User talk:Sm1969

Welcome

Hello, Sm1969, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy ^(talk) 07:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on linking to copyrighted works

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works

Linking to copyrighted works

External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger

Articles regarding ongoing enterprises

2) The principles of editing articles about ongoing enterprises are analogous to those which govern Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As applied to this matter, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material may be removed without discussion, such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism. This extension of policy is based on the proposition that any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is potentially harmful.

Passed 6 to 0 at 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with Smee

I see that you seem to be experiencing the same edit-warring and 3RR violation problems with Smee that I have experienced. If you need diffs of my experiences just let me know. --Justanother 16:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• A Scientologist conspiring with a Landmark graduate, who would have thought? Crossed out by Smee 03:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC). Please leave me alone and cut out the personal attacks, I am trying to avoid conflict with the both of you. Please respect that. Thanks. Smee 16:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
  • How nice of you to leave a self-contradicting comment. We start off with a personal attack and then a statement that you wish to avoid personal attacks. Well, Smee, you managed to manipulate yourself out of a 3RR. Sm1969 01:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, he seems to have some sort of "get out of jail free" card that he has to play quite frequently. Well, if you keep your words soft but your actions determined that articles here comply with the rules then you will do just fine as my experience is that any dubious edit, when taken to the larger community, is see for what it is. Soapboxing and advocacy. See WP:NOT. And eventually those that continually do such will get their just deserts. When you engage in sarcasm as I have a tendency to do then your own words are held against you and the waters are muddied by the crew of "water-muddiers". Just carry on, save your diffs, and pursue WP:DR. --Justanother 02:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• I did not "manipulate" myself out of anything. It was the Admin's decision. Can't you just lay off? I am not editing that article anymore. Just leave it alone. Please. Thanks. And that is fine advice coming from Justanother, just wish he would heed some of his own advice above... Smee 03:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
  • I will take the high road here and apologize. Crossing out my inappropriate comment above. Apologies if it was misconstrued as anything more than humorous, in light of historical events. Yours. Smee 03:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Crossing out an inappropriate remark after I mention it to an admin that has warned you about picking fights is hardly "take the high road" (it is clear that you are aware of my remarks to Jersey Devil as you are discussing them on Anynobody's talk page). Had you been on the high road you would not be over here spreading discord in the first place. No, your action above is just your usual post-disruption behavior of trying to minimize what you did, spin the situation, hide your involvement, kiss up to admins, etc. --Justanother 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Please stop making false baseless accusations. The fact remains that I wanted to apologize and cross out my remark and I did so. Whether or not you want to go around Asking the other parent is irrelevant. This is a done deal. Smee 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I have no connection to Scientology or Landmark, but I'm having the same 3RR problems with the same editor. Any assistance would be appreciated. Yakuman 05:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yakuman, I request that you participate in the discussion and dispute resolution process. I have not gone past 3RR, and in fact I have instead asked for a third opinion from a neutral party in this manner. Let's both act in a polite and civil manner to discuss your problems with the article on the article's talk page. Thanks. Smee 05:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Please do not stalk me, as you seem to wish a protracted conflict. Let's just agree to the neutral stance of adhering to Wikipedia policy - that is the goal isn't it? Yakuman 05:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• As you can see from above, this page has been on my watchlist. There is no stalking. Please go back to the article's talk page and continue the discussion there. Thanks. Smee 05:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Your stridency here is evidence you seem either unable or unwilling to understand. Again, I have clearly addressed the issues at hand and I don't enjoy being drawn into debates like this. Take care, and have a good day! Yakuman 05:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Let us both act more polite, go back to the article's talk page, and focus on discussing the content there. Thanks. Smee 05:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Yakuman, Smee strives to be invisible, to "hide under the radar", as he relently continues his misuse of this project and his disruptive editing. Go back to the article, little Yakuman, do not look behind the curtain. Please Yakuman, stay right here. And heed my advice above to Sm1969 and keep your word soft, stand strong, and save diffs (for me, two out of three ain't bad and I am working on the third). --Justanother 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think Smee has really figured out how to game the system. Smee does escalating outrageous behaviour, gets called on it, and then Smee becomes unbelievably contrite and promises not to do it again and portrays herself as the victim of personal attacks; the diffs always speak otherwise. We go through Smee's contrition cycles and there is little administrative record of Smee's misconduct, particularly so if different Admins get involved. Give it about a month and Smee is right back on the same articles again. Few people have the time and wherewithall to challenge Smee, and those that do leave no record because of the contrition cycles, so over 15,000 edits by Smee have accumulated taking Wikipedia in a very slanted direction--not neutral, not accurate and not informative. By the way, as far as I know, Smee is a female (she) from prior posts. Sm1969 19:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Your characterizations of my behaviour, though amusing, are incorrect. I have learned much since our last encounters. I have utilized dispute resolution processes and consensus building and consulting the community at large since then. Most notably the WP:RFC process is very useful - and I have learned to give in to the opinion of neutral uninvolved editors coming from the RFC, and will in those cases give up my prior position in favor of the consensus of the RFC, AFD, etc. These are useful methods to gauge the consensus of the community. Smee 19:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
