User talk:Cleo123

Looking good :)

Welcome!

Hello, Cleo123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! KittenKlub 23:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cezar Kurti

Thanks for supporting keeping the Cezar Kurti. It won't be deleted. Yes, he is a hero in academic circles for his translation of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra into Albanian. KP Botany 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Richards

I gave up on editing the article due to the edit war. Maybe enough time has elapsed for that ugly incident to lessen its grip on the article. Wahkeenah 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Ryan

I have added my response on the Meg Ryan Talk page to your decision to remove the entire Parkinson interview section. I respect your contributions and I do appreciate your time, but I have to say that I totally disagree with your decision. She has made a lot of bad press over the years (the Russell Crowe affair, her mother's falling out, Parkinson) and it's not our job as editors to "protect" celebrities from bad press but to report on the events that make up their biography.

Otherwise, for example, why have her marriage to Dennis Quaid or her relationship with her mother mentioned at all? They aren't relevant to her movie career either. You are just picking and choosing what to include.

But we can agree to disagree but I would interested in your thoughts. Thanks! --Mezaco 00:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I knew you'd weigh in sooner or later and I'm not really surprised by your response! LOL I think you may be misinterpretting my actions. I'm not trying to censor negative material, only trying to put it in its proper perspective within the larger context of the article as a whole. The Parkinson Incident still has its own paragraph, just not an entire section. I left you a LONG note on the article talk page. I am open to further discussing the matter. Thanks! Cleo123 03:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Simmons

I can't find any good sources for the conflicts with Letterman and Stern. Have you had any luck? Frise 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. I do actually remember seeing at least one of the Letterman episodes mentioned. I don't know anything about conflicts with Stern. I'll see if I can find anything on the Internet. I see where you are coming from on this. Thanks! Cleo123 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't the one

Cleo123, you weren't the one who started this fiasco but rather the banned editor User:Wik (aka User:Kgeza67 a la User:Killroy4) was the one... I don't see a consensus for the version that that banned user was pushing and now that some time has gone by and the gravity of the event has been established it makes perfect sense to start an article about it. (→Netscott) 00:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: Netscott User:KramerCosmo (indef. blocked)

i just got into this michael richards discussion but this user netscott is repeatedly reverting other users' edits and trying to make dramatic changes against consensus, and even reverted your edits again here, does that break the 3RR? KramerCosmo 22:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the "Fat Man" found an equitable solution to the problem. Thank Goodness! OMG! This has gotten SO out of control! LOL Cleo123 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say you're keeping interesting company with some of the folks who've been reverting me there Cleo123. (→Netscott) 04:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is really unnecessary. I cannot control who leaves messages on my talk page, and the fact of the matter is - sock or not - he was right. You were engaging in edit warring with several editors when he left his message. You should stop this Netscott. You are harming your working relationships with other editors by acting in bad faith. You will have to continue working with all of us in the future, whether it be on the Michael Richards article or on a seperate stand alone article. You should think about that. Cleo123 05:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton

Thanks :-) -SpuriousQ 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Message Too.

Don't worry, my message on the AfD disappeared as well. I think there was a brief bug in the edits. Whatever it was, it seems to have gone now. Sorry I wasn't able to help more: I wasn't actually on my computer when you posted your messages. Acalamari 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks any way! Cleo123 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-Purposes aligned

I think philosophically you and I disagree about things such as the Mel Gibson DUI incident and the current Michael Richards deal, but us disagreeing amounts to taking the same path. As public figures, there can't really be too much of a defamation issue (at least legally, in terms of POV thats another matter). The reason I want these pages gone is because it makes the encyclopedia harder to navigate, more awkward in its structure and less helpful to quickly gathering information. All this data should be available in the main article for whoever is involved in it. Anyway, all that to more or less say that if you want to help reopen the debate on the Mel Gibson, I'd love to help, and I'll weigh in on the Michael Richards issue as well on it's AfD. -M^ask 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its relatively simple, bring it up on the talk page, add the {{merge}}, {{merge-to}}, or {{merge-from}} tags. If it does/does not get resolved on the page, and there seem to be strong opinions, the bring it up on AfD and poke towards a merge, see if theres consensus. It's relativly simple. -M^ask

02:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Ryan

Good to know there's some people out there who are aware of the contrasting perspectives on the Meg Ryan interview. My main intention is for the article to be accurate, I think it was an important incident in her career, but in my opinion the honeness was more on Parkinson than her. I hope the article can be made accurate, not by dismissing the incident but by telling it fairly. The british media love their spin and they made Ryan look like a stroppy prima donna - but Wikipedia shouldn't concur with that.

It says you're a writer Cleo123, i'm graduating from the Bournemouth Screenwriting School this summer. Are you looking for a writer over there? I've worked on BBC radio, at a Script Agency, with a small TV production company and i've made a bunch of silly films... tell me where to sign, right!

What's your advice for a young writer like me? I'm looking at getting a sitcom or drama commisioned in the next few years. Perhaps if Meg Ryan's seen my campaigning for her she'd agree to star in one of my shows! Bobbyfletch85 05:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo123, many thanks for your kind greeting and the really useful advices you shared! :) Kind Regards! - very sincerely, Old Donkey 13:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo123, please check the "Meg Ryan" article and the last changes made... what do you think? A comment has been added to the article, that says: "Unfortunately, her attempts to recast herself outside of romantic comedies have not fared well, resulting in other actresses dominating the genre in her place. Where formerly critics compared actresses to Ryan favorably, (ie, "Reese Witherspoon is the new Meg Ryan"), now the comparisons follow the line of "Meg Ryan was the old Rachel McAdams."

It just seems a disputable question whether it is worth to include into the article such a comment - at least now (when Ryan is only 45 and btw works more actively now then in several previous years) - or not... I'm somehow under impression that these quoted statements rather represents some subjective personal opinions of some journalists - certainly shared by some part of public and media but certainly not shared by other part (see, for example, very recent article: http://article.wn.com/view/2007/02/16/Queen_of_love_Only_Meg_Ryan/ ) Thus, as it seems the quotes of critics added to the "Meg Ryan" Wikipedia article rather represents just somebody's "personal estimations of the moment".

Are such estimations principally important in Ryan's career, and can they be considered as needed for accurate and exact description of this career?

I doubt this... particularly because of Ryan is now apparently in the "new boost" phase of her career - being involved in several projects for this and next year (including romantic comedies she's so famous in)... and moreover, part of the public and press (see the link) still consider her as a "queen of the romatic comedy" whose status, won in 90s, still nobody truly "inherited" yet. I think at least several more years must pass before - maybe - the "time will came" for any more or less definite judgement on such a question as who (if anybody) will "dominate" the genre "after" Meg Ryan - in such a degree as she dominated it since 1990. Considering all this, i think it is reasonable to remove the newly added quotes from the "Meg Ryan" Wikipedia article. Please what is your opinion?... Kind Regards! - Old Donkey 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cleo123... Please, check the Meg Ryan article... somebody "did it again"... as it seems, to remove "Anne" from the birth name will be soon like a "regular full-time job"! :) Kind Regards! - sincerely, Old Donkey 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Hung

NP, I was reading it and I could tell that section was poorly written. Don't delete it though I'll go back and try to fix it when I have a chance (because it does have some valid citations so I think that section could be updated). Only reason I didn't fix it then and there is I have a physics test tomorrow morning so I didn't want to spend a bunch of time on wikipedia. SirGrant 07:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Good luck on your test! Cleo123 08:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Ryan interview.

Hi there. I've added back the information that you previosly removed on the Parkinson interview. You removed a statement which Parkinson made about her which I feel important as it is about Ryan, and that it was voted a most shocking moment. That is directly linked to Ryan so it should be included. However, I have moved it from her career section, to the trivia section as really speaking, it has nothing to do with her career. Feel free to discuss this with me on my talk page. Many thanks, Eagle Owl 15:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Eagle Owl[reply]

Understanding wiki

I think the only way anyone can understand how to work in wiki is to see what experienced editors do, because that is what will determine any outcome eventually. There are often two opposing viewpoints on controversial subjects. The outcome is then determined by the middle ground editors who tip the balance one way or the other. It is often a torturous way of arriving at a conclusion, but I have seen it eventually work. It is a living organism which has three non-negotiable policies: WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, with a strong emphasis on WP:CONSENSUS and a caution of WP:LAWYER.

Wiki does not aim for truth. It aims for what established sources say are the truth. When Einstein first came up with his theories they would not have been admissible on wiki, because they would not have been endorsed by a reliable source. Opposing viewpoints or interpretations from different reliable sources should not be judged or synthesised, but represented as oppositions that exist. We are not originators, but robots that replicate what other people say. This requires a very different set of parameters from those in, for example, journalism.

