User talk:MissSherryBobbins

October 2012
Hello, I'm DownRightMighty. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mercy Ministries because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ''Please do not attack Wikipedia pages or use multiple accounts to do so. I will be reporting your account (and that of your sister account that left a message on my talk page) to Wikipedia. '' DownRightMighty (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi MissSherryBobbins. I'm Qwyrxian, an administrator here on Wikipedia. I saw your note on DownRightMighty's page. It is true that DownRightMighty shouldn't accuse you of having multiple accounts without evidence. I'm going to follow up with DownRightMighty on this issue. Regarding the rest of your message, however, you do need to go to the article's talk page to discuss the changes you made. The major revisions that DRM made to the page appear to me to make the article more completely comply with our various policies and guidelines, especially WP:WEIGHT (part of our requirement that articles be neutral). For example, we cannot use blogs as sources on Wikipedia in most cases. So, please do start a discussion on Talk:Mercy Ministries about improving it. I do personally see some significant problems now, that I'll raise there--perhaps that can be a chance for the two of you to start talking together. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not apologize for my accusation as it is just too coincidental with the edits and the comments at the same time. Regardless, I am more than happy to discuss the information with you in order to come up with a consensus which is what guides the content of Wikipedia. I have left more information on my talk page for you. --DownRightMighty (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi DRM and Q.

With regard to the accusation, Q I am happy for you to investigate. I did not post that statement and I do not seek to harass anyone, I don't even know what someone's motive would even be to write that statement and then lie about it, but I feel there is no point trying to reason when DRM has made up their mind. Perhaps it would be more constructive to instead focus on the content of the Mercy Ministries page and see if there is a way we can reason and work together to create a more accurate, balanced page on this organisation.


 * Regarding your statement above, please note that the comment you left from "OO" was done from your account "ollyoxen." You then follow up with a message from your account MSB in the same format as "OO." So, I am unsure of what "your" motive is and why "you" would lie about it. Regardless, I will still work with you to reach a consensus on the article content. Please see my message below. --DownRightMighty (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

DRM, if you don't mind, I was wondering if you are able to firstly tell me if you feel you have any special insight into this topic, and if so, what gives you that insight or why do you feel you have insight? I am quite knowledgeable on the controversies in Australia and the US which are well documented by considerable media coverage.

DRM, I propose that we go through each section of the article, one by one, and discuss each one on the talk page for the article. Are you agreeable to this? I don't think that anyone can be 100% objective and diversity is important, but I am willing to work towards a more balanced article on Mercy Ministries.

MissSherryBobbins


 * My insight is based on the references that I have found online while looking at information about MMOA. If you are quite knowledgeable outside of the online references, then I would suggest that you first become familiar with Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Policies . If you have a conflict of interest, you can still edit the article, but it must be done from a neutral point of view. If there is something that you have against MMOA, then please take it up in a forum outside of Wikipedia as Wikipedia is not to be used to prove a point . If you notice, I left information about controversy in the article. The reason for this is to keep the article neutral. Regarding the content that I placed in the article, there is no need for me to go through each paragraph as I left comments when adding the information the reason why the information was added. You understandably object which I see from your reverts of my edits. If you object with the content, then please tell me what you feel is not neutral or what information you feel should be added or removed. We can then discuss that issue which I have no problem with as Wikiepdia is an encyclopedia with neutral content, not a place to take out grievances. If you can leave the comments on my talk page I would appreciate it. I do not get that much of a chance to check in at Wikipedia but I will at least once a day to check your message. In the meantime, I will come up with a shorter text of the funding section per the other editor's recommendation and will also come up with a list of references that are more independent. I will let you know what I come up so you will have a chance to look at that as well. --DownRightMighty (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Qwyrxian (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to your email
I got your email. First, regarding your suggestion that we revert back to the version before either you or DRM edited, we can't do that, because that version has highly negative claims, some of which implicate living people, tied to unreliable source. It's much better to start from the somewhat blank slate we have now, and work our way forward.

Regarding the primary sources, no, uploading them yourself wouldn't help. First, we couldn't verify their authenticity (about the only way we could do that is if they were found on the Ministries' own website). Second, even if we could, we still couldn't use them for much, because they are primary sources. Primary sources can only be used to cover literally and exactly what they state, and I'm guessing that this is not how you'd intend to use them. I mean this in the most extreme way--we can't interpret primary documents in even the slightest way, because doing so would be original research.

On the other hand, you mentioned that there are dozens of news stories, and I see that looking in the history there are more than are currently in the article. Definitely the best thing to do is to craft more information out of those stories. If, as you said, the story spreads past a single incident in Australia, then we should give it more weight than it currently has.

An as for the multiple accounts accusation--don't worry about it; I consider the matter to be somewhere between irrelevant and unproblematic. Even if that were you, no harm has been done, so there is no legitimate cause for complaint.

However, I would like to say that both you and DRM are now communicating effectively, and that's really the whole key. I think that if we keep working together (and we may, later on, want to enlist the help of other Wikipedians through some processes I can guide the two of you through), then we will get a good article in the end. I don't think it will be exactly the article either of you are imagining right now, but it will reflect the ministry neutrally and comprehensively. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification of other editors
MissSherryBobbins, how did you chose who to notify about the recent changes at the MM page? It seems like you may have chosen people who, looking at the history, specifically agree with your proposed version. Is there a reason, for example, why you notified an account that hasn't edited in over a year (User:CelticlLabyrinth), but failed to notify User:Hyper3, who was active even today? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Q.

I acknowledge that I did contact those people. I did so in ignorance of the existence of a policy on this, but at the same time, I also take responsibility for not familiarising myself beforehand. I also was not really thinking, but upon it being pointed out to me, I see it would be obvious as to why this is not allowed. I will refrain from doing this again and ask that you and DRM accept my sincere apologies. I will make a point of familiarising myself with wikipedia policies moving forward.

MissSherryBobbins


 * Thanks, the important thing is that you understand now. The best way to correct the matter would be for you to notify other accounts that have edited that article in the past, including those whose stance you don't agree with.
 * Also, you seem to be sometimes signing your posts and sometimes not. Whenever you post on someone's talk page, please be sure to add four tildes ( ~ ) to the end of your post. This automatically signs your name and the date/time you made the post. It makes it much easier to track conversations. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Q.

I will undertake to do this in the next week or so. My apologies again.

Regarding the four squiggles, I have been doing this, but today when my ID didn't come up on the article talk page, i thought I had logged in but I had not. But, i am slowly getting the hang of wikipedia!

Cheers

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Small copy-editing note
I just wanted to let you know that on Wikipedia we always put punctuation before references; that looks like this:


 * This is a sentence that has been verified.

Not like this:


 * This is a sentence that has been verified but not punctuated correctly.

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/MissSherryBobbins for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. UsedEdgesII (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi UsedEdges and others. I am confused by this accusation and have responded on your administrator page where there is discussion about it. As I have said to Q in the past, I am more than happy to assist Wikipedia in any investigation they wish to make. MissSherryBobbins (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins
 * Don't worry, UsedEdges is in fact part of the same sock farm that DownRightMighty was in,. Essentially, they were trying to tie you in to their own sockpuppetry--kind of neutralizing the opposition. UsedEdgessII has now been blocked; I wouldn't be surprised to see them pop up again in the future. Your "investigation" has been closed as being entirely without merit. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WOW! I can't believe it!  Again!?  Some people just amaze me.  Well, as I have said before, I am happy to continue improving the article with the oversight of yourself and to cooperate with anyone else who wishes to get involved.  MissSherryBobbins (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Proposed Topic Ban
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--UsedEdgesII (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)