        • I think my characterizations of your recent behaviour in editing the LE article are very accurate. You could have initiated RFC or mediation. Sm1969 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
          • You know what? You are right. I apologize for not doing so sooner. Next time, I will, trust me, and I have been shown to do so on other contentious articles in the recent past - that is, initiate RFCs or mediation or third opinions more quickly than I used to. Though I am taking a break from that particular article, and it is currently protected in any regard, I will take you up on this. Thank you. Smee 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
• Sm1969, if Smee disrupts again, I think we will have to go the User RfC route. You and I and likely Yakuman have all tried and failed to handle her so we can certify the RfC. There may be other editors that have been similarly (mis-)treated and they should be easy to find. So the next time she edit-wars over an inappropriate inclusion we should likely start on the RfC route. Going to admins is really not going to cut it as this fairly clear and well-stated case shows. I am going on wikibreak now for just under one week so if something comes up just log it and wait for my return if you care to. I have lots of evidence of Smee's disruption similar to the stuff I posted on AN/I so I think we can make a very strong case, especially if she continues the offensive behavior. If she cares to settle the dispute then there is a desired outcome for me on Bishonen's page. I already tried to get a 3rd party involved to mediate with Smee but she blew him off. Anyway, we should gather our diffs and be ready. Best. --Justanother 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Most interesting to hear this coming from Justanother, of all individuals, because all said above could be reflected back on this particular user as well. And I did not "blow off" anyone, I simply stated that it was impossible to continue with any sort of mediation if Justanother's harsh tone, sarcasm, and language continued. That is all. Thanks for your time... Smee 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Spin spin spin, Smee. Why bother spinning here. You will get your chance to spin your heart out. --Justanother 01:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Sigh, as will you. Justanother, why not simply try to be polite for a change, and see where that gets you??????????????????????????? Smee 01:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Why, Ms. Smee, despite any history to the contrary, I am trying to be polite in my words. I have always been polite in my edits. You, on the other hand, have those two aspects of your activity here completely reversed. I can easily change my sharp words. Can you as easily change your disruptive and rude editing pattern? I hope so as it will save all of us a lot of trouble. But that is trouble I will happily experience one time intensely rather than experience intermitable content RfCs where you are repeatedly shown to be wrong in your POV-pushing inappropriate inclusions but which repeated content RfCs and requests for 3rd opinions have not seemed to have dented your determination to carry on with that POV-pushing regardless of the opinions of other editors. When an editor has proven herself to be incorrigible in that manner then User RfC is the correct step. I am prepared. --Justanother 01:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Justanother, you have also been accused numerous times of "disruptive editing". And you may yet find that if you shape up your tack and behaviour patterns, and act more polite, others will act more polite towards you. Why not try it and see, hm? Smee 02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
            • No, you are wrong. Objections to me are for sarcasm in edit summaries and on talk pages, almost never for issues related to my edits. And I personally doubt that you edit war and POV-push because someone is rude to you in an edit summary or on a talk page. That is just more smoke and mirrors on your part, Smee. You edit-war and POV-push for your own reasons. Would you care to share them with us? You've hinted at them in the past. --Justanother 02:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
              • I do not "POV push". And you could be said to have just as strong, if not moreso, of a "POV" than myself and many others here. And you have been cited for much more than "sarcasm in edit summaries and on talk pages". Why don't you try not being rude, and see where that gets you instead? You've used the other tack, why not change course and try to be polite? You might like it... Smee 02:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
                • Ms. Smee, I do intend to be more polite. I can admit to the fact that I have allowed myself the luxury of dealing with offensive editors in a somewhat offensive manner. But the offensive editor always came first and I escalated my degree of strong language in response to their continued demonstration that they are just not interested in the rules here as regards WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOT. However, I have learned that indulging myself in that manner provided too much traction for spin doctors to try to flip the issue to be about my language while diverting attention from the real issue. The real issue is disruptive editing by POV-pushers, it is not that User:Justanother said the s-word. Easily solved on my end. I will tone it down. And be extra polite to those that deserve it least based on their determined misuse of this project. Best regards and have a wonderful evening. I am about ready to shut this down for a week. I sincerely appreciate your help keepng an eye on my user page. While I have only experienced a handful of vandalism attacks, I would not like to think that my page might be defaced in my absence. Good night. --Justanother 03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • Good night. I would submit that perhaps the "real issue" is both. Perhaps it is best to work on correcting your own actions first, easier said than done, before those of others, which is more difficult. That said, I will work on my editing patterns, and I would hope that you work on your "offensive manner", which I would imagine most if not all others most certainly do not view as a "luxury" as you put it. Later... Smee 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
                    • Fair enough then. Good night, Ms. Smee. --Justanother 03:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
                      • Well then. If you can act more polite and lose the language, and I reform my editing patterns, perhaps we can actually work together constructively. Gnite. Smee 03:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC).