Misplaced Pages

User talk:Crohnie: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:48, 6 November 2010 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 20d) to User talk:Crohnie/Archive 5.← Previous edit Revision as of 05:44, 8 November 2010 edit undo71.242.114.149 (talk) →Post on Manson talk page: new sectionNext edit →
Line 279: Line 279:
::::It's small, but it's a start. Don't get me quoting Macbeth now... ] ] 01:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC) ::::It's small, but it's a start. Don't get me quoting Macbeth now... ] ] 01:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
::::: You ARE # 1!!! ] (]) 02:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC) ::::: You ARE # 1!!! ] (]) 02:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

== Post on Manson talk page ==

Crohnie — I just saw your message of 12:08, 7 November 2010, at the talk page of Doc9871. I mean your message about You might be right that the post is the work of a banned user; in fact, since I'm the banned user who posted it, I'm sure you're right.

I took a lot of trouble there, Crohnie, to identify, transcribe, and link source material, for the good of the article. I think you should just read carefully what I wrote and then carry out the reversion I suggest. The article contains a serious error, which should be eliminated.

Revision as of 05:44, 8 November 2010

There is no Cabal

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.


Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Join the Conspiracy! Thanks Shot_info

Could use some help with clean up please.

Hey, I'm listing this here so that I can update others that the sock True Crime Reader made lots of edits to that didn't get caught and removed. Per WP:DENY which says to remove the edits of banned users is preferred others may take the edits as their own if they would like. I've been cleaning up after the block but could use some help on the article(s) listed. The first one that the sock edited a lot is:

Well I think this is the last one to do. I did all the rest of them, can someone do this one please?  :) Thanks, --CrohnieGal 16:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh Boy

Got another one: (Deletion log); 12:49 . . SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Eniskink" (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: unsigned warning placed on non-existent userpage) :-D DocOfSoc (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It was a dup warning, it was in the wrong place, and it created a page where there wasn't one before -- of course I deleted it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you talking about that being a sock? I have two more that seems to fit the pattern too. Email me if you want the names because I don't want her here.--CrohnieGal 15:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Garbo

Per MoS, italic text is discouraged in articles. Natalie Portman and the other women who changed their last names or go under aliases do not have italicized text emphasizing the new name. I've since changed it back to standard. Estheroliver (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Bern RfC

Hi. I just wanted to thank you again for commenting at the Paul Bern RfC. I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall right now, but your opinion was very helpful. Have a good one! Pinkadelica 03:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No problems I just commented there. Sounds like conspiracy theories vs well I don't know. I don't understand what this other editors is saying to be honest. He agrees that it was a suicide and then continues on about wikipedia being able to tell the truth. Any of my talk page lurkers, would you please go to this articles Paul Bern and make a statement on the RFC that is on the page? There needs to be more input by other editors at this RFC since I am the only one who saw the request for comment. So it should be easy to be caught up to understand the differences in order to give your opinion. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal 10:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Done :) --Errant 12:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Done! ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you to both of you, very much appreciated. The more the merrier I say for an RFC. :) Thanks again, --CrohnieGal 16:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you guys so, so much for commenting! I've been dealing with this on my own for a bit and have just about reached my limit with it. I can deal with someone with a differing opinion, but I tend to shut down when that person becomes condescending and rude. Sorry, but it doesn't take a historian to read a source or figure out if a book is an acceptable source. I personally don't understand what Kraxler's issue is either (good to know I'm not the only one) as they seem to be contradicting themselves, but I think most of it stems from wanting to present what they think actually happened and lead the reader to believe the various theories presented outweigh the official verdict. This article has been unsourced for years and rife with POV content and I think it's about time it was brought up to acceptable standards. Thanks again everyone! Pinkadelica 04:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Needling

I've moved the needling discussion to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_banned_editors_needling_one_another for general discussion. --TS 20:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Tony. --CrohnieGal 22:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology

You started this on my talk page. I've moved it here because you asked me to ping you. --TS 23:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if I said anything I shouldn't have in the discussion here I would like to say I'm sorry. I noticed you removed my comment and another's with a comment yourself, "don't come here again to discuss William M. Connolley or Lar). 19:0654, 21 October 2010". I am assuming that your comment is for me. I didn't mean to cause any problems. I'm going offline now so if you have a response would you ping me so I remember to look here tomorrow? Sorry again, --CrohnieGal 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I was just trying to contain a fairly delicate situation where both Lar and William M. Connolley were editing my user talk page and I didn't want another squabble to break out. --TS 23:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this clarification. I was very concerned that I upset you commenting there and I don't like upsetting people/editors. I always strive to make sure I don't too. I thought that you were upset at what I said to Lar at the time of your redaction and removal. Thanks again, I'm really off now :) Take care, --CrohnieGal 00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

I was not retired due to the CC case (as I stated on my userpage). I was informed of a pending lawsuit regarding something, and wanted to be sure that I was in the clear with respect to the allegations there-in. Having had council review the complaint, it had nothing to do with me, and as such, I am returning. Hipocrite (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I made the wrong statement, if you point me to it I will strike it. I don't remember where I said it to be honest. I'm glad you are returning though. I've alway enjoyed your posts as being well thought out and interesting. Welcome back, --CrohnieGal 14:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Misplaced Pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WMC block

You asked about the reason for the WMC block. The problems is in User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Misc_breakage. Those are links to CC issues. However, it is my belief that the topic ban did not include user talk pages, and it is my belief that most Arbs agreed. (Carcharoth excepted). However, I have failed to persuade the community, despite trying very hard.--SPhilbrickT 15:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

But those are from like 10-2 days ago so why the block now? Also, I saw your arguements and I happen to agree with what you say. It's too late for me to speak up since everyone has commented already, I mean the uninvolved agree the block should stand. Thanks though for explaining, --CrohnieGal 16:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

check the diffs

You might want to remove that embarassing comment. Jimbo didn't sign the list..--Cube lurker (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not embarrassed since the list is a joke, I blew it on this one though, so I removed my comment. Thanks for bringing it to my attentions --CrohnieGal 14:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the list, but to each his own.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Well that's possible but a list like that for real isn't a good idea like what was said, right? ;) Have a good day, --CrohnieGal 14:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ronz

I do recognize that BoP, TFI, and Griswaldo are being over-zealous about Ronz at ANI, but please don't let their excesses obscure the depth of the problem here. In fact, I suspect that the reason they are so zealous is Ronz' own f-up: he used extensive baiting tactics to rile them up in the hope that he could make them look like ravening idiots, but he miscalculated so that all of the anger he stirred up (which was supposed to make his opponents look bad) now looks like a legitimate response to his behavior.

Serves him right in my opinion; I just want to make sure that the lesson sticks.

This isn't the first time I've been on the receiving end of this kind of thing from Ronz, not to mention from others: it's a common tactic used by skeptical editors. My entire block log is due to one skeptic or another baiting me, which pretty much sucks. I'm personally getting better at dealing with it, of course, but I really don't see why anyone should have to deal with it at all. IMO, the clearer we make the message that this kind of activity is no longer acceptable on project, the sooner people will stop doing it, and the better for the project. That's why I'm pushing for a clearer acknowledgment of wrongdoing from Ronz: the more bad behavior he has to admit, the more collective embarrassment there will be among everyone who uses these kinds of tactics, and embarrassment (for reasons I can explain, if you like) is probably the only effective motivator in this situation.

