User talk:Cindery/Archive

Footnotes

One of the issues with the cite.php footnote style is that you have to add the "references/" tag at the end, or the footnotes won't display. It's completely non-obvious and not at all a dumb question. I've added the tag in the male contraceptives article so you can see how it works. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Hi Cindery. It appears the page you linked to is copyrighted, which includes the picture, I assume. In order to use images here, we have to be sure they're released under GFDL, or something at least as free. If you have an image that's free to use, then you can upload it by clicking the "upload file" link over on the left side of the page. I hope that answers your question; please let me know if I can help more. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The article's on my watchlist, and I'll contribute what I can, when I can. For finding images, try Wikipedia:Requested pictures. I'm no image expert, but I think the people there will know some stuff. Thanks for the good editing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

re:primary/secondary sources in sci/med

I think the issue is a little bit bigger than that. If I emphasized using popular sources, then I admit I was wrong there. But the use of reliable secondary sources (monographs, scientific textbooks, etc) still seems more favorable than citing individual studies all the time. I know it can be hard to find secondary sources for current events, so that can be a challenge as well. What I most importantly want everyone to keep in mind is the "no original research bit". Sometimes it takes an expert to be able to interpret scientific studies. And publishing such interpretations for the first time here on wikipedia violates OR. Towards the top of the page you quoted me is:

"In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections."

They focus more on having things be verifiable and reliable and representive of the "scientific consensus". Following these guidelines, I still feel the rat study of mifepristone has nothing to do with the human deaths, unless we can cite a reliable source connecting the two (not a popular press article, but something that first WP:RS). Side note, good work with the ME article! Oh and I'm glad your user page isn't a redlink anymore. (sounds like we have a lot in common)--Andrew c 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where to go from here. I hadn't heard from you or been in conflict with you in 10 days, then you decide to post a snipet of policy on my talk page. How could I not interpret that as anything but you trying to wave the fact that I was wrong about something in my face? I replied and tried to defend myself, while admitting I was wrong about somethings. And I tried to be calm and civil. And now I get a fairly long reply attacking me personally (in my first reply, I didn't mention you personally except to compliment you twice), demanding an apology, chiding me on policy, and accusing me of not doing my research. I'm sorry, I cannot reply to your accusations point by point. I do not want to get defensive again. I know we got off on a bad foot, and if we are going to be working on some of the same articles, I'd really like to be friendly, and civil, and put all of this behind us. If admitting you are right about everything will bring us to that point, I'm willing to do that. If we can admit that we both got defensive and had knee jerk reactions in the past and took things personally, and that we may not always see eye to eye, but we can disagree in an adult and professional manner, I'm ready to move on. However, if there are still specific matters you want me to personally address, or if we still need to sit down and work things out from our past, lets do that. --Andrew c 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Finding urls

I replied on my talk page. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

EC

I reverted your edit to the Emergency Contraception article since I think you removed more than you intended. Thannks --TeaDrinker 17:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. here is the diff from my revert. I assumed you were editing in Firefox tabs or something similar, since the last few sections disappeared with your edit (something that happens accidentally with certain browsers). I didn't think you had intended to deleted, for instance, the language links or references section. Was this actually your intent? I probably should have been clearer with my message... Thanks, --TeaDrinker 17:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I've been having a morning like that too. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 18:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible Google Toolbar bug?

I know I keep getting the warning:

Attention, users of Firefox with Google Toolbar: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and appears to have been fixed; please upgrade to the latest version of Google Toolbar.

I have the Firefox imitation Google Toolbar, rather than the one that's actually made by Google, so I haven't been affected by the bug. But, I wonder if that's what happened to you? If so, upgrading the Google Toolbar should fix it. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 23:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Silver Surfer Sez

Actually, he wouldn't say anything. He'd just jump on his surfboard. You know, the Meat Puppets have a song called, 'I'm a Mindless Idiot.' I think I'd rather be an East Coast Intellectual. Mumblio 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your filing of 3RR

Please follow the instructions in WP:AN/3RR#Copy-paste-edit this for a new report and then paste it after the bottomost report. --WinHunter ^(talk) 09:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to give me the name of the article where the 3RR violation took place? That way I can assess whether 3RR was being broken. --WinHunter ^(talk) 09:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected Abortion

I am not going to block anyone for 3RR violation at this time, call it an amnesty if you may. I have protected the page instead, please discuss the changes in the talk page instead of reverting each other. Many thanks. --WinHunter ^(talk) 09:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming

I saw that you just tried to welcome a user (it showed up on the bootcamp channel on IRC because of the helpme template). For future reference, the template to use is {{subst:welcome}} ~~~~. Hope that helps you out! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

After I welcomed a user (explaining why I had reverted one of their edits), one of the admins told me anyone can welcome new users, and pointed me to Wikipedia:Welcome templates that has a bunch of different messages.

I do not know, but suspect, that admins go to blank user talk pages to put the welcome message. So if someone starts leaving messages for a new user before an admin welcomes them, that user's talk page will no longer be on the admin's "needs to be welcomed" list. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 16:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I welcome as I notice and see fit. I am not sure what you mean by a "needs to be welcomed" list. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, you may wish to check out the welcoming committee. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing

Hey there Cindery. What do you need help with? --Casper2k3 15:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

two pages I have been working on--Menstrual extraction and Jesse Reklaw are missing things as though they had been unintentionally blanked after edits I made (section headers, references, external links..) the blanked things seem to be in the article when I edit--but they just don't show up? I can't figure out how to fix this. Tks Cindery 16:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see what you mean - the Jesse Reklaw has gone a bit 'wonky'! I'm having a look-see through the article now to see where the problem might be.

At first glance Menstrual extraction seems to be ok. What things are missing from that one? --Casper2k3 16:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping. Menstrual extraction is completely missing a section called "Use after legalisation of abortion," and a New York Times citation... Cindery 16:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One down, one to go! The problem with Jesse Reklaw was you didn't complete the last reference in the article. I removed <ref name="yale"> from the page and it's working fine. Have a look here to see how I fixed it. Gonna have a look at the Menstrual extraction article now. --Casper2k3 16:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

helpme

I am trying to give the surreal barnstar to User:Astanhope, but I have done it wrong and can't figure out why... Cindery 01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! The code you should have used is :

		The Surreal Barnstar
		message Ali K 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

. I have fixed it on the other user's page. --Ali K 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

or not... It seems you have tried to edit at the same time. I will leave you to fix it :) --Ali K 01:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you! How kind! --AStanhope 17:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Postmarketing surveillance

I can't find an article on the topic. How shocking. To the credits of pharmaceutical companies, they still haven't realised that Wikipedia would be a great marketing tool if they could get their representatives edit articles! (Won't give them ideas.) Will you start the article? I'll contribute in due time. There is some roughly useful basic content on pharmaceutical company. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Abortion Law Reform Association March for Life Fred R. Zimmerman Natural birth control Lee S. Dreyfus Hysterotomy abortion Ave Maria, Florida Edward Scofield Oscar Rennebohm Barrier contraception Fetal protection Breakthrough bleeding Martin Haskell Martin J. Schreiber Leonard J. Farwell Life Chain Francis E. McGovern Edward Salomon Albert G. Schmedeman

Cleanup Hodgson v. Minnesota Purchasing power parity Ejaculation Merge Embryo Pro-life activism Procreation Add Sources Nuremberg Files Miscarriage Obstetrics Wikify Quiverfull Charles Wilson (politician) Family Health International Expand Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York Gynaecology Women's history

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Related Statistics and Studies

Hey Cindry, I'm kinda new to wikipedia so I apologize for not noting my changes until recently. I have several issues with you edits though.

1) In the statement regarding "Two peer-papers studies have shown that when emergency contraception is available, the incidence of unprotected sex does not increase." You claim that the ref does not claim that unprotected sex doesn't increase. This is false, both papers make this claim.

In the "Norris Turner A, Ellertson C (2002). "How safe is emergency contraception?". Drug Saf 25 (10): 695-706. PMID 12167065." reference this is a direct quote from the paper:

"Nevertheless, at least two published studies report that when emergency contraception is more available, women are more likely to use it when needed, but that their incidence of unprotected sex does not increase.[76,78]"

In the "Harper C, Cheong M, Rocca C, Darney P, Raine T (2005). "The effect of increased access to emergency contraception among young adolescents.". Obstet Gynecol 106 (3): 483-91. PMID 16135577." this is the other quote:

"Adolescents aged younger than 16 years behaved no differently in response to increased access to emergency contraception (EC) from the other age groups. As with adults, EC use was greater among adolescents in advance provision than in clinic access (44% compared with 29%; P < or = .001), and other behaviors were unchanged by study arm, including unprotected intercourse, condom use, sexually transmitted infection acquisition, or pregnancy. "

You need to actually read the articles!!! Being lazy and just reading an abstract may not give you all the important information contained in the paper.

2) In terms of your summary of the Swedish study I edited it cause it was clearly biased and purposefully misleading. Try and be a little more fair in summarizing the studies.

3) In statement regarding "A United States study of 2,117 people up to age 24 including 964 adolescents (90 of them younger than 16) found no differences in pregnancy rates or rates of new sexually transmitted infections between individuals given access to ECPs and those under traditional care. Additionally, access to ECPs did not effect regular contraceptive use or risky sexual behaviors.[50]".

The existance of a non-ECP group is completely irrelevent. People want to know what might possibly happen if ECPs are made readily available as opposed to only being available through prescription. This is the crux of the argument regarding making ECPs available over the counter. Therefore a proper control group would involve a population of individuals under traditional care (i.e. ECPs only being available with presciption). A non-ECP group has very limited relevance as such a group doesn't exist in most modern countries.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RegisA (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 September 2006

Advanced techniques for use with new users

Thats tips for you to use when dealing with new users, not things to be applied to you, a now seasoned editor :-)

Hi Cindery, I try to continue to read the updates to contraception topics. Most of the finer discussions are above my own level of knowledge/familiarity with the research, or my more limited time now to research into (work has picked up). I thought you responded well to the anon's above posting on their talk page (especially ignoring the straying from strict WP:AGF tone). Couple of advanced tips for your growing repetoir:

• To belatedly add a signature on ones talk page to someone elses unsigned posting, use the {{unsigned| <user name or the anon's URL address> }} tag. Hence I've just added for you above :{{unsigned|RegisA}} 23:15, 29 September 2006
• If adding the 1st posting to a new users talk page, add a welcome template message. These provide links to important policies and guidelines for a new user to beome aware of and discuss why & how to sign talk pages. Should the new user later prove disruptive, they can't complain no one pointed them in the right direction of the policies. With welcome templates, direct linking to the template is not done, but instead the markup code can be automatically substituted in for one using {{subst: <template name> }} tag. Hence {{subst:welcome}} generated this change to the anon's talk page. Other welcome templates are listed at Wikipedia:Welcome templates :-)David Ruben ^Talk 15:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

{{help me}}

i need to report a 3RR violation by 71.242.186.236 for the 4th time tonight, he insisted on inserting uncited, irrelevant info about himself into an article not about him... Cindery 06:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

First, make sure that there actually has been a 3RR; they must have removed another's edit 4 times to have broken the rule (which in the case of inserting information against consensus requires 5 insertions). If you think they have broken the rule you can report the matter at the 3RR noticeboard. --ais523 07:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Inserting information, then inserting different information, is not a revert, so it's not 3RR. However, if you think the anon is being disruptive, you could take the issue to AN/I, or use one of the dispute resolution processes. --ais523 07:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Swkap

I've unblocked this account after he sent me an email protesting that he hadn't committed vandalism. I decided that given the minor nature of the contributions, I couldn't justify connecting him with the IP, and apologised and unblocked him. Unforunately, I overlooked the fact that the email was coming from - sigh - Samuel Kaplan, the name being inserted into the article, which is a pretty significant connection.

