User talk:Crohnie

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Join the Conspiracy! Thanks Shot info

Irony

Crohnie - do you see the irony in getting on *me* - and only me - about "poking"? Don't you think it's actually your friend, WHL, who you should be directing your comments to about "poking", offending other editors and violating WP standards? You're so quick to jump on me about something but nary a word seems to come from you to WHL about her bad behavior. Yet again, your bias and denial is showing. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of when you tell a kid to stop doing something and they respond by complaining that the other person is doing it too. Crohnie was correct -- when two people are at the level of rivalry that you two are (WHL and SRQ), making these little criticisms for each other becomes more a taunt than anything else, despite you intending them as otherwise. I've asked others, including Wild, not to do it, and now I'm asking you, SRQ. You're the very last person that should be informing WHL that she did something bad or inadvisable, because it just won't help and can only hurt at this point. There are plenty of other people who can issue her warnings, if they are warranted. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:18, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I thought we weren't going to comment on other editor's "bias and denial", SRQ. Comment on edits, not editors, right? Doc9871 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't a clue as to what it is you are saying here. You are the one who went to her talk page and left that unuseful attack on her page. Do you not see how that is poking her for a negative response? You were laughing at her and rudely. You seem to get pleasure out of poking editors to get a response from your comments. I was going to just delete your rude comments since I know what it is going to bring about, lots of unnecessary drama. Am I bias, yes I am. Wildhartlivie has helped me in the past with my editing skills and some other personal RL issues. That being said, there is no reason for your comment to begin with. You have an adversial attitude to editors that do not agree with you. You insist that you are correct and that all other editors need to go to talk page yet you make large edits and go to the talk after the edits are made knowing that they will likely be challenged. If you were to treat editors politely and with the kind of behavior you are trying to make others abide by I think you would find less controversy around you. There are too many editors who find you difficult to work with, why is that? Do you think it might be the way you talk at and down to people? The message you just left me, how do you expect me to answer when you immediately jump to assuming bad faith? If you start collaborating with other editors than I think you will find that everyone, including you, will have a more enjoyable experience. As it is right now, I find your editing behaviors difficult to work with. In closing, I would appreciate it if you would start to assume good faith and try harder to get along with others. If you have anything else to say to me I would appreciate it if you followed policy and didn't come at me with bad faith assumptions and attacks against me. Very well said Equazcion and Doc you are correct too. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You have admitted above to being biased against me, Crohnie. That alone disqualifies you from the ability to speak objectively about me and my contributions to WP. Until you are no longer biased, there is nothing you could say to or about me that would be of any influence - whether it be positive or negative. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• You are mistaken, I may have a bias but as the others put it so does everyone. The difference is that you feel because of my biases I can no longer make comments. You're wrong. I can comment anywhere I would like, about anything I like. It is tiring to watch you continue to bait and poke another editor who has an excellent history and reputation for her article work. I commented to you at Wildhartlivie's talk page first because I wasn't sure if she would take the bait. You have no more rights than I do at this project. You have gone out of your way to talk down to me, but yet I am still trying to interact with you politely when our paths cross. Instead of you trying to work with me and others, you go out of your way to make sure that you get the other editors disqualified/sanctioned. You hold grudges for a long time and insist on beating a dead horse by bringing up perceived wrong doing. Personally, I don't feel like I have to put up with your rude behaviors anymore. You insist on trying to get others sanctioned, well stop it. It isn't a battle zone here at the project and we all have to work together if we are interested in the same articles. Now please stop! --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd be quite remiss, SRQ, in claiming you have the level of objectivity regarding WHL that you seem to think is necessary in order to "influence" people. If you're making no such claim, then why are you issuing warnings to her? Practice what you preach. Besides which, almost everyone is biased, SRQ, when it comes to people. We have our friends and those we don't particularly care for. That natural state of affairs doesn't stop us from interacting and advising each other. You and WHL, on the other hand, are, I think, one situation where the bias is at a level where you should be avoiding advising each other at all costs. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:58, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Well said. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been remiss in nothing. What's more, I've made no such admission to bias as Crohnie has, nor would/have I. I don't think you could find one single incident where I have chastised anyone for doing something I, myself, have done without noting humbly that I have made the same error in the past. When I'm wrong, I admit it - and I certainly don't make a habit of violating the same standards and rules that I'm telling someone else they shouldn't violate all the while pretending I am an upstanding, honorable, and trustworthy member of the WP community. Crohnie has taken it upon herself to defend WHL, chastising anyone who rightly points out where WHL is wrong, all the while ignoring - and in some cases condoning - her friend's bad behavior toward other editors. *That* is the lack of objectivity I am referring to, and I seriously don't see how you can compare it to the bias others naturally have. For editor C to criticize editor A for rightly correcting editor B while choosing turning a blind eye to the continued bad behavior of editor B is incomprehensible to me. For other veteran editors to then condone the blind-eye-behavior of editor C while coming down further on editor B is just as ridiculous, IMO. And *that* is my final word on the subject today. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because Crohnie admitted bias doesn't mean you are entirely objective yourself. You may not have admitted bias, but as I implied, I don't think you can claim to be entirely objective when it comes to WHL, can you? If SRQ isn't objective enough to comment on your behavior, I think the same should go for you regarding WHL. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:34, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

