Jump to content

User talk:Crohnie/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Please don't start an edit war

Crohnie, please don't start edit warring over the MacDonald article. The reverts and changes I made had nothing to do with you personally - they were about reverting and/or changing bad edits. In fact, I didn't revert everything you edited (as you claimed in your latest edit summary), only some of it. And please, stop accusing me of things that are untrue and/or unfounded. If you don't start exercising good faith toward me (and I mean actually doing it, not just talking about it) and stop making these accusations, I will have to go to an admin and make a complaint. The baseless accusations are getting very tiring and really need to stop. I'm not your enemy, Crohnie. My edits or reverts where you have edited are not about you (or anyone else for that matter) - my edits are about the good of the encyclopedia. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 3:02 pm, Today (UTC−5)

(Note, need to return my comments --CrohnieGalTalk 23:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

Feb. 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 3:36 pm, Today (UTC−5)

FYI: Regrettably, I have been forced to report you for edit warring. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 3:36 pm, Today (UTC−5)

(Note, need to return my comments--CrohnieGalTalk 23:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

I have done no such thing. Who are you? --CrohnieGalTalk 17:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Re: YouTube problems

Hi. You said you were having trouble with YouTube on a talk page. This may help clear up your problem. Hope everything is well. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but the problem is the security set here at home. Hubby tries to protect me from getting into trouble with viruses. :) Not real computer savy here so the more protection the better! :) I just got out of the hospital on Friday but I am doing a lot better though it's slow going. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear you are improving. I think the Actns/Swif.T scare back in 2008 was a false positive. I can't imagine life without YouTube. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Just make sure your protection is up to date. That's why hubby updated mine and locked me out, I went to one and almost got bit! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 11:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Due to situations beyond my control, I've decided it's time to take a semi break from the project. I will be popping in to check articles that are on my watch list but not for long. I am giving serious thought to whether I feel the project is right for me. Lately it's not any fun. I don't like the stress involved. Feel free to email me. I am not saying I am gone. I am saying that I won't be here that much and that I am thinking about recent events and whether it's worth my time to be here. I used to be proud of my time here but lately... Anyways, everyone take care and I hope you are all have fun editing. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Stay!

I hope it becomes fun again real soon. I value your contributions highly. Anthony (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony. I'm not gone just not going to be here as much. Need time to regain my strength after another hospital stay last week. I edit for fun and enjoyment and things around here were just getting too stressful for me. I figure when it gets like that the best thing to do is walk away for awhile. :) I'll be back like usual soon though, thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome! Glad to see you join Karel article. Hope you are feeling better soon and can enJoy editing! TY for the help. Take Care and God Bless! This should be fun! Happy editing and Peace! JoyDiamond (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm slowly getting my strength back and hopefully will be able to add more to the project soon. I'd like to see some more references added to this article and the article stretched out to cover more than what it does. So far I've just done minor edits to the article which I came across during vandal patrol using the 'recent changes' on the side bar. I find going there I get to see a lot of different articles plus I get to clean up after the vandals. I would also like to add my sincerest sympathies for your latest loss. Happy editing, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Another reply

Hello, Crohnie. You have new messages at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I don't have the time at the moment to give this my full attentions. I got out of the hospital a week ago and I'm still limiting my time here to try to get my strenth back. I promise though to think about things and try to add to the RFC soon. My only real concern right now though is that the copy and pasting be stopped to take over the listing articles. If Outlines want to be another navigational aid then it should have to be written properly, not just taking the summaries of main articles without the proper adjustments and references needed. To me it seems like the makers of the outlines are more concerned with how many there are then taking the time to write them. I don't mean this as an attack, I just mean that it looks like the more of them the better but no one seems to be taking the time to do it the right way, minus you and a few others. Is there a location that lists all of the outlines with a centralized conversation about what is going on? That would also help me when evaluating. Thanks, you have been very calm through all of this which I find very admirable. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I would very very much like to discuss how to improve outlines and the outline project. That would be a great conversation. But it is being overshadowed by the conversation at the RfC, which some seem to be trying to use as a lever to eradicate outlines (either entirely, or just from mainspace). I think that RfC has to come to some kind of resolution, before we can change direction to instead discuss the ideal-structure-of-outlines, and to discuss specific aspects/problems of some of the outlines. This editor put it well.
Regarding copy&pasting: There are 2 different problems. 1) intro-paragraph attribution, which we're fixing. 2) There's a separate complaint that editors are "taking articles, deleting all the prose (leaving just the blue links), and making that into a list." I agree that a couple of outlines have begun that way, but I don't think it is a major problem if they continue to grow from that point. It also seems like a nitpicky way of concentrating on the worst examples. Some of the detractors of outlines seem determined to ignore the good examples (eg Outline of anarchism, Outline of Buddhism, Outline of cell biology, Outline of forestry, and Outline of Japan) and the potential benefits of outlines, during discussions. Some bad-quality stub-lists, are not a good reason to delete/move/change some other good-quality lists!
In regards to central locations and background: It's complicated. (isn't it always!) They've been going since October 2001. The related-pages are all listed at WP:OOKDIR. There's also an incomplete list of "historical talkpage threads elsewhere" at WP:OOKDISC.
One perspective of "The overview" can be seen at the other rfc draft page, User:Karanacs/Navigational pages RfC draft. I highly recommend giving that page a read over a few times. It's densely informative.
Also, did you see my reply to you near the end of the User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft#Ready to launch? thread?
No rush on reply, there are a lot of points addressed above! (and slow and steady wins the race. hopefully ;) (Replies here are fine. I watchlist :) Best of health to you. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:FYI

Thank you for the heads up. You'd think the person mentioning my name would give me that courtesy. Guess not! Thanks again! Pinkadelica♣ 23:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I think everyone has a right to defend their name when being attacked. I'm amazed that it was allowed to go on at the AN board like that. Astounding isn't it? Hopefully now things will calm down but to be honest I'm not holding my breath. Personally I would have filed a complaint about it since no one there was doing anything about it. There are some things that policies demand difs for and this was one of them. I hope though that you will return to the articles now that things seemed to be settled and help out when needed. You have always been an editor I enjoy working with, I hope to see you around more. Take care and be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's astounding to say the very least. It's rather sickening that admins and the like have let two different people accuse Wildhartlivie and I of sockpuppetry without any proof. I find it telling that neither of the accusing editors will actually file an SPI. I heartily welcome one, that's for sure! Thank you for the kind words of support, they are greatly appreciated. I almost forgot that there are actual decent, drama-free human beings round here! Pinkadelica♣ 19:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember a second editor accusing you of being a sock, can you supply at dif for it or would that just stir up drama? If it's the latter, then ignore the request because the last thing we need about all of this is more drama. I still think you should take them to a board and make them file or redact. If redacting isn't possible, than making a comment renouncing the accusations. This kind of thing is getting out of hand in a lot places, I'm watching another friend getting the same kind of poor treatment that is being spread to multiple locations. So seriously, think about this a bit. If you do, let me know please. Happy editing is what I wish for you :),--CrohnieGalTalk 12:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Mentoring

Crohnie -- I'm sorry to learn that your medical condition continues to be unstable; and this makes me all the more appreciative for the time you've been able to invest in helping me to work through a non-standard problem-set.

1st try -- message was plausibly "puzzling" or too complicated

I hope this enquiry may serve as a tipping point which moves you to post a thoughtful comment at active ArbCom thread.

Alternatively, this diff may be the sound of one hand clapping.

The topic needing resolution is something to do with organizing? or structural planning?

This is a draft effort to use graphics as a tool in crafting a non-verbose response to Carcharoth's diffs here and here.

Please help me improve this with constructive criticism. What I construe as Carcharoth's main points are highlighted in yellow.

I plan to post the following in an ArbCom thread. Can it be made clearer? shorter? better?


Note: The text highlighted in beige is already posted in the thread.

Arbitrator views and discussion
  • I note the comments of a few of the editors approached to act as mentors. I would like to know (a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations); (b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group; (c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors. In answer to the question above, Tenmei's six-month topic ban on the subject of Tang Dynasty begins once the mentorship is approved. Risker (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This can't move forward until Risker's questions above are answered. Could a clerk please notify the editors who need to comment here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so. As for your comments about "raising the bar", it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this. I count, so far, Doc James and Kraftlos (of those you list) and in addition to this, Nihonjoe and Coppertwig. The layout at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts is impressive, but there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Tenmei, I'm supportive of you resuming editing with mentors, but please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak, then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Hypotheticals
In theory, it is not unreasonable to ask hypothetical questions; but in practice, the attempt can easily devolve into a time sink.

Illustrating the point with a timely issue: Is there a constructive value in examining failures attributable to ArbCom — serial incidents in which ArbCom snatched defeat from the jaws of victory?

Can you suggest a better way to solicit your help in a specific context? Please contact me by e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My initial message is now collapsed. A couple of mentors offered suggestions about how I could have written differently:

  • diff "I would suggest writing shorter responses ... and just in general not try to summarize the entire situation ...." -- Kraftlos 19:39, 18 March 2010
  • diff "I am learning to give people what they ask for. If they want more info, they'll ask for it ... [which] would be better than being flooded with information that must be sorted through. --McDoobAU93 00:40, 19 March 2010

Let's pretend I didn't send you the "1st try" message. Instead, let's assume this "2nd try" message is the beginning of an unanticipated new thread.

At some point in the future -- if time and conditions allow it, I would like to ask for comments about the use of format as a device (a) to focus my comments and (b) to limit the number of words.

Thank you for your willingness to help me to re-think a style of communication which is a barrier to my working collaboratively with other people in our Wikipedia venue.

Please allow me to thank you again for your timely words of encouragement in December. --Tenmei (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Email sent, thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

DocOfSoc (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

It is so refreshing to interact with another editor in a friendly manner. Your helpful suggestions are much appreciated. Here's to Happy Editing! DocOfSoc (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Adding a prayer that your medical condition will improve considerably!DocOfSoc (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Crohnie, I stopped editing other articles when I was followed to every single one, admins couldn't see the obvious. I am familiar with most core policies, but am open to re-reading if you have suggestions. Since you have been semi-mentoring, I would be most comfortable if you would like to take on that task. FYI, most of what another editor has said about me is not to be relied on. (See my note on the admin page.) I am familiar with your medical probs and how painful they can be, so be assured I really am not a full time job! LOL I will be starting slowly because I think my sister took part of my brain to heaven. Grief is exhausting and we were especially close. TY for everything, you are terrific! DocOfSoc (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but officially I can't take on the task of mentoring because of my medical problems. I have been hospitalized now twice, September 11th, for spinal surgery and then again by 911 emergency transport about two weeks ago. The last one being at first feared as a heart attack that ended up with being an acute lung and blood infection with my Crohn's added to it as a flare up which made it feel like I was having a heart attack. So, I fear I can't be counted on at this time to do a proper job of mentoring. I am always willing though to help you out if you need. Just post a message to me here and if I respond in a reasonable time then you know I am available. Check out WP:Mentor, this tells you about mentorship and also how to get yourself list to be be adopted. My mentor was Delldot. This editor/administrator is the most patient editor. I don't know if she is still doing mentoring but you can ask her, you even have my permission to tell Delldot that I recommended her. As for you being followed to other articles, please see my response at the AN/I discussion. Hopefully there will be an RFC/u started soon, at least I am hopeful that this will ocurr and sooner than later. On my user page you will see a welcome page. I don't know if you received one of these or not but here is where you should start. Look at the welcome page and start reading sections 'Getting started'. I also have a lot of links on my user page. Please feel free to take what ever you would like and add it to your user page for easier reference. If you don't know how to let me know what you would like and I will do it for you, of course with your permission first. I find that due to the meds and so forth, I have to reread things to jog my memory.
I am truely sorry about your loss of your sister. When I lost my father I thought life would never be the same. Mourning is exhausting. There are many steps to mourning so take your time with your grief. I promise, though that it will get better for you. In time, you will remember the happy times more and more and start to smile at them. You can't rush the mourning process, all you can do is the best you can. Things will get better though. I hope you have someone close to you that you can talk to about your feeling now because that does help. I hope for you, that in time you will be happy again. Good wishes to you, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Darling

You've got me jazzed (a little blushing as well)! It's always excellent editing with you, my dear; your contributions to the project always reflect your positive and fair attitude; towards life in general, and it's very plain to see :> You know damn well WP needs you; you're here, and you're staying... end of story! Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doc! I didn't mean to make you blush! ;) You deserve recognition for all that you do here. Sometimes we all seem to forget that positives are very helpful. With all the stress that has gone on, you kept your cool and to me that is awesome. The support alone that you give editors, even when you disagree about some kind of content, is invaluable. I don't plan on going anywhere, I sometimes get so frustrated with the drama that a well needed break for whatever length of time, is very needed. That being said, you're stuck with me! :) Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Never keep a beer near your computer under any circumstances. I'm at my local library, on Wiki for the first time in days. Until I get my computer fixed, I'm limited to a few hours editing a day :< Anyway, I had to pop in and say "Hi"!, and Wow! Did I miss a lot during my break or what? Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your computer. I am lucky when it comes to that kind of thing. Hubby takes care of all of it. :) Yes, keep all fluids away from your computer. It's very bad for them when they get wet. ;) If you have an old keyboard, try pouring some water in it (then drain it of course) and allow it to dry. We used to do this a long time ago, maybe 15 years. We had such an old keyboard that we could actually run it through the dishwasher on the top shelf. Weird huh? But it sometimes works. Yes, it has been busy lately. If you have a comment to make it's not too late to add yours. I hope you will consider it since you saw a lot. Thanks for popping in. Let me know when you get your computer working again. Be well Doc, look forward to hearing from you again soon telling me that your computer is working again! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 20:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Asking you to provide policy to back up your personal opinion

Your comments are completly incorrect as far as policy is concerned:

As I have asked several editors, please back up your opinion with policy, otherwise your statement is nothing more than a unestablished opinion, with no basis in wikipedia policy. Okip 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors are telling you, you just don't seem to be listening. I don't know you. Canvass states that you can not just go to editors who support your position(s) which you have done. You are supposed to keep it limited and also inform editors that are not on your side. You didn't do it in a neutral way either. Read what is being said at AN/I. Sorry you don't like my position on this. Have a good day, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh and for the record, I don't like the personal attack you made just because you didn't like what I said. That was totally uncalled for. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Depression

Hi, thanks for the note. I am halfway trough doing more research on the subject and am starting a write up on what I found for the IBS talk page. A newer review has interesting information and seems to be already partly covered in the first paragraph of the Irritable bowel syndrome research section and supports that material.

As far as I can see, major depression was not talked about by the Ledochowski study,[1] (source for the removed material), only an association with an increased Beck depression score. The Ledochowski study was also small (16 men, 34 women) with no blinding or controls. It only concludes, "Fructose malabsorption should be considered in patients with symptoms of depression and disturbances of tryptophan metabolism", so the material removed from the article was claiming much more than the source.

The review aticle[2] I found, which also cites the Ledochowski study, states basically IBS symptoms of mood, depression, fatigue, and lethargy may improve following a ‘fructose-free’ diet.

