Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:29, 8 January 2007

Disaster management Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

/Archive 1

Editing

What a nice new page! I have boldly made the changes regarding Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz's profession and number of injured. For the latter, the coroner's report actually repeats the number of injured as '14' in several different places in different ways, though you have to do the sums (which I hope doesn't count as original research!!!). I have also expanded the information about the actual event. Changes and improvements are welcomed. Happy New Year, all --Slp1 19:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Awesome work! I did some edits, just as a reader, please revert if they somehow affect facts or meaning. I'm confused by this: He asked the remaining women why they thought he was there, and when one student replied “no”, he answered: “I am fighting feminism.”. The question he asked was not a yes or no question (not that, in that situation, someone might not just say "no") but I'm curious to know if the question isn't "if the women knew why he was there". Of if the answerer (totally understandably) misunderstood the question. Happy new year! Dina 01:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements and corrections. I am very embarrassed by some of them! You are quite right about the question being wrong but it was me not them. There are different versions of what he said, and of course it was all in French, which adds to the versions, and I think I was trying to combine two versions appropriately. I've corrected it to what the Coroner's report, which makes a good deal more sense. Thanks for pointing it out! I'm thinking that it is too much text all in a block and subheadings are needed, so if anyone has any ideas, go ahead --Slp1 02:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, don't be embarassed! You have done a great service to this article -- you've made it more about what it's supposed to be about. And if you want me to be embarrassed in return, try asking me a question in french sometime ;). I agree we need to break it up, but carefully and I don't have any good ideas right now. Going to do a little celebrating, in spite of my cold (its much better now! I swear!) Dina 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year all! Health (to Dina, especially) and Peace to all. I hope you all had some fun last night, as I did. I have worked a bit on the Marc Lepine section. There is more to be done, but I do realize it needs to be kept short.
The Barbara Frum quote needs to be moved out to another section as it is more commentary, I think, but I am still a bit worried about sourcing it. I expect I am missing something but in the Frum quotes in the article cited don't seem to refer to the child abuse theory at all. Bonne année à tous et toutes --Slp1 15:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right! that's the 'crime against humanity' source, not the child abuse one. I just wanted to get rid of the tag; I hate seeing those in articles, and believe in most cases it's better to remove something until a source can be provided than having a tags in an article, so I removed the sentence too. Bobanny 17:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE MADE a change in one area of the article, under MASSACRE.I have changed the wording slightly. It is now, once again: "social changes through which women were increasingly entering the workforce" rather than "social changes that facilitated the entry of greater numbers of women into the workforce." Using the word facilitated makes it a value judgement rather than a simply declaration of what the social changes did in society. The changes may have enabled many women to take their places in the world force alongside men, but they also made it a NECESSITY for many women to have to go out to work to help support the family, whether they wanted to or not. Not everyone was advantaged by social changes that were happening. I think, too, that the City News source is inappropriate, as I mentioned before. I would still like to have it changed to the 'comment'by John Scott that I mentioned before. this is the URL: http://www.montrealmassacre.net/files/Comments/CommentJohnScott.doc . I havw been in contact with Professor Scott and he is agreeable to having this link made to his article/comment. He did, in fact, write something to mention directly in the discussion here although he was not able to join in himself. This is what he sent: "I think it is important to highlight the social dimension to this question, rather than seeing it in purely personal terms - the motives and fates of the individuals involved are, of course, crucially important, but we have to understand what happened also as a socially and historically specific occurrence. This is the basis for distinguishing between our moral judgments of the events (our approval or disapproval) and our explanations of them and how they relate to larger social processes." Suemcp 12:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE MADE THESE CHANGES, adding these two paragraphs: 1st The Montreal Police began an official investigation, but on December 11, 1989, five days after the shootings, the chief coroner, Jean Grennier, told the press that he preferred not to hold a public inquiry.Malarek, Victor. More Massacre Details to be Released by Police, but an Inquiry Ruled Out (1989). Globe and Mail 12 Dec. 1989. 2nd The decision to cancel the official police investigation was in part to save the families from more pain, and also because of the sheer complexity of this unique and virtually incomprehensible event. While the authorities assumed that more anti-feminist attacks might follow, thus preferred to keep it low-key, apparently, it was women themselves who refused to have their feelings contained. Their testimony flooded the media. Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. Unbearable Witness: towards a Politics of Listening (1999). Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 11 (1). 112-149. AND I HAVE taken out the bit on Dawson,. I think we should keep to this event - the Montreal Massacre. Suemcp 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

1)Use the edit summary field please. You also removed a paragraph referring to the Dawson shootings, which I restored. Any further edits without summaries will be reverted on sight.

