User talk:Congirl

Dispute - taking a breather

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Binghamton_Review

This note is being added per Wikipedia guidelines on Resolving Disputes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes

I'm having issues with a member who has repeatedly tried to brand me with a derogatory slur. He uses a variety of ISP addresses and one user name that I know of. His actions have already resulted in having an article protected. Now, he keeps adding the same comments on the article's talk page.

There's no doubt this individual has an agenda, he has a pattern of trying to damage peoples' reputations, if they don't agree with him. I'm just the latest victim. There is no mistake, this is a personal vendetta he has from @15 years ago - he wasn't taken seriously then and he won't be taken seriously now. For those reasons, I'm disengaging and letting him find another target.

Thanks to all the admin types who assisted in trying to preserve the original page and who offered assistance, I really appreciate your efforts. Congirl 01:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Congirl[reply]

Binghamton Review

Regarding the campaign on Talk:Binghamton Review, I think it is pretty obvious to anyone who reads that page what the problem is. My suggestion is you ignore him and just stop responding to him. Try not to let him upset you too much. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, but I honestly think anyone who reads that discussion will very quickly reach the same conclusion that I did. When he eventually gives up and moves on to his next little fixation, we can remove your name from the talk page so it won't show up if anyone happens to Google your name. I know it must be very upsetting and frustrating to have one single article you wrote years ago at college dragged up as "evidence" of how Very Bad you are, but it's not worth letting it get under your skin. He's not worth it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your name from the talk page. I can't see any valid reason for it to stay there. When he gives up I'll archive the page. His rants have made a complete mess of it anyway. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :) You're welcome. I was going to give him a personal info warning, [1] but then I realised that you had posted his name as well. So I gave him a defamation warning instead. [2] Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please go here: Special:Preferences and tick "Enable e-mail from other users," then click save, so I can send you an email through the site. Ta, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binghamton Review

You have posted without consent what you claim to be a user's personal details on this article's talk page. This is considered an extremely serious violation on Wikipedia, and if you repeat it you will be blocked indefinitely from editing.

Tyrenius 23:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed details of your personal identity have also been stated on the Binghamton Review talk page. If you wish, your current user identity can be deleted and you will be able to edit with a different user name. Tyrenius 23:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

That's cool. It's just wikipedia policy. Follow the proper ways to sort things out in future. As you're a new user, if you keep your nose clean, your part in this incident won't be held against you. The page is now unprotected, but it needs editing from a NPOV anyway. If unfounded allegations of a similar nature are made again, I will just delete the page (including the edit history). It is still viewable by admins, but the deletion reason is stated there for them to read. Get in touch any time you need to, either on my talk page or by email (less efficient). If there is any repetition and you can't get me, try Yanksox, Samir, Wickethewok or any other admin. Sarah Ewart will also be able to give you the right advice. Tyrenius 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you kindly. The stars are falling from the heavens at the moment! Tyrenius 00:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I get the works then... :) It is the right spot. It's up to the user if they want to put it on their user page. The article hoo-ha was obviously a fraught experience for you, so you might need this:

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

Tyrenius 02:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pass on the love!

You might like to give fellow sufferer Chadbryant a nice cup of tea after this. [3]. You just put
{{tea}}
on his talk page. Tyrenius 03:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A professional opinion

Ms Congirl, would you mind giving a professional opinion over here? There seems to be some confusion about humourous v. humorous and publicly v. publically thanks to wordnet.princeton.edu. I can only speak from an Australian POV. Ty. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congirl, thank you for your input there. I went ahead and did the edits, and so far nobody has complained. --Guinnog 00:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update; one complaint. I might ask you to back me up if that's ok. --Guinnog 02:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems I have convinced him it was an ok edit. Phew. --Guinnog 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for your thoughtful gesture. It's appreciated. :) - Chadbryant 03:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humourous

[4] I'm awfully sorry to bother you, but I wondered if you might chip in here and try to help me convince this user that humorous is the right spelling, seeing you were involved in the discussion. I asked Sarah too; maybe the user will believe an ~~Australian~~ American on an Australian subject! Don't worry if you have more important things to do. --Guinnog 09:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I'm sorry, I thought you were Australian for some reason. My mistake. --Guinnog 09:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]