User talk:DocOfSoc/Archivebox

[edit]User talk:DocOfSoc/Archive 1 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < User talk:DocOfSoc This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Archive 1 Contents [hide] 1 Regarding Karel 2 Reply 3 Another reply 4 your assistance please 5 RE: Warning 6 Question for administrator 7 The Learning Process 8 edit warring report 9 The fixation on my every word... 10 Hounding 11 User:SkagRiverQuen reported by User:JoyDiamond (Result: ) 12 Revisions to "Charles Karel Bouley" 13 Response from FeralDruid (italicized) with KAS point-by-point responses (non-italicized) 14 Would you be so Kind? RE: Karel's Page 15 Dr. Laura 16 Civility?? 17 Done, for now 18 How does X work? 19 Karel Article Locked 20 Warnings and apology 21 Reported to Administrator's Notice Board 22 Accusing others of bad faith 22.1 Addressing the issues 22.2 RE: Addressing the issues 23 Please review for possible civility violations 24 User talk:Regisfugit 25 Refactoring 26 Thought of the Day 27 update 28 Wiki cooperation? 29 More 30 OOPS 31 Happy Thanksgiving 32 Happy Thanksgiving 33 The wonder of Skag 34 Reply from Camelblinky 35 Skag continues 36 Response to Ridicule 37 Oh Dear 38 Response to Saddened 39 Citing references in articles 40 Dispute resolution on Talk:Margaret Clark 41 Follow up 42 We miss you over here 43 SRQ & Margaret Clark 44 Fascinating, "How to be a Sockpuppet" 45 Archive 2 46 use of pages in userspace [edit]Regarding Karel

Joy,

I'm a bit concerned over your edits to Charles Karel Bouley over the past few months, as your edits come across as fan edits. A number of more controversial comments have been removed from the article (getting fired from KFI, getting in trouble for his Reagan comments, etc.), leaving the article come across with a completely favorable viewpoint.

Question: Do you know Karel in person? Are you a friend of his? Are you a fan? A frequent user of his chat room and message board? If you can answer yes to any of these, then we have potential WP:POV and WP:COI issues in your edits. A Wikipedia article must be written from a neutral perspective, omitting opinion, and including the good, the bad, and the ugly, regarding the subject in question. Your Charles Karel Bouley edits, however, come across as sanitizing the article. -FeralDruid (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please answer these questions concerning your connection to Charles Karel Bouley before editing that article again.--Rtphokie (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit]Reply

Joy,

Good to hear. My concern was based on Karel's own edits from late last year, in which he'd been editing the controversy over his Tony Snow comments. Again, a conflict of interest. The worry, of course, is that knowing (or being!) the subject can cloud the judgement of some editors, when articles are supposed to be written with a neutral point of view.

I figured you knew him, as I'd heard him mention your name before, on the air -- and the edits looked like those of someone who knew him personally. In the interests of disclosure, I listen to whomever happens to be on the air during my commute. I have no bias with respect to Karel, one way or the other. I just want the neutrality of Wikipedia maintained.

-FeralDruid (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit]Another reply

- - Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a blockage of the main artery of the lung or one of its branches by a substance that has traveled from elsewhere in the body through the bloodstream (embolism). Usually this is due to embolism of a thrombus (blood clot) from the deep veins in the legs, a process termed venous thromboembolism

- - Arterial emboli are usually a complication of heart disease where blood clots form in the heart's chambers.'Bold text' An arterial embolism may be caused by one or more clots. The clots can get stuck in an artery and block blood flow. The blockage starves tissues of blood and oxygen, which can result in damage or tissue death (necrosis).

- - Arterial emboli often occur in the legs and feet. Some may occur in the brain, causing a stroke, or in the heart, causing a heart attack. A common source for an embolus is from areas of hardening (atherosclerosis) in the aorta and other large blood vessels.

"--ANEURYSM |ˈanyəˌrizəm| (also aneurism) noun Medicine an excessive localized enlargement of an artery caused by a weakening of the artery wall.

"--EMBOLUS |ˈembələs| noun ( pl. -li |-ˌlī; -ˌlē|) a blood clot, air bubble, piece of fatty deposit, or other object that has been carried in the bloodstream to lodge in a vessel and cause an embolism.

- - My husband died from a pulmonary embolism shortly after Andrew died from an cardiac arterial embolism. There is a significant difference. Educate yourself. I live with it's consequences. JoyDiamond (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]your assistance please

To Editor but copied onto Skag's page Since sometimes I have problems with citations I would appreciate your help in correcting Karel's "current life" It incorrectly states he is on one night at KXRA. See KXRA schedule: http://krxa540.com/daily-schedule. Karel is on KXRA EVERY Night, not one as edited by Skag.

It is also unnecessary to repeat "Fired" at every opportunity ,(at least FIVE times in article). It is redundant and a continuing attempt to minimize and put down Karel. It is entirely unnecessary to start this section with " Since his firing". He is a regular performer at the Rrazz room, having appeared three times since November, 2008 and is scheduled to appear again this November. Skag's POV needs to be examined as it is so rife with negativity in regards to comments about Karel. To whom do I address this? As we have discussed earlier, my own POV is as neutral & objective as humanly possible. I am not his starry-eyed fan nor am I his best friend, I simply strive for truth and fairness. I am very familiar with the true facts after a ten year intermittent association with Karel and Andrew (before his death)and disgusted with the ongoing presentation of fallacies by Skag and various vandals. In at least one instance, my perfectly good citation in this article was replaced by Andrew's obituary, totally irrelevant to the issue at hand and to again twist the facts in an unflattering manner. I will have to search again for said citation. I am sincere and not overburdened with a massive ego. I find your edits to be fair and objective and wish they were left as is. Your help is always greatly appreciated. JoyDiamond (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC) [edit]

[edit]RE: Warning

Dear FeralDruid Thank you for your efforts. You are much appreciated. Again, I rarely edit unless someone points out an inaccuracy. This inevitably results in unpleasant discourse with Skag and as of today: threats. Please see my talk page. You will find more misinformation and fallacious comments, i.e. Karel has NEVER said Andrew died of AIDS. I am not going to bother commenting further, too many egregious inaccuracies. This has been an especially painful exchange. I have learned a lot from you and expect that will continue should I be so adventures as to dare to edit. TY again. JoyDiamond (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Question for administrator

Greetings, JoyDiamond. I am sorry to hear of your stress. Administrators have no special authority in dispute resolution, so I have changed your request to help needed from editors, so as to give you the best chance of finding someone willing and able to assist you. Regards, Skomorokh  01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess WP:DR is the best place for such things, Srinivas 04:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC) THANK you all for your prompt replies. It is MUCH appreciated. Will take your suggestions. Namaste' JoyDiamond (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC) [edit]The Learning Process

Wikipedia:Civility From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Wikipedia:CIVIL)

Participate in a respectful and considerate way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors.

This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.

Words can be used as a weapon, or in a neutral manner. I always strive for the neutral unless "the bad and the ugly must be shown," no matter who it is! I would edit in the same manner were it a stranger. And yes, FD, he IS a frustrating peacock!

The complaining editor chose her screen name. I simply abbreviated. No more. No less. For other errors I apologize.

As this editor previously "outed" me as a minister, I am not pleased. I would have preferred to keep my private life private. But it DOES make calling me a liar even more unacceptable. So... All I can say is May God Bless you all and bring you serenity & peace! Or my favorite, " Let go and let God! JoyDiamond (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]edit warring report

I hope you don't mind but I reformatted your edit warring report - the links were not put in correctly. I'm not sure, but I get the feeling that if reports are not given correctly, admins might not have the time to look into them.

If you don't understand how to format a report correctly, the easiest way is to look at another report, click edit - so you can see how they formatted it and copy their code, putting your own information in there, learn by seeing how everyone else formats reports.

on another note, I don't think the editor you report was edit warring - if you revert/change many things without another editor acting inbetween your edits, it is normally classed as one edit.

I suggest going to the talk page and discussing it, or asking for an uninvolved editor to give their opinion.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]The fixation on my every word...

I'm not quite sure what it is about me saying several times, "I'm not angry" that Joy doesn't understand. To quote Michael Corleone in The Godfather, "It's not personal. It's strictly business..." SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. To quote Gertrude, in Shakespeare's "Hamlet": “The woman doth protest too much, methinks.”