I'm not reblocking now, but I'm going to keep an eye on what he does to the article in the future. If he makes such obviously self-promotional edits as before, then I'll reblock. But if he continues with edits like those from this account that aren't obviously self-promotional, then I'd like you to consider them independently and not automatically treat them as vandalism for the time being. Sorry about this mess. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd better say that at least he's spoken to someone now, which is a significant change from his previous behaviour where he doesn't seem to have made any attempt to communicate - so even leaving my mixup aside, I think he needs to be given a chance to contribute properly. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

You know, with all the crap my wife (and I, by extension) get for working for PP from our various right-wing relatives for "killing babies" and "promoting promiscuity", I'm kind of glad that there are those for whom her ideological committment to what she does is insufficiently pure because her organization has a fundraising arm.

I look forward to the day when you spend sixty hours a week going to inner-city public high schools explaining to kids that no, you don't have to have sex just because your boyfriend wants to, and if you do, you don't have to get pregnant, if you do get pregnant when you don't want to, you don't have to have a baby. I'm sure you'll do it some community-based way that somehow manages to not bring profit to a single for-profit entity. Good luck with that. --Jfruh (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's just going to make me furious. I'm unwatching the page. There ought to be a Wikipedia version of the serenity prayer (accept things that can't be changed etc.).

By the way, it's my wife who's employed by PP, not me, and on the education side, not the medical side, which I think is pretty important and valuable. --Jfruh (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back from your wikibreak. I'm glad to see you still watching contraception related article. Keep up the good work.--Andrew c 23:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you may want to take a look at Talk:Depo Provera. Someone is making a compelling case to remove some information that I believe you added. Either way, your opinion in the matter would be valued. Thanks.--Andrew c 00:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cindery, I've modified my comments a bit to avoid saying anyone's right, or even mostly right. I really don't want to get involved in an edit war or give opinion on who is behaving well (leave that for the admins). I disagree with SlimVirgin that the article is not "Depo Provera use in humans". 99% of the article is human-oriented, as is the case with most drug articles on Wikipedia. Those two bullet points sit amongst other points that are clearly human-specific and based on human studies. The author of the second paper does "predict" what you claim. Whether a prediction by a basic researcher is worthy of mention, I'm not sure. My own (lay) experience of anticonvulsant research is that lots of things are predicted by basic research that turn out to be mistaken when human studies are performed.

Perhaps I am being dim, but I don't see your quote re: secondary/primary. I see stuff about popular press/newspapers but many folk regard them as poor tertiary sources, when it comes to science/medicine. I would like to be corrected if you can show me that "primary is best", since lots of editors (not just in medicine) seem to have this impression. Colin°^Talk 11:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Cindery, many thanks for the barnstar - I'm well chuffed :-) Out of interest was it for any specific action/edit or just generally trying to welcome new editors I encounter on articles that I look at ? I had started to wonder what might have happened to you (hope it was just a planned holiday), glad it was only a short wikibreak, and welcome back. David Ruben 00:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Depo Provera talk

MastCell asked for my commentary on Talk:Depo Provera, I've tried not to take sides - I well appreciate your contributions to the article and your greater familiarity than myself with the research into this area. As MastCell invited commentary having recognised their own sense of "getting more argumentative", I've most focused on their style of debate. However I did feel only fair to then offer as an example an alternative wording to one of your postings too. I truely do not wish to cause either of you ill feeling, so please read the points as positive friendly constructive suggestions and, with MastCell claiming inexperience, I am sure your past exemplary application of NPOV will help resolve the impass :-) David Ruben ^Talk 01:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

re:EC

I'll talk a look at the page and see if I can't figure out what is going wrong sometime in the next half-hour or so. Thanks for calling it to my attention.--Andrew c 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, pretty sure everything is fixed, but you should double check.--Andrew c 22:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The cite.php protocol created a new tag for the use of citing references on wikipedia. That tag is the <ref> tag (with which I'm sure you are familiar). And like all tags used in html (and other coding languages), if you open the tag, you must also close the tag (i.e. </ref>). Therefore, the problem on the EC page was that there was an open ref tag, followed by the citation template without the closing ref tag. This made all the text after the citation show up in reference #35. All I did was add the </ref> after the citation template you had copied over from the deleted section. Make sense?--Andrew c 22:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good faith

I hope it's stating the obvious that your comments on User Talk:Davidruben here are a fairly huge breach of WP:Assume good faith and verge on a personal attack. Please step back and realize that although we disagree on a number of content issues, I am not motivated by personal animus toward you. My edits were made with the motivation of improving the page in question. Prefacing your statements with "It seems unfair to say this, but..." does not absolve you of being civil, assuming good faith, and avoiding personal attacks. I'm happy to work with you on these articles, and I welcome your well-informed input, but please focus on the article rather than seeing edits which don't accord with your point of view as motivated by personal animus. MastCell 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think now, based on your behavior the last two days, that you probably did engage in borderline wikistalking, and that you are probably are personally over-engaged with reacting to me out of aniumus. What I find disturbing is that I have made an effort to completely disengage with you/have carefully worded all my comments on EC talkpage, but you still seem quite hostile --your kneejerk accusation of OR yesterday that you had to cross out, your inappropriate comment today which I just ignored re "the sulfurous smell of pharmaceutical companies" or whatever...It's not necessarily assuming bad faith to point obvious things like that out--it can also be called "naming the conflict," per meatballwiki. If you find yourself, as you said, "being more argumentative than you should," you should make an extra effort to disengage emotionally, not find ways to amplify your engagement, like writing aggrieved opinionated notes to my talkpage, full of inappropriate accusations. This is a "content over community" endeavor, and I am not obligated to personally engage with you. Please leave me alone, and restrict your comments to impersonal discussion on the talkpages of articles.

Cindery 06:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Conception probabilities

My knowledge of FA is related to a woman determining when she is near ovulation, and I'm pretty good at that. However, my knowledge of conception probabilities is not much more extensive than this, and I've never heard of any of the different theories or methods you mentioned. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have the knowledge base to write such an article. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 01:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Barrington hall

Hi, Thank you for not deleting content from Wikipedia. Thanks also for remembering that "Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy"--that means if there is a disagreement, you should discuss on talkpage, not assume or insist that your interpretation of WP:EL doesn't need to be discussed with the editors of an article. While one obvious solution is to send Mahlen an email asking him to post that when he uploaded the film onto the internet for free more than 10 years ago, he meant for it to be free/freely used by everyone (and yes we know him, and no that film is not under copyright), there's nothing wrong with formatting uncopywritten content in youtube for easier access than a cache provides. Cindery 10:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see this. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is not a matter here at all. Please revert your edit. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. YouTube vidoe links, especially videos with no copyright info are not allowed on wikipedia per WP:EL. Cheers!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert Anasi

I just noticed that Anasi's entry doesn't mention his foreward to 'The Sweet Science.' Should that be in there? Mumblio 03:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Im a bit of a tortoise when it comes to picking up new things. Mumblio 06:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Reklaw

Hi! I wasn't trying to get into a revert war with you just now - I just didn't realize you were editing at the same time as me. We can certainly discuss whether the details about Slow Wave need to be in both articles, but your edit summary is telling me to refer to the talk page and you don't seem to have written anything there. I have some other comments on style etc. which I was going to write up after I finished this round of edits, but I'll take a minute to do that now. ←Hob 05:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop editing for just a second so we can talk. I've documented my reasons for every edit in some very lengthy edit summaries, and I think you may not have read them. For instance, I moved the 13 Cats info further up in the article - so you've just reintroduced a redundant sentence - and I removed the reference to it being an excerpt of a graphic novel because, despite what the Yale alumni reporter thinks, it's not. ←Hob 05:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna give it a rest at least till tomorrow, so do whatever you think is best and reply as needed, and I may or may not argue some more later. I'll just say this, and hope I don't sound too much like an asshole: it looks like you started editing four months ago. OK, maybe you were around earlier under a different username or something, and I'm no Jimbo Wales. Still, it's really not such a great idea for your very first communication with someone to be like this - "Please do not aggressively remove sourced information because you disagree with it .... removing it could be called vandalism" - unless you're really really sure that they totally don't know what they're doing and you do. You jumped in with reverts while I was still moving stuff around - where's the fire? Do you think text is lost for all time if a revision exists without it for one evening? Does my own edit history really look like someone who's just goofing around or is unfamiliar with WP or comics articles? I know you put a lot of good work into the article, but that's no reason to go in with guns blazing when someone's 2/3 of the way through a large revision and is carefully commenting every single edit. You don't have to agree with me but please assume good faith; I will do the same. ←Hob 07:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You removed 3/4 of the article, all of it cited content, with zero discussion on the talkpage... Cindery 07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Archiving...

Hay, just a friendly suggustion... you talk page is getting fairly massive (71kb). You might consider archiving. If you need help archiving, let me know. ---J.S (t|c) 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube

Hey there, just so you know, the fact that a video "might not be copyvio" doesn't mean it's therefore ok to put into the article. First of all you'd have to be able to say definatively that it "definately is not", and secondly, I'm pretty sure youtube is unacceptable on wiki because it doesn't give copyright info. It's not judged on a clip-by-clip basis - it's not used because each clip has no info on copyright so that noone can check if it's copyvio. TheHYPO 13:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for taking time to give me feedback, it's good to see what works and what doesn't, even on the simplest levels. Resonanteye 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Indenting

I would like to politely request that you follow established editing guidelines for indenting replies on talk pages. Indenting is important to help make the talk page more readable and the conversation easier to follow.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel that when I see you continue to ignore talk page policy it makes me think you are attempting to show a disdain for wikipedia in general. I want to assume that I'm wrong. I want to assume that you respect the community and it's standards, but I'm finding it harder and harder. ---J.S (t|c) 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

..talkpage is a guideline, not a policy; formatting should be consistent, colons not absolute. Your assumptions all clear violations of AGF bordering on harassment and vioaltion of NPA, particularly "I have decided what you do means x, therfore y" on YT "project page." I understand you're in your early 20s; not my problem. I would suggest you follow "If you find you cannot get along with someone, try being more friendly, else it is probably better to avoid them"--in your case, I think that's a clear injunction to refrain from petty complaints on my talkpage, and stick to discussions of substantive matters on article talkpages, as impersonally as possible. Thanks! Cindery 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to post here politely and you respond with incivility. Fine. Now that it's clear you don't care, I won't bring up "petty" matters of talk page etiquette any further.

