User talk:Debbiesvoucher

Karyn Kupcinet

For a newbie on the page, you did quite a bang-up job reverting the entire page back over all the step by step edits that have been made, which were the consensus of the other editors who have worked on this article, and the reasoning given for each one, to the last one that Dooyar put in, complete with all the erroneously formatted "further reading" references and ignoring everything in between. Yet, the only changes you put in your edit summary were the two very minor changes you made to Dooyar's edit of 2 December at 06:01 am, #175237085. In fact, you changed the entire article with your reversion. Since I am going to assume good faith here for the moment, could you please explain what made you choose that particular edit to revert to and why you ignored the entire discussion on the talk page regarding the last few days?

You said "Saying this woman had a problem with drug abuse is just as speculative as saying she had an eating disorder" and yet that wasn't what the discussion was about. Had you read it more carefully, and checked the changes that were made, you would see that the point I was making was about the perception the other editor was reflecting, and indeed, said, "because "Drug abuse" suggests narcotics." My point was not whether she was a drug abuser, but that the use of the phrase is a general term covering a variety of drugs (speed, diet pills, cocaine, as well as the more generally accepted narcotics). No one was actually arguing that she was a drug abuser. In fact, when you reverted wholesale as you did, you reverted the change in that title, which I changed to "Issues with weight," since, even by your logic, we can't say she had an eating disorder any more than we can say she was a drug abuser, which is why we can't say it was a possible eating disorder. There is no proof. Nor is there any proof to say that Karyn Kupcinet wanted the same kind of attention. It's speculative.

Your reversion also removed a protection tag placed on the page by an adminstrator, which is quite unacceptable. Again, I am going to assume good faith for the moment, but it is rather odd to me that being a newbie on the page, you made the choices that you did regarding your edits. Wildhartlivie 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drug abuse might be a general term, but it still means abuse. It's speculation. If I have a cold and I take a dose of Theraflu, and it doesn't do anything, would taking another dose four hours later be drug abuse? James Ellroy called Karyn "a hophead," and surely you don't like that. It's speculation. We do have that strange press interview where Karyn talked on and on about her weight. We know she didn't say anything about her work on the TV show. Oh, did you change it to Issues with weight? I'll change it back.

I never said we should say in the article that little Cookie wanted attention. We should say that she met all those celebrities. That makes an impression on any child. When she was real little they weren't there, but then she watched her father's circle get bigger and bigger. That's important. There were kids in Hollywood who met a lot of awesome people back then, but in Chicago? Did you know the young Cookie never had the name Karyn until she was 20? For that reason you can't call her Karyn until she starts getting acting jobs.Debbiesvoucher 23:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have rolled back the entire article over what is now over 25 intermediate revisions to a version written by Dooyar, who, interestingly enough, also has used the exact phrase of "James Ellroy called Karyn 'a hophead.'" When you did this, you removed a protection tag placed on this article by an administrator. Wildhartlivie 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Interestingly enough" is POV. Millions of people have read and cited the works of James Ellroy. According to you, they are all the same person. Debbiesvoucher (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Dandridge

If you would consult Wikipedia:DATE#Autoformatting_and_linking you will find that how a date is displayed is determined by the personal preference settings of the individual registered user through the use of wikilinks. Thus, I changed the wikilinked dates back to the original format. In regards to the quote noted regarding an alleged comment by someone at the death site, a source is needed to support the inclusion of this comment, not a further ambiguation of who may have said it. It was added on August 12 by User:Mook2321. It will likely be deleted soon if a source isn't given. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Front Page Challenge. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Dooyar, you are well aware of what is and is not acceptable in an article, and how to properly cite material in them. Statements such as Please do not change it unless you have at least one book by Alex Barris in front of you. Can't get either one ? Then leave it alone are uncivil and rude and do not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines for etiquette. See WP:Etiquette. If you cannot conform to proper behavior on Wikipedia, nor want your contributions edited or removed for POV and other issues, then kindly stop making them. This is beyond tiresome and must stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude is beyond tiresome and must stop. That's how you act on New Years Eve ? Please get some help. There are people who are not afraid of interlibrary loans. Some libraries charge nominal fees for them, but your Internet service costs money, too. So does your indoor plumbing. So does your electricity. Stop shucking responsibililty. I'm reporting what you said as a personal attack. Debbiesvoucher (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal attack in stating that a pattern of adding unsourced, speculative or originally derived material is tiresome. However, your statement of "Please get some help" is a direct personal attack, and will not be tolerated with your use of this nickname, as it was not tolerated from your username of Dooyar, as you are aware. Please desist from making such attacks and re-acquaint yourself with WP:NPA. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did above. If you continue, you may well be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Asking another editor to Please get some help and making accusations of "shucking responsibility" is inappropriate and does not conform to Wikipedia policies for behavior and will not be tolerated. In the future, please confine your responses to issues regarding content, and not users. AndToToToo (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "Dooyar." Accusing me of sockpuppetry is a personal attack. Debbiesvoucher (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there hasn't been an accusation made about sock puppets and this identity, and questioning a sock puppet possibility isn't a personal attack, it's a check regarding violations of sock puppet policies. What made you think someone was discussing you?

However, there was a sock puppet check requested about your Nyannrunning identity and Dooyar, which was confirmed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the traceroute. This is not a dictatorship. How do I know you aren't somebody else? Debbiesvoucher (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was done by adminstration and even if I had the information, it would be imprudent to show you traceroute findings regarding other identities, if, as you say, you aren't Dooyar. And you're confusing hacking an account, which would be the case if I were someone else, which isn't the same thing as sock puppetry. Although I'm not clear on what dictatorships have to do with sock puppet inquiries and policy violations because of them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clear. This is the United States, not a dictatorship. Don't accuse somebody of something unless you show evidence. If that's "imprudent," too bad. I never said you hacked an account. I said "Don't accuse." Debbiesvoucher (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this is Wikipedia, which isn't a democracy, and there are specific policies to which one must adhere. One of those policies does happen to be that a person can only have one user account. If someone is suspected of violating that policy, there are procedures to follow, which does include requesting that accounts be checked for violations of the policy. To support a request that a check be done, one does have to provide evidence sufficient to indicate a check should be undertaken. Having said that, I reiterate that no one has suggested Debbiesvoucher is involved, although your Nyannrunning account was confirmed in the request. So, if, as you say, you aren't Dooyar, then why are you even involved? Or is it that we both already know? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is part of the United States, which is a democracy. I am "involved" in these articles for the sake of the dead people who are referenced in these articles. They cannot defend themselves. I am defending myself against your January First accusation that I am impersonating Dooyar. I am not. Debbiesvoucher (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is an international effort, which I see from perusing your editing history has been a conflict for you with other editors. Beyond that, a privately owned and operated website, such as Wikipedia, is not obligated to concern itself with your Constitutional rights. There is no freedom of speech in a private organization. My question about your involvement has nothing to do with any articles on Wikipedia. My question was why you are concerning yourself with the question of Dooyar/Nyannrunning if you are, as you say, not Dooyar? Oh, and at no time have I suggested you are impersonating anyone. If you are suddenly concerning yourself with a question asked 4 months ago, then you are a day late and a dollar short. The issue was settled long ago, since a user check can be run for any identity against a number of public internet locations that are on file. In the meantime, please reacquaint yourself with WP:Etiquette. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand that other countries besides the United States have freedom of speech. How many other editors are in your tally of people who have disagreed with me? If the number is four or five, then you are someone who makes sweeping generalizations. There are many more than five people in the free world. If you have never suggested that I am impersonating someone, then can you please clarify what you have been trying to say to me or about me? It seems like you're not saying anything. What issue was settled long ago? Finally, I have the right to repeat a question someone asked four months ago. I can't participate in Wikipedia every day for four months. I have a life. Do not talk down to me. Debbiesvoucher (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, political and legal rights have no relevance on Wikipedia, it is a private organization with rules and policies to which one must adhere that are quite independent of Constitutional rights, and freedom of speech on Wikipedia is limited by those rules. For example, if a person is found to violate a policy, it only takes the decision of one adminstrator to block that person, a tally is not relevant to the application of remedies for rules violations. Consensus, as it would apply in determining an article's content, doesn't have a proscribed percentage or required number. Consensus operates on the principle of majority rule, which can be as small as two opinions vs. one. Having said that, there is no issue under question at the moment requiring agreement or disagreement, so it isn't clear what you are rambling about regarding some tally. You seemed to think that I accused you of impersonating someone, which I did not. That's all there is to it. I did say, quite clearly, that a check user inquiry determined that Dooyar and Nyannrunning are related accounts. I find it quite curious, however, that you would repeat a comment that I made to Dooyar some months ago in your last posting. Should we institute another check user inquiry? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

I will again remind you that only the first appearance of a term in the body of an article should be wikilinked. In this case, you wikilinked "What's My Line?" in the WML article, thus being completely redundant. You have also taken to specifically re-link "kinescope", "Goodson-Todman Productions", and "ABC" in the article. Please take care to avoid this in the future. Additionally, the titles of shows should be italic. TheHYPO (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Also please note that comments such as the one above which implies that because a person edits Wikipedia routinely that they do not have a life is a violation of several key Wikipedia principles, including WP:Civil, WP:AGF, WP:Etiquette and may border on violating WP:NPA. In the future, please confine your comments to discussion regarding Wikipedia content and not Wikipedia editors. AndToToToo (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]