User talk:Fleaphone

User talk: Fleaphone

The Golddiggers
Hi Fleaphone. Yes, I have had the misfortune of dealing with Interbang, but fortunately it was only on one occasion. Sorry to hear your encounters with him have been just as unpleasant. It seemed like he had a bit of an ownership thing going on which is very, very annoying and all too common around here. Since very few people even edit the page, he was basically getting away with violating policy until I stumbled upon it. I suppose that's why he's gone MIA. The whole blow up was over the description of an external link listed at the bottom of the article. Admittedly, I was a little (ok, a LOT) snippy with him, but I had checked the history of the article and noted he continuously reverted other user's edits to push his website with his preferred choice of wording (which was wholly unacceptable). I see you did some much needed improvements to the page which is beyond helpful. If you need any further help, please let me know. Happy holidays!  Pinkadelica Say it...  09:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever issues you have with that editor, they have no place on Wikipedia. There are a few comments that I didn't make about this on Pink's page, but to clarify to you, when I wrote her an email regarding the removal of the editor's personal information, she agreed and thanked me. Anyone that comes across an "outing" of someone should remove it. What I didn't do, and could have, was report that you had revealed personal information about an editor, whether he was a good or a bad editor is irrelevant. Wikipedia has a very strong policy about this. Please see WP:OUTING, which is a portion of Harassment. As I said, your issues with this person elsewhere really should be left elsewhere. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wildhart...first, I thank you for being straightforward. Yes, you could have reported me for the violation; I'd be more thankful and greatly helped in my cause if you HAD done so. Second, I did read the linked pages as you asked. I learned a lot more than I bargained for, but I also missed a lot so will read them again tonight AND TOMORROW. Thankfully, Wikipedia allows users/editors to volunteer their own information. I am Ralph H. Baker Jr. of Cumberland RI.USA and I have absolutely NO VALID REASON to hide myself from this argument. Third, your claim of an email sent to Pinkadelica..."she agreed and thanked me." may be truthful but I find the claim totally suspect. The difference between my post of that letter and the edit-out (signed by you, not by Pinkadelica) was less than three hours. In that short time she may have missed the INTACT letter COMPLETELY, otherwise respectfully accepted it as was. Finally, you've been a Wki'er for a long time. I just got here a week ago and I'm learning the ropes as I go along. The 'Golddiggers' page was here almost untouched for a few years, then 'Interbang' took a whack at it when he put up the Super Site. He did a fantastic job on the Site AND on the Wiki page, far better than I could. I did nothing more than expand the Membership list, including an additional name tonight. Now, my previous invitation to you and to Pinkadelica ramains valid. Your choice to accept or decline. But if you DO accept the invite, and join the Yahoo! DeanMartinTVShow group,...you'll find the whole truthful story of the Super Site's creation and everything that went with it. Best of all, you'll understand ME a lot better. That's what I'm hoping for! Thanks fromFleaphone (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, here's the thing. If I'd reported you, you more than likely would have been blocked. Outing is a serious issue. Frankly, I don't care if you've decided to identify yourself, that is a non-issue. I find it a bit incredulous that you seem more concerned with the fact that I removed your policy violation and whether or not I sent an email to Pinkadelica than with the fact that you felt it necessary to post personal information about someone else without their permission. The fact is, Pinkadelica and I work together quite frequently, and we do exchange private email about things. I don't really care if you find that suspect or not. It's a fact that I'm not compelled to prove. That is also a non-issue. Pink can look through her history and find that name if she cares to, that wasn't the point. Her talk page is on my watchlist and any posts to it show up, so when I logged in and checked my watchlist, I saw your last post. Since her talk page is often the target of vandalism, I routinely check her page when she hasn't responded on it. You're wrong about the time frame. Just to clarify, you posted your note with his name here, at 23:43 on 28 December 2008. She responded to that post here, at 04:16 on 29 December 2008, 4 1/2 hours later and you wrote back to her here, at 22:58 on 29 December 2008. I didn't remove the name until here, at 00:36, 30 December 2008. I wrote Pink the email right after that, and she replied a couple hours later. Obviously, she did read your post and you both responded after that. It was about 26 hours later that I removed the name. We both edit hundreds of articles, some that include the Golddiggers page, which we happen to come across while doing other things. If there are issues on a page, we may address them and then we move on to something else. I can't speak for her on this, and I mean no offense, but really I'm not interested in exploring the history of these sites, but thanks for the invitation. There are a lot of policies and guidelines in Wikipedia. The best way to learn about what is and isn't acceptable editing and behavior here is to study the links from the page Help:Contents. It will help immensely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, yes, Wildhartlivie did email to let me know there was an editor's personal information on my talk page. I also did thank her for removing it because it should not have been there. She's quite aware that my editing hours are, at best, completely unpredictable and sometimes I don't edit or check my talk page for hours at a time. As stated above, I've worked with Wildhartlivie quite a bit and I trust her judgment implicitly. She was correct to remove the text and I'm thankful she caught it and someone else didn't. Privacy is incredibly important online for obvious reasons and even if someone is less than desirable, they still shouldn't be outed. Nothing is "lost" on Wikipedia so if I was really that interested in the original message and what it contained, I could have easily compared the history. No one is jumping down your throat because at one point, we were all new and didn't know policy. That said, we do try to assume good faith around here so unless someone's actions are clearly malicious, it's best not to jump to conclusions.  Pinkadelica Say it...  10:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Amy
Happy New Year to you also Edkollin (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)