It may take me a few days to see what was done to the other articles depending on what comes up in real life. Ward20 (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey no problem, take all the time you need. I just don't have the knowlege to do what you are doing so I really appreciate you taking the time to go through it all. I am guessing but I suspect that the next section of articles are going to be IBD. I've seen this before as a claim that if you do without fruitose that it can be a cure. I think a lot of it also has undo weight too. But as I said, I am not knowlegable enough to go through it all which can be seen with my reverting myself. Thanks again for taking the time, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

IBS

I am unsure why IBS was moved to irritable bowel disease? IBD usually stands for inflammatory bowel disease.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just asking for help. These two diseases shouldn't be redirected to each other at all and I was trying to undo the redirect of Irritable bowel disease to Irritable bowel syndrome. Sorry I screwed up big time I think and I don't know how to fix this and remove the redirect completely. I have never done a move before so if you could help me out and know how to undo my mess I sure would appreciate it. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes we will need an admin to perform a page move. That can be done here. [3] It is easy to make these errors.  :-) BTW a redirect is done using #redirect[[page to be directed too]] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I was starting to panic about all of this. I'll go ask for help. Damn these vandals!  :) Thanks,
Ok I made the request at the link you provided. Not sure if I did it correctly since the template didn't seem to be what I wanted to do, which is to remove the redirects completely. Thanks again for your help, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are getting rather confused. I do not have enough medical knowledge to judge whether substantial changes should be made to the Irritable bowel syndrome article, but I suggest you raise this on the talk page for that article before proceeding further. PatGallacher (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was an error on my part that I asked help to fix because I didn't know how to fix it. Thanks for fixing it for me. I do have a conversation going on at the talk page about this. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've replied on my talk page, but I'm a bit confused - you say irritable bowel disease isn't the same thing as irritable bowel syndrome, but a quick look through the literature doesn't seem to define irritable bowel disease at all. I trust your knowledge of all gastrointestinal diseases far more than my own, but I can't find a clear definition of it.
Let me know if I can still help. Redirects shouldn't be too difficult to deal with, but in this case the history deletion makes it hard for me to tell what happened. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Caution

Statistically, a fully automated tool reveals that by posting at WMC's talk page you automatically become part of His Cadre. Never mind, have some flies cemetery. Hope you enjoy! . . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you've got what I was saying. Thanks for the goodies. This was new to me. My first word that I have to admit was when a friend said they were going to step away to light a fag. I was so shocked and I said so and asked what the hell they were talking about. They laughed and said it didn't have the same meaning as it does in the US, that as being a word not to use because it's very derogatory. Then they explained they were going to step out of their house to smoke a cigarette. I almost wet myself with laughing. It's amazing how words can have such a different meaning than what we are used to. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, words can have differing meanings in different cultures – the spread of US usage through media gives us some clues, but there seems to be leas info going the other way. Fag is amusing as in what the English call a public school (but Scots and Americans would call a private school) it can mean a younger pupil fagging, acting as a manservant for older pupils – very Billy Bunter sort of stuff. All I can conclude is "While you’ve a lucifer to light your fag, Pack Up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit-Bag, and Smile, Smile, Smile" :-) dave souza, talk 12:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to admit, I find it fascinating the different interpretations cultures have.  :) I've learned a lot just from the little bit you've said above. Now when I see something that I'm not sure about and I know the editor doesn't originate from the US, I try to see if there is an alternate meaning than what I know. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur leigh Allen

Hi, I would like to know why my edit to "Arthur leigh Allen" on wikipedia was removed?

could you give me the reasons for this?

Stuart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.236.57 (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you give me a dif so I know what you are talking about please? I may have made a mistake but I won't know until I see what you are talking specifically about as I do vandal patrol. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I found what you are talking about. I reverted it yet again and explained myself on the talk page. Hope this helps, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

....for your comment, Crohnie. Always good to hear from you, and I hope you're well too. The actor situation has become something of a battleground, but I still hope that the discussion will settle down to something mutually respectful and that it may actually reach some resolution/conclusion whatever that may be. That's my optimistic wish and it's within the realms of possibility. It's also possible that pigs may start flying, but that would be so worth seeing! Take care. Rossrs (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your hopes for everything to calm down and to get some real conclusion through consensus. I have to admit though I fear will see pigs fly before we see this come to a nice conclusion. But I am hopeful, it's always a pleasure to talk to you too. It reminds me that editors can be nice and still make their point about issues.  :)--CrohnieGalTalk 16:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
PS: Sorry about mispelling your name at WT:ACTORS. I hate to mispell names so I have fixed it and apologized. Sorry about that. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
That's no problem. Thanks for changing the spelling, but I knew it was an honest typo :-) Rossrs (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Films Project

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
  • Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
  • Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! AnmaFinotera

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I've already checked some of this out but I missed a little so the difs will be handy. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your comments at the recent SPI filed against me, Retro and the other user. Everything seems to have blown over without any progress on solving the core problems, but, then again, who has the time (perseverance, interest) to press the matter? I certainly don't. It's my hope that the involved editors have noticed that the comments at both SPI and ANI were overwhelmingly critical of their behaviour and will modulate it accordingly. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I had hoped that an administrator would follow up on the AN/i especially after the comments made after me by WLU onward. I actually thought they explained how the articles could be writable without all the contention going on. For some reason it seems to have stalled for more important matters like whether an editors talk page should be protected from vandals or not. I hope RetroS1imoe returns again. I hope you find some peace at other articles. I still won't go near those articles. I would suggest you find some other interest for your sanity and fun in remembering what it's like to be around nice and friendly editors. It's easy to forget sometimes when we get caught up in an article like that. Happy editing, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

And...

Thank you veddy much!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, and what a mind blowing experience the new program page they installed and had popup. I couldn't even figure out how to sign my own name.  :) --CrohnieGalTalk 09:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Brad Pitt

It's alright, we all make those mistakes. At first, before getting your message, I was worried that I did something wrong, and couldn't get it out of my mind, but I'm glad this is cleared. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
You are nice even to the horrid vandals! Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Why thank you! I am so surprised, what did I do to deserve this? Thanks so much Doc, it is a pleasure to work with you too. How do you like that new program they threw at us? I don't. --CrohnieGalTalk 09:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
We gotta deal with the change; extinction is reality, and adapting to new circumstances is the only thing possible. I like the old style too, but I'll adapt to the new rather than go the way of the dinosaur. And what did you do to deserve your Barnstar? What you always do, dear! Keep the faith... :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, I'm a dinosaur I think because I couldn't even figure out how to sign off my message to you that I disabled the new one and am with the old one. I did their message thingy as to why I was disabling it. From the comments at AN/i which I checked first there still working things out so that everything works. I didn't have a clue on how to make it work. Maybe I can find where to read up on it to first learn how to use the buttons that were there so that I can do basic things with it but until then, I'm sticking with this old stuff that I know. I hate changes that are so drastic. It makes me panic. :) Thanks again for the barnstar, I'll try to live up to it. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 09:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are a much appreciated "CupyCake" Thank You!!! Fondly DocOfSoc (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS May 2010 Newsletter

The May 2010 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Is She Back?

Please checkout the Ryan Seacrest article. I spent several hours reorganizing, and categorizing the article, only to have it reverted. I thought categories were far more appropriate than years, have not seen that before. To call the stalking incident " Personal life" has a familiar ring to it. Categories subject to change but an almost total revert? Input please.

I spent a lot of time rearranging and categorizing. Categories were removed and a timeline format was reinserted. I have not seen an article set up with a time line. Is this usual? I would like to know what ya'll think of my changes as I am planning on changing them back if you agree and this is my first attempt at a total reorganization. The "Personal Life" change is her style. ( red flag!) . Have a great weekend! Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
note, responded at editors talk page. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And where would that be Crohnie? Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I commentted to you on your talk page about this socking stuff. There is more converstation though about it at Wildhartlivie's and Doc9871's pages. Until that SPI case gets attention the only thing that can be done when we are sure it's her is to revert due to WP:DENY. Hopefully the SPI case gets handled soon because I fear seeing too many editors that aren't really socks being accused. Care needs to be taken with this. --CrohnieGalTalk 09:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks. There is no doubt that it is Excuseme99. The bashing of Robert Wagner, pushing the Suzanne Finstad book re: Natalie Wood and the identical images that are warehoused at Flickr. I am mostly hoping he's go away, but it won't happen. Will you also keep an eye on Salma Hayek? Someone added a blurb about her doing a Coke commercial, which I removed based on undue weight and that we don't cover that sort of stuff. The editor left it alone, but guess who showed up? Chowbok, that's right. To revert it and be tendentious. I'd appreciate it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure I'll put that on my watchlist. As for Excuseme99, I wasn't talking about that sock, so many lately huh! I was talking to 2/0 about SRQ's behavior and the lack of attentions to the SPI case, sorry I wasn't clear on this. I did check out the other user though. Do you think the article needs semi protection or just the editor blocked? Let me know if he continues since you know his editing habits. Give me the difs I need and I'll take it from there. I'm tired of these socks invading and it's time to get serious about it. Like 2/0 said to do, revert on sight anything they do with an edit summary of reverting a sock or WP:RBI reverting a sock. I guess adding the RBI is in hopes that an administrator will see it and do the blocking part. Did you see the new stuff added to the SRQ report by Equazcion? If not, go read it. He gave good reasons for one of the socks that SRQ is using. He even found where SRQ said that 'find a grave' was a bad source. I swear I looked for an hour yesterday and I couldn't find it. I knew she said it, but damned if I could find the dif so needless to say I am happy he found it. Let me know anything else going on with the socks (multiple socks) either here or at my email. Talk soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Protection won't cover it, he will just make a new account and wait the 3 or so days until he can edit again. This is a persistent bugger and it needs to be blocked. I actually DO revert on sight and say rvt edits by banned sock puppet each time. It annoys him, he posted to me to stop calling him Excuseme99. I said, "why? You outed your own self!" Heh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And now you are telling me that he has an IP that isn't blockable? <not sure I really want the answer. :)> Let's see what he does. I will help you with reverting when necessary or when I see it. Good that you say that and even better that he doesn't like it. :) Outing himself, so funny, seems to be in the air lately as so did SRQ. Why do they even bother... Talk soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

FinalRapture

How strange. I assumed it was a bot and would have never noticed. I will look into this further. Cool Hand Luke 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I've been having problems with sockpuppets lately that we haven't been able to get any attention to. Are you interested in checking into two cases going on, or can you ask someone to? I haven't yet tried to get any CU's involved but I'm about to the point that a CU needs poking at least on one that is at SPI cases and open for over a week now. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, let me know what you're looking at. I'm trying to pitch in on the SPI backlog, and would like to become a regular in this area. Cool Hand Luke 18:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this case here. Editors who had to edit with her know her style really well and I think they prove that SRQ is socking through multple accounts and multiple IP's. The community called for a community ban on her and Sarek did just that giving her a one year ban/block. She has used other IP's not listed but she is using her cell phone which is a Verizon user account for IP's. The other one is Excuseme99. No new SPI case was opened but the old one is here. This editor is editing under the Closeminded8 at the article Natalie Wood. The editor is making the same edits. Wildhartlivie can tell you more about this editor. The SRQ one though needs attention as soon as you are able. She is bouncing all over the place and has become bolder since the case against her has been ignored. Thank you, if you have any questions don't hesitate. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
@Luke - Please help close the SRQ SPI if you're working on becoming a regular there - it's a "slam-dunk" that has been waiting around for far too long, and will most likely help further your career (hehee). Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to say since I have been followed almost everywhere by this particular duck, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it smells like a duck..it's a Slam Duck! (sorry Doc) Absolutely no question in my mind. DocOfSoc (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Other editors who may not know what is happening needs to know that you are reverting per deny sock puppet. If you put that in your edit summary it should be clear to those uninvolved. I know she is following you the most that is why I requested the request I made on your talk page. I am hoping for even more clarification on the SPI case soon. But I hope you will do what I suggest above and on your talk page. Maybe if she is reverted enough times she will get bored, we can hope anyways. I hope this answers your question.--CrohnieGalTalk 13:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The SQR request was complicated, with many IPs to check to be thorough. Should have started with User:Closeminded8. That's a straightforward sock. Thanks for the tips. Cool Hand Luke 13:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are so right! the Closeminded one wasn't figured out until later I believe. Personally, I just want her stopped the best way possible. She was a very difficult editor to work with and still is in some ways to some editors like DocOfSoc who SRQ followed before the ban and is now still following her. I think this is a hard case for anyone with her using her cell phone that is on Verizon. We do appreciate your help a lot though. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Intestinal crypt
Greg Yaitanes
John Paul Rylands
Moore's Indian Appeals
Natasha Gregson Wagner
Robert Graysmith
Sir William Moore Johnson, 1st Baronet
Randolph Peters
Pyogenic liver abscess
George Stovin Venables
Activator technique
Gallbladder disease
David Yates
Street Angels (1996 film)
Gastroptosis
Crime Library
Murderabilia
European School of Brussels II
Ari Folman
Cleanup
Rupert Bowers
Aspartame controversy
Michael Eddowes
Merge
Growth failure
Comparison of MD and DO in the United States
Human anus
Add Sources
Laryngopharyngeal reflux
Michael McDowell (actor)
Julia Roberts
Wikify
List of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air characters
Bar Mock Trials
Sarah Joseph
Expand
Steven Spielberg
Marilyn Monroe
Paranormal

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR

No, the first removal doesn't actually count, unless he continues. Remember we're counting reverts. He stopped short of the 4th revert. But Hullabaloo Wolfowitz also removed it. I returned it with more cites that confirm the woman was convicted of stalking and was sentence to 3 years probation. It is not a BLP violation, the woman was convicted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought so but I wasn't sure. Yes, I looked to see which was corrct on that. Hopefully it's stopped now. --CrohnieGalTalk 09:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I don't think that we have interacted directly before but I wanted to say thanks for the kind comments. I probably won't ever run but ya never know. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No we haven't but I've seen you around and like what I've seen. You would be a good administrator. If you decide to run please let me know. Your welcome and maybe we will cross paths, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd take you much more seriously...