However, using my age as a straw-man argument to imply incompetence is a personal attack and I expect it to stop. ---J.S (t|c) 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand you're in your early 20s; not my problem. Perhaps you should take a time out to reread the humorous WP:DICK, if you find yourself contantly insisting that your personal preferences --colons, YouTube--are "policies" other people are violating and should be harassed about. That said, I realize Wikipedia revolves around you, and therefore all actions of all editors which offend your personal preferences are not only policy violations, but intentional acts of "disrespect" directed at you personally :-) Cindery 23:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that--in spite of the variations in indenting style by multiple editors throughout not only *all* of the EL discussions, but also the thread in question--that only my indenting style was deemed "offensive," and written about both on the EL talkpage and my talkpage, and that only JSmith was "offended": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Addition... Cindery 00:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm nearly 40 and J.smith is much more even tempered and laid back than I am. I think you would benefit from your own advice about being a dick. Your recent contribution to the YT RFC was an ad homien attack that was far from civil. Don't you think it would be more helpful to be constructive and help us find consensus rather than contributing to raising temeratures and entrenching positions? Spartaz 22:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus has already been reached, and it is against you. Given your previously gross bad faith regarding YT--my only other interaction with you, the ANI discussion in which you pretended not to have any ulterior motives--I'm going to have to tell you the only constructive action I can take regarding your attempt to bait or harass me/escalate/engage me ina hostile way on my personal talkpage is, obviously, to completely ignore you. (I have actually come to enjoy rejecting people who have come to my talkpage to harass me rather than be annoyed! :-) This is a content-over -community site; anything you say on my talkpage will be deleted and ignored. You are not welcome or invited;I have no interest in your opinions, insults, etc., nor do I have to feign interest: they are called boundaries. Get some. Cindery 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi saw you had tried to archive a chunk of the talk page. The "/archive1" bit is meant to apply to the suffix added to the page-name to be archived (the "/" denotes a subpage), not a new sction header titled "/archive1". The steps to be taken are:

1. create a new page User talk:Cindery/Archive1
2. cut that which is to be archived from this talk page (NB do this from the EDIT view of the page, not the displayed rendition, as one needs copy all the wikilinks and sytling across too)
3. paste into the archive page and save this and the pruned talk page
4. add tags to archive indicating what it is and links at top of this talk page to the archive (have a look at the edit summaries and edits)

Have a good festive season. Yours David Ruben ^Talk 03:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You are so kind--thank you, and happy holidays to you as well. (I'll only be off-break to deal with "Barrington emergency"/You Tube-RFC whatever...) Cindery 03:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick

I don't think the conversation between you and Nick is going to go anywhere soon and it will only irritate all involved. I think we can make progress if we focus on what is right, not on who is right, because at the end of the day, we are trying to get the best possible content available. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick is actively engaged in a course of conduct--acting in repeated, verifiable, bad faith, against consensus, and bullying "under color of authority"--I am one of the only people who is effective is calling him on his bullying, and will continue to do so, for the benefit of Wikipedia, as long as he disrespects community consensus, bullies, lies, etc. Meanwhile, it is past time for Barrington Hall to be unprotected, as it shouldn't have been protected in the first place. Are you personally involved in any way/know any of the "silent edit warriors"

Cindery 06:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

...interesting that you did not answer that question--it appears you voted for Nick in his RFA, so you certainly know him, at least:-) (How much time would you say you spend chatting with him on the IRC channel?) Also, I can't seem to find an official "request for page protection" for Barrington Hallanywhere--am I missing it? Is there an alternate explanation for how it is that you noticed and decided there was some problem necessitating page protection between 9:22 on Dec. 20--when Rory made the last edit--and 9:24--two minutes later-- when you protected it? Cindery 03:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cindery, feel free to take User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct; there's plenty of evidence of his incivility and abusive actions. I'll chime in if the RfC takes hold, but until then, I'm trying to get a general policy which will prevent future problems like the one which happened at Barrington Hall, and taking on Sir Nicholas is a distraction I don't need right now. Argyriou (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Arg: policy already exists. Use of YT is covered under extant policies and guidelines--they are violating extant policies and guidelines; that is the point. Only user conduct RFC--not just for incivility, lying, etc, but violating extant policy-- will change anything, since the policies/guidelines do not need to be changed. It takes two to file an RFC--I will start it, and then you have 48 hours to add re Mimsy. JSmith, as I noted at EL, told Mimsy to "drop it and move on," and Mcdevit is claiming on his own talkpage that he "hasn't done anything recently." Barberio has pointed out that they nevertheless continue to maintain and conduct the project in the same style--againt policy, guidelines, and consensus--but I think the user conduct RFC should focus on Mimsy (or that there should be three--one each for Mimsy, Smith, and McDevit).

Cindery 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am troubled by the fact that he is systematically going around to people's talk pages and removing comments that were made on them, pointing to an earlier version of Amarkov's talk page which he also has reverted, without any attempt, at least with me, of contacting the users whose talk pages he is violating. I don't know, and I don't care, who Simbirskin is or isn't. I know nothing about the specifics of whatever he was talking about. But I do know that an attempt was made to communicate with me, on my talk page, and an administrator tried to thwart it - without giving me any explanation or making any attempt to contact me, not even with an illuminating edit summary. I think this is abusive behavior by this admin, and I want to know if anything can be done. As I said, I don't know about the history and I don't really care - this is an incident in and of itself, and I think this is an admin who may be out of control. Thanks for any advice, and apologies for intruding here. Tvoz 21:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Tvoz, it is strange. Also completely unacceptable that NHN marked the edit "minor" on my talkpage--I didn't even look at it until you pointed it out. (Message is below.) He has no business deleting anything from your talkpage or mine, and especially not trying to prevent us from seeing criticism of him which someone else is trying to communicate. I will investigate further. (Furthermore, "asking questions" is NOT disruptive--it appears possible he may have some sort of personality disorder re controlling other people, and/or lacks the maturity to appropriately interact with others, and should definitely not be an admin/alienates productive editors and detracts significantly from the project. He seems to lack sufficient ego-integrity to withstand normal discussions. He interprets questions, and disagreement with him personally as intolerable "narcissistic injuries." I will support you in a separate user conduct RFC against him, if two--one for You Tube, one for deleting messages from others' talkpages--are necessary. Cindery 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Malber's block

Amarkov, I apologise to you, and to the community – which had put its faith in me. I made a problematic block, I accept it. You are a bold man, you act in good faith and voice your opinion. I respect your judgment. However, Malber has been consistently disrupting Wikipedia since a long time; and then gets away with a warning all the time. Have a look at his contributions, he has made it a point to test the process, toes the line of disruption. He is consistently uncivil and acts in bad faith. Check the history of his talk page – he has been warned for his behaviour umpteen times but never heeds them. I will try my best not to involve myself in further disputes with him; but frankly, I believe that someone needs to make WP:DIFFICULT blocks. What did he do after coming back from the block? Instead of waiting for consensus (I assumed there was consensus because all I saw was criticism for his behaviour), he continues to be disruptive and asks questions because he does not like teenagers. As far as I know he has been involved in disruption/trolling on the talk pages of Journalist, Rebecca (Rebecca blocked him for making libellous edits) and WAvegetarian. I do not understand why the community should accept such disruptive behaviour, when he has made it clear that he does not want to contribute to articles/maintenance and only disrupt and test the process to its limits. If there is something I can do to make it up with the community and you, I would do it. Apologies, again. — Nearly Headless Nick 05:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)"

To clarify one thing about the Lennon clips - what happened there is I asked him why he removed them - if he looked at them specifically, as it seemed that he was removing them without even checking, just because they were on You Tube - as if You Tube links are automatically removable per se. The last time I was actively reading the EL discussions they had moved away from wholesale deletion, and were more concerned that external links be integrated into an article, as illustrative of the text. These were, so I asked why he removed them. They were not gratuitous add-ons. I did not make any claim as to the copyright status of these clips because I don't know it, and I was merely asking what his reason for deletion was. (My position on that great debate, by the way, is that essentially it is you tube's responsibility to police themselves, not wikipedia's responsibility to police you tube - these are LINKS, not uploaded text, and we really have no way of knowing their status.) So I am still not stating what the Lennon clip copyright status is - I don't know - it may be different from the other case you mentioned, so you may not want to include it there. He did not say that he checked this clip and it was illegal; instead he responded in an insulting manner, without any answer to my reasonable question. And then the second part is his removal of material that was posted on my talk page, which I think is abusive and unacceptable. I just want to be clear about the Lennon - your example is apparently one where you know the copyright status and he is ignoring it and a stronger example to use. Tvoz 05:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Tvoz. It supports very strongly the user conduct issues, for Nick personally, and for the project-in-general: the way they are treating other editors is the problem, and a separate issue from their imagined "copyright" hysteria (about which there is already policy, guideline, and consensus). Any suspected copyvio should be noted on the talkpage of an article, with evidence/explanation given, per the wiki Copyright policy. Removing links on source bias and being rude to people presents two problems: first, the C violation, then, the civility/bad faith problem. Both are user conduct issues. Whether the link is a copyvio or not, per policy, they must present evidence on the talkpage, assume good faith, be civil, respect editorial discussion, etc.

