User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1

Archive 1 of Kelly A. Siebecke's talk Page

This is an archive of past discussions with SkagitRiverQueen. 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

Archive 2 >

All Pages:

1 - 2 - ... (up to 100)

Glenn Beck

Appreciate your edits Kelly, but perhaps you could read through this talk section and this talk section and comment on your changes. We went through several days gaining some consensus on the section you're rewriting. Not to say that your changes will not be accepted, but they should probably be discussed as a bit of discussion went into the current writing. This was the reason ObserverNY reverted your change earlier. Morphh ^(talk) 19:29, 03 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Morph - I did insert something in the talk section of the Glenn Beck article regarding the verbiage used in the Live Events section of the article. No one replied and that's why I made the change myself. However, those who are not enveloped in what I see as an obsession over this article and the seemingly endless hair-splitting that's occurring (that's just an objective, personal view - not meant to be a negative criticism), and would edit the article when noting irregularities and errors, shouldn't be expected to read the talk page. ESPECIALLY considering the overwhelming length and width, and bredth of it at this point (IMO). It's also my unsolicited opinion that you guys are not seeing the trees for the forest and are taking the whole thing a little too seriously. For what it's worth. ;-)

SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bickering

No, I have been jerky. I also added info that was sourced but the inline citation was in the wrong place. I don't recall ever adding unsourced info on a BLP since it is a guideline that cannot be dismissed. Most important, I have admitted to my mistakes and tried to correct them. I don't even mind apologizing to another editor when it is due. Your last comment at the Glenn Beck talk page pretty much summarizes the difference. If you want to continue to bicker about it we should do it on the talk page. Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

I dont like Eusebus (or whatever his name is) and how he treated you or how he closed out the discussion. If you think it needs further looking into, or would like Equazcion or myself to mediate there with you and whatever other party you would like, I will reopen it. In fact I'd love to reopen it just because of Eusebus' rudeness on my talk page after I asked him on his talk page to apologize to you for his dismissive attitude. Your call, but I think, whether you were really wronged per Wikipedia policy or not, you feel hurt and aggrieved, and I will help you get closure (especially if it means pissing off Eusebus).Camelbinky (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to take some time and make sure everything is ok, even though Wikipedia is not a social networking site, we should always make time to make sure our fellow editors are not stressed out. Hope all is well.Camelbinky (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

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)[reply]

You have new messages

Hello, SkagitRiverQueen. I have left a message that you may be interested in at JoyDiamond's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing this section. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Spencer

Ah...gotcha. I didn't even bother to check the user's history, I just figured they were new and thought the talk page was there for complaints. I didn't mean to get snippy with you, I just get rather irritated by those "delete this because I don't like it" type of comments. Pinkadelica ^♣ 04:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley Jean Morrow

I have removed the entry for Beverley Jean Morrow in the article Mount Vernon, Washington. Wikipedia has no article on her, and the entry doesn't even say on what grounds she was considered for the peace prize (those grounds, not the mere fact she was being considered, is what the entry should have stated).

In lists of notable people from such and such place, we expect every entry to have an article, and when an article about someone on such a list is deleted, we expect the entry to be removed as well. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - makes sense to me. But...I have to ask: who is "we"? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Bundy

Hi, I am trying hard to get everyone to focus more on improving the article than arguing or just revert warring. First, I saw the 3RR notice board comments so I went to EdJohnston's talk to clarify. I needed to know what was agreed upon about taking a week off from editing the Bundy article and if you were still able to contribute to the talk page. Ed said yes to the talk page so here I am. I answered and asked questions on the recent conversations going on there. I have a question for you under the title 'Judges comments' that I wwould appreciate you taking some time to answer if you would. I made three different comments there which shouldn't be hard to locate. Sorry but I am really trying hard to type more but my hands are really tired right now. If you have any questions about what I've said please don't hesitate. I am about to go off line for awhile but I will try to keep a look out for any comments. You can also ping me at my talk page if I miss something. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SkagitRiverQueen, please don't continue the interpersonal dispute at WP:AN3 or on the article talk page. It is in everyone's interest to negotiate on actual changes in a calm manner, instead of commenting on each others' attitude. The 3RR report was filed, it was dealt with, it is over. No blocks were issued. You are not the only one who chose to make reverts instead of discussing. Even though you are limited to editing the Talk page, you can still try to set a good example for the others through your calmness and composure. If you find yourself lacking patience at the moment, consider taking a break and come back after a bit. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Ed. That's exactly why I didn't respond any further to Wilhartlivie - I felt he/she was really trying to just goad me into more of an argument, and I just don't see the point nor the necessity. Thanks for your input. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1

I'm concerned that this archive page could be considered a violation of Wikipedia:Userpage. Rather than being a mere archive of old discussions from your talk page, it rather seems to be a collection of other users' statements that you view negatively, taken from several sources.

I'd like to point out Wikipedia:Userpage#What may I not have on my user page?, which states:

10. "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason."

Please address this issue soon. If you don't, someone will likely nominate the page for deletion, and will probably be successful. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:05, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are targeting me specifically on this matter. From what I have read and understand, Wikipedia recommends that talk pages be archived, not deleted. Other editors keep everything from years ago - good, bad, and everything else. The quote you included was regarding user pages, not talk pages. Currently, I have kept nice stuff on my active talk page, and archived the not so nice stuff. I used to delete stuff from my talk page (there was never really that much to keep), but since the JoyDiamond and Karel incidents, I realized it would be a good idea to keep everything. Other stuff I have included is there to tell the entire story - especially when there has been conflict - if, indeed, the entire story needs to be told. This is especially true in the case of JoyDiamond and the Karel article. When the article opens back up in February, I expect things will once again be status quo with Joy (and that's not a good status quo based on what my past experiences with her have been like). Personally, I have a hard time believing that any administrators will decide to have my archive page completely deleted - especially since Wikipedia states "Archive—do not delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is not discussed any more, do not delete the content—archive it."

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a simple archive then it wouldn't be a problem. The page seems to be arranged as a record of events, and contains comments that were posted on other pages, your thoughts on them, warnings issued to other users, and most importantly, titles referring to other editors as "whiners". I'm not targeting you. I'm just pointing out a problem that I think you will probably need to deal with. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:09, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll get rid of the "whiner" comment(s), but the rest of it is staying as is for now. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything under the title of "The Karel and JoyDiamond Chronicles" is a problem, though, for the reasons I stated above. WP:UP states that maintaining a record like this long-term of other users' perceived misdeeds isn't acceptable for userspace pages. You'll need to do something about that. I was going to leave this as friendly advice, but your stonewalling response telling me it's "staying as it is" is tempting me to nominate it myself. I've defended you on several occasions in the past, and would have expected better than this adversarial stance. The page in its current state violates policy, and I would've thought you'd appreciate being informed of that by someone who doesn't have an established beef with you. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:25, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC)

It's an ARCHIVE, for heaven's sake. When someone doesn't want stuff on their talk page anymore, it's archived - how else am I supposed to keep it? The policy you keep quoting is in regard to userpages, not talk pages and talk page archives. Until the JoyDiamond issue is completely resolved in my estimation (and we will see after the Karel article is unlocked whether or not it is actually resolved), I'm keeping everything surrounding all of it AS IS. I appreciate your opinion(s) and assistance - but in this case, I simply don't agree and feel you are overstepping a boundry and butting in to something that really isn't any of your concern. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's not an archive. Just because the page is named that way doesn't make it a simple archive no matter what you put into it. Sorry to have to do this, but I've nominated the page for deletion. Hopefully other people will be more successful in explaining to you what the problem is. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1, where you're welcome to comment. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:49, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1

User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:46, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC) 17:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Objective votes

FYI: When you see votes by people you've been previously involved in disputes with, it's probably better to just post an FYI response, plainly stating that the user was in previous disputes with you, so that the closing administrator can take that into consideration. Calling those people your "vendetta crew" and so forth will probably work against your favor instead.

