User talk:Crohnie/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Case summary

I'm pretty badly swamped with a couple of projects at work right now. I'm not sure to what extent I'll even have time to participate in the Arbitration case, so I'm afraid that I almost certainly won't be able to prepare a summary for you. (I appreciate the invitation, though, and under other circumstances I'd normally be pleased to take you up on it.)

In any event, one of the reasons why I cut Abd off of posting his arguments on my talk page was because there's an awful tendency on his part to start multiple arguments in multiple forums. I really don't have the time or energy to get sidetracked by another debate with Abd on yet another page. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, have a good day! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice to all users involved in Abd/WMC

This is a general notice to all users involved in the Abd/WMC arbitration case that further disruptive conduct within the case will not be tolerated and will result in blocks being issued by Clerks or Arbitrators as needed. More information is available at the announcement here; please be sure to read that post in full. Receipt of this message does not necessarily imply that you are at risk of a block or have been acting in a disruptive manner; it is a general notice to all that the Clerks and ArbCom are aware of issues in the case and will not be tolerating them any longer. If you have any questions, please post them to the linked section. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fast Ryde

That IP has removed The 9513 review from the article three times. Perhaps they dislike that it's a negative review. I wrote a more favorable review at Roughstock.com, but I don't want to add it for fear of conflict of interest. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just doing vandal patrol when I caught this. If you need help to stop the IP from removing reliable source just ping me. I think you did it well, I did read what I put back. ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. This guy is persistent and apparently not very good at talk page discussions. I only see a handful of actual talk posts, most are templates added by script. I was happy to see Garion96 revert it after he made the 3RR post, since Garion is an administrator. I was going to contact you and Momo if he reverted, but apparently that's not necessary. So this guy has a history of removing notes on WP:CRIME articles? Which ones? Maybe an WP:AN/I report could be in order?

I'm sorry to hear about your surgery, but hopefully it will have the effects you're hoping for. Certainly isn't a great time of year for being all bandaged and bundled. Keep me updated!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I meant s/he removes warning and notices on his talkpage. Everything I said to them on your talk page had already been said in the past, oh well. I looked at his contributions and they don't appear to be a steady editor here so I wouldn't worry too much. I have the article on my watch now too so if I see it I will revert too because the hidden notices don't bother me and are helpful. I've never really understood the hidden notices until recently myself so maybe this editor is like me, a slow learner. ;)

Thanks, the surgery has to help. I am a hermit already with all of this. I'll keep you updated. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Ok so to try to sum this up this is what I think you are saying here, please correct me if I am incorrect. First you are claiming there is a cabel of editors that support and back each other up. How do you come to this conclusion since I am not aware of any cabals being active at the project as WP:CABAL are not allowed. When I do a search of the word cabal or even WP:CABAL it goes on to describe users that have experience and on and on, not a group of controllers like this sounds. Basically, I think it hurts you to shout out cabal in any form.

You are still upset about your block from Cold fusion and hope this case gets you unblocked and WMC sanctioned in some way for some percieved involvement you claim he has but he denies. Is this correct? I just know that your block from C.F. and t.c.f. was heartily agreed to by many editors, including myself, at AN/I. I saw you list those of us who voted for your ban with bolding of the supposed cabal. The count was something like 9 of them had voted or spoke up at the Abd/JzG case for you to banned along with this AN/I vote to ban you. Now couldn't all these times of iVoting to ban you mean that maybe you are exhausting a community of editors good faith in your contributions and that the time has come for you to evaluate what it is you do here at the project and make adjustments accordingly? I don't know if WMC was involved or not, but if he was, I'm not seeing it. When is an administrator involved with another editor too much that the administrator should recuse themselves. Well I know this call for an administrator being involved is activated a lot esp. in cases where someone has been sanctioned. From what I have read from you and others, there aren't too many who can give you sanctioned if you are correct because they have had contact with you over the years. Enric for example, I believe it's him, shows you accuse many administrators of involvement and then threaten them in a cloaked way that they could lose their bit if they dear try to take any actions against you in anyway. I have to say the list of administrators you have done this to is impressive, Raul, Jehrocho, WMC, JzG and on and on. You can't expect to play this way and not get fallout esp. from said editors. There are going to be editors who agree with each other a lot when editing in specific areas of this project, in this case, pseudoscience.

And finally, there is back door type conversations going on, apparently for some time, with information about all of this that editors like myself are not aware of, is this correct? Because if there is off site communications going on that someone like me should know about, how do I go about getting the informations so that I can make an informed opinion on this case? I am new pretty much to the workings of the arbcom so I would be interested in knowing how I can be active in this if a good portion of this case has been taken off this site. I don't go to other locations so this is not right to have this case in the open but having some of the facts taken off site out of sight for me. Ok these are my thoughts from what you said above, your thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the cabal evidence is far from complete. Trying to judge it based on what's there right now would be premature. There are many editors who are quite aware of the cabal I'm writing about, it is not a formally organized cabal, and I'm using the term to refer to a group of editors who have acted in concert for a long time, in ways that are actually contrary to policy and guidelines. To give you an example, revert warring is prohibited. In fact, the edit warring guideline strongly discourages reverts as an editing technique, but recommends constant attempts to improve consensus by working out compromises. We have 3RR as a bright line, but here is where a cabal comes in. If there is a group of editors who cooperate -- which, by the way, I support, *if* the cooperation is legitimate in its actions -- and who oppose minority POV editors (who have just as much right to put RS'd material in articles as editors with a majority POV), they can easily overcome any such editor, with only one of them doing a revert, they often don't need to do two. Combine that with uncivil "welcome," and it's a formula for creating more and more blocked editors, and, sometimes, long term puppet masters who, amazingly, refuse to be brutally suppressed. Scibaby: 300 sock puppets and counting. Why? Review the history carefully, you'll see it.

Nothing is being "taken" off-site to my knowledge, but there are always private conversations. Editors are people who have the right to talk to each other. Are you aware that when material is deleted it is still readable in history (usually)? It's very difficult to actually take something "off." Raul654 could do it, he has the oversight privilege, as do some others. But I'm not aware of any relevant example, I just mention the bare possibility.

I'd suggest simply reading the case when it appears that sections have settled. Reading and responding to an incomplete section is largely a waste of time. There will probably be another two weeks for evidence to be compiled. Lots of people are starting to make proposals before the evidence is complete, which is a typical Wikipedia practice of "verdict first, trial later." I've tried to stay, so far, with proposals that are about basic policy and practice, so evidence isn't so important.

ArbComm process is quite different from the rest of Wikipedia; my opinion is that we should have more structured discussion, that this will be necessary to quiet the controversies that have been raging for a long time. --Abd (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You mention other issues. Please understand that 25 editors !voted at RfC/JzG 3 to support me being banned. When ArbComm subsequently validated my position on JzG's action while involved, and the blacklisting issues, and basically advised me to be more efficient and rapid in escalation of dispute resolution, these editors didn't generally revise their opinions. Even though, quite clearly, from the ArbComm results, I'm supporting WP policy and guidelines, a process with me involved can rapidly attract a concentration of editors who have an axe to grind with me, and there is a set of editors who do. WP:BAN requires a consensus of uninvolved editors, which in summary means those who do not have some position at the outset of a discussion. I could have challenged the ban from AN/I based on the evidence which you have acknowledged -- had I left it open and supporters given time to respond. See, a cabal can muster support like that *quickly*, and then it can attract and influence more neutral editors, such as, possibly, yourself. But I decided that a month page ban from two pages wasn't worth the disruption, and that the issue was going to have to go to Arbcomm anyway, because of the cabal. This case may or may not address wider issues of the cabal, the basic focus is narrow: my actions leading up to the ban, WMC's actions, and, now, our actions during the RfAr itself.

My basic goal is the same as with RfAr/Abd and JzG, to confirm and reinforce the policy of administrative recusal when involved. It is my position that when an admin's involvement is merely alleged, that admin should recuse from further involvement. This does not undo any actions, and I would extend this that if an admin warns a user in lieu of blocking the user, and the user then does what was the subject of the warning, the admin may go ahead and block, even if the user has been complaining that the admin is involved. But, then, the admin would recuse and step aside, and probably take the action to a noticeboard immediately, that would be normal when there are charges of involvement, so that neutral admins can step in. It's actually pretty well established. See what Iridescent did when she blocked me a year ago. She did it right. I think she made a mistake with the block, but did I file disruptive process over that? No, she'd recused, and if I had a complaint, it was now with the community, not her. WMC failed to follow recusal policy, and he continues to fail, and that leads to ongoing disruption, including this case. He's been edit warring during the RfAr, and there is a good chance he'll be blocked before this is over (and that's related to recusal failure, but not directly; basically WMC is an IAR administrator, for better and for worse. Rules against edit warring are for other people, not him. And rules against acting while involved are likewise for others, not him. He was involved, the evidence will show that, and I predict that ArbComm will so conclude. What they do with this is up to them and, indeed, to him. If he say, "Oops! Sorry. I won't do that again," he's likely to keep his bit. If not, it's anybody's guess. I'm probably not going to suggest desysopping, but others might, there is a pretty big reservoir of discontent over his admin actions, but this isn't a cabal in opposition, it will take a lot of time before most of the editors who would want to present evidence and proposals show up.

As to my ban from Cold fusion, it expired, and the only thing that exists is continued threat from WMC. I could now edit the article, but it could be, right now, needlessly disruptive, and could be interpreted as a POINT violation. I do expect that ArbComm will interdict that threat, which would have the effect of lifting WMC's personal ban. The closer of the ban you voted in was asked -- not by me! -- about the length, and set it at one month, so it's over. There is now only WMC's opinion and threat. Clear? --Abd (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2)I'm still reading and watching. May a make a suggestion? I think maybe the term you should be using is something like Clique instead of cabal. From the reading I'm getting from you that is more of what you are saying, isn't it? What you are trying to prove is going to be near impossible because not being an administrator or having certain tools you can't see what some see. There is probably a very good reason for some of the things we don't understand here do to not having all of the information. This is why I asked if the problems here are at other locations too. I don't go to the different channels I hear about nor the other websites I also hear about but I do know that information is discussed and shared at these different locations. Maybe you need to sit back and think a bit if maybe what you are seeing isn't actually all to be seen? I try to edit here for pleasure and brain stimulation for myself do to my own limitations. I know that there is a lot I don't know and even more I don't want to know. This is life at an internet site. You need to pick your fights well and to be honest with you I see a more scattergun approach. You accuse to many in a veiled way which it seems has made you terribly unpopular. I am trying really hard to stay neutral with my thoughts on all of this but for example this, your 10,000+ word post to Enric and and esp. this is not too helpful. You seem to want to get the backs up on editors and when you do try to corner people they get defensive and so do their friends. Can you be less confrontational and more precise? I know you get a bit defensive when asked to take your word count down but you have to consider others who do read everything. I could go without reading what you or others say and I do esp. when they are just to long for me to mentally and emotionally absorb what is being said. I too have medical problems and I can't handle word counts of 10,000+ to make a point or two. Do you understand, you are not the only person here so we all have to adjust a bit.

And while I am composing a response I get another post from you in such a tone? Why, am I supposed to be a member of this cabal you keep tossing around? I don't interact with most of those editors ever and just had my first contacts with some of them since this case got started. May I suggest not burning too many bridges? I'm not sure where I stand at this moment but I do know I don't like the tone of the last bit of this posting you put to me. I think maybe you feel you have an arbcom member in your pocket or something to make some of the claims you are, do you? For now I am just going to continue reading and 'listening' to everyone and see where the chips may fall. In closing for now I would remind you that this arbcom case is going to move pretty fast when things get moving. There is too much heat with this case for it too linger plus there is the case with Jimbo and Bish to tend to. Happy editing though, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What makes you think you are "supposed to be a member of this cabal"? Have you been paying attention? You were on a list of editors who participated in a discussion. Many of those editors had no apparent connection with the others, but if I'm going to present a list of those who took a certain position, I am obligated to present all of them, not just cherry-picked ones. No, I have no ArbComm member in my pocket. Cronie, you are reading your own assumptions into what I write. It will benefit you, help you to find better understanding, if you can stop this. I'm very literal. If I wanted to accuse you of cabal membership, I'd say so. As it stands, I haven't accused anyone, I've merely started to present the pictures that, seen together, may show what I've got in mind. I will say that "cabal" was used advisedly. The word is used in circles that discuss Wikipedia all the time, including print or other media sources that could use in articles, especially as to opinion. There is a phenomenon, cabal is the word that's being used for it, so why should I sugar-coat it? Instead, I think it more appropriate to confront the assumption that there is no cabal. There is a cabal, but it requires proper definition, or it won't be understood. You are not a member of the cabal at all, as far as anything I've seen, nothing would implicate you beyond a single action, and, believe it or not, a single action would never even imply that a person was a "member" of a cabal. It's easily, just a coincidence. You happened to see that discussion, perhaps, and, from what I can see above, you jumped to conclusions and !voted. Happens every day. Means nothing about "cabal," though it does tend to amplify the effect of a cabal, since some people will instinctively avoid voting with the minority, especially with an apparent WP:SNOW. Anyway, I think this discussion is already too long, it's wasting too much time. Enric Naval consented to discussion on my Talk page, what business is it of yours how many words were used? --Abd (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As I assume you know, when I put up a list of editors who should be considered "cabal members" for the purposes of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley, I did find it necessary to list you. If you read the evidence page carefully, you will see that a claim that you are a member of the cabal is not in any way a claim that you have done anything wrong. It simply means that you have demonstrated that you have shown a bias about Wikipedia content. That's allowed, in my opinion. However, when it comes to banning editors or administrators using their tools to block, for example, we expect to make decisions based on a "consensus of uninvolved editors," and if I succeed in showing a collective bias, that's involvement. This doesn't mean that an admin will be desysopped -- or that you, as an editor, would be sanctioned -- it means, for an administrator, that if the admin insists on the right to act while involved, they become a hazard to the neutrality of the encyclopedia. You and an admin may see your position as neutral. That, in fact, is a basic issue in this case, what is NPOV? How do we determine that text is or is not NPOV? What is RS? How do we determine it?

I apologize for having implied that you would not be named; when I wrote that, I had not examined sufficient evidence. However, unless somehow you manage to completely go off the deep end in your actions from now on, I do see no risk to you of anything more than being advised by ArbComm, and, I can testify, there is no harm in being advised, we all should try it more often. Below, an editor recommends Don't-give-a-fuckism, my favorite essay, which I often recommend. Sometimes, Wikipedians get to meet each other personally, and it's very difficult to maintain these highly polarized positions in person, I've been involved in on-line discussion since about 1985, and it's really, really easy to misunderstand others when we can't see the myriad multisensory cues that tell us, very quickly and often instinctively, what people mean by what they say. We don't even have tone of voice here, just raw text. So, I hope we can meet someday, perhaps at a WikiConference. It helps greatly to connect with the community in that way.

I have no intention to make things difficult for you in any way, so if my occasional posts to your Talk page bother you, you should know that (1) you can ask me to stop, there is no offense in that, and if I continued, it would be considered harassment, and (2) you can delete anything here if you don't want it to stay, you are, as long as you don't abuse it, sovereign over your own Talk page, and you never have an obligation to reply to anything here from anyone, even warnings. (You have an obligation to heed a legitimate warning, but that's different. You still don't have to reply to it, and you can delete it.) Once you realize that, there is much less problem with long posts. You can respond or not, you can read, or not, it is totally up to you. If I write something long and you suspect there might possibly be something there, but it's too long, you can simply tell me that, the brief expression is tl;dr, Too Long, Didn't Read, and as long as your intention is simply to notify, and especially if you say that politely, it's just fine. Example: tl;dr, please write a short summary so I can understand what you are saying. And I would.

Again, good luck with your back; I assume that if you are having surgery, you may have some discomfort or pain now, usually people don't have major surgery unless there is a present problem; so I hope you are reasonably comfortable and are looking forward to relief, a good attitude can help better outcomes happen. Or is that a fringe idea? :-) (I don't really care if it actually works about outcomes, I only care that such an idea helps me feel better now, and I hope the same for you.) --Abd (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable

See for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abd/Cabal#This_RfAr delete delete delete. Calming down right now, this is just a reminder of the BS that is allowed here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why does this remind me of Rain Man and Raymond's "Serious Injury List"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Evidence#There_is_a_cabal More in the morning, --CrohnieGal^Talk 01:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Previously, Crohnie, I had said that you weren't particularly a party of interest; however, in reviewing prior incidents, I did find a pattern of involvement that began before our contact. Sorry if this is confusing to you. I rather doubt that ArbComm will decide upon any sanctions for people merely because they were accused of "cabal" involvement, but the facts are what they are. If you are going to argue that editors should be banned, and especially before ArbComm, there might be some blowback. --Abd (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You have my best wishes for recovery from your surgery. This is just a wiki, Crohnie, please don't take it personally. Continue to do good work and don't worry about it. --Abd (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd, the last thing I'm worried about is you and your stupid claims of a cabal. I've done nothing wrong so I'm not worried. Most of those people you connect me to I don't know. You are the one that needs to worry, you are a harm to this project. You can now go finish playing your silly little games. You listed me because I've been leaning towards the other editors being correct about you. Oh and what pray tell did you find in my patterns of involvement? I do vandal patrol for the most part here at the Wiki, so tell me dear wise one, what do you for see for my future? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie, please read what I write carefully. There are no accusations hidden between the lines, as might be true for someone else. There is no allegation that you have done something wrong. You appear to hold and have expressed some opinions contrary to the conclusions of ArbComm and the community as a whole, and you have company in those opinions, or, alternatively, you have acted in ways to support those who hold such opinions.

You have referred to me as "dear wise one." I read that as sarcastic, but I ask you to stop and think. What if it's true? If someone dropped into Wikipedia who was truly wise -- I'm not making that claim -- do you think that you would agree with this person most of the time, part of the time, or not at all? I concluded years ago that if I met a "perfect master," I'd surely disagree with the sage at least some of the time. I'm human, and not perfect. Some of what this imaginary being would say would seem strange to me, I wouldn't understand it, at least not at first. It would take time. If you start to assume that others whom you don't understand might possibly be wise, you will start to learn at a more rapid pace than usual. That doesn't mean abandoning your position and what you know or think you know. It means being able to suspend it for a moment and peek around it to see what's there. Some people can't do that. I'm not blaming them, and it takes all kinds.

I see no harm coming to you from what you have done, you have simply expressed your opinion, and that is fully allowed as long as it's civil. Indeed, I consider it necessary. In WP:BAN, and this has been the subject of some controversy recently, the consensus required for a community ban is a consensus of "uninvolved editors." Were you "involved?" What I believe I have shown from the history is that there is a reasonable suspicion that you have a factional position, one which colors the decisions you make and the impressions you form and report. It is not alleged that you did anything specific that was "wrong," only that your views and conclusions may need to be considered those of someone who is bringing, to an issue, a prejudgment, a particular point of view, and that therefore, while your opinions and arguments are not to be disregarded, they are not a part of a neutral consensus as is required for a community ban.

The danger would come to you if you were reduced to incivility in your comments and responses before ArbComm, and you may easily avoid that. The danger is unlikely; if you step back and try to take a neutral look at the behavior, before ArbComm, of some of your "cabal friends," you will see that the level of incivility, of unwillingness to assume good faith, is very high. Some of them might indeed be troutslapped over that, the clerks have had a tough job with this arbitration, with highly privileged editors descending into incivility that would not be tolerated for a moment from mere mortals.

So, take a deep breath, let it go, and focus, as I suggested, on your good work. Just be careful about condemning others, that's where you can start to get into serious trouble.

Read what I've written about the cabal carefully. If you want to know more about the opinions that I allege are contrary to consensus and ArbComm, ask, or just watch the arbitration. I have barely begun to present the case. --Abd (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, looking at the top of your talk page. My youngest biological daughter, my fifth child, is now 34. At about 20, she decided, because of acute Scoliosis, to have Harrington rods implanted. This was surgery that took hours, they implanted bone chips, taken from her leg, as I recall, between the lower vertebrae to fuse them; the rods hold the spine in place for the months needed. She has a scar from bottom to neck, basically. Brave girl, I'm proud of her. There was a problem; apparently when they were working, a lung was nicked, and it collapsed, and it was touch and go for a few days. I sat with her and helped to carry her through the pain using some of what I know. A couple of years later, most of the hardware was removed, but she will set off any metal detector, still. You wouldn't know, but she has reduced range of motion. Other than that, very active, beautiful, smart, and successful as an artist. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

She was quite brave and so young for such a surgery, it must have been amazingly difficult to wait through all of it. I have waited through the surgery I am having. My husband had neck surgery, like what they want to do to me, over 25 yrs ago which he was on the table over 6 hours. The surgery has changed a lot since he had it done. But it's still frightening to have any thoughts of a knife never mind when aimed at the spine. My husband called yesterday for me cause I couldn't do it. Hopefully the date above will change to a closer date which is expected by the doctors office. So if all goes right my surgery will be started here soon. The good news is the doc is on vacation right now and is due back the 3 or 4 so hopefully the R & R has done him good to tackel my surgery with my side health problems that could make things, lets say, interesting. I hope you daughter is doing well now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

She's fine, thanks. Too bad we can't meet face-to-face, communication is possible through the high-bandwidth linkage of body language, eye movements, etc, that's lost in written communication, it's always a problem with some people, because some people will make very natural assumptions about what I mean from what I write that aren't actually in my intention, and, in person, you would literally see the reality. By the way, they have really great drugs nowadays. I had a carpal tunnel release done, and they put in an IV, and next thing I remember was feeling incredibly refreshed and they were bandaging my arm and I realized they were done. I literally didn't feel a thing, including any grogginess, transition, etc. I said, "How can I get some more of this stuff?" I'm not saying that this is what will happen with you, your surgery will be more complex, but perhaps it won't be nearly as difficult as you might imagine, you can certainly hope for that. I had hardly any pain as this healed, it was hard to believe, a few twinges now and then when I moved certain ways. Good luck! --Abd (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I almost missed you here, for some reason I didn't get an orange bar, oh well. I am concerned about pain relief because I live in pain all day and take strong meds now to help me get through the days, and nights. I just want to be a little bit human again so I want this surgery done like yesterday. As for the two of us liking each other in real life, I really don't doubt we would. I think I pretty much get along real well with most people. I don't dislike you now, I just don't like the assumptions you are making, and you are making a lot of them. Like you, I do read sources given to me. I read all the difs and I ask questions if necessary to understand. My problem is just because I come to different conclusions than you I am accused of some kind of cabal membership with mostly strangers. You need to read some of what you are saying and read some of what others are saying. Woonpton seems to have reacted to your accusations of being a cabal member in the same way I did, insulted and considers it uncivil, I know I consider it an attack and a breach of both civil and NPA. So at this point we are going to have to agree to disagree on things and let the arbcom members say what there is to say. Good luck to you too, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitary break

Well the bs can get very high at an arbcom case. This is really my first time at one and I am amazed at the level of bad faith and attacks that go on. The latest was at me. I am posting this because the editors who really know me know that I do not abuse others and do not participate when being abused so I am done with the arbcom, maybe the project. Here's the dif go to "Comment re Crohnie. This is a great example of how the cabal works." This is such hogwash, but I would be interested in the opinions of editors I have worked with about the comments made about me. If I have an editing problem I am open to hear and learn. So please feel free to be honest. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie, the best thing to do with stuff like this is to ignore it. Staying above the fray instead of getting involved in a drawn out back-and-forth will make you look good by comparison and will be better for your peace of mind. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Boris, I have to admit I am not having a great day today in RL so this really hit me. But your point is taken. I just know that most of the people I am accused of being in cahoots with I've never really edited with so they don't really know my ways. Abd is painting an ugly picture of me and I don't like it. I take pride in how I behave and work here. But I regress, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Boris, is there a barnstar or something for us cabal members? Don't worry, it's just a matter of time before you are a member again. Ok I'm trying to lighten up a bit. Have a great day and be well. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Boris, I'd say that it's best for you to ignore Abd's comments. He's obviously getting further and further afield from both Wikipedia policy and, frankly, reality. An editor who made the edits he's making in bad faith would obviously be trying to provoke some sort of intemperate response in order to muddy the waters about his own conduct. An editor who made the edits he's making in good faith is just demonstrating that his view of Wikipedia and his ability to interact and collaborate with others are both badly out of touch with the bulk of the community. Either way, you do neither yourself nor him any favours by continuing to respond to his prodding. Best to let his statements speak for themselves; the ArbCom has enough sense to realize that Abd's 'cabal' is simply 'anyone who has openly criticized Abd on more than one occasion'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks of course you are right. I am backing off. His recent responses are enlightening. The one thing I can say though is I have met a whole new group of editors who are very talented that I am very happy to have met. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie, don't let this discourage you. It's frustrating when someone targets you, but don't let it get you down. You're a great editor and do good work here. The "cabal" is pretty big, perhaps someone should pay attention to the fact that this many editors actually have issue with how someone behaves or edits. It's an old defense - go on the offensive and divert attention away from the real issues. The real issue isn't you. Don't respond to him and hang tough. Oh, and thanks for watching Scarlett Johansson for me, I'm trying to get her GA status continued! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie, there's a quote - If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy. People who push POVs that aren't supported by sufficient sources often feel ganged up on, abused, frustrated, angry, and like there's a cabal against them. The truth is that they strongly believe in what they're doing, but they can't find the evidence to pass NPOV, RS, and V. Think of Guido, ResearchEditor, and my new pet irritant, Michael H 34 - people come in, people see something curious, people review the evidence they can find, people realize that the majority opinion doesn't support the curious fact, then people edit war. The POV warrior truly, truly believes in what they are doing, so much so that they were willing to push the community to the limit in the hope that somehow they kept running into a biased sample of disbelieving editors, and if they just kept pushing, somehow they'll find the pure and good core of editors wise enough to see the bright, shining truth. But that didn't make them right, it doesn't magically make sources appear and it doesn't make all the scholars out there suddenly change their minds. The only overall organizing principle is coming from the research community, not the editors. So don't take it personally if someone's eating sour grapes and decides to pitch a couple your way. Screw 'em. In the ear. Stick close to the sources, keep calm, don't take it personally and you're golden. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's well said. Have you thought of putting it in a userspace essay? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wildhartlivie, WLU & KillerChihuahua (I think I have everyone if not, apologies). I have been having a real hard time in RL like some of you are aware. Yesterday was extremely difficult for me. If it could go wrong it did and basically as poorly as I've been feeling I should have stayed in bed. But I'm staying in bed a lot these days. I appreciate what everyone is saying. I've been just reading pretty much lately and I know now that I am not the only who feels that things are being portrayed almost to dirty reputations. I doubt I will do anything different than what I've been doing. I've always taken pride in my work here, even though I'm still not as bold as some editors want from me, (wink, wink WLU!:) ) This experience with arbcom has been an enlightening experience so far and it will be interesting to see what the members think of everything when they start communicating. I really don't know how someone could be a part of a case only three months ago would ever want to go through this time consuming thing again. Thanks for the supportive words of confidence in me. I was losing my feelings here about what I do here for the project. I really don't do anything here after I looked at the editors I am acused of being in a "cabal" with. Those editors are real editors of article making, an impressive list of work has been done by these editors. I, for one, am really impressed since most of those editors I never ran into before or I saw them but never really paid too much attention to them. So again, thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie, you are a great person and a valuable editor. Don't let this distract you from your highest priority—your health. I recently discovered the essay Don't-give-a-fuckism, which is good for a laugh but also makes some great points. Conflict is inevitable when you're doing the right thing. momoricks 17:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree more. If you don't take care of your health, how can we get another 30 years unpaid editing out of you? Oh and some people might miss you too!!! not naming any murderous puppies in specific KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdented) Hi Momoricks and KillerChihuahua, thanks for your kindness. Momoricks I just recently saw that too, it's been mentioned in this case. The surgeon is supposed to be back in the office today so hopefully I can get in earlier, the front desk thought I wouldn't have to wait until the 20th. The sooner the better already is where I am at. I am eating all the time, literally trying to keep my weight up as high as possible for this surgery. I was at 93 and I think I'm around 115 or so, I hope. I have to get on the scale but haven't recently. I have backed off the arb case a bit so that when I start getting angry, frustrated or stressed I just go do something else. This is how I do stress on the project, I don't, at least for long. Oh, Momoricks I got your email, I am way behind on them again but I will get to it. I have trouble sitting at the computer for any length of time. Have fun and drop in anytime. ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Crohnie. I read your statement here and feel exactly the same way. Many of the Global Warming related articles are on my watchlist, though I may not edit that much, I always keep an eye on them. This is why I am familiar with most of the editors involved in the WMC vs ABD case. These editors do a great job for wikipedia and many of them are either experts in the field and/or administrators that spend a great deal of time keeping wikipedia sane. This is why I think this entire case is a huge waste of time and resources. And I think it is good that accidently you also became part of the cabal because you are demonstrable entirely uninvolved. That just proves that ABD's cabal is pretty much paranoia. When everyone else criticizes you, you may want to start wondering if the problem could be with you, rather than them. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 23:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Splette, nice to meet you. It's funny, I am a member of this so called cabal and none of the Global warming articles are my watchlist. I haven't touched any of them other than possibly through the Recent changes list during vandal patroling. I don't read all article with vandalism, I just hit revert, save when it's obvious vandalism which most of my changes are. I still haven't learned the secret handshake but the cabalist are becoming more and more each day again. [1] I honestly can't wait for the arbitrators to start as the pages have so much in them that I am having a slow time loading them to see them. Thanks for confirming what I knew but needed to hear I think. I usually don't second guess myself like this but I have to admit I was absolutely caught off guard by the accusation of this cabal stuff that I think still is a personal attack on a bunch of excellent editors and administrators. Did you or anyone looking at my page see what accomplished editors those other editors are? I pale as an editor compared to them, so I am in real good company. ;) Thanks for dropping by, come again anytime. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Woot

Go Team Cabal! We all should get T-shirts printed  :-) Shot info (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hee, hee! I like mine big, so make my a size medium. What a way to start off here, with a good surprise like this for a laugh, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, as cabal leader (I am, aren't I? We should get ourselves more organised) I'd like to know what is going on here. Have you been caballing behind my back? Or is this some entirely separate cabal? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes boss, you're in charge, this was to be a surprise, the t-shirts! Do we meet up at your place or mine? For me, one cabal at a time, it's too exhausting. LOL! --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I got demoted: [2]. :'( Can I have a Cabal Groupie t-shirt instead?

I wonder if ArbCom will figure out that Abd is actally our sooper seekrit grand poobah — he's the one who gets to decide who's in and out of the Cabal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, WMC is our chosen leader here, so only he can kick you out! :) So you still get the same t-shirt unless 'the boss' kicks you out. WMC, what's the call here? LOL All this silliness is good for the aggrevation it brings, keep it coming. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking in

Hey there, how've you been doing? Hope you're well. *hugs* delldot ∇. 00:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Dell, I am doing about the same. I don't remember if I answered your email to me. I'm pretty sure you sent to me but I can't seem to find it. If you did email me and I didn't respond please don't take it personally and feel free to try again. I will respond immediately. I am way behind on my emails. I have my appt for the 20th to see the surgeon. If all goes well from there we will be setting up for surgery. I need this already as I am unable to do so much these days. The Crohn's had me limited but this has me unable to much of anything. I am using a cane now to help me keep my balance better. My feet are going partially numb which make walking a talent. But I'll live. I was hoping by now to get my appt moved to earlier then the 20th which still could happen. The surgeon was on vacation and just got back on the 3 or 4th but the office said I will be called in first if there was a cancelation.

I hope you are doing well. I am trying to understand arbcom cases and got involved as an uninvolved which evolved into something else, couldn't tell you what though. I've never seen some of the behavior allowed there. I am waiting to see what happens when the arbitrater's start responding to see what they have to say. The case is mentioned above on my talk page I suspect since my page has been quite active since an editor there has accused a bunch of us as cabal members. I didn't know most of the names I am associated with but I did go and check out these other editors to see who I was being lumped with. I am happy to say that the other's accused of being members of this cabal are very good editors. There activities here are very impressive compared to what I do here. :) You take care and thanks for checking in on me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Question to lurkers that are active in the arbcom case Abd/WMC

My browser is going nuts trying to download the workshop page. I think it is due to the postings that are in the hide/show sections that makes the page look shorter than it really is. Is there a clerk assigned while the clerk there is in holiday? Is there anyway to cut the mega bytes (not sure if this is the correct term being computer illiterate). I have a relatively fast computer so there has to be a way to do this so that people who have older computer could participate if the had to. I'm pretty sure a lot of this page could be moved, consolidated or something to make it easier to download. I've cleared my browser, defragged etc on my end, have I missed something? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you access by dial-up? I use a satellite connection (not terribly fast) and it handles things OK. When my sat. modem crashed and I had to go back to the phone line connection I had difficulty with long pages and graphics. But, I do think something needs to be done about the excess verbiage there. Vsmith (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No I don't have dial up. I don't know what it's called but I have internet through my cable provider. I just did a reboot which is the only other thing I can think of that I hadn't tried. So, I'll go to the workshop page again and see if things are better. I'll update here to inform. Thanks Vsmith, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Update, I can't even download the workshop page since earlier. I was able to download then make a comment and hit save, then the browser froze but at least what I had to say was entered. Now I can't get it to download so I guess I am done. It's ashame. I guess it doesn't matter, from what I am reading it's time for me to probably find a new hobby. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

See my reply and Hersfold's on my talk page. [3] [4]. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is sad. Abd's prolix maundering not only has made the page impossible to follow, but is even causing technical problems with browsers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the way the page is set up as cuts back on things. There are so many sections for him, isn't it harder for a browser to download the hatted one? The think I was talking about with Ikip got moved to a different location and things got better briefly, then Abd added a whole bunch with others adding, it's just information overflow causing the problems. The only thing I could think of was removing some of the hatted stuff to the talk page. But thanks for trying. I appreciate the help. I will just do what I can. If I can't iVote on something oh well. Thanks to both of you stopping by. Hey Boris are cases always like this, jammed up? I don't know how anyone would want to go to arbcom so often. It aggrevating most of the time. This is my last on I hope. --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie, I know you're having trouble with this; I will try talking to the other Arbitrators to see if there is anything that can be done to the workshop, but so far you're the only one unable to access the page, and we don't want to hinder accessibility for them either. I will try to keep an eye out for things dealing with you specifically, as hopefully some others will do as well. I'll let you know what we come up with, if anything. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. One other thing you might try is switching browsers, if you haven't already; I know back when Grawp was doing his thing, IE would totally crash on some of the pages he'd attacked, but Firefox would manage to slog through it after five minutes. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth suggested that as a short-term measure, I could email you a text version of the page as it is now, so you can at least catch up on what's been going on the past few days. If you're interested, email me so I can send it as an attachment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Hersfold, email sent. If you don't have time though don't worry as I do understand that you are very busy with this case. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have it answered for you! (I told Hersfold)

Hi. Maybe if I know what browser it is you are using then I may be able to conclude sonething. Is it Internet Explorer you are using? Google Chrome? Opera? Safari? Mozilla Firefox? Konquerer? RtP (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You can ignore this, I've replied to Rascal on his talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, good luck!!

Dear Crohnie, thank you thank you, you are so kind and wonderful! I read about your surgery, i hope it is very successful and you are feeling better very soon. RetroS1mone talk 02:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. I knew how you must be feeling. Let me know if I can help. I will be on line for a little longer than hopefully the surgeon this week gives the ok to do the surgery. With the Crohn's and lungs, I'm not sure about what releases I'm going to need next. You take care and keep your chin up, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk attention

Hi Crohnie, re your comment here:[5] Hersfold has asked that if anything needs his attention that we contact him directly instead of relying on him to monitor all the pages. The best thing would be to leave a brief note on his talk page, pointing specifically to the issue of concern. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Did as you said, I didn't catch this, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

w00t!

You bring clarity to any discussion - like a ray of sunshine your cogent comments invariably cut to the heart of any issue, be it of sourcing, weight, or behavior. Your edits add value without acrimony, and show a keen insight into when to compromise and when hold firm. Whenever I see Crohnie/Archive 3 at the top of my watchlist, I know all is well. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --CrohnieGal^Talk 08:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

I responded by email, since it seems more appropriate to our role as cabal members to communicate in secret.  :-) Woonpton (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Smiley face murder theory

You previously helped out on this article when someone was pushing a POV onto it, and now someone else is doing the same thing. They are adding a whole lot of text about what a bunch of nobodies claim and trying to underplay what all the police and FBI say. If the person comes back (which I assume they will based upon prior edit warring), your assistance in sorting out what to do there would be appreciated. Perhaps some of his text may be salvageable, but overall it's clearly to advance his personal view (and it may even be another case of an individual using himself as a source). DreamGuy (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, made a brief comment, sorry I couldn't express more but by the time I finished checking out the refs, I have trouble feeling my hands to type like now. It take forever. Hope it helped,--CrohnieGal^Talk 15:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cabal

Nice to see that you are a member of the cabal of people who in a cabal of one :-) Shot info (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks like it's becoming like a fish story! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Hey there. It's really fairly simple. The DEFAULTSORT makes article titles appear in alphabetical order on categories, etc. either by last name, first name or whatever one puts in as the order. Like in DEFAULTSORT:Chitavanich, Vorawan, it will appear in that order when you look at the categories. It works like listas works in project banners. Without that, we'd be looking up a person by the first name. You'll see a different sort for Chinese names where the first name shown is the family name. I'm okay, how are you doing? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey and to think I did this by hand at times. Never thought of this, it is much more constructive with our time. I should have know that the developers would have thought of something like this. I am miserable and scared to death with surgery getting so close. Glad to hear you are doing better though. Thanks very much for the response because I could not figure this out on my own reading about it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck

Just wanted to say good luck with your surgery. I've had a couple of bone grafts; nothing as serious as what yours sounds like, but I'm mentioning it to say that if you need a semi-anonymous and sympathetic ear over the next while, you're welcome to send me a message.

And good luck; I really hope it works out, Awickert (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all good thoughts are welcomed. I am showing the tension more and more as the date gets closer. This is going to be my 4th major surgery since '01. The others were Crohn's related. My stress and fear is someone messing with my spine with a knife in their hand. My surgeon is supposed to be the best in the area with very high praise from many people. We researched him really well and feel good that he will have me feeling better when he gets done. I'll be in the hospital for at least a week which isn't really a long time. So yes all good things I appreciate. Feel free to email me if you would like. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know you're in my thoughts. What's the date?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Friday, 9/11, that is as long as I get my last doctor release which is 9/8. I don't think it will be a problem but with docs sometimes it hard to tell esp. with someone like me and all my medical problems. I just want it over with already. I do know you are thinking of me, thanks.  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well wishes

I wish the best for you and hope that your surgery goes flawlessly, accompanied only by the surprise of a faster than expected recovery. With your permission, I will keep you and yours in my prayers and devotions. Vassyana (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Yes you may, I will take all the help I can get. I'm scared of this, so thank you for your kindness. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be sure to be mindful of you in my devotions and I will also ask my pastor to pray on your behalf as well. I know people who have been through disc replacement surgery, as well people who have undergone fusion. From what I've seen and been told, the replacement has a much better recovery time, provides better relief, and has less side effects/complications. Both people I know who had replacements are doing very well and one of them also has an autoimmune disorder (sarcoid). With the fire in your belly, I can't imagine a small thing like spinal surgery keeping you down! Think of it this way, with titanium in your spine you'll be Crohnie the Bionic Woman, while the rest of us must manage with our pitifully inferior squishy discs. :) Take care, recover quickly, and come back soon. Vassyana (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I like that Crohnie the bionic woman.  :) Thanks for telling me about others who have been in my situation. So far people telling me their knowledge of friends, family etc and all doing good is nice to hear. Plus my husband had the same surgery in '85 except not as many disks involved. He did really well too after he healed up until about 10 years ago so all sounds good. Thanks --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To all my WP friends and lurkers

I am having spinal surgery tomorrow so I want to say a few things. To those of you who are frustrated with what has been going on lately please remember it's just a weird happening and it will get better. I promise. I've given a lot of thought to my disappointments of late and a very kind arbitrator honestly told me that he too was very frustrated and in some kind of a strange way it made me realize that what is going on isn't the norm. This brings me to realize that Wikipedia has its faults but overall we can still be proud about what we do as a group here. The goal is to write an encyclopedia and all of us doing whatever part we do helps with that final goal of making the reader wiser and enjoying what we have done. We can't allow ourselves to forget what we are here to do. All the rest of it is nonsense. I told myself from the beginning that I was here to stimulate my own brain cells, enjoy helping the project and most important was to have fun while doing it. I think sometimes we forget that we should have fun while we are here. We are all volunteers so enjoying what we do while we get things done properly and within policy is very important. The politics, the drama and the battlefield mentalities of some should not harden anyone if they just remember to enjoy what they are doing. Even if something is written and you do not feel it is correct, there is no deadline and consensus is always achievable, just sometimes it takes more time and patience. If feeling stressed out, burned out or whatever then it definitely time to spend more of your energies in real life and time to unplug.

So I just want to say that I appreciate all the help and support I get here. I hope my work here has been noticed. I have hopes to be back to doing my little bit for the project in a few weeks. I am expected to be in the hosptial for at least a week. If all goes well I will be home soon. Thank you for taking the time to read my little speech. An editor I met recently just left the project which is why I felt the need to say more. Happy editing to all, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone wouldn't mind, would someone email me the final closing of the case and anything else that might be of interest? Just post here that you have sent it so that only one is sent. My husband is going to print out my emails for me so that I can read them in the hospital. I will be in ICU for a day or two, depends on how I do actually, and in the hospital probably a week, also depends on how I am doing. I would really appreciate it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Darlin', you're in my thoughts. I hope everything goes well, the surgery is successful and you're back to better soon. Please let us know, or have hubby send me an email and I'll post here, how it goes. He can get to my email through my user or talk page. Hugs and bestest of all wishes!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if my son will come here and post how it went for me. My husband is a wreck like me right now, the poor thing. Thanks, email me a reminder though and he will see it when he does my machine. Thanks, I'll see you on the flip side. I'm heading into the shower and then on to my heating pad. Talk again soon I promise, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick note

My surgury went well. I have left side weakness. I came home yesterday, A lot of pain and a lot of work to do to strengthen up. I also have a lot of edema to flush out. Can't stay here but want to let everyone know that surgery went ok but long. Thanks for all the good wishes. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to here it went well. I have every faith that PT will help work out the problems that you're having. Much hugs, great hopes to you. Thanks for letting us know! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Echoing those sentiments :-) Avb 11:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to hear the surgery went well. I wish you only the speediest recovery. Vassyana (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad to hear, and hope the difficulties get ironed out quickly. Get lots of rest, good thoughts from here, Woonpton (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, all the best to you! SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm really happy to hear it went so well. That's wonderful news! :) - Bilby (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to all if you. I'm typing with one hand so excuse any errors. I hop to get full use of my lft leg, which is already much improved, and my left arm which is still quite useless. Avb when did you return & welcome back. Again thank you for all your kind words. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry to hear that you are going through such a tough time. I'm glad that the surgery went well, and that you are ok, and I hope you continue improving as quickly as possible. Rossrs (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you feel better as soon as you can, and manage to keep up the patience, and are reading some good books or doing something else you enjoy while you convalesce. I have barely spoken with you, but I have seen many of your wonderful contributions here and will miss having you around. But it's whatever makes you happy in life that you should be doing, so I hope you get better soon and enjoy the coming days and weeks, Awickert (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

I am taking a wiki break. I may not come back. I have watched an arbcom case with arbitrators conversing with one on the parties of the case during the case. I'm sorry but this is not acceptable to me. A link was supplied by Abd during the case and I just read the lovely, NOT, things he had to say about many editors that are in good standing at this site. He calls editors like, well no I'm not naming names. I am ashamed at the way arbcom members have behaved. I am not naming them except for Luke and that's because I put a link up to a comment I make in my departing note above. I will not be part of a group that allows the kind of treatment and hurtful behavior like this. I am hurt and I will not be for long, I will be angry. Abd is claiming victory and he should. he got everything he wanted. He got to name editors as cabalist and as Abd's says, he didn't get indef'd. He should have. WMC behavior wasn't the best during the case. I don't have any long held feeling towards him or anyone in that group I was named with, except one. One of the editors was very good to me during my RL needs and for that thank you. I feel that something seriously went wrong with this case. I don't watch cases, this was my first, and my last. Even NYB was frustrated with everything. Carchoff (sp?) did most of the talking for the arbs, but mostly they were silent, why was that? C sided with Abd for the most part, at least Abd feels s/he did. He also feel CHL is on his side, why is this? Aren't arbs supposed to be neutral during a case or recuse and then stay away? CHL did recuse, but stay away he didn't. I'm sorry, but I'm done. I do not allow people to treat me in real life like I've been treated and I will not be treated online like this. Feel free to email me. I may come back if I hear a reason to. I would really love to hear from CHL why he did what he's done. I really feel betrayed by him not doing something, anything. Good luck to all. WMC, if you read this, you are better off not being an administrator. Being an administrator is hard enough and very seldom appreciated. Enjoy just editing and not having to worry about who does what for awhile.

I would like to thank the editors who tried to help me when I was being attacked. If I decide to leave completely I will ask on my own to delete or whatever my pages. Until that time please don't do it unless I ask, thank you. I am sorry for any errors I make as I am just off of surgery, the 11th, and I am trying to heal. I came here to try to finish up the case to see it's conclusions only to find more drama with my name being used in some of it. Take care and be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Abd, please do me the favor and forget about me already. Thank you.

Another thing I wasn't aware of until I heard about it off site is that since the case closed User talk:JzG apparently has now returned to editing. Though we don't know each other, welcome back and I hope you have happy editing now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Update

Well it's been over a week and I am physically and emotionally feeling better. I start physical therapy tomorrow which will help me get the use of my arms and legs back in use. I have taken a time out from here which has been good for me. I will probably come here briefly now but I will play this by ear. Things seem to have changed a lot for me here about how I feel the purpose of the work is. I guess maybe I might have been in my own little world and just didn't see what I have had my eyes opened to lately. I have to say I am disappointed to see a lot of what has been going on. If someone has a dif or two to some things that reminds me of the good this project is doing boy this would be a good time to share. Anyways, I am healing and I will be around some at least. Thank you all for your kind words to me. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. Don't let the crap of the world crap your fun. Move away from the naysayers and the bad faith, come back to the stuff you like!! Links may pop up later in the day!! Glad you're feeling better. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Responded to. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Three bits: 1) I tremble in fear at the recuperated might of Chronie the Bionic Woman! 2) I sincerely hope that you are knitting up well and I am still keeping you in my devotions. 3) Some good things: User_talk:Jezhotwells#Thank_you, User_talk:FeydHuxtable#Thanks_for_the_thanks.21, WP:KIND and WP:NCH. Also, a friend shared with me that a physics professor stated in his class notes: "Science educators should be ashamed that the best explanation of the Big Bang is on Wikipedia. It’s even better than the only detailed explanation available from NASA." Vassyana (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. Because chocolate makes everything better:

Vassyana has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chololately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thank you very much for all of this post. It's really nice to see editors being nice and co-operative, I guess I needed to be reminded. Again, thank you for taking the time to make me feel good about being here again. I have had editors being so supportive to me that I am so sorry for being whiney. I am healing well now. Started physical therapy and should get my arm back and my left side back to full strength in a month or two. Oh and I love chocolate! :) Take care and be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very happy that my message was able to help perk up your spirits and optimism. Heal quickly and take care! Vassyana (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Some Needed WikiLove

Hey there, I've returned from my own wikibreak and am so glad to see your surgery went well. At the same time, I'm saddened that you are considering leaving. Your note from the 10th is wonderfully written and inspirational. You are a gem and this place benefits in countless ways from your contributions. I have a feeling a nice, long wikibreak will do wonders. So, without further ado...bring on the pretties! momoricks 21:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Purple Star
		You deserve a dozen of these for enduring the recent arbitration hullabaloo. momoricks 21:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		For your consistent kindness, courage and diplomacy; you make Wikipedia a better place. momoricks 21:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You're a sweetie, thank you very much for these and you nice comments, They are very pretty. Purple is my favorite color too. I do a lot in purple that at times it drives my hubby nuts. :) I am doing better as the days go by. I have to admit, I am surprised myself that I am having to slow myself down with things around here. My husband is a darling and no one could expect more from their spouse but he does all the shopping, cooking and just about everything else. After my surgeries is a good reminder for him to know that I don't sit at my computer all day, or chat on the phone or any multiple things I get accused of. Once he took over the home, Fri. 9/11, he has now realized that the clothes need to be brought to the washer to be cleaned, the dishes need to go into the machine, not next to it or on top, etc. He started with everything being caught up but is now a few days behnd on just those two things. I've been slowly taking back parts of the kitchen (Sink, cleaning the dishes, laundry (did 2 loads) and will try to slowly take on more and more. My strength in my left side is still very weak but I am working on it both in physical therapy and at home. I think in a month time with PT twice a week plus doing it everyday at home, that I will have my arms and leg back to full usability. I am very please with how I am doing. : Well I will probably add more, but for now I have to get ready for physical therapy. Again, thank you very much for your kind words and the barnstars. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Marky Mark

Ack. I reverted all of it. There are no references and it is totally unclear to me. Someone learned ow to make a table!! His article can certainly be spiffed up, but come on, the music career was a very long time ago and was only notable then, it's not much relevant now, to my way of thinking. Come on, he's got a "one love" tattoo so they make One Love an associated act? Not. Mark deserves better! Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Like I said I don't know much about his music but that was making a disaster out of the page. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!

• WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, wow, this caught me by surprise! --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it pops. Didn't even have to make it bigger, that's it's normal size! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice wishes she'd thought of that

I'd put this on my user page with all the other stuff I've gotten but I think my user page is already too long. I guess I could get rid of all the policy charts and the rest but hey, I actually use them. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Checking in

Hi Crohnie! I'm just checking in to see how you're feeling and healing up. I've been keeping you in my thoughts and prayers. How are the bionic enhancements working out for you? Vassyana (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vassyanna, thanks for checking in on me. I am doing really well esp. with this kind of surgery. I am in physical therapy which is really hard work but it's doing well for me. I am still weak in my left leg and left arm/hand. My left arm is the worse in weakness, mobility and pain. We are working real hard to fix this and it's expected to get back to normal though it is going to take a lot of time and work to accomplish. We start today strengthening my legs. No one seems to know if the feelings are going to return or whether the numbness is going to be permanent, I obviously want the normal feelings to return. It's real hard not to feel anything other than pain. But time will tell and I am trying real hard to stay positive and remind myself of what I have accomplished everyday. I am still in a collar and am not allowed to move my neck much. Hopefully my next dr appt will allow me to go without it. I live in FL and it's been real hot and humid so this collar is even more uncomfortable. Overall though I can't or at least I shouldn't complain. I am accomplishing so much more than I did prior to surgery and even since the surgery. Thank you for your thoughts and prayers. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Updating 2

Hi everyone, I just want to let all of you that have been so kind to me know that my recovery and rehab is going really well. Today I am starting pool exercises, it has to be better than physical therapy or as some of us that have talked during therapy call it physical torture. :) I have gotten a lot of my range of motion back, only briefly but have been told that the arms will both stay up above my head in time. :) I still use my cane but only briefly, such as when I have to walk a lot or like first thing in the morning when everything is tight and numb. So that's the latest. Again thank you for all your emails, kind thoughts and prayers. I very much appreciate it all. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies (if needed)

Hi there CROHNIE, VASCO from Portugal here,

regarding my edits at Death of Baby P, i apologize immediately if i broke any WIKI-rule and/or if i wrote stuff in a non-legal way (especially regarding killer's "denominations"), i will not revert your last version again, guaranteed ;)

By the way, could you enlighten me as to where my errors were, so i won't make them again? I checked them over and over and fail to detect them (mostly, i inserted titles of REFS instead of newspaper's name, and i reduced fullnames to surnames where justified to avoid repetition)

Sorry for any incovenience, keep up the good work,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Responded at editors talk page. If anyone sees this I would appreciate any opinions on the question above. I'm too tired to even look at it. You can see my revert of this nice editors contributions in the history near the top. I felt it was a WP:BLP violation though now I have some doubts. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• No worries, CROHNIE, no need to apologize, you did well to be cautious there. By the way, i wish you a total and speedy recovery on that surgery!

In one issue, i think i do need to apologize and work on: i tend to get carried away in my summaries when reverting vandals, so imagine my feelings when composing stuff where pedophiles appear, although i did not use foul language. I know it was "WIKI-inconstitutional", i promise to control myself better in the future.

Take care, again i wish you a full "comeback", nice work :)

VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, after a quick glance at NPOV and BLP, i think i see what you mean: no problems my friend, don't worry a single "ounce", i merely lost it in summaries towards the perpetrators, but did not insert one single insult or misplaced word in body of article proper. Thus, and i hope you don't mind - if you do please revert it back - i reinstated my changes, which focus mainly on article's overall display, all storyline contents were originally unharmed by me. Cheers!

VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie, I'm not sure that I found any real problems with the edits. The names of the publications were removed in some cases, but I'll clean that up. I didn't see any gross violations. Hope you're feeling better. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wildhartlivie, I'll go back to the editor's talk page and advice them of what you said. I guess my judgement was off on this one which I started to feel after I rechecked what I did. Again thanks for checking me and taking the time to fix it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 08:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes Crohnie, i have seen that WildHart has already taken the matters into his (capable) hands, nice teamwork. Again, safe recovery, we need folks like you at WP, never too much!

VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Vasco, again I was wrong and shouldn't have done that revert. I do appreciate how nice you are being about my error. It's nice to see an editor assume good faith esp. when the editor, me, was wrong. Keep up the good work and happy editing! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sincerely moved by your wiki-offer, i wish you a ridiculously brilliant weekend...Keep the faith, things'll be on their best soon (both wikiwise and personally) :)

Kind regards, VASCO, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Crohn's disease

Dear Crohnie, hope all is well. I had a bit of time to spare and was looking to do the final push to make Crohn's disease WP:FA. I was wondering if you had time to help out as I would value your insight very much. Please let me know. Kind regards -- Samir 23:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Crohnie, happy that the recovery process is going well. Hope things continue to trend for the better. I will hit up Crohn's disease over the next several weeks and hope we can get it to FA before 2010. Take care Crohnie -- Samir 10:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is great news, I look forward to watching you work and will help out where I can. I don't trust myself lately. I guess you can say I lost my boldness a bit with a couple of errors in judgement that I've made because I was too tired to make a good decision at the time. I will get my confidence back though. I have never been really bold per se but I was getting better at that with the help of an editor reminding me. I may tell him to start harping again. :) I am getting back into the swing of things more actively lately but I'm taking it more slowly and taking care before I push that 'save page' button. The good thing though is at least when I've erred the editor was kind and understanding. I will be watching though and hopefully I will have things to add to help with this endeavor. Thanks for thinking of me, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Hey sorry didn't notice

I replied on my talk page, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ray Joseph Cormier

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ray Joseph Cormier. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Joseph Cormier 3. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Crohnie, reading your comment in the AfD discussion, I´m positively impressed you did take the time to look into a few things beyond just a superficial glance. In retrospect, I finally did realize I was being over anxious in attempting to exhort other editors to improve the article, which was a turn off. The reason was because I knew if it was not improved, this AfD process would happen time after time.

I hope you will give me some credit as you can see from the article talk, I reformed since the last AfD, and I stopped doing that, only checking back from time to time to see if anyone wanted me to e-mail all the pre-internet Independent, reliable news source references and more to them just to take a look with the view to making improvements. From my entry on June 8 to the new section ´No Improvement´ on October 24 there was no change. Another AfD was inevitable. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

DoDaCanaDa, I've taken my time to check into your contributions to see if you actually have done what you say above and well you're not exactly telling it all. You posted to the talk page about the editor taking the article back to AFD. Granted you deleted it today but it was there from the time the AFD was posted until today when you deleted it. I don't know if you did it because you told me you had stopped or what but please next time be honest with me. While looking at your contributions I came across this. This really long post about how this editor should use a magnifying glass and so on is not what you should be doing, esp after being called on about WP:CANVASS. I have to make up my own mind about this so please allow me to do so, thanks. I don't mean to sound snotty or anything but I am a bit annoyed at this point. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Crohnie, I deleted that today because it was redundant. People could see it in the article, so it wasn´t necessary to mention it in the talk. I suppose that is the same reason you deleted my Afd message. You already had a bot notice, so it was redundant.

The Animals wrote a song a long time ago saying, ´Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.´ It seems that I am being misunderstood. Please be equal. Everyone demands AGF but won´t extend any to me. If the AfD tag were not placed on the article, there would have been no new posts by me in the article talk. So the date record shows I did cease from the constant attempt at exhorting anyone to do anything to improve the article. All the references exist. They just have to be looked at. No one wanted to look. I can´t exhort and I can´t edit, all I can do is wait.

As to this, [6], this editor made a change I thought was more substantial than it turned out to be after the AfD tag was already in place. I did not ask this individual to do anything or to register a !vote. It was mis-perception on my part thinking this person substantially edited the Kansas City Vigil Section and there are factual errors in the current section. My message was to clarify the point. that´s it, that´s all. Don´t read more into it than there is, please. AGF.

I have recused myself from participating in the AfD discussions, and there are definitely some opinions based on other´s previous opinions that were based on another´s previous opinion from a previous AfD that is a patently false misrepresentation, and the person making original opinion admitted as such, yet the original false impression expands in this current discussion. I´m gagged, and no one points out the obvious. If I comment about it, I´m accused of canvassing. I´m damned if I do and damned if I don´t. User:DoDaCanaDa User forgot to sign.

If you take note of the comments below by User:Steve Smith you will see that I've been discussing this with him to try to get a fair evaluation about this article. I went to his talk page about all of this and he has been kind enough to answer me. I am trying to decide what I think is the best for this project. As you are aware, I didn't think from the beginning that your article was WP:N but I am also interested in seeing an article put together by using sources not available on the net. So I am stuck at the moment trying to decide if Steve can make an article that makes you notable enough to have an article listed in the project. I wanted to try and look at the articles again but according to the message I get from facebook the page you had there is no longer available. I really need to see them so I can decide on some other policies that have been mentioned. Did you take them down? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I found your facebook page with the refs. I suspect facebook was just busy or maybe the link at Ray Joseph Cormier has a bad link. Anyways I did look at them again. Sorry but I have looked at everything again so I can give the article a fair shake. Over all I have to go with what I am comfortable with which is to delete it. Sorry, I know this is not what you want to hear. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Crohnie, my first comment in this section expressed what I think about your process of decision making. I am positively impressed with the research you have undertaken to come to your decision. While it is not what I hoped for it was your decision and I accept it with sadness, not bitterness. As Steve Smith said below, I !voted weak keep because, as I interpret WP:N and WP:BIO, he clears them. I also think it's possible to reasonably interpret those policies in such a way that he doesn't clear them, though, which is why I don't think delete !votes are necessarily "wrong", just that they're not in accordance with the way that I interpret those guidelines Steve is recognized as a resident expert in BLPs.

What really disappoints me though is the several delete iVotes that were registered based on the reason of User:Atama having copied and pasted a comment from an opinion in the 1st AfD to justify the reasoning behind the decision. Just reading a little further down is this: This is why I put considerable weight in the variety of references. He's garnered media coverage from every corner of Canada, which I think makes him somewhat more than a local character, and these references have come from several different years, making him not a flash in the pan. As for what he did - well, he ran for office and lost, caused a ruckus at a variety of events, and traveled across the country acting like a prophet. Most importantly, though, he got coverage from multiple reliable third party sources while doing so. Also, your characterization of the sources as "small newspapers" is off—the majority of them are major dailies in markets of well over one million. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My error on the sources; thank you for your AGF. I'm still thinking that he's more "color" than "substance" but clearly what we need here is more input from other editors. This is a borderline case at best, one I would not like to close. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC) This also is patently not true nor an accurate reflection of the available references: If you take a look, the "news" seems to be mostly Caused a fuss at the local courthouse and got arrested for Disorderly Conduct kind of thing. This is NOT notability. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As to being a Royal pain in the butt, knowing if the article was not accurately drawn off the information available from numerous independent reliable newspaper sources another AfD was inevitable. Except for the section Steve Smith created, I agree with the others that it is NN as is. There are 2 previous archives of discussion where I was appealing to other editors to clean it up without co-operation and outright resistance. As to the merits of this Afd, the last entry in the article talk deals with this. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop now. I will let the others know that they are mentioned here in case they feel like they want to respond. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cormier

Yes, if the article survives the AFD, I'll be reviving my dormant rewrite. It's not my favourite of the things I'm working on at Wikipedia, but I did make that commitment quite some time ago, and it's time I bite the bullet and devote the couple of hours necessary to finish it off. Steve Smith (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Crohnie - he sometimes frustrates me with his behaviour as well. My offer (which I've yet to follow through on) to rewrite the article was less because I strongly feel there should be an article about him than a belief that I could create some peace at a conflict-infused part of Wikipedia. I !voted weak keep because, as I interpret WP:N and WP:BIO, he clears them. I also think it's possible to reasonably interpret those policies in such a way that he doesn't clear them, though, which is why I don't think delete !votes are necessarily "wrong", just that they're not in accordance with the way that I interpret those guidelines. I'm afraid that I don't have a whole lot more to offer, besides noting that there's a difference between a vanity article (one that exists for the benefit of a subject's vaninty) and an article that exists for nobler reasons that happens to stoke a subject's vanity. I believe that this is the latter (noting, of course, that it was created by a Wikipedia administrator unrelated to the subject). Steve Smith (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your responses. I had a look at the online refs that are available on Facebook. I have to go with my gut about this, also have to go with policies and I feel it should be deleted. I don't know if DoDaCanaDa influenced my iVote to decide to go this way or not. I know I've given this a lot of thougt and so I went back to the ADF, kept my delete iVote and expanded it to include the policies I went by plus comments by other editors. Thanks again for your patience and time you took away from other things you could have been doing to respond to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Steve, I am sorry to learn I have been such a Royal pain in the butt to you. But that´s why I admire and respect you and your contributions to Wikipedia. You represent the best I have seen in an Editor. You are intellectually honest, and whatever personal feelings you may have, you are able to rise above them, and with a truly neutral point of view, and conforming to WP, you are able to create an objective, informative article or comment, and well written read.

Please AGF! I am not ´canvassing´ since you have already registered your !vote, but just acknowledging the obvious. AS Christ says, Blessed are they who are not offended in me. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note and the other comment. I'll try to email later today. Hope you're doing better! Hugs. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I posted a request to ask the editor to stop thwarting efforts to address the myriad fact tags, etc. at WP:AN/I here if you have anything to add. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it went this way. This is basically why I posted that I had retired from crime articles. Outside of politics, there's little more controversial and prone to contentiousness than crime articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No it's not just happening at the crime articles. It seems like everyone's in a hurry to close discussions these days. This one closing though without all editors having a chance to comment esp. since it was behavior, which it appears the closer missed, was uncalled for. It should have been left open a lot longer than 30 minutes. I don't think the complaint was really looked at. The talk page showed a lot of the uncivil behavior and the editor was also editing to make a point with all the templates. I am disgusted with how it was handled to be honest. More tomorrow,, maybe we can get the page unprotected so we can clean it up. If necessary I am going to take it to an administrator I know to have them take a look at the pages and get a second opinion. It can't hurt. I hope it can't. This is ridiculous. Oh well, I'm going back to my heating pad. --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Video playlist for cancer treatment entry 10 mentions side effect of treating Crohns

I have placed a similar comment on the Crohn's disease talk page asking if mention of this might be made. I'm wondering if you have ever heard of metabolic treatments for cancer or tried this one after being appraised of its ramifications? If it is a sure fire cure, and you have tried it, and it did work, you might want to change your name, or otherwise tell people of its ineffectiveness...

This video entitled cantron ovarian cancer and chrons misspells the word Crohn's because the contributor who grabbed and put online the captured video tape / DVD clip was primarily concered with cancer (that is easier to spell).

Supposedly, the mechanism of Cantron / Cancell, etc, is that it is a electro-chemical means of metabolically starving anaerobic cells and pathogens. It has a chemically effective half-life of 6-hours and so should be taken in small doses on a fairly frequent basis (much less than every 6 hours). There are supposedly a huge number of conflicting dietary foods that must be avoided so that it remains effective, so one lecturer claims that it generally takes about 5 hours to train a potential patient on the care and use of the chemical mixture.

One of the video playlist entries claims that it clears up certain forms of autoimmune diseases. It looks like some of the lectures take place at the Granada Forum in Tarzana California. Oldspammer (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I've not heard of this not even from all the newsletters I receive. If this were a cure, it would be announced quite loudly to be sure. Unfortunately there is no cures for Crohn's. They still don't understand what the cause is. I don't think the youtube.com can be used at the article either because it wouldn't be a reliable source. Thanks for bringing this to my attentions but alas my name stays as is. I will update if I hear anymore about this for Crohn's as I do try to stay up to date with the newest coming out along with the older things. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Crohnie. You have new messages at Grsz11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just a note that I have responded to your question. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 01:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For the tone of your comment. Enough angry things have been said. I only felt comfortable doing that due to the level of personal info on his page. In hindsight, it was a poor choice. One of several by me and not so few by others too. I can only own mine. Stay healthy, mines not so great right now. Seems to make me a lot less tactful, and it is no excuse.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I just had to let you know how I took everything that was going on. I appreciate you coming here and letting me know how you too feel about it. I think it should be closed now if it hasn't been yet. Sorry to hear you're not well. I find that when I am bad I stay away from the politics and anything controversial. I find that when I don't feel well I edit more with emotions then with common sense, my focus is off and I do dumb stuff. So I can understand. Please feel better soon. Thanks again for popping in to give me a response. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed from search engine?

If i Google user talk:crohnie I get 1,080 hits, one of the first being your entire page without the formatting... http://wapedia.mobi/en/User:Crohnie But the coolest one is the "MyBulgaria" site because in the Google search result it gives the information from your page, but when you go to a Bulgaria advertising area. How clever and obscure. Anywhow I just thought I would point this out. I hope you didn't pay to be excluded! Weakopedia (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I never knew this. Oh well, as the say goes, you pay for what you get. I didn't pay to no index my site. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you want to or not, but you can exclude pages in your userspace from search engines if you wish. I'd think that privacy reasons might be a compelling reason in some situations. If you want to do it, just add this code to the top of the page: {{NOINDEX|visible = yes}}

I have done it to my talk and archive pages. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok I will have to go see what I did because I thought I already did this. Do I have to do it to the archives, each one? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

BullBrangifer, I have it already at the top of my pages, both user and talk. Feel free to check it out and make corrections but I am pretty sure I have it right but who knows. :) Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

Would you please visit the talk page to comment on the IP insisting we put his list of "many many" items in the In film section of the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) It's the section just above the one you responded to, entitled "In film"

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking some time to respond but I did respond today. Good luck, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bundy

Hey there, it's good to hear from you. I've been around...just keeping a low profile. I'll take a look at the Bundy talk page. momoricks 08:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are around. :) Thanks, talk again soon I'm sure, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion is at a standstill, so I don't have anything productive to add right now. I hope all is well with you. momoricks 02:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture

What part of the body are we looking at in this picture? Crohnie sores 4.JPG Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

They were called Erythema nodosum by my dermotologist who handles Crohn's patients. Most of the sores are ulcerated do to scratching and irritations to the skin because of diagnosis problems at the beginning. Hope this helps, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you yes. But what part of the body is the picture of. Is this your back or your leg? Usually it affect the legs but I am having trouble telling the body part. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that is my back. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year!

Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and you too. Enjoy the good food, good company and great health! --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Wishing you a merry Christmas and wonderful new year!

--momoricks 02:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) (Yes, I'm totally copying Wild's idea ;c))

Thank you, and I don't mind, it's the thought that counts! :) You too enjoy a wonderful holiday with family, good food and great health. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Trembling before Her Bionic Might

Happy Holidays! I'm just poking my head in to see how your bionic enhancements are working out. :-) I'm still sending well wishes your way and keeping you in my prayers. How is physical therapy going? How are you feeling generally? I hope the holidays are pleasant for you and your family. Take care! Vassyana (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, actually I'm doing amazingly well. I am still working on strengthening myself up which is normal. I have most of my mobility back, this was a total surprise because I feared that I lost a lot if not most of the use of my left side. I still have major problems with pain and numbness. It's hard to say in words but I have serious pain in my neck for obvious reasons but it goes down my arms to the tip of my fingers. When the doc told me that there was good pain I laughed out loud because to me there was no thing as good pain. Well the pain I am experiencing is my nerves trying to come back after this trauma. My feeling in my hands are s l o w l y improving. I'm having brief moments now that seem like the feelings are almost normal. The doc said I could see changes in the next year so I am working hard to use my body to get myself used to doing things that I couldn't or had to work at real hard to do. So, I can't complain with how I've come with such a major surgery. Thanks for all your positive energies, and thoughts of me. I really do appreciate it. You have touched me in ways I can't explain. Again, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Accusation

What a load of rubbish! How pathetic. Still, it makes me laugh. If one day I can no longer edit due to some baseless accusation, so be it. Wikipedia will miss out (admittedly not enough to worry anyone) and the lunatics will be running the asylum. :-) B. Fairbairn (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You should laugh, that will be dimissed. I still thought you have a right to at least know about it in case you want to say something. Since you were added so were a lot of others. Like I said though, don't worry about it. I suspect it will be dismissed real soon, at least I sure hope so. Enjoy the holidays, happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon

to you. How insane has that whole thing become?? Sheesh. Thanks for your observations. I would suggest you not post to that page in case someone would say you are me! That's me all over the place. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC) or as Rossrs would say MisterBeyondMyWildBettySoupLoganhartlivie (I'm feeling a little schizo today!)

As a lurker of this whole thing, it is amusing reading, better than the funny pages! :) I let one of the editors that is supposed to be you but isn't you know that s/he is accused of being you but isn't. Wow, it's even hard to say, glad I don't have to explain this outloud to another person. I'd get locked away in a loony bin for being out of my mind. :) I have to say, things are definitely out of control. Did you take a look at the other case going on? It's just about as weird minus all the accusations of editors being socks of each other, but barely. Something is definitely wrong with this situation but it isn't you. If I were you I think I'd stop replying too. Let them keep shoveling until they are covered in it. Take care, I will still keep an eye on it. I was actually going to comment but before I got my thoughts typed out, there were 6 names accused of being you. I decided at that point to just watch the show. Don't let it get to you, we all know what is going on here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Move "management" content from Chronic pain to Pain management

Hi Crohnie. I've just re-proposed what LeeVJ proposed 18 months ago at Talk:Chronic pain. There were no objections then. If there are none now, I'll do the move in a few days. Anthony (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No problems to me with this, make the move, sounds good to me actually. Thanks for asking and letting me know. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

You didn't remove a "You Tube video", you removed a reference to a real documentary. As I said a couple of weeks ago - forget the You Tube thing. You Tube doesn't even play into this any more and hasn't for a while. The video documentary exists, Cowart's words in the documentary are real, and his actual words differ from the Ann Rule version in her book. The documentary is correct, Rule isn't. To me, it's a no brainer. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page about this. I have an iVote started to see what everyone prefers, the book's version or the video's version. I think it's time we get a group decision on this since there are others outside of the three or four of us that have been haunting this page for a few weeks. You will see it I'm sure on the talk page under Judge's words. Thanks and Happy New Year. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I must agree in this instance with SkagitRiverQueen. Ann Rule's book is an invaluable account, but there are certainly several discrepancies between her printed version and evidenced "fact". The "paraphrase" of Cowart's court statement is the best example, as we have the actual audio and video transcript of the event available (though not yet properly on WP). Another example of Rule's unsupported claims in her book is her contention that Bundy was "fascinated" by Nazis (which, whether true or not, is wholly absent from any other source). I think it is not unfeasible to get the actual voice "clip" from Cowart; or, barring that, a "direct" quote from the legal transcripts, which is going to differ from what Rule states (if even slightly, still inaccurate)... Doc9871 (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I note that I agreed "in this instance" with SkagitRiverQueen. I, in no way, endorse SkagitRiverQueen's recent "edit style", as it has certainly encouraged a bit of animosity among all concerned. I feel she is correct in this particular fact. Hopefully, further mediation will result in a greater understanding :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is the documentry of the court trial. I went to look for it again since now it's stated that the words of the judge is in this documentry and not the youtube.com video. The problem is I can't find it at the dif where the judge's words are taken. The words being suggested are the same ones as the youtube one which has been said can't be used. I would appreciate it if the actual link to the words the judge said was shown. The link that was given just shows the material about the making of this video. What I am trying to say is that we need to see a dif from the Killing of America video. I will not change my mind on this unless I can see if for myself. What I see being offered in place of the Rule's comments are the same comments taken from the youtube.com video. Please provide a dif at the talk page so that others can also see the judge talking on this new video link. You say above "as we have the actual audio and video transcript of the event available', Then you say "I think it is not unfeasible to get the actual voice "clip" from Cowart" These seem to contradict each other. Either this video is the actual video from the court case or it's an actor or someone making the statements for the drama effect of a video. It has been stated that the transcripts would really be good for this. We need something that can be seen in the refs. If the reference for this video doesn't show what the judge said (without watching it), what good is it? I managed to be able to look at the youtube video first presented and the beginning was too distorted to be able to make out what was being said. It's easy to do a voice over I am told. Oh and we can also just delete the quote and forget about all of this which to me is the best solution since the quote is not really all that important to this article. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

All you have to do is look at the YouTube video. The video itself is the documentary - nothing more. There's nothing added or taken away. It's clear from watching the documentary (whether via YouTube or the actual documentary itself) that Rule's version and the actual version varies enough for the Rul version to be ruled-out (no pun intended ;-). It doesn't matter whether or not one can see the actual video by clicking on the ref link, does it? I mean...Wikipedia *has* references where books alone are cited without evidence online, correct? Why would citing a documentary be any different? --SkagitRiverQueen 19:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My question was to please give me a link to this actual documentary that you say you have. You specifically told me that the youtube.com video was no longer part of this and that there is a documentary about Ted Bundy with Judge Cowell's words in it. Not the youtube.com, I thought that was history and it was agreed that it was not an acceptable source to use because of copyright laws and so on. You specifically said that the youtube was not part of the discussions, so please, which is it? Is the youtube.com the video you are talking about or is there a documentary that connects to the dif you keep putting into the article? I tried that dif more than once just today, never mind the other days, and I cannot find anything like what you are saying. Please, supply the correct link to the dif of the video so that others can look at it, not the youtube.com one. Sorry, I'm getting tired and cranky right now. Happy New Year.--CrohnieGal^Talk 20:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Good to see you editing, Crohnie. I hope you're doing OK healthwise. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig, this was a pleasant surprise seeing you pop in. I am still rehabilitating to regain use and strength in my extremities. I seem to have peaked right now and I'm not seeing any improvements which is frustrating. These days I look for little improvements like being able to wash my hair by myself. I can't open/close a button but I can now open a can of food with a flip top. I try to see the little things I now can do and I try not to dwell too much on the things I can't right now. In about a year I'll know how much damage is permanent. All I can do is keep trying to do the things I cannot do and maybe one day I'll be surprised and I will be doing it. So overall I guess I can't complain. Thanks for popping in to say hello. I hope you have a wonderful, happy and esp. healthy New Year. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and for your good wishes. I hope it keeps getting better. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Me either

I think it's a flimsy copout to the case itself. Sock puppetry is disruptive by functioning to get around a permanent block. It's like saying "Yeah, it looks like it, don't sweat it" when WP:DUCK says "if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck]]. Someone does want to bother with it. If she moves my posting again, I'm taking her directly to WP:AN/I. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am filing the AN/I report now. As for the Bundy thing, this is why I posted the suggestion that the actual trial transcript be found and used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree and actually did but my research is lousy for that kind of a search. I wouldn't have any idea what words to use at least not right now. I just know that the youtube.com is not an acceptable source. I trust Moonriddengirl and she said no so no it is. Ok on the other, I'll take a peek. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Moonriddengirl is great! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your right, Moonriddengirl really knows the copyright stuff that's why I asked for her opinion in the first place. Now if others would just listen... Thanks Coppertwig, I appreciate your thoughts too, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes

Hi there Crohnie! Saw you've been having a bit of a hard time of things recently and just wanted to send you my best wishes!! Keep smiling, I hope you're feeling much better soon!!! :-) Vitaminman (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks Vitaminman, just trying to get stronger and better after spinal surgery. It's a long and hard road that is getting frustrating but I am doing really well. Just want to do even better, patience isn't one of my virtues. :) I hope you had a wonderful ringing in the New Year! May this New Year bring happiness, health and more happiness to you! I hope we cross paths more frequently this year too. You've always been an easy and kind editor to work with. Thanks, be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather doubt that being patient aids a speedy recovery anyway, so I'm sure you're better off for not having that virtue. ;-) As for me, yes, I've had a very nice New Year, lots of family and friends around and all that sort of thing. And thank you for the nice words, you're very kind. I always enjoy crossing paths with you. (I just found that virtue article, btw, perhaps see you there later]]? Vitaminman (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well patience is needed desperately when trying to regain strength. It's really messy and loud when one gets in a big hurry. Do you know what steaks sounds like hitting a tile floor in a big pan?! :) Deafening, and it scared the socks out of everyone!:) We did the same thing, lots of family and everyone behaved this year, not one bad word by the lot of them. To me that's a major breakthrough. Maybe I'll pop over to the article soon. See you there, if I stay here long enough, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, take care Crohnie (especially around the kitchen!!), see you around. Vitaminman (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! :) thanks --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You should be aware that your name came up in a complaint filed at WP:WQA#User:Wildhartlivie as a member of a "conspiracy of bullies" named by SkagitRiverQueen, if you are interested. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Made comment there, thanks for letting me know. I am only leaving this note to acknowledge I received it, actually got it yesterday but forgot to respond here like I like to. Thanks Wildhartlivie, you are a good friend and a great editor. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply re Wikiquette alert

Hi. :) I was happy to see your post on WQA, and I don't think you said anything at all inappropriate. I wish you a good night, and perhaps we'll cross paths again soon. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I think things will settle down if we can get some out of battle mode. I am glad this message finally got left here so that I could see it this morning. You take care and be well, it's always nice to meet another Wikipedian. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And a happy new year to you!

I greeted 2010 quietly while dinking around on the net...just can't party like I used to. Last year was so exciting I slept through it. ;c) Yay for your new, speedy computer! It's always fun to set up everything just the way you like it. Don't go out of your way to watch The Killing of America unless you're interested in watching it for the sake of watching it. If all goes well, the official transcript can be used and we can stop the roundabout "documentary v. Rule" discussion. Happy Wednesday! momoricks 22:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsolicited help offer

Hey there, I saw this note you left for Wildhartlivie and thought this link might be helpful. Remember him? How could we forget! :) I'm happy to help any way I can. momoricks 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yea I do remember, kind of hard to forget that time. :) Thanks, I'm going to drop you a message. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Crohnie :>

You rock for helping support the Eagles at the Hall of Fame image! All seven past and present Eagles forgave their differences and played together for the first and only time - not significant enough for an image to describe, but text alone? Because it's not a "free" image?! Let me know if you ever need help supporting what's right on WP, which you always seem to do quite well! You strike me as a very thoughtful and considerate editor, especially when embroiled in the midst of an edit conflict ;>. Thanks again for your support here, and I hope you're feeling better... Doc9871 (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Doc, I looked at the other images and they weren't that important but the Eagles one was beautiful and should be here and at the article. I think it brings a lot to the article. I did notice that the use of flicker (sp?) was used as a reason to delete. Well I just got done reading to boards that say that site is not a reason to delete. Read this one and then follow a link from GoRight to the report at Ani about it. There was a consensus from the community on both that the use of that site is not a reason to delete. I try to be fair but I sometimes have troubles finding the proper words. I am barely moving these days. I'm in FL and if you've seen the news we have a terrible cold front that is not good for someone who just had surgery of the spine! :) I awoke to temps at 37 with a wind factor bringing it into the teens. Us Floridians don't know temps like this. It's supposed to be no lower than 72. One more day they think of this before we thaw out.  :) Have a spare pair of gloves, ear muffs? Glad I could help. It was kind of hard not to notice your page filled with notices, though the editor was kind enough to consolidate them. Have a good one! --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:52, 10 January

16 °F tonight in Gainesville. I predict another evening spent stirring a very slowly simmering soup - waste heat from cooking keeps my fingers in typing form, and cats take care of the toe-icicles. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They have us under the same warning as you. I am in Broward. Our high today was 46 and they expect the low in the teens also. I am definitely ready for some good ole Sunny FL weather! I had to bring all my plants inside. I haven't had to do that in years for cold weather, hurricanes yes! :) Stay warm my friend, the warmer weather has to be close. I'd say something like GW is causing this but I don't want that conflict on my talk page! ;) Have a warm night, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the complimentary and supportive note you left on my talk page. I really did enjoy seeing it, when I arrived at the page today. I hope you yourself have been able to calm down.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I think editors at times need to know that they are doing well.  :) May I suggest you put something on your user page or redirect it to your talk page so that it doesn't stay a red link. Some editors see the red link and rule out you being a serious editor for some reason. I just think it looks better too. Just a suggestion, :) keep up the good work. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about the red-font user-page thing. Please understand that I do not wish to put anything on my user page. I hope the red font won't bother you too much.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem seriously. I just see it suggested a lot to use a redirect or even a period or Hi just so the link is blue. I'm sorry I said anything, please forget I said anything. You're doing great that's all that matters. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I've placed a period on the user page.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes there was I wrote it in such a way that it was not clear what I was saying. I have to say I like the blue! I just know that when people go to articles with red links the first thing they want to do is remove them. Thanks for being understanding. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry: your point was clear. I'm the one at fault. I should simply have placed a period on the page without your having to suggest I put one there. I'm glad you like the blue. Your messages are unfailingly sweet — and nothing could be more important than that.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Aileen Wuornos

I've blocked User:EdwinaMonsoon indefinitely for harassment and block evasion.--Slp1 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I saw, thank you very much. I very much appreciate it since I've been dealing with this editor patiently for days now. Thank you for your quick response to this situation. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a technical note: You were completely right (and thank you!) in reporting the vandalism on the Aileen Wuornos article, but it was not a WP:BLP violation: both victims and the article subject are, regrettably, dead since long time and BLP stands for "biographies of living people". Again: all you did was good and well, but I like policies to be waved appropriately. Thanks for the good work! --Cyclopia^talk 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; good point! :) By the time I dealt with a more than a half a dozen reverts by multiple accounts all I could remember was the title of the article which was a name of a person. Thanks for the reminder, and the thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Hey, there," to you, too

Thanks for your nice message. I'm glad you see some value in my approach to editing. I appreciate your approach, too. It is always friendly and gentle — like that of SkagitRiverQueen. (Sorry, Skagit. Couldn't resist.)

You needn't apologize to me — or to anyone else, as far as I can tell — for supposed lack of clarity in your talk-page posts: I personally never have any trouble following what you're saying.

I do, indeed, know what you mean about posts that are vaporized, via edit-conflict, before they can even be saved. In fact, to avoid such vaporization, I now tend to copy the text of my talk-page posts before I hit "Save." If the post disappears, I can easily re-create it. I got burned more times than probably should have been necessary before I settled on that self-protective measure.

I work on few Wikipedia items other than the Manson article, but I imagine you and I will continue to come into contact with each other there. For me, it will be fun.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

List of deserts by area

Hi Chronie. I'm a user of the Spanish wikipedia (IP address 82.158.185.109). Last Sunday you undid an edition in this article made by 94.193.1.251. I've just undone another edition that I consider vandalism made by 204.174.237.16. Since I'm not a regular user of the English wikipedia, you might want to pay attention on new edits. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.185.109 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notification. I don't have this article on my watchlist though. I just happened to catch the vandalization of the page when I was on recent edits. If you would like me to watchlist if though I'd be more than happy to. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was the same for me, just had a look at the article after watching a film. I will try to have a look regularly to check everything is ok. I'm not really interested in the article, so no watchlist is necessary. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.185.109 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail?

I've sent you two e-mails through Wikipedia in the past few days, with copies supposedly being sent to myself. I've not received the copies. Any chance you got either of the originals? --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just on your talk page getting ready to give you a message about this when the orange bar appeared. I got both of your emails and I responded to the first one. Did you receive my response? --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yea, the second test one I also responded to just to let you know I received it too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I sent a test email to you which by passes the email system here. You should get it too. That makes three so far that I sent.  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Must be something at my end then. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it you got the last one with the actually response?  :) If you figure out what's going on let me know via email. I had problems last week or so with someone not being able to get my email to work. All I did is check everything and then save it and it worked then. Glad you received, I hope. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie sock case

Crohnie, I wasn't "poking" anyone - I was trying to be discreet and not mention names. I'm sorry you think I am trying to act like I know you - I wasn't trying to do that at all, rather, I was going off of what you have written so far today concerning recent events. It's obvious and understandable that you are upset. Right now, you might be going through a form of the grieving process (I don't know, I'm just guessing based on your posts so far today and from what you wrote on Lar's talk page). Anger is, of course, a part of that process. Look, I didn't do what your friend did, your friend did it all by herself. Please don't be angry at me (you seem to be angry, so, I'm just saying...) for something someone else chose to do on their own without any help from anyone else. And FYI - it's more than "rudely attacked" - what's been happening to my talk page is considered hate-speech based on sexual orientation and what came to me in private email form was disturbing, plain and simple. Walk a mile in what I've had to in the last few days and then comment knowingly. Until then, I'd like to ask you politely to please back off of me. Thanks, --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I know hate speeches and how people can be disgusting. I grew up Jewish in a neighborhood back then when there wasn't anyone else. I've had some of the nastiest things said and done to me in the name of hate. I know more than you think about things though. Let's please just stop. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well...all due respect, but if what you "know" is from a biased source, you really should consider going to the hard, cold facts, rather than what your source is telling you. Lar and those who reviewed the evidence are going on the facts, not biased info and explanations. And just so you know, I'm going on the facts as well. I'm not the ogre or evil person you think I am, Crohnie. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Again please, you don't know who I am chatting with now do you? I am gathering info when and if I need it. For the record, I have the deepest respect for Lar and I think he knows this. You are also bias in your thinking since you were the target of the hate, remember it goes both ways. Basically I am an outsider gathering information. I don't know Wildhartlivie in person nor do I know any of the players here, that's my point. I am trying to see things for myself and some others are kind enough to help me out. So lets just leave it at this right now. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, frankly, there's no information you could possibly have that would be the same as what Lar has as that kind of specific information can't be revealed to a non-admin. OTOH, if an admin is revealing information to you that they shouldn't, that's entirely uncool. I never thought you knew WHL in person, I could tell that you two had formed somewhat of a "bond" here (you did exchange emails, after all). Again, Crohnie - facts are facts. If you go off of the facts rather than emotion, you can't go wrong. The stuff Lar and other CUs looked at are facts. Everything else is suspect. Everything I am going off of is factual - regardless of the intent behind the content in what I was sent via email and here. The emails I received had "facts" within them as did the posts and vandalism on my talk page. The facts I am talking about you don't have, nor would anyone else outside of Lar and any other CU checker. The facts tell the story and *that's* where it should end. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ, who was the "you know who" you were referring to, that you think is vandalizing your userspace? Equazcion ^(talk) 22:31, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)

SRQ, as you said CU'ers should not share the information they have to anyone else other than CU or others with high clearance and reasons to see the material. I don't think Lar or anyone else shared the details with you so you too are going on emotions and reading between the lines. Again you keep telling me what I have or don't have and again I'll tell you that you don't know what I happen to know or not. It really doesn't matter though. I am trying to make sure things are fair. What I've seen so far is after all this is done you are going to each and every article, ignoring what the editors said about the edits and reinstalling your preferred version. That's not cool either. The block of those two editors does not mean that the discussions there are now null and void. Others have talked and debated this issues too. I don't know what to think of all of this which is why I am going to people I trust and asking questions. Some is online and now some has gone offline because to be honest, you seem to be following me now around. Please let me do what I feel I have to do without worrying about these kind of responses I am getting. Please! I am trying real hard to get you to understand my position here on this matter. It's not about you if that's what you're concerned with. I am doing this out of the sense of fairness. I would hope if it happened to me that one of my 'friends' here would do the same and ask some questions.

Equazcion I have sent you an email, I hope this is ok. Thanks all, everything will be ok, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC) sorry didn't proof so ignore an errors please, thank you.

Crohnie - just to be VERY clear - Lar shared nothing with me. I *gave* him information that was vital to the investigation. I still have that information. I would never share it with anyone but Lar or another CU. I am *not* (and this is the last time I'm going to say this to you, because repeating it is becoming annoying) going on emotion here - only the facts. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to keep emotions at bay too and go on facts. I'll say this again too, I have the deepest respects for Lar so I know he wouldn't do anything unethical that is out of bounds with his duties as a CU, so we do agree on this matter. You do not have to be annoyed nor do you have to repeat anything, I can read. But you are human and emotions are going to be a factor when you are the one that was attacked about your sexual and religious preferences. This is just a fact. I don't want to feud with you or anyone else if that is what you are concerned with. I have my own reasons for what I am doing about Wildhartlivie situation. You do what you feel you need to do too. I don't really see any conflict of interest with us persuing this matter at different angles, do you? Thanks and have a good night. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) I don't know what else to say to convince you that I am able to separate the facts from any emotions I felt one way or the other regarding this entire issue. I swear to you, emotions are not playing into this for me. At one time they did, yes, but that hasn't been the case for more than a day since everything broke wide open and the hidden truth was apparent. (2) I think from what you stated above you totally misunderstand me. From where I sit, there is nothing for me "to do" or pursue regarding what has transpired. The facts are in and based on the facts at hand, the correct determination has been made. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Question from Manson page

Well, the ancient nomination of "Charles Manson" as a featured article is a side-topic, so to speak, so I've decided your question to me about my involvement therein should be answered here, on your own talk page, not the Manson page.

The nomination was very brief: An editor who responded to it said she thought the Manson article too long. Wildhartlivie said something like, "Well, I'll see if I can cut it down." Editor JohnBonaccorsi said something like, "Why cut it down? Who cares whether it's a Featured Article?" Talk-page consternation ensued.

The article probably is too long — though the kilobyte count, which reflects the presence of many, many footnotes, several of which are quite long, probably makes it seem longer than it is. (This was discussed and examined at the time of the consternation, as you may see somewhere in the talk-page archives.) The length doesn't bother me. If I were in charge of the article, I would probably cut out many things — but everything that's in there is important to some editor or another. In fact, as recent exchanges on the talk page reveal, there are editors who think the article needs even more material.

Summarizing, say, the murders and trial and simultaneously establishing the present, detailed account of them as a separate article would be several months' work by a well-paid editor at a major publishing house — if, that is, the summaries were to be accurate. There are many Wikipedia editors, I'm sure, who would be pleased to summarize and divide the article in just a few hours or days. You can guess what would be the result of their work — i.e., "work."

I can tell you editor Wildhartlivie was very upset when, with respect to the Featured Article nomination, I said, "Who cares?" She knows much more about Wikipedia than I do, and Featured Article status for "Manson" was important to her. It probably still is, in a way — but she and I eventually patched things up. Late last year, around the time of the murders' 40th anniversary, a writer in a major newspaper in the UK referred to the "thorough Wikipedia articles" about Manson. I mentioned that on the Manson talk page. I'm pretty sure that's the only time I've seen anyone in the outside world refer to a Wikipedia article as anything other than semi-idiotic. At the risk of being ingracious, I'll note that, at bottom, that journalist's opinion is no more important to me than the article's internal Wikipedia status — i.e., the article's being "Good" or "Featured" — but still, the complimentary word was nice.

I hope this has been clear. If it hasn't been, please let me know. You are, in my view, a good egg.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Zodiac article reversion

Zodiac is on my watchlist. Since you didn't provide an edit summary, I'm curious as to why you just reverted the edit made by 76.101.21.178 at the Zodiac article. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

the editor is removing a reference and information about the article. No edit summary can equal vandalism . --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "no edit summary can equal vandalism". Regardless, I didn't see the removal of the ref as clear vandalism - I've looked on the contributor's page and saw that there had been warnings previously given, but nothing that indicated the contributor was not working in good faith. Moving on, leaving edit summaries is always a good idea - especially with a revert. Don't you agree? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a straight bad-faith edit to me. It was the removal of a sourced fact with no edit summary or discussion. That IP's other edits were also reverted similarly, and in at least one instance by ClueBot, which only reverts the more clearcut cases of vandalism. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:28, 18 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Also see this edit. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:29, 18 Jan 2010 (UTC)

The initial point was, and still is, that without an edit summary, it wasn't clear why the revert was made. Edit summaries are supposed to be given. If she felt it was clear vandalism, why not use rollback? (I'm saying that because, IIRC, she has rollback privileges) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

She doesn't need to use rollback just because it was vandalism. I rarely use rollback myself, though I've had it for a long time (ever since it became available). The practice is generally that vandalism reverts don't require a descriptive edit summary, which is why rollback edits don't have them. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:34, 18 Jan 2010 (UTC)

SRQ: you've pursued this further than was useful. C's original edit was entirely reasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Always provide an edit summary - It is considered good practice to always provide an edit summary, but it is especially important when reverting the actions of other editors, or if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec galore Hi everyone!) :::::Next time you do a revert on something read the page. It says in cases of vandalism no edit summary is needed but to put one for other reasons. Of course it's not worded this way but it means the same thing. I do vandal patrol. I don't give the I don't give the vandals anymore of my time then necessary. I use my roll back priveledges very carefully and only if an editor made multiple vandised edits in a row. That's when I use my roll back button and not event then do I always use my rollback. I also do it manually depending on what it is I am reverting. Rollback doesn't allow for a comment and sometimes I want to comment. This is the best I can do to explain. Equascion explained the rest of it, thanks too. I hope this helps because this is how I judge to do things from what I learned from when I had mentors. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That's not a policy, just a general description of the benefit of edit summaries. I notice this too, where you left no summary. Again, rollbacks don't provide edit summaries either -- and that's because, in the case of vandalism, none is generally required. If you aren't sure why something was reverted, check the diff -- if you then disagree with the revert, ask the reverting editor. But if you agree that it was an understandable revert of a bad-faith edit, there's no reason to question the editor who made it. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:45, 18 Jan 2010 (UTC)

And if someone had questioned me on it, I wouldn't have danced around anything but would have explained honestly that it was an error on my part and not intentional. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Crohnie would've done that, had she been in error. In this case she wasn't. She reverted vandalism from a thus-far vandalism-only IP. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:57, 18 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Ok now that all this is said and done you have me and two other telling you what policy is. You point to part of policy but not all of it. So, let me ask you this, what is the purpose of this anyways? You have been following and questioning everything I do now for day three and it is going to stop. I answered you. But you couldn't or wouldn't stop even with two others telling you what I did was and is proper. You didn't even have the decency to admit that what I reverted was in fact vandalism. Did you even read it or were you in a hurry to come here and question my behavior. What is the problem? I have had the same things on my watchlist now for almost two years. Do you want me to take all four of the articles that you are now going to off my watch? I don't have to be given the third degree. Please tell me, what do you want? I am tired of this so I expect an answer. In case you haven't figure it out, I am now extremely angry at your attitude that you expressed here at me and at the kind editors here that tried to tell you what is the truth. Now leave me alone and stop harrassing me and following me around. Do you hear me now! --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I made no error you did. You didn't even look at what I reverted you came here instead to just rag on me about some assumed error I made. I tried answering your question and look what I got, accusations of bad faith. Remember that policy, AGF. Now go away, SRQ, I think you said more than enough. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ and stuff

Hi Crohnie. Well, I was bold; I just deleted that section - it was going nowhere. Hopefully you're not offended; restore it, of course, if you want to.

You're sounding a bit stressed. I recommend either a little break, or just don't respond to some people - they aren't going to learn, sometimes you're better off just clearing the slate.

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored the section, because I'm pretty sure she wants it here. She is free to remove it again of course. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:23, 18 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks guys. WMC knows I don't do well in stress with my health. Equazcion a little bit of the side story going on here. I am off to bed for the night. Hopefully this edit will stick or it will wait until morning. Good night to both of you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh WMC, I wasn't at all offended, actually you both are sweet. thanks, good night for sure, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well three editors down, when will this stop

Three editors have now been blocked, two indefinitely, in the same amount of days. When is the gaming the system going to be stopped. I am about to retire. I have never seen this kind of behavior being acceptable before. Two of the editors have now decided to retire. These were editors in good standing up until running into another editor with some kind of a plan. I am very sadden by the past few days events. Please just ignore this posting. I just felt the need to post something and here was the best place I could think of so that I didn't fall victim of the same abuses others have. Happy editing, well... --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Whaaaaa?" Who is the "third" editor blocked? WTH did I miss? Doc9871 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JohnBonaccorsi, at the Manson article finally got tired of the poking, got sarcastic and lost his cool. He's not coming back. Check out the talk page. The popcorn comment is the icing on the cake I think and he went to the article to make his point and it went downhill from there. He got templated and then of course taken to a board where he used the word libel which is always taken for the most part as a legal threat. I am hoping that he will at least explain he wasn't making a legal threat and was just frustrated. Lovely huh? --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JohnBonaccorsi went haywire. I watched it happen, and I feel bad for him. No one can lose their cool like this in a discussion, period... Doc9871 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes true, but no one should have to put up with being abused either. Look at his talk page and the message left for him there about the assumptions. Now explain to me how this wouldn't be considered harrassment? I'm sorry, I'm very frustrated and exhausted by all of this. There is no excuse for anyone to be treated like this. Was John wrong to react the way he did, yes. Was it right for him to be poked and talked to like this and on the article talk page, no, not in my opinion. It doesn't matter, he's not coming back. The brow beating though has to stop and stop now, agree? --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't react as John did, and neither would I. I certainly agree the fighting must stop. There has been a dramatic shift on the Charles Manson page, but tides turn with the ebbs and flows. You'll keep editing in good faith, and that is what will ultimately prevail... :> Doc9871 (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Is one of the three User:Drsjpdc = Stephen J. Press? He just got a community indef ban and his second SPI is still underways. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No. It wasn't. This has nothing to do with SPI... Doc9871 (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No BullBrangifer, this has nothing to do with that nightmare you're dealing with. By the way, you're keep your cool pretty well, keep it up. :) Doc is a good egg here, but has nothing to do with Stephen J. Press. Doc meet User:BullRangifer, BullRangifer meet User:Doc9871! The two of you would work well together. That is is if Pseudoscience was actually a Crime story though I guess at times it feels like it. :>) No worries here BullRangifer with what you are cleaning up, this is our nightmare I think. Doc, I am trying to keep my humor going, is it working? :) I just don't want any more editors that were in good standing departing the project over this. I have hopes that this will all be settled in do time. Until then, keep popping in with cherry thoughts. I promise though not to purposefully crash and burn. I really believe that is what happened. He was leaving and choice to make a point on his way out. I don't think it is how to do it and would have preferred being asked to help. I was in bed when all of this happened so color me surprise that this all happened, again. You take care, I want you to be here in the morning when I come online, hopefully no one else is leaving. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to meetcha, User:BullRangifer. It's crazy times out there, but if Crohnie says you're alright, I cannot argue with that. Sorry for the blunt retort; one can't be too careful though. "WOLVERINES!!!" Doc9871 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Doc, BullRangifer has, with the help of others, come across a sock/meat farm that seems extensive from my viewing it from the outside. I think a handful of socks have been blocked already. I don't have the dif right now but it's messy where he is too. I guess there's a full moon or something effecting things here. There so much controversary going on, it's really sad. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good lord, one of you is editing Pseudoscience??!? That's very impressive, lol. I'm barely brave enough these days to take on something like Charles Manson. (Couple years ago I got burned over Antisemitism and Nanking Massacre, so I feel for ya!) Personally, I feel bad that I had some bit to do w/ JohnB, but I was just doing what I've been quietly doing for five years now: rewriting text to make it more readable, and asking what ppl think later. :) Hell, I didn't even look at the talk page before I started work on Manson. I like to think its a form of AGF, I just assume my work is mostly good and other editors will correct me where it isn't. Didn't mean to get into a war (and I'm not going to, in fact). Anyways, just wanted to say hello to a couple other (apparently) quiet warriors. :D Eaglizard (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive Bot

Heya, you suggested a talk page archiver for Talk:Charles Manson, I believe? Excellent idea, I realized, as I was scrolling and scrolling down to the bottom of that page... :) If you know how set one of those babies up right, then I recommend you do so as soon as you have the time -- I suggest you not worry about the other editors there, as I'm sure they'll see the wisdom of it, once it's in place. :) (I've never tried to do anything with bots; but, if you really don't have time, msg me. I'm always willing to learn new stuff (esp. given how much explanation there usually is in WP!)). Eaglizard (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It was actually already set to archive every 30 days. I just cut it down to 2 weeks to hopefully deal with the length issue. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:28, 20 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, I forgot to check this out. Sorry, it slipped my mine. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Thank you for your time and curiosity. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You have an e-mail from me. --Tenmei (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please check your email, I responded back just a bit ago. :) Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi again, Crohnie! Hope all is well - I usually respond to posts on my talk page (not adding to the original post I put on an editor's talk page). Hopefully you've been watching for my responses! I had a couple of new things to mention, so I created a brand-spanking new little section here...

I sent Vidor an e-mail concerning the "murder-kit" photo that was deleted on the Bundy page, and am waiting on a response. The reason the admin gave for deletion was solely based on WP:CSD#F4, so if Vidor can re-upload it with enough source credit to satisfy the requirement, it shouldn't have any problem being reinserted. The image's reason for existing on WP was successfully defended by us, no question. But it's that one last tiny crediting hurdle left to mitigate before it should stay for good.

I copied the MizaBot archive stuff to my page, and it worked... but it didn't work completely (see my talk page "archive" sections). I can't figure out what I did wrong, and every attempt to correct it makes things even worse. Can you help me? I want to re-name the sections, but when I try.... ugh.

Again, I hope everything is good with you, and keep up the good work! I'm still working on a few non-SK-type biographies at the same time (but some are criminals like Leona Helmsley), mostly with references backed up with copyedit. Let me know if you get bored ;> See you soon... Doc9871 (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my butting in, but I fixed your archives Doc. The problem was that you copied Crohnie's code exactly, and she was up to her third archive. The bot created an Archive 3 for you, without 1 or 2. I moved Archive 3 to Archive 1, fixed the link in your archive box to point to it, and I changed your archive counter in the bot settings to 1, so subsequent archiving will start going there now. When 1 gets filled up, it'll automatically set to 2 and start filling Archive 2. Hope that makes sense. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:13, 21 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, you're a darling! :) Thanks and you are never butting in here. I appreciate and accept any and all help! Like I said at Doc's I didn't set mine up so I am an idiot with them. Thanks a lot for stepping in to help. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't argue there, I am something of a darling :) Glad to help when I can. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:39, 21 Jan 2010 (UTC)

You both are two of my favorites! Very easy to work with and very helpful. I've got either of your backs anytime you need an honest, objective opinion - just ask! I may not always agree, but I would ask either of your opinions if I needed help, and it ain't WP:CANVASS to ask editors you work well with for help. Thanks again :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, looking over this thread I just had a thought. If everyone at this project worked and behaved like in this thread, just think about how much time and stress could have been saved in just the past month.  :) Doc I agree with what you say, and that goes for me too. Actually as I stated on your talk I am looking to expand myself a little more so I'm open to new ideas. Lately things have just been too stressful so I'm looking for some 'fun' editing locations. Is there such a place?  ;) Thanks people, it's always a pleasure... --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness, the real test would be how we interact in strong disagreements. To be a jaded Wikipedian for a moment, it's easy to get along when nothing's at stake. The recent drama has been somewhat out of the ordinary and unwarranted even for Wikipedia; but still, start editing the various abortion, Tibet, Israel, or Scientology articles, as extreme examples, and you'll likely find it a bit more difficult to maintain a cheerful disposition. I try to steer clear of controversy myself for that reason, but as you can see it sometimes finds its own way into unexpected places. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:03, 21 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Hell, if it's cited with a printed or actively-linkable source, and it's not written like a thousand monkeys working on a thousand typewriters ("It was the best of times... it was the BLURST of times?! Stupid monkeys!") - it's probably good. Controversy can be, well, "annoying" when it's not absolutely warranted. Doc9871 (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Doc and I have worked while controversy was going on over at the Ted Bundy article. I think we did rather well with the way things ended up going. We didn't get blocked. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Manson

Thanks re: Charles Manson edits. To think I only stumbled onto there as I happened to be reading a book on Roman Polanski! Format (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, we need more editors at the article. I personally would love to see the article get into better shape. I don't think the article is organized properly and some things need to be removed or added. It needs to be more encyclopedic in its wording and more focused in a lot of areas now. The article used to be feature article but isn't anywhere near that now unfortunately. Look forward to seeing you there more. Happy editing! --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexy Sadie

Actually, when I saw the /print, I knew what it was. I'm not sure where to find a replacement link for that one. Just leave it as is for now and I'll try to find one later today. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I had obviously never seen something like that and to be honest it freaked me out. I thought I had hit some kind of link that was trying to highjack my computer. All of a sudden my printer was activated and was asking me if I really want to print. I got hit with a virus on this site once so my first thought was to remove the damn thing. :) I'll leave it up to you so you can get to it when you can, no need to rush though, take your time. I tried a search but didn't find it there anymore but I may not have used the correct search words, which happens to me sometimes. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For [7]. I could track down the guilty party but it was probably me so I won't :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't bother to look either. You have so many editors after you right now that your page history is quite busy. I just figured if you wanted it gone you were capable of removing it all. Glad I could help. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Black Sabbath Vandals

Just wondering Is'nt there a way to block these ip ? The same type of stuff happened yesturday? Mlpearc (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you can report them to the AN/I board to see what an administrator will do to help out. Sometimes it's a block of a range or just protection to the article will suffice. I just did vandal patrol and helped with the vandalism but I don't have this on my regular watchlist. Hope this helps, if you need more let me know. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

To get you started :) Equazcion ^(talk) 12:27, 6 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Equazcion, I need just that! :) Thanks for laughs so early in the day. What a pleasurable change, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Kate Winslet

Hi Crohnie, Kate Winslet has survived with nary a scratch, so I wouldn't worry about it. These edit conflicts happen, and nothing can be done about it. Hope things are well with you. Regards, Rossrs (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all is well here. Just a morning of stupid edits for me! :) I am making sure that I actually look when I hit the show preview button. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The preview button? I almost never do that, and I should. I sometimes have 4 attempts at an edit before I get it right, and I always hope nobody notices. Sometime when you're really bored, you should look through some of my edits. Nahhh, just take my word for it.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would look like a complete embicile if I didn't use the preview plus very unpopular. :) I just sometimes forget to actually preview, like today. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Irony

Crohnie - do you see the irony in getting on *me* - and only me - about "poking"? Don't you think it's actually your friend, WHL, who you should be directing your comments to about "poking", offending other editors and violating WP standards? You're so quick to jump on me about something but nary a word seems to come from you to WHL about her bad behavior. Yet again, your bias and denial is showing. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of when you tell a kid to stop doing something and they respond by complaining that the other person is doing it too. Crohnie was correct -- when two people are at the level of rivalry that you two are (WHL and SRQ), making these little criticisms for each other becomes more a taunt than anything else, despite you intending them as otherwise. I've asked others, including Wild, not to do it, and now I'm asking you, SRQ. You're the very last person that should be informing WHL that she did something bad or inadvisable, because it just won't help and can only hurt at this point. There are plenty of other people who can issue her warnings, if they are warranted. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:18, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I thought we weren't going to comment on other editor's "bias and denial", SRQ. Comment on edits, not editors, right? Doc9871 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't a clue as to what it is you are saying here. You are the one who went to her talk page and left that unuseful attack on her page. Do you not see how that is poking her for a negative response? You were laughing at her and rudely. You seem to get pleasure out of poking editors to get a response from your comments. I was going to just delete your rude comments since I know what it is going to bring about, lots of unnecessary drama. Am I bias, yes I am. Wildhartlivie has helped me in the past with my editing skills and some other personal RL issues. That being said, there is no reason for your comment to begin with. You have an adversial attitude to editors that do not agree with you. You insist that you are correct and that all other editors need to go to talk page yet you make large edits and go to the talk after the edits are made knowing that they will likely be challenged. If you were to treat editors politely and with the kind of behavior you are trying to make others abide by I think you would find less controversy around you. There are too many editors who find you difficult to work with, why is that? Do you think it might be the way you talk at and down to people? The message you just left me, how do you expect me to answer when you immediately jump to assuming bad faith? If you start collaborating with other editors than I think you will find that everyone, including you, will have a more enjoyable experience. As it is right now, I find your editing behaviors difficult to work with. In closing, I would appreciate it if you would start to assume good faith and try harder to get along with others. If you have anything else to say to me I would appreciate it if you followed policy and didn't come at me with bad faith assumptions and attacks against me. Very well said Equazcion and Doc you are correct too. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You have admitted above to being biased against me, Crohnie. That alone disqualifies you from the ability to speak objectively about me and my contributions to WP. Until you are no longer biased, there is nothing you could say to or about me that would be of any influence - whether it be positive or negative. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• You are mistaken, I may have a bias but as the others put it so does everyone. The difference is that you feel because of my biases I can no longer make comments. You're wrong. I can comment anywhere I would like, about anything I like. It is tiring to watch you continue to bait and poke another editor who has an excellent history and reputation for her article work. I commented to you at Wildhartlivie's talk page first because I wasn't sure if she would take the bait. You have no more rights than I do at this project. You have gone out of your way to talk down to me, but yet I am still trying to interact with you politely when our paths cross. Instead of you trying to work with me and others, you go out of your way to make sure that you get the other editors disqualified/sanctioned. You hold grudges for a long time and insist on beating a dead horse by bringing up perceived wrong doing. Personally, I don't feel like I have to put up with your rude behaviors anymore. You insist on trying to get others sanctioned, well stop it. It isn't a battle zone here at the project and we all have to work together if we are interested in the same articles. Now please stop! --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd be quite remiss, SRQ, in claiming you have the level of objectivity regarding WHL that you seem to think is necessary in order to "influence" people. If you're making no such claim, then why are you issuing warnings to her? Practice what you preach. Besides which, almost everyone is biased, SRQ, when it comes to people. We have our friends and those we don't particularly care for. That natural state of affairs doesn't stop us from interacting and advising each other. You and WHL, on the other hand, are, I think, one situation where the bias is at a level where you should be avoiding advising each other at all costs. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:58, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Well said. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been remiss in nothing. What's more, I've made no such admission to bias as Crohnie has, nor would/have I. I don't think you could find one single incident where I have chastised anyone for doing something I, myself, have done without noting humbly that I have made the same error in the past. When I'm wrong, I admit it - and I certainly don't make a habit of violating the same standards and rules that I'm telling someone else they shouldn't violate all the while pretending I am an upstanding, honorable, and trustworthy member of the WP community. Crohnie has taken it upon herself to defend WHL, chastising anyone who rightly points out where WHL is wrong, all the while ignoring - and in some cases condoning - her friend's bad behavior toward other editors. *That* is the lack of objectivity I am referring to, and I seriously don't see how you can compare it to the bias others naturally have. For editor C to criticize editor A for rightly correcting editor B while choosing turning a blind eye to the continued bad behavior of editor B is incomprehensible to me. For other veteran editors to then condone the blind-eye-behavior of editor C while coming down further on editor B is just as ridiculous, IMO. And *that* is my final word on the subject today. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because Crohnie admitted bias doesn't mean you are entirely objective yourself. You may not have admitted bias, but as I implied, I don't think you can claim to be entirely objective when it comes to WHL, can you? If SRQ isn't objective enough to comment on your behavior, I think the same should go for you regarding WHL. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:34, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

If I had a bias to admit in my dealings with WHL, I would most certainly admit it. Being distrustful of someone based on facts and acting with clear bias is not the same thing, you know. I'm a very honest person and have never lied in WP about anything. Unfortunately, that cannot be said about everyone in question here. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your honesty isn't in question here. Bias isn't always apparent to those who are biased, and if you are a mature and honest person, you should admit that much, and defer to others' takes on the situation. I'm telling you that you have a rivalry with WHL that precludes your objectivity, and you are likely biased where she is concerned, just as she is with you, and I think you should both be avoiding each other where possible. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:50, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

If you are so honest than you would admit your biases against Wildhartlivie and also admit that you want her sanctioned. As for your last comment "Unfortunately, that cannot be said about everyone in question here." either supplies difs or refactor. I will not have this continuing attacking of editors go. If you have proof that the editors here have done anything at all for you to make this claim then prove it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems how this started (per the above repeated reference to "poking"), SRQ, you were referring to a statement Crohnie made here. This wasn't made directly to you; why are you focusing on edits such as these? Why are you commenting on discussions made on other people's talk pages without even referencing them here? Do users that don't agree with you have to use off-Wiki e-mails to discuss matters without "retribution" such as this? WP is a HUGE place, and there are lots of things to do. I'm seeing a clear pattern forming here... Doc9871 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Also well said Doc. The answer to your question about having to go to email has become absolutely necessary just to keep sanity and ward of fears that there is a notice board waiting with your name on it. For some reason that I don't understand, everywhere SRQ seems to go brings controversary with the active editors. I, for one, am sick and tired of being treated like an idiot or a second class editor. I am not putting up with this anymore either. If we have to pursue an avenue to stop these abuses then I am game for that too. I think an RFC is something that might be useful to all the editors at this point since SRQ doesn't seem to care to get along with anyone. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Attention

I would like to ask the attentions of editors who are aware of the situation above to email me at their convenience. I put this in the section to keep the dif intact. I would appreciate it if the editors, and you know who I mean, would email me as I have some ideas to float by them. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

hey girl

Have u ever tried any alternative treatment or diet for your condition ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pram008 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Customizing Wikipedia

Hi Crohnie,

Okay, here are the basics.

Click My preferences at the top of the page. Once there, select Appearance. You'll see a number of Skin options, showing different layouts for Wikipedia. You're probably using MonoBook, which is the default. I'm using Vector. Regardless, the following should work regardless of layout.

Next to the Skin you're using, click Custom CSS. Add the following code...

a:visited {
  color: #990099;
}

#bodyContent div span img {
  display: none;
}

Show preview, to verify the color is acceptable to you. I went with a violet, as it's much easier to distinguish from the blue. Red is another common color for visited links, but Wikipedia uses red to mark nonexistent articles. There's a short list of available color combinations at Web colors.

When you're satisfied with the color, Save page and follow the instructions to bypass your cache. Voila, custom colors and no more peeping Jimmy.

Note that the color customization doesn't affect the menu bar to the left. In other words, Main Page, Recent changes, etc., will still appear in the annoying indigo color. -FeralDruid (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh thank you. The new colors will take some getting used to but at least I can tell there is a difference now. Thank you very much for taking the time to give me the code. I don't change from the default stuff because I am clueless as to what they all mean. :) This helps a lot. I wish I understood all of this code stuff but alas for some reason I just can't understand it, any of it.  :) Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

I would like your opinion on how one should go about classifying his religion. Should we go with the denomination he was raised in by his grandparents? the one he joined while living with his adopted father? the one he joined while living in Utah? or the the religion he adopted while in prison? Or should we not denote him as identifying with any religion? --Tuudder (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought we already gave our opinions, Tuudder...(didn't we?) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made an edit in three days and when I do it's on a talk page that I've never posted on before and you show up in minutes? --Tuudder (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently so. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I made my comment at the talk page, making an arbitrary break for ease of editing. SRQ, I don't think we actually finished that conversation but I have to agree with Truudder, why can't he come to my talk page to discuss it without you following behind him esp. with our history? Suggestions on how to go forward with the religious aspect is needed. I made a suggestion that was probably missed before because the thread was long so maybe you both can see it now and comment on it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Comment deleted. If you don't have something nice to say then don't say it on my talk page! I found your edit totally rude and uncalled for and to be honest I'm tired of it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI for Keepcalmandcarryon

In light of the various images around your Talk page, I find your insistence that there is a cabal working against Keepcalmandcarryon and RetroS1mone rather amusing. To quote WP:TINC, "If you attack people who oppose you as if they were a collective with an agenda against you, then whether they were or not, they will certainly become one." I think if you take a good long look at the edits of RetroS1mone (and, I gather, Keepcalmandcarryon, though I was only minimally involved in that incident), you will find that that is precisely what has happened. There really is no cabal, there's just a group of users who are tired of their combative style of editing. And before you assume it's based on their positions on various subjects, I suggest you look at interactions with Sciencewatcher. He supports many of the same positions and yet users have never felt the need to take it anywhere other than the appropriate talk pages—in fact, they've worked quite productively with him to resolve disputes and find neutrally-worded article text.

While I agree that the evidence in the SPI case didn't support further action, it's incidents like these, and accusations of a cabal like your own, that have made me realize that Wikipedia is fundamentally broken. If combative users have few or no sanctions taken against them, and in fact their accusers are held in disregard, there is something tremendously wrong with the processes involved. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, I never said there was a cabal, ever, and I resent you saying that. I was saying that if you look at Simone's history you will see that she has been attacked and attacked unmercifully. What I said there is what I believe. I think she uses something to help her with her English when she edits articles. I said nothing at all worth the venom you just spewed at me. My question to you is why so angry at me? Don't say cabal because I didn't say that so maybe you need to reread what I said. You owe me an apology but that is up to you, I won't force one and I don't want a fake one. Have a good day, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This thread will be removed in the morning unless RobinHood decides to come back. No messages can be left at their page and there is a notice that they have left the project. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While you certainly never used the word "cabal", it was clearly implied, at least to my eyes. "The editors bringing these accusations are the same, for the most part, as those who disagreed with Simone edits." ... "This whole thing looks more and more like attacks, which needs to stop." Lumping a group of editors together and accusing them of deliberately attacking a specific user certainly sounds like cabal accusations to me. WP:AGF indicates that you should never have assumed, much less openly stated, that the SPI investigation as an attack. I don't think anybody who really looked at the edits of either KCACO or Retro would think that the SPI suspicions were "attacks" in any way, shape, or form; they were genuine suspicions that people thought needed investigation. So I don't think it's me that owes someone an apology.

On an administrative note, as it says in the edit notice when editing my page, there's no need to inform me of replies; I watch all pages that I edit. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RobinHood70 is correct about WP:TINC. During the formulation of RetroS1mone's RFC (and its talkpage), I looked at the CFS talkpage archives (#9 onwards [8]) to see where things went wrong (the same issue spans across the subarticles; BLP such as L Jason, D Bell, D Peterson and M Hooper; editors talkpages; and WP noticeboards ie [9][10]). The situation went into a stepwise descent when during early disputes R1 assumed everyone who disagreed with her edits was a part of a coordinated group of patients/advocates who didn't understand Wikipedia. In addition came other false allegations and/or exaggerated-misunderstood accusations towards others.

AGF went out the window when R1 started reverting other peoples edits based more on the cabal-presumption rather than WP:RULES, and did so without adequate discussion or convincing arguments. On some occasions it was clear that such reversions were simply knee-jerk reactions, or that R1's militant citing of MEDRS/OR/NPOV was often hypocritical. This combination was extremely corrosive to AGF.[11] Obviously not everyone will agree on controversial topics, but straight forward edits and even copy editing were becoming frequently disrupted as well, hence the RFC. Apart from the supporting admin, no one outside the dispute cared. The problems ceased when R1 went into self-imposed exile, not because any official resolution was achieved. Therefore, possible sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry between R1 and KCACO are indeed concerning. Similarly, no one outside the dispute cares about the SPI either, which I suspect is one reason why RobinHood70 has become disillusioned with Wikipedia. - Tekaphor (TALK) 03:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there was no accusations from me about cabals but I have to wonder why you both are thinking my comments mean that. What happened to assuming good faith? Oh yea, Tekaphor says that that was thrown out the window which to me says a lot. I use to be at the article Chronic Fatigue Syndrome but things were so bad that I took it off my watchlist as did another editor. Are the patients and advocates still working the article that have a COI? One question, why is it that I am not allowed to comment there without being attacked and accused of things I didn't say? If you want, I'll strike my comments with a dif to this conversation, just let me know. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - RobinHood70, I'm intrigued that you predominately cite two essays describing how WP is "broken" on your Userpage. Isn't WP the Utopia you envisioned, just like the rest of the real world? Isn't it flawless, just like all human systems? Are you going to help "fix" it, or complain about how it can't and shouldn't be fixed? If you are "disillusioned" with WP, there are always the other wikis you find "far more rewarding" to contribute to... Doc9871 (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, I said that RobinHood70 was correct about WP:TINC, as in There Is No Cabal, only several editors who were tired of combative editing. You asked what happened to the assumption of good faith on my behalf towards you. However, I never mentioned you at all in my above comment, but you still then alluded to me being a "pain" and "attacking" you. So I counter, what happened to your good faith towards me? OK, I should have used a better edit summary than "RobinHood70 is right on the money." Glossed over is the fact that RetroS1mone had a RFC against her for inappropriate editing and etiquette, although you may prefer the explanation "they are just trying to remove editors that have a different opinion", despite that banning was never the intention of the RFC. You also state here that "I was accused of being in a cabal and I hated it so I would never do that to anyone else." Yet apparently you're OK with RetroS1mone's incessant accusations (and related reversions) about cabals towards others (which were explained or demonstrated at the time to be false), and do not consider this to be a legitimate reason for me to have lost the assumption of good faith towards her over time? As for "no one read what Keepcalm said about the relationship s/he had with Simone", it was also revealed in the SPI that Keepcalmandcarryon denied (lied about) their relationship with RetroS1mone from the beginning, and several editors had independent reasons to suspect sockpuppetry, so please excuse me for being weary about uncritically trusting this editor and being painted as one of the bad guys for asking questions. - Tekaphor (TALK) 15:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Tekaphor, but I didn't or at least I don't remember the RFC you talk about. Please except my apologies. I don't want to argue with your or anyone for that matter. It seems I am unaware of some things that have happened since I left the article. So again, I am sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Crohnie, thankyou. I included some embedded links to the relevant pages in my above comments, but I gladly accept that we no longer need to talk about it. No hard feelings. :-) Tekaphor (TALK) 00:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)