JoyDiamond (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Hounding

Is there any particular reason you're WP:HOUNDING Joy, rather than putting forth an effort to stop the endless bickering? -FeralDruid (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Oh, for crying out loud. I am *not* hounding her - I haven't communicated with her once since the Karel article was locked. If anyone's hounding someone, Joy is hounding me. Heck, Karel was hounding me. And Joy continues to hound and attempt to taunt me (even to the point of calling me names - remember her calling me "SKAG"? - did you think that was just an abbreviation of my nym? It was intended to be an insult. For heaven's sake, just look at the crap Joy's posted on my talk page and what Karel posted. Not to mention the fact that she's deleted stuff from my talk page, has misrepresented me on numerous other talk pages to Wikipedia editors and administrators and notice boards, has out-and-out lied about me as far as my motives and my edits, and continues to insist that I have a personal vendetta and "dubious" motivations. I made a mistake regarding the number of days Karel's show is on the Monterey station and she is now branding me an intentional liar everywhere she can. Your question above is *exactly* why I feel you have taken sides against me and have *never* been un-biased regarding this article and Joy's participation in editing it. I have placed warnings on her page because she is obviously not getting how Wikipedia works and that it's not okay to just delete stuff from user talk pages and continue to post disruptive stuff on those pages as well. As far as "putting forth an effort to stop the endless bickering", a couple of days ago you said you were sick of this whole thing - so why are you placing yourself in the middle of it all again?SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]User:SkagRiverQuen reported by User:JoyDiamond (Result: )

Page: Charles Karel Bouley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) User being reported: Kelly A. Siebecke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [9] 1st revert: [10] 2nd revert: [11] 3rd revert: [12] 4th revert: [13] 5th revert: [14] 6th revert: [15] 7th revert: [16] Although not of her stature, would Cher's name be replaced with Sarkisian?? Charles Karel Bouley is commonly know as "Karel" and only uses his full name when writing i.e. Advocate and Huffington Post. Repeating "Fired" NINE times ,including sources is redundant and unnecessary. Bill O'Reilly himself said that this was the second time Karel had been a pinhead. Will find source. More later... Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] After extensive searching on Wiki sites I cannot find how to post a warning. Please help! I don't know how speak in symbols, am willing to learn. I attempted to read filing dispute pages and became even MORE dyslexic!I need a real personn to assist me. Yes I have sincerely tried to resolve this edit war My talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoyDiamond. Kelly Riebecke's talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly_A._Siebecke Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff].  Comments: As you will see on my talk page I have been warned, I don't believe these warning were justified as I have stated on my talk page. Thank you for your consideration. I am NOT going to change anything, however incorrect, until an intervention with a real person. Are you that person? NO Response JoyDiamond (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Those edits all seem to have been made without any other edits inbetween, I don't think that is classed as edit warring. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC) No action That's correct, no violation of 3RR here, sequential edits count as one revert ("A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."). Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC) (e/c) However I have protected the page fo a short time to force discussion. One side's edits (using the obituary as the source) don't actually back up the statement, whilst the other side (JoyDiamond) is using an unreliable source to back up their version. Neither is particularly useful. Please discuss on talkpage. Black Kite 09:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Those edits all seem to have been made without any other edits inbetween, I don't think that is classed as edit warring. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No action That's correct, no violation of 3RR here, sequential edits count as one revert ("A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."). Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) However I have protected the page fo a short time to force discussion. One side's edits (using the obituary as the source) don't actually back up the statement, whilst the other side (JoyDiamond) is using an unreliable source to back up their version. Neither is particularly useful. Please discuss on talkpage. Black Kite 09:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Revisions to "Charles Karel Bouley"

JoyDiamond 11 (from Tedder's talk page) Dear Tedder. Thank you for your interest.

Although not of her stature, would Cher's name be replaced with Sarkisian?? Charles Karel Bouley is commonly known as "Karel" and only uses his full name when writing i.e. Advocate and Huffington Post.

"The Daily Breeze" is a perfectly valid source, as a well know and widely circulated newspaper in Southern California and is a perfectly valid source. Just because something is printed in Variety, does not mean it is accurate.

Trying to sort through all the "Instructions" in Wikipedia has seemingly exacerbated my dyslexia. Like you, I prefer plain English. I managed to graduate college with several degrees some time ago so I am hoping with assistance to get through this war of semantics and person attacks, not by you!

Your Hall Of Shame is very pointed and borderine hysterical. It shows your sense of humor and humanity. THAT is the person I am addressing! Although i NEVER want to end up there!! Sincerely JoyDiamond (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on the Hall of Shame. However, please take this to Talk:Charles Karel Bouley. That's where editors who are interested in the article can handle it. Regarding Karel versus Bouley, that is handled in WP:SURNAME, which says to use the surname (Bouley) in almost all instances. If something other than that is to be used, it would only happen after consensus on the article talk page. tedder (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Response from FeralDruid (italicized) with KAS point-by-point responses (non-italicized)

For the simple reason that it's been three days, so I checked in to see if the situation had been resolved. Unfortunately, it hasn't. You continue to go at one another.

I'm not "going at her" at all - what I put on my talk page is there for a reason and it has nothing to do with me "go[ing] at her". Why aren't you assuming good faith here? Why not *ask* me questions rather than make assumptions? But here's a thought - had you considered that neither of us were aware that there was to be a resolution between the two of us? From what I can see, Joy thought there was to be a resolution regarding the article - not the two of us. I thought the same. Since you were the one who had the lock put on the article, was it not *your* responsibility to make sure that the two of us understood what the procedure was?

I have chastised both Karel and Joy for things they've written, and have, in fact, sided with you over edit disputes.

It didn't seem that way to me at all. In fact, I felt you were working against me. But, maybe I misunderstood. Or maybe you didn't make your stance clear...

Unfortunately, you seem to be of this opinion that I'm a partisan of Karel's, when nothing could be further from the truth. I want only fact in the article, not the peacock crap Karel tried putting into the article two years ago. On the other hand, I do agree with Joy that some of what you write appears to be overly critical.

I'm willing to accept that. But - I maintain that my edits have nothing behind them other than being factual. However...let's not forget Karel has created the majority of the situations in his professional world that are deserving of negative criticism. Is it my fault that his professional life is unbalanced with more on the negative side than the positive? Facts are facts - and if the facts are that there's more negative than positive, is it Wikipedia's job to balance an article so that the bad doesn't outweigh the good? I think not.

Further, because in reading your response to my comments on the notice board, you seem to have dismissed me as a mere vandalism hunter. To marginalize another editor in this manner insulting and offensive. That I mainly deal with vandalism somehow means I'm not permitted to put forth an effort to end a 2-3 year quarrel over an article's content? The two of you weren't going to do it on your own were you?

See? There you go again making assumptions that are not based in fact. I have done nothing of the sort. Why do you always seem to assume bad faith rather than good when it comes to my presence in Wikipedia? Why do you insist on vilifying me?

Finally, because in reviewing the comments on your page, I can't help but wonder about your motivations. As near as I can tell, Joy has made an effort to reach out to you, however meager.

More like superficial and disingenuous along with sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek.

Yes, she deleted one item from your page. She also posted talk relevant to the article, and relevant to the ongoing dispute. To then accuse her of harassment, rather than trying to seek dispute resolution, puzzles me.

Sorry, but when people start calling me names ("SKAG"), maligning me all over Wikipedia and sundry with anyone who will listen, taunting me ("Hi, Kelly" at the end of one of her cries for help from an administrator), and continuing to put things on my talk page when I told her not to, yeah - I call that harassment.

A couple of your recent additions show that Joy has been seeking dispute resolution, though I thoroughly agree she should have done so without making it personal.

Glad you agree. See above as far as her "personal" comments and actions.

You both, repeat, BOTH lob accusations of bias against one another.

As have you. See above. And let's not ignore the fact that you have a bias against me (as evidenced by the assumptions you have made continually regarding my thoughts, actions, and motives).

You can't both be right, and frankly, I don't think you can both be wrong. Your attitude with respect to Joy is such that I don't think you even can edit the article without bias, by virtue of her presence.

That would be true if I had any bias against her to begin with. But then again, I *do* believe she is working with Karel on these edits (maybe not all of the time, but a lot of the time, and I believe always with Karel's best interest in mind). Mind you, this whole mess started up again last week when Joy made edits immediately after Karel made edits (which I reverted and reminded Karel that he cannot make edits on this particular article). I also strongly believe Joy wants to see the article sanitized and void of anything negative. The very fact that both of them keep referring to the article as "his page" is a red flag that they believe he has editing rights. Joy has maintained she is not "a starry-eyed fan" and is not one of his chat room moderators. These statements are misleading. She may no longer be one of his chat room moderators, but she was at one time. With her personal and professional association with him, I don't see how it's possible JoyDiamond can remain neutral. For heaven's sake...her edits prove she is incapable of being completely neutral and unbaised! However, let me clarify - I am suspicious of Joy's edits, and will remain so, but I hold no animosity against her nor bias toward her. If her edits make sense, are sufficiently referenced and COMPLETELY NPOV - there's no issue with them AFAIC. So far - she has been unable to accomplish this. My question is, will she EVER be able to accomplish this? She's been editing this article since the beginning of April, 2008 - how long is she going to be allowed to plead ignorance while continuing to make the same obvious POV edits before someone says "enough"?