Also, it's not in my interest to tell you this, but, the way these apparently non-neutral people are finding out about the deletion discussion is probably by seeing the MfD warning I left above. Prior to my leaving the comment I'm posting right now, that notification was the last thing to show up in the watchlists of everyone who is watching you. I don't know that there's any way to get more comments from objective users, but you could probably lessen the likelihood of grudge-votes (not that I'm condoning your assumption of that) if you get rid of that notification, maybe along with our discussion above regarding the page. I'd perhaps move them to User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 2. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:04, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)

From User:Betty Logan re: WHL

I notice you have voiced suspicions about the conduct of this editor. I have recent had a run-in with this editor where he made false accusations against me. There is an investigation into his conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice if you would you like to bring your probelsm with this editor to the attention of the administrators. Betty Logan (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Archive Debacle

Warning

moved from MfD by Equazcion. MfD is getting too crowded with personal communications. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:22, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to drop this after this comment, but I wanted to say a few things first. Please remember to WP:AGF, rather than accusing everyone of making personal attacks. This *will* get you into a lot of trouble in the future if you keep doing this. I don't say that as a threat; I say that as a fact, and as advice. Considering your comments above, I am certainly within my rights to file a user conduct RFC, or to make another ANI report, or a WQA report, or possibly to get you blocked for civility problems. (Keep in mind that I am an administrator, so don't make claims that "Rschen7754 don't know the policy.") However, I'm not going to for two reasons: 1) I don't have that much invested in this matter, and don't have much motivation for myself to file a user conduct RFC, and 2) I'm not enough of a jerk to fill out a user conduct RFC on Christmas Day. Consider yourself warned, however, that this could lead to serious problems. Not a personal attack, just some advice. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There are plenty of administrators that I have come in contact with who don't know everything they should know about policy, so your statement that because you are an administrator I should assume you know policy inside-out doesn't wash with me. (2) You have threatened me above with action because I allegedly violated policy, yet, earlier today you *did* attack me personally at least once (the "you have a very twisted interpretation of Wikipedia policy" comment). Indeed, I see a real contradiction here in the "do as I say, not as I do", fashion. (3) Finally, why did you make the above comments here rather than on my talk page where they would have been more appropriate? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Queen

A) How long have you been a queen, dearie? ;-)
B) If it is not too personal, why are you so fascinated by Ted Bundy? Do you idolise him?
B. Fairbairn (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(the response below was left on B.Fairbairn's talk page)

The comments you recently left on my talk page were uncivil and are considered a form of personal attack in Wikipedia. Please do not leave anything like this on my talk page again. This notice is only a minor warning - if this continues, I will be forced to report said behavior to a Wikipedia administrative group. Many of us who have been editing for a while in Wikipedia do take the encyclopedia's editing and behavior policies seriously. Editors who continue to edit in a rude or abusive manner will continue to receive stronger warnings over time. I hope it won't come to that, but ongoing or extreme violations of these policies can be prevented or enforced by Wikipedia administrators by blocking accounts from editing for short periods of time. Serious ongoing incidents can lead to permanent blocks in editing Wikipedia. It is in your best interest as an editor, and in the best interest of the encyclopedia, that you don't revisit this type destructive and non-productive behavior here again.

I hope that the explanation above was clear to you. If not, I'd be happy to explain further. The Wikipedia community expects that everyone who is participating will respect each other and cooperate in a collaborative manner. I hope that you understand how important civil discussion is for the community to thrive. I expect that you will try and discuss things in a more constructive manner in the future.

Thanks, --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay - I withdraw these questions.

I wonder why it is though that you are stalking me. It is highly inappropriate. I will report you if you keep it up.

First you kept reverting Ted Bundy, and then George Bush Junior and Ann Rule.

Just get off my back and stop interfering with me.

B. Fairbairn (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel I am "stalking" you - nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that all three of the articles you mentioned are on my watchlist - which means I see edits of certain articles when they happen. I currently have over a couple-hundred articles on my watchlist. I suppose it's possible that with that many on my list, you and I will run into one another again (kinda like when you recently edited the Jimmy Swaggart article). But please understand, I'm neither "on [your] back" nor am I attempting to "interfere" with you. When I edit, I edit for the good of the encylopedia. Nothing more. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I over-reacted. Have a nice day. B. Fairbairn (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add something to Ted Bundy, then I saw this. Why so interested in Ted? Seems weird. Also, how can you be gay and a priest????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterSoup (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC) I wasn't attacking- I just was asking a question. Two questions really. Are you uncomfortable that I asked?MisterSoup (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User B. Fairbairn

Hi, need your help. I registered to Wikipedia having witnessed the user B. Fairbairn constant removal of Time references in many pages. (I have Spielberg page on my watchlist as the user appears to be on a mission to edit out Time.) On a sidenote, he makes agitating comments purely to stir...example, 10 June 2009, on the United States page on Broadway theatre, text below the image stated "host to many popular shows"... and he added "and some unpopular ones".. and in his reason for edit stated.."Being a realist here".

Having only been an observer on Wikipedia, i was prompted to register having seen this users disruptive edits. I notice he has been threatened with being banned before, also his three edit warring (which has dissapeared from his page). As has comments from other users, such as... "You're familiar with them, yes? Perhaps you could put aside your disdain for the country and visit Talk:United States before engaging in another edit war. --Golbez (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC), and this.. "Let me put it a little more bluntly. Every one of your recent edits to the United States article has been reverted. Now, I can see the logic behind some of them and perhaps discussion on the Talk Page will result in some of your edits being allowed to stand. However, the current situation is that you have been guilty of disruptive editing at United States. Please discuss any proposed edits at Talk:United States and form a consensus for them before proceeding. The next edit/revert cycle will result in you being blocked. --Richard (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)... This user appears to do nothing but stir, and enforce his own opinion above that of such entities as Time. Thanks for you assistance. XRyanPerryX (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Then stop dropping half-veiled insults, putdowns and allusions to how people are out to get you when you post on article talk pages, like this one: "this thing has become more about some people being right and proving me wrong than responsible editing (and I already know that those of you who have been working against me on this issue will deny that's the case, but...whatever)." When you open the door, don't be surprised when someone goes in. If that is not inviting commentary, then stop dropping such comments. It is inflammatory and insulting to persons like Chrohnie when you talk down to her like that and it is unnecessary, insulting to her and incivil to boot. Don't open the door and then complain when a response comes. I didn't start this with you, you're the one who opened the specious and unfounded sock case against me based on your personal beliefs and managed to mar my Christmas and I don't appreciate your talking that way to people when you have no frigging clue in the world what is going on with that person. Not everyone can be so superior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Signature

Hey ... I've noticed on your WQA and some other talkpage entries that your signature does not seem to meet the requirements per WP:Signatures ... you cannot click on it to link to either your talkpage or your user page. I'm not sure if something went funny with it, but let me know if I can help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Testing my signature after unchecking a box in signature preferences... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...fixed! Still don't know what happened <shrug> --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove other editor's comments

Please don't remove other editor's comments on talk pages, as you did here [1]. If you disagree, feel free to make your case, but don't remove or strike comments that belong to other editors. Dayewalker (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to seem like I'm piling on here, but I just noticed you also used rollback in the edit above. Please don't do that, rollback is only to be used in cases of clear vandalism. If you use rollback in a content dispute, or against an editor you are clearly having a personal conflict with, an admin will take your rollback rights away from you. If you have any questions, feel free to leave them on this page or my talk page, and I'll try and help. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do it intentionally - see below. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do this?

Why did you revert my comment to Crohnie? This is not cool. That comment was for Crohnie to read, and not for you to remove, abusing your rollback privileges. What's up? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do it intentionally. Here's what happened: I haven't even been home at my computer since before 2pm PST. While I was gone, I did try to view some stuff on my watchlist from my cellphone because of the events of today surrounding a Wikiette report I filed. My phone is a touchscreen, and at times it is difficult to get it to respond on the right spot - when I thought I was hitting "diff", my finger must have hit "rollback" both times. I'm sorry for the error, but it really was beyond my control. Look, it you need to, check the IP address for the rollbacks and you will see that it was through a different IP address than I usually use and coming from Verizon Wireless. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see your IP address when you're logged in, and I haven't got checkuser, but I'm willing to take your word for it. I don't know whether they'll give you rollback again, but this incident seems to indicate that you should be very careful with it. Once you've made an edit, surely you notice what happened, because you land on the page that says you just rolled something back, don't you? We all make mistakes; once they're made, speedily undoing them should be the very first response, followed with a quick explanation.
I realize load times can be slow with a mobile phone, which just reinforces my earlier suggestion: Be very careful! I'll see you around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no I can't necessarily see the message at the top of the page on the phone because the screen isn't fully visible and must be navigated with my finger touch to maniuplate and move it around. The last time I was trying to view the comments you made to Chronie was the second, and last unintentional rollback - it was only at that time that I saw "Action Completed" and realized what happened. When I got home and saw the messages, etc. - that's when I knew for sure what happened. Sorry for the confusion. I would never *ever* intentionally abuse any rights I have been given in Wikipedia (or anywhere, for that matter - heck, I don't even speed when driving ;-). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rs chen 7754 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For this abuse of rollback and others I removed your rollback privileges. Garion96 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to this on your talk page. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback restored, per your explanation. --John (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Charles Manson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WQA

