User talk:Betsythedevine/Archive 2008

Non-existent

Please explain how you define "non-existent." --evrik ^(talk) 17:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday (May 8) I reverted your addition to Internet troll of the then-non-existent article epicaricacy. (A Wikipedia search for that word used to re-direct to its more common synonym Schadenfreude.) Today (May 9) you created an article for epicaricacy/ [1] . Said article is no longer non-existent, and you will notice that I did not re-delete your re-addition of a link to it from Internet troll. betsythedevine (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things change. That's why the redirect no longer exists. The word actually exists. The soft redirect was then out in place. I appreciate you not reverting the change. --evrik ^(talk) 18:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite of epicaricacy

The debate on the article has been rather heated, and has been a waste of resources and time. I disagree with your interpretation, but hope we all walk away from this with no hard feelings. Cordially, --evrik ^(talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would indeed be a good thing if the tone of the debate becomes less heated. betsythedevine (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing my best to contribute to a peaceful resolution of what should be a reasoned debate about Wikipedia articles, but I would appreciate it if you could also calm down your supporter User:Sur de Filadelfia, who has followed up on attacking my actions in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Epicaricacy with accusations of plagiarism in Talk:Schadenfreude and the AfD of Betsy Devine. betsythedevine (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Betsy Devine

An article that you have been involved in editing, Betsy Devine, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betsy Devine (Second nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages for Evrik

I've restored User talk:Evrik/Archive 12 per this request. User talk:Evrik/Archive 13 had no relevant revisions in it -- just a result of a page move. I haven't checked out the discussion at WP:ANI yet, so I can't comment on it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it

You have a lot of gall removing people's comments. Amnesia grrl (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, banned user South Philly, have a lot of gall disrupting a discussion of AfD with a long off-topic comment. I moved it and left a notice about where others could find it, because it does not belong where you put it. IMO, I showed courtesy in putting it elsewhere. But in spite of all your claims about what an "experienced user" I am, my experience is in editing articles and trying to make them better, not in policies much beyond NPOV and NPA. Not in ArbComms, AfDs, RFCs, RFAs, etc. Since I'm not sure what the policy is about removing abusive off-topic comments by a banned user, I won't revert your re-addition, so if other users think it belongs on the AfD, then it will stay there. betsythedevine (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy links for future reference

Whew! I was just involved in a long and bruising dispute over an AfD I filed. Things that I wish I had known when all this was happening:

WP:DELETE (filing an AfD) is very strong medicine to deal with the kind of article issues that might more amicably be solved, assuming consensus, with WP:MERGE or WP:REDIRECT. If there is disagreement about one of these options, there is a page for listing contentious mergers to invite outside comment. If a page is deleted, that means the article, its history, and its talk history are all wiped out of Wikipedia. So unless the article is slanderous or otherwise abusive, there is no need to invoke such a heavy solution.

Wikipedia:DR: Wikipedia has a nice long page on dispute resolution with all kinds of information about solving disagreements with other editors.

Wikipedia:UTM Pile of different templates for responding to spam, vandalism, test edits, page blanking, etc. in a polite but standardized way with varying degrees of WP:AGF as appropriate.

Wikipedia:ANI "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." It also has a verrrry long list at the top of the page about how to deal with many specific problems, e.g. suspected sockpuppets, vandalism, etc.

I hope that I can avoid future wiki-fights, but (considering that I have some contentious topics on my watchlist) I will probably need this information some day in the future. betsythedevine (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epicaricacy was not a content fork

Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork.
— Wikipedia:CFORK#Related articles

Stop spreading your lies.151.197.116.67 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles about distinct words for the same topic are a content fork. Josephine is not a synonym for Napoleon. If you had been able to convince people that epicaricacy was a distinct but related "topic" from schadenfreude, then this wouldn't have been discussed as a content fork. I am sorry that you are so unhappy about the outcome of this discussion. betsythedevine (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackberry

I've blocked the accounts that have engaged in vandalism in the past day, and protected a couple of pages. This user's vandalism is more widespread than I'd realized. It's probably worth posting a notice on AN/I to alert other admins. Complicating matters is the fact that there are good edits coming from those IPs as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Will. I did file the ANI as you suggest [2], as the problem simply spread further after your initial block. As a result, both John Amos and Good Times were semi-protected for a while. betsythedevine (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schadenfreude

If you want to discuss the article schadenfreude the place to do that is on the article's talk page, not on my user page. Your comment was "Yes, the Hitler example is important. It helps show just how damned evil the concept is. -- Davidkevin (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)". WP:NPOV is a bad fit with adding and re-adding examples meant to show evil (an article topic) is. But take it to the article talk page if you want to argue for putting Hitler back in again; others besides me removed it previously.15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unsigned comment -- I had to look at the history of my own user talk page to see who this was from, betsythedevine.

I politely wrote to you as a courtesy. I didn't expect a rude, anonymous rant in reply. Silly me. -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for forgetting to sign my comment with four tildes. I was not trying to be anonymous and I did not intend my remarks to be rude. 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC) betsythedevine (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology and intention accepted. I apologize in turn for misunderstanding you. -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference info for work on categories

Notability of Debra Bartoshevich

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Debra Bartoshevich, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Debra Bartoshevich seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Debra Bartoshevich, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference: Links to useful Wikipedia resources==

WP:EITW : Resources for editors.

WP:G : Wikipedia glossary

Withdrawing My Complaint

I am withdrawing my complaints from the [Dave Winer] talk page in light of the fact that you were reverting an anonymous and negative edit. As I say on the RfC, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Although I do believe it is fair to point out your friendship with Winer if you propose (or make) a controversial edit, this particular edit was not at all controversial. You were right to remove it.

I hope that my apology can help us move beyond the disagreement. Jamesdennis (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamesdennis, thanks for these kind remarks and for taking all those steps to resolve our dispute. I too hope we can work together amicably in the future. I took down the RfC since I am completely satisfied that the only issues I cared about have been resolved. betsythedevine (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration on tax issues

I have requested arbitration on tax issues here:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Inclusion of tax liens and opinions about taxation of Joe the Plumber in Joe Wurzelbacher and United States presidential election debates, 2008#Joe the Plumber

Joe the Plumber

After looking in vain for an accurate and full transcription of what Barack Obama and Joe Wurzelbacher said to each other, I have created one myself and stuck it into a talk page archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betsythedevine/JoeThePlumberTranscript betsythedevine (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP privacy policy for limited public figures

I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!

Thank you for seeing my edits at David Baltimore, i am glad to help! RetroS1mone talk 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives