User talk:Drdbkarron

January 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Thurs has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Thurs was changed by Dbkarron (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.978675 on 2014-01-12T04:16:31+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Digital Morse theory may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

of a digital Morse theory is that it serves to provide a theoretical basis for [[isosurface]]s (a kind of embedded manifold[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submanifold|submanifold], and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drdbkarron. You have new messages at Talk:Thurs statistical function.
Message added 13:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Thurs statistical function for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thurs statistical function is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thurs statistical function until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I deleted the page as the result of the above AfD. If there are citations and the like out there to confirm notability, then that should be made sure of before an article is created. I can't unilaterally restore it since there was a clear consensus to delete. Wizardman 23:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re-introduction of Thurs()

We will re-introduce this article shortly as we are working on a review monograph on the Thurs function. Drdbkarron (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Edward E. Kramer, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Crude;y attempting to sanitize the biography of a convicted child molester will win you no friends on wikipedia, or in decent company. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Edward E. Kramer. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC) I will edit the page; which consists mainly of citations into the law and material from the Georgia Justice Project and the Marsh Law firm blog page.[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Georgia first offenders act

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Georgia first offenders act requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from marshlaw1.com/642. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Georgia first offenders act

Hello Drdbkarron,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Georgia first offenders act for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Georgia first offenders act

Hello Drdbkarron,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Georgia first offenders act for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Georgia first offenders act

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Georgia first offenders act requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://gbi.georgia.gov/obtaining-criminal-history-record-information. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Georgia First Offender Act

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Georgia First Offender Act requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from URL. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make the same type of edits again at Edward E. Kramer after your block expires and I will block you indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any unblock conditions need to be worked out here. I will unblock if:

You agree to not edit the Edward E. Kramer article until this prohibition is lifted by myself or another administrator.
You will use the article's talk page, making sure your points are rooted in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:OR and WP:BLPPRIMARY (there was a lot of good advice in the first ANI thread). You may use WP:BLPN in the same way.
You recognize that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and there is no "vandalism" going on.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHy do you think that Hullabaloo W. is following Wikipedia policies when he is acting so unfairly and is writing so poorly.

Not that I am the greatest writer, but I don't think he needs to repeat and repeat his assertion about his subjects legal problems when they are just not proven from responsible sources. While the local press has quoted government and law enforcement officials, they have also quoted defense counsel and court sources. The Atlanta press titles seem sensational and have nothing to do with the material in the body of the article; The titles which contradicts the article title and indexing. There is a shortage of verifiable factual unbiased press coverage.

It has taken me a few months working on this case to dig into primary source material that refutes what is in tabloid press and angry blogs.

I would like to understand why Kramer has engendered such amazing hatred in so many people. I am open to try to understand if this hatred driven revulsion that shows up in Hullabaloo's edits could be possibly justified. Hullabaloo seems perhaps more than reckless by his own comments.

He has written me with some seriously offensive comments. Perhap you can help mediate. I am willing to agree that Kramer is been accused but I don't agree he has been convicted in the normal sense of adjudicated guilty by a court of competent authority.

There are just certain elements that don't make sense. Can you understand why I seeking mediation and consensus as to ground truth and verifiable fact. Hullabaloo's comments that the court docket that Kramer pled guilty is only because the word appears in two locations in the docket in pleading titles by both the prosecution and defense, but does not represent the final disposition determined by the court. Hullabaloo has accused me of lying. I would like an independent opinion as to the question of: I am misrepresenting the truth or not.

According to the docket, which you can read as well, Kramer was not found guilty (yet). Part of this lack of adjudication is a feature of the Georgia First Offenders Act, which is a strange law in and of itself. This particular law can not be used by sex offenders, which implies that the charges against Kramer are not sex offenses. This is very confusing to me and my colleagues working on Kramer's case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any agreement to the three conditions I stated above. Furthermore, you should read WP:COI and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. HW is sticking to what reliable secondary sources say, as per our policies and guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I guess I was tripping over my soapbox. I agree to the first two conditions. I am having issues with the third. I need to understand where Mr. W is about when he accuses me of lying. How can I get this particular point clarified. Convince me I am wrong and I will drop my advocacy of Kramer. I like to think I would not engage this particular quixotic windmill without a solid foundation. I could be hallucinating. I am working hard not to. I want to know if I am advocating for a hopeless cause or if my point if fact can be verified by an independent 3rd party. I will read carefully your two citations WP:COI and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Please be patient with me as I try to see where my foundation is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need a diff of where HW accuses you of lying. And please start signing your posts with ~~~~ --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let me see if quad twiddles does it. I will pull the lying assertion next. And the veiled threats. Thank you for your patience with me. Dr D B Karron (Ph.D) (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) looks like xml markup. ~~~~ I will try to make my name more colorful al a your markup signature. I'm used to writing court pleading where the only permitted markup is bold and underscored. Anything more is considered bad form. And restrained indignation is to be used in very measured and justified circumstances. If at all. ~~~~ -- drkarron[reply]

Here is some comments that I think are bullying and inappropriate from our colleague Mr. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz.

4 November 2017[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Edward E. Kramer, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Crude;y attempting to sanitize the biography of a convicted child molester will win you no friends on wikipedia, or in decent company. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lying

Revision as of 08:42, December 12, 2017 (edit) (undo) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (Stop lying, User:Drdbkarron, The very page you link to lists "NEGOTIATED GUILTY PLEA 12-02-13")

24 User:Drdbkarron falsifying content at Edward E. Kramer[edit]

Drdbkarron blocked one week by NeilN for disruptive editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edward E. Kramer, after a long legal battle, pled guilty to child sexual abuse. His plea and conviction were widely reported in major news outlets, as cited in his Wikipedia biography. Drdbkarron disputes these facts, based on his own peculiar analysis of online court records, including such remarkable arguments as claiming that records listing a "NEGOTIATED GUILTY PLEA" do not support the claim of a plea-bargained guilty plea. Only about two weeks ago, Drdbkarron was directed here to work out such disputes on the article talk page -- which he has made no attempt at doing -- and not to include claims based on primary court documents. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive970#Block_or_topic_ban_requested_--_User:Drdbkarron. Given his brazen disregard of these directions, and his attempt to turn a well-cited biography into dishonest apologetics for a child molester, he should be blocked until his willingness to comply with basic content requirements is demonstrated and topic banned from all pages related to Edward Kramer. Enough is enough. More than enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One week block to start, with a warning the next block will be an indefinite one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edward E. Kramer (born March 20, 1961) is an American editor who has edited several science fiction, fantasy, and horror works, was co-founder and former part-owner of the Dragon*Con media convention and is a convicted child sex offender. He lives in Duluth, Georgia, and is former program director of the Metropolitan Atlanta Council on Alcohol and Drugs. Before pleading guilty in 2013 to three counts of child molestation, Kramer was the subject of a long-running legal battle that began with his initial arrest in August 2000.

Above are HW's edits; there is no need to reveal where Kramer lives, no need to mention twice he is allegedly a convicted child sex offender, and various previous edits seemed to imply prior arrests but no convictions for child molestation. I put in citations to the three organizations Kramer claims to have been involved with; A clinical and educational consultant, Kramer was the Program Director of the Metropolitan Atlanta Council on Alcohol and Drugs (MACAD)^[1], and Educational Grants Director for the Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Educational Service Agency (MRESA)^[2]. They all check out.

I reached out to the Georgia Justice Project for permission to copy from their uncopy right website, or that they edit the Georgia First Offender Act page with or for me. They are currently reviewing and I may need to help them edit the page. Or you can with me if you care to.

Other things

~~~~ -- drkarron

why is quad twiddle not working. what does [[User:drdbkarron|<b style="color:blue>dr<span style="color:red>karron</span></b>]] mean?

It means you haven't customized your signature with the right markup. You should probably go back to the default format as it's not worth fussing over. And please, learn how to use diffs. If you're going to argue/discuss points, you will greatly help yourself by using this format: [diff] - [statement about how it violates/adheres to Wikipedia policies and guidelines]

Be concise and avoid recounting your personal feelings/experiences. Other editors just want to know how articles can be improved according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In case you've never been pointed towards them, here's a comprehensive list. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. NeilN; I am reviewing the pointers above and have some real life deadlines intruding. I would like to sandbox a new Edward E. Kramer page for review. How can I attract constructive reviews. The problem i see is that the press is properly reporting the actions of the court. The question of a conviction has not be decided. It is amazing that Kramer has been considered convicted when I hope to make it possible to review the primary citations and backup that show that this is factually and simply not the case. How can I address the issue of the Docket and the opinions of the court? The second press did cite some of the case accurately but many people quoted in the press are simply incorrect when they to a conviction. It is like people in the press citing the alien invasion when it is simply not happened (yet). But I have a Close of Business deadline for a brief due today. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you.

I am ignoring you until I'm back on my time this weekend but happy to learn the Wiki Way but am concerned about how to deal with the primary court document backup exclusion policy. QUESTION: Is the docket of the court considered primary court document? I'm not referring to pleadings or court opinions. The docket has the summary of the disposition of the case. That the word guilt appears twice in the docket is not the courts disposition of the case. This is the basis for Mr. HB referring to me as a Lyre. That strings me out. Lets see who's pants ignite. I need less coffee.

Your draft article, Draft:Draft Georgia First Offender Act

Hello, Drdbkarron. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Draft Georgia First Offender Act".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl | talk 11:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Philanthropy, Public Health, Fall 1998". Emory University. August 1, 1997. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
^ "Cocaine No. 1 concern at drug council". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 1986-08-21.

[Emory_University_1997-1] "Philanthropy, Public Health, Fall 1998". Emory University. August 1, 1997. Retrieved December 8, 2017.

[2] "Cocaine No. 1 concern at drug council". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 1986-08-21.

[1]

[2]