User talk:Boolalah

Welcome!

Hello, Boolalah, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 05:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How to address/respond to way out-of-line Wikipedian "editor"

See posting:

Shadowlynk talk page.

Boolalah (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Conical Johnson

Boolalah (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How to address/respond to way out-of-line Wikipedian "editor"

Shadowlynk - hello, you helped me in my first posting last year. (Thank you.) So I think you are a mentor? “Hall monitor?” On a article I primarily researched and contributed journalistic information to, another editor/contributor (ConicalJohnson) posted snide, angry commentary next to his multiple deletions — which is his choice, but moreover the same individual posted a surprisingly rude and bullish inflammatory "talk" page as well, in a non-Wikipedian manner. I believe the Wiki concept is for open editing, sharing of research and information, helpful deletions and guideline commentary designed to help newcomers and all contributors become braver and more polished in their contributions, however those anointed with helping contributors are themselves supposed to have a neutral point of view as well...not a bitter, mean, angry and accusatory approach of personal attacks. To use COI allegations on an open page is harassing and threatening to me, Boolalah, that as well as an ugly deterrent to other contributors as well, and more; but moreover since this editor actually goes so far at to address his tirade to the personal name of person whom the article is about, instead of me, Boolalah pseudonym — this type of personal-attack behavior, to gain an upper hand in making deletions and edits [including deletions of media references – even deletions of (Photo) Howdy Doody(!), then after those deletions, to then add a "question of notability" tag] would especially seem to violate Wikipedia protocol guidelines for the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to feel comfortable. He also added, "I'm watching this page." Pardon me? I believe what is most troubling about this entire matter is this editor exposing/posting personal nonobjective information about himself, opening saying "he lives in New Orleans" and "his opinion" and expressing his bias. Making personal comments about “personally” knowing other individuals that he deletes. Even going so far at to say HE has not heard of the subject-matter of the New Orleans person of the article!? This is very disappointing behavior. We all have bad days…but… Wikipedia is not a New Orleans-based media, it is an international medium. At any rate, what it the appropriate step to take? Post on the talk page of Conical Johnson?

Boolalah (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

CC: Boolalah responsive followup threads posted on ConicalJohnson Talk Page

 Conical Johnson (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Boolalah contributions ConicalJohnson – with respect to Boolalah Wikipedia article contributions, the personal tone, commentary, non-neutral POV ConicalJohnson posted on a “talk page” not belonging to Boolalah (but yet apparently meant for Boolalah) is troubling. It does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. For instance, if ConicalJohnson wishes to directly correspondence and communicate with the subject matter of an article, Wiki is not the proper venue. Additionally ConicalJohnson’s noted postings next to multiple (Boolalah contributed) deletions appear snide, even mean-spirited and bullish, non-Wikipedian in manner. (I.e. if the robotic editor reviewed ConicalJohnson comments, the tag would be non-neutral.) The Wiki concept is for open editing, sharing of research and information, helpful deletions and guideline commentary designed to help to newcomers and all contributors become braver and more polished in their contributions, however those anointed with helping contributors are themselves supposed to have a neutral point of view as well...not the accusatory approach of personal attacks. Some editors enjoy deletions, tearing down, while other enjoy research and creating, building up. The in between balance is the fine-tuning of great article, for enjoyment and education of knowledge of many, around the world. There is room for ridicule and disrespect. Deletions should not be made with obvious personal prejudice anymore than creations should be. ConicalJohnson does not own nor control an article nor an opinion any more than other contributor does. All are subject to protocol and guidelines. To use COI allegations to defame on an open page, to address a contributor by a name, is harassing, out of line, and even threatening, that as well as it is ugly deterrent to other contributors as well, and more. Tightening of articles and journalistic contributions is a good thing, however skewered personal-attack behavior does not provide an upper hand in making deletions and edits, and deletions of references. Boolalah contributions and ConicalJohnson deletions will be double-checked, with civility, with respect to any violation of the Wikipedia protocol guidelines for the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to feel comfortable. The note, "I'm watching this page" is particularly unwarranted, as are personal comments about ConicalJohnson’s regional/locale and bias. We all have bad days…even the robotic editors do…but…Wikipedia is not a New Orleans-based media “sandbox,” it is an international medium, that is to be approached not lightly, nor with malice or an agenda, but with serious professionalism, thought and intergrity. Boolalah (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Type - There is NO room for ridicule and disrespect. Sincerely, Boolalah Boolalah (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

TJ fisher

Hi. I read your comment and, I would like to extend a friendly handshake to you, but I'm still a bit unclear what you feel I've done wrong. A couple of specific things you mentioned:

Bias. What bias do you think I have? How could I prejudge a person I've never heard of? Why would I be biased against this person? Did I make any edits that go against the guidelines of Wikipedia? Please be specific. If I've done wrong, I want to know.