...if you ever directed one of your arguments against WHL, or, indeed, ever disagreed with her publicly in any fashion whatever. Until then, I'll continue to regard you as a meat-puppet.—Chowbok ☠ 18:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You can assume bad faith all you want that's not my call. I am not a meat puppet of anyone. I think my reputation here at this site will prove that I'm an honest editor who tries real hard and is liked by most. I do disagree with WHL but not on site since I am her friend and I don't want what I say to her in the public domain or used against her. Does she have problems with her tone at times, yes. Does she lose her patience at times, yes, but a lot of times it's for good reasons. She has some personal things going on in real life that is difficult and stressful. I personally don't think I could handle what she has been doing. I also have medical problems so I also understand her 'tone' when she is not feeling well and trying to do busy work to forget about how she is feeling only to be attacked. I know this isn't a good excuse for most but to me it is. I like WHL and I hope it's mutal. You harassing her and poking her constantly is uncalled for in the method that you do it. There are things I don't like with all of you and your bad behaviors, that is you, WHL and Jack. The baiting needs to stop. The sock puppet accusations along with the meat puppet needs to stop or you need to file a case against us. I say us since you are accusing about a half a dozen editors of being meat puppets. As a matter of fact I email her today about things I was not happy about. I don't know if this matters or not but I will not embarrass her on site and I will not give her enemies difs to use to twist them around into something they are not. She may not be completely in the right with her behavior lately but the stress of you and Jack poking and following her around is plain wrong. You say you didn't get into this with WHL because of SkagitRiverQueen, well give me a dif because so far everything you have done that I have seen are accusation by this banned user. I'd like to see peace between all of you if it's at all possible. Is it? I asked her the same thing too so don't panic. If you want to talk more please feel free to at anytime. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that's a more thoughtful and reasonable reply than I probably deserved. Thank you. I'll try and find you relevant diffs; it was an editing dispute, nothing to do with SRQ... I just happened to stumble into an argument with her at the same time she was fighting with SRQ.
Even after your explanation, I don't really see why you think it's okay to criticize everyone else on site but her only privately. But in any event, you can't have it both ways; you can't say that you treat her differently than other editors because she's your friend, and then be upset when people accuse you of being in league with her. "Meat puppet" is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but as she's already been blocked for having sock puppets, I don't see why it's so wildly ridiculous to think it hasn't stopped.
Anyhow... I'm kinda rambling here but I am trying to be civil (since you were civil), hopefully I am but it's hard for me to keep my temper when it comes to her. I realize there's a danger she's turning me into Ahab but I do think she's a genuine detriment to the project, it's not just the personal problems.—Chowbok ☠ 04:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Do keep your temper in check please, Chowbok. I'll bet you think I'm a Meat Puppet too - and that's fine. Think what you want - your most recent edits seem to go from AWB work to attacking WHL, and not much else. You want to take me seriously? I can dig up dirt, you know. Stick to AWB and all the many things that are here in this project, and strongly consider leaving WHL alone. It's not painting you in a good light at all... Doc9871 (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what your point is, but feel free to dig up any "dirt" you want. I have nothing to hide. You can even figure out my real name pretty easily.—Chowbok ☠ 05:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is: you'd best be off leaving her alone at this point. Find another target. There's lots out there, and you focusing solely on her between your "1/2 to 1/2" AWB changes is really absurd. I don't care what your real name is at all. Move along, now... Doc9871 (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm amused by your dismissive talk about my contributions. Do you even edit in mainspace? Looks to me like all you do here is politics. If you're so obsessed with my contributions, then you've also noted that I also just created an article that was linked to on the main page a couple weeks after it was posted. I've been here a lot longer than you, and it's pretty clear to me who's here to write and maintain an encyclopedia, and who's just here for the politics and social club. Guess which side you fall on? —Chowbok ☠ 06:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I've done lots of edits in mainspace, and I don't need to justify them to you, but I'm happy with a couple of them [4], [5], [6], etc. Don't care how long you've been here: stop openly hounding WHL. You admit you think she's a "genuine detriment to the project". Let others handle it, 'cause you're not doing a good job of it, and you're no admin (at least not anymore?) Without "politics" (the "social club" comment is amusing to me), the Wiki fails. What I do for this project is none of your concern either: but constantly trolling WHL is indeed something that your history shows quite well... Doc9871 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty pathetic. Three diffs, only one of which is mainspace, and one that dates back to October. This looks like the only article edit you've done that wasn't a revert in a couple months. Woo hoo! In the same time period I've done almost 1000 article formatting edits and created an extensive, well-referenced article. If you want to use this site solely to gossip with your clique, be my guest, but please refrain from attempting to belittle the actual editors.—Chowbok ☠ 07:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Notice the "etc." I'm not an "actual" editor? Come to me then, Chowbok, and leave her alone. You want to hound me instead? I invite it. "Gossip with my clique"... too rich. You're looking for a fight here obviously, and I'll be more than happy to give it to you if you choose. You are wasting space when you follow around and harass WHL; what you do outside of that - yip-de-freakin'-doo! Give it up and get back to improving the encyclopedia (however you feel is best - and hounding her isn't it). Let others handle WHL, because you plainly suck at it. Worry about yourself and your contributions, not hers or mine. Move on from WHL... Doc9871 (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am at a loss at what I should say here. I would appreciate it though if everyone would at least follow policy and assume good faith and not make personal attacks. Ok, continue if you'd like, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleting pathogenesis/mechanism heading on peptic ulcer

I don't think you really understand here, those theories are actually textbook medical material. But the website I refer to is a example of projects done by Russian medical student. And it's published on the website for sharing. So, frankly I don't think it's a violation of any copyright nor quoted from unreliable sources. BTW, theories will remain theories. And diseases usually have many etiological factors causing it and involved in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalan z (talk • contribs) 00:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but you need to publish the reliable sources which is the journals you mention, not the student's website. The website isn't a factor here other than not being a reliable source. Get the journal's difs and those can be used. Also, though I'm not positive because I didn't translate it, Cut and pasting isn't allowed because of WP:Copyright rules and that listing looked real hokey. Anyways, I'd be happy if you get the journals to add the new info. I didn't remove them because they are theories, only because of the sourcing. I hope that helps, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification of RFC

Hello, Crohnie. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Responded at users talk page, thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you change your mind. :( I understand that interactions are really fraught, but I think that you could help ensure a complete RfC there. And you are certainly welcome in any discussion launched under my name. Plus, you give really good advice on breathing. :) I woke up this morning feeling all cocksure and strong, but my breathing exercises midmorning set off a coughing fit that nearly put me under. :P (I know that their point is to make me cough, but still....) I tried your technique and found it really helps. Thank you for sharing it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I will reconsider since I think things may be finally getting to a point that the three editors maybe able to live in some kind of harmony, at least that's my hopes. I've been trying to work with one of the editors via email to calm down her 'tone' which apparently is taken too often as being mean spirited when it's not. Having medical issues it's easy to see when someone isn't feeling well and that their 'tone' becomes strong or impatient sounding. The disputed issues are not really complicated in my opinion and a lot of it is just POV. That being said, there are sound reasons on both sides of this issue that do need to be ironed out so I'll see if I can help out when needed. I've never done an RFC before so it will be a learning experience for me. :)
I'm glad my experiences has helped you. There is a plastic machine you should ask your doctor for. It's for breathing exercises that are given out in the hospital to help expand lung compacity with less coughing then you are experiencing with the beating the chest/ breathing they have you doing. It's actually a fun little gadget that you are supposed to use 3-4 times a day or even more if you are having difficulties. Mine only says that it's made by Airlife. If you send me an email, I'll take a picture of it and send it to you. It is really much better than what you are doing plus it's less painful. All it has you do is you take a big breath and then attach your mouth to a tube and you exhale slowly. There is a little bead in it that has lines that your are to keep the bead within. It sounds simple to do but it's not. It takes time to get that little guy to stay in between the lines. More important though is that it helps lung capacity and the coughing is not as extreme so less pain. Let me know if you are interested. Hope this helps some. You're doctor should know about this I would think. I hope you are feeling better these days. Keep in mind that this lung infection can repeat itself in a lot of people, at least that's what my pulmonary told me and it did hit me again about two weeks after I got out of the hospital. Take care and I'll see you over at the RFC after I get caught up with what is going on there. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this the device? Looks interesting. I'll ask about it on Monday unless I'm significantly improved enough that I can stop the King Kongish chest beating. :) No chest beating involved with it? That would be lovely. I think I am continuing an upward trend. Last night I didn't wake up choking/not breathing even once! Whoot! Thanks. :)
I'm so glad that you've reconsidered with the RfC. I would really like to see an RfC that might lead to something constructive. And I know what you mean about health issues and temperament. :/ Add to that the challenge of communicating in a text medium, and the opportunity for misunderstandings abound. I know sometimes when I'm discussing copyright problems, I go for a neutral "straightforward businesslike" demeanor that some have interpreted as harsh or cold. Which is not what I intend. But I don't want to seem condescending, either. Oi. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep that's it. Mine is the one without all the fancy colors. :) To be honest, I've been under pulmonary care of over 15 years and never heard of the beating of the chest technique. I've always been given one of these to use. The older ones were so hard to use it's not funny. Another thing to do is to use another pillow when your sleeping. If you lay in an incline you'll find the lungs won't dump into your throat causing you to cough as much. I can usually tell when an editor I know isn't feeling well just by the way they change their writing and yes I noticed it in you too. :) I too have hopes that the RFC is constructive. The main worry I have is that every conversation so far has gotten ugly. I feel good that it's on your page since you can control the ugliness if it should start up yet again. You saw the conversations over at WP:ACTOR so I know you know what I mean. I think you will find that tool very helpful and so would cough syrup for sleeping at night! :) Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
How odd. I wonder if the difference is because I've never had respiratory issues before (aside from seasonal allergies and occasional otitis media) and so am being treated a bit more off-handedly? I'm not seeing a specialist, but a generalist. But I live in an area where I'd expect up-to-date medical care, if not necessarily cutting edge. OTOH, my doctor could just be a crackpot who doesn't believe in these new-fangled things. Or ran out. Who knows?
I'll do my best to help keep things friendly and on even keel at the RfC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you are not a 100% free of the infection in 10 days then it's time to see a specialist. Trust me, you don't want damage to your lungs. Mine got damage by an idiot maintenance man hitting am apartment I lived in with dangerous chemicals that literally knocked me out for an hour. Thank goodness my son got home and got me out. It's hard to live with and expensive esp. if uninsured, which I am now.

I trust that you will keep things 'nice' at the rfc. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

Long time no talk, how have you been? I see you're still helping out around here. I haven't been around that much lately but have been here a bit more in recent weeks than in the past few months. Things are good but busy in my life. How's yours? Peace, delldot ∇. 15:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, things are going ok. I'm going away tomorrow for a long weekend to help my kids, leave to tommorrow to Sunday. Drop me an email so we can really talk. :) I won't be able to respond until I get back because I will only have internet access occasionally but it'd be nice to hear what's going on. Around here I do what I can. Somedays are quite peacefully and others are not, you know. I'm looking to see how this new flag revision goes. I honestly can't tell with all the excitement and upset, how I feel about it. How do feel about the new changes going on around here. I don't like the new features they sprung a week or so ago. I am a creature of habit and drastic changes flip me out like that. So drop by & I'll leave myself a message next to my system to email you. Today is packing day and finishing stuff around here prior to leaving.  :) --CrohnieGalTalk 09:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Just when my well-earned paranoia was receding! <j/k>! Thank you for your eyes and all the rest of you  ;-) Yes, I did check the ISP and found that the editor bore no resemblance to you-know-who. I do not know how to check an ISP's server/location however, so when you have time could you explain that? Hope this finds you well! Fondly, DocOfSoc (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

TYTY! For once, something was easy! Take care of yourself. Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem, your welcome, ask anytime. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Have a GREAT time woth your kids. Just an FYI, a Verizon acct with TWO geo locations showed up on Ryan Seacrest article today , which I assiduously monitor. Could it be? Bad feeling  :-( Will tell other Doc too! Fondly, DocOfSoc (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted your changes in the The Zodiac Killer in popular culture article

If you want to help, please add references instead of removing perfectly valid data. The most obvious thing you removed is the film Zodiac by David Fincher.Leo•Natan 04:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


I don't know who this is since you didn't sign your name. In response though, it's not up to me to find the references. We don't allow unsourced information to be just left there for so long without any references. This article was listed as needing refs since last year. I don't remember now exactly when last year but it was quite some time ago. All I've seen is a bunch of things being added to the article with no one putting in their sources. I will take a peek at what you are talking about though I am pretty sure I know what it is. If you want all of that to stay in the article, please start sourcing them and not ignoring the needs of sourcing. I will redelete anything without sources again. Please help yourself to find the sources for all of that. I don't have the time right now but if I remove anything I'll put it on the talk page instead of deleting and making you go to the history. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
My apology, forgot to sign. Leo•Natan 04:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem, thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk 09:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

She's Back!

She's BAAAACK! Brazen,bold and thinks WE are stupid! Going to my quiet place now BBL! AAARRRGGGHHH!! DocOfSoc (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC) [7]DocOfSoc (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I just went and struck through her BS. I left a note on how to deal with her there. Just delete her, period. No discussion at all, just delete and in the edit summary put deleting blocked/banned editor's sock. Don't carry on a discussion with her because all it does is make you get frustrated like above. If she continues strongly go to AN/i and file her different IP she's using and see if the community will help out more. I took it to Sarek here. to see if he has any ideas. She definitely thinks she's untouchable. Happy editing, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Quack! It's becoming ridiculous with the latest "talk" posts: so completely obvious who this is. Someone (uninvolved) needs to close the SPI... Doc9871 (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I went to Sarek to see if he'd help since this is so obvious. I don't know who will tend to that, do you have anyone? What about the administrator you mentioned? She is nervy isn't she? I marked the IP too. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I tagged the obvious ones and put them in the rotting SPI [8]. To Sarek: can you do nothing more at all now? This case is a total joke, lingering at SPI... for what? Who else could it possibly be? However, we are the idiots, apparently. Let it get stale? No way. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you think we can poke Luke to see if he can get another CU to finish it up? Maybe he has some pull? :) I know she is laughing and is bolder now because nothing has been done to stop her from her Verizon accounts. I doubt her home and/or work is blocked at this point. Something needs to be done, and now already. It took so long to get rid of her nastiness and now we have it again + 10. I don't know any CU that I am aware of, do you? Oh and did you note the comments she made to Wildhartlivie about her threats to have herself and "others" talk about Wildhartlivie socks problems? Like I said, is she in contact with 'others' about the harassment the WHL has been receiving? --CrohnieGalTalk 11:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it's going to take to resolve this case. Why it has been sitting at the SPI board for so long is beyond me - probably too "long" for most admins to "bother" with. I cannot believe how obvious this is: it's what SPI was created for in the first place. Absurd, really... Doc9871 (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree Doc, this is well past absurb already. User:DocOfSoc went there already. If you have anything to add to what we said, please drop by there and this is for anyone who wants the socking to stop. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by SIFT & WINNOW

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.[9] The discussion is about the topic Seeking admin assistance for disruptive editor. [10]. Thank you. Eurytemora (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

On my, I am so sorry for not responding to you. I thought I had. About that, I had to refresh my memory about it. I do remember now but I felt I was really too late to make any difference to the ongoing conversation that was going on. Again, please accept my apology for not responding to you. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That’s OK. The user under discussion has now been indefinitely blocked. In case you’re curious, the archived AN/I thread is here [11]. Best, Eurytemora (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your understanding and the update. I'm glad to hear the community is finally tired of all the disruptive editors and doing something about it. Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ryan Seacrest

Hi,

I see you removed a comment from a Talk page for a variety of reasons. While it was indeed uncivil, it is far from the worse case I have seen, and although the policy is not firm, we usually try and ignore those types of things to the point and not the person. As far as a banned user, I don't believe that is the case for this editor, as they are from England, there is no history of a block on the account, and their edit history is largely concentrated on subjects from that country. Cordially, SeaphotoTalk 20:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind giving me a dif about the IP from England? Of course if it is from England, please revert me with my permission. As for the others, SRQ is socking big time with a Verizon cell phone and also her home is Verizon. She just got indefintely banned for her socking. The rule is to deny them which also allows for reverting the edits on sight. She is bragging about it and taunting too. But so you know, her edits should be ignored and reverted. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I just looked and this is the editor I reverted. This is a Verizon cell phone IP and it is SRQ. I know how you thought I reverted the other editor but I did not. Look again at what I reverted. This is a legimate reversion. Thanks though for keeping me honest, :) --CrohnieGalTalk 22:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
You're right, my apologies, it was indeed the much earlier comment from the Verizon accounts you reverted than the one yesterday from England. Take care, SeaphotoTalk 01:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
No problems at all about this. Actually this was an easy error to make. You have always tried to be a calming influence and fair about it too. Please keep up the good work you do. --CrohnieGalTalk 09:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