Hello, SkagitRiverQueen. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. LaVidaLoca (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of International House of Prayer

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is International House of Prayer. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International House of Prayer. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 Hours for You already know the drill about edit warring but your actions at Charles Manson were unacceptable and disruptive. Since this was your second offense this block is at the next level.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SkagitRiverQueen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am pretty sure I did not violate 3RR as the edit I made this morning to Charles Manson was not a revert. I edited the portion that was contested by two other editors yesterday and provided a compromise with both statements re: the info contained in the Certificate of Live Birth (which was already listed as a reference before I edited the section) and the existing statement re: the info about whether or not Manson was ever referred to as "No Name". Although I did replace the section which was edited yesterday by me - IMO, it never should have been reverted to begin with as it was not incorrect and actually improved the improper order of events, the bad grammar and poor syntax that existed before my edits. The only portion that was actually contested by one other editor (the birth certificate information) was not replaced by me today in the same verbiage as existed yesterday - as I stated above, it was corrected to contain a clearer picture regarding the COLB - but it was an edited version. Ergo, there was no revert, just editing and resubmitting in a better, more compromising form. Believe me, I never would have made the edit at all today if I thought it would be seen as a revert putting me in violation of 3RR. Finally, the admin who blocked me stated this was my second offense. As I understood it at the time, when I was blocked previously it was not considered an actual block. It lasted for a very short period of time as the block was reconsidered. Additionally, I had not been blocked correctly to begin with - there was no template and there was no provision to contest a block. It was not a reasonable block, it was not an exercised block, and it was not a proper block. IOW - it was never really a block to begin with. Ergo, this is not my "second offense", but actually my first actual block. I hope the preceding is clear - if not, please feel free to ask any questions.

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for 3RR, you were blocked for edit warring. The rest of your argument is just wikilawyering; see WP:GAB for a better path to unblocking. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SkagitRiverQueen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well, color me confused. Although the above *does* state "edit warring" (and it was my error for not really seeing that previously), the warning I received from LaVidaLoca was for 3RR (that was the header on my talk page), not edit warring. So...if I didn't violate 3RR, why did I get a warning for 3RR and why are other editors gossipping that I was blocked for 3RR? But, I digress... It was never my intention to edit war with my edit at the Charles Manson article this morning, rather, it was just about editing the article and working out what was a problem in the article for the other editor and what was a problem for me content-wise. Now, I understand that by writing another request for unblock that I need to somehow convince you that I now understand why I was blocked (which I do) and to state that I will not repeat the action that got me blocked (which I won't), however... That's kind of a problem since I don't believe I was actually edit warring to begin with. As I stated above, my intent was never to edit war, but to work out a compromise with my edits. The fact remains that the editor who originally reverted my entire edit (and we're talking a lot of editing in an entire section in a very long article) should never have reverted the *entire* edit. He didn't like just one thing I changed, and rather than removing that, he reverted the entire section I edited. From what I could see, that defied common-sense and was essentially a knee-jerk reaction in a throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater kind of fashion. I didn't understand it, I tried to reason with him on the article's talk page. His response was "I'm not working against you — and if you'll permit me to say, I'm not interested in working with you." Okay - so I knew where he stood. He wasn't interested in allowing me to edit the article and would then revert everything I edited. So, I ask you - how can one then go on trying to honestly and productively edit an article if you know that an editor who hangs out at that article is going to revert pretty much everything you do? Does on continue to just edit anyway? Or does one cower and shrink into a corner and stop editing that article? It didn't seem right to me to just stop editing the article, so this morning, I wasn't intent on edit warring, I just wanted to edit the article in a useful, positive fashion. But again, my perfectly good edits were reverted in total without a good explanation. You see, I guess I just don't get why allowing another editor to revert my edits wholesale because he isn't interested in working with me is the best course for Wikipedia. I also don't get why leaving that editor to do as he pleases and for me to completely stop editing out of fear is the best course for Wikipedia. And I guess I also don't get why I should promise to allow someone treat the article that way in order to be unblocked. Can you tell me why it's okay for that editor (and the other two who also reverted my edits for no real reason) to refuse to work with me and be allowed to revert edits across-the-board and *I'm* the one who's being blocked (and essentially punished) when I wasn't edit-warring to begin with (but they were)? I wasn't the one creating the war-like environment, after all. So...after all I've said here, I imagine I haven't convinced you in the fashion I'm supposed to. Please understand that I'm not doing it just because I'm being stubborn, or trying to be oppositional-defiant. It's because I won't lie and say I won't do something that I know I really didn't do in the first place. Of course I'd like to be able to edit again sooner than 48 hours. Of course I am not going to edit war again if I am unblocked before the 48 hours are up. I can say that because I'm an honest person with the best of intentions always, everywhere I go in my life. But I can't and won't say that I know I was edit-warring and that I think this block is just because (a) I know I wasn't edit warring, I was just plain editing, and (b) I won't compromise my integrity by saying I did something I know I didn't do. I really wish you would look into the other editor(s) involved here by reading talk page of the Charles Manson article - beginning with how the events unfolded starting with the section titled "The horror" and then to the section titled "Faulty revisions" where I tried, in good faith, to not only explain my good faith edits but to reason and reach a working compromise with editor JohnBonaccorsi so that this very kind of scenario would not occur. Thank you for taking the time to read all of this and considering my request for unblock. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Any time an admin sees a very long unblock request, like this one, it's a clue that it's not likely to contain a valid argument. Your statement suggests that you don't grasp our policy on WP:Edit warring. Please carefully read WP:GAB, WP:NOTTHEM, and WP:EW, then come back and make a *short* request that says how you agree to behave differently in the future. If you would formally commit to a 1RR (no more than one revert per article per day) for some period of time, that would be quite persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SkagitRiverQueen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can I "behave differently in the future"? Certainly. I'll make sure to watch and limit my reverts. But, only 1 revert? Why should I limit myself to something the rest of Wikipedia doesn't have to abide by? And why should I agree to a restriction that wasn't part of the block to begin with? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to grovel and beg for something I was told I would get back after 48 hours. I enjoy being a Wikipedia editor, but I'm not so desperate to edit that I would resort to compromising my personal integrity, dignity, and self-respect. So...the bottom line is this: I can guarantee I will "behave" differently in the future and will watch my reverts more closely. Further, advice has been given to me to comment on edits, not people - that will be adhered to in the future. If none of this is good enough, I guess I will just have to wait until my block expires. -- SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It appears you have declined EdJohnston's generous offer. Toddst1 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reverting anything more than once is a Very Bad Idea. If you never do that, you'll probably never be blocked for edit-warring. The spirit of the rule is that we just don't edit back and forth. It's a waste of server space. If you want to revert someone, go get another editor, and see if they'll do it. I'm happy to be that other editor, but if you're willing to revert articles repeatedly, then I can't help you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Why should I limit myself to something the rest of Wikipedia doesn't have to abide by?" Because you'll win more often. Repeated reverts make you less likely to win. If someone else reverts you twice, they're the chump, and you may laugh quietly to yourself at their shooting themselves in the foot. Do you want the satisfaction of reverting, or to win? The two might be mutually exclusive. The best strategies here are counter-intuitive. If you're willing to humor me for a couple of days, I'll show you what I mean. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All good advice, but (and I'm sure you already knew there would be a "but coming - esepcially from me ;-), (a) I'm not going to say I will do something I don't know I will be able to abide by *and shouldn't have to abide by* just to get unblocked 24-hours sooner - that's just stupid, IMO; and (b) I'm not going to guarantee I will do something I may not be able to follow-through with - it's just not something I'm comfortable signing on the dotted-line about.

All that said, I will certainly *strive* to not revert more than once - and certainly remind myself as necessary that the one-revert rule is a good goal. But set it in stone forever and ever, amen? No - I'm not comfortable with that. Life's uncertain - which is exactly why one should never commit to specific things that have a level of uncertainty to them *and* (most importantly) eat dessert first. ;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty much entirely reasonable. Don't make any promises you're not prepared to keep - that's a good policy. (Wish I'd learned it 10 years sooner than I did). :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the block is set to expire soon anyway, but food for thought, you could agree to 1RR for a finite period, like a month, and only for certain articles that have been a problem. I think that would satisfy the admins. I don't really think they meant you need to agree to 1RR forever on all articles anyway. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:54, 10 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Robert Hansen

If you want it back, do so and add a proper reference supporting the name was in use when he was active. I don't plan to revert my edit because someone says they read it before or it is included on some websites or it was included in documentaries. Neither is it referenced on the page Human hunting. That is not properly citing the use, which is absent on that page. Please don't follow around on my editing and make cases that aren't supported by proper referencing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MisterSoup

Hi. That edit to your page was completely unacceptable and I have put him on a final warning for personal attacks/harassment. I'll keep an eye on him but please let me know immediately if he trolls you again. All best, Nancy ^talk 10:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people never learn - I've blocked him. Indefinitely. Nancy ^talk 08:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)

I enter with some trepidation - but I do have a wee bit of experience at this by now. And for some reason, I think this article should be an FA, given what a major cultural event the murders became. But, I have several ideas for what needs fixin', and I can already tell I'll get some flack for some of them. Like I said, we'll see what happens! One thing I can promise won't happen though, is that I won't be getting involved in any kind of edit warring or personal attacks with anybody over this article. I really do consider myself a battle-hardened soldier here at WP, and I've learned that the best way to win a war is to not fight it in the first place. Ok, I actually learned that from a Bruce Lee movie, but who's counting?

Anyways, you seem polite, and apparently you have some consensual trust (although this "rollbacker" thing is a thing unknown to me; it must be kinda new). I'm sure we'll get along fine, although I do believe you are the first user I've seen with a protected talk page, I wonder what exactly that means... (And that pic of Jimbo just keeps creeping me out. Repeatedly.) lol

Cya round the edit summaries... Eaglizard (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting 'Manson'

While I completely agree that Manson needs to be split into 2, possibly 3 articles, I'd ask you not to push for it right now. I could tell when I first mentioned it that opinion is strongly polarized on that subject, so I've got a cunning plan to make it happen in a month or two, in a way that probably find a lot of consensus. Ofc, if you want to try and make it happen now, that's your prerogative as a WP editor. But I think a month or two from now would be better. In the meantime, I'd hoped the 'Family' section in the current article will get lots of cleanup in preparation for becoming a new article (also, as the section gets better (and prob. longer), it will begin to make its own case for a separate article.) Just my thoughts on the matter. Eaglizard (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a heads up that I sent my reply via Email, since its full of the kind of stuff I won't discuss on WP pages. And of course, I wouldn't want to reveal my cunning plan until the time is ripe... mwahahahha. Ok, j/k. But check your email. :) Eaglizard (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it and just replied back :-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manson 20100124

A paragraph was not removed from Charles Manson. Please check the edtis again. Format (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was my error. My apologies. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No problems. Format (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great photos

Thanks for adding some great photos to the Mount Vernon, WA article today. Hope you don't mind, but I added the MVHS photo to the MVHS article. Are you a local or just someone who had some photos from this area? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Seattle. I felt like getting out of the city yesterday, so I went on a photo expedition to Conway & Mount Vernon. - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Let me say this very succintly. Do not feel free to post little commentaries and notes to my talk page. You are not welcome on my talk page and any further posts such as this one will be considered blatant harassment, especially considering the circumstances, which ended with an administrator having to step in to clean up the mess you insisted was "proper and appropriate". Commentary such as that is lacking in civility and is unacceptable behavior. Further posts such as that will be reported to WP:AN/I. Find someone else to harass. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...incivility, unacceptible behavior and harrassment, eh? That's pretty hilarious coming from the person who harassed me anonymously by email, violates WP standards continually, and totally breached community trust with the use of sockpuppets (and then lied about it all). My irony meter is now officially broken. :-D --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telling someone their request is funny isn't all that helpful. WHL has basically requested that you not post to her talk page anymore, pushing aside her rationale that you clearly disagree with. What do you think of this request, SRQ? Equazcion ^(talk) 20:05, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

As with pretty much anything the exposed sockpuppet-master and continual violator of WP rules and standards Wildharlivie has to say...I don't think much of it at all. She issues warnings and threats to other editors regularly - it's known (and not just by me) as part of her bullying tactic. Since she's been exposed as a liar (remember, she lied for years as her sockpuppet LaVidaLoca, she lied when she denied being LaVidaLoca, and then again when she employed yet another sock while blocked because of being a sockmaster), I don't take the majority of what she says seriously. Anymore, it's all pretty much just a big yawner for me. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't need to listen to her because she did [whatever]" isn't a mature argument. She's not blocked, is still editing here, and can still make requests of you, and I think it's a pretty reasonable request that you stay off her talk page. I'm sure she'd agree to do the same for you. Running down her perceived past infractions is irrelevant to the request. It's a deal that would probably help to keep the peace between the two of you, and I don't see any reason you shouldn't agree to it, least of all what she may or may not have done in the past. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:54, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen and Wildhartlivie

To both of you. You both need to disengage from each other. That means completely. No more accusations from either of you about the other. Both of you need to read meatball:DefendEachOther and rely on others to make any reports, because this level of sniping is unsatisfactory. I've left the indentical message on both your talks, because I don't want to hear about who started it. Be the bigger person, and walk away. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've said what I needed to say; the truth is obvious to those not in denial. Cut to me now walking away. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my talk just now. I would welcome a reasoned, dispassionate post from you giving your version of events in this matter, on my talk, but based on reading what is presented there, it appears that you have disregarded the requested disengagement from Wildhartlivie. If that is correct, it's not acceptable, so an explanation is in order. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi. This edit summary is extremely uncool. Three reverts are not a privilege, and you've been edit warring. Don't edit war, period. I've offered you support in these matters, and I've offered you advice. You have chosen to ignore my suggestions, keep on with the ad hominem remarks, and to edit war. That's disruptive, and people get blocked for it.

You may not game the system, and if WHL is blocked for reverting after you follow her right up to the line, I will make sure you share that block. Edit warring is never acceptable. Using up your "allotted" reverts is unacceptable, because you are not allotted any reverts; no one is. Thank you for understanding.

WHL, I know you're reading this. You're edit warring, too, and you're both contributing to the disruption of pointless back and forth edits. I'm extremely busy with graduate school, but if I see that disruption continues at this article, or any of your other battlegrounds, then I will recommend that you both be topic-banned to prevent ongoing disruption. This is totally unnecessary, and you are both doing it.

All either of you has to do to end this is to take the high road. NO personal remarks, ever. NO reverts, ever. ALWAYS use recommended DR, which means getting outside opinions, fast, rather than arguing with someone that you have every reason to know you won't convince. Don't waste your time and our space. Do it right, and all this shit ends. Keep doing it wrong, and we'll eventually have to throw both of you out, and probably others, too.

Just rise above it, already. This is bullshit. You're both on permanent 1RR, as far as I'm concerned. Learn to stop edit-warring. Take the good advice you've been given. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) What's "extremely uncool" is pretty much all of the the above.

(2) Don't ever come to my talk page and intentionally place profanity on it again. Ever.

(3) You're a day late and a dollar short, Tony. Lar has already addressed both of us. It's over with.

(4)I did not then, nor did I ever, attempt to "game" the system. Your accusation is not only way off base, but as far as I'm concerned it's insulting accusation without any basis in fact.

(5) I've asked you for advice and help on a few things a while back and you blew me off without ever getting back to me. Now you're issuing me warnings? Give me a break. While I appreciate the advice you've given in the past, I find it beyond insulting for you to blow me off and then blast onto my talk page with ultimatums and demands.

A while back you laid into me unjustly for doing something you told me to do. Now this. FYI: consistency and follow-through are both good character traits that mean a lot. In fact, they both go a lot further than the bull-in-the-china-shop approach above. (I know you didn't ask for my advice - just consider it a freebie)

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SkagitRiverQueen. You have new messages at GTBacchus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the freebie. :)

There is no reason to edit war, ever. I tried my damndest to help with the Manson situation, and when we finally wrangled the discussion back on topic, you vanished. I was really disappointed. From where I'm sitting, it was you who blew me off. You wiped your ass with my advice.

