User talk:DocOfSoc/Archive 2

Serenity ;-)

[[1]] list of River Q

First, you need to calm down, please. You don't help yourself or anyone else when you get yourself upset like this ok? The Chinatown article has been here since 2005, so what's the rush? Let it be removed, we don't need it anyways. If you want a copy of it an administrator will give you one, all you have to do is ask for it. I don't understand what you are saying though above. It's good that your contributions are being looked at. You are a good article sourcer. Having SRQ stirring things up and you getting upset like this is only giving her satisfaction so don't give her that, stay calm. Nothing is ever done in a day here that I've seen at least. So just continue on with what you are doing ok. I don't understand any of this other than SRQ's in the mix and you and a couple of other editor who didn't know each other are now arguing over something real silly to be arguing about. Please let's just make peace on this one. I'll see if I can figure out what is going on next but I have to tell you I'm having troubles with your response to me and understanding it. Be well and calm, :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok TYVM! I will write to you later today. I have to go to the dentist. The above is because I haven't done an ANI in forever and if he continues to follow me and nitpick me to death, I will need help. He denies knowing the Gray person but I don't believe in coincidence esp. when someone is stirring the pot. RL is something else, more on that later. Anyway I hope you can sort out the half ass diffs so you can see what went on. Going to Bed now. Thanks again. I felt better as soon as I saw you. Have you talked to Doc? Is he OK? Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.ran reflinks and checklinks on Monterey Park and could find no wikiclones, Funny eh?

I am wondering if She is emailing this editor and with him/her not knowing that SRQ is a big trouble maker it would make sense what has gone on. The two editors not knowing each other is possible, remember assuming good faith works both ways. ;) You should have gone to bed a while ago, get some sleep and you'll feel better when you get up. Don't let these kinds of things wind you up. Always try to calm the waters first. You have a tendancy to let the red head out to quickly! :) No actually last I heard he was real busy in RL so I'm sure all is well. Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC) PS: I marked the IP as SRQ who I believe is the one who stirred all this up to begin with.[reply]

Hi DocOfSoc, I often follow Skookum1's edits and noticed this. I don't see incivility, harassment or racism going on here - though it's true that Skookum1 can be quite blunt. This is an editorial dispute and they happen all the time. Addressing the same content in multiple articles is not hounding. Following you to completely unrelated articles and causing trouble could be hounding, but that is not happening here.

As far as keeping an article visible so that you can use it as a resource, there is absolutely no need for that. If an article has been redirected by a non-admin, just click on the "Redirected from xxx" link and you will go back to the originating page, where you can view the article history and any prior version you want. You can also copy and paste the article text into a file on your own computer, then use "Preview" in the edit window to view it. You can also print the article out for your own reference and you will have it forever. And if the article gets deleted, yes, you can ask an admin for a copy, I would be happy to do that for you on request. Hopefully after a little reflection you will find that things aren't really as bad as they may seem. Regards! Franamax (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I really appreciate it. Crohnie is right. I shouldn't be staying up 'til 7AM. I do get upset, my doctor says I actually do have some PTSD with flashbacks, from the horrible experience of my first two years at Wiki, and I do continue to be stalked everyday by the banned editor, SRQ. That I stay also reflects a bit of my tenacity. LOL! I Have no doubt in my researching abilities and my writing ability, and have a lot to contribute. It is very frustrating when I put a lot of work into an article that I know is correct and someone cruises in and zaps it because they do not have all the facts or have neglected to research or just because they can. As a Sociologist, research is what I do best. I do not expect any apologies, as I see the two editors have done their best to continue on their quest. Skookum1's "head shots" reveal more than he realizes. "Blunt" is a very polite word! ;-) He and Gray "need to do their research" That is a quote from my next door neighbor, Professor Ha, who was kind enough to review what I was was doing. I am pursuing another avenue and hope that is positively considered. Again, appreciate your kind words. Regards backatcha! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think she needed to get to bed sooner than she did. ;) She will be ok when she returns. Part of the problem here was a sockpuppet interferring and stirring the pot to get things going. You can see the sock dif here. Unfortunately this sockpuppet has been unrelenting and causes problems all the time. We actually don't know what to do anymore other than tagging her accounts. If you look she has lots of named and IP accounts that are used. It's a shame she just won't leave it alone and go away but there are a group of editors she considers as being the reason she was community banned and the top of the list of editors to harrass and stalk is DocOfSoc. This unfortunately has made DocOfSoc a little more sensitive than usual since she has been under attack by this banned editor since day one. That is the reason I come or others come to help her calm down. I hope you understand what I am saying. I have hopes that the all the editors will apologize when DocOfSoc wakes up (she's in CA). --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do me a favor