TY

I wish I could express how much I appreciate you! You never cease to amaze me! TYTY for all you do! And GIRL... when do you sleep? I keep odd hours and here you are LOL! Puter blinking brb DocOfSoc (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

[12]

Cupycakes are very special to me. My darlings sister's fave little song was "cupy cake!" You are special to me too! Fondly DocOfSoc (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

<grin> I'm usually mainly on between around 4:30 AM to give or take noon (EST). Sometimes I get to get online during the afternoon here. But usually, I'm not on after around 6 PM. We go into the bedroom because we both have back problems and it's more comfortable to recline, plus my big heating pad is there, to watch movies. Lately though I've been killing time here a little later so that I don't fall asleep too early. I'm never online though at night my time. I do though spend way too much time here lately, at least that's what hubby keep harping on me. :) Glad I could help. Let me know if you get a response to be added to be a reviewer in case I miss it. 2/0 has been busy in RL so if he doesn't have time to add you I will go to another administrator to get you added, that is if you don't already do it. Take care, and I love chocolate cupcakes, so I'm placing my order! :) Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk

More comments on my talkpage. Minor4th • talk 19:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there. Nice to see you still about. I trust you are well? Best, Verbal chat 20:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Verbal, yes I'm around still. I'm doing alright I guess. You know I have good days and bad days but overall I can't complain. How are you doing these days? Well I hope. We may not cross paths very often lately but I do see you around, plus you're on my watchlist. :) Take care of yourself and keep in touch. Gotta go cook, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Great, I hope it's something good (I thought you'd gone all Londener on me for a second, "cock".) I'm ok I guess ... gonna be a dad soon :s :D Verbal chat 20:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Verbal, please take a moment before the happy day to review the policy on meatpuppetry. This recent trend towards purpose-building new Wikipedia editors using large amounts of one's own DNA is quite worrisome. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations!! I expect pictures too! I am hoping for announcements that I'll be a grandma but not yet. When's the little one one due? Cooking is not my forte but steak and fries I do ok with. Hi, 2/0, I hope you're doing well too. :) Did you see my request on your TP? --CrohnieGalTalk 09:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

About that edit at "Diarrhea:Other causes"

Hello! Just a comment about why I added that sentence to "Diarrhea:other causes," which you quickly reverted. To tell you the truth I am happy you deleted it. I agree with you that a letter to the editor, even in a respectable medical journal, is not a reliable source. But I lost that argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habba syndrome. I tried to convince people that the "Habba syndrome" existed only in the mind of Dr. Habba, the author of that letter (who of course named the syndrome after himself and has since used it to promote himself). I argued to delete the article without any merge or redirect. But the result of the deletion discussion was to "merge to Diarrhea:Other causes." So I did a kind of minimal merge, not mentioning the name of the "syndrome", just giving it a one-sentence description. The fact that you deleted it is fine with me. I didn't really think it belonged there anyhow, I was just carrying out the decision from the discussion. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, the correct way to merge has been done (I just looked :)). I've never heard of this one before and to be honest I thought I heard of them all. Oh well. Don't worry though, it'll be ok. From what I saw with a quick glance, what was merged is going to need to be reviewed and scaled back though. --CrohnieGalTalk 09:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The "merge has been done"? Right now there is NOTHING there about the so-called Habba syndrome - is there? I didn't see anything. So what needs to be reviewed and scaled back? Personally I thought this was the perfect outcome: I reluctantly but dutifully added a sentence about it, but other users rightly removed it. We've all done our duty - and the result is that it isn't there. Just as it shouldn't be IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
If you click on the ADF about Habba syndrome you will go to the article Diarrhea with new info added to it from that article. I hope this helps. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

If it gets off the ground, I'll let you know. Any help is always welcome, and thanks for the offer. Rossrs (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL Do you find that sometimes you start putting in an edit summary and it automatically grabs an equivalent summary from previous edits? I hit the save button too quickly and end up with bizarrely inappropriate edit summaries. "thanks, you big meanie" isn't what I meant to say. That's a carry over from a talk post comment I made to WHL. That's gonna look weird in your history.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I just noticed I got a comment with the big orange bar so I didn't see your edit summary but I am laughing now with what you said about it.  :) It's ok that it's there. I know and you know what's going on so it's not a big deal but it is funny. You know I had that happen to me yesterday but I caught it. I thought It was me though. I am glad to know I'm not nuts, at least not totally. Yes I would love to help out when the time comes or as you say, if the time comes. Just let me know. Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
no thanks. Jack Merridew 10:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Launched

The RfC we've been discussing on color and consensus is launched and located at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. I am in the process of publicizing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate it. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Email

Mine is enabled now. I forgot that I'd disabled it. I hope everything is alright with you. Rossrs (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, email sent today. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

typo

Hi, I assure you that my misspelling of your user name was just a typo. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think otherwise. I did assume good faith about this and really didn't think anything wrong was done on purpose. So please don't worry about this, everything is fine. Have a good night, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Kewl beans ;) Jack Merridew 22:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this is the first time you made me smile. It feel good to be smiling about things doesn't it. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 22:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm chuffed. I'm a nice guy; off-wiki I've been called a cupcake. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I may be taking a break soon for awhile

I just want to put up a notice here that I am thinking of taking a break from the project. Today I allowed emotions to get in the way of common sense which is not my way. I take pride in being polite, following policies to the best of my abilities but more important remembering that behind every users name is a real person. I didn't keep that in mind today and the outcome was upseting someone unnecessarily. Again I would like to apologize for my very poor attitude. I would like to thank everyone for their kindness to me. Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, I don't know exactly what you're talking about, so I'm a little puzzled by the message you left me, but that's fine. I just wanted to let you know that you don't need to feel bad about withdrawing your offer. It's ok, and I hope you are ok too. Rossrs (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I withdrew because of Jack's comment here. If he doesn't want me to help than I think I should withdraw from my offer though I really would like to help. I hope you understand. If you have suggestions I'm open to them. As for this notice, I am seriously thinking of leaving Wikipedia. I come here for fun and to hopefully stimulate some brain cells. It's not been fun for awhile now unfortunately. I haven't decided though yet. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me commenting on this, but I would like you to decide against leaving Wikipedia. Beyond our usernames, we are people, yes, but more to the point: we are human. Mistakes happen. Whatever they may be, they are a part of the human condition. Wikipedia embraces this and encourages its exploration. Without mistakes, how would we know what's correct? citation needed  Chickenmonkey  21:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I just want to second Chickenmonkey's comments above. As my "unofficial" mentor, I value your comments and would hate to continue my journey in Wiki without you. Please stay. I know may editors feel the same way. Respectfully DocOfSoc (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thanks both of you. I am actually surprised by these responses to me. I hadn't decided one way or the about whether to leave or not but such support like this it's really hard to say no to it. I just want to have some fun too, is that too much to ask for? So, jokes are now welcomed! :) Thanks again, you both have me smiling which is a good feeling. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Very nice comments there, Crohnie. User:Chickenmonkey is right on the money as everyone makes mistakes. Going back to Jack's comment above. I had no business telling you that you were welcome to participate as all I could say was that you were welcome as far as I was concerned. The mediation would involve Wildhartlivie and Jack Merridew and it really needed to be done in line with their wishes and I didn't even ask them before I replied to you. Maybe part of the reason that the problem hasn't been resolved after so long is that too many people chip in and make comments. I don't mean you when I say that, but sometimes outside comments tend to lead the discussions in directions that Wildhartlivie and Jack may not have taken on their own. But yes, everyone makes mistakes unfortunately. Rossrs (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, of course it's ok for you to email me. Rossrs (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey let's be honest, Jack and Chowbok wanted Wildhartlivie gone, well good work guys, she's retired from the project. I find this very upsetting that an editor can be harrassed and hounded until they leave. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, please read meatball:GoodBye. This is sage advice about the nature of online participation; think of it a part of the collected wisdom of the wiki. I didn't write it but it's been around for years and years and serious people know all this, and it is the context that threads such as this one are viewed by a lot of people. There are also a lot of other meatball: pieces; it's useful to understand them.

Your friend has another option. She could acknowledge the concerns expressed about her approach to this project and her dealings with others, including me. She seems pretty stubborn and set in her ways and that's not going to work for her on a project that's all about collaboration. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This may not have been the best time, or context, to bring up meatball:Goodbye, and Jack, you certainly were not the best person to bring it up. While your intention was to inform, the context -- of everything -- blurs that intent.
While it is well-written (and quite accurate), meatball:Goodbye calls for transparent assumption of bad faith.  Chickenmonkey  21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Crohnie just sought to participate in a mediation effort between WHL and I, facilitated by Rossrs. While I declined the offer as unhelpful, I do see that she was sincere about it. I was also just on this page removing an IP edit of SRQ's that Crohnie missed; it was done such that it appeared to have been posted by you. I don't see myself as an inappropriate person to have pointed her at a few meatballs, as part of the problem here is people not listening to people who are outside their Local Grouphumour and if she can hear it from me and see the larger picture it will be helpful to her, here. meatball:Goodbye is not about bad faith, it is more bedrock. People need to learn more about the nature of teh wiki if they're going to do well here. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for removing that comment that appeared to be made by me. I recognize your intention in mentioning meatball:Goodbye, and it is a helpful thing to familiarize oneself with; at this juncture in this months-long exchange, this may not have been the best time to mention it. I know it may not be conducive to wikisanity all of the time, but sometimes it's best to pussyfoot around the situation in lieu of potentially beginning another fruitless argument (i.e. suggesting Wildhartlivie and Crohnie don't understand the wiki).  Chickenmonkey  23:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this enough, for today. I'll see if there's a further reply from Crohnie, but will otherwise countinue this on your page. In my last post here, I was mostly reading your post in the edit box, not preview or another tab, and I noticed that you've an extra span-element wrapped around it all and I removed it but forgot to comment on it; see the diff, and note that in this post I'm doing the other two sigs of yours in this section. And next I'll see if there are more on this whole talk page. I fix code. Now about the colours in your sig… ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Jack she has over 55K in edits. Your throwing about the meatball defense is something new you've come up with to excuse your behavior. It's BS and you know it. Your behavior has been pretty bad and you know you have been doing all you can to make her leave. Congratulations, you did it. I may leave too, will that make you happy? Then there will be no one left who disagrees with you. I find it also a little strange that you know who came here not long ago attacking and mocking all of this. I am done with it. Do what you want to, I just don't care anymore. Have fun and happy editing, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me a disproportionate number of those edits were unhelpful. I've never heard of the meatball defense. Perhaps you should read more about that project: MeatballWiki. FWIW, I think you should stay and seek to understand this project better. You're missing a lot of the picture, including my part in this project. Of course I know who posted those comments here; it was in your edit summary, not that I need that to know. You folks have been tagging just about every Verizon IP as SRQ for months; I'm pretty sure Verizon has a lot of customers and a lot of IPs ;) Try tarring opponents with a smaller brush, or simply listening to them better. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Not really "just about every" IP, Jack - just the ones that are clearly her. "Copycats" instead? Why? Mistakes get made, but 99% of the IP's I've tagged are her. Any advice on how to "list" them better? Cheers, Jack... Doc9871 (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Make that 99.44% ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting this nonsense. Happy 4th! Pinkadelica♣ 18:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, happy to remove garbage like that anytime. :) Have a good night, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever

My patience for Wikipedia politics is disappearing as WHL withdraws. I'm finding it difficult to care about non-mainspace stuff, just like before we initially tangled. Whether you realize it or not, your support for deletion of my page and opposition is only because WHL is your friend and I'm not. Similarly, whatever lies I tell to myself, I'm sure I ignore things Jack does and wouldn't if you or WHL did them, just like you said. We're tribal animals, like it or not. So whatever. If WHL has really retired, I'm satisfied; not because I didn't like her but because I think she was truly damaging the project. I think she was a corrosive influence on you and Rossrs, as well; with her gone, you both will be better editors IMO. So we can keep arguing if you want, but I'd rather go back to correcting typopgraphy and creating the occasional article.—Chowbok ☠ 20:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Listen, I can't agree with you about WHL, so let's just agree to disagree on that. As for the two of us, I would love it if we just called a peace treaty already. What do you think, is this possible? --CrohnieGalTalk 21:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I was going to reply to this last night, saying sure, as long as WHL isn't around to poison the well... but I was too tired. The rant/barfing below kinda proves my point. I think everybody would get along better if she went away, but I'm not holding my breath.—Chowbok ☠ 04:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
And yet another in a long long line of personal attacks launched by Chowbok. I do believe he was told to cut it out or he would be blocked, wasn't he? The only thing Chowbok has to be pissed about is that he was wrong to arbitrarily introduce a new style of citations on an article, which was clearly noted as needing consensus. Sort of a "Wah, I didn't get my way." His vendetta against me began then and has continued through breaking simply every rule of conduct on this project. Be honest, it is because you hate me, and that is perfectly clear. You're satisfied that you think you helped chase off an editor with whom you've had disagreements and whom you wikistalk and blatantly posting personal attacks on other editors' talk pages. A total lack of honestly there. No personal attacks, Chowbok. Although your deliberate silence at the "outing" thread was quite obvious. You could have said "Hey, I've posted my name", but nooooo, it behooved you to keep shut up and let the chips fall where they may. Nice dishonest tactic there. It loses you credibility, much as your alignment did with SkagitRiverQueen. What would help the project? The elimination of wikistalking, harassing tendentious editors. Sound like someone we know? Could it be... Chowbok? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't know what you're talking about. I've been editing here a long time, longer than you or Crohnie or Jack. You think that was the first time I was reverted, or that an editing dispute didn't go my way? The reason this all happened was because of your attitude. This whole thing could have been avoided if you'd simply said, "Hey, thanks for the work you put in on the citations but we prefer this other way; come discuss it on the talk page if you like." Instead, you reverted without comment, attacked me when I asked about it, and refused to discuss the issue, preferring to continue your attacks. Once the page had been reverted to the way you wanted it, you ignored my attempts to discuss it on the talk page, only responding when I put my changes in again a few weeks later, at which point you reverted again and attacked me again. It was clear that for all your talk of "consensus", you actually weren't interested in any consensus that wasn't the way you wanted it. Even the barest attempt at faking being interested in other editors' viewpoints would have stopped me, and I suspect many other editors, from becoming involved in prolonged fights with you.
That all being said, it just makes you unpleasant to work with. It's not why I say you're harmful to the project. this is why you're harmful to the project. I think scaring off new editors, and giving them the impression that there's some sort of hierarchy here, and that they'll be attacked if they edit the wrong article without asking permission first, is probably the worst thing an editor could do here. I was going to say "except for vandalism", but vandalism can be reverted; if you bite a newbie hard enough, we may have lost a potential productive editor forever.
You sure are active for a retired editor, by the way.—Chowbok ☠ 04:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
That example you gave above was more "schooling" a newbie, than "scolding," with a subtle SPA warning. The comment was well presented and much more than "real" newbies usually get. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Well Chowbok, let's not allow the facts to spoil a good story. Wow, but you are selective. You should know that he is not a newbie for one thing, if you actually took the time to read the comments on both talk pages. You appeared on Hutch's talk page to tell him not to bother listening to WHL. Before you commented, there was nothing happening that the two of them couldn't sort out. And they did sort it out. Check out some of the later comments WHL made to the same user's talk page. Several paragraphs under the headers "Affleck" , "...Casey Affleck" and "Film grosses". Quite friendly, and you don't need to read Hutch's comments to see that WHL is responding to a friendly discussion in a friendly and helpful tone. She's answering questions that he's obviously asking, and what's that I see... it's a smiley face. I know a smiley face doesn't fit your picture of WHL, but it's right there to see. WHL smiley faced Hutch as part of ... a scare tactic? Mind you, you're only going to cherry pick the worst bits out of any WHL discussion. I guess you also won't want to mention that Hutch left a message on WHL's talk page apologising for calling her names. And he also left a smiley face. Sorry, but it all turns out pretty congenial as far as I can see. What's interesting Chowbok, is that you tried to make friends with someone you thought WHL was at odds with and that editor didn't even bother replying to you. But he did continue to communicate with big bad WHL. How can that be? Didn't you accuse WHL of "scaring off new editors"? He wasn't new and he wasn't scared. Your fascination with all things WHL is getting a little too much. Sometimes she comes on too strong but this is actually a good example of WHL making something positive out of something that could have been negative. You certainly tried and failed to make it negative but nobody wanted to play. I'm tickled pink to know that her absence may make me a better editor, and yes you do have quite a nerve saying so. It's only fair that I observe that it just might do the same for you. Please give it a rest. Rossrs (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Not an edit since this, then this garbage. Not into "politics" much, eh, Chowbok? Disgusting, really... Doc9871 (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:RiverDeepMountainHigh

I think there's another sock with a name. Remember this in the middle of the argument at Claudette Colbert? Well, this editor has also been to two articles SRQ had great affection for: Isaac N. Ebey[13] and World Radio Missionary Fellowship, Inc.[14], an article SRQ created. Likes to do extensive grammar changes as well[15], and has an interest in Judaism[16]. Hmmmm... Doc9871 (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake - she created both articles[17]. This is no coincidence... Doc9871 (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
yet another name <sigh>DocOfSoc (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I just reverted her edits where I was able. If her edits don't stick, maybe then she will get bored. She definitely is a troll now. Keep an eye out, I'm sure she has others just waiting or being used too. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Question for Doc#1 (LOL), did the blocking administrator look for sleeper accounts for this one? If not, maybe we should ask that it be done, thoughts? --CrohnieGalTalk 11:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Crohnie. You have new messages at DocOfSoc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, I looked but not sure if I saw what you were directing me to. Did you mean the hearts one? Please respond here to keep conversation together. Also, I would love you to look up how to indent. You need work on how you indent and how to make headers for conversations. Not a big deal but it does help the conversations be easier to follow. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I know how to indent ;-) I just forget too! Are we on the same meds? LOLOL
♥♥♥♥♥♥....DocOfSoc (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Could be! <grinning> Ok, I just wasn't sure if you had remembered about using headers or : when chatting. I just noticed that instead of using only one you used more and then even more. I made the corrections, see what I did so you do the same in the future please. It does help a lot to use them so please try to put this in your thoughts when responding to someone ok? :) If conversations get to long you can do od with {{}} these brackets at the beginning of what you want to say to bring the conversation back to left justified. Or you can just use (od) since some editors don't like the template version. I use both depending on who is in the discussion. Have a good one sweetie, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I Meant to do more! I am having a play day :-) Be Well! ....DocOfSoc (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Why? Play day, what am I missing here?  :) It's early and not enough coffee in me yet. Do you mean you're being playful here? If so, ok, that's fine, it just went over my head! :) Have a good one, keep up the good attitude. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick note

If you take just a moment to look through the Farmer article's history and talk page, you'll see several of us along with WHL have been attempting to keep the Scientology elements recently introduced in check. None of us are SRQ. Check with WHL if you doubt me--you'll see she reverted several of these edits herself. Thanks. 24.111.153.231 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The reversion I did of the IP 174.218.11.108 was/is SRQ. Feel free to revert me like you did. We are trying real hard to stop her socking as she is a community banned editor who has used many revolving IP's and three named sock accounts that we have so far confirmed by CU's. HTH, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Award for you

The Real Life Barnstar

Your user page really touched me. I present you this barnstar in recognition for your real life efforts to live a good life, overcoming all your suffering. You are an example to all us. Anna Lincoln 20:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeesh, all you recent changes patrollers are just one giant WikiLove cabal, supporting each other and generally defending the project. Do you not have anything better to do?
... Oh wait - that is a good thing :) - 2/0 (cont.) 21:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I was totally surprise expecting to be yelled at or something after making comments here and the subsection. I don't think I've encountered you before Anna Lincoln so I hope our paths cross again sometime. Thank you very much for the barnstar. I will move it over to the others on my user page. As for you 2/0 you are always a pleasure to talk to and you always make me smile. Thank you! Seriously, thank you to both of you. I've been taking care of my mother, who took a nasty fall, a husband who hasn't been well, but both are finally doing better. Along with being a care giver I'm trying to keep myself functioning, real life has me quite busy. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

We'll see what happens.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll be thinking of you and hoping for the best. You can do it. You are one of the politest editors I know who knows policies and guidelines really well. Patience is going to be the hard part I think. :) Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Trivia :)

I just want to share something that I am very proud of. On July 17th, my husband and I will be celebrating our 31 anniversary together. We've been together though for 35 years come New Year's Eve. It takes a lot of work to make it this long together. It's even harder when both are disabled like we are so needless to say, I am very proud that we made it since my family and his family used to keep saying we'd never make it. :) Well so far so good! I just thought sharing this would give others the hope they need to also keep trying when things get hard and things do and will get hard. Have a good night, or day, everyone, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not trivia! That's something very special. Congratulations to you, and I hope you enjoy celebrating this milestone. Rossrs (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, very much appreciated. We are trying to figure out what we can go do since we are on a very fixed income. Slot machines (me) and poker (him) are definitely agreed upon though. :) We allow ourselves a certain amount of throw away cash for this and if we win we follow our normal plan, say thanks everyone, and get up. <grin> I've won pretty well the last few times we've done this. Oh we only go gambling on our anniversary as a treat. We haven't gone gambling now for over two years though so it should be fun. Doing it on a cruise ship though is much nicer but can't do it so we are going to go to one of the Indian reservation's. We have at least three that are close to us to go to. Unknown to each other, we've both been stashing cash away for this. This is a sign of being together for a long time isn't it! :) I'll let you know if we win. If we lose it won't be too much of a loss. So, wish us luck and thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Good luck. Just a small win would add to the fun. I'm never lucky gambling. I'm lucky in other ways, which I appreciate, but I'd like to be lucky gambling. Rossrs (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll be happy if we win enough to break even. :) Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Mel Gibson back to *June* would be disruptive

Crohnie, you know that there are changes that I've made that your friend Livie doesn't like. Suggesting rolling the whole article back to before all that is plainly a backdoor effort at also getting my changes out. You said you would stay out of this; please do so. The Gibson article has issues, true, but these "allegations" are being made and you should note that he's not even denying it. Edit the article with a focus on specific issues, not disruptive reversions. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 11:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Jack, you're right I promised to stay out of that mess and I meant it and have stayed out of it. My comment about reverting the article back had nothing to do with the BS between the two of you, nothing. I wasn't even thinking of either of you at the time. You know you could try to start to assume good faith with me instead of making a comment like you did at that talk page and here. You could have come here and asked me about my motives. This is just silly to assume what you are assuming here since I was the one who brought up concerns about this article in multiple places. If you would, please remove that comment from the talk page of Mel Gibson, thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I'll accept that you were not thinking of that aspect. Such a revert would, however, have the effect of removing my edits, as well as whatever other edits many have made, so you should think about the implications of your suggestions and not be surprised when others see them and think about them. I commented there because that's where you were making an inappropriate suggestion. I brought my concern about your intention here, because it would have been inappropriate to raise that over there. And no, I'm not removing that comment; it was appropriate and you need to see that. Jack Merridew 21:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
After you saw the discussion, did you at anytime see either of us act upon it on our own? We were making suggestions and it just so happened to end up with just the two of us discussing it so it went no where. I wouldn't have made a change like that without a consensus to do so. You jumping to conclusion about it being about you is what has me annoyed, since to be honest you're not that important to me. Also, why did you sign your name the second time without the proper tildes so your name didn't appeared, which made it look like another person commented on the situation? Thank you for fixing that. All I want is for the article to get better. All I want from you is peace and assuming good faith which I have tried for a couple of times now when you assumed things that just wasn't true. I am asking again, can we finally have a truce? --CrohnieGalTalk 21:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say you had rolled it back, just that you were talking about it, and that I was concerned. You should be able to see that I and others would be concerned if such a rollback were attempted. The date-only sig was just a typo; five tildes, not four. I didn't notice it until I looked some hours ago, at which point I fixed it. And, ya, I'd like a 'truce', although I don't see myself as having much of an issue with you, really. As to the article, the aspects that are unflattering are rooted in his own boorish behaviour that are well documented in reliable sources; the article needs to sort the poor sources out, and find an appropriate balance to things per the usual guidelines and policies. Don't, however, expect it all to go away. Jack Merridew 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I don't want it to go away, I just want it done the right way per policy. Coming from a Jewish family, I have to say my family and I aren't at all thrilled with his behavior. No, I want it in, just in the right way. --CrohnieGalTalk 23:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Great; we agree here. His career in the mainstream is toast ;) Jack Merridew 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Jack Merridew, the issue of formatting of the filmography tables is the least of the worries at Mel Gibson! As she says, Crohnie is much more concerned with BLP and UNDUE issues in this biography, and there's been editing and discussion along those lines for several days and certainly before you and Wildhartlivie launched into another skirmish. When you insist that your formatting edits remain while Crohnie is focussing on the much more important issue of content, I can't help but think of WP:OWN and, well, WP:LAME. Fences&Windows 11:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Bblcreator8790

Yup. Who the sockmaster is: not sure, but these two are clearly the same editor. Good lord, but don't these people make it obvious sometimes? (Sigh)... Doc9871 (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I filed an SPI[18]. It may take awhile, but it seems pretty obvious. A small frye for sure, but it's against the rules nonetheless. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Any guesses? I have one but I don't want to say it here. It's in the Gibson page some place where a sock was there and found, I bet it's the same one. I've got it watched, just curious as you know. --CrohnieGalTalk 09:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Send it to me via e-mail and I'll check it out. Off-wiki communication is certainly allowed, you know (despite what others erroneously rail against and characterize as "canvassing" or "meat-puppetry"). "Loose lips sink ships", after all: if you leave everything in the open, there's no point in fighting against impropriety - 'cause they know when and where you are coming. Remember how D-Day succeeded? Surely not by announcing the landing site for all to see, I can assure you... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. - You've got 70 watchers on your talk page, and I've got less than 30. Jealous? "A little bit"... Doc9871 (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't be jealous, lots of reasons for someone to watch someone else. I just hope it's for good reasons. :) No problem, as soon as I find it again I'll send it to you but I'm thinking of a very busy article talk page. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Order filled

Chocolate butterfly cake

Here it is, took me awhile to find chocolate. TYTY for everything! DocOfSoc (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you're a sweetheart to even remember this comment. Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL I never forget Chocolate...or you! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


The Purple Star The Purple Star
you are loved.... DocOfSoc (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

you are loved....DocOfSoc (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, what did I do for this kindness? I'll get it moved over in a bit. How are you doing? I hope things have calmed for you and that editing has become more fun. Again thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Check you email ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I saw it. I will respnd soon to my emails. I need time too to be able to be able to type easier. I will respond though so please be patient. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Moved it over to user page. I responded so check your email. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

jumping in front of you?

In this edit, you give an edit summary about my having jumped in front of you. That would have been rude, if it were true. See the timestamps: Rob: 18:41, me: 18:48, Rob: 18:51, you: 18:52 (and my 18:59 post under Rob's 18:51 is a non-issue). You chose to post in reply to my post, and then decided to move it up to under an earlier post of Rob's. That's all. Jack Merridew 07:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I just looked, I guess I was too tired and saw incorrectly from looking at it today. My apologies please feel free to revert my edit with my permission. I think part of this might have been an ec too. Again, sorry for this error, I promise it was not intentional.--CrohnieGalTalk 14:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, mis-reading things happens, which is a good reason to double-check things. There's no need to revert it, as you're entitled to move things. FWIW, I thought that's where you originally intended to post.
See this question; it links to WP:NPOV. We're not supposed to be advancing what we want it to say. I've made the observation that all this press coverage has resulted in a) Dawn Wells losing work, b) the demise of http://www.idahofilminstitute.org/ (you understand that what's at that site now is not what was there? the domain has been 'parked' and is now a traffic-directing thing run by others.), c) the SpudFest her institute ran was discontinued in 2008. That car was a "company car", the Institute's, or possibly one Teton Toyota just loaned them. The students have said "Bye Bye". Jack Merridew 16:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't gotten a chance to see your recent comments about the site and what she lost due to the arrest (or I missed it). What I was talking about when I said that was that at the BLP board and on the talk page, everyone agreed not to mention the pot information in the article since those charges were dropped and it was just a minor traffic violation. I do think the new information you have gotten together is very interesting and probably should be added to the article. If she lost that much then this is very notable and should be added to the article. I haven't looked at the talk page for awhile now, other than to click on the dif you have above, what do the others have to say about it? I've been busy trying to find metal lap trays. Who'd have thunk it would be so difficult to locate what I'm looking for. :) I'll try to pop over there soon if I can. I stopped because I was making errors. I make errors when I'm tired and when I have my meds in me that I need. That's not an excuse though for my error just an explanation. What would you like me to do? Of course I will check out the links you have provided and give an opinion but is there something else? Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to tell you, right now I can't do any videos or sounds since I got a new computer. Hubby needs to set up my computer so I can and I keep forgetting to ask him. He has short term memory problems so I need to catch him when he's ok and able to do what is needed for my computer. It's a long personal story, sorry. Needless to say, right now I have no ability to hear anything on my computer which is sometimes a good thing. :) For the video, is there anything written so that I can read about it? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"everyone agreed not to mention the pot"??? I didn't, Chowbok didn't, Slp1, F&W, teh IP... Stop mischaracterizing what's been said.
I'm not too focused on this issue, but I've seen sources commenting on this; I've just not bothered saving the links or posting them. She pled guilty to the minor traffic vio, but that's not all this was; it was damaging to her. It cost her reputation points, and killed her institute and festival. In short, the media fucked her over, contrasting the image of her and pot with 'good girl' Mary Ann. It was also damaging to Idaho's economy; the State government was offering rebates to film and tv productions that came to Idaho to shoot stuff; they want some of the big production budgets spent in their state. The institute was about building-up a skilled local workforce, which would be employed by production units (and probably about collecting tuition fees). It is not possible to cover any of this damage without mentioning the weed. The vids show students of the institute doing some rap stuff and thanking the supporters of the foundation. They certainly look like stereotypical pot heads ;) She's said it was a company car, that others had been driving it earlier that day, that someone came forward and said 'my stuff'. There's nothing wrong with covering all of this if sources can be found and it's done in a neutral and respectful manner. The boredom rays must be pretty intense in Driggs, Idaho, now that the whole institute and SpudFest have been blown away. Jack Merridew 19:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you have some real good ideas down on the bottom of this last post. Would you mind posting them to the talk page of the article for discussion with everyone? Thanks in advance for your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure; mebbe it'll help. Jack Merridew 01:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

TPS report

What is with this new "watching" userbox? I am stalking your talkpage like Bagheera in the night (or Guenhwyvar on particularly geeky days) :). - 2/0 (cont.) 20:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"2/0, we're gonna need to go ahead and move you downstairs into storage B. We have some new people coming in, and we need all the space we can get. So if you could just go ahead and pack up your stuff and move it down there, that would be terrific, OK?" Doc9871 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well there has been a banned user haunting editor's talk pages and other bad things. This user box showed up at a discussion at DocOfSoc if you'd like to see what it's really about. We probably could use your help if you're interested. <wink, wink> I know I have a lot of lurkers but mostly it's there because it makes me smile. :) Ok, come on with the comments, I'm enjoying this discussion so far. <laughing> Oh yea, feel free to take a copy of it if you like it. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
As to rumor, the "watcher box" was found by me! And would you tell Doc1 I seem to have an extra stapler?! xoxo DocOfSoc (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Doc, I live in a swamp - nothing in the basement but the burrowing gators. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yea you and me both! :) We see the gators ocassionally but where I am we have a lot of wild rabbits, owls (two of them, they sing every morning for a few hours, love it) and red foxes. Just to name a few of the critters that find their way towards us from the Everglades. Since that last real bad hurricane season we are seeing all kinds of animals we've never seen this close to communities. I don't mind the friendlier ones but I really freak out with gators, snakes and so forth visiting that would prefer me for dinner than a scrap of food for them. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The stapler comment went over my head, I don't understand but I guess Doc #1 will. :) Thanks for finding the box though, I do like it as you can tell. I didn't realize it was you who put it on your page. I will wear it and enjoy it. :)--CrohnieGalTalk 22:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You have a swamp in NY??? EnJOY our user box :-) xoxo DocOfSoc (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Got a new movie for your Netflix account, Crohnie: watch it again if you've already caught it. It's slightly amusing... :> Doc9871 (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, seen it, it's funny. I've got a big collection of DVD's. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 22:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Assistance please

Are you there? Need your help. Have been chastised and mocked buy another admin with a lack of good faith IMO. In the City of Bell article. Waiting for your reply. Will CC to Cronhie and another admin. DocOfSoc (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

On my way over, also testing my signature to see if it works since obviously it didn't in yours, which is weird. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring you

Hi, I hope you don't think I'm ignoring you - too busy to write a detailed reply to you at the moment. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem and no I didn't think that at all. I see you have been quite busy and multi-tasking. No rush, take your time. Just drop me a note here to take a peek when you get the time to answer. Stay well Verbal, talk soon I'm sure, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What is soapboxing, really?

Hi Crohnie, good to meet you! I am always trying to learn more at Wikipedia, and I have a question about soapboxing that I believe you can answer. I see that there are five definitions for it. Numbers 3 - 5 I understand well and absolutely agree with. I am having difficulty understanding numbers 1 and 2. I assume one of those is what the IP was doing over at Talk:Dawn Wells? I want to make sure I never do the wrong thing, so what is the difference between either of those two definitions and the simple arguing for a point? Why was the IP over there doing soapboxing when to me it sounded like something I would do if I were ever to be so passionate about something, i.e. getting information into an article. I thought that person made some good points opposite a couple of other editors there, who IMO were not making any good points. Thanks for your wisdom! Have a good one. —Prhartcom (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, well it is what it says but I guess to me the main thing that describes it is this.
#1. What was written is best described as propganda and/or advocacy by not doing it in a neutral point of view fashion. That editor's writing was his/her personal point of view. The writer didn't point out what was neutral nor did it stick to what the editor was really talking about. It strayed into areas that just gave their own POV while attacking the others for not agreeing. They ranted about how unfair the other editors were for iVoting/debating to keep the information out of the article and so it was not neurtral in what was said because s/he kept on ranting about how s/he was right and everyone else was wrong. It's ok to be passionate and debate from the heart but your have to do it neutrally. You have to try to keep your own personal opinions out of the debate even when you feel others POV are wrong and just stick to the facts. To me the second sentence in #1 is the best description of how to adhere to no soapboxing like what we are talking about with what was written. #1. I thing this clearly describes what was wrong in the writing which is this and I quote "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." (bolding by me). The #2 section I don't think I can describe it any better than it is described there. Maybe you could reread it and get the meaning by thinking about what we just debated about at the Dawn Wells article and understand how that would apply to the long rant that was written. For a partial example think about all the link to the pot charges that were attempted to be put into the article like she was arrest and pled guilty to it when actually all she was charged with was reckless driving which she did plead guilty to. The pot had nothing to do with it. The new comments that Jack Merridew brought up about how she lost a lot of work and how the state lost a lot of income because of the media bashing is different than saying she was busted on pot charges right? But that rant kept saying it had to be in the article his/her way and everyone else was wrong even with the many debates on it and policies brought up. I hope you understand a bit better now. If not then maybe someone lurking on my page can explain it better than I am. Basically you won't run afoul of soapboxing as long as you try to keep your comments NPOV and talk about the sources and not the editors. --CrohnieGalTalk 23:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help explaining that to me, Crohnie. On a talk page, I can see that an editor who is assuming bad faith, pointing fingers, and taking sides is straying into the wrong territory. But I think I finally figured out the reason for my confusion and realized something important, something you didn't mention: The Wikipedia policy for Soapboxing says it applies to articles. This was a talk page. Darn straight that an article must take a neutral point of view and not preach to the reader. But how can we say that, during a talk page discussion, we must take a neutral point of view; that's silly, we are working to present our point to the other editors, we can't be neutral in a discussion. Just like Assume Good Faith does not apply to articles (how could it?), only talk pages and edit summaries, Soapboxing does not apply to talk pages, only articles.
Therefore, that IP over at Talk:Dawn Wells was assuming bad faith, pointing fingers, and taking sides, but was not soapboxing because it wasn't an article. And as you already know, I agreed with the point the IP was making. Thanks to the IP's point, and thanks to Fences who most definitely agreed with that point, the consensus finally shifted and that true fact of the subject of that article was finally added to the article. Your thoughts? —Prhartcom (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that soapboxing is only for an article. You can see a discussion going on at the administrator board about soapboxing too at [19]. I don't know how to explain this any better than I already have. As you can see in this discussion, soapboxing is also being discussed. You can't go anywhere, article, talk pages, user pages and get up on your soapbox and tell everyone what or how things should be. I'm sure you've heard of the saying 'get off your soapbox' well the same thing is true here. I know you agree with what the IP said and maybe that's why you have a problem thinking of it being on a soapbox. Maybe someone watching my page can explain it to you better than I have. Anyone watching, I sure would appreciate some help here. Other than that, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. If you look at Fences and windows talk page you will see that he said it was soapboxing too. As for F&w getting the discussion going again it was because he changed the tone of what was trying to be inserted for so long and the regular editors didn't think of it in the same way as F&w did which includes me, though I didn't get into the discussions until late, Sorry I couldn't help, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If there is anyone watching my page who would like to help out with explaining what soapboxing is I would really appreciate it. I've tried to explain it to the editor above but he says he still doesn't understand that it applies to more than article space. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. (from WP:SOAP) It applies everywhere. TFOWR 19:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again CrohnieGal, it's good to talk with you. I respect you, was eagerly awaiting your response, and had a completely open mind while reading it. I ran over to Fences talk page you referred to. And then...um...why did you say "he said it was soapboxing too" when he never even mentioned it? (That was you who mentioned it, not to be confused with him.) And why did you have to say to me "you have a problem"? (I don't think you have a problem.)
I was just exploring an idea with the "soapboxing only for articles" thing. Thanks for the ANI link (which discussed soapboxing in an article). Sure, I can see now that you shouldn't do it in talk pages either. I wanted to make sure I am never accused of it, and I doubt I ever will, as long as I assume good faith., etc. As all of us have our discussions with each other in the various talk pages and occasionally have to press a particular brilliant point we may have, I really hope I don't see someone tell any of us the other is soapboxing, when it really is just a difference of opinion.
Hey, I decided to send Doc9871 an email today, because I just caught something about that Dawn Wells IP with the "essay" that really is fishy, that I suspect he already knows about. If you want, I will send it to you too.
Be well. —Prhartcom (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes please send it to me too, I'm interested. The rest will have to wait until tomorrow. By this time of day I have trouble with focus and other things so I have to go now. I will respond about what you wrote. I may have made mistakes, not sure, but I'll check it tomorrow. You can get more of an idea about me by my user page. Gotta go cook now, good night everyone, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes my dear (I call all my friends that), I had read your page, and I truly meant it when I said "Be well". And I got the idea to say that from you.  :-)
I have sent you the email. And when you do return:
Yes, Fences did indeed "change the tone". Thanks to your bringing it to his attention, he called the (IMO) four most troublesome editors to the carpet for their (IMO) absolutely unacceptable "ridiculous censorship" (both his word and mine, but only his adjective) they had been perpetuating there. (He even thought you were one of them--hopefully you were not--and I rushed to your defense!) Months earlier I spent a day with those people, remaining calm but firm, and then another day much later, yet they remained impenetrable in their defense of keeping that true information out of the article, for whatever motives. Hence the "understandable frustration", as Fences so aptly put it, that many previous editors had felt. If you were to go to the top of the entire discussion and read my very first post, I think you would find it was reasonable, yet they were having none of it, even refusing to discuss it. As I watched the page, I saw when Fences came in a broke up their little racket. Then another level-headed editor agreed with him and it was downhill from there. At that point, two, and then later three of the editors finally shut up, thank goodness. The fourth remained, but he was never as unpleasant as the others and I got along well with him. You had joined in by that time, as did Jack and several others, and we all worked to get that paragraph right. I then inserted it into the article. For me, that day was a major victory. And it was a lot of fun. —Prhartcom (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oopsie

It was on my mind to change it but I completely forgot. Sorry. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey no problem at all. I went there to check another thread going on and just saw it so I decided to fix it knowing you wouldn't mind me fixing it. Everything is fine, see you around I'm sure, :) be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS July 2010 Newsletter

The July 2010 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Preview Button

As youhave mentioned this before, I am compulsive enough to hit the preview button about every third word LOL

Just so ya know. Feel Better! xoxo DocOfSoc (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Good then may I suggest you go back and read WP:TALKPAGE esp. the part about indentation here. The way you indent can sometimes make it very difficult to follow the discussion. Like for example your initial comment to me. You started with left justification and then added a colon to indent when you could have just left it as the next sentence or put a space in to make a new paragraph though I think just leaving it as another sentence would have been best. I hope you understand what I'm saying here because I know I'm not saying it too well. I hope you are well Doc #2. I'm just having an off day with my Crohn's disease which has me very uncomfortable and tired. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Criminals Hall of Fame article

Replied on my talk. EyeSerenetalk 13:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, replied there, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Talkback

Hello, Crohnie. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 16:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

At your convenience, no hurry. GregJackP Boomer! 16:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Crohnie's Day!

Crohnie has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Crohnie's Day!
For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian,
enjoy being the star of the day, Crohnie!

Signed, Neutralhomer

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ditto ditto! Happy Happy Day! Congrats! DocOfSoc (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you to all of you for thinking of me. I really appreciate it. Sorry it took so long to respond. RL has me busy, busy, busy.  :) Thanks again esp. to Neutralhomer for thinking of me. Doc #1 and Doc #2, thank you too. --CrohnieGalTalk 09:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You're quite welcome :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You are quite welcome! Looking forward to an orange banner from you. Be well. When do you GET YOUR GLASSES? Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I promise I'll be by soon. :) Just popped in for a quick look around and then I'm done for today. I get the glasses hopefully around 11 days. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
11 days! That seems an awfully long time. Hope yours are better than mine. I got a new pair and I've taken them back twice. Not that I'm being fussy - I'd just like to be able to see..... clearly... when I'm driving.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You've got that right, it's too long to wait. I've got my monitor to enlarge the print but I'm still making mistakes and still get bad headaches that I leave my computer because of it. Driving is scary to say the least. The good thing is that I don't drive a lot to begin with since my driving is lousy even when I can see. :) The glasses can't get to me soon enough is the way I feel about it. I'm hoping their two weeks to get them is the long term quote they give as a cya and that they come earlier. Hey I can hope! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 13:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you can hope. I didn't really notice until tonight that I don't see as well as I should. I stopped at the supermarket on the way home, and you know the signs they have at the ends of the aisles to show you where to find your bread or your dog food or whatever? Couldn't read them clearly. I took note driving home (it was dark by this time), that the road signs and advertising billboards were a little blurry. Makes me a bit worried that my specs are a dud. I took them back because they were supposed to be coated to reduce back-glare, but every time I put them on I felt like I was in a disco. Because they forgot to coat them.... not impressed. I guess I'm taking them back again. Last time I took them back, the woman apologised about 20 times to me, to the point I was feeling embarrassed, and urrgghh, I don't want to go through that song and dance again. I'd like them to just get them right, you know. "Sorry for the inconvenience, here's something you can see out of without squinting or bumping into things" will be enough. Rossrs (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you got a day! Congratulations! Hope your new glasses work out, whenever they arrive. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Well thank you very much. They can't come soon enough I'll tell you that. 9 days and counting, now does that sound desperate or what?  :) Hubby's tired of reading things for me all the time too, bless his sweet heart. Thanks for thinking of dropping in to comment, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are too kind! :)

Thank you for welcoming me to this incredible site! Everyone on Wikipedia has been so nice to me, and that is just wonderful! The community is very close! :)

Wait, just wondering, how did you find me here? -BluWik (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. I'm not sure to be honest, but I think it was from Moonriddengirl's (MRG) talk page or from the article Criminals Hall of Fame or possibly some place else, I have a lot on my watchlist but I believe it was from MRG's talk page. It doesn't matter, welcome to the site and I hope you enjoy it here. If I can help please don't hesitate. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I just realized when I left a notice to you that I responded here that I took notice of you at both MRG's talk page and the article. Just wanted to clearify this. Happy editing, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Note for me to take a close look and make a response when it goes live

Read this and make a comment when it goes live. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

Dear C: I just wanted to dispute your revert on the T Bundy article - sorry about not signing, I'm just a new occasional contributor. Although I still maintain its OK to use the real name... 203.219.154.19 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Greg (good health to you!)

Question

Hi Crohnie gal. I am very interested in your health condition, and appreciate your generous sharing with the public. I have a dear friend of many years with Crohn's, and I am most interested in discussing the possibility of gluten as a culprit for many of your symptoms. Since I found you on the "gluten" page, I am guessing you may have explored this angle... Are you willing to discuss this topic with me? I would like to know if you eat gluten, whether you've considered your rash and pain/arthritis as classic symptoms of gluten intolerance, etc. If possible, please send me an email (off Wiki) so we can correspond (I don't yet know how to do this --I'm a new user on wikipedia). Regards, Fred's girl (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, first I moved this to the bottom of the list and gave it a title. When you want to start a new thread you will see at the top new section, click on it. The fill in subject/heading and tab down to where you put your message. You did good signing your name with the tildes.
As for trying to educate people about Crohn's disease I don't mind talking about it as long as it doesn't get to the point of asking me medical advice. Medical advice can only come from a dorctor, not from the internet. I have never had problems with this. A diary is helpful to list foods and so forth. You can learn about diaries at our article and also at www.crohnscolits foundation.org. There is a lot of information there for learning, at least that's where I went to learn. I have major problems with nuts, seeds, brocolli and things like this. I have no problems with milk products or caffiene. The problem is that what bothers me doesn't mean it's the same for your friend, everyone is different with this disease. S/he can check with their GI about this though, which I seriously recommend. I'm starting to feel a little uncomfortable so I'm going to stop now. I hope your friend feels better soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Medical advice can only come from a dorctor, not from the internet. you made my day with that quote :) +1 to such thinking. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
That has been drilled into me since I first got sick and started to use a computer.  :) Glad you liked it. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hi, I just want to let all of you who watch this page know that I'll be on and off a lot. My husband had a bad car accident yesterday which probably totaled the car. He is doing ok though. He hit a guard rail straight on at 65 miles an hours and has some burns, bumps, cuts and bruises and is banged up a bit but doing ok. We were lucky to have him come back home. I just want to let everyone know because I may not respond like I normally do. I'm quite stressed out and I think it will show in my editing, sorry. Got to go now, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

Please note that contributors should not be voting here. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your !vote (and reword if appropriate). What we are looking for is constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies) . If you aren't around I may remove your !vote myself, and you might want to then modify your comment. If you need to respond, please respond on my talk page. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Slight misunderstanding here. The comment is fine. All that needed removing was the bolded bit at the start of the comment. Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
It's ok, I'm not involved so what I had to say wasn't all that important. You may change it if you like but it doesn't matter either way to me since what I did was against protocal I am assuming. I will take a look and see if I want or need to keep the comment if you would like. Thank you to both of you,--CrohnieGalTalk 16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Crohnie. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 20:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

WP:FILMS August 2010 Newsletter

The August 2010 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Re [20], *I* read what you say, and I thank you for it. Yes, I agree that the first priority is, or should be, the content of the encyclopedia. This isn't just a social club or social network with aims to further good behaviour among web users. --Nigelj (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's nice to know someone read what I wrote. :) Thank you for letting me know that. I sincerely believe that the articles need to be first priorty. I totally agree with what you are saying. Thanks for getting in touch and letting me know how you felt about my comment, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you reminded (or tried to remind) everyone what we're supposed to be about here. I'm also getting the feeling that politics are getting involved in some of this. -- no joke... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Boris, I hope I am reminding people of why we are here. From what I am reading the politics are everywhere, even in the PD page itself. I don't understand the politics of what is going on but it looks like old problems are being revenged or something. Should more arbitrators have recused? Are there some too involved in all of this because that's what it's looking like to me? I really don't know what to say anymore about all of this. It's starting to look like it's a done deal. What is the procedure with what people are saying on the talk page and what that arbs do on the PD? I was afraid of fallout if I commented on this arbitration and to be honest, I still am. There are some powerful editors there and I think that is keeping others away too. Like I said, this is supposed to be for the good of the project first not for the good of this editor or that editor. I haven't gotten brave enough yet today to take a look of what is going on now. Maybe later. If there is something I should take a look at please lay a dif on my page so I can read what is going on and decide if there is anything I can say that might be useful. Be well all of you. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

She Back?

I believe the SRQ is back and has set up an elaborate smoke screen. There are errors in the editing that if she REALLY loved AM radio she would know, screen name: ILuvAMRadio [21] There isn't really enough to go on yet, but I have this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. BE WELL! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. This user name was created a couple days after Karel's page was unprotected.DocOfSoc (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So I see, wonderful, not! I've not finished looking at everything but remember in article space, revert her as a sock please. Has anyone filed an SPI case yet? If so, would you supply a dif for me to take a look? Thanks Doc 2. Doc 1 I know you already know about this so give me info that you have on site please, thanks, be well both of you, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Squish! Doc9871 (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and I love the Squish, made me laugh and I need to laugh more lately. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You suffered more than me: and we both learned a lot from the SRQ ordeal... Hope all is well, Crohnie! :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You've got that right! :) Check your email for some things not about this project. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so very much! I can't say it enough! TYTYTY! Be well!! DocOfSoc (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No need to thank me, I didn't do anything except sign her posts at the one article. Has anyone gone through and reverted her edits to articles and talk pages? This should be done as you know saying now that it's a blocked account of a banned user or something to this effect. Good to hear from you Doc 2, hope you are well, RL has been a roller coaster for me. If interested, email me. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 11:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Nomination Period Open

The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well said!

Listen to some of you, for shame. A lot of you need to start reading basic policies again to refresh your memories about things like talk about the edit not the editor, sound familiar? Here you all are, at of all place arbitration and you behave like this? What's wrong with this picture! This section and a few more up shows how deep the lines in the sand is drawn. I have to say I'm glad I don't have any of these articles on my watchlist. It was bad enough to see it on pages I watch, but it needs to stop now. All of you are grown ups, at least I am assuming you are, so start acting like it, NOW! An administrator made a comment like this similar to me and others which I am now sharing though not his/her exact words the meaning is close enough for the point to be made. I'm totally sad by this

— CrohnieGalTalk 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I was impressed with what you said there because it definitely needed to be said. Thank you. NW (Talk) 02:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, it was so obvious that someone outside had to say something to make it stop. It's amazing the behaviors going on there. I'm glad it was appreciated and read. Now I know people do read what I have to say.  :) Thanks for dropping in with this note, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Rodolfo B. Valentino
Judy Greer
Peter Szatmari
Houston Film Critics Society
Bundi district
Environmental disease
Toshia Mori
Progressive disease
Anita Page
Ileitis
Jules Munshin
Theresa Harris
No Man's Land (1987 film)
Joyce Compton
Fifi D'Orsay
3rd Maryland Regiment
Overlap syndrome
Deadfall (1993 film)
Women's Electoral Lobby
Cleanup
Detroit Film Critics Society
Kyle Bradford
Children in cocoa production
Merge
Domestic terrorist
List of animated feature-length films
Functional colonic disease
Add Sources
Degenerative disease
American Film Institute Awards 2001
Katharine Houghton
Wikify
Caitlin Todd
Shar Pei
Non-communicable disease
Expand
List of childhood diseases and disorders
Meryl Streep
Caprine Arthritis Encephalitis

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change

I just wanted to thank you for your comment on the climate change case. You have encapsulated my issue perfectly. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to be fair and understand things but now I'm more confused, what does President Barak Obama have to do with the issues raised? JohnWBarber said it went back to his contact with you in 2008 at apparently this article. History? You can respond at the PD I suspect so others can see it. As a matter of fact that is probably the best thing to do. What does the response I got have to do with what I said? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
For making respectful, relevant, focused, and helpful comments in relation to the current Wikipedia arbitration case on Climate change. Crohnie, your input has been impressive, and it has certainly not gone unnoticed or unappreciated. Keep it up! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


Both as an interested outsider, and in a more formal role, and sometimes as someone who has dealt with a part of the dispute at an earlier stage in DR, I follow a lot of things related to arbitration. This climate change case is (evidently) no exception. This means trawling through a lot of things that are said and/or (not) done. The very lengthy discussions are part of it, and it sometimes contains very disturbing statements, allegations and/or questions that need to be addressed as such. Sometimes, issues are also overlooked, be it inadvertantly or otherwise. Sometimes important issues also need to be considered carefully. Sometimes it also involves showing appreciation where it is more than well-deserved. (These are just a few examples, and there are plenty more...but this might appear a long rant even without that much detail).

There are several occasions where I've thought that a particular statement needs to be made in relation to a particular issue (in fact, I'm not the only user), but I have not been able or willing to for a number of reasons; one being I have enough on my plate at the moment. Fortunately for the project, you have been there to say it; from what I've read, your input has been valuable in this case and I'm glad that you are commenting.

I wasn't sure how I could express my appreciation, so I thought I'd at least award you a barnstar - it's exceptionally rare for me to use these but hopefully it will convey the extent of my appreciation effectively. :) End of rant. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for what you say here. I don't consider what you are saying as a rant at all. The whole situation is absolutely ridiculous. I've been pretty much just reading when I can but I'm battling a cold so I haven't been on for that much. I noticed a whole lot more has been added to the PD talk page. I'm reading some but at this point don't have anything to add to what I've seen. Shell seems to be on top of it last I saw. Anyways, thank you for the barnstar, it was quite a surprise when I came here and saw it. Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Reporting Socks

At ScienceApologist_Disruptive_Behaviour I saw

You can help remove the socking by also reporting the socking or you can hide your head in the sand

Perhaps you are right. However, I think that calling someone a sock is a serious personal attack. Particularly when a user accuses someone who has been editing wiki for several years.

That said, here is one for you. User:Kindzmarauli appeared June 7, 2010 with full knowledge of the system. I noticed this person because, on July 12, he was tagging pages as socks of User:GoRight, without any evidence to support it.

Created page with '{{sock|GoRight}}'

I tried to discuss this (like you suggested above), but apparently socks that attack the right people are ignored. So, I don't really think your statement above is fair. It is actually difficult to report socks when you are pretty sure that you won't get the needed support. And I don't want to mistakenly attack someone who might simply have a new username (which is possible in the example above).

As for scibaby socks, I have seen accounts blocked for a single neutral edit. I don't know how anyone can "help" with detecting those. In addition, the method of detecting scibaby socks is apparently a secrete so that scibaby can't adjust. (Which I think is a good idea.) Q Science (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, in a situation like this you can either fill out a SPI report with just things from his contributions and his talk page like you show above and also this. That alone makes him/her look like a meat puppet for someone. When unsure about someone like this I usually go to a trusted administrator to ask what they think. I know of a few of them that would take it seriously and tell me if I am correct in my suspicions or not. If I am they usually help me out and follow through for me. My point was that if there is a sock or meat puppet working an article and editors keep reverting back to what that editor who isn't supposed to be editing to it encourages them to make over 300 sock accounts. The editors who know this sock Scibaby have been around a long time which usually means they can tell sometimes with one or two edits. Sometimes the sock goes longer before it is detected as can be seen in the sock investigations I linked to at the PD page. Everyone needs to work together with this kind of thing to discourage socking and meat puppets. They raise a lot of problems in areas and as can be seen in the CC area, he causes a lot of trouble and enjoys every minute of it. That is the sad part. If you are concerned and don't know someone to go to than go to AN/i or the AN board and post your difs there. At least then you are trying to help the problems not hide, which is what I meant by my comment. I hope this helps you understand what I was trying to say. So you know, I too think you should bring this to someones attentions because something doesn't look right which I feel is made perfectly clear with the comments at the dif I show. Have a good night, sorry I'm not on that much lately, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Thanks again

Hey there. Just wanted to give you a very belated thanks for watching and reverting nonsense off my talk page whilst I was away. I see crazy is still in full effect around the 'pedia. Pinkadelica♣ 08:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, she doesn't realize how boring it is already, which is astounding isn't it. While we're talking if you have time, or any of my watch page lurkers have the time, I'd appreciate it if you (they) would check out my comment of the talk page of Lizzie Borden. I went to the section and removed the Simpsons comments out again but there is no references for the whole section except for one. I've not been online much lately due to RL concerns so I'd appreciate it if someone would help me out with cleaning up that section. The way it's set up is being used for trivia again. I thought this was taken care of long ago but I guess not. The editor who used to keep it clean of nonsense retired from the site and I guess I or some others are going to have to watch the article a bit closer again. I'd appreciate the help here. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Crohnie. You have new messages at ScottyBerg's talk page.
Message added 21:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Replied to. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello 2 :)

Missing you! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi I put a new header up because the discussion above is about an arbcom case so I didn't want to mix the two. Hey Doc #2, how are you doing? Sorry, like I say above I'm not here that much lately but I hope RL settles down so that I can actually get back on and up to speed on things. Feel free to email me if you are interested in the details. ;) I did catch somethings that are quite interesting though. I have been trying to peek in on what you are doing to see if there is a need for reverting, you know what I mean. <winking> Take care, keep in touch and let me know here if you need anything, I'll do the same. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied to it.--CrohnieGalTalk 17:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

CC FoF: KDP

Commenting here cos of the background noise ... Part II has now been posted, which contains much more recent stuff. I should have done it earlier but got distracted. I'll be archiving the earlier proposed stuff shortly so start a new section or (better) comment on my talk page if you feel the need to. Best,  Roger Davies talk 19:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, replied elsewhere too. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Just thought I'd stop by and say hello. I appreciate your response to my comments at the CC arbcom case proposed decision discussion page. I don't know if my idea would work for that case, but it seemed to have done well on 9/11 related articles...and I have seen some interesting similarities between these two cases, though the main difference is that those that refute, deny or are somewhat skeptical of the mainstream concensus on CC aren't completely off their rocker like many who adhere to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you...best wishes.--MONGO 03:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mongo, nice of you to stop by. From what you wrote on the PD talk page I think that what they did for 911 articles could be used for the CC articles even if it was adjusted a little bit to fit the needs of the CC case. I didn't watch that case but what I do know from having AN/i on my watch list is that the complaints dropped to zero pretty much after that case closed so something had to be done right. As for helping me, the only thing right now that I've got concerns with, which I haven't had time to check yet, is the Lizzie Borden article. That article needs to be checked from top to bottom now because it's a high target article for vandalism, sometimes poor sourcing and trivia at times plus the editor who actually watched the article to keep it accurate retired from editing and it seems no one picked up watching this article since the editor retired. You can see my comment and my edits to the article. RL has been real busy for me, and I don't work, so today has been the longest I've actually been here for the most part I think. The time I've been here I've been catching up with reading and commenting on the CC case. I hope I see you around under better circumstances. Take care and be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments...and you're right, the 9/11 related articles did become much more hospitable...so much in fact, I was able to step back from them and move back into editing areas I enjoy more and have more professional knowledge about. I shall add the Lizzie Borden article to my watchlist.--MONGO 12:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. The Borden article needs checking but I am limited in my time here due to RL and keeping up with the arbcom case is becoming a big time sink lately. So far not much has been done though I have requested help for it to others too. I will get to it when I can if it's not worked on before then. Thanks again. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I have put Lizzie on my watchlist. Be well! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Doc #2 I appreciate the help. What is needed is the sourcing needs verifying and down near the bottom you'll see a bunch with cn templates that need sourcing or deletion, not sure yet. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

CC

As requested I have brought this here. I have to disagree that there is ever a scenario where an experienced edd should have a blind eye turned towards blatant breaches of policy or civility. I agree that we all make mistakes, but I do not agree that we should be allowed to ignore those mistakes because we have more experience then others. After all there is nothing to stop us saying “OK your right I did make an error of judgement, sorry”. In that event there is an argument for the attitude “OK he’s acknowledged his mistake (and apologised) now lets drop is”. But to actually say that we should allow that user greater leeway regardless of his actual attitude towards his offence would be wrong (as in my experience where the user has not withdrawn the accusation or apologised). We should be expected to operate at the same level of ‘honesty’ (for want of a better term) then any other edd, not be allowed to operate at a lower level, nor should exception be made just based upon exoperiance (circumstances yes). As to evidence of outside influence. I really think this would be very hard to prove. It might be the case that you could argue that a sudden rush of new Eds showing to with new account might cause some concern. But if a subject is raised at say the RSN board it will attract new edds. This does not mean they have been influenced by outside agencies, and indeed it would be difficult to justify such an assumption. Also a blog trying to influence Wikipedai is not in and of itself evidence that it has done so. It would be necessary to prove a pattern of editing that clearly has been influenced by that blog, and that would mean proving a link between an edd and a blog (see comment about notice boards), that will be very hard. Unless you are suggesting that actually proof would not be necessary for sanctions to be imposed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you are really misunderstanding what I've been trying to say there, that's my fault for not being able to state it with clarity. I do want to make this clear so there is no misunderstanding between us. What you say in your first part of the section, "I agree that we all make mistakes, but I do not agree that we should be allowed to ignore those mistakes because we have more experience then others." , hey I agree with you. I guess you are saying it better than I did both times I tried, sorry for this confusion I caused. Established editors should always be expected to behave with expectations of a high level of policies and guidelines, not lower, though as you say circumstances should be considered. I also agree with you in that section that the exceptions are that there are lapses that an apology, refactor, strikeout (may have missed some but you get the idea) may help get the discussions or editing back to focusing on the discussion in progress. The comment I made about that on AN/i where you were called a tag teaming I didn't go to anyone users pages and didn't follow most of the rest of the discussion because of serious time limitation from real life. I should have apologized to you about that at least on your talk page but I didn't so I am sorry for my misrepresenting you and that discussion. I honestly blew this and I was wrong when I made an assumption without following through with looking at more than I did. The last section about outside influences, from what I've read and even the PD page states that outside influence (blogs) have been use to bring outside controvery on to the project. I don't know the total details of this and how it is proved or disproved. This is why I asked if any of the active editors would help me out to explain how they know that outside influences have been bringing problems to this area of the project. I know the socking is part of this and many, many socks of banned users have been repeatedly blocked. There is the infamous Scibaby but there have also been others that have been socking in this area that are banned who have been causing problems like making an article look like an edit war is in progress, this is just an example. To prove all of this though, I guess I hope one of the regular contributors or two come to help clarify how they know. Does this help at all? I hope so because to be honest being an outsider to all of this, it's hard to try to understand what is going on. I will make mistakes, hopefully not too often, but I will also hopefully bring in ideas and comments not thought of which is what I am trying to do. I am trying not to take sides and to look at everything prior to writing anything. But like this conversation, I sometimes have a problem being able to say what I am thinking clearly enough, though I try real hard to do just that, be clear on what I'm saying. If more is needed please don't hesitate. If I don't get back immediately, I will respond, so please be patient. Thanks for allowing me to talk to you to clear this up. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to comment, mostly to Slatersteven. There seems to be a knot here that needs unravelling, and I think it is a shame that you and Crohnie have got so entangled. Since the common thread is FG, I point you at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Proposed_FoF: FellGleaming multiple violations, but I know you've seen that anyway. The ANI report is part of that proposed FoF, though I think it really just illustrates FG's combativeness more than anything else. I don't think the accusations of tag-teaming there were useful or justified; but tempers get frayed. I don't think I agree with Ss's opinions re judging editors, but that is perhaps another matter William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This dif was recently presented at the arbcom PD talk page which I think should be put here for further clarifications of the issues this "How-To Guide" (this was kindly added by Noren). --CrohnieGalTalk 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on this - keep up the good work :). Also, good job being both meta and productive - I used my 5,000th edit for pure navel-gazing, and missed my ten by a few weeks. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks it's been definitely intersting getting there. ;) My trying to help around in different areas, like the arbcom case, has been really different for me and quite a learning experience. To try to figure out whether there is any meat in a discussion when not knowlegeable about the articles involved is really difficult. I have for the most (I have an opinion about couple administators that's not to positive) part always respected the work of administrators and others with more functions than the average editor, but now seeing what needs to be done and doing the work has given me even more respect than I already had. Thanks for the comments, it makes me feel like maybe I'm doing something good with the limited time I've had lately. I can at least say I'm trying my hardest to look at everything and then make my comment. Thanks again :), --CrohnieGalTalk 16:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Can you do me a favour please and get this [22] right? I was blocked twice this week, yet you do not say why, the first block being a bad one for say "he has a bee up his arse" which funnily enough everyone who commented on said was not a PA and the block was ridiculous. The second was also a bad block, smithy jumped the gun, made a bad call and was overturned, there was no copy violation to begin with. Have you looked at the edits? This would not even have been an issue if a certain editor who dislikes me had not decided to cause drama. At least try to be fair here ya? mark nutley (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Both blocks were good, as you (and Crohnie) know full well. Your incivility continues; you should not be referring to admins by what you well know will be unwelcome diminutives. The copyvio was genuine, even though you continue to refuse to accept it; the necessary continual re-work of that text demonstrates that. This would indeed not have been an issue of you wouldn't insist on introducing copyvios in the first place. But hopefully RHaE will now be obliged to answer the questions he has been ducking William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Really? were is the incivility then? There was no copyvio, only in your mind. Stop seeking out drama, you`ll get none from me anymore mark nutley (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mark, I said about the first block/unblock that I didn't know the details and that it sounded like a misunderstand between people. (Just for the record, I would have probably taken that as a PA too.) Maybe I should use these exact words? As for the second one, yes I did look, and I don't think Vsmith made a wrong call on it which is why I brought it to the PD talk page. You took a word here and there out and than put it into the article. We are supposed to summarize what the sources say, not cut and paste it into an article, changing a few words or removing some, which is what it looks like to me and apparently others. I don't edit these page and I also don't have contact with most of the editors who do, including you. It is hard to look at things from the outside but having people uninvolved usually is a good idea for a fair opinion. I am just trying to get the facts out and keep everything fair at the same time which is very hard to do. If you think clarification of what I said is needed why don't you post at the thread I started and tell what happened from your perspective. I have no problems with you doing that. I gave the names of all involved so that the arbitrators could contact them if they are interested. What is it you are asking me to do? I will try to help here as long as I see it the way you want it changed. Let me know, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually that`s a good enough reply for me. You believe you are doing the right thing, fair enough. I would ask you however to look at he article now and make tell me if you believe i was doing a copyvio, it was a work in progress, i had not stopped editing the article at all, i did not just copy and paste a load of text and leave it mark nutley (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
May I suggest that you don't put a work in progress into an article and that you do the work somewhere else then put it into the article. I can't look right now as I am done for the night. Later, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Lol, i was waiting for you to reply here as i assumed you were going to look again at the last edits to the article :) Then i saw your recent post at the PD talk page. Your suggestion is right of course, i have been using my sandbox to prepare new content for the article, thanks for the suggestion mark nutley (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use your sandbox or any other public page, on or off Wikipedia, to hold non-free material. If you must copy source material in the course of writing any stage of an article, do so privately. And it should go without saying that you must not under any circumstances ever again derive Wikipedia content from non-free content. --TS 14:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or to Mark with this, TS? Thanks in advance for clarifying, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was addressing Mark. He still doesn't seem to have got the message that derived works are copyright infringement. This relates to his confessed practice of firstly sitting with a book open and trying to paraphrase the sentences before him and secondly copying non-free material onto the wiki during the course of producing a final article. If any intermediate stage of a finished article or even just of part of it, is non-free, the resulting article is non-free. --TS 14:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks for clarifying. I didn't think you meant me but better safe than sorry is my motto. Yes Mark, when I said not to put it directly into the article, I didn't mean to put the copywritten material in any user space. Something like that needs to be worked on off the project until your final edits are ready to put into the article. I don't mean little clean ups but the main parts you want to add needs to be put into your own paraphrasing then it can be put on the project. I think you should read or reread whichever it is the paraphrasing and writing an article again so you understand what it is you are doing wrong. I don't think you understand what has been said to you. Until then you need to slow down on adding new articles so you don't get into this situation again, just some friendly advice. Thanks again Tony for clearing this up, I hope my suggestions to Mark are good ones since I've never started an article from scratch which he has been doing. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to explain to Mark why this is a bad time to be caught copying non-free material into Wikipedia. Over the past few days if you use your watchlist you may have occasionally seen a sign (see here) at the top of the page explaining that an automated process is being used to blank 10,000 articles. If you click the associated link you'll be referred to the case of User:Darius Dhlomo. That user has been an editor on Wikipedia for four years, and has been found breaching copyright on numerous occasions. More recently a formal investigation was conducted, which you can see at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo. Including articles to which Darius Dhlomo contributed significant edits, a total of 23,000 articles are now under investigation. This is a huge task caused by the failure of one user to adhere to our free content licence requirements and the copyright law. To say that patience is running thin would be an understatement. --TS 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, I'd not heard of this. If there is anyway I can help with the cleanup Tony please email me about it since I assume this is quite sensitive to talk about. I will help where I can, if I can. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
That`s is pretty bad, i had seen the notice that a bot was doing mass deletions, i had not realized it was one editor who had done it. I have taken your advice guys, i now do a rough draft on a txt file, then tidy it, then move it to my sandbox to refine then to the article, i really don`t thing there will be any further issues with this and to be honest i think it is time to drop it, it has caused far more drama than was needed. mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
May I make a suggestion to you, well I'm going to but of course you can take it or leave it. You've started a few new articles per your user page. I would suggest that you go back to those and make sure you don't have any problems in them like you have had now that you understand how to do this. It doesn't hurt to recheck work like this anyways. I was shocked by the above and did you notice how many edits that editor had? A lot more than both of us and then some. So, like I said I would advice you to check articles that you have edited a lot to make sure that there will be no future problems with copyright or plagerism issues or any other major problem though I think though's are the big ones, at least they are to me and a lot of others of course. Thanks for the nice conversation here, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Already done :) there were only a few stubs left in sub pages. And they are kinda bare :) but thanks for the advice, take care mark nutley (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Darius Dhomo

Sorry for starting a new section here; the web browser on my phone has limitations that prevents me adding a comment to the "Hi" thread.

I'm sure any offer of help would be gratefully received, because it's an overwhelming task. Please check at the investigation page which I listed above, and I guess if you have any further questions you can take them to those who wrote the page (if all else fails check the page history). As I understand it they need people to look at each article listed and see if it contains text copied from elsewhere (mostly it's stubs about athletes and sporting events.) Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem starting a new thread. I will check out where you said to go and see if I can help out with the clean up. Sounds like a good learning experience for me. Thanks, and let me know if you see anything specific that I can do. I'm off to bed for the night, thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 00:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

response

I've responded to you query on my talk :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded to there. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Lizzie Borden

Working on the article per your request my friend. A couple of other editors have popped in, making innaccurate edits. What have you got me into? LOL Fondly, DocOfSoc (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this the woman who took an axe and gave her husband forty wacks? Cool, i had not even thought there would be an article about that, i`m going to go take a peek mark nutley (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Doc #2, check you email to see. :) Yes Mark, that's who it is. Actually I think it's a pretty good article, enjoy the read. --CrohnieGalTalk 09:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was her mother?

Lizzie Borden took an axe,
And gave her mother forty whacks.
When he saw what she had done,
She gave her father forty-one.

...but we probably shouldn't use this as a reliable source...! TFOWR 09:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It was her stepmother and father and rhyme not a good source ;-) and per email: Crohnie, you got me! LOLDocOfSoc (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
If you can believe it, when I first got to the article it was because someone kept putting that little rhyme into the article of course without references. :) Doc you see what I said last night huh! :) It definitely keeps things interesting. LOL! --CrohnieGalTalk 10:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Lizzie Borden - I should have read it before I commented ;-) Still, I got the rhyme mostly right! I hadn't realised that she was acquitted... funny old world. TFOWR 12:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your questions about Remedy 3 topic bans in the proposed decision the climate change arbitration

I'm bringing this here because the questions seem to come from your own personal attempt to make sense of part of the proposed decision.

You first asked "there are new proposals on the PD that names editors with per Remedy 3, which starts here...what does this mean for the editors?" [23]

It was explained that the Remedy 3 topic ban is an especially comprehensive ban on having anything to do with the topic from now on.

You followed up with two further comments:

I worry about the stabiliy of the articles. I think this is something that needs to be thought about. Remember the goal here is to write the best articles possible to give our readers the best knowledge they can find. I worry that this is not going to happen and that the articles are going to suffer and if the articles suffer so do our readers [24]
After looking at these again I have to say I don't see the need for them since most of the editors votings are becoming clear what the arbitrators feel should pass or fail. Why the need for these extras at the bottom when there is the above remedies being voted on? It seems almost redundant imho. [25]

I'd say your worry about stability is probably misplaced because it's unlikely that removal of individuals will have an overall effect on quality. There are probably plenty of editors just as good who can improve the article quality. Those to be removed are thought to have contributed to a battleground atmosphere which is self-sustaining and so the idea is to remove them and see if the battling goes away. If other editors look like they want a fight it should be possible for the community to handle them using discretionary sanctions.

On redundancy, well most of the individuals named in the Remedy 3 proposals aren't mentioned at all in the other proposed remedies (see my summary at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-27/Arbitration report) so I just don't agree with your observation. --TS 12:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here and you are correct, I am having a hard time understanding this for some reason which is why I have asked questions and made comments. I do though understand what you are saying to me above which is claifying for me a lot, thank you. As for the reduncy part, I haven't gotten around to reading the signpost yet but I will do that right now so I totally understand. This learning experience seems like I am doing it the hard way at times. ;) Thanks for taking the time to help me out with this, I very much appreciate it. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I read your comment and understand it. Thanks for helping me out with this. Sometimes I can be my own worse enemy with things like this. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Barber diffs

You should add these as diffs, or they will be ignored. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just looking for them. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I take that back your dif is my edit of adding the four difs there. Are you telling me to add them up where Hipocrits are? He asked me to add my below his. If that's not what you mean, you've got me confused. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The four links you added with this edit were not diffs, but simply links to the sections containing the examples you wished to highlight. You need to show the specific edits that you are referring to in your submission. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
And the 3 more you just added aren't diffs either. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, with all the time I've been here, I don't know how to do a specific comment in a dif. Never learned how to do it, never had the need, sorry. You have my permission to take what I have there and adjust it which I will put there if necessary. Other than that I don't know what to say. It's kind of embarrassing but like I've said this is a learning experience for me. I don't do a lot things on Wikipedia that requires having to do this and a lot of other things. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to help, but I cannot assist you in compiling diffs against JohnWBarber because I am involved in a personal dispute with him that I do not wish to precipitate. Please read WP:DIFF for help in understanding how to create a diff, or ask another editor to help you compile the specific diffs. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

--CrohnieGalTalk 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)(OD) I understand, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you got the hang of it :-) -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I just never had to do this before now. ;) Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You have just said you couldn't get page diffs from Archive 4. The reason for that is that the archive doesn't contain the relevant history revisions. What you need to do is read the archive page to find the date time of the comment you're interested in and then search for it in the history of the main talk page. --TS 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you to put this back since this is something new I am learning. Your read me correctly and you have helped me look for the difs I am trying to find. I hope you don't mind me reverting you so I could respond to you. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I'm glad it helped. --TS 23:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I added two more but the one more I want about him saying that he was a victim of abuse, which I think was an answer to me about your listing the Obama emigration title I still haven't located. Got to go for the night though, but I think that dif is an important one. Thanks again for your help, --CrohnieGalTalk 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crohnie/Archive_4&oldid=1088010604"