Regarding your point (2), I don't take orders. Thanks for understanding. Regarding point (4), there is no excuse to revert ONE time, much less to play someone right to the edge, and then say "3RR is now in effect". "Don't ever edit war" is always in effect, and edit summaries like that should never be made. Edit summaries are not for talking about the other person (which you still foolishly do); they are for explaining constructive article edits. Reverts are nonsense, and you'd be very smart to NEVER REVERT ANY ARTICLE. Ever. (See, I can do the cute "Ever." thing, too! :p )

I didn't blow you off. You walked away after I took hours and hours out of my life to help you. You bitched and moaned about everyone reverting you, and when we finally got the talk page to a place where we could talk about the goddamned edits already, you evaporated. That disappoints me. Yes this is repetition. I was very disappointed.

I trust neither of you will ask me for help again, because you can be sure I've said my bit. You (just like your best friend WHL) have the solution to all disputes in your hands, but you refuse to use it. I don't give a shit. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally showing who you *really* are. At least this time you were honest. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting your userspace

I have indef semi-protected your user page, which never hurts, but would like to discuss protecting your talk. I am not seeing much vandalism recently and protecting the talk will cut positive anon feedback. Thus take your time and advise how to deal with that. If you decide to request protection then please suggest a reasonable period. Materialscientist (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I was talking about protection from non-registered users (we do not lock talk pages for admin only editing). If you are positive about that, please indicate the term. Materialscientist (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Replacing refs that correctly support the cited statement with {{cn}} is not cool. Don't do that again, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't replace a reference with a ^{[citation needed]}, I removed a reference for a statement that was supported by the ref after the statement was removed by JoyDiamond. If the statement was no longer there, why leave the ref in? It just becomes a hanging ref with no home. The statement previously read, "struggling stand-up comic", she insists on edit-warring about "struggling", and has removed "struggling" several times. This last time, she claimed that there were refs that support he wasn't "struggling", so I took out the ref, replaced it with the ^{[citation needed]} as a notice that if he wasn't "struggling" and she believes there are refs out there that support he wasn't, then she now has an opportunity to provide those refs. I was trying to be helpful and cooperative. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for edit warring to keep negative BLP info in Charles Karel Bouley. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SkagitRiverQueen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry, but this is crap. First of all, my last edit on the Bouley article was more than 24 hours ago. Secondly, I had just finished writing my reasons for returning the REFERENCED content to the Bouley article, when I found out I had been blocked. Why in the world would no one at least give me some sort of warning or at the very least inquire about what I was doing? Where was the 3RR warning on my talk page before being blocked? Why was there no opportunity given for me to step back and think about what I was doing and for discussion to take place? I thought administrators are supposed to help other editors, not just dole out punishment without warning. What I was writing on the talk page amounts to approximately this: "I have returned the referenced statement that never should have been removed because it was referenced. The reasons given at the time the referenced statement was removed was that there was only one reference stating he was "struggling". In Wikipedia all you need is one reference. If there are references (as has been claimed by the editor removing "struggling") indicating his stand-up career was successful and that he was *not* a strugging stand-up comic, then please bring them and let's discuss the content change on the article's talk page. Utilizing an article talk page is always preferable when there is disputed content - as is evidenced by the discussion that has already been taking place in the last couple of days. But please, let's keep things here civil and talk about content and edits to that content only - not about editors." That's basically what I wrote (but lost because when trying to post it, found out I was blocked. But...since my last edit was more than 24 hours ago, how can I be blocked for 3RR when that isn't what happened and especially since I have been doing everything in my power to AVOID edit warring in this article? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See, all I had to do was look at Talk:Charles Karel Bouley to see you lecturing another editor about edit warring. So, since you are aware of the policy it's safe to assume you knew better. And as the policy clearly states, you don't have to technically violate 3RR to be blocked for edit warring. It takes a minimum of two to edit war, it's impossible for only one user to be involved as you seem to be claiming is the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SkagitRiverQueen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(1) The original reason given for the block was: "edit warring to keep negative BLP info in Charles Karel Bouley." (a) I was not attempting to keep "negative BLP info" in the article. I was replacing the original info that had been removed and was referenced. The edit warring article clearly states "negative, unsourced info". (b) The info was sourced, ergo, this point in the block is invalid. (2) Edit warring. When, exactly, does one then return removed, sourced material to an article so that one doesn't edit war? (a) I intentionally returned the info after 24 hours had passed, believing I was not edit warring because I believe I in safe zone/time period. When I returned the information, it was more than 24 hours after my last edit to that article. (b) How long does one wait? 25 hours? 28 hours? 30 hours? 48? 72? (c) Exactly how does one know they are safe from being blocked at a whim by an administrator (who had also edited the same edit not long before themselves and has the appearance of impropriety in blocking because of that edit)? If 24-hours is not the standard, how can any editor who is merely doing the right thing (by returning sourced content that never should have been removed) feel safe in editing with the possibility of being blocked at any given time whenever an administrator feels like it? (3) The final reason given by the blocking admin was "edit warring", but the original reason above is clear. The admin never addressed the original reason given being invalid when asked (several times, in fact). (4) There was another editor plainly edit warring (long before I was accused of doing so after my block) who was not blocked. That's inequitable. This block should be re-reviewed and removed for a number of reasons (a number of which other editors have brought up below). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring occurs when one or more parties revert to their preferred version of a contested article without first establishing consensus at the relevant talkpage. If you are unable to reach a satisfactory consensus there, please pursue other steps in dispute resolution by requesting additional input at the appropriate noticeboard. The diff provided in the blocklog, [2], fully justifies a 24 hour extension. Some allowance is made for the natural frustration users feel at being blocked, but that was nowhere close to civil interaction. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SkagitRiverQueen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Edit warring occurs when one or more parties revert to their preferred version of a contested article" - If you look at the recent history of the revert in question as well as the talk page, you will see that I was returning the original, sourced content that had been in place in the article for more than a year. Another editor removed that content not once, but twice, ignoring the reference provided. I brought the edit to the talk page, another editor and I were discussing it, the other editor ignored the discussion happening about the content and reverted it back to her unsourced and "preferred version" anyway. The other editor was edit warring - yet, that editor has yet to receive a block of any kind. I now have a better understanding about edit warring (I was operating under the false assumption that I was not edit warring if I replaced the original, sourced content more than 24-hours after my last edit to the article) and am not likely to repeat the same mistake again. That being said, I still believe that if the recent and past edit and edit warring/dispute history of this article be taken in consideration, seeing what actually happened there may actually be better understood by admins reviewing this. "Some allowance is made for the natural frustration users feel at being blocked, but that was nowhere close to civil interaction". The frustration "users feel at being blocked" can be even further exacerbated when editors and administrators alike join in to chide, demean, berate, and mock the blocked editor. Even so, if you notice, I not only explained that I didn't intend for the comment to be taken as it was, but I did strike out the comment with an explanation earlier today. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring is any circumstance where one or more editors believe that, if they just revert one more time, the other editor will give up and stop their reverts. And that's what happened here, and it's edit warring, and the block appears valid. But it already would have expired by now, so we look at the extension for the personal attack - and that, too, looks to be valid. Quite frankly, it's possible that you would have been unblocked days ago if you had calmed down, discussed the specific issues in an honest and civil manner, and agreed not to edit the problem article until consensus was reached as to its contents. Other editors in the conflict would have been asked to do the same, discussion would have ensued, and everyone could move on with their lives. But your conduct on this page, which could politely be termed "flipping out" is problematic - and I am surprised that the extension was only 24 hours. When the block expires tomorrow morning, please assume good faith and try to edit more collaboratively. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

More with the it's all your fault accusations without addressing the bad behavior of other admins on this page. But...whatever. "Flipping out"? More personal attacks veiled with editorializing. But...whatever. Other than actually standing in front of JoyDiamond, looking into her eyes and telling her exactly what I was thinking and trying to do in regard to replacing the *sourced content that had already been there over a year, never should have been removed because it was sourced, but she removed several times anyway* I'm really not quite sure how much more "collaboratively" I could have been editing. But...whatever. Not once has the fact that the other editor (who was edit warring from day-one) didn't also get blocked been addressed. Not once has the possibility that the block was done inappropriately - and the reasons for doing so, inconsistent. But...whatever.