Similarly, I don't think she can edit the article without bias, by virtue of your presence there.

Why would whether or not she makes biased edits have anything to do with me? She's likely to make biased edits whether I'm there or not. It's Karel's presence in the picture that creates bias on her part, not me.

You antagonize one another,

What about "I am not angry" or "I am not biased against her" are you unable to understand? What about my statement, "I'm here for the integrity and accuracy of Wikipedia" do you not understand? Are you making assumptions and telling me how I think and feel again? Please understand this - it's NOT Joy I am bothered by, it's her edits - the exaggerations, the unreferenced statements that need to be referenced, and the whitewashing of unflattering, referenced truth - that I have problems with, not the person making the edits.

and I don't see how following her around and copying her talk from elsewhere in Wikipedia is helping the situation any.

I am keeping that information for my own reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with "antagonizing" any one. If I had said specifically to her, "hey, come look at my talk page and see what I put there - nyah, nyah, nyah" - THAT would have been antagonistic.

You agreed on the article's talk page that this needs to be resolved, but I don't see any evidence of your trying to do so. And I just plain don't understand why. -FeralDruid (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agreed that this issue needs to be resolved without the understanding that there would be no actual mediation. I have made no effort because it was never made clear that I needed to make any. I've been in Wikipedia a while, but that doesn't mean I understand everything about how Wikipedia works. IRL, when there's a dispute amongst people that obviously aren't getting along, they aren't thrown into a room together and expected to figure out how to resolve their dispute. Again, it was my understanding that the dispute to be resolved was (a) the editing of the article, not the editors, and (b) there would be mediation. You say you don't understand why there hasn't been resolution on my part? Frankly, it's because you didn't explain the process, FeralDruid. How did you expect us to know exactly how dispute resolution works? Through osmosis? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Would you be so Kind? RE: Karel's Page

JoyDiamond 12 (from FeralDruid's talk page) The minute that Karel's page was available she started the same old and several new revisions. I have made every effort to be conciliatory. ( see my talk page) Since you have been here from the beginning would you consider helping me navigate through the process of arbitration. Mediation doesn't work. Consulting other editors and admins hasn't worked. I believe arbitration is the only avenue.

Yes, I made some revisions last night. I thought the result was encyclopedic AND interesting reading with proper citations and the good and the bad and the ugly. Hers and Tedders latest changes also include changing all the Karels to Bouleys. He is know by ONE name, like Cher, or Bono or Sting.. Should we start with Cher's article and change all her Chers to Sarkisians? Silly, yes. Karel is not of the above mentioned stature but it is HIS name.

If you are sick unto death of all this (I am) could you refer me to someone and/or at least show me how to write a warning? I can't spell encyclopedia without singing it like Jiminy cricket. LOL

I appreciate your efforts. You correct me when I am wrong (meager was a little harsh ;-) but you are FAIR!

I am willing to learn. I only want the truth written in neutral terms. Semantics! Although I WAS witness to most everything in the article, I have learned citations thanks to you. Yes, Karel is an impossible peacock, but deserves the same fairness as anyone else. If I were writing for a stranger I would not change that standard. Whatever you decision, I will always appreciate you! JoyDiamond (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

[edit]Dr. Laura

Hi Doc, why did you remove religion from the infobox? [1]. Maybe it was a mistake as it was not mentioned in your edit summary? RomaC TALK 02:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't remember maybe because it is clearly stated in the article under "religion" I would be personally be embarrassed if she claimed she still was. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I understand your feelings, per the controversy. But the source says "Schlessinger said she still “considers” herself Jewish, “My identifying with this entity and my fulfilling the rituals, etc., of the entity — that has ended"" She gave up practicing the "Orthodox" part is all. Please self-revert and discuss. (add: suggest you review WP:3RR) RomaC TALK 04:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC) My response:

Dear Roma, TY for your input. Please see discussion page on Laura S. You must remember {Good Faith} before you accuse another editor of violating any rules. See page [2] The citation Neo posted is not recognized as a valid source. Also review this page:[3] re: The 3 revert rule which incidentally I have not violated, as it states: Removal of poorly sourced material may be immediately removed.(exception to 3RR). Happy Editing! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit]Civility??

I suggest that until a consensus is reached by administration, that Karel's article be again locked indefinitely.

Administrators aren't meant to be a babysitting service available at your beck and call. Editors come to a consensus. From what I understand, it's rare for an administrator to get involved in a consensus re: a Wikipedia article. This edit "warring" needs to stop, please.

Indeed - one way for you to stop edit warring is to start reading changes that are made by me with an uncritical, unassuming and unprejudiced eye... SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Now that we've addressed that, you have also severely misrepresented me in the title of this thread - "Kelly's version of Civil". I never claimed I was attempting civility. But, all-in-all, it *is* amusing to see that when you said you were "done" that you obviously aren't and that what you have been whining about me doing for weeks, you are now doing yourself. Conflicted much? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC) [edit]Done, for now

Funny Kelly, You apparently didn't recognize your own comments to me when they were turned around to you. Got a great chuckle! I made a peacemaking gesture. You are not interested Buttercup.

My grandson, named Kelly, is getting his second kidney transplant Saturday. I only ask for prayer. I have neither the time or the energy to continue this ludicrous discourse. I have a life.JoyDiamond (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit]How does X work?

Please address the following points and issue appropriate warnings and/or blocking. It is appalling that ongoing and escalating personal attacks, lack of good faith and admitted incivility are allowed to be continued towards me. When I mentioned on my page that this was a particularly stressful week for me, Kelly A. Siebecke became especially vicious, adding to my stress. She also brought up issues that have long been addressed re: my POV. She has repeatedly violated every pillar of Wiki. Kelly is argumentative to the extreme, and is attempting to wear me down. She is engaging in libel and defamation of my character. She is well known in Usernet and BA. Broadcasting for her personal attacks, particularly on the subject of the article, a fact she continues to deny. I have previously asked for help, a fact for which she mocked me. Please help. Thank you. --JoyDiamond (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. When reporting problems of this kind, please give specific instances of issues that you think require attention. It would help if you could provide a diff - that is, a link to the posting. For example, I wish to complain about this personal attack Chzz  ►  09:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC) The best place to report this is on Wikiquette alerts. This is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors. If, however, you feel that this matter requires urgent attention, then please report it on the Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks, Chzz  ►  09:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC) [edit]Karel Article Locked

FYI Charles Karel Bouley

FYI your note on the talk page said you protected it for "a short time" - you actually protected it indefinitely. If this was intentional and you're monitoring the situation, then forgive the intrusion. Else you may want to set an expiry =) –xenotalk 13:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's on my watchlist ... I was sort of hoping for some discussion, but ah well. It might be worth unprotecting now, so I'll give it a go. Black Kite 14:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, I noticed on a brief scan that it didn't appear to have sorted itself out yet. Cheers, –xenotalk 14:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Black Kite - is there some specific reason as to why you have ignored two communications from me to you regarding the Charles Karel Bouley article? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite please protect article indefinitely. Everything in dispute has been again changed, again. Incorrect and negative edits, not neutral, have been made. I would appreciate your further intervention in returning this article to accurate and NPOV status. I am not going to even attempt editing anything further until a proper consensus has been obtained. My perfectly good and accurate citations have been removed. I am very careful to keep my edits neutral. OTOH, I was present for most of the events in the article and therefore know what is true and accurate and carefully cite my edits. I was also hoping for some discussion, or would it be an intervention? ;-) How does one facilitate that momentous event actually happening?

In cruising through user boxes I found a couple that give food for thought:

Wikipedia is NOT interested in TRUTH, but only VERIFIABILITY! . "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

Wikipedia is CENSORED!. No matter how many people saw it, if it isn't written in a publication, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Please take these userbox comments in the good humor intended. JoyDiamond (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

05:46, 6 October 2009 Black Kite (talk | contribs) m (10,899 bytes) (Protected Charles Karel Bouley: Edit warring / Content dispute: nope, didn't work ([edit=sysop] (expires 05:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 05:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC))))

I didn't mean to blank your page. I wrote something on the user page instead of discussion, and then meant to immediately delete it, but I apparently deleted the entire page? SorryRegisfugit (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Warnings and apology

I am sorry. You asked me to remove your name so I did. I mistakenly thought that since you hadn't removed it that you wanted me to. I also profusely apologize for the name mistake. I know a Kelly with the same middle name and I inadvertently typed it out. Muscle memory! JoyDiamond (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC) In the interest of the Wikipedia standard to Assume Good Faith (in this case, anyway)...apology accepted. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Posted below is the second warning:

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Your continued postings on JoyDiamond's talk page are in direct violation of Wikipedia Policy. Please cease and desist or further action will be taken.JoyDiamond (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

- Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Your continued postings on JoyDiamond's talk page are in direct violation of Wikipedia Policy. Except for Good Faith, Never assume. Never presume to know what I am thinking or my intentions!