Cindery 06:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Nick: plot thickens

THIS (below) is the message he wanted to prevent us from seeing. I think it is clear that there are grounds for desysop request per Nick on multiple grounds, from multiple parties. Cindery 22:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Hello Amarkov, I am deliberately keeping my anonymity for reasons you won't fail to see soon. User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is grossly abusing his admin privileges through his mindless and revengeful blocking. Some body wrote an abusive article on him in an attack site. He went into a fury over it and expressed his rage in very bad language on the IRC channel; I witnessed it myself. He suspects some users about that attack article and has been on a binge of blocking axing many users who don't have any connection with the affair. Please see this 1. Some of the accounts seem to be vandalism only accounts. But user:Dakshayani is an editor who has made some good edits. This abusive admin not only blocked her (without a warning or leaving a message) but also protected her talk page so that she wouldn't be able to ask for review. See his arrogant reply here. 2 When she made an another account (admittedly) to complain on the Administrative Notice Board, this admin again blocked her and reverted her edits there. See here 3 This admin who often uses foulmouthed language and who has been chided for that (for example by user:Malber) is running amok in his abusive course. I believe it is hightime he was stopped. Otherwise, he will disrupt WP more than any number of vandals or trolls could possibly can. I can assure you that this user also will be blocked and this comment reverted. But I am sure you will notice this message in the history. If you would kindly give this matter some consideration, I would request you to specifically enquire if user:Dakshayani and other alleged sockpuppets has an IP in common. Regards

Simbirskin 09:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)"

Yes - I believe that is the material that he removed from Amarkov's talk page (there may have been a bit more actually - I'll look), which Simbirskin had directed me to on my talkpage, except that Nick removed that direction from my talk page as well. I don't know anything about the content - all I know is that an admin abused editing privileges by removing a message to me on my page and didn't even attempt to explain why or communicate with me at all. That can't be allowed to happen by any editor, and the fact that he is an admin makes it ten times worse. Tvoz 05:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The excuse/rationale will probably be that Simberskin is a sockpuppet of a blocked user, all edits of the user/socks are supposed to be removed, etc. The facts that Nick himself did the removing, quite quickly, that the person tried to communicate with you and I, and that Nick used misleading edit summary/immediately apologized to Amarkov (while continuing personal attacks against Malber...) just means: he has something to hide/he's trying to cover up/do damage control. It appears that there is a tremendous amount of info to fold into RFC/Arbcom case against Nick. I will speak the Malber and Amarkov about how they would like to proceed, and you and I and Argyiou, Adam Stanhope, and the many other people to whom Nick has been extremely rude to/lied to on his talkpage and elsewhere re You Tube can go for whatever will desysop him in the most organized fashion.

Cindery 05:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'll be watching here. Tvoz 06:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

...it seems partly that of the sockpuppets of Kundan (Simberskin is accused of being one) that the checkuser revealed that they do not all live in the same city/have the same IP address, and therefore there is not sufficient evidence for a block on all of them as sockpuppets of Kundan. Simberskin, please email me with any more information about a wrongful block/sockpuppet or meatpuppet accusation which pertains to you, I have email enabled. (Love to see the attack page and the IRC freakout, too. :-) Mimsy's moronic/obscene/juvenile IRC chats should be read far and wide...the sheer witlessness is staggering. Most people can manage to be funny in juvenile/moronic/obscene mode, that's supposed to be the point. "bite b00bies" and "all wikipedia administrators have asperger's and gender issues"--that's just lame. Maybe his full-freakout is funnier, if only unintentionally?) Cindery 07:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Bite b00bies" - hmm, you know I'm beginning to feel like this is a hostile work environment for women . Maybe the EEOC will be interested in looking into it.... On a different note, on what policy page does it say that if an admin "finds" a sock puppet he/she is to remove all edits, including communications on user talkpages? I couldn't find anything that said anything about removing edits, I just found when to block. Oh no, it's 5AM again. Gotta stop these all-nighters. Tvoz 10:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Kuntan/Simbirskin

Curiouser and curiouser--it seems Simbirskin posted message to me at 9:32, and it was removed at 10:38. According to "suspected sockpuppets of Kuntan," Simbirskin was *confirmed* by checkuser as a sockpuppet of Kuntan, and yet I see no record on checkuser for Simbirskin--am I missing this somewhere? Who requested the checkuser, who performed the checkuser, how did it happen in an hour, and where is this explained? Also, the justification for Kuntan's initial block (by Nick) was "inappropriate username, designed to cause disruption"--and yet he was a productive, longtime editor--certainly his name was an issue prior to late September if it was an issue? And what is inappropriate about the username Kuntan, and where is this explained? Nor do I understand why the page of sockpuppets was nominated for deletion. Cindery 09:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing draft of user conduct RFC re Nick

Feel free to add anywhere; I assume some of these categories will end up combined; suggestions for diffs welcome.

• 1. Nick edits in bad faith

(You Tube project diffs--Barrington Hall, Lennon, etc--he deleted links when he knew they were legitimate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cindery#Barrington_hall )

• 2. Nick is rude, arrogant and uncivil. He prounounces that he has knowledge over matters in which he is actually ignorant, and tries to force his point of view on others when he is already aware they don't agree for legitimate reasons, which he ignores.

(Compare: "So, this is in fact the 1% of links to YouTube that do NOT violate copyright. My brother, Clark Morris, and I made this film in 1988. Clark just redigitized to remove the audio. The credits on the wall at the end of the film were written on my bathroom wall. Is there any mechanism to assert our permission to link to this? Cause this situation is getting a bit silly. Mahlen 18 November 2006" with: We do not live in a world of presumptions, Argyriou. AStanhope has claimed, can he produce evidence? Do you understand the legal consequences for facilitating copyright violations? Do you understand that the original copyright holder does a lot of work in creation of his work? He has a good amount of rights over what he creates. And the law of the land prevents us from using his work without his permission. I am a law student, and I know about the copyright laws. Please stop bickering on this topic, already. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 10:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)) Hard to believe Nick's response could come after the copyright holder made the preceding statement, and yet it is true. Nick deleted the link on Nov 10th, the copyright holder asserted permission explicitly on Nov 18th, and on Dec 18th, Nick returned to delete the link yet again...and to post the above nonsensical rant on the article talkpage. It is uncivil, exhaustive of community patience, reflects refusal to respect consensus both of consensus at the article talkpage and consensus at EL...and, most of all doesn't make any sense. Nick has opinions which he has translated in his mind into "facts," which he then attempts to unilaterally impose on situations, without regard for the situation, the people involved, policy, guidelines, reality--nothing. Hopefully this stark contrast: the copyright holder's statement v. Nick's rant makes the absurdity of his inappropriate behavior apparent.

• 3. Nick abuses admin powers

(Malber block, attempts on his own talkpage to intimidate people into agreeing with him re You Tube by telling them that disagreeing with him is "disruptive," and that all admins agree with him.)

• 4. Nick lies

(Claims consensus when he is aware it is against him, and falsely states that you Tube links are prohibited when he knows they are not; this relates to attempts to intimidate-as-admin, telling editors disagreement with him is "disruption" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington#Bitis_arietans_YouTube_link_removal and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington#Lennon and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington#Barrington_Hall)

• 5. Nick bullies
• 6. Nick refuses to respect consensus
• 7. Nick violates policy

(Blatant violations of Copyright policy, refusal to respect EL guideline consensus: contrast Nick's deletion of YT links on EL grounds, "removing per EL": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barrington_Hall&action=history with actual summary of YT consensus at EL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Youtube_clarification)

• 8. Nick is disruptive

(Continual deletions of the same valid You Tube links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington#For_the_life_of_me...; refusal to respect talkpage discussion and consensus, or guideline/policy consensus, or even the extreme minority to which he belongs re YT links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington#Sometimes_it.27s_time_to_dropit_and_move_on...) Cindery 22:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

DMCA

Hi Cindery. I'd suggest you contact the WikiMedia Foundation Attorney before starting any RfC over YouTube and Sir Nicholas and ask for his and the foundations opinion on removal of links to YouTube. Just because the link removed was to material not violating copyright, WikiMedia foundation has no way to know the copyright status of the work and there is a very good chance there are links at the end of the material to material which violates copyright laws. What a few of us are concerned about is WikiMedia Foundation being sued for contributory infringement, which is basically linking to material known or suspected of breaching copyright. Even the process of linking to http://www.youtube.com could possibly be classed as contributory infringement. Material people are happy to have on a WikiMedia site can be encoded in an Ogg format and uploaded with a suitable e-mail allowing permission which will be stored by the foundation. This doesn't just apply to YouTube, Google Video is as much of a risk.

Your arguments on Talk:Barrington Hall are factually incorrect, just because the author of a work doesn't "apply for copyright" does not mean the work is not covered under copyright laws, it is, the creator of the work still owns the copyright in the work and still has absolute control over how their work is used. Only if/when that copyright protection expires does the material truly pass into the public domain. The author can allow the material to be used in a specified manner, such as explicitly releasing into the public domain or allowing WikiMedia to use on their projects, but there is going to be difficulty in asserting ownership in something available on YouTube, WikiMedia again has no way to know if the person claiming ownership of the work for the purposes of allowing use by YouTube is the actual copyright holder. The problem many administrators and experienced editors encounter with material coming from Flickr, Photobucket, YouTube, Google Video and MySpace is that people are often mistaken about copyright, they often believe because they've copied the video from a DVD or created screenshots, they now own the copyright, something that's not the case. In this case, because asserting copyright and permission with this video, I don't think there's anyway we can really link to it unless the copyright holder can assert ownership and give permission for this video to be used here/on YouTube in a way that can satisfy the WikiMedia Foundation. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 10:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As Tvccs has pointed out on Nick's talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington#For_the_life_of_me...and at EL, Jimmy Wales has said the DMCA covers You Tube on Wiki. Get the Foundation attorney or Wales to make a statement in favor of the YT project--they've been silent, but oft-invoked by the tiny minority of deleters, to inflate themselves with self-importance. The completely idiotic "hypothetical civil case"--potential copyvio--being used to violate wiki's own copyright policy/procedure for suspected copyvios holds no water. In fact, the hypothetical civil case of libel--false accusations of copyvio when a copyright holder asserts permission--IS somthing to actually be concerned about. For example, if someone's copyright were being infringed, we would take a complaint from them seriously. When someone says their right to post under GDFL is being infringed and they are being libelled, we should take that seriously too--call up the Foundation lawyer. The actual fact is that any hypothetical cases of either kind, with no compliant, and which there are unlikely to be damages are cases no lawyer in the world would argue. But someone *could* get pissed off enough to sue, and that is more likely if they are being treated badly/their requests ignored re copyright either way. (Re B-town, I think you just completely misunderstood the disussion at B-town/it went over your head--read the last part between Arg and I....) Cindery 10:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also: you seem completely unclear on the concept re how manydiscussions I have already had about this--you need to read deep into the history at NOR/ANI/EL--everything that's already been said/follow my contributions, or just read EL--EL links to NOR and ANI discussions, and read also the JSmith project page discussion beginning with "Corrigan" to understand how way off you are re what you are saying to me. Cindery 10:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What's going on here?

