User talk:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/sf

New sandbox
Hi As per Checkingfax's suggestion, the source code is now in a new sandbox I created as a sub-page addendum to my main sandbox, here. As I mentioned on my user talk page, I saved the source code (clever me ), as I am wont to do, before the 'battle' ensued, as it were. Some of it will be very useful when re-worked.

We should build one article as a BLP for (pen name) 'Sorcha Faal' and at the same time have a Wikilink to 'Sorcha Faal reports'. If we work carefully, we wont ruffle feathers and we'll have success. I think this type of article could be quite controversial so we have to be careful again to not take comments personally. Again, to err is human and I may be off the mark; indeed it wouldn't be the first time. But a 'Controversy" section, as one also frequently sees, would be neat, interesting and Wikipedian in its fairness. ...more later. kind regards, N atalie Desautels  …as within, so without 23:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't remove the noindex tag, which makes this page and the main user page with our code, invisible to prying eyes; we don't need interruptions. An editor once began tampering with my work hours after creation, before Checkingfax told me about this tag. Even Snowden can't find us here ((Smiley}}; I didn't mention the CIA because they can't seem to find anyone anyway. N atalie Desautels …as within, so without 23:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

PS. Checkingfax, yes I know xtools can find it within Wikipedia, but at least it's a few steps removed. N atalie Desautels …as within, so without 23:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Merely by you’re pinging  and me you've made not only this effort, but yourself a "target". No matter what you do with this article, and regardless of how WP bulletproof you make it, it will never be allowed to survive in the agenda driven environment that exists here. Remember dear, what is happening now with this article has nothing at all to do with making it WP compliant; it's about breaking it down so that it can be nominated for deletion and then removed. The notice from the previous deletion discussions for this article have already been placed on the talk page as a "warning" of this (sort of a guideline actually). The talk page has had nearly all of its past information removed (archived) so no one will know the real history behind this article, and the name has been changed to remove all reference to the growing number of views this article had too. And let me ask you; have ever seen any article so decimated/talk page gone/name changed, etc., so fast ever before? Of course you haven't, because it's just not done, and every WP policy and guideline to keep these things from happening were ignored in their totality in order to accomplish it. And that is why an actual member of the WP arbitration committee, administrator, oversaw this destruction, to make sure that if anyone even dared contest what had happened he'd be able to rule on it himself. There's a reason many have said that WP is run by "zealots, partisans, and extremists", and you've just seen them in action. So my best advice is that you destroy this page and abandon this most hopeless of efforts as the people against you are just too insidious and powerful for you to overcome. Hope you understand. Picomtn (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Picomtn, your words are pretty harsh and simply do not reflect reality at Wikipedia. I will posit that Sorcha Faal will probably always be one article rather than two due to the nature of how we view WP:N, and that the sources call it fake news to begin with.  To assume the system is somehow rigged simply because things don't go your way is ludicrous.  I'm on the losing side of consensus plenty, we all are.  We simply have decided to live with consensus as the rule of the land.  But to, it is fine to collect quality, sourced material to try to start a second article, just realize that it might end up in the main article instead.  Being sourced isn't enough.  WP:Weight comes to mind, as does simple relevance. We don't publish every fact we can find, we publish along the lines of what any encyclopedia would publish, which means there are some basic standards.  We aren't a tabloid, blog or repository of every fact.  The context of how the information is presented is often as important as the information.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone. First of all,, I would be amiss not to mention how much I admired your clear, thoughtful and, well, balanced message. It was, well, mindful, as I might say steeped in the Buddhist way as I am. ...very wise words indeed. Conflict can often be explained by recognizing the fact that we think we are rational creatures but we are actually emotional creatures.  And yes, "how the information is presented" ...very good indeed.
 * Now, concerning this article, I wish I could help more even as this is not my area of expertise (languages certainly, music, classical guitar, computer science...). It seems that most of the editors felt that it would be good to go back to a stub and build it back up, and that's where we are now, so that gives us a chance for a clean start to do it well. It was also mentioned that the material I saved could contain useful stuff if culled properly, so we possess that too, if need be. I like infoboxes since it gives a consistent look to Wikipedia along with other advantages, so I think we should have one here. We might try to find a template whereby we can have the normal headings.
 * It is natural for me to want to help, as is my nature., I would need you to answer questions for me, which will probably be many considering how little I know in this area (but I learn fast :). It seems that you know Russian, and the past translations have to be in better English. Perhaps I can bring to the table my several mother tongues, as I find this a great asset and pleasure here in that I have access to lots of sources. As a proud code switcher, I can translate back and forth effortlessly. So there may be good sources available not tapped into yet. It seems we should go for one article, as Dennis Brown pointed out. I noticed quite a few mainstream sources, so complying with WP:Weight seems feasible. ...but right now I am so tired I don't know what I'm saying, in any language, so I will bid everyone goodnight and send my warmest best wishes for harmony and peace of mind and ...detachment ...for the surest way not to be disappointed is not to expect; anticipate eagerly, don't expect. Enjoy the voyage, for life is how you spend time, and it never comes back I've noticed. Je vous remercie de m'avoir prêté l'oreille (thank you for bearing with me); ...hope it wasn't boring  kindest regards,  N atalie Desautels  …as within, so without 12:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wise words from both of you. Natalie, regarding infoboxes, you might be amused by what it says about them on my user page - User:Doug Weller. Doug Weller  talk 13:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wise words from both of you. Natalie, regarding infoboxes, you might be amused by what it says about them on my user page - User:Doug Weller. Doug Weller  talk 13:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)