User talk:Doc9871

Your CEDU edits

I have moved the contributions of two editors (75.54.92.32 and Doc9871) within the article to the Influence section. While the information may be true, Cascade School was not a CEDU property. In addition the information was not sourced. If you wish for the information to remain part of this article you will have to cite sources, otherwise I will delete it after a reasonable period of time.I ♥ ♪ ♫(talk) 04:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - responded on the talk page. Doc talk 08:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

When you get a chance, even your talk page lurkers are welcomed

Hi, I'd like opinions on the last dozen + addition to serial killer if you or your lurkers wouldn't mind. Something seems off to me but I can't put my finger on what it is that feels off in this article. I could definitely use another opinion(s) on this. Thanks is advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. The statements are hinky and not well supported. Would consider a rollback and a proper researcher ;-) to work on this. Needs work for sure. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it - may take a few, as I'm still jazzed from seeing Ray LaMontagne in Central Park a few hours ago. The guy is freakishly good - check him out on YouTube. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Waaaay cool! xo — DocOfSoc • Talk • 19:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. As you are aware, I'm not up to any serious work right now. Hopefully RL will improve. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it. Be well. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink unblock

Just so you know, I'm not one of those folks that don't believe in civility blocks at all, I just think this one in particular was flawed. It's not that BD wasn't being rude, but there was no warning to stop or be blocked as is normal with civility blocks, and the situation was under discussion at WQA, which is specifically not a place where blocking is an option. Combine that with the fact that Prodego gave three different explanations of why he issued this block, and it all looks pretty unjustified. Some civility blocks are warranted, this just wasn't one of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I wasn't commenting on your unblock per se; but rather what I've traditionally seen when it comes to questionable civility blocks in general. One admin reverses another, feelings get hurt on a different level. I personally think unless there's consultation with the blocking admin on a block with an unblock request that doesn't meet the spirit of WP:GAB, blocks should stand by principle until such a time. Politics can easily come into play, especially when the one offended is under scrutiny themselves. No point in "re-reversing" it, and no judgement call on you at all, as I know you to be a good admin. I see it all the time, often with no unblock request at all before the decision is made :> Doc talk 06:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