Tone. You are probably right that I could have used more flowery tone and avoided you being angry. I must admit that my tone on Wikipedia is terse. This is actually intended to avoid people misunderstanding my intentions, but clearly that backfired here. In real life I'm sarcastic, but this doesn't work well online, so I curtail it. If you feel I said anything rude, I'd like to know about it. I don't want to step out of line.

"I'm watching this article": This is Wikipedia-speak. If you'll notice, at the top of every article, there is a button that says "watch" - this is used to keep up on pages that need attention. I'm not sure how you took this to be a threat, but I don't know how else to say. "I have pushed the button that says 'watch'".

Accusations. Yes, I suppose I did accuse you of writing an article about yourself. It is certainly possible that you are not the subject, and I was completely wrong. But since most of the TJ Fisher edits come from you, and most of your edits are on this page, and the page is written in a style that seems self-interested, it has all the hallmarks of a single purpose account. Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe I should have written this on your talk page, not the TJ Fisher page. For that, I'm sorry. I'll move the content here if you like.

Am I wrong about the COI? What exactly did I do that you think was wrong?

Thanks. Conical Johnson (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

CC: Boolalah responsive followup threads posted on the ConicalJohnson Talk Page

 Conical Johnson (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Boolalah contributions ConicalJohnson - thank you for the Boolalah responsive posting. The tone is appreciated. Open dialogue responses to follow. Meanwhile on TJ Fisher (Boolalah contributed) article "Notability Question Tag” in re-reviewing the neutral and objective minimum Notability Wikipedia inclusion, the Fisher article meets the literary threshold guidelines alone, for the post-Katrina nationally received work: Orleans Embrace with the Secret Gardens of the Vieux Carré. It is preferred that ConicalJohnson (the originator of the tag) remove the tag. Notability (books)

2. The book has won a major literary award.

Other considerations Threshold standards Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. For example, in the United States books are catalogued by the Library of Congress; Literature Published authors are notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read. Boolalah (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Boolalah Talk Page

Conical Johnson – In the first collaborative effort, thanks for the Boolalah “Talk page” welcome. Volunteer contributors/editors should be open-minded and not war. On the TJ Fisher article “Discussion page” the Conical Johnson commentary assumingly meant for Boolalah contributions directly violates Wikipedia protocol guidelines under the personal attack category of attemptive “outing.” It is acceptable to suggest a potential COI but it is banned to muse over suspected personal names, as in a guessing game. That is serious, and an immediate blockable offense. Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. To directly address the subject matter of the (living person) article is wrong and potentially hurtful to not only the contributor but also the subject matter. Wikipedia's policy (against harassment) prohibits editors striving to "out" and "publish" another editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Please self-govern here with some remedial action on posting with direct salutations. Bias appears when a hometown New Orleans-slant is mentioned in the frame of reference, as in Conical Johnson editing decision making, and references to other edited NOLA-based articles as “knowing the subject matter.” It seems like ConicalJohnson is a more effective editor if others are not attempting to pierce the ConicalJohnson identity. Anonymity is better for fair subjectivity. Any newcomer contributor can become overly involved with tending their “pet page” article, instead of moving on to more contributions elsewhere; therefore it is appropriate to tag the inclusion of excessive NPOV information (cited and referenced through 3rd party sources) as “undue weight.” But the words “puffery” and “marginal figure” and “big claims” seem pointedly mean-spirited. A portrait of a figure was drawn. Nothing more. Afterwards there is nothing wrong with reducing the content in a respectful way. “Notable” figures are often notably “odd” with bizarre characteristics and traits that come to light when piecing together and referencing a well-researched subject matter. With that said, interaction on Boolalah contributions, and all contributions, is what makes Wikipedia work. The world contributes. On ConicalJohnson deletions/edits, the perspective and input is welcomed. Collaboration is better than a soapbox or battleground with another contributor. Boolalah requests for collaboration: 1. Address/delete/strike through the direct reference to the subject matter. 2. Articles about “eccentric” people/subject matter generally include noted “color” about personal notabilities. On the Boolalah-contributed TJ Fisher article, the “Howdy Doody” memorabilia, the pink car and living on Bourbon Street have all been covered in the press (not necessarily in a flattering light). Perhaps ConicalJohnson or another editor can reintroduce those elements with stylized brevity. 3. The “Controversy” section renamed “Real Estate” is actually “Scandal.” 4. The deleted reference list should be reinserted despite missing copy, for later contributors. Thank you, and Boolalah intends to branch out and make more contributions. Boolalah (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Boolalah (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Speedy deletion nomination of Roxanne Pulitzer