If I had a bias to admit in my dealings with WHL, I would most certainly admit it. Being distrustful of someone based on facts and acting with clear bias is not the same thing, you know. I'm a very honest person and have never lied in WP about anything. Unfortunately, that cannot be said about everyone in question here. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your honesty isn't in question here. Bias isn't always apparent to those who are biased, and if you are a mature and honest person, you should admit that much, and defer to others' takes on the situation. I'm telling you that you have a rivalry with WHL that precludes your objectivity, and you are likely biased where she is concerned, just as she is with you, and I think you should both be avoiding each other where possible. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:50, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

If you are so honest than you would admit your biases against Wildhartlivie and also admit that you want her sanctioned. As for your last comment "Unfortunately, that cannot be said about everyone in question here." either supplies difs or refactor. I will not have this continuing attacking of editors go. If you have proof that the editors here have done anything at all for you to make this claim then prove it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems how this started (per the above repeated reference to "poking"), SRQ, you were referring to a statement Crohnie made here. This wasn't made directly to you; why are you focusing on edits such as these? Why are you commenting on discussions made on other people's talk pages without even referencing them here? Do users that don't agree with you have to use off-Wiki e-mails to discuss matters without "retribution" such as this? WP is a HUGE place, and there are lots of things to do. I'm seeing a clear pattern forming here... Doc9871 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Also well said Doc. The answer to your question about having to go to email has become absolutely necessary just to keep sanity and ward of fears that there is a notice board waiting with your name on it. For some reason that I don't understand, everywhere SRQ seems to go brings controversary with the active editors. I, for one, am sick and tired of being treated like an idiot or a second class editor. I am not putting up with this anymore either. If we have to pursue an avenue to stop these abuses then I am game for that too. I think an RFC is something that might be useful to all the editors at this point since SRQ doesn't seem to care to get along with anyone. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Attention

I would like to ask the attentions of editors who are aware of the situation above to email me at their convenience. I put this in the section to keep the dif intact. I would appreciate it if the editors, and you know who I mean, would email me as I have some ideas to float by them. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

• News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

• In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

• Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

hey girl

Have u ever tried any alternative treatment or diet for your condition ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pram008 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Customizing Wikipedia

Hi Crohnie,

Okay, here are the basics.

Click My preferences at the top of the page. Once there, select Appearance. You'll see a number of Skin options, showing different layouts for Wikipedia. You're probably using MonoBook, which is the default. I'm using Vector. Regardless, the following should work regardless of layout.

Next to the Skin you're using, click Custom CSS. Add the following code...

a:visited {
  color: #990099;
}

#bodyContent div span img {
  display: none;
}

Show preview, to verify the color is acceptable to you. I went with a violet, as it's much easier to distinguish from the blue. Red is another common color for visited links, but Wikipedia uses red to mark nonexistent articles. There's a short list of available color combinations at Web colors.