Sorry this whole thing is uncomfortable. I don't think it's pleasant either, but I do think it's Ronz' own karma snapping back at him, and I think it's wise for that energy to play itself out in full. --Ludwigs2 16:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The real question here is was there a BLP violation? Listen, I remember you having this kind of attitude about :BullRangifer too. You and Han's got on him badly. Now if you look at his contributions he only edits here ocassionally, like once a month or so. Why is it that editors that get into a dispute with you decided that they have had enough and decide it's better to leave than to stay?
This is a BLP violation which Ronz reverted. This editor The Founders Intent took it to the talk page to repeat the BLP vio here. I will have to recheck the article that was causing the problems but BLP vios are serious as you know. Now Ronz is thinking of leaving the project, is this what you think is best? I mean do you want him to leave? I have to admit that I am tired of long term editors that are in good standing leaving the project because of an arguement. The AN/i looks like a gang going after him, sorry but that's what it looks like to me. When I question this, I get a whole bunch of questions back at me about what I'm up to do. This doesn't make me feel any more secure in what is being said. If an editor, any editor, disagrees with a group of editors and gets called out for it, something is wrong in my opinion. Now may I ask, what brings you here now to talk about this since I haven't commented for a few days.
Ok, looking at the talk page of Weston Price I find it amazing that only complaints about Ronz are raised since in this section Yobol is complaining about sources being massed deleted. Why are sources being deleted and more important why are you apparently fine with this? This section starts off with being uncivil but no one complains, why? I think the attacks of Ronz is being over blown. Read the talk page and see what is being said and who is saying it. Why is no one complaining?
I only had a mild interest in the Price article, and only occasionally did an edit. Then all of a sudden Ronz shows up all authoritative and unyielding, as though he were an admin. Take a look at all the threats to block people. I wasn't looking for trouble, and I didn't know Ronz. He came on like a know-it-all authority, dictating what was acceptible or not; based on the previous blowout with llena. He tried to dictate policy on this article to me, because he was involved in that. He never explains anything, just gives out the policy shortcuts....WP:BLP, WP:TALK, WP:THIS and WP:THAT. Sorry, but that doesn't fly, and that's not the way WP works. Those policies are not cold, unbending laws to be obeyed at all costs. Look at Ronz history on that article. He's added almost nothing of content; he's only about telling others what's allowed. We're doing the legwork, and he's acting like the Monday-morning Quarterback. Ronz attacked every editor that went to the noticeboards against him. He attacked us all at once. He's all about confrontation, I just want to write articles. But I'm not going to get pushed around. Yeah, I can get a little heated and I've gotten it from L and BG on that; I tell it like I see it. You talk about Ronz being so valuable; he hasn't been around much longer than me. He did nothing his first year. Ronz needs to understand that he isn't running the place, and that he has to respect consensus. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT GOOD WORKS 22:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
This isn't being hot headed. That is being rude. As for Ronz not doing anything his first year and onward, I think you better look closer at his contributions. He has done a lot, esp. in the spamming area. I think that spam project will back up what I am saying. Everyone here does their own bit to help the project. If you look at my edits you will see for the most part I do vandal patroling. That doesn't make me any less of a good editor now does it? The reasons I am standing up for him now, well I just can't say yet. Sorry if that's not the answer you are looking for in your repeated requests to me. I do the patroling but I also do other things too. I think I have got a good name here at the project for the things I do which includes helping editors. Ronz has admitted he made a mistake, what more do you want from him. You've been here also since 2007 yet you have less than 5K in edits. I have no problem with that except you are trying to get an editor banned that has a good reason for what happened. Please try to show some kindness to your fellow editors. --CrohnieGal 15:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You're not planning to drag this out right, because I'm not really interested. Anyway, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the way he came into that article, acting pushy and criticizing with apparent authority that he didn't have. Three editors working an article are not subject to a single editor's objections. Furthermore, show me where he added useful content; or how did he personally improve the article. But that's fine if he's on spam patrol, good on him. That's not the subject of the dispute. Over and out. Sorry Ludwigs. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT GOOD WORKS 18:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Eh. I wanted a conversation, not a fight - I only posted here, C, because I generally respect your opinion and wanted to explain where I was coming from. I'm sorry I posted anything now, and I'll withdraw from the discussion. --Ludwigs2 15:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I don't want to fight with you either. You came off looking for one, sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying. I just know that I am being questioned repeatedly about why I support Ronz so maybe I got defensive a bit. You know me by now too, and I don't do fighting. So feel free to continue and I'll try to take it in the correct spirit you are giving it, ok? I've got to go for now though, hopefully we'll talk more, --CrohnieGal 16:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I actually don't mind you supporting Ronz. I'd like to support Ronz myself (the way I would like to support any dedicated editor); I just want him to use normal consensus discussion practices and not do the political thing. I cannot tell you how utterly tired I am of editors going all Machiavelli on me. I mean, you're right, I've had run-ins with a number of editors - Ronz, BullRangifer, Mathsci, and others to a lesser extent. Each time the same thing happens: they try to win an argument with me by running some gambit to discredit me or get me blocked, and I turn it back on them - publicly, and without a whole lot of sympathy. How they respond to the embarrassment of getting caught playing political games is not something I really care about (though I'd hope they'd man up to it and learn the lesson).
