User talk:CarlaO'Harris

Welcome!

Hello, CarlaO'Harris, 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 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with contentious editors

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

Remain polite per WP:Civility.
Solicit feedback and ask questions.
Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
Assume good faith of other editors.

I hope you find this reminder helpful. --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about the Power-Hungry Administrator, Moreschi, who has no good sense in his head whatsoever, and who completely on a power-trip, blocks users who have brought good information to an article in an attempt to de-slant it from obviously slanted authors --- why? Probably because his little petty Wikipedia power was challenged. Petty tyrants such as he ought to be exposed for exactly what they are. Since I have been "blocked" for a month, arbitrarily, I don't even have the opportunity to rebut his riDICULOUs points, so this must suffice for the present.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to make part of this record the extreme bad-faith of the editors at the Viktor Rydberg entry, who, having banned all the opposition, have now completely catered and capitulated to R.S. Radford's totally slanted perspective, and have allowed him, totally against all discussions that occurred and in violation thereof, to revert back to versions --- now that there is no one there to oppose him --- which had been declared invalid. His insinuations about Rydberg's alleged pedophilia, which have been completely rebutted, have been inserted back into the article, simply because he wants it. Yet the editors continue to consider him to be a fair and unbiased source. This is blindness.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]