User talk:CarolSpears

Archive

• archive 01
• archive 02
• archive 03

a citation call

I have been having a problem with some of my ways. The thing that is bothering me the most right now is that I have made citations to papers in which I only read the abstract of.

My instinct tells me to remove the access date from it and that will be more honest.

If you know what to do in this situation, can you tell me? If you don't know what to do, I would be happy if you made a call on it.

The citation formalities -- they were all hardcoded before the web was even imagined. Possibly, adding a url location to the existing databases everywhere that used them was or even is quite a challenge. -- carol (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be ok if you leave the access data in. To be clear, do you mean the date you accessed the online abstract of the paper? If a url exists, access data should be included for the eventual day when that website moves or changes its structure, so that readers and editors know when you used that url so it can possibly be extracted from the internet archive. My sense is that it is best to give as much info as possible. Any one citation style (MLA, Chicago, etc.) is not endorsed by the Wikipedia MoS, so you're free to use whatever citation style you feel most comfortable with. The important thing is to make it consistent within the article, which you've done a great job at doing. Did that answer your question? --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I am quite certain that I have gotten my volumes and issues mixed up -- perhaps consistently at least. It does answer my question, it makes sense and I am not happy with it. Thank you very much! (I had enough 'access' where I used to live to be able to write an article with only papers that I actually read.) -- carol (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, do what makes you happy if it's reasonable. If providing access data is a bit more trouble than you want to deal with, then don't include it. I don't think it hurts anything if excluded. A determined editor or reader could always find the information from other citation data given. I sympathize with your difficulties in accessing journals. I no longer have free access to JSTOR, Proquest, etc. through an academic library. Until I go back to school, that probably won't change so I have to make frequent trips to nearby libraries (including some to your old stomping grounds in Michigan, I believe). --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The library that I would have tried first is a little hidden from the rest of the world. Part of my job for a while was to copy the abstracts each month from the journals as the scientists I worked with requested them. It infuriates me that there are things here (wikipedia) that are being called 'from the government' when anyone who worked for the government could look at it and know it is not one of theirs. What area are you at? I had the feeling you were on the west coast, I don't know where that feeling came from. The snow photographs from there this year have been beautiful and more like when I was a child. I really despise being here, the situation that brought me here, some of the things that has happened and the situation that I found once I got here.

I don't need to be happy with everything, in fact, that is usually not good. I do feel more comfortable with citing abstracts; it would be nice to know that there was something real in the paper also -- they are like advertisements somewhat, abstracts. When I was copying them, I started to lose a little respect for some of them (the journals) also. Nature's treatment of homeopathy in the late eighties was the exact example.

Rkitko, are we playing pokemon? -- carol (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly! I used to live in Olympia, Washington. About 8 months ago I moved back to Ohio. I'm much happier to be here than when I was on the west coast, so I can perhaps understand a bit of how you feel. Regardless, let me know if there's anything else I can help with here. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not fond of that game. I watched the 'toon and I was disappointed in a message for children to send a small creature with one or two special powers to fight battles for them. In reviewing the 'toons I watched when I was a kid, they were mostly sexist and racist -- things that can be gotten over. But using little imaginary creatures to fight battles with -- it is a terrible message about what growing up should be like. Especially if you would like to enjoy life as a grown up. -- carol (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

? (restored to address issue still hanging)

Please continue this where ever it was that it was started. Thank you all for your time, consideration and opinions. When you would like my opinion, feel free to ask it here. -- carol (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dichelostemma congestum

It is not necessary to leave unconfirmed information in an article for it to be checked, particularly by an editor who needs to have the information confirmed by someone else first. You simply contact your mentor with your suggested changes to the article along with your sources and wait until they get time to verify its accuracy. Your taxonomic information in Liabeae was so far off of what the article actually said that it is not advisable for you to edit prior to checking with someone knowledgeable about plant taxonomy. Leave the information out until it can be verified by someone, probably after everyone gets done editing the hundreds of problematic articles and sections you've already created. --Blechnic (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The people who confirm things are not required to confirm them so quickly. They must be there to be confirmed. You must perhaps start to write your own articles or live your own life. I have no idea how you became so attached to my articles and my editing and I am sorry about this. The fact that many of the plant articles sit there unchallenged, unreferenced and unchecked is a fact. Leave the pages there until they can be checked. Write some articles. Thank you for finally asking my opinion, by the way. -- carol (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

People are so attached to your editing, because they have identified that your editing is problematic. Please will you, once and for all, accept that Wikipedia has policies which we must all follow. The policy here is that content must be verifiable, and properly sourced. It isn't that you can add any old rubbish, and that it can stay there until somebody has confirmed it to be true, or found it to be false. The content does NOT have to be there to be verified. If you don't want to work with a mentor, the only option open to you is to note your proposed additions on the article talk page, rather than adding them directly to the article.

