User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/TalkNoJimbo

edit count | edit summary usage

Current discussion

Always remember - first assume good faith... Wikipedia is meant to be a work in progress; there are no deadlines here... and...Jimbo is watching you! Movie suggestion for the month: If you haven't seen The Night Listener with Robin Williams, you should - definitely fascinating at several levels. Toni Collette is superb in her role as a emotionally disturbed and extremely manipulative woman who utilizes at least two other identities and personalities at once without anyone ever actually laying eyes on the other personalities or the real 'her' (even though they have come to believe the other personalities actually exist as real people). Based on a true story, the film is a real mind bender that leaves you wondering, "who is she, really?"

The hows-and-whys of this talk page

Because this is my own user talk page, I have certain rules and standards as to how I like to maintain it.

(1) Comments made by me are non-italicized

(2) Comments made by others are italicized

(3) If there is a Wikipedia issue I am currently involved in, I prefer to keep tabs on the situation by including information surrounding the issue as content on this page for future and present reference (as necessary). This may mean the inclusion of Wikipedia exchanges between others involved in the issue at hand. After the issue is resolved, I will archive the information.

(4) IT IS NOT THE RIGHT OF ANOTHER WIKIPEDIAN TO TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES TO REMOVE CONTENT FROM, OR CHANGE CONTENT ON, MY TALK PAGE (not to mention it's against Wikipedia policy). If you have a problem with something I have placed on my talk page regarding the issue I (or we) may be involved in, please assume good faith first and then discuss the matter with me before jumping to conclusions and making erroneous and/or bad faith assumptions.

(5) While I may remove content placed on this page that originates from exchanges elsewhere, I will never edit what someone what written in order to change the tone of what was written or to make someone look bad. Again, if you have an issue with what I have included here (or have not included), please assume good faith first and then discuss the matter with me before jumping to conclusions and making erroneous and/or bad faith assumptions.

(6) It is my intent to keep my talk page organized, orderly and in compliance with Wikipedia standards regarding user talk pages. This means that I reserve the right to include what I choose - so long as it complies with Wikipedia standards - and will, in the same vein, remove what I choose.

(7) Anything added to this talk page by another editor that is not in regard to an article being edited or is outside the guildelines for user talk pages will be seen as disruptive editing and the appropriate steps will be taken within Wikipedia guidelines - including issuing warnings as appropriate and in line with Wikipedia standards.

(8) Last, but not least, don't even think of vandalizing this page. Any vandalism will be reverted immediately and get you reported to the Vandalism Crew. Additionally, doing so will jeopardize your Wikipedia account and may get you banned from posting - so don't even try, okay?

Thanks for your understanding - may your Wikipedia edits be correct, well-referenced and relevant and may you have a great Wikipedia day!

Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For Concrete, Washington. - Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow - a Photographer's Barnstar! (what's a "Photographer's Barnstar"? ;-) Just kidding - thanks, Omar! SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.. I checked out the page after seeing the film of the Tobias Wolff book This Boy's Life. I guess I drove right by there too, since I went from Seattle through the N Cascades last year (via Marblemount). I'm glad to see you like the style of my userpage too :) Anyway, great photos! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

As a double finally, in answer to your question on my talk page, I didn't create the user boxes in my sandbox, rather, I put those there as reference in case I later decided to use them, and so I could reference their text should I decide to make a new user box.

The best way to make your own user box is to find one you like and edit it. This is what I did to make the KGO and Mac boxes on my page.

Regarding images, they're uploaded to Wikipedia and referenced via the Image tag. If you go to the Mac box, for example, and edit the page, you'll see how the image is included within the user box. There's also a helpful article on how to make user boxes at WP:UB. -FeralDruid (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. If I have any more questions, can I impose upon you again? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mantle décor

		The Press Barnstar
		SkagitRiverQueen – for diligently correcting press accounts, not to mention Wikipedia's "biography of a living person" for Glenn Beck, with concern to the place of Mr. Beck's birth, which WP edit was mentioned (link's here!) by Julie Muhlstein of The (Everett, Washington) Herald on October second, two thousand nine (and for splendid editing all around on the article otherwise, too!) — Justmeherenow 14:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, JustMeHereNow for The Press Barnstar. Personally, I've found editing the GB article somewhat amusing in light of all the discussion - as well as frustrating in light of some of the arguing (and comments by a couple of the editors ;-) You, however, I have found to be a calm in the storm; a lonely beacon of restraint in a squall of self-appointed wordsmiths! You, sir, are a gentleman and stellar Wikipedian! I am honored, and frankly, you made my day! SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As you did mine, SkagitRiverQueen, with your graciousness. ^{;^)} Thanks! ↜Just M E here , now 15:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Random comment

Gotta say, I'm impressed by your userboxes -- there are a few in there I wouldn't have expected to see on the same page. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and I get that a lot. ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Message

Messaged the user regarding his harassment. I've also reported the incident to be reviewed by other editors. Happy editing! Netalarmtalk 06:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: You might want to archive your talk page. Netalarmtalk 06:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington

Thanks for your post. I wholeheartedly agree that Washington is one of the most beautiful places on earth. There are some pretty nice parts of the East, like the White Mountains in New Hampshire, but they don't compare. I've been to Israel, too, and that's another one of my favorites :). When I was in Washington I took a whale watching trip that specifically went to the places the Orcas like to go. They are amazing animals. I take it that you also like watching birds. I wish I knew more about birds than I do, given that Central Park and other parks in New York are major stops along the bird migration routes and we get some very interesting ones. And BTW, I think you were right about "incensed" and "posited." Take care, AFriedman (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Monday! --AFriedman (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC) has extended an olive branch of peace.

---

Route description on WA 20

Please read WP:USRD/STDS; a substantial route description is expected in a road article. See California State Route 78 for an example. I do agree that some of the details were unnecessary, and the formatting was a bit off, but it should have been revised, not blindly reverted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

AFriedman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your note and holiday greetings. And BTW, I don't know if you saw the earlier message I posted on my Talk page, but I apologize for offending you. Here is a little "present" for you. --AFriedman (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The link is to A Christmas Carol. In my opinion, Dickens' argument is even potent enough to soften the hardened heart of a Jew like myself. You may want to look at the link about pikuach nefesh, which is an essential principle of Judaism and very similar to the point Dickens was trying to make about Christmas. I've commented on that article on its Talk page as well, because I think there are other views (including mine) which are not represented in the article. --AFriedman (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Dinos

I don't think he's heard of 3rr or other WP policies before. I put a welcome template on his talk page. We'll see how it goes. Best, Amerique^dialectics 21:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 07:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the new tool! ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 14:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congrats on becoming a Rollbacker! Here is this.

		The Special Barnstar
		Happy New Year! --AFriedman (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, AFriedman!

Karel article

Good job so far. Looking forward to working together to improve as we go along. JoyDiamond (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Behan

You have reverted several of my changes, saying that parenthetical statements are discouraged. Please provide a citation from the MoS. All I see is this, so . Speaking of which, if you see something that needs a citation, put in a tag, don't remove the info. Behan's grave is in fact lost, according to Boyer. Find-a-grave says this also (there is a memorial placque, but not at the gravesite). [1]. The article now states he contracted syphilis while in Tombstone, but that is an inference from the "30 years" date on the death certificate, and should be stated as such. These things are rarely accurate, and info here was provided by his son Albert, who would not expected to know exactly when and where his father contracted syphilis. Albert is also off by a year on his father's entrance into Arizona, by comparison with records. Furthermore, Albert possibly got his father's year of birth wrong and his age wrong (they also are off by a year from other records). Lastly, although I cannot give you reference now, the term "arterial sclerosis" did not mean in 1912 what it does today. What it probably meant in 1912 was the Behan was demented, a condition then thought due to "hardening of the arteries." SBHarris 02:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please find my point-by-point replies below:

You have reverted several of my changes, saying that parenthetical statements are discouraged. Please provide a citation from the MoS. All I see is this, so .

I don't have a citation, just what I have learned through my years here at WP. As a general rule, parentheses *are* discouraged - but I don't think it's a "rule" per se. There are certainly other ways of writing what needs to be included without using parentheses - and I still believe they are to be avoided in WP. Of course, if you really don't agree that parentheses should be avoided, you could always ask a seasoned editor or administrator and get their opinion.

Speaking of which, if you see something that needs a citation, put in a tag, don't remove the info.

Well...I think it's really personal preference. Some editors are real strict about unreferenced statements being left in an article. I personally prefer putting a in place and will usually do so in order for time to be allowed to get a ref in place. In all honesty, I was probably having a bad day and rather than do what I should have (placing a cite needed tag), I just removed the statement.

Behan's grave is in fact lost, according to Boyer.

(a) Boyer has a questionable reputation as a historian who isn't exactly known as a reliable source regarding Arizona and Earp history (I know that from having lived in Arizona for quite a while and having spoken with a number of state history experts), and (b) where's this reference from Boyer? Have you included it in the article previously? Or is this all original research?

Find-a-grave says this also (there is a memorial placque, but not at the gravesite). [2].

Find-a-grave isn't considered a reliable source for WP articles.

The article now states he contracted syphilis while in Tombstone, but that is an inference from the "30 years" date on the death certificate

Yes, it is. Since the only reference found for Behan's syphillis is his online death certificate, that's all we have to go on and refer to. Anything else would be original research.

and should be stated as such.

I guess.

These things are rarely accurate,

According to whom? A death certificate is an official record.

and info here was provided by his son Albert, who would not expected to know exactly when and where his father contracted syphilis. Albert is also off by a year on his father's entrance into Arizona, by comparison with records. Furthermore, Albert possibly got his father's year of birth wrong and his age wrong (they also are off by a year from other records).

And without another reliable reference available, it's all speculation that means nothing in the scheme of editing the article.

Lastly, although I cannot give you reference now, the term "arterial sclerosis" did not mean in 1912 what it does today. What it probably meant in 1912 was the Behan was demented, a condition then thought due to "hardening of the arteries."

More speculation (and seemingly, original research) that, without another reliable reference, means nothing in the scheme of editing the article. Of course, if you are able to come up with reliable references that meet WPs referencing guidelines, you're welcome to include any (or all) of it. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Black Dahlia image

Hey. Yeah, "PD-self" is meant for pictures the uploader has taken himself, basically. You have to own the copyright initially in order to release it into the public domain. If you simply crop a public domain photo, then the crop would still be public domain but it shouldn't be tagged "PD-self" since the cropper didn't really create the image. This is all academic in this case, however, since the initial photo was not public domain in the first place.—Chowbok ☠ 06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would actually argue that it should stay. Fair-use images are acceptable as long as there's little or no possibility of a free image of the same subject, and since she died before becoming famous, it's extremely doubtful that a free image exists of her. But fair-use images need to be tagged as such, and a justification for their use need to be added. One can't just crop an image and arbitrarily claim it as PD-self.—Chowbok ☠ 06:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Olympics and Gretzky

I was watching the 2010 Olypmic opening ceremonies live on tv, and trust me, there was very few people already gathered at Canada Place prior to the conclusion of the opening ceremony. Many people streamed out of restaurants and homes. Gretzky was standing at the back of the pick-up, it was almost as if it was a victory parade, and the video clearly shows more and more people running after the police escort as it made its way to Canada Place. --Phileo (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2010 (PST)

I was watching it as well and didn't see what you saw. <shrug> --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Archives

My talk page archives are located here[3].

Karel

Hi, I got your email on the subject, and started a new section on the talk page to see if we can resolve this. If this doesn't work, the next step will be to request an administrative review. I do encourage everyone involved to take a deep breath, as the issues are fairly minor in the Scheme of Things. Take care --Seaphoto^Talk 17:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am in the process to replying to that right now. :-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Replacing refs that correctly support the cited statement with {{cn}} is not cool. Don't do that again, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't replace a reference with a , I removed a reference for a statement that was supported by the ref after the statement was removed by JoyDiamond. If the statement was no longer there, why leave the ref in? It just becomes a hanging ref with no home. The statement previously read, "struggling stand-up comic", she insists on edit-warring about "struggling", and has removed "struggling" several times. This last time, she claimed that there were refs that support he wasn't "struggling", so I took out the ref, replaced it with the as a notice that if he wasn't "struggling" and she believes there are refs out there that support he wasn't, then she now has an opportunity to provide those refs. I was trying to be helpful and cooperative. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Albert Lewis

Hi! I put a note for you about Albert Lewis on my talk page, but I am not 100% sure that is the right way to communicate with you. If it is, please look at it, and feel free to delete this note. If this is the better way to communicate, I'll do that in the future. Thanks again for your guidance and help! Resnicoff (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for edit warring to keep negative BLP info in Charles Karel Bouley. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SkagitRiverQueen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry, but this is crap. First of all, my last edit on the Bouley article was more than 24 hours ago. Secondly, I had just finished writing my reasons for returning the REFERENCED content to the Bouley article, when I found out I had been blocked. Why in the world would no one at least give me some sort of warning or at the very least inquire about what I was doing? Where was the 3RR warning on my talk page before being blocked? Why was there no opportunity given for me to step back and think about what I was doing and for discussion to take place? I thought administrators are supposed to help other editors, not just dole out punishment without warning. What I was writing on the talk page amounts to approximately this: "I have returned the referenced statement that never should have been removed because it was referenced. The reasons given at the time the referenced statement was removed was that there was only one reference stating he was "struggling". In Wikipedia all you need is one reference. If there are references (as has been claimed by the editor removing "struggling") indicating his stand-up career was successful and that he was *not* a strugging stand-up comic, then please bring them and let's discuss the content change on the article's talk page. Utilizing an article talk page is always preferable when there is disputed content - as is evidenced by the discussion that has already been taking place in the last couple of days. But please, let's keep things here civil and talk about content and edits to that content only - not about editors." That's basically what I wrote (but lost because when trying to post it, found out I was blocked. But...since my last edit was more than 24 hours ago, how can I be blocked for 3RR when that isn't what happened and especially since I have been doing everything in my power to AVOID edit warring in this article? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See, all I had to do was look at Talk:Charles Karel Bouley to see you lecturing another editor about edit warring. So, since you are aware of the policy it's safe to assume you knew better. And as the policy clearly states, you don't have to technically violate 3RR to be blocked for edit warring. It takes a minimum of two to edit war, it's impossible for only one user to be involved as you seem to be claiming is the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

• SkagitRiverQueen/TalkNoJimbo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)
• Reason for unblocking:

(1) The original reason given for the block was: "edit warring to keep negative BLP info in Charles Karel Bouley." (a) I was not attempting to keep "negative BLP info" in the article. I was replacing the original info that had been removed and was referenced. The edit warring article clearly states "negative, unsourced info". (b) The info was sourced, ergo, this point in the block is invalid. (2) Edit warring. When, exactly, does one then return removed, sourced material to an article so that one doesn't edit war? (a) I intentionally returned the info after 24 hours had passed, believing I was not edit warring because I believe I in safe zone/time period. When I returned the information, it was more than 24 hours after my last edit to that article. (b) How long does one wait? 25 hours? 28 hours? 30 hours? 48? 72? (c) Exactly how does one know they are safe from being blocked at a whim by an administrator (who had also edited the same edit not long before themselves and has the appearance of impropriety in blocking because of that edit)? If 24-hours is not the standard, how can any editor who is merely doing the right thing (by returning sourced content that never should have been removed) feel safe in editing with the possibility of being blocked at any given time whenever an administrator feels like it? (3) The final reason given by the blocking admin was "edit warring", but the original reason above is clear. The admin never addressed the original reason given being invalid when asked (several times, in fact). (4) There was another editor plainly edit warring (long before I was accused of doing so after my block) who was not blocked. That's inequitable. This block should be re-reviewed and removed for a number of reasons (a number of which other editors have brought up below). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Note:

• In some cases, a user may not in fact be blocked, or their block may be expired. Please check your block log. If no blocks are listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
  

---

Administrator use only: If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request (please use {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification|1=SkagitRiverQueen}} for notifying), replace this template with the following as notification.

{{Unblock on hold|1=blocking administrator|2=(1) The original reason given for the block was: "edit warring to keep negative BLP info in Charles Karel Bouley." (a) I was not attempting to keep "negative BLP info" in the article. I was replacing the original info that had been removed and was referenced. The edit warring article clearly states "negative, unsourced info". (b) The info was sourced, ergo, this point in the block is invalid. (2) Edit warring. When, exactly, does one then return removed, sourced material to an article so that one doesn't edit war? (a) I intentionally returned the info after 24 hours had passed, believing I was not edit warring because I believe I in safe zone/time period. When I returned the information, it was more than 24 hours after my last edit to that article. (b) How long does one wait? 25 hours? 28 hours? 30 hours? 48? 72? (c) Exactly how does one know they are safe from being blocked at a whim by an administrator (who had also edited the same edit not long before themselves and has the appearance of impropriety in blocking because of that edit)? If 24-hours is not the standard, how can any editor who is merely doing the right thing (by returning sourced content that never should have been removed) feel safe in editing with the possibility of being blocked at any given time whenever an administrator feels like it? (3) The final reason given by the blocking admin was "edit warring", but the original reason above is clear. The admin never addressed the original reason given being invalid when asked (several times, in fact). (4) There was another editor plainly edit warring (long before I was accused of doing so after my block) who was not blocked. That's inequitable. This block should be re-reviewed and removed for a number of reasons (a number of which other editors have brought up below). --[[User:SkagitRiverQueen|SkagitRiverQueen]] ([[User talk:SkagitRiverQueen#top|talk]]) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)|3=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following as notification, replacing {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1=(1) The original reason given for the block was: "edit warring to keep negative BLP info in Charles Karel Bouley." (a) I was not attempting to keep "negative BLP info" in the article. I was replacing the original info that had been removed and was referenced. The edit warring article clearly states "negative, unsourced info". (b) The info was sourced, ergo, this point in the block is invalid. (2) Edit warring. When, exactly, does one then return removed, sourced material to an article so that one doesn't edit war? (a) I intentionally returned the info after 24 hours had passed, believing I was not edit warring because I believe I in safe zone/time period. When I returned the information, it was more than 24 hours after my last edit to that article. (b) How long does one wait? 25 hours? 28 hours? 30 hours? 48? 72? (c) Exactly how does one know they are safe from being blocked at a whim by an administrator (who had also edited the same edit not long before themselves and has the appearance of impropriety in blocking because of that edit)? If 24-hours is not the standard, how can any editor who is merely doing the right thing (by returning sourced content that never should have been removed) feel safe in editing with the possibility of being blocked at any given time whenever an administrator feels like it? (3) The final reason given by the blocking admin was "edit warring", but the original reason above is clear. The admin never addressed the original reason given being invalid when asked (several times, in fact). (4) There was another editor plainly edit warring (long before I was accused of doing so after my block) who was not blocked. That's inequitable. This block should be re-reviewed and removed for a number of reasons (a number of which other editors have brought up below). --[[User:SkagitRiverQueen|SkagitRiverQueen]] ([[User talk:SkagitRiverQueen#top|talk]]) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the request (note that you may NOT unblock your own account), replace the unblock template with {{tlx|unblock|reason}}, and post the following directly underneath the unblock template:

{{subst:Request accepted|1=reason}}

Then why hasn't the other "edit-warring" editor been blocked? From my quick look at the history it would appear that if SRQ should be blocked for edit-warring then so should the other editor. Please explain this apparent inconsistency. Afterwriting (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To Sarek: With respect I'm wondering if you were called to the Bouley page due to concerns of edit warring, or if you were editing "normally" as it were, in a non-admin capacity, prior to the block. I ask because if you blocked SRQ for edit-warring following her revert of your edit, which seems to be the case, I'm not sure that you should've been the one to block her, unless the edit of yours she reverted was the result of someone requesting mediation. Just seeking some clarification. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:59, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

@Equazcion: The Charles Karel Bouley article has a history of contention, going back over a year. This is not the first time Sarek has intervened in disputes over this page, nor is it the first time there's been an issue over the "struggling" reference.[4] Be aware that the article has been locked three times, most recently for three months, in an attempt to curb the bickering. It's only been unlocked a week, and some of the old disputes have already surfaced. -FeralDruid (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And if you look closely at the talk page from the last couple of days, I'm not the one who has been contentious, it's the other editor. I have been working hard to keep the editing of the article going the way it should, not the way it has in the past. I am the one (with Seaphoto) who has been trying to keep things in perspective, calm, and civil. That hasn't been happening where the other editor is concerned. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand; I was just giving Equazcion a brief history of Sarek's involvement here. -FeralDruid (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) to Feral: I understand. I'm just saying it seems like Sarek was acting on a content dispute with his last edit to the article, and blocked a user that reverted him. I think that was a bad idea, if I have the events right. Generally an uninvolved admin should do it; in particular an admin in a content dispute with an editor shouldn't be deciding on that editor's blocks. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:45, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as content, but behavior. I don't particularly care which way it reads, but a good-faith objection was raised by another editor to the "struggling" phrasing. My only recent edit was replacing a reference that stated he was a comic when SRQ had replaced it with a cite needed template for the statement that he was a comic. A slow motion edit war is still an edit war. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're incorrect on how things happened and why with the content as well as the reference. The "struggling" portion was removed twice by JoyDiamond. The second time, she removed it saying that there was only one reference saying he was a "struggling" stand-up comic. That was the reference that was left behind. She insisted in her edit summary that there was only one reference to him having been "struggling" and that there were many other references stating otherwise. I removed the ref (that I had placed there in the first place to back up the "struggling" statement) and placed the tag to give her opportunity to give the references that proved he was never a "struggling" stand-up comic. It wasn't about bringing negative statements to the article, it was about being accurate and referenced in that accuracy. If she could prove he wasn't "struggling", great! But in 24 hours time, not once did she bring a reference (after visitng the article and making snarky remarks about me on the talk page, BTW, but not inserting anything that bolstered her claim). I replaced the "struggling" adjective because it was not only correct, it was referenced. And if you want to worry about behavior in that article, how come you haven't banned JoyDiamond for obviously edit warring and over-reverting? I had a reference to back up what I reincluded, she didn't and never should have removed a referenced statement to begin with (more than once, I might add). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's referenced doesn't mean it belongs in the article. And believe me, Joy is on my short list of likely-to-be-blocked-in-the-near-future editors if she doesn't tone things down a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. In all truthfullness, if you had said that to me when we were communicating about the statment and the reference on your talk page earlier today, I wouldn't have tried to add it back in again. And none of this would have happened. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You've been editing since 2006, you've been blocked for edit warring before, and you still claim you needed it spelled out in that much detail? I suspect 55 hours was overly lenient. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your response here doesn't even address what I said to you above, Sarek. But...can you answer why I was blocked for 3RR when my last edit on the Bouley page was MORE than 24 hours prior? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for edit warring to keep negative BLP info in Charles Karel Bouley." That wasn't a 3RR block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks for clarifying. However..."edit warring to keep negative BLP info in Charles Karel Bouley" is an incorrect assessment. Completely incorrect. First of all, I was NOT edit warring. Secondly, I was returning referenced BLP info in the article that never should have been removed. Thirdly, I was doing it outside the 24 hour period that usually indicates edit warring (as outlined by the guidelines on edit warring). Lastly, it had absolutely nothing to do with wanting to "keep negative info in", it was about keeping referenced, factual, and truthful info in. Read the reference. It specifically says, "struggling stand-up comic" - and that's what the article has said for over a year until the other editor started edit warring over it. And can you please tell me where the line is drawn in edit warring if the 24-hour rule applies only if an administrator decides it no longer applies? How is *that* fair to anyone? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Your edit summary on the above was, "disingenuous". Why do you think you know my thoughts better than I do? Why do you insist on telling me I am being dishonest when I state things to you? How, exactly, are you being a fair and impartial administrator here? I think it's become apparent that you've lost your perspective, friend - and I now think you are blocking me out of bias, complete lack of assuming good faith, and unfair judgement along with not working on all the facts in evidence. I'm starting to believe that the only one being disingenuous here is you, Sarek. And could you please address my point above about how one decides whether or not the 24-hour standard is in effect or not or when one can trust that editing is okay again after 24-hours (or 25, or 26, or...)? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering you're claiming not to know the things that were explained to you in detail one month ago, my "disingenuous" comment stands. When you're in a hole, stop digging. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the 24-hour thing, nor have you addressed the fact that the alleged "negative BLP info" was already *in* the article (and recently referenced) for over a year. The article on edit-warring speaks to blocking if "negative unsourced content is being introduced", however, in this case that doesn't apply at all. (1) the "negative" content wasn't being introduced - it already existed and I was replacing it after it was removed. (2) the content was sourced. Now - could you please address these points without the personal attacks? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• ’’’Comment’’’ – I can hopefully address (only) the 24 Hour question: committing a 3RR violation within 24 hours is a clear indication of edit-warring, but edit-warring is not 3RR in and of itself; they are two related, yet different things. 3RR is partially defined as “a common kind of edit war behavior”. The Admin’s Noticeboard is called “Edit-warring & 3RR”, not “Edit-warring/3RR”; the terms are not synonymous. Paragraph 2 of WP:3RR clearly states that an administrator may act “whether or not 3RR has been breached”. You were blocked for edit-warring, not for edit-warring by violating 3RR. “24 hours” (or any time “limit”) truly has nothing to do with the decision made to block, it would seem…Doc9871 (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - but either the 24-hour thing is real or it's not. If it is, then an administrative boundry has been over-stepped. If it's discretionary, then there needs to be a clear statement indicating such. If 24-hours is the standard, it needs to be adhered to - otherwise, you'll have administrators blocking editors on a whim (as this is starting to appear to be). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Edit warring: "Note that any administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring..." Most rules on Wikipedia are discretionary, so you shouldn't expect to be able to plead any technicalities. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:42, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I see. Since "most rules on Wikipedia are discretionary", I'll be sure to remember that next time someone throws policy in my face. May I quote you? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely -- or you could quote the policy: WP:IAR. You still need a good reason though. "A good reason" includes slow-moving edit wars with over 24-hour lulls. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:56, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

And if I actually *was* edit warring, that might apply. Since I wasn't... (oh, and BTW - I'm still not convinced that Sarek was doing this with the good of the encyclopedia and the article and editing productively (and all of that kind of happy-Wikipedia-speak-sorta-stuff) in mind --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you weren't, I don't really know the details; others seem to think you were. You seemed to have particular issue with the 24-hour thing, as though the validity of the block rode on that, so I was just clarifying the policy for you. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:02, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I still have an issue with the 24-hour thing (which Sarek has yet to address - and as the administrator here, he should be the one to officially address it - non-admins shouldn't have to do his job for him). I also still have an issue with what he claims I was blocked for: "edit warring to keep negative BLP info in Charles Karel Bouley". I have proved how that wasn't the case at all. He has yet to address that, as well. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm out of place for butting in here, but can I remind the administrator responsible for the blocking that the BLP policies are explicitly clear that "negative BLP information" isn't required to be removed if it is properly referenced - it is "contentious" and "unreferenced" information that is required to be removed. The inclusion of referenced "negative" information isn't any justification by itself for a block. It doesn't help anyone when editors - especially administrators - start inventing and enforcing their own so-called policies. Afterwriting (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, you'll see that it does appear to have been contentious.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but it wasn't unreferenced. The block is being invoked on the grounds of "negative BLP info" and *no* such policy exists - in fact the BLP policies make it quite clear that "negative" information can be included as long as it's properly referenced. Therefore the grounds for the block as stated is invalid unless there is a problem with the reference. Afterwriting (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, edit warring is edit warring, and an uninvolved admin stated as much above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The so-called original reason for the block was for "adding negative info" - which is *not* against BLP policies if properly referenced. The block was then later justified on the grounds of edit warring but this seems to be hypocritical as the other editor involved in the warring wasn't also blocked at the same time. You cannot justify blocking an editor on false grounds and then change the grounds. The administrator concerned is in error and therefore the block should be removed. The other arguments given for not removing the block are erroneous and unworthy of administrators to claim. Afterwriting (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Having rechecked I noticed that the original block reason did include an "edit warring" claim. Even if this is valid argument, the bit about "negative info" isn't in itself valid. If you are going to block one editor for edit warring in this instance then you are morally obliged to also block the other one. Afterwriting (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with everyone of your points even if I *wasn't* the one blocked, Afterwriting. So...what does one do in a situation such as this when the administrator refuses to budge and.or admit he was wrong in the reasons for blocking and how it was done? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You post an unblock request, and an uninvolved admin comes along and reverses the blocking admin's error.

Oh, wait.

Never mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point to the other jerk below regarding the bad attitudes and general lack of helpfulness from administrators toward blocked editors. I'm fully convinced that there are a number of you who feel you can be as rude and nasty as you want because you have all the "power" in here. That being said, anyone who behaves in such a manner - misusing and abusing your authority and the trust put into you by the community granting and accepting that authority - should not be an administrator. Admins are supposed to help editors and the project, not belittle editors and weaken the project. Your attitude and behavior in this matter with me has been abhorrent throughout, Sarek. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick one

Just as a quick explanation to your comment above, once you're aware of the three-revert rule (as you are), you don't have to be warned before a block. Since you've been blocked for edit warring before, there's no need for a "warning shot."

Please note I'm not commenting on the specifics of this particular block, I'm just trying to clarify something you said in your unblock request above. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Review

I would have happily reviewed this for you but the head if jimbo that keeps appearing from the left panel is too distracting to allow me to concentrate on the text. If you want to be taken seriously you should consider setting your page up in a more serious way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that thing made me nauseous whenever I looked at this page. I think I have it disabled now though with Firefox/Adblock Pus/Adblock Plus: Element Hiding Helper. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:39, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to that - it's just so plainly ridiculous a reason to not review a block. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And therein lays your problem. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Is being unnecessarily snarky and rude to editors on their own talk page part of the Wikipedia administrators code (especially to be used when an editor is blocked and that editor might feel like they have to agree with everything you say in order to get their block reviewed)? Seriously, dude - why didn't you just see the "nauseating" Jimbo head and move on without saying anything? Why did you think it was necessary to comment on it? It's almost as if you were trying to take advantage of an opportunity to be a jerk with someone who might feel they have to stand for you being a jerk in order to get a block reviewed and lifted. IMO, your comments above about being "taken seriously" are truly crossing a line. No one should have to rework their userspace just to get a block reviewed. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

SRQ, I hope you'll see that I am both a) pretty neutral in the entire situation, and b) someone who has understood your side of things a number of times in the past. I have to admit, considering the history between you and Joy Diamond, I'm surprised that you even come close to articles that she edits. I have yet to check which one of you edited that one first, but really, you two are poison for each other. You also really know that WP:EW and WP:3RR are quite similar, yet different: 3rr is within 24 hours and is a bright line policy, yet EW can be over a day, a week ... and may not even include 3 reverts; it may only include one or 2. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to read it, and had the same problem- I was physically unable to track the words in that long discussion with the head popping in and out. Sorry; I tried. I hope there are admins who are able to manage the trick, but it's too difficult for me. No snark, just the truth- the head pops in, my eyes go to it, and I lose my place, try to go back to the same place and start again, and here's the head again... it'd take me an hour to read all the discussion under your block that way. But you don't have to change it; I just thought you should know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)