User talk:Emely1219

Please stop

We'll work it out on the talk page, so please participate there for now, okay>? Edit warring will just obscure the real issues and put the focus on the editors, not the edits. Flowanda | Talk 00:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karelin7 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copperfield

Hi. You wanted to ask me something? I'm interested to know what connection you have to the subject. You can email me privately ► RATEL ◄ 23:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually I did have a question. From the conversation I was reading on Gwen Gale's talk pg It appeared that you were disputing a current block. I was just wondering if you are in fact currently blocked. I am an student of anthropology and I am writing a paper on the social constructs of wikipedia. While researching David Copperfield on an unrelated matter I came across all of the debates surrounding his page and pages like his. I am not including any specific case in my paper in a case study format but I am going to cite certain examples. I am perplexed by Wikipedia policies regarding BLP's and I've found that some of the best arguments can be found on the talk pages for these articles. When someone is blocked, is there automatically a discussion forum for that block? Are any other admins notified when someone is blocked or is it up to the blockee to notify other admins and request to be unblocked? Thank you for your time. --Emely1219 (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blocked. I was only blocked for a few hours, unjustly (IMO). You say you are a student studying wikipedia, but you came out pretty actively against some of the editors on the Copperfield page. Strange way to be a dispassionate observer, as would be required for someone supposedly studying interactions here. ► RATEL ◄ 01:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your other questions are answered here: WP:APPEAL ► RATEL ◄ 01:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that after 6000+ edits you have only been blocked 3 times. Very disproportionate to other editors... most editors that are as involved as you have been blocked quite a few more times!

I did make a few edits, but i don't feel like they were all that passionate. I only remember engaging in one conversation with one editor... not sure who it was, I'd have to look. But I remember asking If his edits were inline with consensus. Then I got accused of sockpuppet. (gnna have to go look that one up too hahah) I guess that's my "going native" experience, lol! Im not really studying wikipedia, It's more like a paper on environments that require consensus to make decisions. I looked into WIPO and others before choosing wiki but there is an abundance of accessible info on wiki... I never said I was a "dispassionate observer" I am extremely passionate about anything I do (as are you I see) and I feel the best way to understand a situation is to be part of it, but the amount of bickering is WAY to much for me and there is no way I could ever finish what I'm trying to do if I spend my time arguing. Once I start, I wouldn't be able to just drop it! I Like to argue (a characteristic my family & friends HATE!!!) Thanks for the link... I'll go read that now. If you know of any Interesting arguments or disputes that might be helpful to me, send me a link if you can :)--Emely1219 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the bickering here is getting over the top. If you want to see how worked up people can get, try Collect's RFC ► RATEL ◄ 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha yes... I read the threads on gwen gales page..... it's better than TV!!!!! I see alot of editors like to follow their least favorite editors to new pages to find reasons to dispute with them.... automatically making them act in bad faith. They may be making the right edits but they are doing so for the wrong reasons. It's terrible.--Emely1219 (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copperfield talk edits