When you're satisfied with the color, Save page and follow the instructions to bypass your cache. Voila, custom colors and no more peeping Jimmy.

Note that the color customization doesn't affect the menu bar to the left. In other words, Main Page, Recent changes, etc., will still appear in the annoying indigo color. -FeralDruid (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh thank you. The new colors will take some getting used to but at least I can tell there is a difference now. Thank you very much for taking the time to give me the code. I don't change from the default stuff because I am clueless as to what they all mean. :) This helps a lot. I wish I understood all of this code stuff but alas for some reason I just can't understand it, any of it.  :) Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

• News and notes: $2 Million donation, cybersquatting, comScore statistics and more

• In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

I would like your opinion on how one should go about classifying his religion. Should we go with the denomination he was raised in by his grandparents? the one he joined while living with his adopted father? the one he joined while living in Utah? or the the religion he adopted while in prison? Or should we not denote him as identifying with any religion? --Tuudder (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought we already gave our opinions, Tuudder...(didn't we?) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made an edit in three days and when I do it's on a talk page that I've never posted on before and you show up in minutes? --Tuudder (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently so. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I made my comment at the talk page, making an arbitrary break for ease of editing. SRQ, I don't think we actually finished that conversation but I have to agree with Truudder, why can't he come to my talk page to discuss it without you following behind him esp. with our history? Suggestions on how to go forward with the religious aspect is needed. I made a suggestion that was probably missed before because the thread was long so maybe you both can see it now and comment on it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Comment deleted. If you don't have something nice to say then don't say it on my talk page! I found your edit totally rude and uncalled for and to be honest I'm tired of it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI for Keepcalmandcarryon

In light of the various images around your Talk page, I find your insistence that there is a cabal working against Keepcalmandcarryon and RetroS1mone rather amusing. To quote WP:TINC, "If you attack people who oppose you as if they were a collective with an agenda against you, then whether they were or not, they will certainly become one." I think if you take a good long look at the edits of RetroS1mone (and, I gather, Keepcalmandcarryon, though I was only minimally involved in that incident), you will find that that is precisely what has happened. There really is no cabal, there's just a group of users who are tired of their combative style of editing. And before you assume it's based on their positions on various subjects, I suggest you look at interactions with Sciencewatcher. He supports many of the same positions and yet users have never felt the need to take it anywhere other than the appropriate talk pages—in fact, they've worked quite productively with him to resolve disputes and find neutrally-worded article text.

While I agree that the evidence in the SPI case didn't support further action, it's incidents like these, and accusations of a cabal like your own, that have made me realize that Wikipedia is fundamentally broken. If combative users have few or no sanctions taken against them, and in fact their accusers are held in disregard, there is something tremendously wrong with the processes involved. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, I never said there was a cabal, ever, and I resent you saying that. I was saying that if you look at Simone's history you will see that she has been attacked and attacked unmercifully. What I said there is what I believe. I think she uses something to help her with her English when she edits articles. I said nothing at all worth the venom you just spewed at me. My question to you is why so angry at me? Don't say cabal because I didn't say that so maybe you need to reread what I said. You owe me an apology but that is up to you, I won't force one and I don't want a fake one. Have a good day, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This thread will be removed in the morning unless RobinHood decides to come back. No messages can be left at their page and there is a notice that they have left the project. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While you certainly never used the word "cabal", it was clearly implied, at least to my eyes. "The editors bringing these accusations are the same, for the most part, as those who disagreed with Simone edits." ... "This whole thing looks more and more like attacks, which needs to stop." Lumping a group of editors together and accusing them of deliberately attacking a specific user certainly sounds like cabal accusations to me. WP:AGF indicates that you should never have assumed, much less openly stated, that the SPI investigation as an attack. I don't think anybody who really looked at the edits of either KCACO or Retro would think that the SPI suspicions were "attacks" in any way, shape, or form; they were genuine suspicions that people thought needed investigation. So I don't think it's me that owes someone an apology.

On an administrative note, as it says in the edit notice when editing my page, there's no need to inform me of replies; I watch all pages that I edit. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)