My block expires tomorrow. Whatever. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why hasn't the other "edit-warring" editor been blocked? From my quick look at the history it would appear that if SRQ should be blocked for edit-warring then so should the other editor. Please explain this apparent inconsistency. Afterwriting (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Sarek: With respect I'm wondering if you were called to the Bouley page due to concerns of edit warring, or if you were editing "normally" as it were, in a non-admin capacity, prior to the block. I ask because if you blocked SRQ for edit-warring following her revert of your edit, which seems to be the case, I'm not sure that you should've been the one to block her, unless the edit of yours she reverted was the result of someone requesting mediation. Just seeking some clarification. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:59, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

@Equazcion: The Charles Karel Bouley article has a history of contention, going back over a year. This is not the first time Sarek has intervened in disputes over this page, nor is it the first time there's been an issue over the "struggling" reference.[3] Be aware that the article has been locked three times, most recently for three months, in an attempt to curb the bickering. It's only been unlocked a week, and some of the old disputes have already surfaced. -FeralDruid (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you look closely at the talk page from the last couple of days, I'm not the one who has been contentious, it's the other editor. I have been working hard to keep the editing of the article going the way it should, not the way it has in the past. I am the one (with Seaphoto) who has been trying to keep things in perspective, calm, and civil. That hasn't been happening where the other editor is concerned. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; I was just giving Equazcion a brief history of Sarek's involvement here. -FeralDruid (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) to Feral: I understand. I'm just saying it seems like Sarek was acting on a content dispute with his last edit to the article, and blocked a user that reverted him. I think that was a bad idea, if I have the events right. Generally an uninvolved admin should do it; in particular an admin in a content dispute with an editor shouldn't be deciding on that editor's blocks. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:45, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as content, but behavior. I don't particularly care which way it reads, but a good-faith objection was raised by another editor to the "struggling" phrasing. My only recent edit was replacing a reference that stated he was a comic when SRQ had replaced it with a cite needed template for the statement that he was a comic. A slow motion edit war is still an edit war. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect on how things happened and why with the content as well as the reference. The "struggling" portion was removed twice by JoyDiamond. The second time, she removed it saying that there was only one reference saying he was a "struggling" stand-up comic. That was the reference that was left behind. She insisted in her edit summary that there was only one reference to him having been "struggling" and that there were many other references stating otherwise. I removed the ref (that I had placed there in the first place to back up the "struggling" statement) and placed the ^{[citation needed]} tag to give her opportunity to give the references that proved he was never a "struggling" stand-up comic. It wasn't about bringing negative statements to the article, it was about being accurate and referenced in that accuracy. If she could prove he wasn't "struggling", great! But in 24 hours time, not once did she bring a reference (after visitng the article and making snarky remarks about me on the talk page, BTW, but not inserting anything that bolstered her claim). I replaced the "struggling" adjective because it was not only correct, it was referenced. And if you want to worry about behavior in that article, how come you haven't banned JoyDiamond for obviously edit warring and over-reverting? I had a reference to back up what I reincluded, she didn't and never should have removed a referenced statement to begin with (more than once, I might add). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's referenced doesn't mean it belongs in the article. And believe me, Joy is on my short list of likely-to-be-blocked-in-the-near-future editors if she doesn't tone things down a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. In all truthfullness, if you had said that to me when we were communicating about the statment and the reference on your talk page earlier today, I wouldn't have tried to add it back in again. And none of this would have happened. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing since 2006, you've been blocked for edit warring before, and you still claim you needed it spelled out in that much detail? I suspect 55 hours was overly lenient. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response here doesn't even address what I said to you above, Sarek. But...can you answer why I was blocked for 3RR when my last edit on the Bouley page was MORE than 24 hours prior? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for edit warring to keep negative BLP info in Charles Karel Bouley." That wasn't a 3RR block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Thanks for clarifying. However..."edit warring to keep negative BLP info in Charles Karel Bouley" is an incorrect assessment. Completely incorrect. First of all, I was NOT edit warring. Secondly, I was returning referenced BLP info in the article that never should have been removed. Thirdly, I was doing it outside the 24 hour period that usually indicates edit warring (as outlined by the guidelines on edit warring). Lastly, it had absolutely nothing to do with wanting to "keep negative info in", it was about keeping referenced, factual, and truthful info in. Read the reference. It specifically says, "struggling stand-up comic" - and that's what the article has said for over a year until the other editor started edit warring over it. And can you please tell me where the line is drawn in edit warring if the 24-hour rule applies only if an administrator decides it no longer applies? How is *that* fair to anyone? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. Your edit summary on the above was, "disingenuous". Why do you think you know my thoughts better than I do? Why do you insist on telling me I am being dishonest when I state things to you? How, exactly, are you being a fair and impartial administrator here? I think it's become apparent that you've lost your perspective, friend - and I now think you are blocking me out of bias, complete lack of assuming good faith, and unfair judgement along with not working on all the facts in evidence. I'm starting to believe that the only one being disingenuous here is you, Sarek. And could you please address my point above about how one decides whether or not the 24-hour standard is in effect or not or when one can trust that editing is okay again after 24-hours (or 25, or 26, or...)? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you're claiming not to know the things that were explained to you in detail one month ago, my "disingenuous" comment stands. When you're in a hole, stop digging. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't addressed the 24-hour thing, nor have you addressed the fact that the alleged "negative BLP info" was already *in* the article (and recently referenced) for over a year. The article on edit-warring speaks to blocking if "negative unsourced content is being introduced", however, in this case that doesn't apply at all. (1) the "negative" content wasn't being introduced - it already existed and I was replacing it after it was removed. (2) the content was sourced. Now - could you please address these points without the personal attacks? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Comment’’’ – I can hopefully address (only) the 24 Hour question: committing a 3RR violation within 24 hours is a clear indication of edit-warring, but edit-warring is not 3RR in and of itself; they are two related, yet different things. 3RR is partially defined as “a common kind of edit war behavior”. The Admin’s Noticeboard is called “Edit-warring & 3RR”, not “Edit-warring/3RR”; the terms are not synonymous. Paragraph 2 of WP:3RR clearly states that an administrator may act “whether or not 3RR has been breached”. You were blocked for edit-warring, not for edit-warring by violating 3RR. “24 hours” (or any time “limit”) truly has nothing to do with the decision made to block, it would seem…Doc9871 (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - but either the 24-hour thing is real or it's not. If it is, then an administrative boundry has been over-stepped. If it's discretionary, then there needs to be a clear statement indicating such. If 24-hours is the standard, it needs to be adhered to - otherwise, you'll have administrators blocking editors on a whim (as this is starting to appear to be). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Edit warring: "Note that any administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring..." Most rules on Wikipedia are discretionary, so you shouldn't expect to be able to plead any technicalities. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:42, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I see. Since "most rules on Wikipedia are discretionary", I'll be sure to remember that next time someone throws policy in my face. May I quote you? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely -- or you could quote the policy: WP:IAR. You still need a good reason though. "A good reason" includes slow-moving edit wars with over 24-hour lulls. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:56, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

And if I actually *was* edit warring, that might apply. Since I wasn't... (oh, and BTW - I'm still not convinced that Sarek was doing this with the good of the encyclopedia and the article and editing productively (and all of that kind of happy-Wikipedia-speak-sorta-stuff) in mind --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you weren't, I don't really know the details; others seem to think you were. You seemed to have particular issue with the 24-hour thing, as though the validity of the block rode on that, so I was just clarifying the policy for you. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:02, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I still have an issue with the 24-hour thing (which Sarek has yet to address - and as the administrator here, he should be the one to officially address it - non-admins shouldn't have to do his job for him). I also still have an issue with what he claims I was blocked for: "edit warring to keep negative BLP info in Charles Karel Bouley". I have proved how that wasn't the case at all. He has yet to address that, as well. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm out of place for butting in here, but can I remind the administrator responsible for the blocking that the BLP policies are explicitly clear that "negative BLP information" isn't required to be removed if it is properly referenced - it is "contentious" and "unreferenced" information that is required to be removed. The inclusion of referenced "negative" information isn't any justification by itself for a block. It doesn't help anyone when editors - especially administrators - start inventing and enforcing their own so-called policies. Afterwriting (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit history, you'll see that it does appear to have been contentious.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but it wasn't unreferenced. The block is being invoked on the grounds of "negative BLP info" and *no* such policy exists - in fact the BLP policies make it quite clear that "negative" information can be included as long as it's properly referenced. Therefore the grounds for the block as stated is invalid unless there is a problem with the reference. Afterwriting (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, edit warring is edit warring, and an uninvolved admin stated as much above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called original reason for the block was for "adding negative info" - which is *not* against BLP policies if properly referenced. The block was then later justified on the grounds of edit warring but this seems to be hypocritical as the other editor involved in the warring wasn't also blocked at the same time. You cannot justify blocking an editor on false grounds and then change the grounds. The administrator concerned is in error and therefore the block should be removed. The other arguments given for not removing the block are erroneous and unworthy of administrators to claim. Afterwriting (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having rechecked I noticed that the original block reason did include an "edit warring" claim. Even if this is valid argument, the bit about "negative info" isn't in itself valid. If you are going to block one editor for edit warring in this instance then you are morally obliged to also block the other one. Afterwriting (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with everyone of your points even if I *wasn't* the one blocked, Afterwriting. So...what does one do in a situation such as this when the administrator refuses to budge and.or admit he was wrong in the reasons for blocking and how it was done? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You post an unblock request, and an uninvolved admin comes along and reverses the blocking admin's error.