- Since you choose to continue Harassment and casting aspersions upon my person, further action will be taken.JoyDiamond (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC) and she immediately removed it. AGAIN

Next warning: This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Your removed three warnings placed by User: JoyDiamond in violation of Wikipedia Policy.JoyDiamond (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This has also been removed. JoyDiamond (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Reported to Administrator's Notice Board

Joy - what the heck is wrong with you? Why do you insist on being so negative? You whine about there having been no discussion, but exactly what have you done to *promote* positive discussion? Absolutely nothing. You take the first opportunity you have to slam me and make yet another personal attack against me. Why have you once again violated Wikipedia policy in the area of assume good faith? Why have you once again violated Wikipedia policy in the area of outing? It's exactly this kind of attitude and behavior from you that contributed to getting this article locked both times. Personally, I have had enough from you - I have reported you to Administration for the above violation. Oh, and as far as you no longer being a "personal friend of Karel"...personal friendship is not the only criteria for having conflict of interest. You're still one of Karel's cheerleaders/promoters on his "Circle K" Facebook page - that qualifies you as having conflict of interest. Enough, already. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Accusing others of bad faith

Shortcut: WP:AOBF Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle.

I would like for the issue(s) JoyDiamond has with me to stop. I don't see her stopping, and someone obviously has to make it stop - one way or another. Thanks for being the adult here - I was starting to think that no one around here is anymore. ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you're WP:HOUNDING Joy, rather than putting forth an effort to stop the endless bickering? -FeralDruid (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please review for possible civility violations

Rather than going on about what the problem is (because it is quite involved), could someone please review the ANI board for section 31 (31 Review of violation of outing policy - today's date). After finally getting real advice (rather than belittling and mocking from a host of administrators on AN/I) from Bwilkins, I am reporting this ongoing problem with JoyDiamond to be reviewed for a civility violation. For more reference, please see the latest comments she has made at [26] (section "Sincere Effort to Avoid further Edit Warring" - today's date) and the same at [27] (section "Charles Karel Bouley" - also today's date). This is not the first time this user has made similar claims about me with administrators in an effort to get me banned from editing the article, Charles Karel Bouley. This is an ongoing campaign of hers, and I would like the whole situation reviewed. It has, in my opinion, gotten way out of control.

In addtion, I would like the above AN/I exchange between administrators and myself (as well as their uncivil and mocking comments directed at me) to be reviewed for violation of civility in Wikipedia. Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You post under your real name and then go to AN/I to claim WP:OUTING. Hmmm. No civility violation here by any standard, only a monumental violation of common sense. Indeed, the "mockery" you refer to is by my reading accrued incredulity at your wikilawyering in the face of the patent absurdity of your "complaint." Please do not misuse WP:WQA. Eusebeus (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Addressing the issues After a discussion on WP:ANI about WP:OUTING, it was then moved to WP:WQA. However, rather than wait for others to address it, I will in very general statements in a way that throws no blame on anyone. This is just a clarification of policy for all involved:

WP:AGF only goes so far. Any attempt to post additional possibly identifying information about any other Wikipedia editor is a violation of WP:OUTING. This may include mentioning linkages to non-Wikipedia sources; full names; addresses; phone numbers, etc. Understanding Conflict of Interest, however is vital. Those who have personal knowledge of a subject (even if in the past) may still have significant COI. We do have a noticeboard for COI issues. The use of any personal information, or information possibly gleaned from offline sources to discredit an editor, or to attempt to dissuade their input on Wikipedia is a violation of WP:NPA Anything that detracts from the collegial and cooperative environment of Wikipedia is contrary to the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. If you find yourself starting to become less-than-collegial, it's time to sign off for an hour. This is an encyclopedia based on notability and reliable sources, and most definitely not the WP:TRUTH. I hope this is enough clarification for all parties, and will help everyone move forward. If you have issues with this, please let me know on my talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]RE: Addressing the issues Thank you for your impartial comments. In attempting to respond, I went to the alleged complete archive of the "The Karel and JoyDiamond Chronicles" (Kelly's talk page) and find that large sections have not been included including a discussion of "outing" in which Kelly disclosed my own personal information by referring to the internet, a fact she acknowledged. If, by being specific in mentioning "Google" is a violation, for that I apologise. As for further discussion regarding the egregious attacks made on my person, my education and my knowledge, I will stop here and send myself to my room for an hour.;-) JoyDiamond (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Please review for possible civility violations

Rather than going on about what the problem is (because it is quite involved), could someone please review the ANI board for section 31 (31 Review of violation of outing policy - today's date). After finally getting real advice (rather than belittling and mocking from a host of administrators on AN/I) from Bwilkins, I am reporting this ongoing problem with JoyDiamond to be reviewed for a civility violation. For more reference, please see the latest comments she has made at [34] (section "Sincere Effort to Avoid further Edit Warring" - today's date) and the same at [35] (section "Charles Karel Bouley" - also today's date). This is not the first time this user has made similar claims about me with administrators in an effort to get me banned from editing the article, Charles Karel Bouley. This is an ongoing campaign of hers, and I would like the whole situation reviewed. It has, in my opinion, gotten way out of control.

In addtion, I would like the above AN/I exchange between administrators and myself (as well as their uncivil and mocking comments directed at me) to be reviewed for violation of civility in Wikipedia. Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[show]Some initial confusion [edit]Continuation Per Skag's request at my talk page I have reopened this thread and request that Equazcion, if still interested, mediate between her and the other editor as Eq suggested and as Skag has shown interest in per her comment on my talk page. Eq if your still willing I hope you will be able to do some good mediating between them here.Camelbinky (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of starting fresh, I've collapsed the upper portion of this thread, where there was some confusion as to the motive of bringing the issue here. I'm no expert mediator, but I'll help if I can, and hopefully so will others, since that's what the public forum of WQA is for. Equazcion (talk) 08:31, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The issue that needs to be addressed is NOT the possible outing: that was discussed in WP:ANI. What needs to be dealt with SkagitRiverQueen's discussion on how the other editor was using that information to discourage her editing of the article, and to denigrate her POV and edits. That is fully in the realm of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, which is therefore in the realm of WP:WQA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This matter does seem to fall under the realm of WQA. Equazcion (talk) 12:54, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I take it then the 'in addition' complaint about the administrators has been dropped and the request here is to find some way of getting to a reasonable working relation between two editors. I think both have violated etiquette and there's nothing useful to be done by pursuing either one against the other on that account. This all sounds to me like a job for a mediator. If there is just two involved in a dispute you could occasionally ask for a WP:Third opinion if it gets heated and just try to stick by that. 13:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by dmcq (talk • contribs)

Third opinion is for other types of disputes. People come here to seek mediation regarding civility concerns. There's no reason to send this issue to another venue. They're in the right place. Equazcion (talk) 13:25, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I have reminded JoyDiamond of some key issues from a general perspective on their talkpage. I will be advising SkagitRiverQueen to look there too. I hope that this reminder resolves the situation - at least for now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

To address Equazcion's concern about third opinion, I fully agree with what Bwilkins has written. That was very good advice and relevant to the civility concerns. However it will not improve the article much if they continue their arguments in a more civil manner as it looks fairly evident there will be little agreement. What I was pointing to was the start of the WP:DISPUTE resolution process where the two of them simply cannot come to an agreement civil or not. Being able to resolve a disagreement amicably can help immensely with civility. Dmcq (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yea, the problem is, it's fine to point people to a bunch of anodyne templates, but it does nothing to sort out the intractable attitudes that have formed. Both Kelly and Joy have to work out their differences on this aggressively trivial issue, stop forum shopping and behave with some maturity. This is, in my view, thus not an WQA problem but a content issue (a point noted, btw, at ANI where Kelly originally took her unfounded complaint.) Perhaps BK can be asked to extend protection while both sides learn to bicker better. Eusebeus (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]User talk:Regisfugit

Add that again and you will be blocked. Dragons flight (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] 3rr note

Please stop re adding material to the article without discussion or consensus, take care not to exceed WP:3RR as you could be blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC) JoyDiamond (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Refactoring

JoyDiamond - a quick note: I noted that you recently changed the text from a post of almost 1-1/2 months ago. Making changes like that therefore change the meaning of everything else that had been posted as responses. refactoring comments like that is strongly discouraged - even on your own talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Thought of the Day

Good faith she whines! Too many times! I agree fully. Total whiner. Regisfugit (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I am astonished at another editors interest in my small town's politicians, two states away from her own. Why? "following another user around" from "Wiki-hounding" comes to mind. "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing...for no overriding reason...with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor."