Ratel moved them here and refactored them, which I had to look up. Since this may be Ratel is relating to RfC formatting, I've asked Cirt to take a look at, but I don't think talk page edits should be moved around or edited without permission. Flowanda | Talk 03:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I agree! my comments are now taken out of context along with a few other editors comments as well. I would like to undo this but I'm not sure if it will mess up any other comments on the page and I am not sure which one I should revert it to if I did.Emely1219 (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as David Copperfield are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. ► RATEL ◄ 03:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! thanks for clarifying!. I am still learning and there are sooooo many policies to read it's hard to keep up! I do not disagree that your edit was correct but i feel some of my comments are now a little out of context. also, a comment where i replied to another editor is not in that category anymore. you are right that the talk page for an article should only be about that article. I see you haven't gotten any luck with the rfc... is that strange? do RFC's usually attract more attention?Emely1219 (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly does not help when an editor starts a section called RFC anyone???? right under a RFC section! That's likely to confuse editors arriving to comment. Please keep comments on topic (improving the David Copperfield (illusionist) page), and in the correct place. I do not see your comments as being out of context on the page as they now stand, and the material I removed was clearly off topic and breached guidelines. ► RATEL ◄ 04:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.. it was not my intention to distract anyone. I thought that my section was above yours? maybe I'm confused I'll have to look again. Since you are removing all off topic comments are you going to remove all the personal attacks? I promise to keep all of my comments on topic. But you have to admit, after all of the comments that are directed at you (figuratively speaking) it's hard not to defend yourself. :)Emely1219 (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emely, I must disclose that I, like Scott Cameron, think you are a sockpuppet. You are not very subtle (I am reminded of Scramblecase). I may have to take this to checkuser. ► RATEL ◄ 04:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? really? go ahead. what is scramblecase? why exactly do you think that? and how do I prove that Im not?( i have to say, this place is bizaar) Emely1219 (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. If I'm wrong (which I doubt), thanks for your comments at the RFC. Let's see you get involved elsewhere in wikipedia now, just to show you are not a sock, okay? There a lots of pages, millions. ► RATEL ◄ 04:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess i can't really take offense.... so i won't. I know there are other pages... tons! everyone has to have a first though! I actually think I've found my next cause.... I have a 10 yr old daughter, even with all of he parental controlls activated on her computer, she can still see the articles on wiki that show sexual perversions (bondage & others i dont care to list) I cant believe that these pages are on here with graphic photos!!!!!! ugh.. i think im actually disgusted for once...Emely1219 (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you are a sockpuppet too - you overplay the wide-eye innocent role while at the same time trying to start a RFC and get involved with policy discussion. The only new accounts that do that always turn out to be sockpuppets. Oh and in the response here I see you've dropped the "I'm a student doing research" angle - that's the other problem with sockpuppets, they tend not be able to keep their stories straight. So are you still claiming to be a student doing a paper on wikipedia or as you do above, simply someone who just happened to randomly turn up at the DC page? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas for you -- she was not found to be a sock. You are beating a dead horse by continued charges and personal attacks. Collect (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remain convinced this user is a sock, I see nothing to change my initial assessment and will be openning a new case shortly. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I never dropped the angel since

A. it wasn't an angle to begin with and

B. Just because I have a life and a family doesn't mean I am not a student

C. I have actually decided (despite all of your efforts) that I like wikipedia, and

D. as for my "new cause"... guess what?!?! I am an active voice against anything on the internet that can be accessed by children that shouldn't be.

You think I am a sockpuppet? Good luck proving it. I hope you have ALL of eternity and them some.... because you are wrong. Open as many cases as you would like. You'll only be making yourself look foolish, but that's fine with me. :)

And as for my "Wide-Eyed Innocent role" huh? are you serious? I don't even know where to begin... so rather than argue, happy hunting!!Emely1219 (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issues about your being accused of sockpuppetry

Given that the case is closed and nobody provided any evidence that you are a sockpuppet, I would suggest that you ignore these users above and elsewhere. Feel free to remove the sockpuppet tags from your user and user talk page. In addition, I would echo the concerns of Collect here and say that you of course should not provide personal information to users simply because they say you should. As for some of your comments (above), you're really not helping matters. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. You can do what you want, but this "wikidrama" involving you is just a new way these editors can beat up on each other; the David Copperfield talk page is another battlefield. The experience you're having is not typical of the interaction among editors (and is usually not tolerated), but responding or sparring just feeds this conflict that really isn't about you. I'm not trying to mean or bossy-again, you can do what you want-but just being direct. Bottom line, you don't have to worry about having to protect or defend yourself; there are plenty of "stalkers" who will step in if you to stay out of this. Flowanda | Talk 16:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected; thanks for the clarification. Flowanda | Talk 19:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do really appreciate your concern thought!! Alot of women make dreadful mistakes in forums such as this!!Emely1219 (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]