A tag has been placed on Roxanne Pulitzer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions. An administrator will be along soon to review the article. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Roxanne Pulitzer

I have cleaned up and improved the article. I moved some of the references to the talk page as they were formatted in such a way that I could not determine which sentences they were intended to support. Please note also the article must conform to WP:BLP, so unreferenced negative statements cannot remain. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

TJ Fisher

I agree that we shouldn't edit war. I didn't realize you were expecting a response from me, since the messages you leave me are incomprehensible. I can't tell if maybe English isn't your first language, or...? Anyway, response is forthcoming on the relevant talk page. Before you get in a huff, just remember that I have no axe to grind, I don't even know who TJ Fisher is. I just don't want bad articles on Wikipedia. Conical Johnson (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:TJ Fisher#Undue weight for another unrelated editor's take on this. note that this editor also used the word puffery, not to be mean-spirited, but because it is a Wikipedia term. I hope this clarifies that none of my actions were out-of-line, biased, or mean-spirited, but merely based on the guidelines of Wikipedia. Conical Johnson (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, look. I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but you can't keep making these long diatribes about how an article isn't being neutral, or it's snide or whatever, without giving specific examples. If you can clearly show what's wrong with the page, then we can discuss it. I left a comment on Talk:TJ Fisher, and I'd appreciate you responding to it there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Want to work together with other editors not be a drama pusher. Want to be a good Wikipedian with civil additions/contributions to and the accepting of inevitable criticism on an article or content building and research. Want to work on people bios, start articles and make contributions correctly because citations and references take work and research. First, waiting for Conical Johnson to strike/delete the unreported direct address to TJ Fisher on the Discussion Page as it is violates Wikipedia policy as a prohibited personal attack that is bad for the article and contributor(s). On shaping Articles many Wikipedia Notables are not necessarily household names like a movie star. To keep calling a subject matter a marginal figure, and to call verified, cited, references a "bio" makes no sense and appears demeaning. Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability. Sourced material relevant to the subject's notability is supposed to be included including controversy. On this editor collaboration things concurrent (referenced) with the subject matter's notability keep being deleted. Suggest guidance be sought from the notice board for bios of living persons. Boolalah (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Boolalah (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to the stuff on the talk page, not here. Could you maybe actually answer any of the questions I've asked? If you just keep repeating these generalities, we're not going to get anywhere. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I have a few thoughts. First, it would be incredibly helpful if you could write in regular English, not headlinese. Your messages are sometimes hard to decipher because of this halting grammar. I'm fairly adept with English but find myself only able to understand about half of what you write. It would help you further your cause if everyone could understand each other.

Second, I haven't seen you address the question of whether there is a conflict of interest going on here. I've seen you offended that it was mentioned on the article talk page, but I haven't ever seen you say that it isn't true. Surely you can agree that a reasonable person could easily come to this conclusion - most of the edits on the TJ Fisher page come from you and most of your edits are on that page. The page itself reads very much like it was written by someone with a conflict of interest. Could you please address this concern? Conical Johnson (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not write on this page. Biased, passive-aggressive, angry editors unwelcome here.Boolalah (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What did I do that's passive aggressive or angry? I am allowed to write on this page to discuss these kinds of issues with you. Why won't you just answer the question? Conical Johnson (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Another warning

Stop adding text that violates the point of view guidelines. Edits must be neutral and well sourced. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop harrassing

Conical Johnson and HelloAnnyong harrassment: more passive/aggressive commentary on talk pages in violation of Wiki policies: [Hmm, troubling. I actually know Skip and ran across this page accidentally. But I am not a fan of people writing their own pages. Conical Johnson (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)] Time for Administrative Complaint? 98.172.54.101 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

98.172.54.101 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)