So far, there has been little enjoyment in my editing. (Very long, ugly history.) After our recent election, I was enjoying editing some of our "Locals" articles and "Surprise!" there she is! Other than "following me around" there is no earthly reason for her to have happened upon these articles. Her edits have been within the boundaries of Wiki policies, except for what appears to be yet another incident of wiki-hounding. I would like to hear any other possible reasoning. I am not making any specific or formal complaints at this time but I really would like it to stop, leave me alone, just go away... Any comment? Stalker... don't bother.JoyDiamond (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]update

Giving Skagitriverqueen the opportunity to cease and desist wiki-hounding had no effect other than to exacerbate her harrassment. I have reported her to administration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#John_Tran.2C_wiki-_hounding_and_edit_warring Let there be Peace!! JoyDiamond (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

[edit]Wiki cooperation?

I was going to message you to thank you for taking a stand with Eusebeus. Thanks for coming to me and expressing your thoughts regarding this chain of events. Yes, I feel wronged. All the way from the admins at the AN/I board today (about which Bwilkins later stated to SarekofVulcan on Sarek's talk page that they should all be ashamed of themselves, BTW) to the treatment I received over this civility issue. I just don't get why admins think they can behave this way and get away with it (maybe because they've been allowed to get away with it?). Anyway...yes, I would like some mediation/arbitration, whatever - in good faith I went and asked for someone to look into the civility issue (at the advice of Bwilkins, an admin) because I would like for the issue(s) JoyDiamond has with me to stop. I don't see her stopping, and someone obviously has to make it stop - one way or another. Thanks for being the adult here - I was starting to think that no one around here is anymore. ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I am here to fight the bullies and protect those that dont get listened, you are always welcomed at my talk page. Here is a project I've been working on, so far only two supporters (including myself) but if interested in it, feel free to sign up and write any ideas down on the talk page or be bold and edit the "statement of values" if you want. Admins arent all evil, but some let it get to their head, which is why I think a better title is "school janitor", it reflects what they do more properly and with a title like that only the truly dedicated would want the "job".Camelbinky (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. So far, so good. Bwilkins has been kind enough to step in (and has done a very good job at it) and it appears that JoyDiamond is paying attention. Time will tell. While the actual mediation that was requested has not occured, I would like to keep that a possibility should things heat up between JoyDiamond and myself. I want to note, however, that the Charles Karel Bouley article (the one that JD is seemingly so obsessed by) has been locked again - and this time until February 2010. I think it's a good move by Black Kite and will hopefully keep JD from going bonkers again. Like I told Bwilkins the other day, I just want to edit Wikipedia in peace. In fact, I just joined the Wikipedia group, "Harmonious Editing Club". I'm really tired of all the arrogance and heavy-handedness and bullies amongst the administrators. My hope is that with a group like the HEC around, maybe I will have a group of folks with the absolute best of intentions for the encyclopedia in mind first to go to when sticky situations arrive. Thanks again for your assistance and having my back. It is appreciated. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Okay...as of today, things have not changed at all. User:JoyDiamond is no longer listening and is now lodging ridiculous complaints against me (see WP:AN/I and section #26 "Tran, wiki- hounding and edit warring"). Also...if you would, take a look at the talk page for the article she is complaining about - John Tran - and see what she has just inappropriately placed there. If I say anything about what she's put there (or attempt to remove it), she'll no doubt scream stalking and harrassment to AN/I again - if *you* want to say anything to her, feel free. Thanks for your help and support. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]More

User talk:Camelbinky From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Difference between revisions) Revision as of 02:49, 25 November 2009 (edit) SkagitRiverQueen (talk | contribs) (→Need your help, please: update) ← Previous edit Current revision as of 02:50, 25 November 2009 (edit) (undo) SkagitRiverQueen (talk | contribs) (→Need your help, please: clarification)

Line 526:	Line 526:

I agree based on no secondary sources that the subject is non-notable. I would take it to AfD and see if anyone really cares or would miss it or is willing to merge it with the city's article. Sometimes with topics such as mayors some editor will want to keep all articles on any mayor for fear that their mayor's article could be next, that may be some resistance you may meet.Camelbinky (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I agree based on no secondary sources that the subject is non-notable. I would take it to AfD and see if anyone really cares or would miss it or is willing to merge it with the city's article. Sometimes with topics such as mayors some editor will want to keep all articles on any mayor for fear that their mayor's article could be next, that may be some resistance you may meet.Camelbinky (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC) -

JoyDiamond is fighting me on this and has reverted my placement of the speedy deletion template twice. Because of how I was treated the last time I went to AN/I, I won't be going there with this. On the Margaret Clark talk page just told Joy that if she isn't able to bring reliable secondary sources in one week, the deletion template goes up again. Thanks for your help and suggestions. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC) [edit]OOPS

Speedy deletions

Just a note: Other editors are allowed to remove speedy delete tags, as long as they aren't the article creator. If someone removes a speedy delete tag it's best to then nominate the article for AfD (regular deletion discussion). Speedy deletion is only for the most obvious and uncontroversial cases, so if there's disagreement over whether or not a page should be deleted, it generally needs to be discussed at AfD. ANI is not the place to go.

WP:POLITICIAN states: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city."

I'm not taking sides myself, but from the above, there are at least reasonable grounds to argue against deletion, so it's not an obvious enough case as to warrant a speedy. I would take this to AfD if I were you. If you'd like to do that and need help, let me know. Equazcion (talk) 21:22, 25 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, Equazcion. Obviously, I didn't completely understand the process prior to nominating the artcile for speedy deletion. I would, however, like to stick with what Camelbinky proposed first and see how that plays out. If that proposal doesn't work out, I would like to see the issue of possible deletion brought to AfD. I would rather see references from secondary sources brought to the article that would make the article's subject note-worthy enough to merit an article in Wikipedia. If that's possible, great. If not, the article should be nuked, IMO, rather than continue to take up space. Thanks for your interest and assitance. If you celebrate, have a good Thanksgiving. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The above post was added for my information only. Period.JoyDiamond (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC) [edit]Happy Thanksgiving

I have absolutely NO idea to what you are referring. (Mocking is your specialty.) I am off to me Mum's. Have a GREAT Day! JoyDiamond (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to your latest addition to my talk page, I have the following to say to you: "Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth." (I Corinthians 13:6) -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC) And I sayeth unto you: How very true. AMEN AMEN!! JoyDiamond (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting this on both talk pages- Both of you need to stop with the barbs and stabs at each other. Wikipedia is about editing articles, communication between editors should be only in the interest of IMPROVING the encyclopedia. Neither of you is going to be "right" 100% of the time, and both of you need to realize that. Yes, sometimes one will have an opinion that is shared by the majority of Wikipedia and the person who disagrees will have to live with that. It does not mean the person with the minority opinion is "wrong" or has an illegitimate thought or point of view or did anything "illegal". Minority opinions often become the genesis of a majority opinion and can be used in later discussions about changing policies/guidelines. The person who "loses" a discussion and just shrugged it off and said "you win some, you lose some" it would make for a better discussion the next time, and if the "winner" was polite and understood that they wont always be "right" and that Wikipedia is based on opinions and interpretation of policies and guidelines that are always changing; and both of you were careful about what you fight for (somethings arent worth fighting for) then perhaps some real editing could take place. I beg both of you to be careful around each other on how you edit, and how you react to each other's edits.Camelbinky (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC) [edit]Happy Thanksgiving

I have absolutely NO idea to what you are referring. (Mocking is your specialty.) Have a GREAT Day! JoyDiamond (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC) ...after I asked her the following in response to something she put on her own talk page that was obviously mocking me:

And I sayeth unto you: How very true. AMEN AMEN!! JoyDiamond (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]The wonder of Skag

I have to wonder, Joy - how does mocking me make you feel? Happy? Victorious? Pleased with yourself? Have a nice Thanksgiving. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I'm tired of fighting bullies in Wikipedia (of which there seem to be more of than the good guys) and standing up for what is right. Almost makes me want to start fighting bullying with bullying (even though I know that is not the right thing to do) - but, why not? Everyone else does it and gets away with it. In fact, they usually win when it comes to any action/non-action in AN/I. You see, by working on the Tran and Clark article with Joy, I had hoped to appeal to the better angels of her nature and that she would see I'm not the awful person she has villified me in her mind to be. I had hoped we could begin working harmoniously in those two articles so that when the Bouley article opened back up again, she wouldn't start the same old, same old. Apparently, I gave her too much credit. Thanks from listening and trying to work in a mediatory fashion - frankly, it's just not worth the effort. I don't think anything can reach her at this point. Thanks anyway. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC) JoyDiamond (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Reply from Camelblinky

As Joy has come to my talk page to request the four days start on Monday, and Afriedman has correctly pointed out some sources he has found I must make a new "decision". It is my non-binding opinion that if Joy can successfully incorporate in a rewrite of this article those sources Afriedman found (and hopefully other sources as well) this article will indeed meet the notability requirements; therefore there should be no deletion templates on this article. Currently it is a long list of committees and conferences she is a member of, poor writing style however is not something taken into consideration when deleting. WP:PRESERVE must also be weighed, along with the controversy that ensues when considering the notability of an elected official, road, settlement, and other similar local issues that get emotional. I rescind my previous 4 day timetable and replace it with a "within a reasonable timeframe", since the information does exist and is in Afriedman's post.Camelbinky (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay...but what, specifically, is a "reasonable time frame", Camelbinky? -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I was intentionally vague, as it is a holiday extended weekend, and the information presented by Afriedman (whom I have worked with in the past and greatly respect) shows the topic to be notable; I see no reason at this moment to put a bold timeframe on this issue. Everyone edits on a different schedule and at a different speed, unforessen circumstances in the "real world" occur; I would be willing to take a look at this article again in two weeks to see if any progress has occured, but again- since the information and sources have indeed been presented showing notability any AfD would fail prima facie; once cant force another editor to edit, clean up tags and other tags would be the step to take should the information in Afriedman's post not be put in the article, deletion is out of the question now.Camelbinky (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Skag continues

For clarity's sake, I would hope you realize I wasn't thinking you could "force" another editor to edit. Since JoyDiamond previously stated, however, that a week was "arbitrary" (when I stated I was going to be placing the deletion tag back on it if in that time period she had not been able to find and utilize any secondary sources), I had my concerns as to whether she would make the edits she says she is in the process of or not. I felt she was essentially mocking the fact that I would place the tag on the article again with her use of "arbitrary" - knowing she could take the tag right off and "I shall edit as I have time" (her words). Because of those statements and the seeming attitude behind them, I guess I'm not convinced that she is interested in making the article meet Wikipedia's notability standards any time soon. I'm more convinced she is interested in "winning" (see her latest comments on her talk page where she mocks the fact that me nominating the article for speedy deletion was the wrong thing to do). Since I also have an interest in this article improving, however, I suppose I can also make the edits... Anyway, thanks for your assitance here. My goal is to edit as peacefully and harmoniously as possible and for the best interest of the encyclopedia. Not always an easy task, but certainly a lot more satisfying. If you celebrate, do have a happy Thanksgiving, Camelbinky. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC) JoyDiamond (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of fighting bullies in Wikipedia (of which there seem to be more of than the good guys) and standing up for what is right. Almost makes me want to start fighting bullying with bullying (even though I know that is not the right thing to do) - but, why not? Everyone else does it and gets away with it. In fact, they usually win when it comes to any action/non-action in AN/I. You see, by working on the Tran and Clark article with Joy, I had hoped to appeal to the better angels of her nature and that she would see I'm not the awful person she has villified me in her mind to be. I had hoped we could begin working harmoniously in those two articles so that when the Bouley article opened back up again, she wouldn't start the same old, same old. Apparently, I gave her too much credit. Thanks from listening and trying to work in a mediatory fashion - frankly, it's just not worth the effort. I don't think anything can reach her at this point. Thanks anyway. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the recent history of Talk:Margaret Clark, you will see that User:JoyDiamond is now just taunting me and egging me on in order to have something to nail me on. She has now claimed that I have violated 3RR - if I did, it was done unknowingly. After having it explained to her that she can't just remove talking points from a talk page because she deems them to be "irrellevant", she removed the same section again. I reverted it back and let her know that it was not proper to do so and that if she reverted it again, i would report the incident as a 3RR to AN/I. She then proceeded to mock the entire 3RR process by saying, "She is arguing a non-issue and according to wiki policy, I am free to remove it." At this point, I don't know if she's really that stupid or just intentionally defiant. I'm going to leave it to AN/I to decide. Or not. I don't know at this point - I just know I am really, really sick of her acting as if she knows nothing about Wikipedia and calling for everyone to "be patient" with her while she "learns" and then in the fashion of Janus, turning another face and acting as childish and vindictively as possible as if she is untouchable. Something needs to be done. I am not the one to do it. But someone needs to. Her disruptions and drama are in the wake of everywhere she goes in Wikipedia. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC) JoyDiamond (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Response to Ridicule

I dont know what to tell you, I am disappointed in Joy at her copy/paste of an entire talk page discussion to her talk page; but I must give her good faith on whatever her reason was and it is her talk page do what she wants (within etiquette limits). Perhaps start with a wikitequtte complaint if you think she has done wrong. I dont knwo what to do about it if you two cant come to a detente. If I were you I would go back to regular editing and ignore any baits she may throw your way trying to engage you in discussion. Perhaps silence is your best weapon in an argument.Camelbinky (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Detente (haven't heard that word since the Vietnam War)...been there, tried that, didn't get a t-shirt. ......yes, indeed - silence *can* be golden.;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC) [edit]Oh Dear

Dear Camelblinky, Thank you for your unbiased and reasonable post on our talk pages. I am truly sorry that you have been subjected to the rantings that have been part and parcel of my Wiki experience. I am occasionally sarcastic, but have never "Mocked" anyone intentionally. I do not want to fight. I am not going to address the schoolyard "taunting, egging on," etc. I was a teacher for too long, LOL. My intention is to sincerely edit articles relevant to my city. I have not "vilified" anyone, but have been the subject of multiple personal attacks. (i.e. see above). I appreciate your gallant efforts at mediating. I would truly appreciate someone working "with" me, but, sadly, this has not been the case in the editing "wherever I go." Three articles so far. Regarding the Tran & Clark articles, there would have been no "drama" had I not been followed. Period. RE: "In the fashion of Janus": "He was frequently used to symbolize change and transitions such as the progression of past to future, of one condition to another, of one vision to another, the growing up of young people... He was also known as the figure representing time because he could see into the past with one face and into the future with the other... He was representative of the middle ground between barbarity and civilization... and youth and adulthood." A very nice, albeit unintentional compliment! I hope to edit in peace, facilitate the growth of Wiki and (to paraphrase) maturely proceed to attain the ground beyond barbarity into civilization. Very Sincerely Yours, JoyDiamond (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I see yet more has been added while I was writing, *sigh*. Camel, please look closely and with Good Faith, as to whom has been baiting etc. I copied the discussion because I have learned the hard way to keep relevant info on hand. I wrote you a heartfelt note above. With no offense intended: Please respect my efforts as I do yours. JoyDiamond (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I give both sides good faith unless otherwise proven that I should not. I wish for the benefit of Wikipedia that the two of you could get along. It saddens me that this fighting has been happening, and in my opinion it harms all the articles you two work on.Camelbinky (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC) JoyDiamond (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Response to Saddened

(restored from User talk:Camelbinky by User:Equazcion): I too, am saddened and frustrated at this ongoing "battle." As AFriedman said: "Looking at the article and the notability guidelines, I found it difficult to believe that she wasn't notable, even though I'd never heard of her or her town before seeing this." AFriedman (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC). There is no doubt in my mind, that Skag had never heard of Margaret Clark or our town before she followed me to the article." Hounding" is still on the table. Yes, articles are being harmed. We "two" don't work on articles together, rather, I edit and she argues. I did find, over the weekend, that my credibility and integrity has been impugned in several Skag posts, all without my knowledge. Doubt has been created about me. Where does one go from there?

I did remove the notability template this morning, foolishly assuming that "Good Faith" would be employed In my continuing to add the references, (most of which I had already found, despite the fact that Skag claimed she couldn't find any). If Skag was actually interested this article, truly editing "with" me, would she not have started adding the references instead of just restoring the notability template? I am seeking "common sense" here, on which you have written so eloquently.

Mission accomplished. I am significantly maligned and disheartened. I would leave Wikipedia and this nonsense, were it not for my stance on principle.JoyDiamond (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"I did remove the notability template this morning, foolishly assuming that "Good Faith" would be employed In my continuing to add the references, (most of which I had already found)" --- If you already found them, why didn't you add them to the article, instead of merely removing the notability tag? It seems that would've solved the problem. Actually, AFriedman found and posted the links for the article. I have yet to have had time today to "add" them to the article. "If Skag was actually interested this article ... would she not have started adding the references instead of just restoring the notability template?" --- The same could be said of you: Why not add the references you say you've already found, instead of merely removing the notability tag? I removed the tag because as *you* pointed out "WP:POLITICIAN states: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." So why revert the tag? As Camelblinky had forbidden us to edit the article until today, again, there simply has been no time. I usually edit when my busy household goes to sleep. And for that matter, why assume Skag found the same refs you did and is simply refusing to add them to the article? You have no basis for making that assumption -- whereas we actually have reason to assume that of you instead; You admitted to finding the refs, not adding them, removing the notability tag instead. You've admitted to doing the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing. What sense does that make? Just add your refs to the article already, and end this useless drama. Please. Equazcion (talk) 23:56, 30 Nov 2009 (UTC) As AFRIEDMAN had posted the links to the article several days ago, they were readily available to Skag, I did not assume anything. What sense does it make to admonish me, demonstrating lack of "Good faith?" This "useless drama" would never had occurred, and I repeat, if I had not been "hounded" to two articles that have an extremely high likelihood Skag would never have found otherwise. Common sense. I am gently pointing out your above comments could be considered uncivil and would like to move on and focus on editing without faulty assumptions and criticism. You have been very helpful in the past, for which I sincerely I thank you. JoyDiamond (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC) [edit]Citing references in articles

Thanks for taking the time to add the verifiable sources to the Margaret Clark article. Also, I appreciate your kind words, as I noted on my Talk page. The references would probably be clearer and easier to add if you used the reference citation tool refToolbar, which is available under the "Gadgets" tab in your User preferences. As-is, I'm finding it a bit difficult to tell what the URLs are. --AFriedman (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your continuing support and assistance. Since I am on a "MAC" and do not speak "PC" LOL, I have no "gadgets". Would you please explain to me the difficulty with the URLS? Again, you are appreciated! JoyDiamond (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also on a Mac, so I'm not sure why you don't have the gadgets. For me, they're under "Preferences" and the "Gadgets" tab. Do you see the tab? The difficulty with the URLs is that some more information about what is on the page, beyond the URL address, would be helpful information about what is on the page. For example, a link to the City of Rosemead tree planting project reveals more about the page than a link to http://www.cityofrosemead.org/index.aspx?page=336. You may also want to look at the standard Wikipedia:Citation templates. --AFriedman (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you very much! I will look again or call son ;-) JoyDiamond (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC) [edit]Dispute resolution on Talk:Margaret Clark

Hi, I'm disappointed that the argument is still going on between S.R.Q. and you. As a next step in dispute resolution, perhaps you and S.R.Q. could agree not to mention each other on Wikipedia until next week. I think this will not disrupt your ability to edit, especially since all your WP-related disputes I saw could have been resolved without mentioning the other. On Talk:Margaret Clark, I've made a place where you can sign an agreement not to mention S.R.Q. for a week, and S.R.Q. can sign the same about you. Skagit River Queen, formerly a supporter of deleting the article, has stopped reverting your edits and has even retouched the sentence about Clark's descent from Hayes. This makes me believe he is editing the article in good faith, even if you two can't get along. I'm also convinced you are editing the article in good faith. However, if the uncivil comments and accusations continue, I will report your dispute to AN/I. --AFriedman (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Monday! I'm glad to see that you've managed to put aside old differences in the Margaret Clark article. Do you think you could keep it up till New Year's? If you do, I'll give your Talk page something even nicer. --AFriedman (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC) has extended an olive branch of peace.

[edit]Follow up

AFriedman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding 

DocOfSoc (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. to their talk page with a friendly message.

I don't know if that's what you celebrate (I actually celebrate Hanukah), but anyway, Season's Greetings! Here is a little "present" for you. --AFriedman (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit]We miss you over here

Great job writing Margaret Clark and bringing it to Start class! As promised, here is this.

The Special Barnstar Happy New Year! --AFriedman (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC) [edit]SRQ & Margaret Clark

Ho..ly..crap. More IP's, all Verizon. This SPI may blow up soon... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the goodies. You commented on the talk page that the sock puppet outed herself on another site. Would you please supply a dif for the SPI case? That would help get closure on the case and help prevent the sock from carrying on like she has been. You can put it here too on your page if you prefer and someone will move the link to the case. Either way, if she has admitted she is socking on the project, it needs to stop. Block me block, sock may mean indefinitely. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC) HI C! Sorry, she has not admitted it. Her words, her style were just so obvious, she may as well have signed her name!DocOfSoc (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think everyone that has ever edited with her saw her name at the end of the IP's. She has a way of expressing herself that is only her way. I don't think she sees it but obviously from all the others who have taken notice of this all agree that she is definitely the one posting. The rules under banning (I don't remember exactly where it is because I watch AN/i and it's always stated this is true) that if a blocked/banned editor edits in article space they can be automatically reverted with no 3rr problems. You can revert her immediately if she is editing as a banned/blocked sock. Just make sure it's her you are reverting. With her bouncing from IP to IP as quickly as she is she is probably having a ball just having her edits stick. Hopefully if she gets reverted enough she will tire of the game and leave like she is supposed to. Keep an eye out for other new accounts now that she has exposed her one account that she edited with. I hope that someone finally gets to the SPI case and deals with this. I just don't want her to get comfortable and back into her usual ways of postings. It's been nice and quiet for a little while, lets see if that can be returned. Take it slow and be sure though. Lot's of us are watching too so that is good. Be well and happy editing. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC) [edit]Thanks

[edit]Fascinating, "How to be a Sockpuppet"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wildhartlivie/Archive#Report_date_December_25_2009.2C_02:49_.28UTC.29 As a brand new editor has started editing a rather obscure stub I started editing yesterday, I still find myself wondering... With complete instructions on how to be a sock puppet contained in the link above and the new editor being so facile with Wikipedia methods, does anybody ELSE wonder? More detail later. Shalom DocOfSoc (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting indeed, DOS. A-6 Intruder, Mike Bickle, John Dillinger (esp. - I see IP socking there big time, also with Verizon), Ted Bundy, Ed Gein. All these articles were also edited by... hmmm. I don't like the looks of Sabra2's short life at all... Doc9871 (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. [edit]Archive 2

{talkarchive}}

Hey DOS, do me a favor and run this kind of thing past me or even Doc9871 before going to ask for protection ok? Even if this wasn't a case of a bad reference and it was her, there needs to be more vandalism than what the article is getting. Understand what I'm saying? Please don't take this wrong, I am just trying to help and save you time. Have a good night, I'm done for now. As you can see on my talk page I am spending limited time here for RL reasons. If you ask something and I don't get to it quick enough, please feel free to email me, ok? --CrohnieGalTalk 23:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Dear Crohnie, Please see my talk page and call me anything but DOS LOL Asking for protection was practice, or testing the waters, if you will. The Ryan Seacrest article has a long history of very ugly edits, but has been blocked for some time. They will start again and then I can apply what I have learned. If TFOWR had taken more than a superficial look at the history, this would have been obvious. He/she is certainly very busy at this time. Also, It never occurred to me it was the sock puuppet, her edits are too recognizable! I really appreciate yours and DOC's assistance! Namaste! DocOfSoc (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Fair enough on the name preference, sorry I hadn't seen that before. I will try to remember to spell it out since I now talk to two Doc's and it might get confusing. :) I understand you wanting to test how to do things at this site, it is a nightmare at times isn't it? :) For further information about protection, they only look at a day sometime two days to see if protection is needed. If an article had a lot of vandalsm going on, edit warring etc, then it the article goes calm they feel it's over for at least now so no protection is needed. When articles go under semi protection no new editors can touch the article so it's not something they do quickly. That's one of the reasons that sock puppet like what occurs there is harmful to the project. Have a good one though and keep learning as I also try to do, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you Be well. I answer to many things, I used to have 4 sisters LOL ! How about Doc2? Fondly, DocOfSoc (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(ECx2)Ok, Doc2 it is, works well for me thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Yeah, because I'm "Doc1", and don't you forget it! However true it is or not, it's amazing how SRQ accuses you of conflict of interest issues - not at all hypocritical[4][5]. Cheers... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC) YESSIR! of course Sir! ;-) I also answer to Red lol!.... DocOfSoc (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Yea Doc you are #1 in my book! LOL! I wish she would just give up already. Now all she is doing is stirring shit up with her behavior. Did you notice she isn't even signing now? On my talk page she made it look like her comments were that of another editors. She needs to go away, she's not welcome here which is obvious to anyone with a brain cell left. I got WHL's talk page protected and if she continues at other's talk pages I will get their's protected from her as well. She is to be denied. I hope we are all agree on this. :) I will add the new articles to my watchlist too to help out. On a different note, DocOfSoc, if you check out my user page there are a bunch of difs and things that maybe useful to you. If you like anything there, please feel free to copy/paste anything you desire. Have a good one both of you, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC) In this particular case, it didn't matter how many different IPs there were, or whether there was any socking going on: the "vandalism" consisted of removing a claim from a WP:BLP that wasn't backed by the sources used to cite it. It was a good edit, and should not have been reverted, let alone taken to WP:RFPP. TFOWR 11:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you this is good to know. Question, if the edit is made by a banned sock puppet do we still revert them and then return the edit to what is proper per policies? We are having problems with a serial sock puppet that has a revolving IP. I'm tell you this so you understand a little of what is going on above. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC) If general, for an indef blocked sock puppeteer, no. For a sock puppeteer that's subject to a community ban, yes. However, for WP:BLPs the first priority has to be the BLP, not dealing with Wikipedia issues like sock puppetry or block evasion. TFOWR 12:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you, this I do understand. I appreciate your explanation. thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Talk:Laura_Schlessinger#Judaism