Tyrenius 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying this for me. I appreciate your efforts to help me understand. You are quite right! LOL! It is a bit different! LOL! Cleo123 04:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada strikes back

You're right. I've never heard of that commercial, but thanks for the positive feedback. By the way, you might want to check your user page. There seem to be "alot" of errors that you wouldn't want "broadcat". Clarityfiend 07:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Trendy

id like to thank you for your work with the Bobby Trendy page! so thanks for all the hard work Evaunit666 02:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Michael Richards comments

Of course your comments have some "impact" on me, as mine do on you. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother responding to them. I really like Kramer and don't wish to discredit him. It actually hurts my feelings a little when you claim otherwise. It's fair to say I have a limited view about what makes Richards notable or worth mentioning, but it's not fair or especially pertinent for you to speculate why I have such a limited view. For me to try to discredit a man whose already done so much irreparable harm to his reputation would be truly malicious, and it makes me sad to be accused of maliciousness, when I harbor none. If not so much out of respect for wikrules as a personal favor to me, I would humbly request asking that you stop accusing me of showing ill will toward the deeply troubled subject of that article. That's what Good Faith means, in my view.

I am exceptionally kind to new editors and avoid biting them; Ecostaz edits patterns do not follow those of a new editor. Still, I meant him no insult; I just wanted to warn others of his previous shenanigans, as I have no tolerance whatever for vandals (which he is) and sockpuppets (which, as Bulbous correctly pointed out, he has not yet proven to be). As you become more seasoned, you will learn to recognize genuine newbies from people wishing to distance themselves from previous accounts.

I've only been accused of incivility once before your accusation above (it was toward an editor who blanked my user page), and I maintain excellent relations with legitimate editors whose judgment does not coincide with my own; if you'll kindly point me to instances where I've transgressed against others, I will certainly examine my actions.

You know, I've actually cleaned up a number of lead sentences from biographical articles, not just Kramer's. Check out the Gertrude Stein, O.J. Simpson and Michael Moore edit histories when you have time. Speaking of having time, you made the comment that I'm wasting others' time with my attention to minor changes in wording. We're all volunteers; anyone without a spare moment to respond to ridiculous minutiae won't engage in the discussion; others--apparently with time on their hands--will. It's a matter of priorities; people on wp "waste" (POV term) their own time, not those of others.

I hope you respect my personal request to you out of decency, even if my editorial decisions do not strike your fancy. If you cannot grant this request, I still wish you happy editing.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, too, for the nice note. I now better understand you strong reactions to the discussions taking place on the Richards talk page, since it is only natural to defend the good name of your friend against perceived attacks. I probably went a little overboard trying to mitigate what I saw as a whitewashing of what I hoped would be a sober, informative, neutrally-worded article. In retrospect, the "dynamic duo" comment was a mistake; although the two of you are indeed rather forceful presences (hence "dynamic), I should have thought twice before employing the term with such a disrespectful tone. I'm sorry for that.

I hope that, despite our prior frustration with one another, we can help restore balance to many overly biased articles in the future. Peace, --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hardaway

Thank you for taking the initiative and pruning back the section on Hardaway's controversial comments. When the comments were a top news topic, I think they warranted the attention the article gave them. Now that the fuss has passed, I was hoping that somebody would cut it back. In fact, on Talk:Tim Hardaway, I asked one editor to do it, but for some reason he didn't. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some editing too. I didn't feel like I was the best person to start pruning that section because I was one of the editors who kept a close watch on it when Hardaway's comments were in the news — trying to remove vandalism and POV statements, trying to stick closely to quotes from the individuals that could be pulled from newspaper articles. I agree that the section is probably still a little too long. We'll see how it goes, and whether other editors disagree and try to restore some of it. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Richards

Good edits on the lead there Cleo123. Thanks for picking up my slack. :-) (→Netscott) 06:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Thank you! Cleo123 06:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you seemed to have such a negative view about me relative to that article. ;-) See ya. (→Netscott) 07:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Actors and Filmakers

Hey see my proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Actor and Filmmakers and the main WP Film and Biography talk page. Know anybody who is interested? Actors and all film people articles need a body on wikipedia to upkeep them asthey need more focus -it would be a part of Biogrpahy and Film. If you are interested or know somebody who would be, please let them know and whether you think it is a good progession for the project or not. Please leave your views at the council or biogrpahy main talk page. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. Great to get a pro writer on board. There are so many terrible actor and director articles we need as many quality writers as possible!!!Abbas Kiarostami is one of my better efforts with help from the copy editing wikipedians. Its amazing what can happening if people work together. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Model page for WikiProject Film Bio started

I have started a page model for the new project User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld/Film biography page model. Please note that it is still in its infancy stage and the templates have not been fully completed. THis is how I'd like the page to look but with an adaption of the task side plate further to incorprate film and biography goals on wikipedia. What do you think as a start? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 16:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has started but needs some effort to get all the components set up. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 16:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan

Hi Cleo 123, I've posted a response to your query about my sources on Dylan's Christian phase on the Bob Dylan Talk page. regards Mick gold 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cleo 123, I've re-written the 'Born Again' section with page references to Heylin, Sounes, and Gray's Encyclopedia. For anyone to assert that No actual conversion process took place in the face of the 3 most authoritative biographical accounts of Dylan seems, to me, absurd. What do you think? Mick gold 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cleo, Please don't worry about Dylan's 'born again' controversy. I think a clever editor patsw has solved it with quotes from New York Times. all best Mick gold 10:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Sorkin's acclaimed episodes

If you write for a popular Tv series then you must understand the value of watching a writer's most acclaimed episodes. Please reconsider your Delete. Anyone showing up to read about Aaron Sorkin with an interest in TV writing, will be most interested in the Further reading section, picking up a few of his scriptbooks, and the awards section where they will compare the acclaimed episodes to those in the scriptbooks, to even their favorite episodes. There is real value in that list to the student of Sorkin's works.-BillDeanCarter 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan.

I'd be pleased to know your thoughts on this discussion. I feel like the discussion is becoming antagonistic. I've tried to stay unbiased- my persistence, at least, has nothing to do with my 'religious beliefs' and everything to do with the fact that I feel that this stance conforms to Wikipedia's standards. We are maintaining and continuously updating lists like List of converts to Christianity for research purposes, and not to "boast converts" as Bus stop seems to have claimed, in more or less words.

I'm not sure how long you've followed the discussion, and since it is all mixed up between several talk pages, trying to make sense of it all is difficult. From the starting point, Dylan was on this list with a reference. When I noticed that Bus stop removed it for reason of "unreliable source", I took it upon myself to look for additional sources. As you can see, Dylan now has more sources which claim that he converted (just as much as any other sources for any other person claim that they converted), and yet Bus stop doesn't find this sufficient for inclusion on the list.

I'd prefer to discuss this with you to understand our points of disagreement. --C.Logan 09:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very shy on time right now, but I'll try to take another look at the various talk pages tomorrow. I do not have any objection to well sourced information regarding Dylan's "Christian years" in the article as long as a balanced and purely factual view is taken, with no subjective interpretation. I do see problems with his inclusion on a list of coverts to Christianity, when the validity of his "conversion" has been the subject of historic dispute. He is a practicing Jew and inclusion on such a list could give reader's a misimpression that falls within the potential boundaries of libel. Cleo123 07:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, the criterion for the list is simply conversion- if you hadn't noticed, the list contains a disclaimer which explains that the list is simply of people who have once converted to Christianity, regardless of later choices (although each individuals situation will be noted on their entry).

Many of the people undoubtedly lose their interest and no longer practice, and some may quietly return to their former religions. The fact of the matter is, we have added published sources which clearly describe his conversion period, and clearly state that he was baptized. For a time after, he did seem to honestly believe in it, if not practice some of the teachings. Whatever the case, his return to Judaism is noted on the list, even though I haven't seen any sources for this. Also, as far as I know, the participation in Jewish rituals is not sufficient evidence (of course, it depends) as many Jewish Christians continue to celebrate Jewish holidays and participate in Jewish rituals. The sources state this as well. (This is assuming that this is what you're speaking of, as I've heard this before).

I'm open to whatever evidence you may have. However, considering the criterion for inclusion on this list, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference beyond the fact that I'll add it in as another reference. (I don't mean that to sound rude, but text can convey the coldest meanings, it seems).

I'm beginning to question Bus stop's motives (although I have before, on his talk page). In our discussion a few minutes ago (I think, time flies), he stated: "All the disclaimers in the world do not counteract putting a Jew on a list of Christians." It seems that he's taking personal offense to the idea, despite my explanation (several times) that his (sourced) conversion satisfies the criterion for inclusion.

You're more familiar with him than I am. Is this an unfair judgment? Other users seem to say that he is helpful and supportive, but comments like this and the ones listed on his page seem to make it seem that his bias is playing more of a part than the sources he has yet to present.

Take your time. And I apologize if any part of this comment seems half-baked, but I'm very tired at the moment, and the thoughts aren't coming as clearly as they should be.--C.Logan 07:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty low

That's extremely intelligent reasoning on their part. I guess all users with "Charles" in their username better watch out too. If you think THAT Xfd is bad, take look at the massive WP:CANVASSing, meatpuppetry, and trolling here: [1]. People just don't understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia anymore. Bulldog123 07:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable converts to Christianity

The request for mediation for the above article has been rejected because one of the parties involved, User:Bus stop, would not sign to accept or reject mediation, so the request was automatically rejected after 7 days. Personally, I don't think that anyone is really interested in continuing the discussion much longer. Please indicate at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#Possibility of referring this discussion to WP:ArbCom? what you think the appropriate next step to resolve this matter would be. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from any attempts to further raise the allegation that I tried to "stack the deck" or similar personal attacks against me or the other editors involved. I acknowledge that I am relatively new here, and that I may have taken some of the steps out of line. However, your own blatantly prejudicial statements about how I tried to "stack the deck" and other at best poorly defined accusations may very possibly fall within the range of conduct defined as personal attack. Personally, now that I know that Bus stop's own history of unilateral misconduct is sufficient cause to revert any of his clearly prejudicial work, I have no reason to have any further direct contact with him. Also, if I had been as clearly prejudiced as you accuse me of being, I wouldn't have sent the above message to you, would I? I believe your own clearly prejudicial ways of phrasing events, and viewing them, may be at least part of the problem here. Please also note that, for perhaps the first time, I have clearly asked Metzenberg on his talk page if he would be willing to perhaps help form and be a member of a group which might have as part of its scope dealing with matters of interreligious controversy. I believe the clear facts of the incidents more than indicate your own phrasing is at best inaccurate, and at worst violation of unjustified personal attacks rules. However, as I anticipate having no further contact with you, I would only honestly ask that you at least refrain from making any explicit attacks on individuals, which may very easily result in a request for discipline against you. Also, if you will note here and here, I actually made contacts with other supervisory entities before doing what one of them told me to do, which was to seek to place a block on that user. Whatever your own existing prejudices are regarding this subject, I think that it would be seen that there was an honest attempt by an admittedly inexperienced editor (me) to resolve this matter, and that I simply acted a bit too fast? Considering Bus stop's repeatedly noticed flat refusal to actually respond to any of the points raised by those who disagree with him, can you honestly say the same thing about him? Also, in light of the evidence I have shown above, I believe that it would be a disply of good faith on your part to remove the flatly inaccurate statements you have made elsewhere. It will be interesting to see if you do so. John Carter 15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, your name is mentioned no where in the posting to which you refer. [2] In the second place, I have not made any personal attacks. I have noted inappropriate editorial conduct by editors on your side of the dispute. I have done so in response to your attempts to rally other editors to seek Arbcom against User:Bus stop. I feel it is very important that both sides of the story be recorded so that any administrator reading the page will have access to all the facts. These are facts, not accusations, as they are substantiated by contribution histories. It is very obvious that you are new to Wikipedia, because you really do not seem to understand the spirit of editorial policies. Whether you realize it or not, you have behaved improperly. User:Bus stop is an established editor who had a spotless record prior to this dispute. Rather than assuming good faith on his part, you have treated him as if he were a vandal and encouraged others to do the same. Very shortly after he expressed a point of view contrary to your own, you requested a Community Sanction blocking him from articles (one of which, I don't believe he had ever even edited). This was very inappropriate and the reason you request was rejected. Rather than learning from this mistake, you appear to be trying to up the anty even more!

Your request for mediation (which followed the failed Community Sanction Request) appeared very disengenuous. On the surface it read like a simple content dispute. However, other comments you made on a variety of talk pages would seem to indicate a desire on your part to have Bus stop blocked or punished in some way for disagreeing with your POV. Several editors on the Bob Dylan article shared Bus stop's views, yet none of us were included in the "content" related mediation. If your request truly concerned content, why would you invite 3 editors with your view and Bus stop alone? That certainly does appear to be an attempt to stack the deck in favor of your POV.

User:Bus stop has consistently responded to all article related queries. He has presented multiple policy based arguments for his view, all of which have been ignored. Other editors have supported his arguments, and they too have been ignored. Many editors on your side of the debate have behaved in a very uncivil and inappropriate manner. Indeed, accusing me of making personal attacks, when my record clearly demonstrates that I haven't is uncivil. You may not care for my view, but I assure you that it is a nuetral and unbiased view. I came to the discussion in response to your request for a community sanction against User:Bus stop.

As a newcomer, I would advise you against focusing so much effort on getting established editors who disagree with you blocked or punished. Rather than rushing off to file complaints against User:Bus stop you should have engaged in an open minded debate with him and attempted to reach a consensus. Wikipedia is open for all to contribute, even those whose views you dislike.

As for this statement : "I would only honestly ask that you at least refrain from making any explicit attacks on individuals, which may very easily result in a request for discipline against you." - I would advise you against making baseless threats. I stand by the statements I have made and will be glad to provide citations to any administrator who expresses an interest in this matter. Cleo123 05:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration involving yourself has recently been filed. Please feel free to go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Bus stop and make any statement you believe appropriate. Thank you. John Carter 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable converts to Christianity

I'm contacting you on your talk page about the above, because it seems that it is impossible to discuss anything on that page. Just to try to gauge your position on the Dylan issue: are you completely opposed to inclusion? I share the concerns about the list you expressed on the talk page on a broad level, although I think I disagree with the specific solutions you propose. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the efort to communicate with me on my talk page. I quite agree that communication on the article talk page is somewhat challenging. A bit of mine field, I'd say! LOL! I don't think Dylan belongs on the list, but that is not my primary focus. My specific concerns regarding Dylan are detailed in the recent AFD discussion, if you'd like to read them.[3] I think that the scope of the list needs to be limited and more clearly defined, before more celebrities are affected. I do not understand why editors would not want to heir on the side on caution where WP:BLP issues are concerned. Seems that editors have become a bit too focused on "winning" against Bus stop. It's a pity - because the article, which really needs attention, looses. There are other solutions. For example, a link to "List of Notable Converts to Christianity who returned to their former faiths". In the end I think that all such lists need to have a uniform set of criteria for inclusion so that there is some consistency. The fact that the list has been nominated for deletion 3 times now, tells me that there is a history of problems with the criteria that pre-date anything Bus stop may have stirred up. Cleo123 05:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the writings of William Monahan

Hey, this stupid list is up for deletion again. As someone who voted on this issue previously, please feel free to express your opinion again. Also, billdeancarter has taken the liberty of notifying those who voted to keep in the first debate, so I am doing this to be fair. WhiteKongMan 13:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Lamont

All right, you told me you are considering to nominate that article for deletion unless I can provide some sources. Tell me what needs to be sourced from that article, and I will try and find some sources for it. You might want to tell Ted87 about what needs to be sourced also, since he is going to help me find sources and try to keep the article here on Wikipedia. --- 72.142.212.28 20:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying so quickly. I still need you to tell me what exactly needs to be sourced. By the way, if you think this article should be deleted, then I think I have some other ones that you might want to delete, including all kinds of articles on labels (non-notable ones, of course) created by fans whose favourite mediocre artist happens to own that label. I think I have a few articles on non-notable artists also (I don't really remember that much anymore, I used to edit Wikipedia from this account, but I quit because I got too addicted, towards the end I averaged out over 50 edits per day, but as you can see, I am still here...). You might want to tell Ted87 about what is going on too, so that he does not have to go to my talk page to stay up to date with how this issue progresses. Thank you. --- 72.142.212.28 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Lamont's notability

I am well aware of WP:N in music. Infact, I've nominated many articles (specifically hip-hop related) for deletion. But I really think Bishop Lamont is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Also, you are wrong in saying that he hasn't released an album. N*gger Noize was an album, and though it was marketed as a mixtape it has all original content. The only disclaimer is that it was released on an independent record label. Anyways, I'll continue to try an add conetent to demonstrate his notability in hopes of it being kept on Wikipedia. --Ted87 06:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The message below was left in response to a warning I left on User:Warlordjohncarter's page [4] after he blatantly vandalized my comments on a discussion page. Cleo123 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So noted. Perhaps you could communicate the same thing to your friend Bus stop, who pointedly removed several clearly off-topic and almost incoherent comments himself. :) Oh, and as a follow up I have noted on the talk page of List of notable converts to Christianity that I would welcome your following up on your threat of trying to impose sanctions on me for my "disruptive behavior". As you may have already noticed, on my earlier comments to you on this page, I have already tried to seek several means to resolve this matter, only to have your ally Bus stop decline arbitration, possibly as per your own comment to him on his talk page to decline it. I would thus welcome a review of the behavior of myself, you, him, and anyone else in this and other related matters. Otherwise, please note that threats do not intimidate me, particularly when what is being threatened is something I have already sought once, only to be opposed by yourself and Bus stop. John Carter 15:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not quite true, John Carter. First of all I am not incoherent. That is a violation of WP:CIVIL. What happened was that I tried to make a point concerning the ongoing and pressing issue, the reason why the article is now blocked from editing, but I did so under a heading which you had created (a sub heading in a thread) on Abo of Tiflis, which you had created under the title Requested changes. I was trying to make a point on the differentiation between long-dead people and presently-living people. You complained to me, and began to get legalistic with me about my misplacement of subject matter under the wrong heading. So, rather that fight an uphill battle, I withdrew, (deleted all my comments) and even left a note, in my deleted comments, that you might feel free to also delete your responses to my comments. But you chose not to delete your comments in response to my comments. You chose instead to leave your comments in place. And you chose to take another couple of pot shots at me in addition, in two additional postings. All I tried to do was withdraw from the situation, because you were not amenable to conversation, and I sensed in your wording, an inclination for retaliatory legalistic (Wiki-style) action. That thread, which you created, remains entirely unanswered at this time. That is not proof of anything. But all I tried to do, perhaps in the wrong place, was open up a conversation with you. I don't think you did anything, from your side of the conversation, to foster resolution of the problem plaguing us right now. My withdrawing from that conversation can be seen as a conciliatory gesture. Now, for some reason, you are dragging that unproductive encounter, into a conversation with Cleo123. What is the point? To engender more bad feeling? Bus stop 12:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

email

answered you on help Tvoz |talk 08:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint regarding user conduct

As I have stated on the Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity, it is my clear intention to bring a formal complaint against you regarding your conduct within 24 hours. I am giving you the grace period so that you can file a complaint against me, if you so wish. However, as stated on that page, I believe your own conduct is such a clear and explicit violation of WP:NPA that it cannot be allowed to continue without at least a formal complaint. John Carter 15:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter -- You've clearly transgressed WP:CIVIL many times in comments to and about me. In fact, abusive references to me, from you, is the norm, not the exception. I have not made so much of an issue of it because I am trying to stay on the topic of the specific dispute at hand concerning this article. But Cleo123 is 100% correct in pointing out your abrasive commentary on and about me, personally. I have not wanted to get into a petty exchange of insults and slights because I have not wanted to be diverted from what I see as the inherent rightness of my article-oriented argument. Bus stop 15:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to bring the complaint. As stated, I intend to bring one in 24 hours, but am giving the two of you a chance to file your complaint first. John Carter 15:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you giving us 24 hours to file a complaint first? Just to be nice? As I've previously stated, your contribution history clearly shows that threatening other users on their talk pages and filing retaliatory complaints is your modus opperandi. You go ahead and do whatever floats your boat, John. Bus stop & myself have no need to file any complaints. Neutral third parties, who have apparently been watching this debate from the sidelines have recently brought your conduct to the attention of administrators, without any prompting from either of us. [5] Cleo123 03:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter -- I'm not concerned with the petty bickering that you are trying to entice me into. I have an article to write. Wouldn't we all be better off devoting our energies to that purpose? Wouldn't that be more in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about? Do you view Wikipedia as having the potential of being a viable encyclopedia? Or do you think Wikipedia's bureaucratic arteries need to be bogged down with adjudicating our petty bickering? Bus stop 15:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. I agree with Bus stop 100%. Cleo123 03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you have both actively tried to avoid any official review of your own conduct on that page, that doesn't surprise me. However, on the basis of recent comments on the List page, I think it makes sense to extend the period of your decision to 24 hours after you first logged on after the statement. On that basis, you have twenty four hours after the next edit you make after this current notice is being posted to file. I think that is more than fair. John Carter 15:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the complaint is filed by one side and/or the other, I believe the "petty bickering" will be all but, if not completely, resolved and ended. Why not seek such an avenue if that seems to be the only way to end this dispute? John Carter 16:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter -- Should Cleo123 understand this to be a threat that should he/she post anything it will result in you filing a complaint against him/her? Should the above be understood as an intimidation tactic? Could you please explain the above posts? To my ear they sound intimidating. Bus stop 15:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to grasp concepts comes through again. The statement I made is that I have every intention of filing a complaint against this user within 24 hours of their next post. However, I will give that user an opportunity to file the complaint they have against me first. So, sometime over 24 hours after this user's next post, I shall file a complaint against them. The grace period is being given for that user to have an opportunity to file a complaint against me first, should s/he choose to make one. That is not a threat. It is a statement of intended action. The word "threat" implies that I am trying to prevent something from happening, when in fact I am giving an opportunity to take action, which is the exact opposite. I fervently wish that Bus stop were able to more clearly grasp the details of statements made by others. Were that the case, the primary cause of this dispute would likely have been ended a long time ago. John Carter 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time out

Please stop threatening each other and go find something productive to do. There are lots of ways you can all help Wikipedia. Arguing here isn't one of them. I suggest you refrain from commenting to each other for a few days to give everyone a chance to calm down. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint regarding your conduct

Please see Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and other misconduct of User:Cleo123 for a recently filed complaint regarding your conduct. Thank you. John Carter 01:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carter's complaint and the response it recieved can be seen here.

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive!

WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless ^{Type words!}.