2)The Professor Scott "comment": It is an unpublished quote, from your website about an essay you wrote. It is thoroughly unnacceptable as a source. Please read WP:RS, something you've been asked repeatedly to do. The City News Rewind article contains a transcript of the suicide letter. It should only be replaced with another source with a transcript of the suicide letter. Dina 15:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, AS I SAID, I REMOVED THE PARAGRAPH ABOUT THE DAWSON SCHOOL. IT IS IMPORTANT that this is not seen as simply another school killing. It is inappropriate to have a reference to it within the article itself. Suemcp 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a school shooting, period. The police response at Dawson is a direct consequence of the Polytechnique massacre - cause and effect - and it's important. Bobanny 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, YOU HAD NOT RIGHT to remove the pieces I included about the lack of police investigation. i will reinsert it. Suemcp 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, i DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WOULD SEE news articles as acceptable, and something by a university prof as not. You are way off base base, here. Suemcp 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO INSERT these changes, and you as admin, must see what I am trying to do. I do not hae the knowledge to always do it right. Surely you understand that. Just as you do not have the knowledge of the Montreal Massacre, I do not have the knowledge of the admin side of Misplaced Pages. Your comment, "use the dit summary field" is meaningless to me. I haven't studied it. I only know what I picj up along the way, just as you pick things up about the MM and get it wrong sometimes. I am trying to make a worthwhile change. Now why don't you do your job and help? Suemcp 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, I TOOK OUT THE REFERENCE TO THE DAWSON shooting. That is no place for it, in the body of the article! Suemcp 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the edit summary field . It appears every time you edit. Please fill it out with a summary of the edits you are making.

Please stop removing sourced content that no one except you wants removed. I have reverted all your changes. Dina 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA: THE TIMES I DID FILL OUT THE EDIT SUMMARY FIELD MY ADDITIONS WERE DELETED ANYWAY. I tell here on the discussion page what I do so people have a chnace to discuss them.It isn't as though I am being sneaky about them or who I am. Suemcp 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Suemcp

As I said yesterday I would do if Sue persisted in making unsupported edits and acting uncivil on the talk page, I have created a request for comment. Any editor is welcome to respond. Dina 19:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

AT 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I APPLIED TO START a Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007/01/01 EcolePolytechniqueMassacre to deal with the problems. This was one hour before Dina opened u this comment. As yet I have not had a response from Wiipedia mediator. Suemcp 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some editing thoughts

• First, I love the new photo and the resizing/moving of the memorial photos (was that all you Bobanny?). I still kind of like the idea of having a photo of the actual building where it took place, somehow, though the available one is kind of blegh. A photo of one of the classrooms would be really evocative, I think. I have no plans to visit Montreal any time soon however...
• Secondly, I've been rereading the massacre section. Can we clarify "platform" in the classroom somehow? Is that the common word for this? I mean, I sort of know what it is, I think, except in my experience, platforms only exist in lecture halls, not classrooms. Is this perhaps not a universal thing? It's a quibble, and not terribly important.
• In terms of subheadings under the Massacre section, it seems to be there are three "acts" (in the theater sense) to the event (at least): 1)The prelude, before he began shooting, 2)the first classroom 3)the chaos that ensued, and his eventual suicide. Possibly 4, as the cafeteria seems distinct from his final acts. Perhaps (and I am not terribly attached to any of these subtitles) 1)Before the shooting began 2)The first six murders 3)The second floor corridor 4)The cafeteria 5)Lepine's suicide. (okay that's five.) Anyway, my thoughts are the best way to divide it up is either by location, or by time (if the exact times are known.)
• Do we have a number of how many students who where there that day committed suicide after, whether they mentioned the events in their suicide note or not?