Beyond that, I don't know what to tell you. If you want to fault me for being stubbornly reasonable, then fault me, because I am. If you want to fault me for being skilled enough to deflect dishonest editing practices back on the originator, then fault me for that. If there's something else you want to fault me for, let me know what it is. I'm happy to discuss anything problematic that I've actually done, I'm just sick of having to deal with people who push crapulent ad hominems to cover the fact they can't make a decent argument. --Ludwigs2 18:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let me ask you this, Ronz admitted he messed up, do you accept that or do you want more like others in the AN/i discussion? --CrohnieGal 19:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't really want any concrete sanctions (not that I'd object to them, mind you, because I'm still a bit POed, but speaking pragmatically I don't think they're necessary). Ronz sort of admitted to disruptive/tendentious editing: what he actually said was "I have a great deal I want to change in my approach to editing" and " come up with something that will avoid all the problems that are of concern, especially WP:TE and WP:DE". It's evasive, but it's certainly something. I'd personally prefer a more overt admission, particularly about the baiting. It's one thing to get hung up on an idea and be a bear about it (that kind of thing happens to the best of us at times). It's another, more noxious thing to start getting manipulative with other editors. From what he's said so far I can't see any evidence that he's aware that the problem lies mostly in how he was treating other editors, not just in tendentiousness. Maybe he is aware and he's just not saying it, but... As I said over in ANI, I'm not completely satisfied with this resolution. I'd like it better if he made a more complete admission of the ways in which he goofed up. Then he could promise not to do it again, take down the retirement template, get back to editing, and we could forget all about this. --Ludwigs2 21:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well as you know, we get what we get from editors. The main thing is that he said adjustments would be done. As for the retirement template, he hasn't decided whether he wants to stay or not so why should the template matter to anyone except editors who appreciate the work and time served by Ronz? I hope he stays but have the feeling he won't be back anytime soon. So you all don't need to worry I guess about anything for awhile at least. I've watch listed the article that started all of this and there is still an editor their saying that there are problems with some of the edits. I don't know the article so I need to have time to do some research into the man to know more about him and the sources which I don't have time to do right now. I have watch listed to see how things are going now that Ronz is no longer part of the equation there. Talk soon, need to go check my error below, --CrohnieGal 22:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what happens. I suspect he'll take a few days to re-evaluate and then be back to editing, and I hope he comes back with the kinds of adjustments that he says he's considering.
Also (piggyback from the lower thead), I'm surprised you're not an admin - I always though you were, and you should be. have you ever RfAed? --Ludwigs2 22:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't expect him back anytime soon. I just don't think he's interested in returning anytime soon. As for admistrator, no I've never run to become one and don't plan on it. I wouldn't make a good administrator plus I have no interest in becoming one. I think even running for one is such a stressful thing never mind if you do pass and become one it's a very thankless job. :) I think I'll stick with just being a plain ole editor and do what I can to help people and edit the best I can. Have you thought of running? --CrohnieGal 22:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
On occasion I have, yeah, though that usually ends up with me vividly imagining the feedback I'd get from some quarters and doubling over in a fit of combined pain and laughter. There are a number of people on project who just don't have nice thoughts about me, and I wouldn't be honest if I claimed I didn't understand why. I may do it anyway someday: puddling around with the more boring administrative tasks actually appeals to me, and I could probably leverage it into avoiding conflict entirely and lead a nice, quiet, conflict free wiki-life. wouldn't that be nice... --Ludwigs2 01:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well good luck with it if you decide to give it a try. Personally I don't want to try with the kind of system that is now in place. Too much of an an attack on editors for my taste anyways.
I have a question, why wasn't this brought to my attention? Esp. the comment from NY Brad? All the broohaa that went on and Brad says he sees no behaviorial problems. Didn't you think this was important of a dif to share with me? I'm trying to calm the waters and I'm getting difs of convenience but not all of the difs involved. This I find unfair to me. Please respond when you have a moment Ludwig. I really would like to know why this wasn't brought to my attention. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal 12:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Crohnie. I'm not convinced those complaining on WP:ANI were being entirely open about what was motivating their actions. They did not address the fact that disputes amongst editors on the article Weston Price have spilled over onto lots of different public venues: WP:ANI, WP:BLPN, WP:ORN and at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. On ORN it was or is simply the same editors talking about the same things but at a different URL on en.wikipedia.org. Somebody more familiar with the workings of wikipedia might possibly be able to explain the point of that.
From what I can tell, the main user editing tendentiously on the article at the moment seems to be BruceGrubb (talk · contribs), who commented for the first time on WP:ANI just yesterday. Currently he is attempting to dismiss one textbook that easily qualifies as a WP:RS (it is distributed outside the US by MacGraw-Hill); and in his latest edits today, after three reverts yesterday within 24 hours, he added material which did not match the source, which in turn did not mention the subject of the article. That is surely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Other uninvolved editors have already mentioned that there might be problems on Weston Price. At the moment they seem to have nothing to do with either Ronz or QuackGuru, the editors mentioned at the beginning of the ANI thread.
Surely the people who could cast a helpful and instructional light on all these matters are experienced medical editors like User:MastCell and User:Eubulides.
So Crohnie, I have a problem with so many noticeboard reports at the same time. In all this morass, which extends to policy pages, MastCell has made some insightful comments. When people come a cropper with him, there is usually something not quite right. Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I am just finding more and more places this is playing out and it's not being disclosed on AN/i. Want to help me with that? I am going there now to open a new can of worms I think. This whole thread was screaming something was wrong and I accidentially fell on the dif I added and question above. I now have that page on my watch list. I can or won't put all those boards on my watch list. My watch list is bad enough now that my articles have trouble coming through to me. I am going to refer this comment to the AN/i board so it can be seen. Thanks for letting me know more than I already knew since I am trying to some helpful things in the background here. Be well, --CrohnieGal 13:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie - I'm sorry, when I opened that thread I just notified the people directly involved. It just didn't occur to me to give more broad notification, and if it had occurred to me I would have been worried about violating wp:CANVASS. If I do anything like that in the future, I'll let you know though. With respect to NYBrad, I was waiting until the case closed formally before approaching him for his ideas in talk.
Mathsci is correct about BruceGrubb. I've worked with Bruce productively elsewhere (or so I seem to remember) but he seems to be wanting to use Price's bio to push a bit on modern manifestations of focal infection theory. I'm not sure why that is. --Ludwigs2 14:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

