User talk:BarbaraSue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

June 2008[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Deirdre McCloskey. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your section starts by referring to NYT, then states things that it may not support (hard to check without the reference), and lists only refs to the archives of sexual behavior, whose editors and authors are principles in the controversy that you are referring to and therefore not suitable sources per WP:BLP. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is amusing that you think your opinions about controversies transcends the New York Times. Everything I added is supported in the reference that I added, which if you actually read, you'll agree to.BarbaraSue (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'll put it back with a ref to the New York Times, and without the ref to the archives, we could consider it (see if the content is verifiable there). But for now I think it's a BLP violation, and therefore can not stand without a citation for verification. Please also be aware of the WP:3RR, for which you are now on warning. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Be aware yourself.BarbaraSue (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Conway Mediation[edit]

Hi, I've accepted the 2008-06-01 Lynn Conway mediation case. Please feel welcome to participate and comment. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Andrea James BLP issue[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Andrea James, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop threatening me dicklyon, and please show me how any of my edits are inaccuarate. That you think that it is inaccurate to introduce direct quotations or to strike dead links, is odd. I will be checking into whether making threats like you made is consistent with wikipedia standards.BarbaraSue (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Look in the source that you cited to see how your contribution misrepsents the source and violates WP:BLP. I can't really threaten you, since I'm not an admin and therefore powerless to do anything but warn you and report you, but I can at least do that much. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You are a piece of work dicklyon, and we clearly will need mediation here. If direct quotations and fixing broken links offend you, then you'd better consider getting out of the business.BarbaraSue (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Easy guys, easy. What's the problem here? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing but a little BLP vandalism. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please, let's focus on the content, rather than on me ("piece of work" could be taken as a personal attack, but don't worry about me being offended, as I've been editing wikipedia too long to take any of it personally). Since you've put it back without the "while" and the rest that dilutes your mean point, I've reported you as a vandal for BLP violation. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming dicklyon really means what he says, about context, he should be very happy with the current version, which provides even more context than he says was missing. (I disagree that what was added means anything important but am happy to give it to him.BarbaraSue (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've repaired it a bit (you had a whole sentence twice, for example); and I took out a bit of interpretation, as the quote can stand without it. It's still not clear, however, that quoting the subject's private email via her enemy's publication of it is within WP:BLP, so don't get the idea that I'm "very happy" as you put it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice spin attempt, but James' "enemy" is a professional historian. And James has herself published the complete email with commentary.BarbaraSue (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I know she's a professional, and she wrote a history. So what? Does it matter if she's a historian? I didn't know James had published her email, but even so, is it fair to pick through for points of WP:OR to bias her bio the way you want it to go? No, it's not. Read WP:BLP again please. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's continue this on the Andrea James Discussion page.BarbaraSue (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Confirmed per this diff and checkuser ran by Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). -MBK004 04:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)