Oh, wait.

Never mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point to the other jerk below regarding the bad attitudes and general lack of helpfulness from administrators toward blocked editors. I'm fully convinced that there are a number of you who feel you can be as rude and nasty as you want because you have all the "power" in here. That being said, anyone who behaves in such a manner - misusing and abusing your authority and the trust put into you by the community granting and accepting that authority - should not be an administrator. Admins are supposed to help editors and the project, not belittle editors and weaken the project. Your attitude and behavior in this matter with me has been abhorrent throughout, Sarek. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick one

Just as a quick explanation to your comment above, once you're aware of the three-revert rule (as you are), you don't have to be warned before a block. Since you've been blocked for edit warring before, there's no need for a "warning shot."

Please note I'm not commenting on the specifics of this particular block, I'm just trying to clarify something you said in your unblock request above. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Review

I would have happily reviewed this for you but the head if jimbo that keeps appearing from the left panel is too distracting to allow me to concentrate on the text. If you want to be taken seriously you should consider setting your page up in a more serious way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that thing made me nauseous whenever I looked at this page. I think I have it disabled now though with Firefox/Adblock Pus/Adblock Plus: Element Hiding Helper. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:39, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to that - it's just so plainly ridiculous a reason to not review a block. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lays your problem. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is being unnecessarily snarky and rude to editors on their own talk page part of the Wikipedia administrators code (especially to be used when an editor is blocked and that editor might feel like they have to agree with everything you say in order to get their block reviewed)? Seriously, dude - why didn't you just see the "nauseating" Jimbo head and move on without saying anything? Why did you think it was necessary to comment on it? It's almost as if you were trying to take advantage of an opportunity to be a jerk with someone who might feel they have to stand for you being a jerk in order to get a block reviewed and lifted. IMO, your comments above about being "taken seriously" are truly crossing a line. No one should have to rework their userspace just to get a block reviewed. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what line was I crossing there? I honestly do not see any issue with my comments and you seem determined that anyone dealing with you does it on your terms without you being willing to bend to help. That's extremely inflexible and not very collaborative is it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SRQ, I hope you'll see that I am both a) pretty neutral in the entire situation, and b) someone who has understood your side of things a number of times in the past. I have to admit, considering the history between you and Joy Diamond, I'm surprised that you even come close to articles that she edits. I have yet to check which one of you edited that one first, but really, you two are poison for each other. You also really know that WP:EW and WP:3RR are quite similar, yet different: 3rr is within 24 hours and is a bright line policy, yet EW can be over a day, a week ... and may not even include 3 reverts; it may only include one or 2. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to read it, and had the same problem- I was physically unable to track the words in that long discussion with the head popping in and out. Sorry; I tried. I hope there are admins who are able to manage the trick, but it's too difficult for me. No snark, just the truth- the head pops in, my eyes go to it, and I lose my place, try to go back to the same place and start again, and here's the head again... it'd take me an hour to read all the discussion under your block that way. But you don't have to change it; I just thought you should know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm sure SRQ wants this reviewed by a new admin, and two admins have had issues with Jimbo, he can be hidden with some creative CSS. Edit My preferences -> Appearance -> Custom CSS for whatever Skin you're using. The CSS at User:FeralDruid/vector.css will hide him, though you need to be sure to bypass your cache. -FeralDruid (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's silly to ask admins to edit their CSS to be able to review one unblock request. Try User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/TalkNoJimbo instead. For the record, I agree the image is very distracting, and SRQ shows her characteristic stubbornness by not simply taking it down when people complain, especially admins who would otherwise be reviewing her unblock request. She could've at least taken it down temporarily. You shouldn't spite yourself over silly overadherence to principle, especially when that principle is the right to display corny images. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:31, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Maybe only have Jimbo on the Userpage, and not on the Talkpage ... it is very distracting, and prevents me from clicking things I need to click on the left. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that I did not mention this at all when reviewing your request, because it truly is not relevant as to why you were blocked. That being said, it's extremely annoying. This is your talk page, and plenty of other users have obnoxious formatting and so forth on their talk pages, so you don't have to change it if you don't want to, but it's fair to say that the majority of users who come to your talk page are going to be annoyed rather than amused. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, everyone -- on many (most?) browsers, if you hit escape after the page has loaded, the animation will stop; do it when the Big Face is off the screen, and it won't come back. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop and think about how the Jimbo gif thing has gone since it started and maybe those of you who are voicing that I'm "stubborn" could rethink that as an unfair characterization: a admin comes here, tells me that he/she was going to review my block but now won't because the Jimbo animation makes him/her nauseated and that I will never be taken seriously because it's there. Then, the same admin states after my reply that it's essentially my fault that he/she didn't review the block. Think about how *you* would react to an attitude like that. Now, consider the statements made by those who are obviously better at communicating what they really mean: "it's hard for me to read the page with it there". If that had been said in the first place, how would you have reacted to that instead? I know that if that had been stated to me initially, I would have understood - because it's a reasonable statement and observation, and I don't want people to have problems reading the page - and had no problem removing the Jimbo gif from my page. Snarkily saying that the Jimbo gif makes one either annoyed or "nauseated" and will keep others from taking me seriously, is neither helpful nor clear as to the real issue, is it? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the real issue is that you seem to have problems with the cooperative environment we hope for on Wikipedia, it does illuminate the nature of the problem pretty well. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Apparently you're learning impaired. That's okay, you have my sympathy and I can certainly make allowances for your affliction.~~ --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Striking, as the above comes across differently than intended. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good for another 24 hours added to your block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So administrators can be as nasty and rude and uncivil and mocking and demeaning and personally attack the blocked editor as much as they like on the blocked editor's talk page, but editors can't say anything back and if they do, they have to fear they will have time added to their block? How very Department of Corrections of you. A wise administrator recently said to me a little less than a week ago, "we don't generally punish people for breaking rules. Admins who do so are bad admins". Now, I didn't add this comment to make a sweeping generalization about your entire tenure as an admin, but to point out that when admins start doling out punishment, they start acting like bad admins. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You have problems editing collaboratively" is not a personal attack.

"You are learned impaired" most definitely is.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you stated above was not the actual quote - not even close, Sarek. What I said was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek, not a personal attack. But no matter - as you've done in the past, you can now just claim I am being "disingenuous". Whatever. Coupled with everything else that has come from admins on this page, I see the above from Jpgordon as just one more item in the "nasty and rude and uncivil and mocking and demeaning" list that's already been compiling. At this point, I'm just chocking this whole thing up to another episode in the continuing saga of "Wikipedia Administrators Behaving Shamefully"; the spin-off series will be "Wikipedia Administrators Who Won't Admit When They Are Wrong". --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying someone is learning impaired is the definition of a personal attack, no matter what your stated intention is. You're not likely to find anyone in a position of authority who thinks otherwise at whichever venue you choose to initiate a complaint (ArbCom etc). Many have tried. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:35, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