Please explain your actions. I know you and Nick have disagreed on the EL issue, but what you've created now amounts to an attack page against User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington; to boot, you are inviting others somewhat inappropriately to this page for discussion. If you are going to file a user conduct RfC, file it, but this page is utterly inappropriate -- Samir धर्म 10:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

...it's a draft in progress, and as more and more info in the ongoing page in this discussion comes to light, it is becoming apparent that multiple parties will need to be involved/have concerns that need to be addressed. Malbe has laready mentioned just going straight to Arbcom with his own case, and want him to see/consider what is here/how to combine if necessary. There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussions/drafts preceding RFC/Arbcom. You, on the other hand, are a friend of Nick's/not at all a neutral party, and you are extremely transparent. Cindery 10:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on my transparency aside, I remind you that you've just been blocked for personal attacks directed against Nearly Headless Nick. This page doesn't look like an RfC at at all to me. It looks like a series of rather unsubstantiated attacks against someone who you have argued with. -- Samir धर्म 10:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, I hadn't noticed--could that have been another friend of Nick's, someone who voted for him in his RFA, who previously had zero to do with any YT or EL or Barrington discussion, and mysteriously appeared out of nowehere, perhaps following email or IRC, to so something questionable??:-) (Note my zero reaction, and how little I care, and how it will do nothing to stop the groundswell of righteous negative public reaction to Nick, which is coming from the community.)

Your opinion is 1) just your opionion 2) a biased opinion, as you are a friend of Nick's. As you can see, you are the only one who shares this opinion, and other people are saying, "file away, I will chime in/there is plenty of evidence of his incivility and abusive actions" and "I will be watching to see what is decided about how to file" after Malber, other people have a chance to respond. It is for the benefit of Wikipedia that the RFC/Arbcom case is discussed, organized, filed properly, rather than a messy slew of separate complaints. Cindery 11:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that you remove all personal attacks against Nearly Headless Nick from your talk page. You can continue discussion about any potential RfC or RfAr, but to call him moronic and witless is just not productive -- Samir धर्म 11:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that the term was "moronic/juvenile/obscene," and that it was not applied to Nick in particular, but to IRC chats in general, which--Wiki or not--I have always observed to have those qualities (uh, which they do). Note also that this is not asserted to be a negative thing, but that I state I find it funny. That I do not find Nick's IRC chats funny is not an NPA, it's my opinion about his actions. If he wishes he hadn't said "bite b00bies" and "all wikipedia administrators have asperger'sor gender issues"--not my problem. Cindery 11:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I asked you nicely to remove these clear personal attacks, and you've persisted with disruption. I've blocked you for 72 hours for disruption and ongoing personal attacks, and have asked that this be reviewed at WP:ANI. Thank you -- Samir धर्म 11:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The case will proceed against Nick, and how the YT project is conducted is still opposed by community consensus. It is possible that you will face some sort of bummer at ANI, as you are Nick's friend, acting-out in an argument with me in which you are not neutral, and clearly in the wrong--his actions were described. But, it doesn't even vaguely bother me. Clearly what this shows me is that it bothers him that he said "bite b00bies" and "all Wikipedia administrators have asperger's or gender issues," and now people know that's how he talks on IRC...

Cindery 12:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I'm not a fan of IRC at all either, nor am I a fan of bullies in general (not that I view Nick as one). But please, there are far better ways of approaching this issue then ranting about the man all over the place. I'll ask you again to please withdraw your comments -- Samir धर्म 12:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The comments you have referred are about his actions, not about him, and are hence not personal attacks. You are not neutral and should have sought another admin. I look forward to the ANI discussion. Cindery 12:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

...and it has been highly amusing--I love all the out-of-context stuff (and the exclusion of the disussion re "bite b00bies"...) Cindery 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

JSmith/Dmcdevit user conduct RFC draft

This is the illuminating link, beginning with "Corrigan" onwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J.smith/YouTube_Linklist#Corrigan_article_link. The false accusation of NOR, given uncivilly, should be addressed. It was followed by the report I made at NOR (in which he 1) didn't even try to argue that there was a NOR issue after making the accusation 2) did not apologize to the accused user for the false accusation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive15#YouTube_art_as_primary_source (Coversation continues on same page into "Proposed amendment." Note that:

• 1. It was discovered during the NOR discussions re You Tube Deletion Project that the technicality being used to mass delete was the EL guideline, which had been recently changed...

• 2...by Dmcdevit, without consensus, while the page was protected. When asked to revert the change he made out-of-process (by Barberio) he refused: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit/Archive15#Wikipedia:External_links Using the newly changed guideline, they immediately embarked on the mass deletion project, using "per EL..." in edit summaries.

• 3. Following the continuation of the NOR discussions to the EL talkpage, EL was promtply changed back/Dmcdevit change reverted per majority opinion (specific language excluding You Tube was removed, to reflect community consensus that there could be no blanket ban.)

The NOR discussions, along with discussions at EL, clearly demonstrate that JSmith et al were aware there 1) was public opposition both to the project and how it was being conducted/policy and consensus not in their favor and 2) there was public opposition to how complaints regarding valid links were handled/how other editors were mistreated/community editing was disrespected. In spite of this public opposition, the project, how it was conducted, and how editors with objections/community editing were treated continued unchanged.

Let's summarize:

• 1. there was opposition to project itself/how it was conducted--the project began without consensus, against established policy.
• 2. there was oppostion to how users with objections regarding valid links were treated/the disruptive effect this had on community editing at numerous articles. (When politely informed *by a copyright holder* that there was no copyright issue at numerous articles, JSmith, Mimsy, Dcmcdevit continued to delete the links about which they were aware there was NO copyvio, not merely links with suspected copyvio--that is a separate issue from the fact that the project was established and conducted without community consensus. (Although both are user conduct issues-- there is no policy dispute. Copyright policy is clear, and they made no attempt to change it/discuss changing it. They cited the EL guideline as standard justification, without consensus, and directly against consensus after it was made clear at EL that no one agreed with a blanket You Tube ban, that links should be evaluated by article editors on a case-by-case basis, via editorial judgement and consensus. The extremely troubling incidents are not the ones in which they deleted suspected copyvios (although there is opposition to that/they do not have consensus and are acting procedurally against both C and EL)--the extremely troubling incidents are the ones in which they continued to delete links they KNEW were NOT copyvios, and how they treated other editors/the community in the process (bullying, false accusations, etc--Dcmdevit's comments to Argyiou, JSmith's "NOR") and disrupted Wikipedia in violation of WP:POINT.

Cindery 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Evidence of Dmcdevit's incivility, failure to assume good faith, bad faith editing, attempt to bully Argyiou, and total failure to be objective (Argyiou gave a vandal warning in good faith for a YT "deletion without discussion" by the same person--Nick-- who deleted it again without discussion a month later, long after lengthy discussions which resulted in consensus that the link should stay, and reported it to ANI; Dmcdevit responded with inappropriate accusations of incivility to Argyiou, and refused to engage in civil discussion--or dicuss the matter at all-- himself (but instead participated in deleting the same copyright-validated link as Nick--at Barrington Hall-- a link he knew to be valid.):

No, don't expect anyone to heed you once I've given you a warning for incivility and your response is to repeat the very same incivility, and then even come here to point it out. Vandalism is a bad-faith attempt to harm the encyclopedia, not a disagreement over links. Stop it. Dmcdevit•t 04:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Dmcdevit deletion of link and edit summary: 22:36, 19 December 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) m (The problem is that it *doesn't* have any licensing information at all, so it would be deleted from Wikipedia.)

• Statement from Dcm that he "hasn't done anything recently," in spite of the fact that he is 1) maintaining a project page 2) has just deleted a link he knows is valid 3) made the above comments to Argyiou and 4) is aware that community consensus is against him but is not respecting that. Note in particular the contradiction between "I haven't removed any links for probably a few weeks" (stated Dec 20) and the deletion of a link on Dec 19.

Youtube

I'm going to ask you, again, to back off on your project to remove links to Youtube. You do not have community support on this, you are treading on people's toes, and generating resentment and anger. The consensus on External Links was against you on the way you wanted to handle this, and you really should respect that. --Barberio 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done anything recently. I haven't removed any links for probably a few weeks. I've made (just a little) calm discussion, and noticed a few people in particular responding with edit warring and unremitting incivility. Frankly, I'm a bit astounded you've decided to ask me to back off of anything. Sorry, linking to possible copyright infringements is still prohibited, but, even more perplexing, I'm not even involved in any project doing anything about it recently. Dmcdevit·t 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You still have your User:Dmcdevit/YouTube 'project pages' up urging people to delete the YouTube links listed. --Barberio 13:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• JSmith was aware that consensus was against how the project was conducted, and maintained it even during at RFC:

YouTube RfC

I've filed an RfC over the YouTube link issue. Argyriou (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Following on from the discussion taken on this, I strongly suggest that you take down or blank User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist. Next time you believe there to be an issue of this nature, you should first seek consensus a suitable location such as Wikipedia talk:External links, and not take steps that could disrupt the wiki. --Barberio 13:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Blanking this would stop encouraging people to delete Youtube links, and be taken as an indication of good faith and willingness to work with the community. --Barberio 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your methods *have* been brought into question. Continuing as you are is disruptive to Wikipedia, and a rejection of consensus editing. --Barberio 17:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

another Nick draft?

Or was this filed?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Argyriou/SirNicholas Arg, feel free to take my draft/diffs, weave into yours, and combine to file--I will let Tvoz know via email. Pls let Barberio and Bagadani and everyone at Nick's talkpage know so they can add diffs and comments. Cindery 01:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

From ANI:

Please note that the draft RFC that Argyiou and Cindery were working on — User:Argyriou/SirNicholas — "has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation" by Pilotguy (talk • contribs), with the comment "nonsense deleted". ("Nonsense"? Rather a POV comment on an RFC draft, isn't it?) I question the propriety of such a deletion; it amounts to denying the right to draft a user-conduct RFC. Argyiou, at least, has never been blocked, yet this seems very much like a disenfranchisement... and seems much too disturbingly similar to the "blanking content" sense of "vandalism", though I'll happily listen to anyone willing to persuade me otherwise. – SAJordan talkcontribs 17:01, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

While I don't know what the page contains, I would like to say that there is a difference between a RFC draft and character assassination - and far too much of the latter happens in the guise of the former. . Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

(The page contained a list of actions to be brought at RFC--without commentary-- under headings "Does not understand policy," "Lies," "Harassment of other administrators" "Misuses blocks," with diffs supporting each heading. Only Arg and Malber had contributed so far. --Cindery 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

Neither do I know what the page contained (past tense), since only an admin can see deleted pages. But a draft in progress is not necessarily what will be posted (possibly many revisions later) as a finished product to RFC. If it did contain PA's, wouldn't the procedure be to warn the user to remove them from the document, rather than delete the entire document without warning or notification? Why the rush? Why the absence of communication to the user? Would it relate to the sequence of this and then this? – SAJordan talkcontribs 18:22, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Also please note the sheer irony: during a debate about whether admins are improperly deleting others' contributions and improperly using their power in content disputes to protect their preferred versions of pages — an admin deletes-and-protects an RFC draft on precisely that issue from the userspace of the spokesman for the other side. What better example could there be? – SAJordan talkcontribs 17:28, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

And please note that Pilotguy did not post to Argyiou's talk page: no warning, no request to change or delete anything, and no notification even after the fact. Was this due process? Is Argyiou being treated fairly? – SAJordan talkcontribs 17:35, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cindery

Following the results of this checkuser request, the block on your account has been re-started due to block evasion, and extended due to abuse of sockpuppets to game 3RR. The current block will last 92 hours. Luna Santin 10:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No amount of blocking bothers me--I have (obviously) ceased to see Wikipedia as a worthwhile endeavor, when I left in early Dec., and will only participate in effort to see Nick desysopped, etc --for the benefit of those who are not yet totally disgusted: the emails I get have made it clear to me that sane adults are relieved others are pointing out he's neither. (I also get emails from people saying that the repeated YT deletion project deletions of valid links by Spartaz, Dmcdevit, JSmith and Nick have just turned them off/made them want to just avoid Wikipedia, contributing their time and money, etc.)

But I did email Essjay regarding the checkuser, and he has not responded. For the record, it is in error: Mumblio and I are verifiably two different people. It's unlikely we would do anything about this other than laugh at you/make snide comments about Wikipedia at dinner parties in New York---but, Mumblio is a professional writer: published book author and journalist who has written for the NYT. (We joked last month that it would take 48 hours for either of us to get a book contract to ghostwrite the dread "Guide to Wikipedia politics for Marketers"-- and less than 48 hours to write it :-) Mumblio would totally do it for the right amount of cash--I, on the other hand, would have to be trapped on a long flight, very bored and high on xanax, with him egging me on, notepad in hand...

Cindery 17:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And, for the record, since Dmcdevit is claiming at ANI that Mumblio's statements should be ignored because he is an "abusive sockpuppet" (I missed that--when was he accused of being abusive?) and in case it comes up as an issue in the RFC/Arbcom case regarding Nick (and Smith/Dmcdevit), here is evidence that it is a disputed allegation:

• 1. here is a copy of the first email, which Essjay has ignored so far:

Copy of your message to Essjay: Wikipedia e-mail Inbox

 Cindery <redacted> 	Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 2:37 AM 

To: Cindery <redacted> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Trash this message | Show original

Mumblio is a man named <redacted>. (he has a Wiki article.) I am, obviously not him. Would you like him to email you as well? Thanks, C

(Sam Blanning and I have traded emails, and he can certainly attest to Essjay that I have consistently had the same name/email address, and that it is not the name or gender of the person known as Mumblio, who is notable.)

• 2. A second email was sent, with personal identifying information indicating Mumblio is another person, and asking on what grounds the checkuser was confirmed, and also ignored.

• 3. Mumbio has requested unblock on his talkpage, and been ignored: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mumblio#Blocked. The blocking admin, Luna Santin, has been active on-wiki since Mumblio posted his request, but has not responded.

It should be noted--and will be noted unless it is reversed-- that the checkuser and the block of Mumblio have been disputed/are in dispute, in any matter in which it is claimed that he is a sockpuppet (which he is not), and that no due process is being followed regarding the disputed allegation.

Cindery 03:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Page protected

Cindery, sit out your block and stop blogging on this page. It's disruptive and not helping anything. The page will be unprotected when the block is completed -- Samir धर्म 05:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

violation of blocking policy

Nick block of Kuntan should be added under the "violation of blocking policy" category here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malber/Draft

with these diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)/Archive_8#Your_unwarranted_remark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Deepujoseph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tintin1107/Archive12#You_are_wrong.21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names (scroll to last issue, "Kuntan prematurely deleted")--see below instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Kuntan

Cindery 23:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Candidate_pages

You need to sign in the certification section. It takes at least two to get it started. I'm going to solicit User:Alkivar's certification since he added most of the AfD evidence. —Malber (talk • contribs) 05:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC- abuse of administrative powers

I am User:Dakshayani. I was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of a blocked user Kuntan by an administartor against whom you have filed an RFC. There was no evidence in support my block and no justification for the block. The following facts can be verified.

1. I have never been warned for using abusive sockpuppets, engaging in meat puppetry, edit warring, disruptive behavior, etc.

2. No user ever listed me as a suspected sockpuppet of any other user in the WP:SSP

3. No user ever showed any valid reason to suspect that I am a sockpuppet of User:Kuntan.

4.I have never been confirmed to be a sockpuppet of User:Kuntan or related to any of his confirmed sockpuppets.

5. I have never been confirmed to have been a sockpuppet of any blocked user.

6. I have never been confirmed to have used any sockpuppets before my block.

7. I Was not notified of the block on my talk page as per WP:BP.

8. The blocking administrator did not give a reply to my unblock request.

9. My talk page was protected by the blocking administrator.

Since the protection of my talk page prevented me from appealing in any wikipedia forums, I created another user account and posted a message in WP:AN/I, which was soon removed as trolling. I was confised by the way administrtors try to protect each other. But everything was clarified when a user sent me this [[1]]. The situation here is exactly the same. User:Kuntan is bullied ,harassed and blocked. The user may have created some sockpuppets later to expose it. Now it is admitted that the block was not proper. So the block remains and reason is changed to trolling, a word used by wikipedia administarors to bully anyone, especially newbies, who criticise them. The fact that it was this unnecessary username issue which lead to all this is conveniently forgotten. Now any other user who raises this is branded as a troll or a sock puppet of Kuntan along with some accounts created just for the purpose of vandalism. The checkuser results are never published or do not exist in some cases. Anyway all those who oppose are sent to one big bag of Kuntan sockpuppets. The unblock requests and demands for checkuser reports or evidences are ignored. Here are some of my earlier posts.

[[2]], [[3]] Dakshaaayani 08:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your response on RFC

I think we misunderstood each other - see [4]. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

See my message on the RfC

|See Kundan After Sundown 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Indenting

I realise that you have already indicated that you do not care about the fact that your failure to indent makes it extremely hard for other editors to follow threads you have posted in clearly, but I also find your failure to indent your signature very distracting. Would you mind if I went round and did the indenting for you? It would make the editing process for myself and other editors easier. --Spartaz 19:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sig

Your sig seems to be formatted so that it puts it on a new line without any indenting. This makes it a little harder to follow conversations on talk pages, can you please adjust this? --Barberio 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I added a comment about your user-page on the administrator's noticeboard. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Threatening_language_on_user_page ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop it.

Do not blank that section again. There is no violation of WP:BLP there whatsoever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been reverted by numerous editors. Please stop removing the message, as it has violated no policy whatsoever. Continuing to remove other's posts may and will result in a block. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He needs to rewrite it sans speculation about a relationship, and use direct quotes. Please see the relevant ANI and RS discussions.-Cindery 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Which discussions justify removing other peoples comments? Give links please. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See above message with link, at FYI, and the Barrington Hall request for comment at the bottom of RS talkpage -Cindery 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is only your speculation. You need more proof than that. Removing other's posts, even those that disagree with you, is incivil and is grounds for a block. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the relevant discussions at ANI and RS. (It won't be hard for Milo to rewrite his comments without speculation, and I don't see why he will not. I do not think he has read the ANI and RS discussions...or the discussion at Barrington Hall very carefully. That is the problem, really. He is disruptively editing the article and refuses to read discussion, even when he is asked politely.)-Cindery 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He can (and probably should) rewrite it, yes, but removing it is not a polite way to tell him to do it. Removing comments might turn the incivility accusation onto yourself, and is very irksome to everyone. I guess you can make a post below his message asking him to rewrite it, but please don't edit-war over it, as you can be then blocked for disruption. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I sent him a very polite message, someone else also asked him to rewrite it...-Cindery 22:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Polite or not, the message you sent was after you deleted my post...so that didn't really give me much opportunity to rewrite it. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I sent the message at the same time, and sent you a second message. You continued to restore your version without a rewrite. I also warned you very politely before I reported you to ANI, and you responded by blanking the section again, without discussion.-Cindery 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC) + Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Actually, Milo didn't restore it once. Why don't you check your facts before sounding off about what other people have done? Spartaz 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) He did not rewrite it, is the point. (And still has not.) And more importantly, his response to a polite warning to stop blanking the section without discussion was to blank the section again without discussion.-Cindery 23:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No the point is that you accused another editor of doing something that they didn't and when it was pointed out that you were wrong you declined to acknowledge that you had been mistaken. Spartaz 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC) I just reread your bit. Are you talking about Barrington Hall or ANI? If its the former I misread your comment and apologise. Spartaz 23:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for apology.-Cindery 23:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is Girondin?

Hmm, seems he has only made three edits, all to Barrington talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Girondin Cindery 18:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's me. I had created the account a while back, for use editing articles which could identify me in real life (eg my high school, college, hometown, etc) but never used it. At the time I posted on Talk:Barrington Hall, I was unwittingly signed in as User:Girondin rather than User:MastCell. Apologies for any confusion, and I'm happy to switch the sig on edits in question (to link to User:MastCell) or to tag User:Girondin with a link to User:MastCell. MastCell 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you used your sock account solely for the purpose of wikistalking/harassment. Cindery 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyone can review the contribution history you linked above and draw their own conclusions. My intent was to correct your mistaken impression that "Nearly Headless Nick" and "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" were two separate accounts, as it was clear that "Nearly Headless Nick" was just the sig used by Mimsy-Porpington, both being derived from the Harry Potter books. My intent was to point out the error in a neutral way. I probably should have just kept my mouth shut and let you persist in error, especially given that we haven't seen eye-to-eye in the past, but I can't rewind the clock now. The comment about "self-congratulatory reminiscences" was inappropriate and uncivil; all I can do about that at this point is apologize - and you have my apologies for that comment; it was out of line. I did review the WP:SOCK policy prior to creating the account, back in November, and it seemed legit to create an account for use to edit articles that could identify one in real life, although I still haven't gotten around to this. The comments on Talk:Barrington Hall were left with the User:Girondin account in error, as I explained above. As I said, I'm happy to clarify that they were my comments in whatever way seems reasonable. Unfortunately, I can't rewind the clock and leave them from User:MastCell, but I'm happy to do whatever else seems appropriate to link those comments, or the User:Girondin account, to User:MastCell. Alternately, you're well within your rights to submit my actions for review by the community if you so desire, and I'll accept their judgement. MastCell 22:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

As you are aware, I have already expressed alarm that you wikistalked me to Depo Provera and Dalkon Shield following an argument at Emergency Contraception, where you remained wholly fixated on me (70+ personally-directed argumentative posts only in response to me on the talkpage, zero research on the article, while I remained focused on improving the article--contributed 58 citations=half the research for the article...) "Didn't see eye to eye" is gross distortion--there are diffs to support accusations that you wikistalked and harassed me, and made personal attacks I did not report. Consequently, I completely avoid you. For you to then create a sock account and use it only to make inflammatory comments on the talkpage of an article where I returned as a regular editor and you have never before made a contribution appears to be very clear use of a sock to harass/wikistalk in the worst faith possible. What is creepy beyond-the-pale to me is that you were harassing/wikistalking someone who left articles in order to avoid you/was very actively avoiding you. Cindery 23:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Cindery, there is a huge difference between using a sock to try to prevent conflict and using one to harass. Calm down, step back and look at it objectively if you can. Don't throw gasoline on a fire - seek to de-escalate rather than escalate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

By his own admission, he made a comment which was "inappropriate and incivil"--that is using a sock to harass, not to "prevent conflict." Cindery 23:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your constant accusations, I made it very clear awhile back that I was responding to a request to ClinMed for 3rd opinion, not "wikistalking" you, on Depo/EC - an attempt to de-escalate which you deleted from your talk page, calling it "further harassment" (while leaving your unfounded accusations behind). OK. I "wikistalked" you to Dalkon Shield??? Look at the edit history: I've made zero edits and one talk page comment there, which you actually thanked me for - yet you now claim that interaction as evidence of "wikistalking", and claim I'm acting in bad faith. Our interactions at Talk:Emergency contraception and Talk:Depo Provera are a matter of record which I won't belabor further, other than to say that your perception of our interaction does not match mine. About the Girondin account - as you can see from the logs, I created it quite some time ago. It was not created in order to harass you, or to participate in a YouTube discussion or Talk:Barrington Hall, about which I care very little. It was created for the reasons I stated above. About my incivil comment - it's there for all to see. I apologized, and I'm sincere that if I could withdraw that particular comment, I would. It was made in a moment of weakness; I'd just ask that it be viewed in the context of the whole of my participation in Wikipedia, which I don't believe has been characterized by incivility. I stand by the fact that my input on Talk:Barrington Hall was intended to clear up a misunderstanding, and I think the record bears that out. But like I said, I have nothing to hide, and you're well within your rights to submit my actions for review by the community, whose verdict I'll accept. MastCell 23:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the diffs exist to support accusations of wikistalking, harassment, and personal attacks by you towards me prior to your use of a sock account solely for the purpose of harassing/wikistalking me: I am making it clear that a long history preceded your use of a sock to wikistalk/harass. Also clarifying that I completetly avoid you and all articles you edit, whereas you have created a sock to harass/wikistalk me at an article you do not edit. Cindery 00:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A) the account was not created to harass you, b) the account was not used to harass you (see KillerChihuahua's comment above), c) further discussion here seems fruitless, as you seem determined to amplify rather than de-escalate the issue at hand. If you truly believe that punitive action against me is warranted, then you're familiar enough with Wikipedia to know the avenues open for you to proceed. As soon as your blocks for incivility, personal attacks, disruptive editing, and abusive sockpuppetry expire, please go ahead - I'd welcome scrutiny from the community as opposed to further vague insults and accusations. MastCell 00:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll begin compiling diffs/summaries for regular readers of this page, so your recent harassment-only sock account has context.

1. On Nov 3, approximately 20 minutes after an argument with me at the Emergency Contraception talkpage, during which I pointed out they you were verging on personal attacks, and reminded you that "Wikiedia is not a battleground" and I was not your "opponent": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emergency_contraception/archive2#abortion_rates_as_measure_of_efficacy, you began editing Depo Provera, an article you had never edited before. You claim you noticed it on ClinMed--but the ClinMed notice was quite old (almost 24hrs previous) and you did not reply to the issues raised on ClinMed. What was *new* is that I had posted on Nov 2 to another editor at EC that Depo and Dalkon Shield were articles I cared a great deal about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfruh#PP--I believe that was the motivating factor. At Depo, you immediately breached civility and engaged in edit warring--in less than 2 hours, you were up to 2 reverts each on two different subjects. You asked for an opinion from another editor (whose stated opinion on the matter on the talkpage agreed with your own) about a content dispute, and mentioned that you believed you might be getting "more argumentative" than you should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davidruben#Your_opinion The editor confirmed that you were more argumentative than you should be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Depo_Provera/Archive_1#Breast_cancer_risk I do not think you were asking for his opinion on your behavior, however, but rather hoping he would side with you on in the content dispute (again, a matter in which his previously stated opinion agreed with yours). When he did not side with you, but criticized your behavior instead, you asked him again for his opinion about the content. He was silent. I wrote to him that I hoped he wouldn't think I would be personally offended if he agreed with you and disagreed with me, but that I would be taking a break from the article because I was concerned that you might have been wikistalking/importing your anger from one talkpage over to another, and I didn't want to feed disputes that were personally motivated/I thought other editors should debate the content disputes to avoid content-disputes-that-are-actually-personal-conflicts, and that maybe requesting more input via noticeboards was a good idea, if he was worried about giving his opinion during a POV imbalance in my absence.

You then accused me of personally attacking you by writing to him, and began long posts to my talkpage. I asked you to stop, and to disengage, and you refused. The other editor informed you that suspecting someone of wikistalking is not a personal attack.

It is certainly not unreasonable to suspect or accuse you of wikistalking for choosing to follow someone immediately from one article in which you are having a conflict, to another, which you have never edited before, where you edit war, are uncivil, etc--it looks like wikistalking and harassment. (An example of an unreasonable accusation of wikistalking/harassment, I think, is the accusation made against Malber, for participating once in an article which Nick also edits (commented on an Afd?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malber#Before_this_becomes_a_serious_matter--but take note of the precedent for a threshold of suspicion. Once it is clear that you and so-and-so don't get along/are having a dispute, following them to any articles they edit and you never have appears suspicious. A good defense is not "I saw the article on a noticeboard"--a good defense is, I was extra civil and cautious, due to the previous/ongoing argument with <whomever>, because I wanted to improve the article in some way, and wanted it to be clear that that's all I was doing. By your own admission (and in the opinion of the person you consulted for outside advice) you arrived at Depo for the first time already angry: uncivil, edit warring etc. It gave me the creeps, and my response was to leave the article. Cindery 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Permalink to relevant discussion on WP:AN/I. It seems to me that this should resolve the matter. If you think not, then you should probably bring it to WP:AN/I, too (don't try to edit starting from the permalink, though. If that discussion is still there, you can place your remarks in the discussion. If not, then, so people can tell what you are talking about, either find the appropriate discussion in the archives and reference it, or simply include the permalink in your remarks. - Jmabel | Talk 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Link to ANI report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mastcell_wikistalking-Cindery 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

BDJ

Badlydrawnjeff is an inclusionist process wonk who dislikes me. He regularly reviews my contributions and attempts to make my life worse. Ignore him. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI

[5] =( BobDjurdjevick 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

re:Dumb question

Redirect just means if someone searches for A they are redirected to B, right? (Is there ever a merge without redirect? I'm not concerned with JD , but with understanding AfD. So if I ever vote on anything again, I will know what my vote means. :-) I guess specifically, I want to know, is there a difference between "merge" and "merge and redirect" or are they the same thing?-Cindery 23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly valid question... Yes, a redirect automatically forwards someone to a different page. You can create a redirect with the code: #REDIRECT [[Article Name]] Yes, a merge can be done without a redirect, but that's fairly rare. (typically, if an article closes as "merge" the old page title gets redirected) A "Merge and delete" means that the person doesn't think the redirect would be useful to people searching for the article... but in this case it would be quite useful for someone searching for Jane Dark to be sent to the right article.

Just to confuse the issue a little more, sometimes a debate can be closed as "redirect" witch means that there wasn't anything worth moving to the other title. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--I think I get it. :-) So in this case, what I want to do is change my vote from merge to "merge and redirect," right? (One more question--everyone says, "AfD is not a vote," but that means overall for the purpose of making a decision to close? Or is it a faux pas to refer to one's own--or anyone else's--"merge" "keep" delete" statements as votes? Is there a preferred term?)-Cindery 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the whole "not a vote" thing is kinda sticky. The idea is that the AFD process is to attempt to build consensus for a course of action. In actuality we use a concept called a "rough consensus" based on the strength of the arguments. If twelve people "vote" to keep an article and one person "votes" to delete the article then the twelve keeps are most likely to "win"... unless that one person's argument is strong enough to brush away all the other "vote"rs. (For example, if the article is a direct copyvio or it's a hoax). The admin is expected to weight the merits of both arguments with the weight of support for each side. 3/4ths of the AFDs are unanimous, so most of the time it's not a big deal.

The most typical term is "!vote" with the "!" before the "vote" part. In some programing languages the "!" means "not" so the "!vote" shorthand was born. Most people recognizes it's an "informal ballot" and not a real vote, but there isn't really a better word then "vote" to describe the action. So.. ummm I hope I wasn't too confuseing? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you--that was really helpful.-Cindery 08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you ever have any questions about prossess, etc, let me know. Oh,Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/F@NB0Y$ might be a good example of the decision making process since the closing admin does a good job explaining. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That example looks fraught with "issues" and unusual circumstances, to say the least. :-) I still don't really understand exactly why AfD is "contentious." From what I can tell, it seems that there is an inclusionist/deletionist tension, some general "competitiveness," which AfD process seems to attract, and some compounded anger over the perceived "arbitrariness" of AfD from some people in general? To some people, it looks partially like a crapshoot--depending on when an article is nominated and who votes/argues the same article could be kept or deleted? If I have summarized incorrectly, pls advise. General insights appreciated--I'm really not interested in 1) anything in particular there 2)participating there. Advice for negotiating the minefield in case I ever have to vote/participate on a random occaison again is what I'm looking for.-Cindery 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

AFDs usually go though smoothly. Most AFD aren't contentious... but some people take the whole process very personally. Understandably when its your hard work that might end up being deleted. Or if the subject of the article shows up and takes the entire debate to be a question of thier importance as a person/business/band/etc.

Yeah, AFD is sometimes a little bit of a crap-shoot. 8 different people can look at the article and all miss one key peace of information that might have swayed thier opinion one way or another. The good news is that AFDs are never a permanent ban on that topic having an article and just to complicate things any AFD can be appealed though WP:DRV.

My general impression of AFD is a positive one. Our "bar" for inclusion here at wikipedia is so so low. We require very little to justify an article on wikipedia. The idea of unlimited storage has let us widen our scope to almost anything. AFD is the attempt to judge an article against that really low bar. The difference between the "deletionists" and "inclusionists" is just how low that bar should be... It's not that the deletionists want to limit our scope to Britannica topics, it's just a matter of inches one way or another when our bar is miles lower then a print pedia. "Deletionist" vs "Inclusionist" is more often a false delema. It's realy a scale of interpriation with most people falling somewhere in the middle. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what DRV is--I read Nick's RfC :-) I guess what you haven't answered is: why do some people "take the whole process personally." But perhaps it is an unanswerable mystery or rhetorical question. (Why AfD and not everything, though?)-Cindery 07:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR at Barrington Hall

I just wanted to point out that you've reverted the article three times, if you revert again, you may be blocked per WP:3RR. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for one week [6]. -- Steel 18:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I appeal that on the grounds that your stated reasons aren't accurate, I think. Can you explain in more detail? Perhaps it was confusing because immediately after Milo, Localzuk reverted the graffiti, J.Smith and David D. began to convert the ref format without consensus, and refused to observe the WP:CITE guideline. Thanks,-Cindery 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, there was a general consensus to change the ref format. -- Steel 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the first major contributor, and in a dispute WP:CITE states that the format used should be that established by first major contributor (also, I clearly outlined the good reasons for using a full citations in a ref list/with embedded links for quotes rather than footnotes for whole article on the talkpage).-Cindery 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with J.Smith. The WP:CITE guideline does not give you the ability to overrule the rest of the talk page. -- Steel 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE = Guideline, WP:OWN = Policy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor."--WP:CITE is clear on how to handle disputes regarding format. It does not state: "this is overruled by policy in 'x' circumstance."

J.Smith, as I have pointed out, you need a WP:OWN argument. Just because I have source knowledge and background knowledge of the subject and you do not does not automatically mean I have "owned" the article. I have edited the article with an eye on the POV issues (depicting Barrington accurately but not too negatively, and trying to include decades other than the 80s, although that is when it got the most press.) In addition, I have been happy to agree to delete things like the word "classic" from the graffiti section title, etc. You participated in an edit war and protracted battle to delete the You Tube link from the article during your You Tube deletion project, however...-Cindery 18:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Please read the policies. A policy is something that in normal circumstances should be followed. A guideline is one which advises as to good practice. ie. Policy trumps guideline.

Now, onto the issue at hand. Please can you explain how having non-inline references helps to aid a reader in discovering the source of information? For an article to reach featured status it must contain inline references. This is a fairly good indicator that inlines are the norm and are expected across the site.

I will warn you again - assume good faith. Your persistent comments about the YouTube discussion are childish and irrelevant. The editors involved were involved for their own reasons (looking back at it, most were worried about copyright issues and some were worried about reliability issues) so comments regarding their stance in that discussion just weaken any arguments you come up with and make people dismiss you as a troll quickly (rightly or wrongly, I have no opinion, this is just what will happen - I have seen it happen with dozens of editors who won't assume good faith).-Localzuk^(talk) 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• In additon, Steele, 1) you have blocked without warning 2) I did not violate 3RR 3) you haven't clarified what you mean by "misreprenting" or "lying" 4) WP:CITE is relevant (and no "own" argument has been offered).-Cindery 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Also: I requested page protection, twice, in good faith, because there is not consensus at the article (and those opposed refused to continue discussion.)-Cindery 18:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Six people agreeing and one person resisting that agreement do not a lack of consensus make. Per our policy on consensus It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice. Hope that helps. Steve block Talk 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • • The numbers aren't 6 to 1; it's unclear what you are referring to; and you have not answered my direct questions. I have just emailed you. -Cindery 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (this was meant for Steel, not Steve--my mistake).

discussion with Steel

Cindery,

1. You continually reinserted the blog link which several people object to on WP:RS grounds and, later on, continually converted the references back to the old style when several people tried to change them into inline citations. That is disruptive, hence the block. I have not mentioned the 3RR anywhere, but since you bring it up, by my count you made three clear reverts and a couple of semi-reverts.
2. At the time of writing this, there have been 97 edits to the talk page today [7]. Please stop claiming that people are refusing to discuss this with you, because that's simply false.
3. Like with the 3RR, I have not mentioned WP:OWN anywhere either. Again, claims that we "need a WP:OWN argument" are false. We don't. As I said before, the first contributor thing in WP:CITE does not give you the ability to overrule an entire talk page worth of consensus.
4. You have a nasty habit of saying things like "other editors are edit warring" and "other editors are not respecting consensus". The simple fact is that it's you that's edit warring and you that's not respecting consensus. I don't know whether this just hasn't occurred to you, or whether you deliberately say things like this to make others look bad, hence the "at best... at worst..." in the block summary.
5. You said in your email that you gave good reasons to keep the old style of reference them. Perhaps you could repeat them here, because I can't find them.
6. Please stop making a separation between "regular editors of the article" and "editors who were ... only involved in this article during a previous dispute about the You Tube link".

-- Steel 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re refs: the first mention is in a conversation between me and J. Smith (after he fact-tagged and templated almost every section in the article...): "I think it's more elegant and useful to leave the Green Book as a general ref, instead of citing it 30 times in the article.-Cindery 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"-Cindery 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• And again today: 1) There hasn't been consensus for inline cites--I like the refs better as a list due to the to Green Book; many articles have lists of refs instead of innline cites. See every other USCA article, for example.-Cindery 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 2)"They don't all have to be cited inline (particularly if they would be cited a lot, or are not available online). Per policy the original editor to use ref format gets to choose--as I have cited as links not footnotes, that would be me."-Cindery 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 2) There are two objections 1) the format for inline cites of quotes will be links, not footnotes, per me. 3) not everything needs an inline cite, esp. as the Green Book would have to be cited so many times, is not paginated in its online form, and many of the sources are newspaper sources which aren't online, so inline cites for them wouldn't be to links."-Cindery-Cindery 20:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC) And I quoted WP:CITE: "Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor."
• You have stated that you "agree" with J. Smith, who quoted OWN to my citation of cite (even though he acknowledged CITE on the talkpage.) Perhaps that was ambiguous, and you did not mean OWN--so, on what policy basis do you believe that cite is not relevant? (CITE, unlike many guidelines does have a clear stiplulation about how disputes are resolved--the format is that of the orignal major contributor).-Cindery 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Re ref format and "an entire talkpage of consensus"--there was not consensus, there was some acknowledgement per CITE we should use the original method. Per WP:CON:"the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues" it is often difficult for all members , and "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." So I'm not sure what you mean by "consensus" here.-Cindery 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re: "Several people object on RS grounds": according to J. smith: "Actually, we simply don't accept the source as reliable. It has been discussed in length. We looked at it under the suspicious circumstances is showed up in and judged it invalid. "---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC) "Suspicious circumstances" are not an element of RS, but of opinion, which was deemed "beside the point" at ANI yesterday (with a very uncivil, admitted un-AGF title): [8]-Cindery 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re: Discussion v. number of talkpage posts--they don't correlate. Most of the posts from last night and today are arguments for and against continuing discussion, not discussion of the source on its merits, or RS. Note that I pointed out to you that Milo rejected discussion with doesn't "dignify a response":[9] He also stated that "engaging in discussion to gain consensus" "takes the cake"...but that is precisely how consensus is supposed to be determined. This is from discussion yesterday (note that he did not reply with a summary of pro/con):

I have repeatedly asked who besides Cindery and Astanhope thinks the list should remain, and have received no response. I think consensus is clear, any idea when the article may be unlocked? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC) No, there is not consensus, and the three regular editors of the article agree that the graffiti list should stay. Perhaps it would help if you summarized what you believe are the pro/con arguments (or at least the con argument(s). There hasn't even been consensus from the "objectors," but moves to objection under different grounds: "well if it's a reliable source, then the author is not the author," "if the author is the author, then the list is trivial" etc, which evinces an overall IDONTLIKEIT objection, which is not a valid objection.-Cindery 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The post in question, in context: [10]. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re "nasty habit"--can you please point out to me where in the graffiti discussions I had a "nasty habit" of accusing anyone of edit warring or not respecting consensus? (I have pointed out that there was disagreement/two groups and hence not consensus). And this was my response when there was esclation from fact-tagging the section to blanking it, before I made an ANI complaint and the page was protected: "Hmm. I don't understand why a section was blanked without discussion? As the same person affixed fact tags to each item in the section, agreed with someone else to wait for sources, agreed that one of the items was not disputed at all, and there is both a new reference and an ongoing discussion about it, it doesn't seem helpful or constructive to me.-Cindery 08:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)-Cindery 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can you specifically state what you mean by "lying"?-Cindery 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

no warning, no policy basis, admin doesn't reply to email

Decline reason:

Block is justifiable -- Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

RFCU

I have opened another checkuser on you here. --Spartaz 10:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your current block

Please read this thread on ANI and respond here. MartinDK 12:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Every word Nick says is a lie, including "and" and "the." He's just vindictive because I filed an RfC against him last month: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington

I have never followed any of Samir's edits or edited any article Samir edits, but I did recently discover what looks like his little sockpuppet army at this page [11] [12] [13] [14] (because I follow Blnguyen's admin log somewhat ever since he protected Barrington Hall without a request for page protection):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Research_Council_of_Canada

sockpuppets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roytoubassi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jack_Stanley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J.Stanley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Barry_Zuckerkorn

-Cindery 14:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that this IP was also a sockpuppet, on the same page, unless it was a login failure: 205.211.160.1 (5 sockpuppets in one short discussion...)-Cindery 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And here's an interesting little interaction: User:Roytoubassi changes another editor's comments:[15], and a real editor explains to him that he can't do that/must revert:[16]. The reversion is made...and then Samir undoes it sometime later:[17].-Cindery 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have some kind of official reply you would like to be placed in the ANI thread? I can copy it over for you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmhmm--include everything above, and this thread from a mere two weeks ago, in which you opine about your non-neutrality, and Nick's: [18]-Cindery 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you want incivility as part of your official response? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand it's embarassing for you to juxtapose your outrageous personal attack with evidence of your self-admitted bias following the You Tube/External Link dispute, especially because it contains a link to the Foundation statement that you were "lazy and paranoid," and that editors needed to "actively resist."-Cindery 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Samir's "phonecalls" have absolutely nothing to do with me, as I made clear above when I said "everything Nick says is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'" In addition, I think Samir's claim of phonecalls fails the smell test-- anyone who received harassing phone calls at work would report it to their employer and to the police, so the phone lines could be monitored/calls traced--not advertise it on Wikipedia. And they certainly wouldn't delete emails, which could be used as evidence/aid an investigation. He very conveniently has no evidence for his claim (a rather dramatic one, which conveniently moves focus off of his sockpuppetry and COI editing with perfect timing).-Cindery 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mumblio Speaks!

I've kept up with the abortion page, Cindery. If things were this rough on the boxing page, there would be blood in the streets! I may be young in the ways of Wiki - before two days ago, the only sock puppets I'd heard of were in WHAT ABOUT BOB - but I am sadly experienced in the ways of the world ('for he who increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow.'). However, it looks like things are moving in a good direction. I think I'll go back to the page and do some proofing and a bit of copy-editing post-consensus.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mumblio (talk • contribs) 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)