Cheers. Dina 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks. I was thinking that the article needed some more visuals, and then it finally dawned on me that there's a memorial close to where I live. As for the platform, I think there was a different word used in the coroners report that I had never heard before. I'm not exactly sure what it refers to either, and even lecture halls usually have the students elevated like in a theatre instead of a platform. Also, I'm not sure that subheadings are the way to go, because to break it up logically would create pretty small subsections and it seems that there's a unity there now that shouldn't be disturbed, IMO. The last paragraph in there now should probably go in a different section, and maybe a photo in there might help break it up visually a little. Bobanny 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all,

• Yes, thanks for the photo, Bobanny, it is very evocative. I am a bit puzzled, however, because when I look at this page at home (on Firefox, if it makes a difference) the photo is on the right hand side and the first few women's names are all squished up on the left, while at work (with IE) it is nicely over the top of everything, and everything is much easier to see. Do you think there is anything that can be done or is it just something weird with my computer?
• I thought the photo of the Ecole P was fine, Dina, and it certainly helped me visualize it. If it is really blegh, I suppose I could go and take one (revealing where I live in the process!) but there's no guarantee it will be any better, given my non-existent photography skills. Let me know. I wondered about pictures of the women, or of Marc Lepine too, though copyright issues?
• Re the platform... the other word they use is "dais"... I think it means a slightly raised area (a low step up, but wide and deep) at the front of the class so that everybody can see the prof or whoever is presenting.
• I'm actually leaning towards deleting the post attack fatalities section. We can't easily source the second suicide story, for starters. I put a sourced sentence into the aftermath section which notes that at least 2 mentioned the event in their suicide notes and I'm wondering if that would be enough and we could delete the specifics.
• About the sections. The Coroner's report does have timings, if that helps. I guess we could try it a few ways and see! And I agree that the suicide note needs to be elsewhere, perhaps with a photo. There is actually a photo of the note in the original La Presse article (another nail in the coffin for conspiracy theories we have heard!), which would have been good, but it doesn't seem anywhere around on the net. --Slp1 03:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the photo down a bit. I only have IE installed, and it doesn't make much difference there. Feel free to move it again to straighten it out. Apparently Firefox does sometimes show things differently, not sure how or why. Another photo of the school would be good. That one's really small, from the early days of digital cameras I believe. Something a little more close-up, or even an inside shot of the classroom or even the cafeteria would be good. Might spook current Polytechnique students who happen on this article.Bobanny 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your change didn't make any difference on FF, so I have tried centre, which works better but it still doesn't look as great as on IE. Bizarre. I will try and go and take Ecole P. photos in the next week or so, though can't guarantee I will feel comfortable going into the classrooms! --Slp1 12:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

YOU CHANGED THE PART ABOUT LEPINE'S EDUCATION. I would lke to know where exactly it says that he had been accepted into the college - page #s. That's not what's been said about it elsewhere. Suemcp 10:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's in the coroner's report on p.11. Thanks for asking. BTW, it really is better not to use capital letters to mark a new speaker. I put a little colon or two at the start my comments and they indent it nicely. Or you could try an asterisk which gives a pleasing box. --Slp1 12:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

AT 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I APPLIED TO START a Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007/01/01 EcolePolytechniqueMassacre to deal with the problems. This was one hour before Dina opened up her official comment against me. As yet I have not had a response from Wiipedia mediator. Suemcp 10:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They have a really big backlog. I suggest you respond on the RfC. Which, incidentally is not "against you" but a request for comment "about you" and your behavior. There are other editors weighing in there, who have no history with this dispute. Dina 13:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sue, I agree that it would be a good idea to respond at the RFC. It would give people the chance to hear your opinions on things and have a fuller picture of the problem.--Slp1 14:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE PLACED THE EXTERNAL LINK BACK ON AGAIN TO THE MONTREAL MASSACRE WEBSITE. MAYBE dINA COULD ENSURE IT REMAINS. I am still waiting for a response from mediation at Misplaced Pages. Suemcp 11:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would rather the complete description of Lepine's education had been allowed to remain (with Malerek in Eglin and Hester as the source). The info you have included on this is inaccurate as it stands. In fact, it isn't even what the Coroner's report says about it. You are really distorting Lepine's life in this respect. Suemcp 11:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean about the current version being inaccurate, a distortion, or not really being what the coroner's report says. Maybe I am missing something but I feel it is quite an accurate summary. In full it says
"Marc Lépine had had a stable job for several years, until September 1988. In the fall of 1986, while he was employed in that job, he applied to the Faculté Polytechnique at the Université de Montréal. He was admitted on the condition that he complete two essential courses, including the course in solution chemistry. He subsequently drew unemployment insurance benefits for a period of time ending on November 10, 1988. During that time, from March 1, 1988, to September 22, 1988, he took courses at the Control Data Institute, and then abandoned them. Ultimately, in the winter of 1989, Lépine registered in and completed the solution chemistry course at the CEGEP du Vieux Montréal."