I hate to be a pain, but since you aren't an admin, please do not post in the section entitled "Result of the appeal", as per the italic text below that that says, " This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above." Thank you. Courcelles 21:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was accidental and you're not being a pain telling me about it. I didn't mean to comment in the section for administrators only. I will move or remove my comment if you haven't already. Again, sorry, --CrohnieGal 22:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Tareq Salahi

The information you put into this page is not factual. It is properly reported in the WaPo article as statements made in a court filing by a plaintiff - meaning it is their opinion, not fact. I'd love to work with you on some proposed way to word it if you disagree, but please don't put it back in for now. 96.247.118.213 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not their opinion but rather an allegation made by them. 96.247.118.213 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I've responded on the talk page with my opinion. Any of my watch page lurkers, if you are available, we could actually use more opinions there. Thanks in advance. --CrohnieGal 18:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Done and done. And, I'm not sure the issues are "major," as I described in my post at Talk:Tareq Salahi. All the best. Saebvn (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look, --CrohnieGal 18:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be one of your many lurkers...  :) Saebvn (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey no problem. It actually comes in handy to have lurkers. Apparently I have quite a few of them too. ;) Comment anytime you wish. I'm easy when it comes to anyone talking on my page, as a matter of fact, I like to encourgage it as it keeps me honest. Thank you for lurkering but more importantly thank you for commenting, --CrohnieGal 18:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Check back to Talk:Tareq Salahi. The IP has reverted w/o discussion. Right now, I'm with you. Saebvn (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

They reverted me once and took it to the talk page. I just reverted because I feel there is a possible problem with their edits violating blp. Are you saying they reverted me a second time? I'll go look again. We can't have gossip from a newspaper used as actuals in a BLP. The paper is usually a reliable source but I believe the IP is taking things out of context and not being true to what the paper is saying. What do you think? --CrohnieGal 18:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to check again. I think they may have reverted a second time. I'll comment further on the Article's talk page. Agree with you on the IP taking it out of context. Will go back to the Talk page... Saebvn (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I reverted once and started this section. I have replied at length on the article discussion page. 96.247.118.213 (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not ignoring, I am waiting for others to respond. Please do not revert me until this gets resolved by more editor responding. Also, I am concerned about sock puppetry and need to here more about this from others. --CrohnieGal 18:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
More on socking, To the IP, do you or have you had any named accounts? I'm sorry to have to ask this but it is necessary unfortunately. --CrohnieGal 19:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I am again requesting that my talk page lurkers to please respond to this. There is discussion going on at the talk page but it's also been brought here. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal 19:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) This is clearly an IP who has been at WP for awhile as at least one other account, but whether that alone would make this a "sock" is debatable, since IPs are allowed to edit anonymously and don't have to register. There are some things that are "interesting" about the IP's editing behavior - announcing the "cleanup" and then invalidating referenced statements, undoing your reversion with no edit summary, and some other things I won't mention just yet. The IP is right about there being some possible plagiarism in the article, and that should be handled appropriately. Very doubtful it's who you're thinking right now, especially as the 74.7.121.69 IP goes back before she ever "needed" to sock. I disagree with the IP's sourcing issue, and hopefully s/he will respond here if they care why that is. Cheers :> Doc talk 22:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Behaviour is eerily familiar.DocOfSoc (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
It is, but the 74 IP threw a monkey wrench into it ;> I was becoming more suspicious until I saw their edit contributions and geolocate, and then it became clear to me that it's not her (this time). The IP does ask someone with a registered account to change an article, which could mean that it's a blocked user: or not. At the time of this edit, SRQ was engaged in a heated debate with WHL at the Ted Bundy article, and it's unlikely the IP would make this edit, sign in as SRQ 1 minute later for this, sign out for the IP, and then back to SRQ within the span of just a few minutes. Not back then, at least. The articles the 74 IP edited are not in SRQ's interests (peppered with sports stuff) as well. Cheers to both of you :> Doc talk 23:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. - Didn't see it at the time, but 70.208.90.41: now THAT'S her. Same geolocate as the others, too. Hopefully we can get this to WP:LTA at some point... Doc talk 16:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes IP 70 is her with her worst nastiness I've seen. I marked it but saw you changed the marking. Darn I always use the wrong one but at least my hearts in the right place. :) What does it take to finally go to WP:LTA. It's been going on now with multiple accounts and now she is trying to start wars with her behavior. Did you read what she wrote? Did you see the behavior coming from that editor she wrote it to? It's like it's believed and so uncool. We need something more done, now. Can a filter be set up for her? I don't know much about the filters but I've read were some have been used for editors that don't belong and a bot or something gets rid of the trash. Please, pretty please with sugar on top, I really could use some good news. Thanks Doc, --CrohnieGal 19:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Crohnie. You have new messages at Saebvn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Notation, responded there. --CrohnieGal 18:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2010 Newsletter

The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee

Re your comment at ANI, you can but try. If you've never had any dealings with Mick, he may appreciate a totally neutral, uninvolved admin's attempts at mediation. On the other hand, he may not. Despite what he says, I'm not out to eliminate him from the project, but there needs to be an improvement in his contributions and the way he communicates with other editors. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Going to take my comments to this users talk page. --CrohnieGal 19:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Crohnie, No, it doesn't matter to me that you are not an admin. It may matter to Mick, it may not. He has been unblocked, so it might not be necessary for you to open an discussion with him. Mick has strong opinions on a number of issues, and isn't afraid to let others know what they are. I'm not going to tell you what to say or what issues to raise. If you are going to do some investigation beforehand then it will be pretty obvious what the issues are. Mjroots (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Well since he isn't blocked anymore, hopefully he understands now that the community is losing their patience with him. If a problem starts again, please let me know early on and I will research the problems and make an educated comment to him at his talkpage. Hopefully now he understands though. --CrohnieGal 22:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a question for you

Hi, you did a drive by revert of mine without adding anything to the discussion other than notifying editors there that the IP brought the same discussion to a third location, the BLP notice board. I would appreciate a response to my question at the Tareq Salahi talk page. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal 19:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ity wasn't a drive by revert. It was a considered removal in response to a thread at the BLPN with an edit summary of BLP if in doubt keep it out, if the discussion supports the content then it can be replaced and a talkpage comment of - Note - this issue has also been reported to the BLP noticeboard here. I have also reverted user Crohnie's addition of the disputed content as it can easily be replaced if consensus supports it. As for the article, it is bloated and attacking in nature imo. Off2riorob (talk) 6:45 pm, 31 October 2010, last Sunday (3 days ago) (UTC+0) - I saw, and still see no reason to insist on keeping disputed content in the article while it is under discussion. Plagiarism claims are quite topical and seem to be treated quite seriously, the content appeared very close indeed to the source and to err on the side of caution I though better to keep it out while it is discussed. Your comment You reverted me saying there is a consensus for the edits would you expand on this because I see two editors and one IP talking about this and so far one editors agrees with my reason to revert the edits made by the IP. - does not reflect my edit summary, I didn't speak about any already formed consensus, but was referring to one that would arise from detailed discussion. If the discussion arrives that there is no copyright issues or plagiarism or libel,then it is easy to replace. Off2riorob (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Just curious but before you did the revert, did you look at the source being used? Thanks, --CrohnieGal 10:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
As I remember I did a google search for the words as I usually do when there are claims of plagiarism and copyright and as I remember the results were close enough to get me to remove the content while further discussion cleared the issue up, as in .. we are recommended to err on the side of caution. Apart from that quite small issue, the article is awful and bloated and attacking a living person in nature and if I though I could get away with it without wasting my time being reverted I would happily remove half of the content. Trivia and gossip have no place in a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey go for it, you won't get any problems from me about it. The article was written mostly when it first happened. I really haven't done much with that article except for vandalism reverting. All the best, --CrohnieGal 12:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Wiki has long since broken me of such attempts to improve our articles. I have spent similar wasted hours carefully removing and rewriting such poor content only to have it replaced in a single revert by another user that likes it. No worries, I think we just both were attempting to protect the article and got ourselves in a mini muddle, excuse me for that, best. This not notable game from the BLP (cited to the game itself) is a reflection of pure trivia http://www.addictinggames.com/whitehousepartycrashers.html - mildly amusing but not at all encyclopedic. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that but I do understand why, it can be quite frustrating to change something only to have someone come by and remove it with a click of a button. I still have problems with the edit that IP is making because I don't feel it's being true to the source, on top of that, for the claims being made, better sources are needed. Add to the fact I am not sure but having the feeling that this editor whose edit count is low, is not a newbie and knows too much for such a small amount of edits. This I find very concerning. You take care Rob, I have no hard feelings towards you and I hope you hold no hard feeling with me. I hope to see you around under better circumstances though I do see you around, I don't think we have actually communicated before this which I hope will change. If you want to tackle this article with me, I am game, let me know. Have a good day, --CrohnieGal 19:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel the love, hopefully I can add to that. I can commisserate on the concept of getting reverted on well thought through edits as well. It's the exact reason I work anon, in fact. I prefer to do "Don't Look Back" editing on the principle that the 20 other edits I can make in the time I would spend discussing one particular edit can add more value to the overall project. Crohnie, the only reason I stopped and spent time on the back and forth here was that I truly felt that there was plagiarism and the same defmataion types of problems you were concerned about in the original article. I had stopped to read it and saw that it claimed that Salahi had stolen stuff from the winery, and there was no way that could be backed up properly since it's flatly libellous. That's my edit style: I read WP as a resource or for pleasure, and when I see a problem I jump in. I hope you can read over my comments all along and see that I've worked in good faith: I even tried twice to edit to your expressed concerns and said a number of times that I could see what you were saying about my edits not being the greatest. I was just dead set against going back to the original due to the specific issues of plagiarism and saying things that weren't verifiable. I also apologize for not referring to my post on BLN Noticeboard - I was simply unaware that it was the proper etiquette to do so and won't make same mistake in the future. I'm happy to see any further edits to improve what I provisionally put in there, let's just not do a full revert. Just jump in and make specific changes to the remaining problems as you see them. I'll tell you one: one sentence that I didn't even touch is still plagiarized. I held off on that due to the concerns expressed, but it's time to change it. In general I think that reverts to good faith edits are a bad idea: the project is supposed to take in all viewpoints and usually there is a grain of useful info in whatever an editor proposes. Too much page protectionism out there, IMHO, but again that's why I'm an IP... 74.7.121.69 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I did some looking at this article and it needs some serious gutting. The sources for what it has to say just isn't strong enough to use plus there is even more copyright problems going on in the article. The copyright problems go on throughout the article I believe. I don't have time to do it myself but if you have the time, go ahead and gut it. If not I may see about just deleting the article though I've never done that before. But this article has become a very bad article. So if you are interested go for it. I'll see if I can help here and there but right now with the time I have here I have myself stretched out too much doing too many things that I promised I'd do and those have to come first with me. I gave my word to do them and I am going to. This article needs work badly, I am hoping you or someone will pick it up and work it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 19:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello

today: 01:13, 4 November 2010 Bluetalonsteel (talk | contribs) (24,379 bytes) (Undid revision 394699042 by DocOfSoc (talk)) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)

I am hearing bells.DocOfSoc (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Question asked at WP:LTA

For those of you who know and have dealt with the serial sockmaster that has become a nuisance and actually very mean spirited lately, I have decided to go to WP:LTA and ask about whether posting the sockmaster is useful. Please feel free to comment if you like but also remember WP:DENY at this point and don't give too much information which is also stated on the main page. Basically I am just letting everyone know so that they can keep an eye on the answers if any are forth coming. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 12:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I blocked that sock. What's the name of the original blocked account? Kafziel 17:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Whether that SPA account was or was not SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs), it certainly was reverting without discussing anything and is better off blocked. Doc talk 17:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the behavior of chasing Doc #2 shows her to be SRQ. That editor didn't just revert Doc #2 at one article but followed her to three or four of them to just blind revert with most not even having a comment. I really believe this too. Thanks for blocking it's appreciated. Doc #1 you don't see the editing pattern? SRQ has taken to doing edits that are completely vandalalism looking in the way this editor did too. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 20:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I see it, but I tend to be overly cautious in identifying a SRQ sock nowadays, since we can only go on behavior (no CU help is forthcoming, even for the named accounts that have edited recently). It's been tough enough to get people to act in this long-standing case, and if we brand an editor "too quickly" as being SRQ, it undermines our ability to stop her if we are wrong. She even made light of this: I just want to be dead solid positive before I say one is her, that's all. I trust both of your instincts, and this is probably her. I'm still working on this, and I know you are too. Cheers :> Doc talk 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concerns but with this new account there are reasons to believe it's SRQ for the following reasons. If you look at the contributions, Doc #2 is the target of this accounts attentions. It only goes to articles that Doc #2 has edited minus I believe one, the last contributions where the edits were false and were not supported at all by the source which is the Chris Penn article, which was one of her old stomping grounds. The rest of the articles Elian Gonzalez affair, Nicky Diaz and Sierra Madre, California articles were all articles reverts to DocOfSoc with no reasons given or in few cases the reason didn't make sense as can be seen here. This is the behavior of none other than SRQ in my opinion. Doc #1 what are your thoughts about giving WP:LTA a try to see if things can be better controlled? So far no one has responded to my question so we can wait a bit more to see if someone happens along or we could just sign her onto the main page. What's your thoughts of this? Thanks as usual, --CrohnieGal 23:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I am reluctant to comment here. When I know,I KNOW! or I wouldn't say so. Another suspicious one today. LTA is the way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocOfSoc (talk • contribs)

oops LOL DocOfSoc (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hope that wasn't a case of WP:KETTLE ;> Sorry - that was really a bad one... :> Doc talk 00:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Baaaaaaaaad Doc #1 lol DocOfSoc (talk) 01
05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I know, I know - at least you signed this time ;> Doc talk 01:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thhhppppppppt! DocOfSoc (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
It's small, but it's a start. Don't get me quoting Macbeth now... Doc talk 01:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You ARE # 1!!! DocOfSoc (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Post on Manson talk page

Crohnie — I just saw your message of 12:08, 7 November 2010, at the talk page of Doc9871. I mean your message about the new post on the Manson talk page. You might be right that the post is the work of a banned user; in fact, since I'm the banned user who posted it, I'm sure you're right.

I took a lot of trouble there, Crohnie, to identify, transcribe, and link source material, for the good of the article. I think you should just read carefully what I wrote and then carry out the reversion I suggest. The article contains a serious error, which should be eliminated.