You need to understand that people have been very patient with you, but that the patience is not limitless, and that you have all but exhausted that patience.

If you continue to edit in the same vein as hitherto, which involves other editors spending huge amounts of time fixing your errors, and refusing to engage with people who are trying to help you become a productive editor, a ban from Wikipedia is inevitable Mayalld (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol, the information can be found in the page history, or by your giving it to your mentor, or you can create a subpage to put the information on. Here, I'll create one for you as an example. User talk:CarolSpears/Dichelostemma congestum You can title it something else, or create others as needed, or create your own personal working sandbox for you and your mentor.

Carol, they're not your articles or my articles. They're Wikiepdia articles. No need to tell me to live my own life as a comment of this nature may be construed as a personal attack.

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 will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

--Blechnic (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PS Mayalld does offer a usable alternative: proposing changes on the article's talk page. However, for this you must stick with the proposed changes, and try not to stray into the abstract or off topic. --Blechnic (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rumex patientia

The picture your are using on this page is incorrect, since you appear to not know what this species looks like, try a google image search for this species. Hardyplants (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is from wikisource and the original publication of the species. I am not certain what to do in this case. Google should not be as reliable as the original publication that everyone cites for the species? -- carol (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I am not correct in this. Sorry and fixing it.... -- carol (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to stub type species and images I dig out of original scans; occassionally I get a few things inaccurate in between doing this. I am also, having problems with what would probably be called stalking in any real environment; a problem which does not improve my accuracy. Thank you for the review and the pointer. -- carol (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made the same mistake too, especially since I do not have all my images labeled formally with the taxon name - I always try to check my images against other sources to make sure they are correct. Google images can be very useful for common species, and not helpful for species that are "rare" Hardyplants (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Carol's most recent image restoration

I have reluctantly placed an indefinite block on editing from this account, following ongoing community concern about your manner of contributing to Wikipedia. While you have made some positive contributions, and are clearly keen to help build our encyclopaedia, you have shown little sign that you understand the problems you are continuing to cause - problems that have required many hours to rectify by editors whose time would have been better spent on other things. You have not responded in the hoped-for way to constructive advice and offers of help, and I see no likelihood that this will change.

Please note that an indefinite block does not imply a permanent block, it just means the block has no set expiry date. You may still request unblocking (you can edit this talk page or paste the template {{unblock|your reason here}} below, substituting in your reason), although I would suggest that you will need to be especially convincing in persuading the community that you have grasped the seriousness of the situation, and can comply with any conditions required should you return.

EyeSerene^talk 10:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see this coming, Carol; I don't watch the drama boards much.

I don't think I can do anything for you at the moment. maybe throw yourself into Commons etc for a while, and revisit this in a month or so.

Hesperian 11:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The block is by people who write theatre articles. It is preventing me from working with people who write plant articles. The votes are from unreal people who did not exist before Thanksgiving 2007. I know musical comedy. The people involved with that are not as ignoranat, oppressive and illogical as they are being presented here. In a month, will all of the plant articles have cited sources? And what is the deal with Featured Pictures and Featured Articles? There is a deal because it is there that the expectations and the demands that are not reflected back are made. -- carol (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please count the number of people who voted for this and compare it to the number of people who actually edit. And don't live in a world where the nagging people always win. Please.... -- carol (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

All of the plant articles, not just mine. All of the people who write articles, not just me. In a month will all of the articles be as non-plagiaristic and with actual citations as mine are required to be? And how will the new definitions of what is considered to be stalking and not be used? -- carol (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have said my piece.[1] As you know I am not at liberty to unblock you against consensus. We'll just have to wait and see. Hesperian 12:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The best way to handle stalkers is to block them. Then they can stalk without interfering. This system has blocked the person who was being stalked. I suggest that the stalkers will find another soon enough, but if they are blocked, then they can stalk in the peace of not being able to do anything but that. -- carol (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

reason — Carol, you have completely failed to address the reason why you were blocked. You were blocked for failing to respond to your request for comment, other than to call it "feces" [2]. You were blocked for failing to listen to any of the concerns raised during it; you refused to consider a mentor [3], instead continuing to act in a problematic way. [4] [5] [6]. You copy and paste information that is not only plagiarised, but also inaccurate. Fixing the messes you make takes up far more time then you spend making them. Until you realise this, and change your ways to stop making such messes in the first place, your block will remain. Neıl 龱 12:09, 2 July 2008 (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.

Note Sarah also refused to unblock you ([7]) - I've left my message on as it's more detailed. Neıl 龱 12:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never spoken with Sarah nor seen her edits and that user has never asked my opinion about anything. Other users provided other words that did rhyme with species and were not that word -- a word that I never typed. To have to learn how to use a system that is in place to block people from editing who are not really having a problem is very different from learning how to use a system to edit a page which is what the purpose of the instance of the software is. I vote that everyone puts down their blocking tools and attempts to write an article -- let Sarah know that I care as much about her opinion as she has asked for mine. -- carol (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to have spoken to me - you posted an unblock request and as a passing administrator, I responded to it. If you're not interested in having an admin respond to your request then don't waste our time by making it in the first place. Sarah 12:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to tell Neil that everything I said still seems to be sticking -- carol (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And still you concern yourself with trying to be clever and win arguments. You may not have typed the word, but you pointedly failed to contradict those who interpreted your comment as such. If you meant something else by your comment, now is the time to explain.

You have repeatedly complained of being stalked. What do you think other editors should do? Say "oh yes, we know that Carol adds incorrect info to articles continuously, but it isn't fair to use that information to track down potentially problematic edits.

Your block is very much about your continued refusal to engage with other editors, and your refusal to work within the same framework of verifiability as others. It has been pointed out to you on many occasions that you need to work with other people, but you just keep demanding that other people leave you to do as you please.

You are, I am afraid, the architect of your own downfall. Mayalld (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed, Carol. I ask that you respond to your RFC, and this is what happens? Block endorsed. Blueboy96 12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Blueboy to quote Nathan Explosion when he failed to achieve his GED "Go Forth and Die!" -- carol (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

For the obviously necessary 4th reversion rule:

To quote Nathan Explosion when he delivered the Harvard graduating commencement speech: "Go Fourth and Die!" -- carol (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to know why I ended up supporting the block in the end, this post of yours kinda makes it quite clear. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been blocked for making 3 reversions. There seems to be no blocking for others making 3 and then 4 reversions. In my inability to understand this, I quote a funny animation character. Meanwhile, at the commons, I have a User from English wikipedia, who has written Plant articles that were ranked better than good here, who can't find information about plants now.

If you could explain how the 3 reversion rule works, perhaps I can see the reason that this proposal is worth being blocked for. Just to say it is the reason is not very informative. -- carol (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion (I am not an administrator), if you want to be unblocked you would be wise not to misrepresent the reason for the block. You would also be wise to eschew obscure comments, but instead to take pains to express yourself clearly and politely. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely banned

You have been indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia per the discussion at [8]. John254 05:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:JoJan was the user who wiped my user page to begin with. How come that user was Gited? -- carol (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(to John254) Really? I see the discussion supporting an indef block, but failing to gain consensus for a ban. I suggest you review your erroneous conclusion.

(to CarolSpears) Please help us to try and resolve this matter by shutting up, or at least stopping the clever remarks. Ta. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your indefblock...

OK Carol, I'm not sure how much you've followed what's been going on, given your reluctance to participate in community processes - even when you really should. However, from your comments above there seems to be some confusion on your part about what has happened and why, so I'll try to set it all out here.

As a result of the discussion that took place on the Administrator's Notice Board (here), you've been indefinitely blocked from editing anything apart from this talk page. The endorsement of the block was unanimous, although some administrators (including me) expressed a willingness to rescind the block at some time in the future (and only under certain circumstances). This means that technically you have not been formally banned forever from the site. The reason that you're seeing the word 'banned' on various tags and posts hereabouts is that an indefinite block that no administrator is willing to immediately undo is called a 'community ban'. However, as I say, this isn't the same as a 'don't ever come back here again' ban.

There were a number of reasons this decision was made, but basically they all boil down to one simple observation: you have consistently behaved as though you felt you could play by your own rules. The key word there is 'consistently'. We all screw up - often more than once, and sometimes quite spectacularly - but where editors show that they recognise their mistakes and are trying to avoid making them again, they'll be forgiven and given the help and support they need to move on. You have often stated that article writing is more important than anything else... and in that you're absolutely right. It's the sole purpose we're all here. However, what you apparently don't want to accept is that article writing here has to be within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. I'm not going to quote three-letter acronyms at you - it would be condescending, given that you've been here long enough to know what our policies are (and other editors have done plenty of that anyway), but most concerning is the plagiarism business. I'm sure you do understand that this is not only legally dangerous for Wikipedia, but morally and ethically unsupportable in a collegiate environment. Once this came to light, we really had no choice but to remove what we found. I understand why you feel as though you've been stalked, but the alternative would have been for you to offer to go back, undo, and double-check your own edits. You not only didn't do this, but you reverted other editors to keep your edits in place. This can only be read one of two ways: either you really don't understand why copyright violation is so wrong, or you do understand but don't care. To protect our encyclopaedia, we just can't allow anyone with either of those mindsets to edit it.

Also crucially (and I apologise for the length of this post, but I feel you have a right to a full explanation), you have failed to engage with other editors. Not all, by any means - you're apparently quite happy to work with certain people - but it seems that if you take a dislike to someone (and it has tended to be people who have tried to offer advice), you can't then engage with them productively, and you ignore anything they say. Unfortunately, this is largely what has put you in the position you're in now. True, you've not always been approached in the best manner by other editors, and you've had your share of undeserved aggravation, but that's just part of being here. We try to make it not be, by asking that all editors are polite, respectful and communicative with each other, and I think we largely succeed, but I hope that, if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that you've been the oppressor as often as you've been oppressed. "Snarky" comments (if I have the right word there - we don't use it in the UK) are as unhelpful as outright verbal abuse, and in some respects more poisonous long-term. Your penchant for hiding behind word-play, verbal manoeuvring, and acerbic humour has been a massive barrier to communication with you. What has been notably missing from you was a simple and sincere "Sorry, I messed up, show me how to fix it and work with me so I avoid doing it again". This would, I think, have gone a long way to helping set things right... and it's absence was perceived as either ego or arrogance - again, not desirable traits in such a diverse community.

It was unclear to me that I had made errors that often. More importantly, do you know that one of the last conversations I had with my much loved by me drama teacher was about Sweeney Todd? She had barely heard of it and had not read it. I was looking for atypical musical theatre (preferably comedy) -- atypical being not the boy meets girl outline that most of the musicals I had seen at that point were about. Decades later, I still have not seen or read this musical. I found your edit history to be quite thought-provoking -- carol (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's about it from me. I sincerely hope you take this in the spirit it's meant - I'm not trying to attack or belittle you, just give you an honest assessment of why you've ended up indefblocked. I hope, too, that you can use my ramblings to see what needs to be done before we will consider unblocking your account again. Normally I wouldn't spend so much time on this (it's taken most of the afternoon to compose), but I believe that you have it in you to be an outstanding contributor. Your enthusiasm and clear love of botany, and your technical ability with images, are assets that could be really beneficial here - if only you could accept that to join our effort, you have to play by our rules. They may not always seem fair, just, or even consistent... and, because we all make mistakes, they aren't always properly applied, but for all their faults they've proven over time to work. I genuinely wish you all the best, and if you want to get in touch you can post here, or if you need to, I have an email link on my talk page (as do many other administrators). EyeSerene^talk 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your activity in this block seems to be inscrutible; and the plagiarism I experienced this week, both on the big screen and now here seem to be related to the Bill Murray tree, something I wrote once and I don't really want to search for it in that mess I call a web site. I must say, that Bill had a cameo cameo if that was the goal. I mention all this now because the same minute plagiarism that was the claim for deleting my articles is being violated by everyone voting to keep me blocked. Whether or not authoring an article that qualifies for a Did You Know article yet contains only ~12 words of article, while this is not a totally productive goal, it is a goal which I think I am one of the few of the thousands authoring articles here who has enough experience with the templates and subjects to achieve this goal. Me and the Microsoft Wordcount app....

I haven't set my email up officially because I wanted to do that when I was home and not visiting a friend. Almost five years now of visiting and they have made the setting up of mailers for linux 5 years more complicated.... -- carol (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have raised concerns over this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User;CarolSpears Gnangarra 14:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to EyeSerene's comments, you are not community banned either since an uninvolved administrator (me) has declared that they would be willing to unblock you (with community consensus) should you agree to certain conditions such as mentoring, resolving the issues regarding your editing, etc. You remain indefinitely blocked, however, until you address the issues that have lead to this situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

1. My goal was to make an article that qualified for a Did You Know without actually having more than 18 words of text/encyclopedic content to it -- and I was getting there!!!
2. I am interested to see what my own rules are, are they ennumerated anywhere?
3. Is this what you really wanted? http://carol.gimp.org/entertainment/movies/Get_Smart.php (The original Agent 99 was awesome and perhaps the thing I miss most about the Cold War, with the exception of being able to smoke tobacco anywhere.)
4. I don't have an EP version of Go Forth and Die, and I was uncertain of the spelling of the word "Forth" in that song until yesterday. -- carol (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

the assignment of a mentor

This was, in many ways, one of the most humiliating decrees that could be issued to me from a group of people who are new to my edits.

The reason for that is that I was getting mentoring from people who were involved with similar articles; excellent mentoring (I think). Then the researching and writing of the articles is itself a way that starts to limit what kind of advice is followed.

I am defending the people who were involved now and not me.

If you want me to assign a "mentor" there is a german photographer who recently actually authored an insect species article on German wikipedia, who also has grasped the English meaning of two phrases "Monster truck" and "focus bracketing"; would that live up to the encyclopedia's standards which are written about in so many places? -- carol (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)