The Malarek article does include a few other details : where he went to High School, and the fact that he did fairly well in one course at CEGEP. I don't think these details are required in the article about the Massacre, where we are trying to keep the summary very short, especially since we have the "intelligent but troubled" in there. Incidentally, there has been general agreement by editors here that the Coroner's report is likely a more accurate source of information than the newspaper articles, which were written so soon after the event. BTW, I am glad that you are raising your concerns on the talk page in this way, Sue. --Slp1 14:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I ALWAYS HAVE RAISED MY CONCERNS ON THIS PAGE. IF THEY ARE MISSING FROM THE ARCHIVES IT WOULD ONLY BE BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS REMOVED THEM. Suemcp 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect you have not always raised your concerns on the talk pages. There are numerous examples of unexplained deletions and additions. Here are just three examples. ,,.

But you have been a lot better at doing this recently, which is good. And you will be glad to know that none of your comments on talk pages have been removed, as can be established by looking at the histories of the talk pages. --Slp1 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I WOULD BE VERY RELUCTANT TO RELY ON THE ACCURACY OF THAT CORONER'S REPORT. OTHER REPORTS DO NOT SAY THAt Lepine had been conditionally accepted. It is so easy years down the road to change history, and this certainly could be too. There would be reasons to do so, no doubt. People in Montreal would want them - their city - their schools - their police - to be perceived as being fair. So in this situation, I would not accept that Lepine had been accepted at the Ecole on condition he complete two courses. It let's them off too easy. Where is the backup for this. And how do we know that it was written when it (the Coroners) claim it was, in 1991. Just because everyone there sees the report as more likely being an accurate report doesn't mena that it was. It was in Montreal - that was the city in which the killings occurred, in case you have forgotten. Suemcp 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Some backup from Rathjen and Montpetit (1999) p.29 "Marc Lepine didn't drink or do drugs. He was two courses short of being admitted to the Poly." --Slp1 17:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE TAKEN OUT THE BIT SOMEONE (dINA?) PUT IN about education and inserted the piece I had there before: Peter Eglin and Stephen Hester also refer to a newspaper article (see p. 42) by Victor Malarek, "Killer fraternizes with men in army fatigues," Globe and Mail, Ottawa. Dec 9, 1989, which tells about Lépine's education - five years of secondary school followed by three years at community college, with an additional year to study electronics. Details are given about the particular schools, additional information provided by the police indicating that Lépine had also taken 'an update' night course in chemistry. Eglin, Peter and Hester, Stephen (2003) The Montreal Massacre.END OF QUOTE. I don't know why it doesn't enter well. Someone, maybe can fix it, if they know how. But tha'ts what should be there, not this garbage that suggests Lepine did not finish the admission requirements. Even the Cornoer's report disorts that information and should be examined more closely for its weaknesses, in content and language. Suemcp 11:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

the part about him not finishing admissions requirements is corroborated by Slp1 above. I don't think you've made a convincing case that the coroners report should not be taken as a reliable source over newspaper reports. Also, the above addition is bad style. Directing the reader to an outside source for more info is something for a "further reading" section, not the main text. Consistent formatting style is important in articles.Bobanny 17:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

THE SECTION ABOUT EDUCATION WAS THE PART i HAD DIFFICULTIES WITH BEFORE, WITH GETTING IT IN THERE. wILL DINA PLEASE FIX IT AND BY THAT I MEAN FIX IT AND NOT DELETE IT THANKS. Suemcp 11:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

you probably missed a bracket somewhere, or the "/" in the closing ref tag (</ref>) or something like that. I removed it because it was unreadable in that state, and didn't want to take the time to trudge through and find the source of the mistake when it's not clear what the improvement to the article is. That he took a chemistry course at some point? It's now preserved in the edit history, so it's not permaenently erased.Bobanny 17:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE ALSO PUT IN THE PIECE AGAIN ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION NOT BEING DONE. IF someone has a good reason for not keeping it in there, say so. Don't just delete it, again. Suemcp 11:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted rather than go through and make all the appropriate changes, and this was included in the revert. Also, the in text citation are inconsistent with the formatting style of the article, and it's not clear why that needs to be in there. Also, that line seems to confuse "police investigation" with "public inquiry." Bobanny 17:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU JUST KEEP REVERTING WHAT I DO. IF THAT'S DINA, YOU ARE BEING IRRESPONSIBLE. Suemcp 17:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I put in the edit summary that I would explain on the talk page, and just hadn't finished that yet. Also, Dina's on to other things; this shouldn't be taken as a personal conflict. Bobanny 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Suemcp

You need to stop editing this article and its talk page and respond at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Suemcp. If you do not stop editing this article and respond, I will protect it from editing. This is not optional -- if you wish to continue working on Misplaced Pages, you must participate in the dispute resolution process. Thanks. Dina 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I AM STILL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE TO the request for mediation I put in, which I did BEFORE you put in your comment for me. It is pointless for me to respond to yours unless I have someone willling to look things over from another perspective. 81.76.91.141 10:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)The preceding is what I put in, this morning. Suemcp. Has someone removed my username id here ?Suemcp 14:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mediation Cabal is a group of volunteers and they say clearly at the top of the page that they have a backlog of 8-14 days. Dina 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reinserted the piece about Lepine's education. I don't know what you have done with the site but it is impossible now to insert things properly. You know about the technical side, Dina? Well, it would help if you put your knowledge to good use instead of using it against me and to perpetuate the myth that the women who died at MONTREAL were the main victims.81.76.91.141 10:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC) The preceding is what I put in, this morning. Suemcp. Has someone removed my username id here ?Suemcp 14:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE REINSERTED MY WEBSITE The Montreal Massacre as an external link. It is one that shows other sides to all this, not simply the side that feminists, male academics and many members of the media work to perpetuate.There is much much more that needs to be done if this article is going to be done fairly and reasonably accurately, to reflect what was going on in society at the time. At this point in time it seems to reflect simply what the younger generation of women demand for themselves. 81.76.91.141 The preceding is what I put in, this morning. Suemcp. Has someone removed my username id here ?Suemcp 14:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No one altered you comments Sue. If you click the history tab (which shows the history of this page) you will see that you were not logged in when you made your comments. As a default, Misplaced Pages then signs them with you IP address -- 81.76.91.141. Cheers. Dina 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

An Appeal to Sue

Sue,
Judging by your writings and the life story that you have revealed on these pages and on your home page, you are a mature woman who has had many interesting and sometimes difficult life experiences. You can write and research well, and have novel and interesting ideas and reflections of life. You have training in academic research, and have written and presented papers at conferences. You therefore know the principles of how a researcher should investigate and seek to understand a subject. There are two that are very critical here:

• A good researcher is able to maintain an emotional detachment from the subject

• A good researcher allows the results/interpretation to follow from the facts and does not choose the facts to suit the interpretation.

From what you have written I believe that you have personal reasons for identifying with this incident and with Marc Lepine. Perhaps you feel that you were excluded from academia by feminists. I don't know. But I do ask you to reflect whether emotion is clouding your researcher's judgment.
Secondly, you admit in your essay on your website that you were hampered in your researches because you live in England. Sources were difficult to obtain for obvious geographical reasons and you did your best with what you had. You came up with your interpretation and wrote your essays, in which Marc Lepine is a bright, fairly average guy with no big problems, apart from difficulties finding his place in a world where gender barriers were being increasingly broken down.
What has happened on these pages is that editors have found other sources that you did not know existed, and that contain evidence that some of the "facts" you counted on are possibly or even probably untrue. This is understandably difficult for you after all the thinking and work you did.
But you must know that a good researcher does not ignore new information, find excuses not to believe it or (in this case) delete it. A good researcher swears softly and then calmly looks at and incorporates the new evidence and revises the theory accordingly.
Unfortunately, you have been systematically removing any information that does not agree with your interpretation of the event. You have deleted (and continue to delete) sourced information about childhood abuse and about lack of academic coursework, for example, because it doesn't fit in with your view of Lepine as being balanced, bright and thwarted.
You say that you are a researcher. I appeal to you to put your researcher's hat on. Then stand back and have a good long look at what has been happening here from that perspective. Show us all that you are a good researcher and that you can roll with the punches when contradictory information appears. Allow others to read all the information and come to their own decisions.
I am hoping that you have been able to read the above calmly and will take some time to think about it. After all it has taken me an hour to write! I wish you only well. --Slp1 14:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I would like to make a contribution to this discussion, which has been brought to my attention by Suemcp. I am not an expert in the particular topic of this entry, but would like to comment on one particular aspect of the editing. This concerns the referencing of websites in the External Links section. Suemcp has inserted a link to her website, which other users have deleted. I would like to question the general policy onthis. While it is, of course, true that the general text of the article should be supported by clear and reliable factual evidence, it does seem that the Extenal Links section is an area in which readers can very usefully be pointed to sources of comment and discussion that attempt to draw out the implications of the facts reported. In many other Misplaced Pages entries, the External Links include links to such sites and to sites where fact and commentary are mixed. These are often the most useful linlks given for those who want to pursue the topic. I would hope that, in this case, the administrator of the page would reinstate the website as an external link and protect it from removal by other contributors. The aim of Misplaced Pages should be to inform rational discussion and debate and it needs to have links to precisely those areas where that debate takes place. JS2007 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

THANKS FOR WRITING THIS. I have put the external link back in, though there is much more that could be done, as you know. Suemcp 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good point and I am not sure of either about whether it should be there or not. As a result I have never deleted the website link specifically myself except as part of larger revert of other inappropriate material. Looking at the history of this page, the website has mostly been deleted by anonymous IP addresses that have not explained their reasoning. However, it was deleted on one occasion by an administrator Atlant with an edit summary "Remove Sue's personal website as a violation of WP:EL" (which is the policy on external links). I suggest reading the policy and then asking Atlant on his talkpage if you are still confused. --Slp1 14:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

AT THIS MOMENT THE LINK IS STILL THERE. I would ask that it not be removed unless someone explains why first and gives me a chance to say something. I do not care to accept the authority of someone who deletes first and then asks questions. the Montreal Massacre webiste is not my personal website. Suemcp 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link again, and I've written an official "linkspam" warning to Suemcp regarding the link. WP:EL is very clear on this issue; an editor should not be posting links to a website that is under the editor's direct control, and it appears that the link Sue is posting is to a website where she is the webmaster. Let me be clear about this: Sue, if you continue to post the link, I will eventually block you for repeated violations of WP:EL.

Atlant 15:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Atlant, for this clarification of policy. --Slp1 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I can come back in and underline the key points that I tried to make above? First, I asked that the administrator should insert the External Link to the website in question. If this were the case, then any breach of guidelines and the question of 'linkspam' would not arise. Second, I argued that there are many similar sites included in entries across the Misplaced Pages system. The site seems to contain precisely the kind of wider debate and discussion that the Guidelines seek to encourage. There should be consistency in this: either reinstate the link to this site or delete the links to all such sites acrss the system. I would argue that the latter is neither possible nor desirable and that the website for this page should be reinstated. Perhaps Atlant, or whoever is the responsible administrator, could consider these points and replace the link. I have no vested interest in this, but would like to see fairness and consistency operating in the way that Misplaced Pages is edited. JS2007 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If, by "responsible administrator" you mean "the administrator(s) responsible for this article", then there's no such thing; no article is "owned" by anyone, whether editor or administrator; the whole kit-and-kaboodle is owned solely by the Wikimedia Foundation and all of us, admins and editors alike, edit on an even footing, by consensus and within the policies set out by the Foundation. If, by "responsible administrator", you mean the administrator who took action, then I suppose that's me, but at this point, it would take a very persuasive argument before I'd be convinced to allow Sue's website to stay. From my point of view, at this point, she's "poisoned the well" when it comes to that website. But I try to never close my mind to reasonable discussion so I still am open to persuausion.

Atlant 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, the email contact Sue lists for her Mediation Cabal Case Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-01 EcolePolytechniqueMassacre is identical to the one listed as the contact on the main page of MontrealMassacre.net. Dina 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that the last part of Atlant's comment doesn't really sound like an open mind on the question of the website: to say that Sue has 'posioned the well' suggests that the deletion of her website link is related more to Atlant's view of her actions than it is to the content or relevance of the website. Surely editing decisions should be based on content and relevance rather than the personal characteristics of the editor? JS2007 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, I agree with Atlant's comments above. I agree wholeheartedly that Sue's website should not be included in this article. The external links section is for reputable sources which add something to the topic. No offense meant to Sue, but the site in question is little more than (for lack of a better term) the equivalent of a "fan site" placed on a celebrity's page. As a sidenote, please stop posting in caps. To distinguish between one post and the next, you can put an asterisk before your comment as I do (*).-- Chabuk 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Open mind or not, when Sue posts the link to Sue's website, that clearly violates WP:EL, and every time she does it, I will remove the link and warn her, eventually blocking her if it goes that far. It is my duty to enforce the rules of the encyclopedia and this aspect of the matter really isn't open to interpretation or personal bias. (82.23.42.142, I also notice that your comment above is your only contribution to the encyclopedia so far.)

Atlant 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment about decisions based on personal characteristics was not related to the decision to remove the link, but to the statement that an argument that you should include the link would have to be 'very persuasive' because she had 'poisoned the well'. Surely that argument should be about the merits of the link? JS2007 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to argue the merits of the link then. So far, your entire contribution to the encyclopedia are your three posts here, none of which actually defend the link but rather conduct a sort of "metadiscussion" about whether we are showing bias by excluding the link. Go ahead and make your case...

17:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Challenge for Sue

Here we go round and round again. Outside voices are sought, Sue claims they are biased. Requests for comment by outside voices are created, Sue claims that the other editors who weighed in are my personal "buddies" (for the record, they're not). Sue, my challenge to you is to find one admin or editor in good standing who supports your point of view. There are thousands of long-time Misplaced Pages editors. Find one -- not a friend who's never edited before, not yourself cloaked under an anon IP (might not have been you, though the IP is also from London). Find one. Or I will find one who is less gentle with the block button than Atlant or myself and this discussion will be over, because it gets nowhere. Here's a list of every registered username on Misplaced Pages . Here's a list of all active admins Misplaced Pages:List of administrators. Cheers. Dina 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, WHEN OTHER ADMIN STAFF SEE THE POWER YOU HAVE I doubt that they would want to risk their positions there with you all at Misplaced Pages. You obviously have your heart set on getting your own way, at whatever cost to society and the truth. Why do you keep on seeking out my weaknesses and making 'rules' out of them. First, it was the 'no more than 3 x a change in one day'. Then it was to get all your buddies to make up stories about how I wasn't doing things right or whatever it was. And I have no one who can take the time to wade through all that dirt. I have sought meidation. I don't know what else I can do. I don't see that it should be me trying to find someone from Misplaced Pages who will take this up. Misplaced Pages should be able to take on such situations, and not leave it up to the person being unfairly treated, having many of their edits removed, and moreover being threatened with expulsion altogether, to have to resolve. I'm not going to try and find someone who has been there a long time. That's pointless, if they rely on goodwill with you to keep their job. Continuity is no guarantee of expertise anyway. And this is just another rule you have made up. Well, okay so I won't have anyplace to appeal. You have simply too much power for me. I hope you get what you deserve. Suemcp 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have any power at all. I think you misunderstand adminship. I mostly spend my time editing articles about museums. I'm sorry if somehow I've convinced you that I do have power, but quite honestly, I don't. The request for comment was supposed to bring in other, disinterested editors to comment on the situation and perhaps make you understand that this is not a conflict between you and me. It isn't personal, really. I have no prior investment in this incident. I was invited in to try and help solve it, as an administrator. I truly despair of ever making you understand this. Perhaps your confusion is my fault, perhaps it is not. I defer to anyone else who enters this situation. And, to a certain extent, throw up my hands. Dina 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sue, you will be glad to know that you have misjudged Dina's power. She is one of many, many administrators, and several of her equals have made appearances on this page, and have agreed with her. She and Atlant are not making up rules to thwart you. The rules are all there for inspection if you look at the community portal in the box on the left. I must say, however, that it really is very inappropriate of you to talk about buddies making up stories, making up rules etc. And sadly it has been these kinds of comments and lack of understanding about Misplaced Pages that have got us all to this point. I do understand how difficult this is for you. So I have two suggestions:

• take a break from editing and wait for a mediator to be ready to take the case. I think doing this would help a lot.
• contact Association of Member's Advocates as suggested by Dina a while ago on your talk page. You might find someone to help you a little more quickly, judging be their page.

--Slp1 23:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed Disaster management articles
• Unknown-importance Disaster management articles