Hi, please self revert here. You also are close if not crossing no personal attacks, best to just self revert than take a chance. It's been closed keep so just work the article and ignore the side show. Anything you added other than striking the sock should be removed. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. He is the one making audacious personal attacks and claims! I just pointed out the truth because I had not seen that remark before. Why should I revert?DocOfSoc (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well for two reasons actually. One, even though you maybe right, your response is also close to a personal attack too. Also, the afd is closed as a keep so you shouldn't be making any further comments on it after it was closed. So remove the comments you made after the closing though I had trouble locating who did the close since it wasn't done the way I normally see them done but I don't go to them very often so I am probably just missing it. Just do me and you a favor, remove your comments after it says it was closed. You can leave the striking of the sock's comment which I should have done when I corrected our over iVoting but I forgot to do it. I didn't make the connection immediately which is why I forgot to go back and remove it. I hope that clarifies why I am asking. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closing was hidden and somebody put up the notice to keep on this farce. I would only do this for you...maybe doc1 ;-)

Thank you, I understand. Sometimes you have to learn when to backoff of an arguement so that it can be seen what is going on more clearly by uninvolved people. Too much back and forth makes the two editors both look bad. In an afd and other such venues it's best not to keep on arguing with others who disagree with you and to let your debating comments stand on their own. It's hard to do but it is necessary thing to do. Pick you arguments carefully and then keep them focused on the debate not the editor which both of you failed to do in this afd. Always remember to focus on content and not the editor, you can't get in any trouble that way. Once you start to debate the editors behaviors it can be seen poorly by others since the standard rule has always been talk about content not the editor. Who put up that closing anyways? Do you know? Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't know, I was just clicking away on the discussion page and there is was. Who put up the continue discussion after it was obviously closed? YOur advice s always good for this redhead ;-) and.... I should goto bed. Wish I could sleep13:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC) But I'm not lol 13:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well go get some sleep, you need your rest too. Remember there is no deadline here, get to bed. :) Have a good night, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked again, you did this closing comment. I am not sure what you were trying to do or say but remove it because it's totalling confusing even to you. :) If you've gone to bed already, I will revert it for you. This will raise hackles for sure if it's noticed. Take care, let me know if you've not gone to bed. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that was supposed to mean, so I removed it. DocOfSoc, let an administrator close the discussion. Franamax (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fran, I have enormous respect for you and I apologize if it appeared i was overstepping my bounds. The closing template was on the article page and I honestly believed what it said. I could not possibly have the template any other way as I do not have the ability to do so. I truly believed an admin had closed the discussion and was mystified why it had not been posted earlier, so I posted it. Why was there if it was not already closed? I am now flummoxed and would like to just move on and edit peacefully. Unfortunately, it is rarely , I have had a peaceful moment here on Wiki starting with the SRQ. Now, Grayshi & Skookum1, because of the disagreement about the Chinatown article, have been following me around to the SGV articles and it feels like SRQ again. Please advise. Respectfully, DocOfSoc (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after e/c) I looked around (and just looked again) and I don't understand where you are saying you found that notice, Can you point to a diff?

I'm sorry if you don't find Wikipedia peaceful and I know you have some added stress here, but working together to achieve consensus with other editors is just part of editing here. It sometimes seems that your definition of peaceful is being left alone to write whatever you want and have it stay unchanged - but that's really not how it works. We all get our work torn to shreds, that's how en:wiki succeeds. If you could focus less on whether you are being attacked (and then attacking others back) and more on resolving the content issues, including the possibility that some of your hard work might get removed, maybe at least your path would feel smoother. Sometimes for a happy break I proofread some completely random article, than that gets me fixing up a category tree and that gets me to a different article that could use some sources. It's really cool actually. :) I do know that when I focus too much on negative feelings, they rarely improve that way. Don't know if any of that helps at all. Franamax (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. :See here. if your are not familiar with the SRQ saga. This is only the tip of the iceberg, and I have been the primary Titanic. DocOfSoc (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Gate, California

Whether or not you agree with my changes, that's no excuse to leave the article in a broken state. ... “All American City” seal. /was incorporated ... Please be a little more careful with your edits. —Kymacpherson (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC) I have absolutely no idea what you mean by " broken". At no time was the article broken. The city seal and it's origins are not "Nonsense" May I refer you to good faith? And please define "broken" in this context? I do apologize for all typos due to a medical condition. Namaste...!!!!DocOfSoc (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JD

With all due respect and acknowledgment for your attempts at improving the JD article - my edit summary is clear and specific as edit summaries should be and in no way a "rant," nor does mentioning the obvious poor usage and fanboy tone of much of the article constitute one. I suggest you look down the history page at a series of edits by User:Viriditas, such as "Remove outrageous claim authored by Wikipedia editor User:Jtpaladin)." That is an attack that does not assume good faith and targets an editor - it might fairly be called a rant. Pointing out where the article is deficient in an edit summary does not. Regards,

Sensei48 (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit section to rmv the most egregious POV language and rhetorical errors, esp. inappropriate passive voice. Article is still rife with substandard English usage. More to be done.)"

A. This belongs on the JD talk page not mine!

B. Viriditas comment was entirely appropriate under the circumstances

C. Respect? Your condescending tone is highly offensive. i.e. "attempts"

D. Cruising in one day into an article I have worked on for months, and calling my edits, " substandard" and "egregious" is egregious in itself and violates many Wiki standards starting with Civility and the former Concordia, not to mention Good Faith

E. Your assessment of my English skills is a violation of Etiquette;"Be polite, please. " A soft answer turneth :away wrath. " It is your own PO. As a former college professor, I postulate that my style may be vastly different than yours, that does not make it erroneous.

Since I am, relatively speaking, the only one that has done any serious editing, Your "rant" borders on a personal attack

I sincerely hope you don't critique your students in such a Harsh manner.DocOfSoc (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my comments on your Talk page because the matter at hand is not one of general interest or relevance to the editing of the article but rather my response to YOUR "personal attack" in referring to an edit summary as a "rant." My use of the term "attempts" above is in no way condescending because it is not a criticism at all, and it's difficult to see how you would take it as such. And I didn't just cruise in - if you look at Archive 1 you'll see I had substantial editing activity on this page in the past. Regarding my use of "substandard" - I would be happy to have an objective third party make a judgment on that - and my reference was to the article in general and not your edits specifically. Sensei48 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was told I could trust you and I did, sharing my horrible experience here in Wiki. and it's effect on me. Your post above is childish, worthy of a school yard bully, and a true betrayal. Putting me in the same category as the truly nasty and untrue attack and the equally nasty person above was unjustified and fallacious. At no time did I make the kind of statements that were thrown at me. I did not start it and instead of the help I asked for, you joined in. I truly expected better from you. I could not be more disappointed after the glowing recommendation I got about you. No wonder women leave Wikipedia. You knew I was hurt and have hurt me further; And renewed that hurt again today. I deserve better — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Dropping refs" at Santa Anita

If you look closely, you will see that the ref wasn't dropped as you stated in your chastising edit summary. It was moved with the paragraph it followed when I combined it with the next paragraph. You might want to read WP:ES, specifically WP:REVTALK. Edit summaries are meant to be "a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page", not a commentary on the edits of other editors or a means to chastise other editors. Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You left that paragraph with no reference. You dropped it. That is why we have < ref name="subject" >(WP:REFBEGIN) to use a reference more than once. As a journeyman editor you need to be more familiar with what people actually do rather than being over zealous with your "red pencil." Get more experience before you chastise Veteran editors and reference too familiar links. If you are going to continue to shadow me perhaps it would behoove you to show more Good faith and friendly repartee in order to collaborate successfully. I am stressed and apologize if I came across harshly. I said please ;-) Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran, Journeyman.....all those things mean is that someone has a certain number of edits, it's not an indication of whether someone is a good or bad editor who has (or lacks) an understanding of Wikipedia policy, standards, and WP:MOS. Regardless of how long we're here or how many edits we have, we're all supposed to work together. Making chastising remarks in edit summaries doesn't show good faith or a spirit of cooperative editing. One final note: I don't need to "get more experience" to know that cutting and pasting something nearly verbatim from an online source and then leaving it as it was pasted in an article is verboten in Wikipedia no matter what the excuse or reasoning. If I recall correctly, you did the same thing at the Vilanch article, so, this isn't your first time at the copyright vio ball. Sorry you're stressed, and yes you were being unnecessarily harsh in your edit summary (as well as your comments above). Lhb1239 (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]