Just a quick note to remind you to stick to "nice" discussions on article talk pages - particularly BLP's. I have no-indexed the page, mostly because of your comments claiming her to be a liar etc. No matter how you feel about that person please try not to discuss those feelings on the talk page & avoid making unsubstantiated (in the sense it is an unprovable anecdote in the context of WP) claims --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I said she lied to me, at no time did I call her a liar. There is a difference! I clearly stated it was personal experience and not applicable. If that was incorrect, I apologize. I have other articles, I am done with this one. Namaste... DocOfSoc (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit]Civilty

To whom it may concern: Personal remarks against another editor do not belong on an article talk page. BTW, I am just as Jewish as Dr. Laura thinks she is, so Neo is making false assumptions. I have as much right to speak as anyone else. Calling me "racist and disrespectful" is yet another violation and I am very surprised an admin is supporting you. FYI Mishnah is the compilation of the Oral Law and the Talmud is the compilation of the written Law. Historically, we would not have one without the other. A "true Jew" follows God's simplest Law: "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countryman. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the Lord." Lev 19:18 Do not presume when it comes to the religion of others either! This is not a social network and I treat all with the same respect that I expect back, as I extended to you in my first missive. If Laura is your kind of Jew, I am sorry. I have met the woman twice and she has lied to my face. She can be as disrespectful as you seem. This is not what is contained in the Mishnah, the Torah, or the Talmud. Perhaps you should read. RKLawton, there are NO valid or useful points in Neo's remarks, they are all accusatory and based on fallacious assumptions, and to take it to ANI, Good Grief! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Potentially Libelous comments are required to be removed so please do so. DocOfSoc (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Another thought. How come a newbie was able to edit on a locked page?? DocOfSoc (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling you a racist amounts to a personal attack. However, that's not what happened. The editor characterized your comment as racist, and that's something entirely different. The article is only semi-protected -which would prevent only newly created accounts from editing. Rklawton (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC) How newly created does it have to be? His welcome page is dated today. BTW I do believe in the words of Leviticus, so have a better day! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Doc, this is just the "religion thing" rearing it's ugly head. Clearly you do not believe Laura to be a "true jew" and have made some comments about Judaism - this is a touchy area (as I know too well, my ex-girlfriends family were Jewish with Orthodox Jew cousins, family reunions were tense!) and I can immediately see why your original indelicate comments stating your personal opinion might have caused upset to some - such as this new editor. Their response was, clearly, wrong - but it did not strike me as the typical trolling rant you see from socks or POV editors. They were just upset by what you said and responded with a little too much emotion. Scot had the right approach - just shouldn't have killed the talk page comment outright IMO. I meant no offence in restoring the comment and doing/saying what I did; my thinking was that supporting the new editor was the "right" thing to do because you and scot, as established editors, will understand the light flak whereas they might see it as yet another person against them. I believe in the benefit of the doubt till the absolute end :) a failing perhaps. I hope I caused no offence (BTW; I believe new accounts are "confirmed" after a number of edits) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC) You are OK in my book! No offense taken. Keep up the good work! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC) You can't tell when an account has been created. You can only tell when the account first edited something. The new account clock starts ticking at account creation. Rklawton (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC) OOOOHHH! THAT makes perfect sense...not! So after one edit, the newbie is allowed on a semi protected site, revert more than 3 times after he said he would not, And... after all hell breaks loose we end up with the correct edit I Made in the first place. He stated he read my user page and made assumptions on my heritage which were wrong, and gave me no respect, which any experienced editor deserve,s much less someone who is going thru hell and is highly educated besides. Having said that, I think you made a mistake, you are human and it is now a moot point. BTW, I left Neo a really nice message when this first started, and gave him the New Newbie award, all of which he has blanked out. Read my user page, I really am quite nice when my fuse is not lit lol. You are probably pretty darn nice too. SO, may we start at step one? Nice to meet you. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC) It's not the number of edits. It's the age of the account. If you don't think that makes sense, take it up with the Wiki software developers. As for the rest of it, none of it serves as an excuse for deleting a legitimate comment. Rklawton (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And a Good Morning to YOu! I tried. No matter what you say, it was an attack. Perceived personal attack ARE allowed to be removed I repeat: Neo reverted more than 3 times after he said he would not, And... after all hell breaks loose we end up with the correct edit I Made in the first place. I made the correct edit as the census showed. AT no time was NEO informed he was was wrong. I believe that is your job, umm neutrality! YOu did not receive my above note in the spirit intended. I give up. Have a GREAT Day! Namste DocOfSoc (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Doc #2" - I hate to say this, but you may possibly be having a "redhead moment" over this, my dear (believe me, I know ;>). It's all good, and Rklawton is just doing his job. Take a "break" on this issue, and you'll probably see it differently later. Okay? Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit]use of pages in userspace

Resolved: no admin action required, OP is recommended to take the feedback from here —SpacemanSpiff 05:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC) This section is a good example of something that needs to be addressed. I warned user about not using Wikipedia as a social network and user tells me to "get off my back and fuck off!" Meanwhile, user has continued to use talk page as a forum in follow-up edits. Civility and policy issues with this one. Atlantabravz (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

More neutral title and, given the context I see no reason for admin intevention here. If I were in the same situation I would undoubtedly react to your unwarranted lecture in similar ways. The user is contributing to article space and has wide lattitude, as does every other user, to use their userspace as they will within reason. This was well within reason. Spartaz Humbug! 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Concur. You left a rather abrupt template on her talk page, and then complain when she doesn't take it with a thank you? There's a reason WP:DTTR is good advice, and you needed to have followed it here- or even better, to have investigated the situation some more before inserting yourself into it. If you have a problem with an experienced editor, some discussion goes a lot farther than a newbie template. Courcelles 04:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Indeed. Editors will sometimes communicate in a social or friendly manner in their userspace. I have editors I know IRL or off-wiki, and discussing things of a personal nature, from time to time, does not violate WP:NOTMYSPACE. The issue is the number of social edits as relative to the number of project-relevent edits. This is I don't see where this user is any kind of a problem at all. This user is a good content editor, and I see no reason they should not be left alone. --Jayron32 05:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Especially given the sensitivity of the post referred to. Spartaz Humbug! 05:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I would also have told you to fuck off, and stop templating people who are in mourning for sharing their feelings with their friends on Wiki. I'm disgusted that this was your response to reading that post. If you had to say anything at all, words of sympathy would have been appropriate. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I'd be spitting fire and venom if someone did that to me; I'd probably use even stronger language than that. I don't like sympathy (directed at me) much, but templating me would be far worse. I can AGF that the OP was just taking NOTMYSPACE a bit too seriously, but I hope that they don't do this again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC) WP:NOTMYSPACE, as I see it, was created for people who appear to regard this place as a place to network— beyond that, I'm fairly sure we're allowed to have lives that interfere with editing once in a while, and to express that. We're a community. sonia♫ 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I should also point out WP:IAR. A little friendly communication once in a while can go a long way towards cooperative editing, which leads to improvement of the project. I'd say as long it's not a user's primary purpose on this encyclopedia it's more than acceptable. elektrikSHOOS 05:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) DocOfSoc, I've added to the ANI discussion. Not sure if you want to add it here or not? (No objections to you wiping this post here - as is your right - and replacing it, or doing what you wish). TFOWR 08:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC) [6]

TFlower attacked Categories: (+) user page discussion edit this page history move unwatch New features DocOfSoc my talk my preferences my watchlist my contributions log out 23:33:58

This page was last modified on 13 September 2010 at 05:35. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Contact us Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers