL. For example, on a nuclear submarine you want the reactor control technician to turn those valves the same way, every time.  As far as Wikipedia goes, there is a time to express yourself stylistically, and a time to conform to established standards and practices.  I know this seems conservative, but I tend to edit BLP articles that way.  What can I say, I like things consistent.  There is no rush to delete the info, lets hear what everyone has to say. Sea photo Talk  01:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure you agreed to comply with consensus, which thus far counts three for deletion and one against. And I'm completely baffled as to why you're referring to precedent as a lame excuse.  Finally, you have yet to explain why the dates are relevant.  -FeralDruid (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did agree to comply with consensus, however, there are and have been more than you and Seaphoto and Joy Diamond contributing to this article over time- my hope was that others besides you three would chime in. Moreover, when I agreed to go with consensus, I did so with the understanding that others besides the three obvious 'no' votes would be counted.  Seaphoto is right - what's the rush?  Now...why would you be "baffled" by something so obvious?  "Precedent" that may not always be the best way to do things and is, to borrow a term from Seaphoto, pretty overrated IMO.  Haven't you ever heard that just because everyone else is doing it that doesn't make it the best or only idea out there?  And finally, yes I did explain why I thought the dates were relevant.  If necessary, re-read what I wrote three and six posts above.  Beyond all this...if I'm wrong here, please correct me...you aren't an administrator (other than being involved in correcting article vandalism), are you Feral?  If not, why do you continue to insist on being so heavy-handed about this issue and this article?SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the parents dates again. As agreed, they is no precedent or reason to include them. Continuing that discussion is ludicrous. I made a couple of other changes, but probably need help in presenting them properly. Karel and Karen are divorcing. The reference was added but not included in the body of the article. As publicly discussed on his radio show as recently as last week his numbers were rising, but I am not in any way trying to violate your standards. If edit is not proper please remove it. I do my best to present facts objectively.JoyDiamond (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Birth/death dates are an intrinsic part of the identification of, for example, the numerous John Smiths (please look at that page a moment.) Wikipedia is a readers' service, essentially: what does it serve a reader to forbid birth/death dates on persons mentioned in an article who are not sufficiently noteworthy for an article of their own. Birth/death dates help a reader google the individual. Too much forbidding isn't healthful  anywhere.--Wetman (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Wetman. Unfortunately, there was some rush to remove the dates (I have no idea what the hurry was about), even though it was agreed that a majority vote would decide.  What harm placing birth/death dates after the parents' names would do is beyond me - and why some think they are uninformative and uninteresting is equally as curious to me.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a personal biography service or webpage.  I don't think that the subject of the article should be able to dictate (read: whine) what should and shouldn't be in the article (especially if it is factual and hurts no one) - and I believe that's exactly what happened here. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Birth/death dates are vital for the subject of a biography article, they are far less relevant for the parents unless they too are notable - if you look at the various John Smith articles cited by Wetman you will see that.  I agree that this is not the kind of inclusion that merits rapid deletion, but still fail to see a point in including it at all.  This is a bit of a tempest in a teacup though. Sea photo Talk  22:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no rush to remove the dates. They had already been gone a month, when you edited them back in.  That's when the debate began.


 * Further, I don't appreciate your suggestion that I'm bowing to Karel's feelings and letting him dictate the content of the article. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Karel's feelings, for the simple reason that I couldn't care less.  The issue here is relevance.  I have said this time and time again -- I do not consider them important to the article.  This is the only reason I agreed with Joy's removing them in the first place.  -FeralDruid (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm...did I say I was referring to you specifically, Feral? I'm seeing a whole lot of "I-I-I" here and not a lot about the greater good of the article (and Wikipedia in general) from you. But yes...after you threw the majority vote issue back in my face, you definitely did seem to be in a big rush to override my vote and remove the dates. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal from KNGY programming
Here is the email Karel sent around a day or so ago:


 * "I would like to thank Don Parker and Joe Bayliss at Energy 92.7 FM for changing their format and taking a chance on the show. It was getting great results; however, a new talk show, on a dance station that caters heavily to the GLBT community, in a new format takes time to build a following without much advertising. The economy when we launched in terms of radio was the worst in 75 years with ad revenues down across the board. Again, a new show, a new station, a new format...did not make it easy for KNGY.


 * The ratings did not build fast enough for what they need, they need immediate results and talk shows, new ones at that, build, especially given that at night their signal reaches a diverse area but one that depopulates after 7pm or so. It's a battle. So, it was a cost decision. It's cheaper to play music or do some other programming there than to do a syndicated remote show.


 * Don and Joe fully support me and are assisting in keeping the show on KRXA until other affiliates are found. It was simply a cost decision. KNGY is independently owned, and that means bankers and investors. Sometimes investors want faster returns than talk can give. As Clear Channel, Citadel and others see themselves nearly bankrupt, who can't attest to that.


 * I hope the new audience, FM audience, I was getting finds me either on KRXA or online at www.radiokrl.com I have been speaking with John Scott at Green 960, a station in San Jose and others all along, and we'll see if we can't water some of those relationships and get them to grow in to something in the Bay Area. In the meantime Hal at KRXA remains committed as do I. So, where there's a will, there's a show."

I think this clears up the reasons why Karel was let go from Energy 92.7 FM. Karel himself stated, "...The ratings did not build fast enough for what they need, they need immediate results..." It's inconsequential that the numbers were/may have been rising - the fact is the numbers weren't there and neither were the $$ it takes to keep a station running. Radio is about audiences because audiences buy the commercial products being sold - if the audience isn't there...well - you can fill in the rest. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have serious doubts that the above e-mail was written by Karel. It is not his writing style. None of his many fans that I spoke to received it, nor did I. I believe it was the concoction of the vivid imagination of SkagitRiverQueen, a long time bane since she was banned from our original chat room years ago. I will speak to Karel today to verify this.JoyDiamond (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Have "serious doubts" all you want, the above statement *was* made by Karel. I mean, think about it...why in the world would I create such an elaborate ruse all for the sake of Karel Bouley?  Here's the deal - I have no reason nor compulsion to lie about anything I have included in the Karel article.  Believe it or not, I am one of those who have worked to keep the article factual and NPOV (a Wikipedia standard).  I've never done anything to vandalize the article (in fact, anything that I've seen along those lines I have removed) nor have I ever placed anything in the article that could be considered untrue.  Now, with the inclusion of two references for the statements in the article can I ever expect an apology out of you for these baseless accusations or are you just going to continue to be angry over that which *your* imagination seems to be concocting in regard to my character and motives? (and I'd really like to know how you think that as someone who has a D.D. it's acceptible to refer to anyone as a "bane" for any reason [let alone an ordained someone in the clergy with graduate degrees in theology as well]...but that's a discussion for another time, I guess)SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Kelly's most recent source verifies that this email was sent by Karel. -FeralDruid (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No kidding... ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk)

15:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The required Public statement was sent out by Karel to various legitimate news sources. It was not "sent around" which implies general distribution,as stated above.
 * the previous unsigned comment was contributed by JoyDiamond (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. It was sent around to those in the business.  And that's where I got the information - from those in the business. I guess this means I will never be seeing an apology from you, right, Joy? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The author is in serious violation of the personal attack policy by including my personal information in her post. See Below.
 * the previous unsigned comment was contributed by JoyDiamond (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not. See below. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attack, Wikipedia Policy

 * Posting of personal information

What is considered to be a personal attack?


 * There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:


 * Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note... that speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.
 * Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.
 * For the Wikimedia privacy policy, see Wikimedia:Privacy policy.


 * Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organization, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in "the real world"

JoyDiamond (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Except that I didn't post anything of the sort about you, Joy.  I noted you have a D.D. - and that information is available, on the internet (including your real name right here in Wikipedia), for all to see because you placed it there.  I gave no identifiable information about what you do for a living, where you live, email address, etc., etc., etc. (and not that I could have even done so - because I have no clue and have no desire to know those things).  I have not violated Wikipedia policy regarding harrassment.  Looking back on it all, however, I probably should have said something like, "someone with your graduate credentials in matters of religion" - or something along those lines.  Regardless, there was no mal-intent here nor was there any intent to "out" you (as the above states).  In fact, I was trying to appeal to the better angels of your nature in regard to your obviously held belief that I am some sort of monster out to get Karel.  Anyhoo...here's some advice (take it for what it's worth) - an old friend of mine (who is the spouse of a well-known and pioneer pastor in the LGBT Christian-Gay community) used to say, "Get over yourself and move on."  I hope you can do that here and get over whatever anger you have toward me because of the Karel article - and if you think about it, it's all essentially over nothing in the global and eternal scheme of things.  If you should wish to discuss this further, please feel free to do so at my own talk  page.  Thanks - SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed page tags
I took the two tags off the top of the page - the article is reasonably well referenced now, and NPOV - the only real contentious issues for a while now have been relatively minor. Sea photo Talk 18:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)