But, as you stated yesterday, "most rules on Wikipedia are discretionary" - right? After all, a number of those "discretionary rules" have been *blatantly* discretionary from the beginning of my block (and quite a few discretionaryisms exist on this very talk page)... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely (that all rules are discretionary), but I'm telling you from experience that the discretion of those in positions of authority at Wikipedia will fall on the side of "blatant WP:NPA violation" when faced with one editor suggesting another is "learning impaired". You're of course welcome to try to get them to see it another way, but if you did succeed, it would be where others have failed repeatedly and consistently. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:44, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Feh. I wouldn't waste my time. I've seen too many times now how "administrators" misuse their authority and abuse editors just because they can get away with it. I've also seen how administrators will back other admins up even when they are wrong, wrong, wrong. By-and-large, Wikipedia is no longer a nice place for nice people. In fact, it probably turns nice people into cynical, nasty people (and then they become admins). If you're an admin with admin buddies to back you up or someone with 40k+ edits, you can pretty much get away with Wikipedia-murder here and the rest of us poor schlubs who came here thinking we just wanted to edit some articles and could make a difference with our contributions are the ones who get walked on and kicked while we're down. What's more, the editors who try their darndest to do the right thing get told they are stupid, or lying, or being disingenuous, or can't be taken seriously and get themselves blocked for doing the right thing while those who should be blocked for their behavior never see a block. Me go to ArbCom or an Admin notice board over this? That's unlikely. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you have an annoying image on your page is very different from saying someone is learning impaired. Incidentally, and I'm not saying it necessarily applies here, but it may seem sometimes unfair that veiled insults are accepted while outright ones aren't. Nevertheless that sort of can be said to be the case, and you really should be prepared for a block whenever engaging in the outright type. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:17, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Wow - I'd love to take part. But...since the person who nominated the article for deletion has also blocked me from editing for a few days (and has now extended that block because I was just doing on my own talk page what administrators did before me on my talk page) I guess I won't get to take part. <and yes, I know this message is from a a bot and you won't actually be reading this response> --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your block doesn't get extended again you should have about 4 days after its expiration to participate in that discussion before the usual closing time. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:25, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Editing past comments

It's kind of bad form to make significant edits to your past comments that others have already replied to, as you've been doing. If you have more to say you should leave a new comment instead. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:38, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Okay. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough's are actually good - and it's good that you retracted that. Hopefully it goes a long way here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant substantial edits that significantly change or add to a previous comment. I wasn't referring to the strikethrough -- that was definitely a good move. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:28, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts on your unblock rationale

I hope you don't take this as "chiding", as it isn't meant that way. You can feel free to remove this comment if you want. On the question of edit warring, even when your edits are "good", you're still not supposed to war over them ("war" merely being a stand-in for attempting to keep your version of the article live despite another editor's similar attempt). The quality of the edit doesn't matter (in judging edit warring), only the question of whether you were reverting repeatedly. If a day goes by and there's discussion that seems to have concluded that your version is the better one, it's usually best in those situations to state that you're recusing yourself from enacting the edit, and wait for another editor to do it instead.

On the matter of the personal attack, people here aren't entirely stupid when it comes to sarcasm. Actually I've found Wikipedia has an unlikely concentration of people adept at it. I think everyone understood your intention, so there's probably not much need to explain; You didn't actually intend to say he was learning impaired, you were just characterizing his remarks. Still that is an attack of sorts. Even if you make an exaggerated and sarcastic remark that effectively tells someone their view is stupid, it still "hurts", not just the person but the situation. If everyone were allowed to do stuff like that, we'd have everyone calling each other morons all the time here. We hold back to elevate the atmosphere here above that of a 4chan. From your recent comments it seems as though you'd say we're failing miserably, but we try. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:48, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any of the above as chiding. The first paragraph is all good advice that I accept and will utilize in the future. Thanks. As far as your thoughts about the remarks - I get what you're saying, and agree with all of that as well. I do think that when administrators take advantage of editors being blocked and direct blatant incivility toward the blocked editor forcing that editor to make a choice between responding in kind or getting their block extended, that's just wrong and inexcusable. Anyway, thanks again. I appreciate you taking the time. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the current circumstances...

From the John Behan talk page (because I am currently unable to speak up and defend myself there)...

== Since SkagitRiverQueen is not talking ==

And otherwise seems preoccupied with her own recent awards for civility and correct attitude, and maintains above that I myself am not properly endowed with these qualities and she's not going to talk to me until I behave properly-- may the rest of us who would like to work on this article, decide what we'd like to do with it in her absense, please? S B H arris 00:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would think that someone who is (or just claims to be) a medical doctor wouldn't (a) have such a deep need to feel superior to others nor would they come to a place like Wikipedia to exercise the frequent belittling and mocking of others in order to satisfy such a need, (b) would be smart enough to just suggest the article be worked on (or just do it) without the uncivil and unneccessary commentary, and (c) would know that "absense" is actually spelled, "absence". As far as "the rest of us" - as of late, there really haven't been a whole lot of consistent editors to the Behan article other than Harris and I, so... <shrug> And if I may address the suggestion that an agreement or consensus about how the article be edited should be reached during my short "absence" - umm...I don't think so. Too bad he doesn't realize being civil on the Behan talkpage would be so much more productive toward cooperation in article-building than communicating in the manner he seems to relish. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone watching this page cares to do something, User:JoyDiamond just took the above comments from AFriedman to me *from* here - my talk page - and included them on her talk page. I don't appreciate having stuff taken off my talk page and placed on her talk page without my permission. The discussion was between me an another editor, not for her. In fact, practially her entire talk page is full of stuff from my talk page, from the Bouley talk page, and IMO, way too much of it is negative stuff about me. If someone could take the lead on this, I'd appreciate them talking to JoyDiamond about how totally uncool it is to steal stuff from my (or anyone's) talkpage without permission to do so. If she feels she needs to keep what's there, she should do it off of Wikipedia. If someone could see to having it removed, that would be great. Thanks. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You spent months doing the exact same thing, copying discussions between other editors into your user space. She's following your example. Further, the text in question wasn't written by you, and is relevant to an issue being discussed on the article's talk page. If anything, I'd say AFriedman would be justified in complaining about it. -FeralDruid (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education

If you feel the need to educate other editors, kindly do so on their talk pages rather than at AFD or any other process. It only serves to muddy the waters. Thank you. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:33, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to help you understand a little more about what was being discussed at AFD. You took it negatively (hence, your accusation I was arguing with you) and responded snarkily because of that assumption. That's on you, not me. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the exchange can be characterized as an argument is debatable and irrelevant. I appreciate you trying to help me understand something, but it didn't belong at AFD. Use people's talk pages next time for things like that. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:46, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Adding one word to Dorothy Kilgallen without hurting Wildhartlivie's feelings

Hello, SkagitRiverQueen, I have very little experience in Wikipedia, but I'm hoping you can advise me on how to start a "sockpuppet hearing" so I can defend myself against Wildhartlivie. I'm not trying to make a personal attack on her. I'm pointing out an irrationality in her reaction to my adding one word to the Dorothy Kilgallen article. It's a very necessary word: officially. It belongs in the section "Kilgallen and the Kennedy assassination." Without it, the article says Kilgallen made something available to readers of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Seattle Post Intelligencer and other newspapers in August 1964 (see footnotes #26 and 27), but that something "didn't become available to the public until the [Warren] commission released its 26 volumes in early 1965."

So, how can something be available to the public in 1964 but not available to the public until 1965? The article should say the portion of the Warren Commission report in question "didn't become officially available to the public until ... early 1965." In August 1964 Kilgallen made it available without the official stamp of approval from the government. I already brought this up on the talk page for Dorothy Kilgallen, and Wildhartlivie made a reply that dumbs down the issue to the presence of sockpuppets. If she thinks I'm causing trouble, I'm going to defend myself. Please check my history of contributions. I'm not a conspiracy theorist or a Kilgallen obsessive. I've contributed to Wikipedia articles on the Great Horned Owl, the hygrometer, Mark Geragos and the metaphysical poet John Donne. I use a computer at a college campus in a small town in California, and I should not be held responsible for postings made by other students over a long period of time. I'm prepared for Wildhartlivie to repeat her comment about "Dooyar," ignoring the government document from 1964, and I'm just going to defend myself.

The issue is an American government document being both available and not available to the American public in 1964. If somebody questions my integrity as a newbie Wikipedia editor, that belongs in a sockpuppet hearing, not with the Kilgallen debate. There is no hurry, SkagitRiverQueen. Would one possible solution be for you to add that single word to "Kilgallen and the Kennedy assassination?" Maybe that would hurt fewer feelings of fewer people. I'm not making a personal attack on anyone. Quite the contrary, I'm suggesting how to proceed without any personal attacks. I'm looking forward to a reply from an editor whenever it is convenient -- Monday, Thursday, whenever. Carbon copy of this sent to Lar. Earththings (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I won't be able to help you. I suggest you find someone else. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]