User talk:Katchu2

Suzanne Olsson
Hello. Since you have re-created the article Suzanne Olsson, which was recently deleted and has now been tagged for speedy deletion, I would like to know if you are User:Kashmir2. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am NOT user Suzanne Olsson or Kasmir 2.Katchu2 (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the page and prevented recreation for 6 weeks, as we have just had a discussion about this topic, and the community was unanimous in the decision to delete this page. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

John, that unanimous decision included Olsson herself because of vandalism to her page by Paul Smith, then insults by a select group of editors. It was you who kept stating if such and such references appeared, you would keep the page, and encouraging us to be editors. We did our best to comply and please you and Gale.

Everything on the new page is in compliance exactly as you asked for. The unanimous vote was for the old page, not the corrected page. Aren't you being unduly harsh and vindictive just because some of us don't happen to like some of your editors?NewYork10021 (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The unanimous vote to delete was for the article topic, not its content. Meanwhile, out of the hundreds of editors I come in contact with, so far as I can recall, only you and Kashmir2 have ever called me Gale. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that now. My error for just repeating someone else's error. You are indeed Gwen. Kashmir2 (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I think I also called her Gale. My apologies. NewYork10021 (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am confused. Is she talking to us or to Katchu? I dont even know what page I'm on anymore.I've been jumping from page to page trying to follow all the conversationsNewYork10021 (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're confused! Join the club.Kashmir2 (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha! Honestly now, please, please read Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts. You're very welcome to edit here and many editors will help you, but we all have to follow the policies. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know what a sock puppy was until you just showed me....so we cant share computers but if we each use our own, that is OK? Everyone uses my computer....but I see it is a problem. I'm sorry.Alexis Kashmir2 (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, yeah, I think it would be best if only one of you edited from that computer for now :) Please pick the one account you want to use and stick to it. Don't use the other ones again. Thanks for your understanding. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I apoligize if we confused you. Thank you for explaining. AlexisKashmir2 (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's ok! Will you be using User:Kashmir2 then, or which one? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We have all agreed that no one should write using this name except me. But if we have two other computers in the same house and they use theirs, how will you know who is not me?Kashmir2 (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Each person should use their own account. Multiple people using the same account does not help matters either.  Now, you all have a Conflict of interest, and "you" (it is hard to recall who said what) have said that you dont want an article on Wikipedia.  The community expressly said that they did not find the subject notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and when I asked for additional information it was withheld because "you" didnt want the article on Wikipedia.
 * As a result, none of you should be involved in writing a new biographical article. If you believe that you are notable enough to be on Wikipedia, the avenue of appeal is "Deletion review", but I strongly recommend you build a very strong case based on "Notability" before trying this. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as Jayvdb says (and this was the next thing I had to bring up with you, User:Kashmir2), after you've picked the one account you'd like to use, you must understand that only one person can use it. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwen and Paul I spend most of my time in my bedroom-office editing and writing while everyone else gathers in the kitchen ‘round the laptop. For this past week several people, some not even family members, were jumping in on conversations at Wiki without paying heed to whose name they posted under. Even I was guilty of that when I wandered into the kitchen for a fresh cup of coffee. No thought of ‘sock-puppets’ or willfully misleading anyone. Just dash in and add a comment in the heat of a discussion. We must have driven you nuts trying to sort it all out!This is how it all started: Following the history of some editors here, I realized they impose their spin on controversial topics and controversial people. They willfully use their powers to impose their will on certain pages. In some cases very prominent authors have been trashed because all their positive links were erased and replaced with negatives, leaving a reader with the wrong impressions. I found half a dozen examples of this on Wiki pages of fellow authors, and on the page about me at Wiki. Even one deliberate slip to disparage someone’s name or cause misleading impressions is not acceptable. This is not about criticisms, this is about willfull misrepresentation. If someone is a Christian (which I am) and happens to find the idea that Jesus married, or survived crucifixion is shocking and a sin -which I don't- they will post links to reviews and websites that support their beliefs. Same can be said for Muslims or Ahmaddiis. Each regards the other as "fringe" and not mainstream. Impartiality is not easy. Such incidents tend to frustrate everyone. Of course there are also brilliant people who make extremely valuable contributions here. It's just a few that have to be watched more judisciously, just a few who upset the whole concept of Wikipedia. I have found my little niche in the world. It is to protect Roza Bal and obtain the DNA as absolute proof of claims about the tomb or about anyone's bloodlines to Jesus. I will continue with this project until the day the tomb and its relics are safe, or until the day I die, whichever comes first. It may seem 'fringe' and  inconsequential to you,  but with all my heart it's what I believe in and this is the cause I have dedicated my life to, because when I looked around me,  no one else was noticing the endangered plight of these sites. You all did notice the Bamiyan Buddha plight, but that was after the dynamite was detonated. I hope to prevent such a fate for Roza Bal and Murree graves. I paid little attention to the Wiki page. Projects and publicity, news releases and films and peer reviews have all  come and gone over the years, yet it never occured to anyone to keep a running log of them on the Wiki page. For whatever confusion we have caused you and Gwen (not Gale) I apologize for myself and my family. We will each use our own names here from now on, and hopefully our own computers. Thank you for your solid good advise and help in sorting out these problems we were not even aware of. If you're ever in the neighborhood, the coffee is always brewing here and you're always welcome. Regards, Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)