WP:NPA

The talk page of Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity already has a tag that off-topic comments should not be placed there. Several of your recent edits explicitly calling into question other editors, myself and others, are I believe clear and explicit violations of the rules of wikipedia. Please at least try to address matters of substance. Alternately, if, as seems at least possible, you wish to raise a complaint regarding me, please do so. However, please also be aware that your own, shall we say, at least occasionally misleading comments will also become public knowledge should you do so. Your camarederie with Bus stop is already a matter of note. Perhaps you would be better able to serve the interests of wikipedia in encouraging him to not take actions which lead to his being blocked, or perhaps in helping him to make his own comments on talk pages more appropriate. John Carter 20:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not leave any more messages of this nature on my talk page, as I consider your behavior to be harassment. I do not wish to engage in any further dialogue with you. Please, leave me alone. Cleo123 05:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is camaraderie with Bus stop a crime? Bus stop 13:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all people, animals, plants, inanimate objects, celestial bodies, purely conceptual entities, and things that do not even exist, to endeavor to engage in camaraderie with Bus stop. I welcome interactions with all aspects of universal existence. I want all entities to be assured that you will find camaraderie with Bus stop to be a richly rewarding experience. I promise not to let you down. Whether you be a paramecium or a paragon of decorum, I can assure you that you will find a true comrade in Bus stop. Bus stop 13:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a crime. However, I was pointing out that considering the two of you have a such a long-standing and close relationship to even talk about others "away from prying eyes" (was that the phrase?) that this user might be able to talk you into perhaps engaging in behavior that would not compromise your ability to edit. I had thought that was clear from the context. Evidently, I was wrong. John Carter 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this: Ochlocracy about mob rule today, and sadly it reminds me of the endless conversations, and accusations and recriminations and conflagrations and exaggerations and justifications, that has no end where religion and politics are concerned. I try to publicly have no opinion about private matters like religion. My sense of right and wrong and my antipathy to mob rule however occassionally gets the better of me. Modernist 14:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Your continued use of unsubstantiated, emotionally inflammatory language has I believe made your own contributions extremely suspect, is a clear and explicit violation of the rules of wikipedia, specifically WP:CIVILITY, and certainly does nothing to indicate that you either know or care about engaging in reasonable conversation yourself. You have once again engaged in unsubstantiated harrasment, and continue to prove to all other editors that you are yourself at least not uniformally capable of abiding by wikipedia regulations. Please cease and desist in your unsubstantiated, inflammatory accusations which clearly and explicitly violate wikipedia policies and guidelines. Such comments are both sufficient to potentially have you blocked as well and are the closest thing to the "pure evil" you accuse others of I have yet seen here.John Carter 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter -- Why are you perpetually trying to get people blocked? Why don't you instead address issues? All I've dealt with since entering your firing zone are attempts to get me blocked. From the moment I started editing List of notable converts to Christianity you have been trying to get me blocked. You are doing the same thing concerning Cleo123. What is your point? Is it that you see the obvious validity of some of the points that Cleo123 and myself have been raising on the List of notable converts to Christianity Talk page? Until I entered into editing List of notable converts to Christianity I never before encountered on Wikipedia so much litigiousness. You resort to litigiousness at the drop of a hat, John Carter. If you put as much effort into actually discussing the issues on the Talk page of the List of notable converts to Christianity as you put into accusing people of infractions and threatening to get people "blocked," I think progress might be made in resolving issues relating to that article and it would certainly be a more pleasant atmosphere to operate in. Bus stop 17:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll at List of notable converts to Christianity

Hello Cleo123. I noticed that you have not cast a vote to break the tie in the latest attempt to reach consensus at List of notable converts to Christianity. I encourage you to do so here. Thank you. Nick Graves 19:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser request

I never actually accused you, and I'm not sure anyone else did, of being a sockpuppet of Bus stop. I think there's an old quote from Hamlet: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." On the basis of your apparent defensiveness against something that has not been, so far as I saw, a complaint specifically made against you, I wonder why you are so quick to defend yourself against it? Also, I note that you did post a request for a checkuser for me and Drumpler. As I have already expressed on User:Nick Graves's talk page in response to your fairly explicit allegation of sockpuppetry, I am more than willing to do whatever I can to help expedite that process. However, I believe that, as you seem to believe that people consider you as either being a sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer, without to the best of my knowledge anyone having done so (I admit I didn't read the whole thread), I do believe that it is more than fair and reasonable that you be willing to be checked against Bus stop as well. Fair is fair, right? I look forward to your response to these points, preferably to my talk page. John Carter 16:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]