hey

You're right, I've been here a while. I'm not currently blocked. We have crossed paths before, though. Hope you're doing well. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but I really don't want to have to find out. Don't take WP:IAR too literally: it's a really terrible policy IMHO, and the fact that it's only one measly sentence long in its "description" should explain why. If you have a named account, stick to it. WP:DTTR like you did to Ncmvocalist, and good luck with your future endeavors. Doc talk 07:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I responded at Ncmvocalist, but I'll reiterate here: WP:DTTR isn't policy. So... Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Ncmvocalist, you may be blocked from editing. . Kthnxbai. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(Groan). Doc talk 07:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, that's how I felt when you kept undoing my comment. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Care to tell me where we've crossed paths before, as you asserted above? My memory fails me sometimes in my old age... Doc talk 07:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't actually remember, your username just seems familiar to me.24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You seemed pretty specific that we had crossed paths before, though: not just that you recognized my username. You have no idea when that was at all? Doc talk 07:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, after a while, the years just start to run together. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, all I can tell you is that it's to your benefit to create an account, generally. I'm sure you've noted that IP editors get treated more "shabbily" than named accounts, and if you've had 12,000 contributions here and are proud of them, there's usually no reason to use random IPs to work here. Of course, there's no rule against it, and I've met quite a few truly good editors who wish to remain anonymous (as if creating a WP "handle" isn't anonymous in itself). Of course, many currently blocked and banned editors also use IPs to evade their sanctions, and when they announce how many contributions they have it often raises a few eyebrows, and certainly not just mine. If you're simply "retired" and chose to edit anonymously: bully for you. Not sure what else to say, as the jury's still out here. Good luck... Doc talk 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Please don't assume things that you have know knowledge about. I never once was harrassing or making Crohnie feel unpleasant or whatever you accused me of doing. We had an agreement a month ago on something and she forgot. I'm just reminding her, did I know she was sick previously? Yes. I told her I hope she gets better and by all means take her time. Fast forward weeks later she's collaborating with others and not me, so I posted a message. Did I know she nearly died three times? No. So why are you coming in making me look like the bad guy when she told me she would collaborate with me. I never once said anything like, "I don't care about your health you need to work with me now!" No. I never said anything like that, I wished me best wishes for her and her health. So again, this is between me and her. DeadSend4 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I do know the situation. I have known Crohnie for years, I watch both her page and the Cate Blanchett page, and your edit history shows that after over a month of not editing a thing you came and started in on her on that talk page and hers for not "collaborating" with you. How can she collaborate with you if you're not even editing at all? A look at the history of that page shows her making one edit to the article during the time you say she wouldn't work with you, and that was to revert some vandalism.[1] The last person to edit the talk page of the article in May was you, and the next person to edit it a month later was you.[2] How then, pray tell, are you seeing her collaborating with other people on that article and not you? I find that claim to be somewhat bizarre, actually. There is no deadline here, and she is certainly not obligated to seek you out even if she's been healthy as can be. She's accepted your apology, and she's a very good faith editor as always. Take your own advice and "...just lay off Crohnie girl", okay? Work on the article on your own terms as you see fit. Cheers... Doc talk 04:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that I am done for today. I tried to respond to the comments on my talk page. I think I was accurate in what I said but of course feel free to check out what I said. Thanks, talk soon, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not surprised at this response. I don't care how long you known this person, if she's your sister, bff, point is I was waiting for her to contribute to the article since she blocked me and accused me of several things. But I'm moving on and ignoring her. DeadSend4 (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I never blocked you or anything else of this sort since I am not an administrator. I asked you politely to use the talk page and talk to the active editors there. You chose to decide that I had to be the one to respond to your long posts. Your revision of the past doesn't work because in case you forgot everything is still in history just like what you said to me that Diannaa asked you to remove. Now cut the crap already because I am sick of it. I am getting stronger everyday right now and I don't need what you are trying to pull because I am not a meek little mouse who will take it. I am usually a very polite and calm editor who gets along with most everyone. You and I can still get along if you start being honest about everything. But anyways, I have archived the two sections on my talk page now. Hopefully we can leave the past in the past and go on from there. I hope so, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Hi Doc! I hope you are doing well. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad you're back, Crohnie! @DeadSend4: I'm not really surprised at your response either. Are you willing to explain how you came to the conclusion that she was working on that article with others and not you when that was clearly not the case? There is absolutely no evidence of it. I'm not an admin either. I assume you have a job, and that you have co-workers that you like to work with as well as others that you do not like to work with. Usually when no one wants to work with someone at a job, that person gets "fired". You can move on and work with others since WP is such a huge place: but bad habits are hard to break. Break those habits; and you'll find that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Crohnie, I know you can see the history and I'm sure you read it. How about you two move on? Thanks. DeadSend4 (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... you're the one who started all this, remember? You're the one who should be able to read their own block log and know who actually blocked you, right? Quit while you're behind. This is very possibly an issue of competence. Doc talk 05:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not behind on anything and could care less what you think, again, move on. DeadSend4 (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

We can go around in circles DOCtor, but I'm not here for that. But if you want to test me, test me. DeadSend4 (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You fail the test. Big time. Doc talk 05:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doc! I'm so happy you take the time to respond to all my comments, it's flattering. :) DeadSend4 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No point in responding much further. Leave her alone. Do you understand this? Doc talk 05:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The comments keeps on coming! I'm loving the attention. DeadSend4 (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, are we posting links to different articles for fun? This sounds fun but what is the point of this? Either way, it's touching you're spending time to respond to me. :) DeadSend4 (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Stil being teh asshole, huh? 114.79.60.59 (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hello, Doc9871. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.